Instances where you can't separate the art from the artist. vs. instances where you can.

"Trust the art, not the artist" a smarter person than myself once said, and I find that it is a much easier concept in theory than actual application.

I think the most obvious case of being successful for me is with Miles Davis. Not very pleasant company, by most accounts. And yet, I find myself enjoying his music with each passing year. All those terrible accounts of him being a despicable person seem to just disappear when a record of his is playing. And I don't really have a reason for that other than that I really enjoy the music. Do I have any delusions of him being "oh, actually NOT like that at all!"? Not really. And I'm still able to look past it.

But with the recent discussion around a new Thurston Moore record being quite good and maybe his best work in quite some time, I just can't bring myself to listen to it because of how much I know about his personal life and non-music dealings. I have even tried to go back to older Sonic Youth albums in an attempt to rekindle old enthusiasm and I just can't enjoy them the same way I used to.

Why is this? Maybe it's because I sort of grew up with Sonic Youth and seeing how things fell apart so quickly and fantastically in real time was more immediate. With Miles, hearing about his personal shortcomings was like hearing about history or a folk tale — something that may have happened, sure, but it was in the past. . . almost intangible, just a half-truth, or something that could never happen again.

I'm not saying there is a right or a wrong to this — but I find it a very peculiar phenomenon with respect to art. I have seen and heard a lot of people over the past year denounce certain acts —and the music they used to enjoy— because of the artist's perceived political views. I can understand if the artist makes their politics their entire act, but that's overwhelmingly not the case with most of these scenarios. And besides, if you liked a song or an album before you knew the artist's ideals —and nothing about the recordings has changed— why do these cases come up where we can't allow ourselves to enjoy them any longer?

I've also got a semi-related sidebar addendum: I play guitar and use a lot of effects pedals in my music. I bought a pedal a while back (well over a year ago) from a particular brand and have used it a lot and enjoyed it a lot. It's a very well-made product. In the midst of the chaos that has been this year, the owner and founder of the pedal company made some fairly disparaging and disheartening remarks and a lot of the gear community has denounced them. Guitar Center even went as far as cutting ties with the company completely. Now I have this pedal —that I still think is great for what it is, btw— with a company name on it that is associated with bigotry and chauvinism. It's not a unique effect —I could get a similar one from another brand easily— but I'm pretty happy using the one I have. I put a sticker over the front plate, so the brand name and logo isn't visible anymore and I'm fine with that. However, if it were to come around that I was using a pedal from that now denounced company, there are some people that would be critical of me. Now, if I had known at the time of my purchase that the owner was the person that they are, I probably would not have bought it and opted for a different brand. But I didn't, so it's what I have. I still play my guitar with it and have a great time doing so. Why is that?

on your effects pedal sidebar addendum: i think you feel ok with it for a good reason, which is that you didn't purchase it to support hatred or bigotry, and if you would have known about it ahead of time, you would've given your money to someone else instead. so now you have this object that you have liberated from the bosom of its bigoted maker. you can think of it like a troubled dog that has now found it's forever home.

on the wider art vs artist, i'm not sure how i draw the line. it's not consistent, whatever it is. case by case i guess.

Can you elaborate on the situation with Moore? The only thing I know about that people are holding against him is that he dared to cheat on and divorce our beloved queen, Kim Gordon. Is there something else?

I'm not saying there is a right or a wrong to this — but I find it a very peculiar phenomenon with respect to art. I have seen and heard a lot of people over the past year denounce certain acts —and the music they used to enjoy— because of the artist's perceived political views. I can understand if the artist makes their politics their entire act, but that's overwhelmingly not the case with most of these scenarios. And besides, if you liked a song or an album before you knew the artist's ideals —and nothing about the recordings has changed— why do these cases come up where we can't allow ourselves to enjoy them any longer?

that's a good question. there's a certain prog band from Tennessee whose music I enjoyed a lot until I saw them liking Trump's tweets, clicking on them and realizing they follow all the FOX anchors, all the Trumps, etc. - now I still can listen to them but I have a hard time being a 'fan' because in my view if you support Trump and the Republican party than you are a bigot who straight up does not care about human life or the future of this planet and possibly thinks my kids belong in a dog kennel. of course it's kind of dumb to feel this way, they're from Tennessee and feature a lot of Christian themes in their work, of course they're almost certainly Republicans but actually seeing it is immensely disappointing

Interesting question. I generally don’t have trouble with this, but I think the ease of doing so depends how much of themselves the artist puts into their work. For example, Morrissey’s solo work for me is greatly overshadowed by what he’s become now, even in otherwise innocuous lyrics because it’s the personality too. Which isn’t to say I don’t still love Vauxhall & I, because I do.

