Forum Settings
Forums

Musicians or music groups engaging in asshole behavior

Pages (2) [1] 2 »
Post New Reply
#1
Jan 29, 2013 5:11 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 98
Every once in a while, I'll come across an article or two about a musician or a band that I enjoy listening to. Articles that include incidents of them behaving like assholes. I will then be put into an utter state of confusion, unable to decide how I feel about their music.

So lets say an artist you adore has been revealed to be an abusive husband, or something that you equally dislike. Would it have an impact on what you think of their music? Should it have an impact on what you think of their music?
Modified by howlingfantods, Jan 29, 2013 5:18 AM
 
#2
Jan 29, 2013 5:36 AM

Offline
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 5941
I don't think the artist/band being an ass would change how I feel about their music. It may change how I feel about the artist/band, but if their products are good they're not going to suddenly change quality.

Would I stop listening? Unless their songs suddenly took on new shade of meanings I had been ignorant of before then probably not. If they were my favourite band then it would take something really heinous in any case, though I suppose I might have started downloading their stuff illegally and stopped going to their concerts. Not so much to "punish" them, but because I'd feel like I was supporting their actions if I supported them as artists.

If I was a fan of Chris Brown for example (I'm not), I would not stop listening to his music, but I might have stopped supporting him.
もののあはれ。。。
 
#3
Jan 29, 2013 5:49 AM

Offline
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 13586
None whatsoever. I'm not a fan of the people, just the music they make. Hell, I couldn't even name the members of most of my favourite bands.
The only time I care about the shenanigans of the artists is if it potentially threatens the project. That being said, it was kind of fun hearing about Mike Portnoy after he left Dream Theater, such magnificent levels of butthurt.

Eigi man ek þá lǫg jómsvikinga ef ek kviði við bana eða mæla ek æðruorð. Eitt sinn skal hverr deyja
 
#4
Jan 29, 2013 7:05 AM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1081
Sometimes, mostly depending on the image the group is trying to convey. I listen to a few bands with Nazi-like imagery and views, but that doesn't affect how much I enjoy their music. On the other hand, A Tribe Called Quest piss me off immensely due to trying to convey a peaceful image, yet have an extremely homophobic song full of Religious nonsense. I still listen to their music, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't cut off some enjoyment from it.

I know that's a little different than your question, but yes, the views and actions of groups can impact my enjoyment depending in a few things.
 
#5
Jan 29, 2013 7:11 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 19412
It should not have any impact on you liking their music or not, even if their imagery is slaughter, rape, etc and they sing about flowers, it should not change that the music is about flowers (and yes, I even mean the deeper meanings), even if they're hypocrites as a group, assholes etc.

It's like dismissing a completely valid suggestion on MAL against "trolls" because the OP himself is deemed as a "troll", it lacks logic...




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
 
#6
Jan 29, 2013 7:14 AM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1081
Immahnoob said:
It should not have any impact on you liking their music or not, even if their imagery is slaughter, rape, etc and they sing about flowers, it should not change that the music is about flowers (and yes, I even mean the deeper meanings), even if they're hypocrites as a group, assholes etc.

It's like dismissing a completely valid suggestion on MAL against "trolls" because the OP himself is deemed as a "troll", it lacks logic...


If they don't commit to their message in their actions and personal views, then it's natural people will lose interest in their music. Not everyone enjoys music purely for the phat beats. Lyrics are an important factor to many artists and fans.

Your comparison makes no sense. The difference here is that while the suggestion may still be valid, the message of the group is clearly not genuine.
Modified by Trapalicious, Jan 29, 2013 7:19 AM
 
#7
Jan 29, 2013 7:19 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 19412
I still don't see how you got from their actions and personal views to phat beats and lyrics...

What they do with their life is their problem, if their music says "love people around you" and they're murderers, it's not their music that must be judged, but THEM for being murderers.

It's common sense and no, there's no natural factor in all this...




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
 
#8
Jan 29, 2013 7:26 AM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1081
Immahnoob said:
I still don't see how you got from their actions and personal views to phat beats and lyrics...

