Problematic creators and their music

[Jonesy]

4 hours ago, TimR said:

 

I don't see it as being nuanced at all. If we are to live in a civilised society, we need to try and follow the laws as they are, not set up our own imagined punishments for crimes that may (and often weren't) committed. That way lies madness, as @Greg Edwards69 points out.

 

This isn't about music and society changing and not being relevant. This is about the musician being targeted for something disparate from the music. And possibly in the OP's case a bunch of people controlling the music that the rest of the band find perfectly acceptable, and for actually no good reason other than what they've been told by the media. 

 

It's exactly the same as no platforming someone because you don't agree with their political views. I have no interest in seeing Billy Bragg or Paul Young, mainly because I imagine there's a fair chunk of their concerts that will be political speeches and statements. I'm happy to go and see U2, because the music is good, and while it has a message in most of the lyrics, the message doesn't seem to be divisive. But I'm not telling Billy Brag or the guys in my band, or my local radio station not to play his music.

 

Personally I reckon it's not quite as black and white as that, there's lots of grey areas to this. 

 

You're definitely right about it not being right for people to have their reputation dragged through the mud and lose jobs/careers over allegations that turn out to be untrue, but then there's also going to be times where allegations are made and people wrongly get away with it. That's life (or the result of powerful people with a lot of money having great lawyers and PR teams), but then it's down to an individual to make their own conclusion on how they judge the accused.

 

In this case it's a lot more serious than someone's political views too. There's loads of artists I don't agree with on the political front, or I think they come across as idiots in interviews, but I still listen to them and go see them live because everyone is different and allowed their own views in life. At this point it's easy enough to separate the art from the artist. It's very different to people committing crimes that are as serious as paedophilia.

[cetera]

10 minutes ago, lemmywinks said:

.....a nonce's pocket........

Hoping this isn't a metaphor like clown's pocket or wizard's sleeve..... 🤣😂

[Waddo Soqable]

5 minutes ago, Russ said:

Hey, Devil Woman was a good tune.

 

 

[Russ]

7 minutes ago, Waddo Soqable said:

 

Oh Cliff, 

Sometimes it must be difficult, 

Not to feel as if, 

You really are a cliff.

And fascists keep trying to push you over it. 

Are we the lemmings? 

Or are you Cliff. 

Or are you Cliff. 

[Russ]

7 hours ago, Greg Edwards69 said:

I sincerely get your viewpoint and support you for standing up to your convictions. However, I do feel for the other band members of these artists who were involved in the writing process and no longer receive tidy royalty payments and have effectively had their body of work ripped away from them.  IIRC correctly, Ian Watkins' bandmates for example, knew he was a bit perverted but genuinely had no idea of the extent of his depravity.  Whether that's true or not, only they really know, but never-the-less, the Lost Phophets just stopped overnight and fans refused to support their collective music because it was tainted by the actions of one man.

The other guys in Lostprophets started another band with a different singer called No Devotion, playing a very different style of music, but they pretty much sank without trace. I get that it's tough if you're tainted by the reputation of a bad bandmate - this is not a particularly forgiving industry, especially when the crimes were as heinous and well-publicised as those Watkins was involved with.

 

If, indeed, they were unaware of the depths of Watkins' depravity, I wish them well in their future musical endeavours and they shouldn't have to carry the burden of their association with him for the rest of their lives. 

[Gasman]

I’m sure a lot of musicians might object to the lyrical content of a song without knowing anything about the composer. For instance, I’d expect refusals to play any number that had majored upon theft, murder, colonial military government, drunkenness, betrayal and rough justice - wouldn’t you?

 

So why do we all keep playing ‘Whisky in the Jar?’

[Gasman]

...and another thing - it’s sometimes different sensitivities that come into play... When our lady singer suggested with a grin that we do Lily Allen’s song ‘it’s not fair’, all four of us male backing band members listened carefully to the words, then jointly refused to do it. Too close to home, maybe?

[Waddo Soqable]

Whisky in the Jar example as mentioned.. Because it's traditional... much "folk" music originates from poor and / or oppressed peoples, and references their lives, issues, injustices etc etc.. 

