I’ve been having this discussion ever since the Michael Jackson documentary done by the two victims. I just can’t listen to him without thinking of the things he was accused of.
I think I’m of the mindset that there’s certain things I can look past and others I can’t.
You cheat on your spouse-not nice but legal.
You rape women or hurt children-you’re dead to me.
I’m a Gen X girl who danced a lot to Marilyn Manson and loved his music-but after everything came out I simply can’t hear his voice. Especially when his music represents what he is accused of-he basically told us what he was capable of when we thought he was just being edgy to shock.
I love that you brought this up. I have found this so troubling at times. Your article is terrific. I will restack and save. This is the kind of discussion that makes me love Substack.
it's interesting, isn't it? i'm VERY much against "cancel culture." even setting aside the epidemic of misinformation, i think it's anathema to the idea that humans are, you know, human. fallible and capable of both terrific harms and terrific good. we must allow grace and apology and repair. but at the same time we all have our own limits and don't really owe anyone anything, least of all strangers, and what we do with the information we learn is our own business (short of turning around and doing harm to others, i suppose). all that to say... you're valid for this. and you also don't need to necessarily do anything now that you know about prince, either. this shit ain't easy.
I'm squarely in the "artist isn't art" category, and even that's nuanced. Were Michael Jackson still alive, I wouldn't pick up any of his records, nor feature/review them. His actions were abhorrent. But that doesn't mean Thriller is any less of a record that brought incredible joy to millions. Both can be true w/o being intellectually dishonest. I associate R. Kelly's "She's Got That Vibe" with a very narrow time/place in my life. That doesn't mean he ever deserves to see sunlight again (he doesn't).
Everyone's redline will be different, and that's fine too.
Also: Nourished By Time's The Passionate Ones is a great pick, and I hope a lot of people see that and check it out!
Thanks for coming up with that scale, Gabbie. I think it's really helpful in terms of helping the music consumer to see where they fall and maybe exploring why.
As someone who reads a lot of rock biographies and autobiographies, I've found that you'd have to throw out just about every artist for one form of bad behavior or another. Having sex with minors is a common theme to the present day, as is drug and alcohol abuse and the impact of that on people around the artist. A lot of musicians (and actors), given that they're on the road for long periods of time, have been neglectful parents whose kids are messed up as a result. That characterizes both male and female artists.
People also forget about era and context. Successful artists (and powerful people) are not living in the same world as the rest of us in terms of what's considered moral and ethical. And what they have on offer in terms of temptations and 'rewards' can be absolutely mind-boggling. Witness the huge number of artists caught up in the Epstein and P. Diddy scandals, as well as the many who patronized the Playboy mansions. The history of Hollywood, a center for film and music, is quite a sordid one in terms of abuse, rape, murder, you name it. Should we stop watching Hollywood films?
I do agree with another commenter (echoing you) who has identified her own persomal hard line. I think that's what we each have to do as we all have own personal moral and ethical code. But it does beg the question of whether there are some things that should be considered completely beyond the pale. I'm just not sure that we would ever reach agreement on that.
this is very well stated and reasoned, thank you for the thoughtful response.
have you come across the increasingly popular notion that era/context is not an excuse? I find that gaining traction with Gen Z and younger and I'm trying very hard to square with it but it's quite hard for me. It's what makes people less culturally literate, in my view (the most famous recent example is people refusing to read Nabokov because they find Lolita abhorrent, but that also extends out to other tangentially related criticisms, so maybe not the greatest point for me to raise!)
Regardless, I do agree that this isn't something we can ever hope for consensus on.
My generation found the Lolita story repulsive too, but we were required to read and discuss it. We identified the bad behavior with the older generation. If only we'd known what rock stars were up to!!!
What I would say as a psychologist is that people at that stage in life-- where Gen Z is now-- tend to have black and white views no matter the era. Teens and young adults in the 60s when I was growing up were very judgmental and rejecting of the older generation and its values. We called them 'squares' and 'drags' and 'The Establishment,' and they were just not 'cool' or right like we were. I remember being annoyingly opinionated at that age. Now we boomers are the bad guys -- ha!
So I expect once the Gen Z-ers have some more experience with life, they'll start to come up against all the shades of gray and get into situations where they become the bad guys and have to justify themselves (because we're all human!).
In the meantime, we'll just have to have fun challenging their thinking and scrambling their brains (like you have in this post!).