Cosby is the first person I think of as someone I cannot separate from his work because so much of his career seemed devoted to constructing an utterly false persona to obfuscate how vile he really was. And it's an unfortunate example inasmuch as I wish that I could still enjoy the other delightful performances on The Cosby Show, but I just can't anymore.

^^^ excellent post

I hasten to say, however: I usually get back from my morning walk when The Cosby Show starts on syndication, and like a sucker I get wrapped in. I still love the show.

R. Kelly is a pretty obvious example too, you cannot hear any of his stuff now and not think "he's singing about fucking teenagers right now". only artist I've actually deleted out of my iTunes, I can't see myself ever wanting to hear his music again. whereas say, Michael Jackson, yeah it makes me uncomfortable but a lot of his seems pretty far removed from his actual persona

When it comes to those who I acknowledge as creeps and cretins and criminals but whose work still means enough to me that I am somehow able to separate the artist from the art, I feel like the absolute least I can do is a) find a way to experience their work that doesn't further benefit them monetarily and b) refrain from ever foisting their work upon or promoting it to anyone else.

Creeps/cretins/criminals aside, I do fall into thinking less of a public figure if they express political views that I consider to be seriously dumb or ill-informed. That happened to me this year in the case of a former indie-rock hero dude whose twitter I checked, and was a bit shook when I saw where he stands these days. It hasn't stopped me from listening to his older music, and I'm not a fan of his current stuff anyway, so I guess it hasn't tested my listening habits in that regard.

Thanks for everyone's insights thus far. Again: I'm not saying there is a right or a wrong answer to this, as I'm obviously wrestling with a few of these scenarios myself.

RE: Thurston
Yes, my discrepancy with his music stems from his adultery.

RE: Bill Cosby
This is a great example. I was such a huge fan of the show as a kid in my formative years and I loved his old albums from the 60s and 70s and I still feel a sense of great conflict about that older stuff in particular. Because the fact remains: some of his stand up material is still fucking funny, but I have a hard time putting the thought out of my head that there's a good possibility that he walked off the stage that night and did something reprehensible. Am I bad person for laughing at the jokes he told that had nothing to do with any of that?

Mark Kozelek (nothing post-2013 though). I am able to separate art from artist. Partly because I've always listened to music in a way that already disassociated the artist as a person/people, and would get swept up in the sound of the tune and the feeling that sound conveyed. The poetry that went along with the music would merely emphasize that mood, but I honestly I'd rarely even prioritize the meaning of the words at all. Robert Pollard's surreal paint-splattered-collage poetry is perfect for people like me, but even more straightforward narratives like Mark's ride backseat to the rest of what is going on in the sound design and performance. This seems like an elaborate excuse to hand wave away legitimate concerns, but honestly all music for me is a place I go, not a person.

On the politics side, I remember when Tobin Sprout's facebook presence was less professional and he was sharing anti-Obama memes before the Trump days... I think (bit of a fuzzy memory now). But same deal and there is no clear public indication on where he stands now so out of sight out of mind.

At the time the Cosby stuff started coming out, I had been following a blog called "Huxtable Hotness" - in which a young guy in NYC critiqued the wardrobe/fashion in each Cosby Show episode (in chronological order, one episode per post... it ran for several years). It was a terrific blog - warm, funny, appreciative of the show, etc. Once the news came out, the author let the blog fall dormant (I don't think he made any statement, he just stopped posting). Now the blog appears to be down (or "open to invited readers only"). I understand why he did it, but it is a real loss!

Yes, my discrepancy with his music stems from his adultery.

Out of your curiosity, was your upbringing a highly religious one?

Re: the Thurston Moore example, if "adultery" is the line you need to draw, so be it, but I feel like you are going to be spending a hell of a lot more time researching the private lives of musicians than you are listening to anything they'd make.

