"Here's an example: If found out that my neighbor was a child molester, I would completely despise him, but since Michael Jackson is so talented I will still listen and enjoy his music regardless of his conduct....Would that be ok to do? "
Regardless of his alleged conduct you mean. . .

I thought you were talking about how original their lyrics and songs are VS getting handed pieces of paper and being told to make a song out of it. Sadly, it is what happens, when human beings start seeing dollar signs.

I wouldn't pay money for music by a solo artist or maybe a frontman whom I consider an awful person or go to his or her concerts, even if I liked some of the music. For example, Madonna. If I found out an artist I like is a bad person, hmm, unless it were extreme criminality or something,that probably wouldn't change my mind. Case in point: Bryan Adams turns out to be dubious in his personal life. Neal Schon apparently is a total jerk, but as he does very little publicly and mostly stays in the background with Journey, the band is still fair game for my support.

Bad example. You're despising your neighbor, not the music he makes. I see no problem with separating the artist from the art. Maybe I'm just a bit selfish, but I'm not gonna quit listening to Burzum just because Varg Vikerness is murdering neo-nazi. Sure, he's a scumbag, but Filosofem and Det Som Engang Var are just too awesome for me to give up.

What are the sources for the lead singer of Journey being mean - I really like him and their band. Some musicians just aren't built for fame psychologically and that clashes with what they're doing.

I heard that Steve Perry is a pretty nice guy though?

Ah, Burning Down, maybe I read wrong. :)

If I knew that an artist whose music i loved was directly and intentionally harming other people, I could not continue to financially support their art. However I may continue to listen to their work (depends on the severity of the crime and my own intuition about the situation), and if nothing else try and see what/when did they go off the rocker. And were they expressing these potentials all along in their music....


Neo Rock is more than a genre; it's music with a message for the masses.

You did. Though Neal Schon is the founder of Journey he's the lead guitarist.
And "being mean" is hardly applicable: I mean, Van Morrison is a grumpy old **** but you can't put him in with Varg or Gary Glitter. The OP is not talking about people being not nice, he's talking about them being involved in or belonging to organisations or espousing ideas seen as inherently racist, hating or the like: your neo-Nazis, KKK and the like, or someone who's convicted or, I guess, accused of a pretty heinous crime like paedophilia.

None of us are perfect (except me, of course!) :) and to expect the musicians we admire to be so is silly. Everyone will have their flaws but it's when it gets to serious levels I believe the OP is posing the question for.

Neal Schon is an adulterer and a douche. Hes a hell of a guitarist in the pop vein but a total loser in life.

As I said, no-one's perfect. Jerry Lee Lewis was a bloody borderline paedo, for god's sake! But nobody refuses to listen to his music. Glitter, on the other hand...

People can do things you deplore, disagree with, think are shameful but again --- not meaning to speak for the OP here but I think this is what is meant --- we're talking about serious crimes and racist-style views; perhaps not even views, as everyone's entitled to theirs. More an overt display of such, like, I dont know, flying swastikas at their gigs or simulating child porn on stage (I'm reaching here: I don't support/know of any artistes who do anything like this)...