I hope you're right! It's not that we (elder millennial here) didn't find Lolita repulsive but I don't remember anyone having a problem separating the story from the author or feeling outraged by the hero to the point of refusing to read it. Deplorable characters don't speak for their creators. But yeah of course we thought our parents were cringy! Teenagers are teenagers and are always right no matter what 🤷🏻♀️
It's interesting too, that modern tv/movies/etc. are so often centered around main characters that behave terribly, or the whole thing is just rich people behaving badly...(think Succession, All Her Fault, The Studio). Point being, that the generation isn't against bad behavior per se when it's for their own enjoyment.
While they might be quick to judge (as we were at that age), I think they pick and choose based on whether the medium speaks to them. Hell, Kanye still has 69M monthly listeners on Spotify. Lolita doesn't have the connection with them to cause ambivalence.
So, I guess I'm saying I agree with you that youth brings absolutes in way that older, wiser humans have mostly grown out of. In addition, it think bad behavior in general is a source of entertainment, as a feature not a bug. Plus, the absolutes are a lot easier to throw at sexually abusive white men (for them), than say, holding antisemitic behavior accountable in this time when the Israeli government's behavior is worse in their eyes.
oh this is a very interesting point (all of it, but re: fashions changing over time over what's deemed acceptably bad). the tolerance for antisemitism certainly is much higher these days because the whataboutism is so strong. certainly not the only thing that goes in and out of vogue, but a great example, and of course it says a lot about our culture that these things "trend" at all. oof! lots to think about here.
Good points! I think people get up in arms about things that threaten their own identity or belief system, whereas they are able to keep a sense of distance and maintain interest or humor in something that isn't personally threatening or offensive. (I used to get so up in arms about sexism, but now I make fun of it and lampoon it in my fiction.)
Someone pointed out to me that Americans love shows that skewer the rich, whereas the Brits love shows that enshrine that lifestyle (like Downton Abbey, a highly entertaining and over-the-top advertisement for the landed gentry if ever there was one). We're old enough to see that these things reflect values that are being fed to the viewers, whereas the kids may not see the cultural programming and buy right into it.
White guys seem to have been a target for a while now. In my experience, it's not just sexually abusive ones, as young people were accusing white males of micro-aggressions in my last workplace. Several senior males with valuable experience lost their jobs for behavior that had occurred much earlier and on the basis of claims without any evidence as far as I could see. I think the institution saw it as a way to get rid of senior males more cheaply and appear to take DEI seriously so they took advantage of it. But the salary disparities favoring males continued!
someone in the Discord pointed out there's a more extreme approach that should have been on the scale - #0: hatred/active campaigning against the artist
Financial disengagement. I think this conversation stems from a music worldview of streaming and social media. All my music is offline on my personal NAS and I don't have social media. Using Kanye as the easy reference point, I am not buying concerts or albums, but there's no logical reason I would need to delete MBDTF -mp3s I have had for like twenty years- off my hard drive.
The endless consumption model of the algorithm and the endless scroll create a feeling (or reality) of many/endless micro decisions. When you opt out of all of that, it becomes much more simple. Do I buy the new Kanye West album or not? No? OK then let's move on.
honestly the new music angle is a great addition to this particular stance, too. when there's finite money to go around and (practically speaking) infinite new talent in search of financial support, why not spend your hard earned $$ on some new talent instead? Kanye got his, anyway.
There is definitely a more social aspect to all of this beyond the spectrum above (great analysis btw, Gabby!).
I think for many, there is the feeling that listening to the controversial artist conveys *to others* that you support their actions - whether or not there’s anyone keeping tabs on what you’re listening to.
This goes beyond cancel culture and is a part of the wider (and scarier, I’d argue) issue of the sense of being watched at all times.
This surveillance, either online and irl, comes in many forms: top down by institutions such as the government and corporations (both literally and as “training the algorithm”) as well as laterally by society, both friends and the general populace (re: cancel culture).
This can lead to self censorship and begs other interesting questions about is appropriate in these situations. As Kyle said above, if there’s a pirated mp3 that’s been on their hard drive for 20 years why wouldn’t they continue to enjoy it? For some, I’d argue it’s because of what listening to said mp3 conveys to the world about their identity and morals. Is that valid, or should we resist that nagging feeling of being watched all the time (if that’s even possible)? Not sure at this point, I’m still grappling with it.
