The separation between the artist and his music.
 

Here’s my question for you guys…suppose that you really like an artist, you like his songs, you bought all his albums, and you listen to his music every day and so on….
Then you discover that this person who you admire so much has extreme views regarding race or politics (he's a racist) or that he will be convicted for a serious crime like rape or murder.
What would you do?
Would you keep on enjoying his music even if you knew that he is “bad person", thus separating his music from his behavior.
But wouldn’t this be like accepting a double standard?
Do artists deserve a special treatment?
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?

Bad example, what if Michael Jackson WAS your neighbor would you be okay with that?

There are so many double standards and hypocrites in life that I don't think you should stress over liking a person's music but hating them as a person and their lifestyle choices.

They get their job done and that's entertaining you so go ahead and appreciate it but you don't have to care about how they spend their everyday life.

I understand your point view,luckily enough I'm not a big fan of M.J. so I don't have to make that decision!

I disagree entirely (and we had this conversation already in another thread): if I knew someone whose music I enjoyed was a racist/murderer/paedo I could not enoy their music any longer, or at least not as much as I had. F'r instance, though no big Gary Glitter fan, I wouldn't listen to his music now if you paid me.

I think it's difficult to separate the artist from their views, if they're extreme. Batlord and HHBH will tell you differently, and everyone's entitled to their view of course, but I would not be comfortable listening to --- and enriching -- someone who practiced something I was against, in a very extreme way, such as the ones mentioned above.

I felt this way for a long time about Richard Wagner. Wagner was a German nationalist, very anti-Semitic and generally a white supremacist. He was Hitler's favourite composer of all time because he promoted the same ideals about attaining the pure German society, and Hitler made Wagner the official music of Germany and the Nazi Party. For many years, his music was banned in Israel.

Now I'm just ambivalent about all of that because he does have some really great compositions.

There was an episode of Curb your Enthusiasm that dealt with Wagner:

Curb Your Enthusiasm Wagner - YouTube

I dunno, isn't this similar to the battle between subjectivity and objectivity? If music is good it is good, you could be completely ignorant to the artist and who they are, and you hear their music and it gives you pleasure, that is all that matters when you hear the music, and all that matters music-wise.

I'm actually rather grateful that I dislike Wagner's music to start with, so I don't feel unjust in calling him a blemish on the history of music lol.

But at the same time...well, ya know I don't think Charles Manson's music is horrible. Some of what I've heard has some really neat vocal textures and guitar rhythms. Still, I don't own an album or have his music on my computer because, well, he's Charles ****ing Manson and I can only imagine the social backlash I'd get if someone found out.

If Wagner was alive today, I'm pretty sure he'd be a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

I'm not too sure about that,in the early 19th century racism,antisemitism and colonialism were widely respected beliefs even within the economic and cultural elite. Nowadays it is the contrary,I'm pretty sure that Wagner would feel very uncomfortable to be associated with "the poor and stupid" that attend most white supremacy movements.

"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)...

Yes,you got my point more or less,for example I have mixed feelings for Jimmy Page,he looks like a cool humble guy and I love Led Zeppelin...but him having sex with a 14 year old when he was almost 30 is quite disturbing.

Okay, maybe I didn't respond according to the purpose of the thread, but to me, adultery can be as bad as racism. Adultery technically is criminal in many places, and only in special cases is racism by itself highly criminal. It wouldn't bother if an artist I like turned out to privately hold racist views and isn't trying to spread them. Granted, none of the artists I like (sonically) is apt to be against people of my kind. By the way, Sarah Silverman claimed that Steve Perry told her a racist joke. Adultery in general disgusts me.

Seriously? You would rate adultery worse than racism? Strange view, to me. Other than the other half of the relationship (maybe two out of three) and any children if there are any, adultery hurts nobody. It's still wrong, but criminal? Unless you're talking about Sharia law, I don't see where adultery is a crime anywhere. Racism isn't either to be fair, but racism can lead to hate crime, and certainly hurts far more people than adultery does, or can.

Not that adultery isn't bad, but I'd definitely think it's on a lower level of scumbaggery than racism is.

Adultery is technically still a crime in much of the United States. Enforcement still happens sometimes when it involves the military. Apparently adultery is at least technically criminal in most non-European nations. And decades ago the law was enforced almost everywhere because adultery is really bad, because it hurts individuals and society much more than people today realize - hint: the mental illness epidemic. Also, most people underestimate how common adultery is. (Do you know what your partner is doing right now?) Racism today, on the other hand, probably is harmless as practiced by most individuals (mainly thoughts they keep to themselves and their close associates). We're talking bad individuals, remember. This is way off-topic, so maybe it should end here.

Yeah, racism is "harmless". :rolleyes:

No, I'm sorry but we can't leave it there. as you have this completely arse-about-face.

Leaving aside the criminality of adultery, you've ignored my point that the most people it hits is the number of people in the family/unit, probably a max of six maybe, certainly single figures in most cases. And it STOPS there. Racism, on the other hand, is insidious and spreads like a virus, can effect thousands if not millions of people, and leads to things like ethnic cleansing and wars: you have heard of a guy called Hitler, I assume? :rolleyes:

I would certainly have less problem buying music from someone known to be an adulterer/ess than a racist. The first may be bad but it's a human failing and in any case there can be mitigating factors, such as a loveless or abusive relationship, whereas racism is just hate for hate's sake and far too pervasive to be as easily dismissed as you are trying to do.

