Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloysius
We just don't know what the artists we like have done without anyone knowing. This alone makes the stand of not listening to music from morally reprehensible individuals untenable imo. Bach seems like he was an ok dude but who knows? Did he go out on the weekend killing for kicks and never got caught? We can boycott an artist who got convicted of rape, but we may unwittingly be listening to someone else who has done worse, and gotten away with it.
|
Of course, but we're talking, at least in my eyes, about people whom we KNOW have done something really bad. I mean, nobody's a saint (except me)
so in the world of music everyone is probably likely to have done something wrong. As I say, much of it depends on whether it's historical or not. If I found out, say, Springsteen did something reprehensible when he was 17, would I still listen to his music? More than likely yes, as I've been listening to it for a hell of a long time. If he did something really bad today, would I change? Probably not. On the other hand, it does also depend, for me, on how invested I am with the artist. Take someone I've just got into - I don't know, say maybe The Black Ryder. If I heard one of them had done something really terrible, perhaps I might stop listening to them. Perhaps not. It also depends for me on the level of the bb as it were.
I think the chances are that in 99% of cases it wouldn't stop me listening to their music. The 1% comes when you run into a walking pile of human refuse such as Watkins.