My response to the question of the article is for the most part to try and avoid learning about the personal lives of my musical heroes, it’s bound to disappoint. If they’re out there supporting the fascist thugs or advocating harming others, that is a different story and will definitely sour me on their music. Thanks for the interesting read!
this conversation is so huge that I had to rewrite this piece a few times in order to stop myself from making it a massive and potentially quite alienating treatise when really the point was ultimately just to throw out some hypotheticals for brain fodder and then recommend some music. it's such a beast of a topic!
This is superb - going to use this with my Human Flourishing class 2nd semester, if you're OK with it. Starting the course (HS, 2nd semester seniors) built with a very self-reflective, music immersive class or two, inside and outside the classroom. Your look here offers some meaningful steps into discussions I've wanted to have about art, commerce, community, and daily life. TY!
go nuts! it's a community-informed assessment, so while i'm tempted to ask you to give me credit, ultimately i'm indebted to all my readers for the enormous insight into the issue and for allowing me the opportunity to synthesize the information
How about this - most of the Human Flourishing class is about listening and speaking first and second, then reading, last writing. Intentionally flipped.
If this appeals to you, would you be willing to talk to one of my classes via Meet or Zoom, about running this Substack and your life and connection to music? You'd be a great voice mixed in with everyone else - there's a bit more about this class on pg 6 of the PDF attached. It's been a fun ride and I'm happy to keep centering music in the middle of it! https://grable.org/publications/both-and/
I’ve been trying to work out where I fit on the scale and realised that, subconsciously, I’ve been weighing this up on a case by case basis for years.
It’s almost like there’s a formula in my head where an artist’s transgressions will make me listen to them less, but how much less depends on the severity of those transgressions and how much I liked their music in the first place.
For example, I listen to The Smiths and Michael Jackson less than I used to because they’ve been somewhat tainted, but they still both made god-tier music that’s important to me so I’m not cutting them out forever. The only person who suffers from me doing that would be me.
And I don’t listen to Ryan Adams or Chris Brown at all but that’s not exactly difficult for me. I’ve liked some of their work but I don’t feel I’m missing out.
It’s heartening this is being debated without people tying themselves in knots to justify the crimes of their favourite artists. Years ago, there was a guerilla campaign where people were putting ‘This artist beats women’ stickers on the albums of known abusers. Everyone seemed to agree this was good until it was done to John Lennon records, then a certain segment of people didn’t think it was good any more.
I’m interested in the (hypothetical?) situation of what would happen if we knew an artist was terrible when they launched. Like, on Day 1 someone comes out of prison for an unspeakable crime and immediately drops the best debut you’ve ever heard. What do you do then?
These are all such good points. I forgot about that guerilla campaign but you're totally right -- people just go as far as what's convenient for them, don't they? And I think if we're all honest with ourselves, the hierarchical judgment approach is what we're all doing to some extent naturally, whether we want to admit it or not. It's the most internally logical.
Your hypothetical fascinates me and I frankly think that, depressing as it is, this would just make the album more popular. We love to rubberneck. We love serial killers. An album like that would go platinum.
I don’t want to “rank” crimes but a serial killer’s album would probably go platinum (people love true crime) but it might not be the same for other crimes. Then there’s the crimes people might actively celebrate. Would someone sell more if we knew they’d been embezzling multi-national corporations?!
I'm very much about situational context as far as these types of things.
Miles Davis was an abusive sonofabitch, and he's also dead, and he was a Mt Rushmore level transformational figure in music. I don't lose any sleep still listening to him.
OTOH I was never a huge Kanye fan anyway and I don't lose any sleep ignoring him now.
I guess I'm mostly in the Hierarchical Judgment camp - I tend not to listen to Red House Painters because Mark Kozelek is a full on creeper (though I keep the CDs in my collection), but I will listen to The Stone Roses as Ian Brown's pivot right is some how less bad. Though, for all of it, Financial Disengagement is essential. Haven't bought anything from those guys since the early 00's (or pretty much anyone that I've seen named in the articles and comments).
Separation for me. I gave up on idolizing artists long ago and I think that's key. I cannot relate to Morrissey like I did 35 years ago, but I still relate to the songs that saved my life and I'm older now and I'm a clever swine but they were the only ones who ever stood by me, you know what I mean. Don't be a fan of the people making music you love, be a fan of the music you love. But it's hard when you're young because you feel this connection can only be on all levels, that you would share the same world view and morals because they speak to your soul.
So I have no problems in theory listening to music made by people I don't like or who I have made bad things.
