Problematic creators and their music

[cetera]

58 minutes ago, Jakester said:

 

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

I meant the OP of the discussion of the Skynyrd/Abba tracks

[Gasman]

Er, is this thread turning into an addendum to the ‘Stop posting without reading!’ saga?

[Phil Starr]

6 hours ago, Woodinblack said:

 

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

I know the lyric, the point is that my conscience troubles me and that is the truth.  If the singer wants to say that Birmingham supports the governor, he has no problem with that, his conscience is clear then it's  a point of view. Watergate didn't bother many Republicans and neither does the storming of Congress. 

 

Hey guys it was only a couple of examples that make me personally think ..... maybe not. You are all free to draw your own lines.

 

There's little point discussing that particular song, anyone who is interested can read the whole sorry tale in Wikipedia or the source of their choice and then make up their own mind as to what was meant. For most of us it is a well worn argument anyway. The point was not about the song it was that my knowledge of the time and reading of the song is my context. For me it would be hypocrisy to play any song I believe to be racist. I deliberately chose it as an example because I know other people hold a contrary position. I'm not judging anyone as a racist just because they disagree with me about the lyric of one song written by someone quite young at the time and who has in any case expressed regret. My point is rather the opposite. We all have differing experiences and viewpoints but I do think we all have a duty to our audiences and need to use a bit of judgement of our own actions. Morality is a messy process and we all come to different decisions and beliefs, that is as it should be.

 

[TimR]

There are plenty of tunes better than SHA anyway. 3 guitars in a band is 2 too many anyway. 

[Vin Venal]

An example relevant to my interests (vaguely although they're a generation or two back) is Anti-Nowhere League.

 

They are frequently put on by promoters and loads of bands I like end up sharing a stage with them.  The punk scene these days is pretty anti-homophobia thank god, but given that I always think its irresponsible of promoters and bands who are ostensibly progressive to keep putting money in these dudes pockets.

 

The problem is their song - "the day the world turned gay" which you can Google the lyrics to, I don't want to post them. Really though, all they'd need to do for the punk scene to forgive them and move on is address it maturely, apologise and demonstrate that they don't hold those views any more, and are committed to making their gigs a safe space for people of different sexualities and gender identities.

 

But they haven't done anything of the sort. I think they've taken the song off Spotify and apparently they don't play it live much anymore, but this seems to be a reluctant concession rather than a change of heart, and their statement on the matter falls very much short of an apology imo. Its more sort of - punk is meant to be offensive, we do what we want, if you don't like it find a different scene, whilst simultaneously adding some extra homophobic stuff about George Michael, and denying that they're homophobes.

 

While this remains their attitude I think its absolutely right that everyone gives them a hard time. I think its an absolute fosters take when I see band like Crass sharing a bill with them. Principles and solidarity apparently count for less than bodies in the door.

[Lozz196]

I have to admit I’m not a fan of the song, though having spent some time in the company of ANWL I’ve never heard any of them express any homophobic views. 

[Vin Venal]

57 minutes ago, Lozz196 said:

I have to admit I’m not a fan of the song, though having spent some time in the company of ANWL I’ve never heard any of them express any homophobic views. 

Yeah I've heard other people say that, but surely if its genuinely the case that they're not bigots, either that they never were and were just espousing those views for shock value, or they've evolved, surely the right thing to do is to address it properly, so that generation after generation of young punks all round the world don't discover their lyrics and think they've found a home for their own hateful beliefs?

 

Homophobia (as well as other forms of bigotry) were rife in the punk scene, to such an extent that queer people and women basically had to make their own scenes (queercore and riot grrl), and if you're a band that contributed to that, intentionally or otherwise I'd suggest you have an obligation to try to undo the damage.

[tegs07]

Well I still enjoy listening to dr dre and admiring works of art by picasso. I don’t have to approve of everything they say or how they live/d to appreciate how much they contributed to modern culture or how brilliant they were/are.

Give me a flawed genius over an average puritan any day. It’s a tricky question to answer in truth. An awful lot of really creative and talented people throughout history have been fairly despicable individuals.

Hemingway, Picasso, Dali, Wagner, Lennon, Howlin Wolf, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk heck even Ghandi was a bit of an derrière on occasion.

 

Does that negate their contribution to culture or diminish their creative output?

Edited April 13, 2023 by tegs07

[Lozz196]

7 hours ago, Vin Venal said:

Yeah I've heard other people say that, but surely if its genuinely the case that they're not bigots, either that they never were and were just espousing those views for shock value, or they've evolved, surely the right thing to do is to address it properly, so that generation after generation of young punks all round the world don't discover their lyrics and think they've found a home for their own hateful beliefs?