Michael Jackson was my favourite artist in the late 80s when I was aged 8-10. He seemed so unbelievably cool, like his image had been precision-engineered to be the absolute coolest thing a 8-10-year-old boy could imagine. Like in Moonwalker where he morphs into a spaceship and shoots the baddies? Or the motorbike ride video to Speed Demon? Who else was this aimed at? So yeah, I have difficulty listening to him now.

I just get more of a grimace of disappointment when listening to anything of Thurston's these days. It's not like on the face of it what he did was so abhorrent or beyond the pale but it just seemed beneath him and it wound up wreaking a lot of personal and professional havoc. Like I'm sure a lot of SY fans had some degree of investment in the band as a unit and Thurston and Kim as a couple so it just kinda sucked for him to blow it all up by being such a middle aged cliche.

I've also got a semi-related sidebar addendum: I play guitar and use a lot of effects pedals in my music. I bought a pedal a while back (well over a year ago) from a particular brand and have used it a lot and enjoyed it a lot. It's a very well-made product. In the midst of the chaos that has been this year, the owner and founder of the pedal company made some fairly disparaging and disheartening remarks and a lot of the gear community has denounced them. Guitar Center even went as far as cutting ties with the company completely. Now I have this pedal —that I still think is great for what it is, btw— with a company name on it that is associated with bigotry and chauvinism. It's not a unique effect —I could get a similar one from another brand easily— but I'm pretty happy using the one I have. I put a sticker over the front plate, so the brand name and logo isn't visible anymore and I'm fine with that. However, if it were to come around that I was using a pedal from that now denounced company, there are some people that would be critical of me. Now, if I had known at the time of my purchase that the owner was the person that they are, I probably would not have bought it and opted for a different brand. But I didn't, so it's what I have. I still play my guitar with it and have a great time doing so. Why is that?

― Totally different head. Totally. (Austin), Friday, September 25, 2020 12:19 PM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

Which fulltone is it? ;)

xpost Like it's the kind of thing where people who are personally involved in a situation like that have probably figured out how to move on from it and have a more nuanced, situational perspective but for people on the outside who had a somewhat distanced and abstracted sense of the people/relationships involved, the perpetual reactions to their behavior just sorta hangs in this abstractedly-judgmental place. Expecting them to be paragons when they're just human beings who fuck up.

I just get more of a grimace of disappointment when listening to anything of Thurston's these days. It's not like on the face of it what he did was so abhorrent or beyond the pale but it just seemed beneath him and it wound up wreaking a lot of personal and professional havoc. Like I'm sure a lot of SY fans had some degree of investment in the band as a unit and Thurston and Kim as a couple so it just kinda sucked for him to blow it all up by being such a middle aged cliche.

Yeah, I get this reaction. Thurston and Kim were such a core part of the group and musicians that a lot of '90s indie rock fans looked up to, so it's natural I think for big SY fans to feel a little stung by the whole thing. I just have a problem putting him on the same level of an R Kelly or Bill Cosby.

this is mainly an issue for me when a 'serious artist man' type turns out to be abusing people. if i'm being really honest i'd say that the primary reason isn't that i find the behavior abhorrent (i do) but because i just can't take them seriously as an artist anymore. there's a sudden hollowness to what they were doing that i can't unhear. prince is a good example of this. still enjoy a song from time to time but don't revere him as an artist. wrt looking the other way with someone like miles davis or prince i would say that race places a role in who is absolved and who isn't. i'll just go ahead and say that i think that white people are less inclined to condemn black musicians for their abusive behavior.

there's also the factor of age and generations etc. abuse has been normalized to a horrifying degree now but i think it was probably even more normalized in the past. that doesn't excuse it but fuck it's just floating around everywhere and was kind of like the default for a lot of people in the 20th century. i think it starts to get interesting when people don't just condemn it as an individual action but start to ask what it means socially.

You would get laughed out of the room in many a culture if adultery was a dealbreaker for you when considering which artists you follow or not. I find the Puritanism itt deeply unsettling tbh. Like I’ve stepped into a parallel universe or something.

i love that we're even using the word 'adultery' itt

for an artist that wrote 'catholic block' ffs

it's natural I think for big SY fans to feel a little stung by the whole thing. I just have a problem putting him on the same level of an R Kelly or Bill Cosby.