In a way I think it's a proof of the power of music, that it can make me connect, with sounds and lyrics, profoundly to people I would totally despise if I knew them in real life.
We may be moral or political enemies but we have this common ground and humanity that we share, no matter what. If Morrissey made a brilliant and powerful new record (that won't happen), I'd be able to appreciate it although the man disgusts me. Sorry it's this long and for the non native language.
your english is perfect. and the point you make is poignant. thank you for taking the time to add your thoughts -- i completely agree about the power of music bringing us together even when otherwise we might hate each other.
i rly wish i could be in the drug church camp of just like eh, move on, but it's hard! i have taken quite a few ppl off my ipod cause it's just not the same for me, but i think ppl who judge ppl for still liking some of that stuff sux, like it's okay to like the smiths, but also i feel like it's kind of a thing to be a fan of someone for the awful stuff they've done and not for the stuff they've made and that's like a whole other thing i can't comprehend.
The British Library have been releasing anthologies of weird fiction based around a variety of themes. (The one that I currently have resting in my reading pile concerns manifestations of the god, Pan.) Many of the stories included were originally published during the first half of the twentieth century and some even before then. I enjoy these collections. What I do not enjoy is the page-long disclaimer that seeks to warn readers of the outdated attitudes in these works of fiction, and to inform them of what total bastards some of the writers were. This is also, I suspect, an attempt to absolve the editors of any guilt by association. It is unnecessary and infantilises everyone concerned (see also the re-edits of Roald Dahl’s children's books). So far I have been able to read these collections without transforming into a raging bigot, or becoming so offended that I topple theatrically backwards onto the nearest available fainting couch.
Over December, I read the second of the Library’s anthologies of Christmas ghost stories which includes a tale by H.P. Lovecraft, titled The Festival. The editor of the collection mentions Lovecraft’s racism in her preamble. While this is factual, it is hardly relevant to the story. I have a disquieting theory regarding Lovecraft’s racism, his xenophobia, his fear of the other, or however people wish to frame it: It is distilled in his writing and it is what gives many of his tales their unsettling quality where even the familiar habours an air of undefinable menace. Go back in time and strike these negative traits from the man and the potency of his fiction dies with them.
Turning now to music, many of the artists with whom I feel a kinship are troublesome individuals who realistically could not have succeeded in any other sphere. Contrast this parade of fuck-ups and malcontents with the likes of Bono, who I suspect, no matter would road he took in life, would have ended up singing from the USAID hymnbook, or David Bowie or Mick Jagger who are charismatic individuals who would have succeeded in whatever career they settled into. You cannot say the same of Jeffrey Lee Pierce or Mark Lanegan, who by his own admission was, for much of his life, a drug dealer with a record contract. Mark E Smith of The Fall, or Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart) were occasionally abusive and pushed their band members to extremes. These people are true outsiders, unpolished and uncompromising. They couldn't be anything other than what they were. The idiosyncratic and influential music that they produced, both directly and indirectly, is a distillation of their cantankerous and sometimes violent nature. You can’t have the latter without the former because one informs the other. Some people might have a hard time reconciling that, but it’s true.
this is very interesting but it makes me wonder. i think that it's not always true that it's irrelevant to the writing at all. I'm using this example because I'm personally impacted by it, not because it's more prevalent or important than others, but it's relevant to know that so many others use troll/witch/goblin tropes in their writing specifically to spread antisemitic rhetoric. I don't find it useless to learn the historical context around that, nor does it prevent me from reading or enjoying it as offensive as it might be. whatever these prefaces may intend to accomplish, I don't think that the information they provide are irrelevant to the story. on the contrary.
I’ve been having this discussion ever since the Michael Jackson documentary done by the two victims. I just can’t listen to him without thinking of the things he was accused of.
I think I’m of the mindset that there’s certain things I can look past and others I can’t.
You cheat on your spouse-not nice but legal.
You rape women or hurt children-you’re dead to me.
I’m a Gen X girl who danced a lot to Marilyn Manson and loved his music-but after everything came out I simply can’t hear his voice. Especially when his music represents what he is accused of-he basically told us what he was capable of when we thought he was just being edgy to shock.
I love that you brought this up. I have found this so troubling at times. Your article is terrific. I will restack and save. This is the kind of discussion that makes me love Substack.
