Separating the art from the artist

[dynamitekid]

Does anyone else have trouble with this? There are some bands that I like their music but I'm not a fan of the artists. Therefore, it changes how I feel about the music. Does anyone else feel the same? How do you deal with it?

[konk]

Don't support either. You can't support one without supporting the other.

[Shitty Rambo]

You can 100% separate the two. Woody Allen wouldn't have a career if people couldn't. John Lennon was a creep and everyone loves The Beatles.

Don't have any real advice on how to separate the two. Just stay ignorant and don't look into things outside of the albums. I don't even know what 3/4ths of the dudes in the bands I listen to look like.

[KingTacoMunster]

everyone loves The Beatles

Not everyone

[thebilljim]

I mean, for me, it kind of comes down to what kind of behavior do I find so inexcusable that I wouldn't be able to support an artist - no matter how much I like the art they make - without feeling gross about myself. The way I feel about the film The Pianist has never changed; I think it's brilliant, and gorgeous, and heartbreaking...but I can't bring myself to support anything Roman Polanski puts his name to. 

[Brock N Roll]

Not everyone

x2

[NapalmBrain]

I've never had an issue with it, these people aren't my buddies, they are people who put beautiful things into the world. They are still human beings subject to fault and might do or say things I don't agree with. Miles Davis, Whirr, Death In June, etc. maybe I wouldn't have coffee with them but if I like the music, their personal character isn't going to ruin that.

[daegor]

Everyone has the own thresholds, for me part of it is if the issue was a cultural one. The problems cited for John Lennon or Miles Davis were pervasive at the time. That's not an excuse, it's just the truth. Do you fault artists from the 40s for appropriating black culture and music? No, you fault the culture.

For modern artists I'm all over the place, I can forgive someone for being an assholes. But if they do something truly wrong you have to show an appropriate level of remorse. I can't listen to Whirr, Emmure, or As I Lay Dying anymore.

[Derek™]

But why would you ever want to listen to Emmure to begin with?

[Shitty Rambo]

x2

Alright we get it!

I've never had an issue with it, these people aren't my buddies, they are people who put beautiful things into the world. They are still human beings subject to fault and might do or say things I don't agree with.

This. If it's truly heinous shit (I see As I Lay Dying mentioned above, that's a good example) then I understand how that could taint someone's work. Holding a personal grudge against an artist for saying something stupid or having beliefs I don't agree with depends on the context I guess.

Does anyone here fuck with Pantera? I don't, but I am a minority and I honestly don't know if Philip Anselmo's racist bullshit would ruin their entire catalog for me if I were a fan. I wouldn't fault someone for liking their music still (assuming they recognize that their singer is a fuckwad).

[NapalmBrain]

Just curious (I already stated I have no issues seperating the two) why Whirr's "lol@gloss" and fog machines incidents unforgivable but Miles Davis and all the Beatles except Ringo beat women (some chronically) and that was just a sign of the times. I guess because there is a platform where they can redeem themselves now? I can almost guarantee you if social media existed in Miles' day his response wouldn't be apology it would be more like " how about you change the course of music and you can tell me how to live my life"

[NapalmBrain]

Alright we get it!

This. If it's truly heinous shit (I see As I Lay Dying mentioned above, that's a good example) then I understand how that could taint someone's work. Holding a personal grudge against an artist for saying something stupid or having beliefs I don't agree with depends on the context I guess.

Does anyone here fuck with Pantera? I don't, but I am a minority and I honestly don't know if Philip Anselmo's racist bullshit would ruin their entire catalog for me if I were a fan. I wouldn't fault someone for liking their music still (assuming they recognize that their singer is a fuckwad).

 

I mean Burzum is legendary and that guy killed someone in the band and burned down a couple churches if I remember, social media might be tainting everything. Some artists are getting more personal and people are expecting that to extend to all artists

[Bladewillisisdead]

How could you listen to Emmure in the first place.