What they do with their life is their problem, if their music says "love people around you" and they're murderers, it's not their music that must be judged, but THEM for being murderers.

It's common sense and no, there's no natural factor in all this...


I said that the instrumentals are not the only factor for many fans and musicians. If an artist is trying to convey a message, while going AGAINST that message in their actual actions and views, then their message is false and disingenuous. For example, if an artist is trying to give the message that all races are equal, but is caught calling people he works with "niggers". It would only be stupid to claim this shouldn't affect a persons enjoyment of their music. Lyrics and spreading ideas are a big part of many musicians, you're essentially saying it is unimportant.

How you did not understand that is beyond me.
Modified by Trapalicious, Jan 29, 2013 7:30 AM
 
#9
Jan 29, 2013 7:34 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 19412
It's because the logic behind it is flawed, he will be judged for his own mistakes and his music will be judged by it's quality and it's OWN message. It's illogical to judge the music for the mistakes the singer/group.

If an actor that does drugs (and supports the legality of drugs) plays in a movie called "Don't do drugs", he is a hypocrite for accepting such a job, but the movie is "innocent", it's not the movie that supports drugs, it's the actor... It's the same with music.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
 
Jan 29, 2013 7:35 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 3648
Thread title is completely misleading.
As a child, I was told that society is a melting pot of talents; knowledge and experience combined to form important alloys that will contribute to mankind. When I got to highschool, however, I thought that it's more like a river in which the water represents our peers while we ourselves are the stones in the river. Constant erosion by mindless majority sheeping has made us lose our unique edge. After I hit the age of 18, I realized that I've been wrong all along. Society is no melting pot. Society is no river. Society is a person, a very skilled rapist, and he has fucked us all.
 
Jan 29, 2013 7:39 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 19412
BloodRequiem said:
Thread title is completely misleading.

This also, I thought you would give examples of such groups or discuss on how some groups were assholes.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
 
Jan 29, 2013 7:46 AM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1081
Immahnoob said:
It's because the logic behind it is flawed, he will be judged for his own mistakes and his music will be judged by it's quality and it's OWN message. It's illogical to judge the music for the mistakes the singer/group.


The messenger is as equally important as the message.
 
Jan 29, 2013 7:51 AM
Offline
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 1347
Their behavior doesn't affect my preference. Their private life has nothing to do with value of their works. If it affected, I wouldn't be able to enjoy lots of works by artists, scholars, politicians, etc..
 
Jan 29, 2013 7:52 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 19412
No, if you kill the messenger because of his message you're an ignorant.

If you kill the message because of it's messenger you're still ignorant.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
 
Jan 29, 2013 8:12 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 98
Immahnoob said:
BloodRequiem said:
Thread title is completely misleading.

This also, I thought you would give examples of such groups or discuss on how some groups were assholes.
I don't really think it's misleading, but I apologize if it does seem so.

Immahnoob said:
It's like dismissing a completely valid suggestion on MAL against "trolls" because the OP himself is deemed as a "troll", it lacks logic...
Haha, does this have something to do with your 'bringing back general discussion' thread?

Immahnoob said:
It's because the logic behind it is flawed, he will be judged for his own mistakes and his music will be judged by it's quality and it's OWN message. It's illogical to judge the music for the mistakes the singer/group.
Well, yes. If the message is a positive one, the listener should still take away the positive aspects of it. However, if the creator of the content is engaging in behavior that opposes their message, it will decrease his/her credibility in the eyes (or in this case the ears) of the listener. As a result, the message won't be so convincing.
Modified by howlingfantods, Jan 29, 2013 8:28 AM
 
Jan 29, 2013 8:17 AM
Offline
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 6076
No because I love what they do and the media isn't always right and sometimes lie.
I try my best to accept them as a person sometimes or simply try to only enjoy their work and not care about their personal life if its wrong.