PS I didn’t know about Prince 🤯
it's interesting, isn't it? i'm VERY much against "cancel culture." even setting aside the epidemic of misinformation, i think it's anathema to the idea that humans are, you know, human. fallible and capable of both terrific harms and terrific good. we must allow grace and apology and repair. but at the same time we all have our own limits and don't really owe anyone anything, least of all strangers, and what we do with the information we learn is our own business (short of turning around and doing harm to others, i suppose). all that to say... you're valid for this. and you also don't need to necessarily do anything now that you know about prince, either. this shit ain't easy.
I'm squarely in the "artist isn't art" category, and even that's nuanced. Were Michael Jackson still alive, I wouldn't pick up any of his records, nor feature/review them. His actions were abhorrent. But that doesn't mean Thriller is any less of a record that brought incredible joy to millions. Both can be true w/o being intellectually dishonest. I associate R. Kelly's "She's Got That Vibe" with a very narrow time/place in my life. That doesn't mean he ever deserves to see sunlight again (he doesn't).
Everyone's redline will be different, and that's fine too.
Also: Nourished By Time's The Passionate Ones is a great pick, and I hope a lot of people see that and check it out!
Thanks for coming up with that scale, Gabbie. I think it's really helpful in terms of helping the music consumer to see where they fall and maybe exploring why.
As someone who reads a lot of rock biographies and autobiographies, I've found that you'd have to throw out just about every artist for one form of bad behavior or another. Having sex with minors is a common theme to the present day, as is drug and alcohol abuse and the impact of that on people around the artist. A lot of musicians (and actors), given that they're on the road for long periods of time, have been neglectful parents whose kids are messed up as a result. That characterizes both male and female artists.
People also forget about era and context. Successful artists (and powerful people) are not living in the same world as the rest of us in terms of what's considered moral and ethical. And what they have on offer in terms of temptations and 'rewards' can be absolutely mind-boggling. Witness the huge number of artists caught up in the Epstein and P. Diddy scandals, as well as the many who patronized the Playboy mansions. The history of Hollywood, a center for film and music, is quite a sordid one in terms of abuse, rape, murder, you name it. Should we stop watching Hollywood films?
I do agree with another commenter (echoing you) who has identified her own persomal hard line. I think that's what we each have to do as we all have own personal moral and ethical code. But it does beg the question of whether there are some things that should be considered completely beyond the pale. I'm just not sure that we would ever reach agreement on that.
this is very well stated and reasoned, thank you for the thoughtful response.
have you come across the increasingly popular notion that era/context is not an excuse? I find that gaining traction with Gen Z and younger and I'm trying very hard to square with it but it's quite hard for me. It's what makes people less culturally literate, in my view (the most famous recent example is people refusing to read Nabokov because they find Lolita abhorrent, but that also extends out to other tangentially related criticisms, so maybe not the greatest point for me to raise!)
Regardless, I do agree that this isn't something we can ever hope for consensus on.
My generation found the Lolita story repulsive too, but we were required to read and discuss it. We identified the bad behavior with the older generation. If only we'd known what rock stars were up to!!!
What I would say as a psychologist is that people at that stage in life-- where Gen Z is now-- tend to have black and white views no matter the era. Teens and young adults in the 60s when I was growing up were very judgmental and rejecting of the older generation and its values. We called them 'squares' and 'drags' and 'The Establishment,' and they were just not 'cool' or right like we were. I remember being annoyingly opinionated at that age. Now we boomers are the bad guys -- ha!
So I expect once the Gen Z-ers have some more experience with life, they'll start to come up against all the shades of gray and get into situations where they become the bad guys and have to justify themselves (because we're all human!).
In the meantime, we'll just have to have fun challenging their thinking and scrambling their brains (like you have in this post!).
I hope you're right! It's not that we (elder millennial here) didn't find Lolita repulsive but I don't remember anyone having a problem separating the story from the author or feeling outraged by the hero to the point of refusing to read it. Deplorable characters don't speak for their creators. But yeah of course we thought our parents were cringy! Teenagers are teenagers and are always right no matter what 🤷🏻♀️
It's interesting too, that modern tv/movies/etc. are so often centered around main characters that behave terribly, or the whole thing is just rich people behaving badly...(think Succession, All Her Fault, The Studio). Point being, that the generation isn't against bad behavior per se when it's for their own enjoyment.
While they might be quick to judge (as we were at that age), I think they pick and choose based on whether the medium speaks to them. Hell, Kanye still has 69M monthly listeners on Spotify. Lolita doesn't have the connection with them to cause ambivalence.