Seperating art from artist is a weird gray area. HP Lovecraft was a horrific racist and I'm pretty sure a supporter of eugenics, but he wrote a few truly good pieces. Gary Oldman said a bunch of racist, homophobic, and just plain regressive bullshit a couple years ago, but he's still one of the best actors out there. It really comes down to an individual decision as to the amount of support you're comfortable with. Lovecraft is dead so he won't see any of my money. Gary Oldman's paycheck for The Fifth Element was the same regardless of how many times I watch it. I think Woody Allen sucks, but either way I would never spend a dime on one of his films.

It is possible to enjoy art without supporting the artist though.

[Bladewillisisdead]

But why would you ever want to listen to Emmure to begin with?

Damn, my response took too long. But yeah, seriously.

[KingTacoMunster]

Does anyone here fuck with Pantera? I don't, but I am a minority and I honestly don't know if Philip Anselmo's racist bullshit would ruin their entire catalog for me if I were a fan. I wouldn't fault someone for liking their music still (assuming they recognize that their singer is a fuckwad).

I do, and yes Phil is a fuckwad

[daegor]

But why would you ever want to listen to Emmure to begin with?

 

 

How could you listen to Emmure in the first place.

 

 

Damn, my response took too long. But yeah, seriously.

 

 

 

Haha, I was waiting for that.  Short answer, it was a guilty pleasure.  (Slightly longer) answer, I'm a huge fan of anything metal, anything with a lot of bass, and anything with that style of super throaty/gravelly screaming vocals.  I turn that shit up in my car and nearly have the subwoofer tear itself apart.

[daegor]

Just curious (I already stated I have no issues seperating the two) why Whirr's "lol@gloss" and fog machines incidents unforgivable but Miles Davis and all the Beatles except Ringo beat women (some chronically) and that was just a sign of the times. I guess because there is a platform where they can redeem themselves now? I can almost guarantee you if social media existed in Miles' day his response wouldn't be apology it would be more like " how about you change the course of music and you can tell me how to live my life"

 

 

I truly don't think social media would have changed anything at the time.  Like I said, it's not about saying it's okay, but it's all about context.  We should applaud those that were ahead of their time in regards to social/cultural issues, condemn those that were behind the times, and those that were just with the times... you can't really fault them.

 

 

Also, in regards to Whirr, I don't see it as 'unforgivable', but their attitude towards the incident was enough to mar my enjoyment of their music.

[NapalmBrain]

I truly don't think social media would have changed anything at the time.  Like I said, it's not about saying it's okay, but it's all about context.  We should applaud those that were ahead of their time in regards to social/cultural issues, condemn those that were behind the times, and those that were just with the times... you can't really fault them.

 

 

Also, in regards to Whirr, I don't see it as 'unforgivable', but their attitude towards the incident was enough to mar my enjoyment of their music.

 

I would not say it was culturally acceptable to beat women at that point, but public knowledge didn't come out until years later when they were already immortalized and loved by many. I think people have an easier time separating the 2 when they have had a lasting impact on them already

[Shitty Rambo]

I truly don't think social media would have changed anything at the time. Like I said, it's not about saying it's okay, but it's all about context. We should applaud those that were ahead of their time in regards to social/cultural issues, condemn those that were behind the times, and those that were just with the times... you can't really fault them.

I would disagree as far as social media goes. It appears folk in the "music scene" are more intertwined online. It wasn't mentioned here but yesterday Punknews posted then pulled an April Fool's prank that said Letterman was reforming as Latterperson because people on social media got super pissed off by it.