Like when everyone was pissed at Aya Hirano, I still like her, love her voice acting and don't care why and that she did something bad? I don't care about that.
I love her voice acting and thats it.
 
Jan 29, 2013 8:24 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 19412
It does...

That is still illogical even if you try to explain it to me 200x times, I can give myself as an example about this behavior, I love watching DraconisMarch's videos (his reactions), I hate his "objective stuff" and I actually find him to be an annoying illogical twat, yet I still watch his videos, and I rate them accordingly even if he blocked me on YouTube (I always upvote his reaction videos because I find them humorous, and he said that's the purpose).




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
 
Jan 29, 2013 8:34 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 428
An Artist makes Art, once the piece of Art is done, the Artist becomes completely insignificant. Art isn't bound to its creator, it's just Art and it only shares the messages the artist put into it. If Bohemian Rhapsody was a hymn to fascism and the quality of the lyrics was as high as the original, I wouldn't have cared and it'd still be my favourite song ever. That wouldn't make me a fascist, and condemning Freddie Mercury as a failure artist would be totally wrong.

The real hypocrisy is not for the Artist to spread false messages (although it IS hypocrite), but to like the Art depending on the Artist's own ideals.
I'm a self-taught composer, and here you can find the tracks I've composed so far:
http://www.youtube.com/user/kiusdexra

https://soundcloud.com/marko-poskurica

A single click on each one of them would make me really happy!

If you want to make any comment or critic, do it on my profile or as a comment on youtube / soundcloud!
 
Jan 29, 2013 8:49 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 98
Immahnoob said:
It does...

That is still illogical even if you try to explain it to me 200x times, I can give myself as an example about this behavior, I love watching DraconisMarch's videos (his reactions), I hate his "objective stuff" and I actually find him to be an annoying illogical twat, yet I still watch his videos, and I rate them accordingly even if he blocked me on YouTube (I always upvote his reaction videos because I find them humorous, and he said that's the purpose).
I can understand that in your opinion the way the creators behave shouldn't have an impact on their content. However, I don't understand why it is illogical for people to think otherwise.

When I listen to music, I think the message has less significance to me if the musicians or music groups that created it are being hypocritical. However, it does not matter to me if the message of their music has nothing to do with their behavior. Lets say a band that makes songs about heartbreak has been reported to have used racial slurs. In that case I would continue to listen to their music just as I did before.
Modified by howlingfantods, Jan 29, 2013 8:52 AM
 
Jan 29, 2013 8:55 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 428
^The main point is: if you listened to your all-time favourite song, and you had absolutely no idea who made that song, you wouldn't care if it's a rapist or Gandhi. You'd simply love it for what it is - the best song you've ever heard.
I'm a self-taught composer, and here you can find the tracks I've composed so far:
http://www.youtube.com/user/kiusdexra

https://soundcloud.com/marko-poskurica

A single click on each one of them would make me really happy!

If you want to make any comment or critic, do it on my profile or as a comment on youtube / soundcloud!
 
Jan 29, 2013 9:05 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 19412
As a matter of fact it's illogical, it's simply the truth... Blaming the action instead of the one that commits said action is still retarded.


Please, give me your opinion on this.

Do you like it or dislike it?

What about this one?
Modified by Immahnoob, Jan 29, 2013 9:09 AM




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
 
Jan 29, 2013 9:24 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 98
Propu said:
^The main point is: if you listened to your all-time favourite song, and you had absolutely no idea who made that song, you wouldn't care if it's a rapist or Gandhi. You'd simply love it for what it is - the best song you've ever heard.
The whole point of the question is how you feel about your 'all-time favorite' song if you do know who made it.

If my favorite song was about combatting rape and the artist was a rapist, I would still listen to it (and possibly enjoy it) but the creator would lose credibility, and so would the message of the song.
 
Jan 29, 2013 9:25 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 19412
It's still illogical nonetheless, now try and give your opinions on those paintings.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
 
Jan 29, 2013 9:28 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 757
Propu said:
^The main point is: if you listened to your all-time favourite song, and you had absolutely no idea who made that song, you wouldn't care if it's a rapist or Gandhi. You'd simply love it for what it is - the best song you've ever heard.