So, I guess I'm saying I agree with you that youth brings absolutes in way that older, wiser humans have mostly grown out of. In addition, it think bad behavior in general is a source of entertainment, as a feature not a bug. Plus, the absolutes are a lot easier to throw at sexually abusive white men (for them), than say, holding antisemitic behavior accountable in this time when the Israeli government's behavior is worse in their eyes.
Wow. Long winded response!
oh this is a very interesting point (all of it, but re: fashions changing over time over what's deemed acceptably bad). the tolerance for antisemitism certainly is much higher these days because the whataboutism is so strong. certainly not the only thing that goes in and out of vogue, but a great example, and of course it says a lot about our culture that these things "trend" at all. oof! lots to think about here.
Whataboutism might be my new favorite word.
Good points! I think people get up in arms about things that threaten their own identity or belief system, whereas they are able to keep a sense of distance and maintain interest or humor in something that isn't personally threatening or offensive. (I used to get so up in arms about sexism, but now I make fun of it and lampoon it in my fiction.)
Someone pointed out to me that Americans love shows that skewer the rich, whereas the Brits love shows that enshrine that lifestyle (like Downton Abbey, a highly entertaining and over-the-top advertisement for the landed gentry if ever there was one). We're old enough to see that these things reflect values that are being fed to the viewers, whereas the kids may not see the cultural programming and buy right into it.
White guys seem to have been a target for a while now. In my experience, it's not just sexually abusive ones, as young people were accusing white males of micro-aggressions in my last workplace. Several senior males with valuable experience lost their jobs for behavior that had occurred much earlier and on the basis of claims without any evidence as far as I could see. I think the institution saw it as a way to get rid of senior males more cheaply and appear to take DEI seriously so they took advantage of it. But the salary disparities favoring males continued!
This is very well said
someone in the Discord pointed out there's a more extreme approach that should have been on the scale - #0: hatred/active campaigning against the artist
There might be a #9 too: avoid learning about artists as much as possible.
yes that's a good one
Financial disengagement. I think this conversation stems from a music worldview of streaming and social media. All my music is offline on my personal NAS and I don't have social media. Using Kanye as the easy reference point, I am not buying concerts or albums, but there's no logical reason I would need to delete MBDTF -mp3s I have had for like twenty years- off my hard drive.
The endless consumption model of the algorithm and the endless scroll create a feeling (or reality) of many/endless micro decisions. When you opt out of all of that, it becomes much more simple. Do I buy the new Kanye West album or not? No? OK then let's move on.
honestly the new music angle is a great addition to this particular stance, too. when there's finite money to go around and (practically speaking) infinite new talent in search of financial support, why not spend your hard earned $$ on some new talent instead? Kanye got his, anyway.
There is definitely a more social aspect to all of this beyond the spectrum above (great analysis btw, Gabby!).
I think for many, there is the feeling that listening to the controversial artist conveys *to others* that you support their actions - whether or not there’s anyone keeping tabs on what you’re listening to.
This goes beyond cancel culture and is a part of the wider (and scarier, I’d argue) issue of the sense of being watched at all times.
This surveillance, either online and irl, comes in many forms: top down by institutions such as the government and corporations (both literally and as “training the algorithm”) as well as laterally by society, both friends and the general populace (re: cancel culture).
This can lead to self censorship and begs other interesting questions about is appropriate in these situations. As Kyle said above, if there’s a pirated mp3 that’s been on their hard drive for 20 years why wouldn’t they continue to enjoy it? For some, I’d argue it’s because of what listening to said mp3 conveys to the world about their identity and morals. Is that valid, or should we resist that nagging feeling of being watched all the time (if that’s even possible)? Not sure at this point, I’m still grappling with it.
My response to the question of the article is for the most part to try and avoid learning about the personal lives of my musical heroes, it’s bound to disappoint. If they’re out there supporting the fascist thugs or advocating harming others, that is a different story and will definitely sour me on their music. Thanks for the interesting read!
this conversation is so huge that I had to rewrite this piece a few times in order to stop myself from making it a massive and potentially quite alienating treatise when really the point was ultimately just to throw out some hypotheticals for brain fodder and then recommend some music. it's such a beast of a topic!
