When is it right to denounce music and stop playing it?

[Ron Texas]

Not too wild about Roger Waters myself.

 

[FrantzM]

Regarding Kathleen Battle and her behavior at the MET, there has been talk for decades apparently that one of Levine's victims was related to her, and that she approached management to report the abuse, and her behavior at least partially arose from the way the accusations were treated. Levine was the opera company's cash cow, so if those stories were true, it puts a different light on her dismissal and blacklisting.

I never bought any recording because of Levine, the few in my collection where he was conductor were purchased because of the singer(s), such as Leontyne Price or Kathleen Battle. I was never particularly impressed by his conducting, although I wouldn't go so far as to say he ruined performances. Competent but vastly overrated as a conductor in my view. I do own his recording of the Saint-Saëns "Organ" Symphony, but it's no hardship to never listen to it again, as I have two other recordings of that symphony that I vastly prefer anyway.

You articulated my thoughts better than I did. That what I meant by "competent". I have bought recordings for some conductors ( Boult, Reiner, Yes Von Karajan, etc) never for Levine , don't care about him. Now that there are allegations I am in no inclination to buy things with him at the helm ... The question remains however do we blacklist everything with Levine on?

 

[flipflop]

You make it sound like 'accused' is a gray area between 'innocent' and 'guilty'. There is no gray area. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[watchnerd]

If I curated my art consumption to only those works by artists with upstanding morals, I would exclude a lot of great materials.

Picasso and Dali were jerks, Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis liked girls that were too young, Michael Jackson was a pedophile, Hemingway was a misogynist, Greek philosophers were pederasts, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, etc.

I think it's possible to enjoy an artistic work as separate from the artist.

 

[Ron Texas]

One must take into account all facts and circumstances. Has the artist died? How many other artists are involved who are innocent?

 

[watchnerd]

One must take into account all facts and circumstances. Has the artist died? How many other artists are involved who are innocent?

If you want to indulge in those kind of forensics, that's certainly your prerogative, but I feel no such compulsion, nor do I have the time, when it comes to entertainers, be they musicians, actors, or athletes.

Also, I don't feel a moral conflict about both giving someone money for their art, and then having them go to prison if the law finds them guilty of a crime.

I don't disown Merle Haggard because he went to prison -- the courts judged his guilt or innocence of crimes. I only judge him as a musician.

I'm not like I'm asking them to house sit or marry into the family.

 

[JohnBooty]

When it comes to problematic/abusive behavior I generally draw the line at behavior that directly or indirectly rewards the individual in question.

One of my favorite novels was written by an author who, I later found out, kind of sucks as a person. So I don't recommend it in public any more. I bought a few cheap used copies on eBay/Amazon so I could give them to others without directly rewarding the author.

But man, it's complicated.

Like for example James Levine. I'd like to watch Fantasia 2000 again someday, it's pretty good. James Levine is in it. But his appearances are cameos, and hundreds (if not thousands) of other folks were involved in that movie. Does he receive royalties for each sale? I doubt that refusing to buy or watch that movie again would really teach him a lesson.

I might avoid showing it in public, though, in a film class or in a film festival or movie night or something though... man I don't know.

 

[JJB70]

Regarding Kathleen Battle and her behavior at the Met, there has been talk for decades apparently that one of Levine's victims was related to her, and that she approached management to report the abuse, and her behavior at least partially arose from the way the accusations were treated. Levine was the opera company's cash cow, so if those stories were true, it puts a different light on her dismissal and blacklisting.

I never bought any recording because of Levine, the few in my collection where he was conductor were purchased because of the singer(s), such as Leontyne Price or Kathleen Battle. I was never particularly impressed by his conducting, although I wouldn't go so far as to say he ruined performances. Competent but vastly overrated as a conductor in my view. I do own his recording of the Saint-Saëns "Organ" Symphony, but it's no hardship to never listen to it again, as I have two other recordings of that symphony that I vastly prefer anyway.

That's interesting, I had never heard that (then again most rumours pass me by as I don't read many newspapers).

 

[JJB70]

I will continue enjoying Kathleen Battle singing songs, I think it would be wrong to throw some of her legacy in the bin just because of the pianist accompanying her regardless of what I might think about that pianist.

 

[Ron Texas]

If you want to indulge in those kind of forensics, that's certainly your prerogative, but I feel no such compulsion, nor do I have the time, when it comes to entertainers, be they musicians, actors, or athletes.

I would hardly say it amounts to forensics.

However, you are saying that no matter how reprehensible the individual's conduct is you don't care one bit.

 

[Hugo9000]

I can't think of anyone I like or whose work/art I enjoy that was a reprehensible person in any way. Such a relief.

I would not knowingly reward anyone I would consider to be filth.

Regarding something I already own and whether to listen/watch/read it ever again, or throw it away or burn it in disgust, it would depend on the extent of involvement of the miscreant, what exactly the person was guilty of or for which there is plenty of evidence and/or testimony (sometimes it's not criminal, but the person himself might profess an abhorrent belief in an interview or whatever). As one example, I do own the film Ravenous on DVD, which has Jeffrey Jones in a prominent role. I haven't watched it since the revelations about his offenses. I don't think I'd enjoy the movie as I used to, as I would inevitably wonder how anyone could do what he did, if only for a moment, whenever he would be onscreen.