 

Homophobia (as well as other forms of bigotry) were rife in the punk scene, to such an extent that queer people and women basically had to make their own scenes (queercore and riot grrl), and if you're a band that contributed to that, intentionally or otherwise I'd suggest you have an obligation to try to undo the damage.

I think you’re spot on there. Re ANWL and that song, I think from what I’ve read the intention was The Day The World Went Soft, but with the actual name chosen they made the 70s/80s schoolboy error of equating homosexuality to weakness. 

 

Luckily the punk scene now is very inclusive, all sorts of characters, all accepted for who they are. The only problems/intolerance seem to be from people outside it looking in & frowning/tutting, or people with extreme political views, these being both far right and far left.

 

 

[TimR]

11 hours ago, Vin Venal said:

surely the right thing to do is to address it properly,

 

Personally, I'd just not play it anymore. 

 

As soon as you try to make ammendments some SJW with an agenda who had never even heard of that song up to that moment will have you cancelled. There are a lot of people who don't care what your motives are, they'll just use it as a platform to make as much noise as possible. 

[Woodinblack]

4 minutes ago, TimR said:

Personally, I'd just not play it anymore. 

 

As soon as you try to make ammendments some SJW with an agenda who had never even heard of that song up to that moment will have you cancelled. There are a lot of people who don't care what your motives are, they'll just use it as a platform to make as much noise as possible. 

 

I wouldn't - I would say it was wrong and move on, if that is how I felt. Doesn't matter about 'cancelling' - that is just something the media go on about, if people liked you before they still will, if they didn't they won't, the people that go on about cancelling were never listening in the first place.

[TimR]

12 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

 

I wouldn't - I would say it was wrong and move on, if that is how I felt. Doesn't matter about 'cancelling' - that is just something the media go on about, if people liked you before they still will, if they didn't they won't, the people that go on about cancelling were never listening in the first place.

 

The venues stop booking people who they perceive attract negative publicity and would affect their brand. It's not about a one night booking for a band who has a single fan base, it's about the other 6 nights that month and bands who they'd share a stage with.

 

Look at the fuss over JK Rowling for trying to promote women's rights.

 

That's how cancelling works. Sure no one is actually stopping you play, or saying you can't play anywhere and you fans may well want to see you. But if venues can find alternative acts to book that avoids controversy, they will. 

 

That's exactly the same as people are doing in this thread with songs they feel are a bit borderline or acts who they don't agree with.

[asingardenof]

5 minutes ago, TimR said:

Look at the fuss over JK Rowling for trying to promote women's rights.

That's certainly one way of looking at what she's doing...

[Jakester]

56 minutes ago, TimR said:

 

Personally, I'd just not play it anymore. 

 

As soon as you try to make ammendments some SJW with an agenda who had never even heard of that song up to that moment will have you cancelled. There are a lot of people who don't care what your motives are, they'll just use it as a platform to make as much noise as possible. 

 

What a load of reactionary cobblers. Step away from the Daily Heil, mate....

[TimR]

2 minutes ago, Jakester said:

 

What a load of reactionary cobblers. Step away from the Daily Heil, mate....

 

I avoid Twitter at all costs precisely due to that kind of behaviour from people. Not reactionary on my behalf I can assure you. Read the comments above from people who won't play tunes from certain musicians who have never been found guilty of anything, but the poster thinks they probably are guilty becasue they read a rumour about them once. 

 

Some people won't play tunes because their own interpretation of the content leads them to believe something different to what the writer intended. 

 

People are very odd. 

[Lozz196]

10 minutes ago, TimR said:

Some people won't play tunes because their own interpretation of the content leads them to believe something different to what the writer intended. 

 

People are very odd. 

Spot on Tim, I read in a book about SLF that a video director wanted to shoot a certain type of film for their song as he thought it was about the end of a relationship. The song was about the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the end of the Cold War. Just shows how people can get the wrong idea.

[nekomatic]

57 minutes ago, TimR said:

That's exactly the same as people are doing in this thread with songs they feel are a bit borderline or acts who they don't agree with.

I’ve just re-read the thread looking for where anybody told anybody else that they shouldn’t play anything, and I couldn’t find a single example. 

[MacDaddy]

1 hour ago, asingardenof said:

That's certainly one way of looking at what she's doing...

 

[TimR]

20 minutes ago, nekomatic said:

I’ve just re-read the thread looking for where anybody told anybody else that they shouldn’t play anything, and I couldn’t find a single example. 

 

That's because I didn't say they were. They aren't playing them themselves. It's the same as not booking a band because you think their politics would damage your brand. You're not preventing them from playing next door or in the next town, but if enough bookers decide their brand would be damaged...

 

However they're effectively telling their band mates not to play the tune. I guess their band mates could disagree and get a new bass player in. But guess that begs the question of how do you explain why your bass player left the band. Musical differences?