This is superb - going to use this with my Human Flourishing class 2nd semester, if you're OK with it. Starting the course (HS, 2nd semester seniors) built with a very self-reflective, music immersive class or two, inside and outside the classroom. Your look here offers some meaningful steps into discussions I've wanted to have about art, commerce, community, and daily life. TY!
go nuts! it's a community-informed assessment, so while i'm tempted to ask you to give me credit, ultimately i'm indebted to all my readers for the enormous insight into the issue and for allowing me the opportunity to synthesize the information
How about this - most of the Human Flourishing class is about listening and speaking first and second, then reading, last writing. Intentionally flipped.
If this appeals to you, would you be willing to talk to one of my classes via Meet or Zoom, about running this Substack and your life and connection to music? You'd be a great voice mixed in with everyone else - there's a bit more about this class on pg 6 of the PDF attached. It's been a fun ride and I'm happy to keep centering music in the middle of it! https://grable.org/publications/both-and/
oh wow I'm really honored but I have to think this over!
no rush - I'm looking towards probably March at the earliest.
I’ve been trying to work out where I fit on the scale and realised that, subconsciously, I’ve been weighing this up on a case by case basis for years.
It’s almost like there’s a formula in my head where an artist’s transgressions will make me listen to them less, but how much less depends on the severity of those transgressions and how much I liked their music in the first place.
For example, I listen to The Smiths and Michael Jackson less than I used to because they’ve been somewhat tainted, but they still both made god-tier music that’s important to me so I’m not cutting them out forever. The only person who suffers from me doing that would be me.
And I don’t listen to Ryan Adams or Chris Brown at all but that’s not exactly difficult for me. I’ve liked some of their work but I don’t feel I’m missing out.
It’s heartening this is being debated without people tying themselves in knots to justify the crimes of their favourite artists. Years ago, there was a guerilla campaign where people were putting ‘This artist beats women’ stickers on the albums of known abusers. Everyone seemed to agree this was good until it was done to John Lennon records, then a certain segment of people didn’t think it was good any more.
I’m interested in the (hypothetical?) situation of what would happen if we knew an artist was terrible when they launched. Like, on Day 1 someone comes out of prison for an unspeakable crime and immediately drops the best debut you’ve ever heard. What do you do then?
These are all such good points. I forgot about that guerilla campaign but you're totally right -- people just go as far as what's convenient for them, don't they? And I think if we're all honest with ourselves, the hierarchical judgment approach is what we're all doing to some extent naturally, whether we want to admit it or not. It's the most internally logical.
Your hypothetical fascinates me and I frankly think that, depressing as it is, this would just make the album more popular. We love to rubberneck. We love serial killers. An album like that would go platinum.
I don’t want to “rank” crimes but a serial killer’s album would probably go platinum (people love true crime) but it might not be the same for other crimes. Then there’s the crimes people might actively celebrate. Would someone sell more if we knew they’d been embezzling multi-national corporations?!
if luigi mangione drops an album we’re gonna go nuts
Charles Manson's music never sold that well, but we are living in different times.
24hr news cycle. plus was his music any good?
Serial killer: double platinum
White collar crime: straight to the cutout bin
I'm very much about situational context as far as these types of things.
Miles Davis was an abusive sonofabitch, and he's also dead, and he was a Mt Rushmore level transformational figure in music. I don't lose any sleep still listening to him.
OTOH I was never a huge Kanye fan anyway and I don't lose any sleep ignoring him now.
I guess I'm mostly in the Hierarchical Judgment camp - I tend not to listen to Red House Painters because Mark Kozelek is a full on creeper (though I keep the CDs in my collection), but I will listen to The Stone Roses as Ian Brown's pivot right is some how less bad. Though, for all of it, Financial Disengagement is essential. Haven't bought anything from those guys since the early 00's (or pretty much anyone that I've seen named in the articles and comments).
The discourse has a life of it's own, but the look forward instead of back is the perfect takeaway.
Also, shout out to the Thus Love rec, one of my favorites from last year.
I feel that is a tough takeaway to get upset about, other personal opinions notwithstanding!
Love, love, love!!!! I hadn’t really thought of The Velvet Hands and Thus Love as analogues for the Smiths but it totally works.
you're the reason i know about the velvet hands, lou!!
Tbh I’ve always thought of them as the love child of The Jam and The Vaccines, but The Smiths fits too.
they can be more than one thing ;)
Indeed! Anyway, I’m very happy to have been able to return the favour and share something with you for once.