I want to be caught up in the world that is created in a good movie or piece of music, but if the distraction of horror at the back of my mind over the performer's actions ruins that, the illusion and thus the art itself is destroyed and cannot be enjoyed by me. I don't expect others to agree.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

George Orwell grappled with this issue back in 1944.
He reviews Salvador Dali’s autobiography. Dali reveals himself to be quite a vile specimen

http://www.openculture.com/2018/01/george-orwell-reviews-salvador-dalis-autobiography.html

“Dali is a draughtsman of very exceptional gifts. He is also, to judge by the minuteness and the sureness of his drawings, a very hard worker. He is an exhibitionist and a careerist, but he is not a fraud. He has fifty times more talent than most of the people who would denounce his morals and jeer at his paintings. And these two sets of facts, taken together, raise a question which for lack of any basis of agreement seldom gets a real discussion.”

 

[watchnerd]

I would hardly say it amounts to forensics.

However, you are saying that no matter how reprehensible the individual's conduct is you don't care one bit.

Pretty close to it (although I'm sure there must be something beyond the pale that might make me sour on an artist I liked).

I'm saying my opinion of them as a human being is different from my opinion of them as an artist.

I think Michael Jackson was both a disturbed sexual predator and an amazingly gifted entertainer with a huge impact on pop music.

My dislike for his sexual predilections hasn't caused me to like or dislike his music any more or less.

William S. Burroughs either accidentally shot or sloppily murdered his wife, then moved to Tangiers so he could both more easily indulge his vices of opiates and love of young boys. That doesn't make me think any less of "Naked Lunch".

If I'm honest with myself, some of my favorite artists are those who have explored the underbellies of human behavior and society. Often that extended into both their art and their personal lives.

 

[watchnerd]

George Orwell grappled with this issue back in 1944.
He reviews Salvador Dali’s autobiography. Dali reveals himself to be quite a vile specimen

http://www.openculture.com/2018/01/george-orwell-reviews-salvador-dalis-autobiography.html

“Dali is a draughtsman of very exceptional gifts. He is also, to judge by the minuteness and the sureness of his drawings, a very hard worker. He is an exhibitionist and a careerist, but he is not a fraud. He has fifty times more talent than most of the people who would denounce his morals and jeer at his paintings. And these two sets of facts, taken together, raise a question which for lack of any basis of agreement seldom gets a real discussion.”

I find my position to agree with Orwell's.

 

[Ron Texas]

Pretty close to it (although I'm sure there must be something beyond the pale that might make me sour on an artist I liked).

It's not the sexual failings that bother me. It's political stuff, especially when they would like to kill all members of a certain group that I am a member of.

 

[tmtomh]

I agree with those who say it's a personal issue. Music is about enjoyment, so if an artist has said or done bad things (or things that I don't agree with), and that interferes with my enjoyment when I try to listen to their music, that's the point at which I stop listening. If it doesn't bother me, or if I can compartmentalize, then I continue listening. I'm not a heavy metal fan, and I'm not a huge hard-rock fan, but Led Zeppelin happens to be my favorite band. Even if the stories about them in the '70s are overblown, they did to some unsavory stuff. But I love their music beyond all rational explanation, and I'll never stop listening to it. Conversely, I've never been very excited by Eric Clapton, and every time I think about him I think of his admiration for Enoch Powell and his anti-immigrant rant (which helped inspire Rock Against Racism), and I just have no desire to listen to his music.

But I wouldn't expect anyone else to share my preferences. And along with that, if I had a close friend or loved one who was repulsed at a certain musical artist I like, then I wouldn't play that artist's music for that person, and I wouldn't play it when we were listening to music together. If that person told me I should get rid of all my music by that artist, I would tell them to mind their own business.

 

[JohnBooty]

Here in America, our paper currency features a lot of somewhat distasteful characters. Most of them owned slaves and some dabbled in some minor genocide.

If anybody would like me to bear this moral burden for them, send me your money!

 

[andreasmaaan]

I generally have no problem enjoying music by morally flawed artists, although I find that my knowledge of an artist’s beliefs or behaviour often shapes how I experience their music to some extent (I’m thinking of a fascist, murder-convicted Scandinavian black metal-turned-ambient artist in particular here).

On the other hand, I’m often hesitant to promote such music. For example, I organise music events, and I’d be hesitant to place certain artists on the bill. I’ve tried to think about the extent to which this is because I don’t believe on principle that they should be given a musical platform vs because I just don’t want to personally deal with people I find morally repugnant, and it’s hard to say exactly. But the line itself is generally pretty clear to me nevertheless.

 

[Ilkless]

But I wouldn't expect anyone else to share my preferences. And along with that, if I had a close friend or loved one who was repulsed at a certain musical artist I like, then I wouldn't play that artist's music for that person, and I wouldn't play it when we were listening to music together. If that person told me I should get rid of all my music by that artist, I would tell them to mind their own business.

On this point, one issue that I think deserves more scrutiny is the centralisation of music playback and archiving. We have increasingly moved away from private possession of the playback medium (both physical storage media and locally-stored files) to streaming from the cloud or downloading from these cloud-based services. The problem I think is with these services, in a position of coercion/power to remove these recordings from their services. I think it a real problem for listeners who possess little of the playback media themselves, and not of recordings by the artists in question. It means they are deprived of the ability to choose for themselves. Sure, some might say the free market might adjust for it - but is anyone going to reconfigure their streaming source or move to privately possessing the media for a vanishing minority of recordings? I think not.

 

[tmtomh]

On this point, one issue that I think deserves more scrutiny is the centralisation of music playback and archiving. We have increasingly moved away from private possession of the playback medium (both physical storage media and locally-stored files) to streaming from the cloud or downloading from these cloud-based services. The problem I think is with these services, in a position of coercion/power remove these recordings from their services. I think it a real problem for listeners who possess little of the playback media themselves, and not of recordings by the artists in question. It means they are deprived of the ability to choose for themselves. Sure, some might say the free market might adjust for it - but is anyone going to reconfigure their streaming source or move to privately possessing the media for a vanishing minority of recordings? I think not.

Excellent point.