|
Post by kds on Jul 5, 2019 12:34:21 GMT
So, earlier this week, I heard a story about Weird Al Yankovic's upcoming orchestra backed tour (let that sink in a minute). Apparently, due to the recent HBO documentary on Michael Jackson, Weird Al will not be playing his MJ parodies because he doesn't want to make people feel "uncomfortable."
Of course that reminded me of all of the talk about Jackson's music being dropped from several radio stations, and I think even a streaming service was considering dropping him.
I've said this before, but I think we are losing our ability to separate art from the artists.
If we're going to start banning music by musicians who've done (or have been accused of doing) terrible things, then I think that's a very slippery slope. And you're going to wind up wiping away a lot of 20th Century culture.
Of course, I think this is just another example of how easily offended we've become as a society. It wasn't long ago that Phil Spector went to jail for murder. I don't recall anybody calling for the ban of his productions. The Beach Boys didn't drop Then I Kissed Her from their setlists.
I've been mocked on another Beach Boys forum for my "all about the music" stance, but I think it's important to have some perspective when it comes to these things. Art is created by human beings, and human beings are flawed. If such an artist does something terrible (which can range from true atrocities to supporting a political candidate that one doesn't much care for, depending on one's definition of "terrible"), I believe that you're cutting off your nose to spite your face if you deprive yourself of their art.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 5, 2019 12:53:26 GMT
Oh, it's coming. You can see it coming.
In the Random Thoughts thread yesterday, a few of us were discussing how Hate Groups can target just about anything in history, and twist and turn and shape it any way, ultimately deeming it offensive for reasons that are totally unrelated. Popular music is undoubtedly on some Hate Groups agendas. Nobody - no artists - will be sacred. Look out Phil Spector, Frank Sinatra, Johnny Cash, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc. James Watt was ahead of his time!
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jul 5, 2019 13:14:20 GMT
Oh, it's coming. You can see it coming.
In the Random Thoughts thread yesterday, a few of us were discussing how Hate Groups can target just about anything in history, and twist and turn and shape it any way, ultimately deeming it offensive for reasons that are totally unrelated. Popular music is undoubtedly on some Hate Groups agendas. Nobody - no artists - will be sacred. Look out Phil Spector, Frank Sinatra, Johnny Cash, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc. James Watt was ahead of his time!
It's already happened to Kate Smith. And people just keep digging for reasons to be offended, but no doubt, some dated quote, some off color remark from 50 years ago, etc will deem that artist unlistenable in 2019.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 5, 2019 13:22:45 GMT
Oh, it's coming. You can see it coming.
In the Random Thoughts thread yesterday, a few of us were discussing how Hate Groups can target just about anything in history, and twist and turn and shape it any way, ultimately deeming it offensive for reasons that are totally unrelated. Popular music is undoubtedly on some Hate Groups agendas. Nobody - no artists - will be sacred. Look out Phil Spector, Frank Sinatra, Johnny Cash, Jerry Lee Lewis, etc. James Watt was ahead of his time!
It's already happened to Kate Smith. And people just keep digging for reasons to be offended, but no doubt, some dated quote, some off color remark from 50 years ago, etc will deem that artist unlistenable in 2019. Good one. A perfect example.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 5, 2019 13:23:19 GMT
I'm almost entirely with you, kds, as we've discussed before. Where I might differ a little is, I think there probably is some line to be crossed after which I wouldn't want to listen to or buy someone's work ... I'm just not sure what it is. Would I pay for Hitler's albums, if he had recorded some and they were good? Ehhh, probably not. But Phil Spector is a murderer, Bill Cosby is a rapist, and Normal Mailer was like #MeeToo's worst nightmare; I've paid for their work and would again.
So my only distinction is, I'd probably grant that there's a line after which it's tough to separate art from artist. It's just a line that's quite a ways out there, and it's hard to see from here.
I do think that you're spot-on in that the primary consequence is not on the artist, but rather that the judge cuts off his nose to spite his face.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jul 5, 2019 13:30:37 GMT
I'm almost entirely with you, kds, as we've discussed before. Where I might differ a little is, I think there probably is some line to be crossed after which I wouldn't want to listen to or buy someone's work ... I'm just not sure what it is. Would I pay for Hitler's albums, if he had recorded some and they were good? Ehhh, probably not. But Phil Spector is a murderer, Bill Cosby is a rapist, and Normal Mailer was like #MeeToo's worst nightmare; I've paid for their work and would again.
So my only distinction is, I'd probably grant that there's a line after which it's tough to separate art from artist. It's just a line that's quite a ways out there, and it's hard to see from here.
I do think that you're spot-on in that the primary consequence is not on the artist, but rather that the judge cuts off his nose to spite his face.