To use this as an example:

Pretty terrible shit right? Why don't we ever see anyone go after this type of nonsense on social media, but a band or blog will get annihilated in minutes for pushing buttons. I'm all for having a civilized discussion and educating people on the "times". Condemning people and going after them hard seems like it's more prone to piss them off than enlighten them. I've said it before on these boards, but nobody has ever changed anyone's mind by being an asshole to them on the Internet. Jon Ronson has a book about this I've been wanting to read, if anyone is interested - http://www.amazon.com/So-Youve-Been-Publicly-Shamed/dp/1594487138

[daegor]

I would not say it was culturally acceptable to beat women at that point, but public knowledge didn't come out until years later when they were already immortalized and loved by many. I think people have an easier time separating the 2 when they have had a lasting impact on them already

 

Issues go through phases, at the time we're thinking of (50s through 70s), A LOT of women were being beat without any repercussions, and we moved forward in time it became less and less acceptable, but still pervasive and still largely unrebuked when it became known.  There's always a period of time where something is socially unacceptable, but when it happens it would be rude to chastise someone you don't know.  Hell, it still happens a lot, and a lot of the time the perpetrators are not called out.

 

 

 

I'm all for having a civilized discussion and educating people on the "times". Condemning people and going after them hard seems like it's more prone to piss them off than enlighten them. I've said it before on these boards, but nobody has ever changed anyone's mind by being an asshole to them on the Internet. 

 

 

THIS.

 

 

 

Something I personally have a really hard time with is the idea we have to all be on some high and mighty moral ground or else we're agreeing with whatever terrible thing.  The bands that I brought up, Whirr (openly homophobic), Emmure (openly an incorrigible asshole, and pro-violence), As I Lay Dying (tried to kill his wife), I don't go around beating people over the head if I find out they still listen to them.  I have a close friend who is a huge Emmure fan.  Do I think he's going to applaud when the next school shooting hits the news?  No.  Does it make him pro-violence if he listens to them?  No.   Have I had reasonable discussions with him about how Frankie is a raging asshole who thinks it's a good idea to bring a gun to school and shoot people?  Absolutely.  Once.  And it was only in the context of why I can't listen to them anymore.  I know lots of people who listen listen to As I Lay Dying, they made some great albums with lyrics that really connected to some people, I don't fault them for that.  In this case I would even argue that the Tim who wrote those albums was not the same Tim who tried to kill his wife.  And even for stuff like the Beatles, which I listen to and enjoy, I'll have the discussion about how John and Ringo (and probably Paul) were all terrible people.  I'll discuss the pervasiveness of sexism in lyrics from that era.  Does that mean that people can't listen to them or enjoy them?  No.

 

Like I originally said, we all have our individual thresholds where if a line is crossed for us we can no longer enjoy the music.  Listening to band A and not band B does not mean that you agree with band A's personal viewpoints, or that you think that the issues with band A are less important than band B.

[Breezus]

Honestly, I don't give a shit. Artists can say whatever they want, if their new stuff is dope, I'm gonna check it out. Same goes for actors, athletes, etc.

[Shelby]

I think a good question for the general population would be if they know most of their favorite classics were written under the influence. I always find it funny when older people who are vehemently against something dumb like pot only listen to classic rock and the Beatles.

[Brock N Roll]

Emmure. Lol.

 

[Sad Heart]

I think a good question for the general population would be if they know most of their favorite classics were written under the influence. I always find it funny when older people who are vehemently against something dumb like pot only listen to classic rock and the Beatles.

This.

A lot of them miss the subtext and the theme of the song. It's crazy (but not really when you think about it) how many songs are about dark elements such as drugs, violence, depression, suicide, sex, etc. and a lot of older folks not really getting the references. They're either blind to it or aren't really paying attention. Like when you listen to a classic rock song at 10 years old, and then after you're through your teenage years you've experienced stuff like that and the song completely changes on you. Can't tell you how many songs did that for me. It's pretty interesting when it clicks in your head like 'whoaaaaaa... this song is about [insert subject here]? Holy shit.'

[Derek™]

It's pretty interesting when it clicks in your head like 'whoaaaaaa... this song is about [insert subject here]? Holy shit.'

Needs way more caps, vulgarity, and exclamation marks.