Hardly be right to "cancel" them would it... 

 

[MacDaddy]

Certainly with the BBC, acceptance of pedophilia is dependent on the perceived status of 'art' of the artist. 

So for example, they will no longer play the 'low brow' pop music of Gary Glitter, but they will happily have a retrospective of Joe Orton broadcasting his 'hi brow' plays and a biography in which he goes to Morocco to have sex with young boys.

[BassTractor]

29 minutes ago, MacDaddy said:

Certainly with the BBC, acceptance of pedophilia is dependent on the perceived status of 'art' of the artist. 

So for example, they will no longer play the 'low brow' pop music of Gary Glitter, but they will happily have a retrospective of Joe Orton broadcasting his 'hi brow' plays and a biography in which he goes to Morocco to have sex with young boys.

Similar stuff in French high-brow authors' circles in the 60s and 70s - - some of these people having terrible practises and spreading nauseating ideas through their texts.
In that case it's not even about discerning between creator and work, as one can with instrumental music.

[Musicman666]

an obsessive compulsion to produce art has been linked to mental disorder, so we shouldn't be at all surprised that many of the great artists have made some questionable choices within their personal lives ...it's an occupational hazard, comes with the territory. Personally i think art is its own entity ...it exists independently of who created it.  

Edited April 10, 2023 by Musicman666

[Vin Venal]

On 21/03/2023 at 13:28, TheGreek said:

You can't always be the world's conscience. Where do you stand on Bob Marley? Serial drug abuser. Gregory Isaacs - another serial drug abuser who openly funded the Gun Trade. Bill Wyman - his involvement with an under age Mandy Smith was shocking in the 80s - nobody mentions it today. George Michael's high profile gay encounter in the toilets? The allegations about Michael Jackson are still contested - not proved. 

 

The great painters were mostly drug using, alcohol abusing dysfunctionals - Van Gogh is a classic case. James Dean was a well known "outsider" - his circle of friends included "circus freaks". 

 

Time judges people in different ways. You can not be held accountable for the actions of those whose material you reproduce. 

Some of those things aren't remotely immoral though.

 

Speaking as a serial drug abuser who's had the occasional gay encounter in public toilets. 😅

 

Being an abusive piece of stinky poo who has sex with children is very different.

 

What's shocking is that society lets a lot of people off the hook for being abusive pieces of stinky poo who have sex with children and demonises a lot of lovely people who just like drugs and gay stuff.

 

Be gay do crime.

[Waddo Soqable]

10 minutes ago, Vin Venal said:

 

 

😅

 

What's shocking is that society lets a lot of people off the hook for being abusive pieces of stinky poo who have sex with children and demonises a lot of lovely people who just like drugs and gay stuff.

 

 

That's because many of them are part of the "establishment".... friends in high places etc.. 

Edited April 10, 2023 by Waddo Soqable

[Vin Venal]

Personally I don't think anyone is irrevocable.

 

If they're already dead what matters is contextualising how we remember them. For instance I think every time we talk about how great Bowie was, we should also point out that he had sex with children. The wrong thing would be to hide that, which a lot of people try to do.

 

When people are still alive I think it depends on how accountable they are. People like Iggy Pop, Jimmy Page, Clapton, Anthony Kiedis, etc - No evidence that any of them have faced any kind of consequences, or even that they've ever addressed their wrongdoing in any mature way, so putting money in their pockets is saying to them and the world that people like them can get away with doing whatever they want.

 

If Clapton came out and said listen in the 70s I said some evil racist stinky poo which I deeply regret, I contributed to the racist climate of the time and probably emboldened generations of racists who went on to do actual harm to countless real people, and as a result I'm going to give loads of money and time to organisations which combat racism and I'm gonna work really hard to undo the harm that I did, I'd be like awesome  Clapton is God, whatever, but he doesn't do that so he's still the racist POS who said what he said.

[Musicman666]

5 hours ago, Vin Venal said:

Personally I don't think anyone is irrevocable.

 

If they're already dead what matters is contextualising how we remember them. For instance I think every time we talk about how great Bowie was, we should also point out that he had sex with children. The wrong thing would be to hide that, which a lot of people try to do.