I think it's one thing to make a personal choice to not listen to an artist, but it's another to want that artist's work removed from the culture. Personally, I've yet to make such a decision. I still listen to Spector productions. I still think Bill Cosby Himself is one of the best recorded documents of stand up comedy in history.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 5, 2019 13:33:43 GMT
Funny you just wrote that, because I was just about to amend my post and say something to differentiate the personal decision v. the external pressure on others (or decision made for others altogether). My thoughts exactly. And I think we have to be better as a society of letting people reach different conclusions than we reach.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jul 5, 2019 13:37:06 GMT
Funny you just wrote that, because I was just about to amend my post and say something to differentiate the personal decision v. the external pressure on others (or decision made for others altogether). My thoughts exactly. And I think we have to be better as a society of letting people reach different conclusions than we reach. I couldn't agree more. I also find it a bit odd that as a society, we're supposedly more "tolerant," but far less forgiving. I'm not saying that the deeds of Spector and Jackson are forgivable, but it's far too easy for somebody to be stripped of their livelihood these days over a comment, Tweet, etc. But, that's another ball of wax.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 5, 2019 14:27:56 GMT
Funny you just wrote that, because I was just about to amend my post and say something to differentiate the personal decision v. the external pressure on others (or decision made for others altogether). My thoughts exactly. And I think we have to be better as a society of letting people reach different conclusions than we reach. I couldn't agree more. I also find it a bit odd that as a society, we're supposedly more "tolerant," but far less forgiving. I'm not saying that the deeds of Spector and Jackson are forgivable, but it's far too easy for somebody to be stripped of their livelihood these days over a comment, Tweet, etc. But, that's another ball of wax. This is so true. And it's scary, because (like it or not) standards change over time, and today's "woke" becomes tomorrow's shame, just as yesterday's enlightened is today's shame. We see modern progressives disowning Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and even the philosophy of (if not yet the name of) Martin Luther King Jr.
Forgiveness, or at least a little breathing room, is a good thing. And a person is no less virtuous for showing it.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jul 5, 2019 16:18:05 GMT
I couldn't agree more. I also find it a bit odd that as a society, we're supposedly more "tolerant," but far less forgiving. I'm not saying that the deeds of Spector and Jackson are forgivable, but it's far too easy for somebody to be stripped of their livelihood these days over a comment, Tweet, etc. But, that's another ball of wax. This is so true. And it's scary, because (like it or not) standards change over time, and today's "woke" becomes tomorrow's shame, just as yesterday's enlightened is today's shame. We see modern progressives disowning Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and even the philosophy of (if not yet the name of) Martin Luther King Jr.
Forgiveness, or at least a little breathing room, is a good thing. And a person is no less virtuous for showing it.
I think the new "woke" people are taking the wrong approach when it comes to history and culture. If something, say the crows in the original Dumbo for example, doesn't really jibe with today's standard, then I think that should be used as a teaching moment, rather than wiped away (ahem, Disney streaming service).
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 5, 2019 16:48:19 GMT
100% agreed. Some historical precedents that probably matter more to big-picture humanity than movies: in the past 20 years, the Taliban and ISIS have destroyed ancient artifacts across Afghanistan and the Levant because those artifacts promoted or represented content their version of Islam disapproves of; in the first few centuries AD, Christians destroyed earlier versions of, in some cases, the very same properties (e.g. Palmyra in what is now Syria) for the same reasons.
Now we cringe that they (or back then, we) destroyed such invaluable cultural artifacts just because they weren't in line with the majority (or in-power) religion or culture. Now we realize those things should be preserved regardless of their particular religious overtones or intentions.
Yet even as we cringe that Palmyra crumbles further, we intentionally and nastily crumble our own recent history for the same reasons, more or less...
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jul 5, 2019 17:38:30 GMT
100% agreed. Some historical precedents that probably matter more to big-picture humanity than movies: in the past 20 years, the Taliban and ISIS have destroyed ancient artifacts across Afghanistan and the Levant because those artifacts promoted or represented content their version of Islam disapproves of; in the first few centuries AD, Christians destroyed earlier versions of, in some cases, the very same properties (e.g. Palmyra in what is now Syria) for the same reasons.
Now we cringe that they (or back then, we) destroyed such invaluable cultural artifacts just because they weren't in line with the majority (or in-power) religion or culture. Now we realize those things should be preserved regardless of their particular religious overtones or intentions.
Yet even as we cringe that Palmyra crumbles further, we intentionally and nastily crumble our own recent history for the same reasons, more or less...
And so much modern music is already so sanitized, I cringe at the thought of the stuff from the past being wiped out or altered to be more palatable for the perpetually offended. Granted, I doubt it'll ever get to that point. But, stuff like removing Michael Jackson from playlists is how that kind of thing gets started.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 9, 2021 14:42:22 GMT
Reviving a long-dormant thread (from the much-missed series by KDS!) because of a story in today's Star Tribune about #MeToo and its impact on the Minnesota music scene. A few paragraphs from that story read: This is difficult because obviously I don't condone bad, aggressive, or even more obviously, criminal behavior by anyone toward anyone.
But look at what that says. "At least a dozen" local musicians' careers have been seriously, negatively impacted by allegations that may not even have been examined in depth, much less litigated. The most prominent local radio station for local musicians blacklists artists based on allegations, even if they are anonymous and potentially unfounded.
And the Rhymesayers label is willing to cut business ties with artists because they no longer will separate music from "potential behavior." Potential behavior. Again, these aren't convicted or proven allegations, theses are allegations. Everyone on earth who has minimal physical capabilities is a rapist based on potential behavior: certainly they ought not all be fired or banned.
Labels can do what they want. Radio stations can do what they want. But I think, much like the Obama administration-era "guidance" on sexual assaults at universities, there is such a thing as going too far, and going too far is barely, if at all, better than not going far enough. It's just a matter of who is harmed.
I would not say that these decisions must always be made based on the judicial system. But I do think just taking someone's word for something--anything of consequence, in fact--is a serious mistake and sets up a system prone for abuse.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 9, 2021 14:47:13 GMT
It's funny you mentioned that, but I've surprisingly been struggling to come up a new Music Gripe of the Week or Get Off My Lawn rant.
|
|