― soaring skrrrtpeggios (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Friday, September 25, 2020 1:56 PM (seven minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

No, they're not really not in the same league at all, but I can understand the situation similarly affecting one's ability to separate art from artist nonetheless.

I'm not at all disturbed by the Moore-Gordon fracas because I didn't care about them as people and their iconicity anyway, and I love Sonic Youth.

You would get laughed out of the room in many a culture if adultery was a dealbreaker for you when considering which artists you follow or not. I find the Puritanism itt deeply unsettling tbh. Like I’ve stepped into a parallel universe or something.

― sock solipsist (pomenitul), Friday, September 25, 2020 2:06 PM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

I think you might be projecting the puritanism you're perceiving itt.

FWIW, the purview of the thread title on its own doesn't necessitate judgment at all.

like i personally believe cheating is wrong but i don't know the details of the personal relationship pact that was breached there (beyond zomg they were married) and i'm not really that interested in what that was / it's none of my business. cheating is imperfect behavior that deserves some privacy imo - abuse and misogyny on the other hand need to be made very public.

I consider the line to be a personal one, one that I personally have changed quite a bit in the past few years. There are shades and degrees. I get it.

That said, there are some things that I will honestly think less of you as a person if you support them (and before it is asked, if someone thinks less of me because I draw a line a particular place, I don't care - my days of wanting to please everyone are long gone - so it's perfectly fine if someone doesn't care about my feelings about them). I consider those things to be really obvious - if you are an enthusiastic supporter of Skrewdriver, proudly wear Burzum shirts, or rep for Ted Nugent's bufoonery, at best I think you're missing the plot; at worst you're just a piece of shit.

if you are an enthusiastic supporter of Skrewdriver, proudly wear Burzum shirts, or rep for Ted Nugent's bufoonery

have you ever met a real person who is one of these people you refer to?

2xp map otfm

FWIW, the SY sitch (and people's reactions to it) is a little more complex than simply 'OMG, can you believe a dude in a band cheated on his partner'.

cheating is imperfect behavior that deserves some privacy imo

I'm not an SY fan and none of it affects me - but Kim has made it public (I've read her accounting of the circumstances in an interview blurb or something); so if folks choose to weigh that in how they see Thurston, and you argue against that, you're sort of "taking his side" (no?)

Calling the SY grievances itt "puritanism" totally ignores the specific context OL succinctly clarified upthread.

Not American and Protestant enough to get it, sorry. Peace.

have you ever met a real person who is one of these people you refer to?

I do not share any of Ted Nugent's political beliefs, but I like the albums he made between 1975 and 1980 quite a bit.

ok fair points. i can't recall much about the kim / thurston thing other than there was some underhanded and deceptive behavior but it wasn't an abusive situation. is that a fair summary? xp

lol to unperson.

I actually think a lot of burzum stuff kicks ass but while I could listen to burzum when I was a 20 year old (a 20 year old communist who hated nazis for sure, but very callow) I can't bring myself to listen to him now. like I'm not giving him plays on fucking Spotify.

also won't be listening to red house painters again.

but for some reason was singing "rock with you" in the shower the other day ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

have you ever met a real person who is one of these people you refer to?

I just posted a link to a YouTube video in the Rolling Metal thread a few weeks ago of a professional critic for a not unknown metal website that featured a prominent Burzum wall hanging in the background. But yeah, I still spot Burzum t-shirts in the wild. Now, how "proud" or knowing the wearer might be, I can't speak to, but they are out there.

saw a Burzum shirt in the wild a couple weeks ago

in general, I think it's easier for instrumental music and gets harder the more prominent confessional, personal lyrics and vocals are for the music.

Not American and Protestant enough to get it, sorry. Peace.

What's funny is this is sort of a cousin of that creepy line you see sometimes - "Hey, let go of your Protestant, American, middle-class hang-ups... just do this..."

god triad is so barf

I know, but I'm gonna put on Crown of Creation right now... it cracks me up when Grace sings it.