So is smoking marijuana. Who cares? So, are you in some kinda cult or something?

To the original post, I would probably think about it every once in awhile while listening to their music, but I would still listen to the music. It may be a double-standard, but everyone makes them and life is full of them.

I don't let an artist's actions or views affect how I see their music. If it's good, I'll listen to it. If I found out that Captain Beefheart had been a pedophile and had victims in the thousands, he would still be my favourite artist, even though I wouldn't dare appreciate him as a person.

I wouldn't say that it's a double standard, either. Someone's work shouldn't be discredited because of their actions outside of their job.

I agree with this. I feel like art exists mostly apart from the artist, though I will admit the worse of a person they are the harder it tends to become for me to enjoy the music on its own terms. Also, while I may enjoy the art apart from the artist, if they're a really horrible person there's no way I'm going to let a single penny of my money find its way into their bank account.

Adultery sends shock waves outside the family unit, regardless of what the common opinion is. Especially if it's from enough public figures that it becomes normative ("Everybody's doing it, so why can't we?") and undermines relationships. Artists as role models, you know. (That's my main gripe with Madonna, not adultery per se, but oversexualization and self-worship.)

Yes, racism can easily cast a wide net. However, private racism (Steve Perry supposedly) sometimes hurts no one, which almost never can be said about adultery. And racism is no less human than adultery.

I agree, and have agreed, that both are bad, and yes surely adultery can affect those outside the immediate family circle but again I have to reiterate it stops there. Adultery does not go on to hurt a wide swathe of people unconnected to the perpetrator and is generally confined to within the environs of those to whom it matters and whom it affects. Racism --- let's say overt racism, because after all if someone "keeps their racism to themselves" then you really don't know that they are racist, and the whole idea of this thread is the notion that you're supposed to KNOW the artist is racist or whatever --- does. It's insidious, it's contagious and it can affect people in terrible ways.

It can also be taught and perpetuated down the generations. Someone with a racist father (or mother) is likely to grow up racist themselves and teach their children bigotry too, whereas generally, an adulterer is unlikely to encourage his or her kids to cheat on their spouses. They may take that as an example, but they may just as easily use it as a way NOT to live their lives, especially if it's hurt theirs. Racism can become a way of life, a creed even, and mostly adultery is a mistake (usually though not always regretted) and something nobody would really intend to pass on to their kids.

There's no such thing as "private racism". If you're racist it's going to affect how you treat other people.

Again, are you in some kinda fundamentalist religion? Cause if so then I would rather take my leave of this discussion, since we'd be coming from two incompatible places.

I'm not religious and have never been strongly connected to a faith.

I agree that racism often is insidious and passed down through the generations. However, if Steve Perry is the ultimate private racist, childless and non-discriminatory in his interactions with non-white people (e.g., Randy Jackson), then should anyone care?

Back to the OP: nope, the artist's personal life doesn't affect my liking their music and wouldn't prevent me from listening to it.

I do have to say, however, that I was poking around in the Megan's Law database (for registered sex offenders) and was pretty surprised to see a famous rock musician listed in there—AND doubly surprised to see he lived relatively close to me! Due to the agreement with using that database, I won't mention his name, but some of the songs he's recorded are some of my favorites and that didn't change on knowing his record.

Does it give any details about his offense? A man in his early 20's having sex with a mature-looking 17-year-old girl is very different from a 40-something man groping a 6th-grader.

You have asked a very hard question... It depends on how serious the crime is... I have absolutely no tolerance for child molesters. If my favorite musician was a child molester, I would freak out. I would stop supporting this musician.

But if I found out that my favorite musician didn't pay his/her taxes, I wouldn't be shocked. I would still listen to this musician and I would still attend his/her concerts. (I understand that this is very subjective. This is not an objective science. Who's right and who's wrong? It's very hard to answer that question. I'm just giving you an opinion.)

I was thinking about this, and I realized I want to believe the singer (of any song I much like lyrically) is coming from a similar place to me emotionally. If he or she turns out to be someone of poor character (which, for example, adultery almost always signals), that undermines the song's meaning to me. As in womanizing John Mayer churning out sentimental music because it will sell.

I really don't see any issue with liking an artist for their music alone at all. I also don't see it remotely as being a double-standard.

As far as the person in question turning out to be a rapist/murderer/child-molestor/horrible-er...did their music ever rape, murder, molest, or horrible anyone?

I personally separate myself from my work, and the two things are not at all one in the same. You can appreciate the good someone's done without focusing on the bad, just as you can appreciate anything aesthetically pleasing to you without acknowledging any flaws in the creator. If something moves you, you shouldn't be made to feel guilty or hypocritical because of this. If you take the moral "high ground" because of disagreements with the person who has created something you enjoy, then you're just missing out, plain and simple.

Sure, they shouldn't have done whatever the **** they've done, but that's their prerogative and something that can be dealt with by appropriate laws and regulations. Don't treat the musician or artist themselves any different than you would in general, e.g. don't try to become a murderer's bestie because you dig that track he laid down, but still appreciate the art.

I'm not God or Allah or whoever, and I'm not the police, so it's not my place to punish the person. I might not go out of my way to attend any concerts, certainly would not attend a meet and greet, but if I like the music, I like the painting, I like the book...that's all that matters to me.