Batty chose the worst song possible to represent them, I know. I think this might become an even bigger thing pretty soon seeing as just how important they were to those people, it's really heartbreaking in that regard and for the victims.

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.

Really? I could've sworn you were repping them along with bulb on plug

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.

newp. musta been some other cool fella.

I generally keep them entirely separate because even the ****tiest people have moments of non-****tiness, and I imagine that music can be made in between bouts of piece of ****-being. I view it in the same way I would a scientist who developed some sort of groundbreaking theory then turned out to be a rapist or something. I view their work being its own separate entity, unaffected by the lifestyle choices of the person that made it.

There are some cases that I can't separate the artist from their art because it so much a part of them though. One example of this is John Duncan's Blind Date, which is the audio of Duncan having sex with a corpse before getting a vascectomy. I'm not particularly offended by Duncan's piece, there's just no clear way for me to separate the artist from the art in that scenario.

Did the corpse consent?
Nah, that kind of music's dead, man! :)