Chris Brown is one I feel slightly guilty liking so much, though am only headlines-aware of his abuse, what, a decade ago? If I see a "feat Chris Brown" track on an album, that's consistently a favorite. His acting ("Takers") impressed me, too. Whereas, oddly, Ariana Grande licked a donut and has forever lost my respect. She seems to be doing just fine without it, though.

I think Rolf Harris is maybe a perfect example of someone who has totally destroyed their own image. I'm not a fan and never intended to check him out though.

What's funny is this is sort of a cousin of that creepy line you see sometimes - "Hey, let go of your Protestant, American, middle-class hang-ups... just do this..."

Slippery slope much?

Unless someone provides solid evidence that Thurston Moore abused Kim Gordon in some way (in her memoir, Kim accuses him of being a coward for not initiating the divorce himself, which is… utterly banal), 'adultery' is a backwards charge that smacks of, yes, puritanism of the worst tabloid variety. It's none of our fucking business.

kozelek has a few earlier albums that meant something to me, and i still listen to them, but i have zero interest in hearing anything new from him (meaning like the last decade-plus)

none of the other prime examples are particularly important to me -- i would absolutely never buy a nugent or r. kelly record or otherwise contribute money to them, but 'stranglehold' is a great song and if it comes on the radio i'm not gonna turn it off

the thurston stuff is distasteful -- lots of people cheat, but doing it for years on end is pretty damn rude -- but whatever, really. i do kinda wonder how jim o'rourke feels about the whole thing tho

I'm not in agreement with table here but your characterization of him is ridiculous here

what characterisation, i'm talking about a broad tendency whether or not any poster is part of it

there are things which might merit some level of outrage but where the tenor of the existing outrage is so toxic that adding to it is not always a good idea

imo

ILX threads for example

Wait, what the fug has Brendan McCarthy done?!

― OrificeMax (Old Lunch), Saturday, September 26, 2020 6:36 AM (nine months ago)

Had a peek at his twitter. Busy arguing that he was against racism and apartheid at college because he was young and dumb but "wised up", huffing that the "MSM" will ignore all Mike Lindell's evidence that the election was stolen by "cell phone cards" in the voting machine, cheering for Jim Jordan posting eight-minute videos of him arguing with Fauci, propounding that the pandemic is rigged by Bill Gates to enact the Green New Deal of food shortages and power outages, moaning about "wokies," earnestly asking astral travellers and predictive dreamers to reveal more about the visions they've "brought back from the other side," and politely answering questions about Road Warrior vs Fury Road.

This article is largely about Dr. Luke, but also touches on some of this thread’s main topics of discussion.

a lot of people I know who are loudest about not watching movies or television shows with sketchy people seem outright unaware of the pasts of some of the people in shows they actually do watch.

one friend today started lamenting how Chris Pratt had sullied P&R, which was tainted now because of the stupid comments Pratt has made in public and his misogyny, but I got a dumb stare when I joked that Rob Lowe was finally happy that the heat was off of him. I think he outright didn't know about Lowe's late 20th century foibles. meanwhile, this guy is also a huge fan of the Sopranos, which is FULL of actors who are useless pieces of shit (not necessarily in lead roles, but LOTS of supporting cast, some of whom who actually spent time in the mob, or at least doing their best to live like a mobster).

I don't know if it's recency bias or what but it feels weird to me in a way that stopping listening to sketchy musicians doesn't. a television show or movie is a group project reflecting a collective vision, whereas a musician, particularly a solo musician, is giving you *their* singular vision. so if you listen to someone who sings tender love songs and on the side is beating all of his romantic partners, that pulls away the veneer the musician created that drew you towards them. I don't know that Chris Pratt being an asshole (for me at least) hurts the collective fun of P&R, esp since he's playing someone far more likable than the real Pratt.

but even that has its limits I guess. The Cosby Show was so built around Bill that, supporting cast or no, I still haven't been able to watch it since I first heard of the allegations against him. so I do get it in specific circumstances. I guess like music, it's context-driven?

I can absolutely still watch & enjoy NewsRadio, and even chuckle at Joe Rogan's character, contemporary Rogan notwithstanding.

Agree the Cosby thing is different; though I happened to catch 10 mins. or so of The Cosby Show which happens to also be 10 of the greatest minutes of any sitcom ever, and was able to put everything aside and appreciate it on that level.

