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

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.