[Woodinblack]

3 hours ago, TimR said:

.Read the comments above from people who won't play tunes from certain musicians who have never been found guilty of anything, but the poster thinks they probably are guilty becasue they read a rumour about them once.

 

Well, I didn't see any of that. I don't play anything I don't want to play, but that isnt' 'cancelling' anyone, that is choosing not to play something.

[TimR]

33 minutes ago, Woodinblack said:

 

Well, I didn't see any of that. I don't play anything I don't want to play, but that isnt' 'cancelling' anyone, that is choosing not to play something.

 

That's exactly what Cancelling is. Boycotting something simply because you don't agree with it. You're not interested in discussing it to come to a  compromise or reach an agreement.

 

There are different levels and can get to extremes when a mob mentality can exist. Simply refusing to play a song isn't as extreme but it's still a boycot.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture

[Leonard Smalls]

Personally, I refuse to play Sweet Home Alabama...

Simply because I'm not interested in compromising my opinion that it's a pile of old stinky poo!

😁

[Woodinblack]

8 minutes ago, TimR said:

That's exactly what Cancelling is. Boycotting something simply because you don't agree with it. You're not interested in discussing it to come to a  compromise or reach an agreement.

 

Of course it isn't - I won't eat sprouts, I don't like them. I am not cancelling them even though I am not prepared to come to an agreement.

 

However, If Oasis came to me and promised they would be less sh*t I am sure I could find a way to play their music. If Amazon decided not to take over the worlds shopping markets maybe I would use them. But this isn't going to happen - I am a little person and have no power. As has always been the way, the big people crush the little people as they have more power - 'cancel culture' is the shock reaction from big people to little people suddently being able to get an equal power to fight back, and them not being able to get their way.

 

Say for instance, I choose not to play Oasis at a gig (and believe me, I do), noone from Oasis suffers, and I would say the audience gains. So there is no cancelation there.

 

If JK Rowling (as you brought her up) wants to campain to restrict the rights of trans women, then she has the power to make a lot of trans women suffer. This is regardless of whether you agree or disagree on the rights of certain groups of people.

If a group of trans women and people who support them want to not support her, that is their right - if they get together and make a campain to not get rid of their rights, then it can appear to be a 'mob mentality', but is she suffering? Of course she isn't - she is still writing, still getting money from films and series. She seems to be doing fine other than she isn't able to get away with what she wants unopposed, and to the outside, as someone with a lot of power that might seem bad because things didn't used to be like that.

If she is right in her opinion then presumably she will have a lot of people supporting her.

 

Like John Cleese - has been on basically every media, news report and paper going saying he is cancelled and he isn't allowed to do his humour any more. Like you can't even shut him up, let alone cancel him. If he wants to do his humour he can, but it isn't a right just because he is someone big that people are going to find it funny. Indeed people will say he will be cancelled because he can't do his series, but he really can, just that isn't going to appeal to as large a group of people any more, basically some humour has a time and a place, and his has gone.

 

But when it comes down to songs - if (for instance), someone doesn't want to play sweet home alabama because they think it is racist (which I have already said I disagree with), then there is no harm being done to anyway - there are thousands of other songs to do, and lots of other groups that can do them, so I don't see why there is an issue.

Why should someone have to do a song they don't want to do.

There are lots of song by people who I totally agree with what they say that I don't want to do,because they aren't songs I have an interest in - is that cancellation?

 

 

8 minutes ago, TimR said:

There are different levels and can get to extremes when a mob mentality can exist. Simply refusing to play a song isn't as extreme but it's still a boycot.

 

Not a boycot, a choice. But a mob never really does damage to people with power, it only does damage to people with not much power, and has always been such.

[Steve Browning]

I was going to post about Lorri Maddox being 13 at the time of her union with Jimmy Page and was looking at the history of the age of consent in the US, not wanting to get things wrong.

 

Rather stunned to read that in 1880, the age of consent was generally between 10 and 12. I then read that, in Delaware it was 7!!!!!!!!!!!!

[diskwave]

How far do you take this cancel thinking. Artists by definition are a funny lot....I'm a musician and an artist/sculptor and probably look kinda "arty" what ever that means. I'm sure my boring suburban neighbours find me a bit odd...Does that mean my creations and music are to be avoided?

 

Until the day I die, as an eg .... I will fight for and play Brown Sugar. Its art, it was written by a "black respecting blues dude" and its a monumental piece of story telling and writing, but it is 'NOT' gratuitously nasty, filthy or offensive. As I said, an example of what it seems so many people now are scared of. 

Art can be scary and, even offensive, not that offensive art appeals to me personally but we do need it cause without it we're all gonna end up in a rocket fuelled version of the 'Stepford Wives' which is worse than just about anything I can think of.

 

A bit off point but it's all part of where the thread is I guess.

Edited April 15, 2023 by greavesbass