Separation for me. I gave up on idolizing artists long ago and I think that's key. I cannot relate to Morrissey like I did 35 years ago, but I still relate to the songs that saved my life and I'm older now and I'm a clever swine but they were the only ones who ever stood by me, you know what I mean. Don't be a fan of the people making music you love, be a fan of the music you love. But it's hard when you're young because you feel this connection can only be on all levels, that you would share the same world view and morals because they speak to your soul.
So I have no problems in theory listening to music made by people I don't like or who I have made bad things.
In a way I think it's a proof of the power of music, that it can make me connect, with sounds and lyrics, profoundly to people I would totally despise if I knew them in real life.
We may be moral or political enemies but we have this common ground and humanity that we share, no matter what. If Morrissey made a brilliant and powerful new record (that won't happen), I'd be able to appreciate it although the man disgusts me. Sorry it's this long and for the non native language.
your english is perfect. and the point you make is poignant. thank you for taking the time to add your thoughts -- i completely agree about the power of music bringing us together even when otherwise we might hate each other.
I also will never give up The Smiths. And I don't have to because Brigitte Calls Me Baby just announced a new record in 2026.
they sure did :) :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkUOY18u8h4
i rly wish i could be in the drug church camp of just like eh, move on, but it's hard! i have taken quite a few ppl off my ipod cause it's just not the same for me, but i think ppl who judge ppl for still liking some of that stuff sux, like it's okay to like the smiths, but also i feel like it's kind of a thing to be a fan of someone for the awful stuff they've done and not for the stuff they've made and that's like a whole other thing i can't comprehend.
OH MY GOD I MISSED YOU
awhhh, u 2 my dude, merry new year
I sort of use the artist to understand the roots of the social problem they illustrate. How could you?
Oh I see, that's interesting.
And it makes your music, if it was ever any good, more interesting because now there's a non-fiction element to it.
totally agree
The British Library have been releasing anthologies of weird fiction based around a variety of themes. (The one that I currently have resting in my reading pile concerns manifestations of the god, Pan.) Many of the stories included were originally published during the first half of the twentieth century and some even before then. I enjoy these collections. What I do not enjoy is the page-long disclaimer that seeks to warn readers of the outdated attitudes in these works of fiction, and to inform them of what total bastards some of the writers were. This is also, I suspect, an attempt to absolve the editors of any guilt by association. It is unnecessary and infantilises everyone concerned (see also the re-edits of Roald Dahl’s children's books). So far I have been able to read these collections without transforming into a raging bigot, or becoming so offended that I topple theatrically backwards onto the nearest available fainting couch.
Over December, I read the second of the Library’s anthologies of Christmas ghost stories which includes a tale by H.P. Lovecraft, titled The Festival. The editor of the collection mentions Lovecraft’s racism in her preamble. While this is factual, it is hardly relevant to the story. I have a disquieting theory regarding Lovecraft’s racism, his xenophobia, his fear of the other, or however people wish to frame it: It is distilled in his writing and it is what gives many of his tales their unsettling quality where even the familiar habours an air of undefinable menace. Go back in time and strike these negative traits from the man and the potency of his fiction dies with them.
Turning now to music, many of the artists with whom I feel a kinship are troublesome individuals who realistically could not have succeeded in any other sphere. Contrast this parade of fuck-ups and malcontents with the likes of Bono, who I suspect, no matter would road he took in life, would have ended up singing from the USAID hymnbook, or David Bowie or Mick Jagger who are charismatic individuals who would have succeeded in whatever career they settled into. You cannot say the same of Jeffrey Lee Pierce or Mark Lanegan, who by his own admission was, for much of his life, a drug dealer with a record contract. Mark E Smith of The Fall, or Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart) were occasionally abusive and pushed their band members to extremes. These people are true outsiders, unpolished and uncompromising. They couldn't be anything other than what they were. The idiosyncratic and influential music that they produced, both directly and indirectly, is a distillation of their cantankerous and sometimes violent nature. You can’t have the latter without the former because one informs the other. Some people might have a hard time reconciling that, but it’s true.
this is very interesting but it makes me wonder. i think that it's not always true that it's irrelevant to the writing at all. I'm using this example because I'm personally impacted by it, not because it's more prevalent or important than others, but it's relevant to know that so many others use troll/witch/goblin tropes in their writing specifically to spread antisemitic rhetoric. I don't find it useless to learn the historical context around that, nor does it prevent me from reading or enjoying it as offensive as it might be. whatever these prefaces may intend to accomplish, I don't think that the information they provide are irrelevant to the story. on the contrary.