The Cosby Show is kind of like that joke in the Simpsons where Flanders says that he likes Woody Allen films "except for that nervous fellow who's always in them", it's hard to imagine someone enjoying most of Allen's movies or Cosby's sitcom without 'buying in' to the comedian persona at the centre to some extent, find them charming or likable. I don't think this is the case with every show based around a comedian's stand-up persona though, like I don't think the Flanders joke would work with Seinfeld, someone who like the show Seinfeld but dislikes Jerry does not seem ridiculous in the same way.

Yeah - for me, Seinfeld is all about Elaine & George at this point.

(Flanders joke aside, I kinda could imagine someone liking Woody Allen movies but finding Woody himself to be irritating?)

Friend gave me a book last night, telling me that it is one of the moe extraordinary books of poems to come out in the past few decades...and that saying so publicly can't be done, because the author is a convicted collector of child p0rn. Not sure if I'm going to keep the book, but even looking into a few pages, I can see why I thought I'd like the work-- it's incredible stuff.

Makes me sick to my stomach.

horrible to have to deal with that sort of cognitive dissonance

otoh, there are other poems by people who aren't monsters

otoh, really good poetry can be hard to find

if one can still enjoy the first two seasons of The Thick Of It (which feature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Langham as a main character)...but then again, that is an ensemble work, whereas in your case there is only one author, one mind responsible

not sure what to tell you; it's your decision

i think, speaking for myself: if they were directly an abuser of children then i couldn't keep the book, but in this case i might, with a dark, dark mark, but absolutely would i understand if you still wanted rid of it

I think I know what we're talking about and yeah I bought one of his books, thought it incredibly impressive if not quite for me & then found out about the conviction browsing a poetry site a good while later. Horrific and I haven't opened it since - every time I see it on my shelf I think "Should I just bin it? What would that do?"

I think that's the issue for me-- I know that binning it or not reading it wouldn't do anything, and it's not like I plan on shouting its praises from the rooftops. Even cursory glances indicate that I'd really like the book. The only review of it online further cements that hunch. But will I ever do so, knowing what I know?

It probably is the writer you're thinking of, woof.

Last year, in the issue of Poetry magazine dedicated to incarcerated or formerly incarcerated poets, there were a few poems from a US poet who had been in prison for similar reasons, and there was a bit of a kerfuffle online about whether he should have been included that essentially came down to prison abolitionists vs. child advocates, but I don't think that these issues are so cut and dry or binaristic.

ok reading about this, it was on a whole order of scale different to Langham, and there are credible accounts that he's a direct abuser as well

wait xp the one i found was n3ss3t, whose crimes seem pretty damn dark, but he's the one that Poetry magazine published...did you mean someone different table?

That is, obviously abetting child abuse through means of collecting images of it is beyond reprehensible, of course.

But if I consider myself a prison abolitionist, as well as someone who tries to reside in grace and forgiveness whenever possible, it raises some interesting ethical problems that are very difficult to untangle.

I mean J4rvis

oh damn, him!

i've met him :( currently looking through an email chain from 2010 i was in where a good example of his poetry and his support for a student occupation is discussed. had no idea he'd been done for such crimes

definitely not a monster on the same level as n3ss3t, but ah man, sucks

I mean, by all accounts, he was a big star of the British left tendency in poetry. Sutherland and Brady published him, and he was good friends with Prynne.

The volume that I was given is the book-length poem 'The Unc0nditional,' and I'm a poet whose best known work is a book-length poem and who is currently working on a longer essay on recent book-length poems. That is, my interest is earnest and not ghastly or lurid.

Awful.

Yeah, that's horrible.

I think two different questions get tangled up in these discussions: one, what is the moral/ethical thing to do when an artist you like does something reprehensible, and two, how does that knowledge affect one's relationship with the artist.

The first one I think is more straightforward: I'm not contributing financially to help anyone's career if they've done things I consider beyond the pale. If they're dead I don't really care as much - I understand that focusing on the Great Work of for example dead abusers is still poisonous for the priorities it suggests but I do have some faith we can enjoy the work without minimising the crimes.