When I find out it was done by a rapist, and every time I listened to that song I'd remember that and it would influence how I felt about it and eventually ruin my enjoyment of it.
 
Jan 29, 2013 9:30 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3956
I couldn't care less about who creates the music I enjoy or what they get up to in their free time.
 
Jan 29, 2013 9:33 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 428
@Immahnoob: I can't see the first one.

@hboson: that's kind of irrational. He can act however he/she likes, but you can't know what he was thinking, in which state of mind he was when he made the piece of art AND when he raped someone. That's why considering the attitude of the artist is very misleading, because you can never have the real truth behind his/her actions or even behind the art he/she creates as well.
On the contrary, you can always rely on your own critic sense while contemplating a piece of art. Being unrelated to the artist makes you free to perceive what YOU feel, and not what the artist wants YOU to feel. The whole artistic mechanism is quite complex, but I'm totally convinced that the artist should not be able to change the artistic only value of a piece of art.

My own opinion, I hope others agree with me.

@Katagari: and what if you NEVER find out?
I'm a self-taught composer, and here you can find the tracks I've composed so far:
http://www.youtube.com/user/kiusdexra

https://soundcloud.com/marko-poskurica

A single click on each one of them would make me really happy!

If you want to make any comment or critic, do it on my profile or as a comment on youtube / soundcloud!
 
Jan 29, 2013 9:35 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 98
Immahnoob said:
As a matter of fact it's illogical, it's simply the truth... Blaming the action instead of the one that commits said action is still retarded.


Please, give me your opinion on this.

Do you like it or dislike it?

What about this one?
I never said I blame the 'action'. I said that the message of the music is less convincing and has less of an impact than it otherwise would. I never said that I would denounce a song because the musician behaved like an asshole.

Anyway, this debate is going in circles so I'm not going to reply unless you have something new to add.
Immahnoob said:
It's still illogical nonetheless, now try and give your opinions on those paintings.
The first image is giving me an error. The other painting is pretty though.
 
Jan 29, 2013 9:40 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 19412


This was made by Adolf Hitler...

And the second one was made by an anti-semitist French painter called Edgar Degas.

I have nothing new to add because there is no need for something new to be added, if the message is positive, it's all that matters and that's all that should be judged. This debate goes in circles because you have no counter argument, it will still be illogical until proven otherwise.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
 
Jan 29, 2013 9:42 AM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1081
Immahnoob said:


This was made by Adolf Hitler...

And the second one was made by an anti-semitist French painter called Edgar Degas.

I have nothing new to add because there is no need for something new to be added, if the message is positive, it's all that matters and that's all that should be judged. This debate goes in circles because you have no counter argument, it will still be illogical until proven otherwise.


How exactly are paintings even vaguely relevant? The pictures you posted have no apparent message behind them, they are simply art alone. We're talking about people who try to send through a message without following it themselves, and how that can decreases the value of their message, and thus the song. As I said before, lyrics are a big part of music.

Since you've already gone all Godwin's law, no one would take a song by Hitler about peace and love seriously. Even if the message was a good one, it would go by ignored by the far majority; hence why "Practise what you preach" is generally a very common phrase.

Before acting like a complete pseudo-intellectual with your spam of "illogical" in every sentence, it helps to understand the position of the person you supposedly oppose.
Modified by Trapalicious, Jan 29, 2013 9:51 AM
 
Jan 29, 2013 9:50 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 19412
It's the idea of disliking something or losing interest in said thing because the creator is *insert negative adjective here*, so it's basically the same thing. You're judging the picture/creation by it's creator instead of judging the picture alone.
Modified by Immahnoob, Jan 29, 2013 9:57 AM




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
 
Jan 29, 2013 9:53 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 757
Propu said:
@Immahnoob: I can't see the first one.