 

When people are still alive I think it depends on how accountable they are. People like Iggy Pop, Jimmy Page, Clapton, Anthony Kiedis, etc - No evidence that any of them have faced any kind of consequences, or even that they've ever addressed their wrongdoing in any mature way, so putting money in their pockets is saying to them and the world that people like them can get away with doing whatever they want.

 

If Clapton came out and said listen in the 70s I said some evil racist stinky poo which I deeply regret, I contributed to the racist climate of the time and probably emboldened generations of racists who went on to do actual harm to countless real people, and as a result I'm going to give loads of money and time to organisations which combat racism and I'm gonna work really hard to undo the harm that I did, I'd be like awesome  Clapton is God, whatever, but he doesn't do that so he's still the racist POS who said what he said.

to be fair he was totally trashed when he let rip so having certain opinions which nobody can help and then allowing them to escape into the public domain is what it is all about ...and as a result he now donates heavily to charities in recompense. 

[Mykesbass]

1 hour ago, Musicman666 said:

to be fair he was totally trashed when he let rip so having certain opinions which nobody can help and then allowing them to escape into the public domain is what it is all about ...and as a result he now donates heavily to charities in recompense. 

Totally trashed = let his true feelings slip out.

[Lozz196]

Let us not forget that people can change their opinions (not saying Clapton has or hasn`t  mind). At one gig I played a few years back a member of the audience got chatting to me and over the course of the conversation it went that he used to run with the far-right then one day a light-bulb moment happened and now he does all he can to fight against his former allies. 

 

 

[Phil Starr]

On 21/03/2023 at 14:32, Jakester said:

 

Well, I'm trying to separate out listening to, and actively performing the music of potentially problematic artists. 

I've not read the whole thread but well done for getting this debated. That we struggle with this as performers isn't a bad thing, it is a genuinely difficult area. I'm sure for some people there is no line, anything goes and for others the 'woke' agenda is just common human decency and cancelling people a valid political act. Most people sit somewhere between the absolutists of course and for us there is a genuine dilemma. If nothing else it affects our relationship with the audience, Offending one member of the audience is probably unavoidable, for some bands it might even be desirable, would we listen to an inoffensive punk band :). Offending half the audience or even  10% is probably going to spoil the evening. Is it a good attitude to have to go on knowing your set will offend and still play it, especially when you are playing covers and have thousands of alternative songs to choose from.

 

 

As performers of covers we are to an extent endorsing the songs we choose and that includes the content, yet most of us probably never listen to the words. Context is all but is also impossibly nuanced, each of us sees context differently and so will every member of the audience. For us as performers there is a liability towards our band mates, should we cancel a song for the band because it offends us or pressure someone to play it because it a a 'good' song? I've been asked several times to play Sweet Home Alabama and I just can't. It is an outwardly racist song written at the time to support one side of the race riots in Alabama. (yes I know the arguments, but it specifically support the actions or the State Governor) It's a great song to cover, none of the people who have asked me to play it have been racists as far as I know or were even aware of the context at the time it was written, some of them weren't even born, the songwriter has disavowed any intention of being racist, some of his best friends etc... But, my context is that at the time it was a racist anthem. I don't think every cover band that does it is racist or even uncaring about it.

 

My personal latest dilemma has been an ABBA song! Does Your Mother Know, goes down a storm and I can honestly say I've never thought about ABBA's lyrics but this is clearly a song contemplating paedophilia or at least under age sex: "girl you're only a child" Fortunately our singer comes from a musical theatre background and we sing the Mama Mia version but times were certainly different then. Ask Sting

[Woodinblack]

38 minutes ago, Phil Starr said:

I've been asked several times to play Sweet Home Alabama and I just can't. It is an outwardly racist song written at the time to support one side of the race riots in Alabama. (yes I know the arguments, but it specifically support the actions or the State Governor) It's a great song to cover, none of the people who have asked me to play it have been racists as far as I know or were even aware of the context at the time it was written, some of them weren't even born, the songwriter has disavowed any intention of being racist, some of his best friends etc... But, my context is that at the time it was a racist anthem. I don't think every cover band that does it is racist or even uncaring about it.

