Separating the art from the artist

Used to like Rolph Harris's paintings. And then there's the collateral damage: no nostalgia tour paydays for the Glitter Band. Paul Whitehouse's best work, arguably, was the tv series 'Help'. That seems to have been 'cancelled' through no fault of his.
 
Anthony Kiedis is an interesting one. The Chili Peppers are huge and can surely sell out stadiums in most countries around the world. Amongst other things in Kiedis' book he admits to the statuary rape of a 13 year old on two occasions. I think it's odd how some slip under the radar and others are cancelled, maybe it's because it came out in 2004 when cancel culture wasn't really a thing.
 
parnabyscrosses said:
Anthony Kiedis is an interesting one. The Chili Peppers are huge and can surely sell out stadiums in most countries around the world. Amongst other things in Kiedis' book he admits to the statuary rape of a 13 year old on two occasions. I think it's odd how some slip under the radar and others are cancelled, maybe it's because it came out in 2004 when cancel culture wasn't really a thing.
Click to expand...
I often wonder this. It can surely only be down to the fact that said 13 year olds haven’t come forward and complained. Which sort of makes a mockery of the idea that consent can’t be given at 13, I mean we know it can’t, but it’s like we still let people off when 13 year olds give their false “consent”.
 
I'm definitely on the side of "separation" - my Spotify would be pretty empty otherwise. As mentioned above, I believe it's possible to enjoy an artist's work without necessarily endorsing their attitude or behaviour. That said, it does it get tricky when the attitude pervades the work (not always the case) and of course in many instances you may actually be funding their lifestyle and enabling behaviour etc...

Morrissey I've always assumed (perhaps wrongly) to fall on the side of "controversy" - basically saying anything to get a headline, coincidence that this behaviour seems to have escalated over recent years where he has found himself without a label and presumably less cash than previously?
 
atypical_boro said:
I often wonder this. It can surely only be down to the fact that said 13 year olds haven’t come forward and complained. Which sort of makes a mockery of the idea that consent can’t be given at 13, I mean we know it can’t, but it’s like we still let people off when 13 year olds give their false “consent”.
Click to expand...
I think there's a similar thing about Robert Plant or someone in Led Zepp taking a little girl on tour with him or something?
 
parnabyscrosses said:
I think there's a similar thing about Robert Plant or someone in Led Zepp taking a little girl on tour with him or something?
Click to expand...
Yeah, they’ve all done dodgy stuff, especially from that era. It really wasn’t all that frowned upon I don’t think. Certainly not like now.

Keidis is from a later era though which does make it a bit different I think, not that anyone cares.
 
atypical_boro said:
Yeah, they’ve all done dodgy stuff, especially from that era. It really wasn’t all that frowned upon I don’t think. Certainly not like now.

Keidis is from a later era though which does make it a bit different I think, not that anyone cares.
Click to expand...
Yeah, unsurprising that Kiedis is a sexual deviant really given his upbringing and how his father treated him especially with regard to sex and drugs.
It's a great book anyway despite the rape admission, one of my favourite rock autobiographies ever.
 
parnabyscrosses said:
Yeah, unsurprising that Kiedis is a sexual deviant really given his upbringing and how his father treated him especially with regard to sex and drugs.
It's a great book anyway despite the rape admission, one of my favourite rock autobiographies ever.
Click to expand...

I keep meaning to take a look at that - is it worth reading even if you think the RHCP are an overrated one trick pony (honorable exception for Dave Navarro just because being in Janes Addiction pardons you from any criticism) ?
 
Really interesting to read peoples opinions on this subject. It started me thinking a bit. Would I stop listening to someones music because they were bad people.. No I don't think I would. I like Claptons stuff for example.

I think people are multi-faceted and however despicible one part of their character is I am not sure it should condemn the rest of the character, generally. There are exceptions, of course. It's difficult to counter balance child abuse with any other good trait. It is much easier to listen to a racists music if you like what they produce (assuming the message isn't racist, of course), than say, forgive Jackson his crimes.. Alleged crimes, I mean.
 
Another shout for Ryan Adams. Been a fan for 20yrs and he has soundtracked pretty much the whole of my marriage, with my wife being a big fan as well.

Was glad that the worse charges were dropped as think that would have stopped me listening completely. As for the charges of being over controlling, whiney and an **** to women, you don't need to have listened to his songs that closely to realise that relationships aren't his strong point. But don't think that should be enough to cancel him in the way that the music press seem to have.

That said, whilst I do still listen to his music I get a lot less enjoyment from it these days. Similar to if the Smiths come on. I'll still listen just don't enjoy it the same anymore.

As said above there are plenty that have slipped under the radar. Think RA has been harshly dealt with for the fact that most in the industry thought he was an **** anyway so saw this as the chance to throw him under the bus
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top