The second's much more subjective. In the past I'd have maybe gone for the glib argument that our relationship to art is entirely divorced from the artist as a human being but I no longer think that's the case - art is a sort of communication, foggy and mediated though it may be, and I can much more understand these days feeling horrified at the creator of something you've cherished turning out to be a monster. I think that, because subjective, this is a deeply personal question and don't really think there's right or wrong answers - which is to say, table, if reading this dude's poetry makes you uncomfortable considering what you know of his actions, I don't think it's a betrayal of your abolitionist views to just not read him. We make aesthetic choices based on far fickler things all the time.

Tom Breihan writes a column for Stereogum analyzing every song that's ever hit #1 in the US, and today he's gotten to R. Kelly's "Bump N' Grind". The introduction is very good on his (and the music press's) complicity:

Fuck. OK. Here we go. Shit.

There is nothing inherently moral about pop music. To make a successful pop song, you have to tap into the sounds and ideas and feeling of a particular moment. You do not have to be a good person. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that you might be more successful if you’re not a good person and that success will enable you to get away with some severely heinous shit. This column has covered murderers, rapists, thieves, domestic abusers, and other assorted monsters. The last entry in this column was about a group that included a former Nazi bonehead in its ranks. But even among this mob of shady characters, R. Kelly stands out.

Most of the time, I can write about these songs and about the lives of the people who made them, and those lives, no matter how sordid, won’t have a huge effect on my feelings about the songs. John Phillips’ daughter has said that her father drugged and raped her on the night before her wedding and that he went on to have an 11-year incestuous affair with her. I still think “Monday, Monday” is a good song. Peter Yarrow was convicted of molesting a 14-year-old girl and then later pardoned by Jimmy Carter. I still think “Leaving On A Jet Plane” is a good song. Those songs came out years before I was born, and it’s never been a huge mental leap to separate those songs from the people who made them. R. Kelly is a different story.

Time and doubt can shade and obscure the stories about pop stars being terrible people. That doesn’t happen with R. Kelly. Just last year, Kelly was finally convicted of crimes including kidnapping, racketeering, sex trafficking, and sexual exploitation of a child. We don’t have to use the word “alleged” when discussing Kelly’s offenses; at least some of those offenses are a matter of public record. Kelly’s crimes are part of a pattern that goes back to the years when he first became famous, and he’s lived like this in front of the entire public. It was right there for us.

Ever since I started writing this column a few years ago, I’ve been dreading the moment when I would have to engage with R. Kelly. Part of that is the sheer volume and severity of Kelly’s crimes, the many lives ruined. But part of it is also that I feel complicit in the whole R. Kelly story. As a writer, I’ve been responsible for propping up the whole R. Kelly operation, even after he first faced trial for child pornography. I’ve endorsed his music even when I should’ve known better. That’s on me.

I’ve gone back and read some of the stuff I wrote about Kelly in the past, and I can at least say that I used some level of scrutiny when talking about him and his crimes. It wasn’t enough, though. It’s not that I personally extended Kelly’s career and his ability to victimize women, but I sure didn’t do anything to stop it. When the Chicago writer Jim DeRogatis was criticizing Pitchfork, my former place of employment, for booking Kelly to headline its annual festival, I scoffed and rolled my eyes. I didn’t work at Pitchfork anymore when they booked Kelly, and I didn’t go to that festival, but I did think that DeRogatis was trying to spoil everyone’s fun. Today, DeRogatis is an acknowledged journalistic hero, and I feel like an asshole for not taking his reports seriously. With R. Kelly, I was part of the problem. So when I look at Kelly’s extremely long stretch of success and criminal exploitation, my own regret becomes a major factor. It’s something that I can’t escape.

Thanks for yr note, Daniel, and yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head.

That is, my interest is earnest and not ghastly or lurid.

I'd never question that.

And yup, big figure in that poetry world (you'll have seen the bebr0wed posts - that's where I read about his poetry and found out) & moving over into something more establishment, the Eliotic Anglican thing - one book launch 'in conversation with' the ex-Archbishop of Canterbury.

I can't see myself reading the one I have (Ν1ght Off1ce) again - at best I'd just picking cerebrally or forensically at it, perpetually conscious of his actions (and getting repelled or annoyed by the little courtroom in my head). And there's plenty to read that doesn't involve swimming in this shit - Daniel otm.