 

It really doesn't support the actions of the state governor, it mentions them as a bad thing.

I wouldn't have any problems with it as a racist song - whether people have used it as a racist song I don't know, I am sure some have, there are an awful lot of racists around, in fact a positive resurgence at the moment.

 

 

38 minutes ago, Phil Starr said:

My personal latest dilemma has been an ABBA song! Does Your Mother Know, goes down a storm and I can honestly say I've never thought about ABBA's lyrics but this is clearly a song contemplating paedophilia or at least under age sex: "girl you're only a child"

 

We play that, again, absolutely not issues with it, fully knowing the lyrics. Read the lyrics again, there is no contemplation, all the way through it is stating that they can't do anything because she is too young and expressing concern that she was at the venue. There are no undertones, it isn't like most of led zep or stones output (or even beatles).

 

And honestly, if she was 15 then, she would be 59 now, so pretty safe!

[Musicman666]

5 hours ago, Mykesbass said:

Totally trashed = let his true feelings slip out.

 

which is exactly what i just said...  nobody can choose what they really think and believe and nobody should be punished for thoughts inside their head .. but what people can choose to do is keep it to themselves, alcohol and drugs wont help in that regard. 

[cetera]

1 hour ago, Woodinblack said:

 

It really doesn't support the actions of the state governor, it mentions them as a bad thing.

I wouldn't have any problems with it as a racist song - whether people have used it as a racist song I don't know, I am sure some have, there are an awful lot of racists around, in fact a positive resurgence at the moment.

 

 

 

We play that, again, absolutely not issues with it, fully knowing the lyrics. Read the lyrics again, there is no contemplation, all the way through it is stating that they can't do anything because she is too young and expressing concern that she was at the venue. There are no undertones, it isn't like most of led zep or stones output (or even beatles).

 

And honestly, if she was 15 then, she would be 59 now, so pretty safe!

Nailed it. The OP post re: Sweet Home Alabama & Does Your Mother Know missed the point completely. I don't get why people seem to look for issues when they aren't there....

[Lozz196]

It`s the modern way

[Jakester]

1 hour ago, cetera said:

Nailed it. The OP post re: Sweet Home Alabama & Does Your Mother Know missed the point completely. I don't get why people seem to look for issues when they aren't there....

 

Er, I'm the OP and I didn't mention either? 

[Old Man Riva]

3 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

 

It really doesn't support the actions of the state governor, it mentions them as a bad thing.

I wouldn't have any problems with it as a racist song - whether people have used it as a racist song I don't know, I am sure some have, there are an awful lot of racists around, in fact a positive resurgence at the moment.

 

 

 

We play that, again, absolutely not issues with it, fully knowing the lyrics. Read the lyrics again, there is no contemplation, all the way through it is stating that they can't do anything because she is too young and expressing concern that she was at the venue. There are no undertones, it isn't like most of led zep or stones output (or even beatles).

 

And honestly, if she was 15 then, she would be 59 now, so pretty safe!

Haven’t there been contradictory messages from the writers with regards to Sweet Home Alabama - Ronnie Van Zant saying the song didn’t support the governor, and Ed King saying it did. Not sure whether Gary Rossington ever made any reference to it?

 

I’ve never looked at the lyrics to Does Your Mother Know before. It’s hardly a ringing endorsement of child care in the 70s! Round our way back then one protagonist would have had a clip around the ear and sent home for their flirty inappropriate behaviour (less of this “slow down” nonsense) and the other a visit from an irate dad the next morning wanting to know why some bloke reckons his 15 yo daughter is hot! Points deducted from the two ABBA chaps for not getting that into the song!
 

For me, being a lily-livered old liberal, it’s about personal choice. If you want to play a song then play it, and if you don’t then don’t. Both options are there for all. Respect both choices and crack on with it… 

 

That’s my one ‘political’ post of the year out of the way! I shall now get back to salivating over vintage Fenders and offering thoughts on the merits of 70s music… 

[TimR]

Isn't 'Does your Mother Know'  a reference to groupies who used to dress up to look older to attract rock stars. The US has different ages of consent in different states, many of them higher than the UK (and Sweden).