@hboson: that's kind of irrational. He can act however he/she likes, but you can't know what he was thinking, in which state of mind he was when he made the piece of art AND when he raped someone. That's why considering the attitude of the artist is very misleading, because you can never have the real truth behind his/her actions or even behind the art he/she creates as well.
On the contrary, you can always rely on your own critic sense while contemplating a piece of art. Being unrelated to the artist makes you free to perceive what YOU feel, and not what the artist wants YOU to feel. The whole artistic mechanism is quite complex, but I'm totally convinced that the artist should not be able to change the artistic only value of a piece of art.

My own opinion, I hope others agree with me.

@Katagari: and what if you NEVER find out?


Ignorance is bliss =p
 
Jan 29, 2013 9:53 AM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1081
Immahnoob said:
It's the idea of disliking something or losing interest in said thing because the creator is *insert negative adjective here*, so it's basically the same thing. You're judging the picture/creation by it's creator instead of judging the picture alone.


Me judging music which is trying to preach a message is not even vaguely the same as judging another song which is simply art with no message behind it. You would have to be a complete idiot to state otherwise.

Perhaps if those paintings had some context behind them, your comparison would be more valid, but they do not.
 
Jan 29, 2013 10:12 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 428
As I said before, lyrics are a big part of music.


You acknowledge the fact that most of the music on the earth is instrumental, right?

You also acknowledge that disliking a piece of art made by some evil man is the same as what past societies did, disliking and even ignoring great art done by black people, for example. You can say "Ye ok buddy, but it's different since those societies were totally wrong discriminating black people, and it's right to discriminate rapists", I can't agree more with you here... As far as the law is concerned, but art has NOTHING to do with any law on the earth. If the biggest rapist in the world is at the same time the BEST artist ever existed, I will never, EVER deny his worth as an artist, and I will ALWAYS despise him for his deeds as a criminal. I'll always consider him as an artist AND as a rapist, and I'll be very aware to never mix these two aspects of his.

In other words, if Hitler had the musical knowledge, creativity and production of Ennio Morricone, I would have hated him for Nazism & WWII but I would proudly praise him as one of the best composers ever.
I'm a self-taught composer, and here you can find the tracks I've composed so far:
http://www.youtube.com/user/kiusdexra

https://soundcloud.com/marko-poskurica

A single click on each one of them would make me really happy!

If you want to make any comment or critic, do it on my profile or as a comment on youtube / soundcloud!
 
Jan 29, 2013 10:22 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 19412
Trapalicious said:
Immahnoob said:
It's the idea of disliking something or losing interest in said thing because the creator is *insert negative adjective here*, so it's basically the same thing. You're judging the picture/creation by it's creator instead of judging the picture alone.


Me judging music which is trying to preach a message is not even vaguely the same as judging another song which is simply art with no message behind it. You would have to be a complete idiot to state otherwise.

Perhaps if those paintings had some context behind them, your comparison would be more valid, but they do not.

What about Leni Riefenstahl and her movie Triumph of the Will which is one of the most known movies she made? Most of what she produced was propaganda for the nazis, yet the BBC and The Associated Press deemed her as an "acclaimed pioneer of film and photographic techniques”, “were hailed as groundbreaking film-making, pioneering techniques involving cranes, tracking rails, and many cameras working at the same time”. She won prizes in the US and France with Triumph of the Will too.

What about Ivan the Terrible that was a movie made by Sergei Eisenstein? It was Stalin's favorite movie and he helped and awarded it, yet it was against his regime.

Also, Godwin said himself he did not make it a fallacy, Hitler's art was amazing, yet he killed a lot of people, is his art bad now? What about all the good economical changes that happened in Germany when he was ruling? Were those bad too? These analogies work perfectly fine.

What about the composer Kyle Gann in his “I am not my music’s fault.” article?

http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2005/06/i_am_not_my_musics_fault.html

The artwork is independent of it's creator. He may not believe in his work, but that does not make his work less credible.

My comparisons are valid, most music is also instrumental, by the way, and it still has a meaning behind it...





Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
 
Jan 29, 2013 10:36 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 428
+1 to ALL what Immahnoob said, he also has a larger artistic knowledge than me and says things better.

And by the way, "what people say", is just what people say. Most of the time, it's not "What's correct", or better, "What should be correct".
I'm a self-taught composer, and here you can find the tracks I've composed so far:
http://www.youtube.com/user/kiusdexra

https://soundcloud.com/marko-poskurica

A single click on each one of them would make me really happy!

If you want to make any comment or critic, do it on my profile or as a comment on youtube / soundcloud!
 
Jan 29, 2013 10:44 AM

Offline
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 1081
Cool, 3 replies, all of which have seemingly not understood my position, and are cramming me in with other people with different views in the thread.

@Propu - I already stated that I am talking about artists who are specifically disingenuous about their beliefs, and how that makes the music less enjoyable.

@Immahnoob - I'm just going to quote myself again, because I'm bored of repeating to you:
I listen to a few bands with Nazi-like imagery and views, but that doesn't affect how much I enjoy their music. On the other hand, A Tribe Called Quest piss me off immensely due to trying to convey a peaceful image, yet have an extremely homophobic song

If their music was instrumental, or simply wasn't attempting to convey such a message, I wouldn't care about their actual views and such a song wouldn't affect how I feel overall about their music and as a group.

@obbsworld - Read what I said above. Those images have no context behind them, and no apparent message they're trying to get by. On the otherhand, if the painting by Hitler was trying to spread world peace and the love of Jews, I'm going to find the picture less appealing due to obvious reasons.
Modified by Trapalicious, Jan 29, 2013 10:49 AM
 
Jan 29, 2013 10:49 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 428
I just suggest to you one thing Trebalicious, then: stop looking for information about the new artists you'll encounter from now on. The best would be if you couldn't know at all who made all the new art you'll face :) Not even the name, the nationality, the age, or the era in which that art was done. Trust me, you're gonna love Art even more ;)
I'm a self-taught composer, and here you can find the tracks I've composed so far:
http://www.youtube.com/user/kiusdexra

https://soundcloud.com/marko-poskurica

A single click on each one of them would make me really happy!

If you want to make any comment or critic, do it on my profile or as a comment on youtube / soundcloud!
 
Jan 29, 2013 10:51 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 98
Propu said:
As I said before, lyrics are a big part of music.


You acknowledge the fact that most of the music on the earth is instrumental, right?

You also acknowledge that disliking a piece of art made by some evil man is the same as what past societies did, disliking and even ignoring great art done by black people, for example. You can say "Ye ok buddy, but it's different since those societies were totally wrong discriminating black people, and it's right to discriminate rapists", I can't agree more with you here... As far as the law is concerned, but art has NOTHING to do with any law on the earth. If the biggest rapist in the world is at the same time the BEST artist ever existed, I will never, EVER deny his worth as an artist, and I will ALWAYS despise him for his deeds as a criminal. I'll always consider him as an artist AND as a rapist, and I'll be very aware to never mix these two aspects of his.

In other words, if Hitler had the musical knowledge, creativity and production of Ennio Morricone, I would have hated him for Nazism & WWII but I would proudly praise him as one of the best composers ever.
Did you just compare a race of people to rapists?

You're completely misunderstanding what we (or at least I) have been saying. You mentioned instrumental music. I would have no qualms listening to instrumentals made by assholes.

hboson said:
When I listen to music, I think the message has less significance to me if the musicians or music groups that created it are being hypocritical. However, it does not matter to me if the message of their music has nothing to do with their behavior. Lets say a band that makes songs about heartbreak has been reported to have used racial slurs. In that case I would continue to listen to their music just as I did before.
Modified by howlingfantods, Jan 29, 2013 10:54 AM
 
Jan 29, 2013 11:00 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 428
I did compare a race to a rapist, here is why: long ago being black was a CRIME. Same as raping a woman is today. People have always discriminated other people who committed a crime, that's why long ago black art (which very rarely existed) was discriminated, same as today a rapist's art is discriminated.