I think there's another argument to be made that you should read it: that by depriving yourself of this incredible poetry that you believe you would really like, you'd be allowing this guy's crimes to drag the world down further, even if only slightly. And it sounds like it's relevant enough to your own writing that it's very possible it could genuinely have a positive impact on your work, so there's a potential ripple effect there.

Daniel OTM too, though - if reading it is going to make you sick to your stomach, obviously you shouldn't feel obligated to subject yourself to that.

My current thought is to put it aside, then pick it up if it ever feels right. If that doesn't happen in the next few years, I'll probably put it in a free bin.

y'know what? fuck talib kweli. wackass motherfucker. i can't believe i ever sought out that cretin's records.

what now

this?

https://jezebel.com/talib-kweli-is-suing-jezebel-over-emotional-distress-fo-1849390843

why jezebel and not twitter (or pitchfork or anyone else who covered this bullshit)?

wtf is the "certain women" is it just (trans- or general) misogyny or is he pointing at someone(s) specific there?

is there some projected embarrassment or guilt in the "you hurt me by describing my behaviour" or is it just ego and entitlement all the way down? morally (or legally) it shouldn't really matter either way

those lyrics are terrible and even just the act of citing them to prove (?) is unintentionally revealing I think

I didn't realize he's still screaming about that shit.

What a petulant, misogynist child.

nothing "new" i was just listening to some old reflection eternal stuff and it's all kind of gross knowing what we now know about his attitude towards women. he was so phony on those records. imagine if "brown skin lady" or "love language" came out now - he'd be rightfully taken to task for being a hypocrite.

why jezebel

because it's the one that has a feminine name and he's so blinded by x chromosome hatred tunnel vision that it was his only option.

(okay, that's speculation but doesn't seem like much of a stretch by now)

anyway.

He like all butthurt Maras weaponized his fanbase against the article writer and the lady on Twitter that he kept harassing on multiple platforms

Just want to point out that over the past few months we can add Normani and now Chloe Bailey into the list of "promising new r&b talents who will release singles with Chris Brown features" alongside Tinashe, Sevyn Streeter and K.Michelle. People say that he's been #cancelled, but he sold out a Glasgow venue that holds fourteen thousand people, and he's still being used in an attempt to rescue the flailing careers of less-successful upcoming artists. He might not be at Drake/Beyonce megastar levels like he could have potentially rose to, but he's nowhere near as disregarded as you would hope for him to be.

He just had a Grammy nomination for Best R&B Album, as well

(And apparently had a bad initial reaction to losing)

fuck Chris Brown with a weedwhacker

I always find it "amazing" when I run into people who think the Rihanna beating was his only transgression *and* that he has been trying to atone for this for years (nope). Overheard a heated conversation about him not long ago where a woman was (rightfully) talking about how ridiculous it is that he still has a career, and the man across from her, a fan, said "I think we have to ask ourselves at one point how long we're willing to shun someone for one act", and the woman about spit her drink out and said "ONE ACT?", and began listing just about every infraction he had committed, the rape accusations, the destroying of the dressing room, etc, and the guy literally appeared to have no knowledge of it.

I don't know HOW that's possible but.

tbh this one act and his lack of contrition for it was enough for me by itself anyway

I hope that conversation ended with everyone at the bar uppercutting that man

Or shunning him.

Liberal thread

Shut the fuck up

well that's us told

Liberal thread

― CerebralCaustic, Saturday, February 18, 2023 5:52 AM

OP here. am very relieved you made this clear because i was starting to worry folks might think i was becoming a fascist. PHEW — glad that's sorted!

altrenately—

Liberal thread

― CerebralCaustic, Saturday, February 18, 2023 5:52 AM

found chris brown's sock ya'll

"altrenately" is an alternate spelling kind of like color vs colour y'know.

we liberals are poor typists =(

xpost to beato/youtubers you dig:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnivNajzZ1E
fd signifier - "when you can't separate the art from the artist" (video essay, 2024)

(fd doesn't exclusively do music topics, but is excruciatingly otm when he does)

#onethread

sry that opening phrase should have been a link to here.