The point is, both acts are wrong, from the artistic point of view.
I'm a self-taught composer, and here you can find the tracks I've composed so far:
http://www.youtube.com/user/kiusdexra

https://soundcloud.com/marko-poskurica

A single click on each one of them would make me really happy!

If you want to make any comment or critic, do it on my profile or as a comment on youtube / soundcloud!
 
Jan 29, 2013 11:11 AM

Offline
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 98
Rape is wrong, being black isn't. That comparison was in bad taste.
 
Jan 29, 2013 11:12 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 428
500 years ago raping wasn't wrong and being black was.
I'm a self-taught composer, and here you can find the tracks I've composed so far:
http://www.youtube.com/user/kiusdexra

https://soundcloud.com/marko-poskurica

A single click on each one of them would make me really happy!

If you want to make any comment or critic, do it on my profile or as a comment on youtube / soundcloud!
 
Jan 29, 2013 11:19 AM

Offline
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 428
I'm wondering who is that "you" you're referring to. If it's me, you're wrong, I wouldn't care AT ALL what happened to the artist and would just praise all of his work for their worth.
I'm a self-taught composer, and here you can find the tracks I've composed so far:
http://www.youtube.com/user/kiusdexra

https://soundcloud.com/marko-poskurica

A single click on each one of them would make me really happy!

If you want to make any comment or critic, do it on my profile or as a comment on youtube / soundcloud!
 
Jan 29, 2013 11:22 AM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 19412
Propu said:
I'm wondering who is that "you" you're referring to. If it's me, you're wrong, I wouldn't care AT ALL what happened to the artist and would just praise all of his work for their worth.

He speaks in general.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
 
Jan 29, 2013 11:33 AM

Offline
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 5251
We all know that Amy Winehouse was a knock down drag out black out drunk.
But I never stopped loving her.
 
Jan 29, 2013 11:43 AM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 160
i'll just do this --


/thread?
 
Jan 29, 2013 12:19 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 743
It wouldn't really matter to me at all, but I can't say I've had much of an experience in this though. I mean, there are people in bands that I know of that definitely seem like assholes, but for that doesn't seem to be the case in the bands that I listen to on a relatively regular basis as far as I know.

On the other hand, it's nice to find out a member of a band is actually really nice in person. Back in October, I met one of my favorite Japanese bands, 385, at a concert they were having in Nagoya. I just walked up and started talking to them, and they were really nice, and I got a picture with them. They even gave me some free stuff. They were also surprised to see me in some random club in Nagoya though, since I was the only person at the concert that wasn't Japanese.

TDLR: A band being assholes doesn't affect my opinion of their music, but if they are nice people, I will want to do more to support them.
私のホバークラフトは鰻でいっぱいです
 
Jan 29, 2013 12:55 PM

Offline
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 19412
Kyzix said:

TDLR: A band being assholes doesn't affect my opinion of their music, but if they are nice people, I will want to do more to support them.

This is what makes most sense.




Autocrat said:
Hitler was good, objectively.
 
Jan 29, 2013 1:06 PM

Offline
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 794
Baman said:
None whatsoever. I couldn't even name the members of most of my favourite bands.

That being said, it was kind of fun hearing about Mike Portnoy after he left Dream Theater, such magnificent levels of butthurt.


I agree.

I don't see why it would make a difference on the way I enjoy thier music. Good music is good, and I already get most of it online anyway so it's not like I was supporting them to begin with. I like my bands for their music not who tey are and if they are all serial killers, good for them for not getting caught I guess.
*Cringey anime weeb stuff*
 
Jan 29, 2013 2:20 PM

Offline
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 9983
I like songs, not bands.
 
Jan 29, 2013 2:35 PM

Offline
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 1189
We tend to portray famous people in this society as almost gods, and we expect them to be perfect, when they are far from it. They're people who make mistakes just as everyone does. It doesn't change their talent for music or whatever they do.
 
Top
Pages (2) [1] 2 »