Separation Between Music and Artist?

Submitted by BBoi138 t3_11ugidj in Music

Been thinking about it a lot lately, but what is everybody’s thoughts on separating the artist (actions, beliefs, etc.) from the music? I do enjoy all genres of music and I feel like there are artists in every genre that have possibly done some not so great things or hold beliefs that may seem somewhat extreme and intolerable, but where’s the line to draw? Is there is one? Like GG Allin, Burzum, or Michael Graves! I like some of their music, but their actions and beliefs make it hard for me to support them or listen to their music. I was at a record store the other day and they had a collection of letters between GG and John Wayne Gacy (which for a crime and punk fan, is the holy grail) but I couldn’t get myself to purchase them solely off the fact that they’re both fucked and I don’t support them! What is everyone’s thoughts on this? Should you hold the artist’s music accountable for what they may have done? Or should you put distance in between the two and enjoy the music and disagree with the artist actions or beliefs? Thanks guys hope we can have a good debate/discussion!

Side Note: By no means am I trying to have someone choose my decision (if there is one), but am just curious on what others think!

1

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Primary_Somewhere_98 t1_jco3nj0 wrote

Its up to you and your own sense of morals. Sometimes one member of a group has done something bad (eg David Ruffin of The Temptations, domestic violence) but I'd still buy their stuff.

But Gary Glitter (child sex abuse) I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting him.

1

xtiaaneubaten t1_jco44yf wrote

I would listen to Satan himself if he put out a fucking excellent shoegaze album...

5

driving_andflying t1_jco9m9g wrote

I try to separate my politics and my music, as well as the artist from the music. If I didn't, my music library would be incredibly small.

To put is simply, people are complex. One person's angelic saint is another's horrible monster--and I'm pretty sure every musician has done something wrong to someone, somehow, to some degree. So, I buy the music that I like and stay largely ignorant of an artist's history or political views--and even then, there are some people whose music I refuse to buy.

1

UrAcUnt- t1_jcobt5p wrote

Not an answer to your question but a recent movie, Tar, revolves around this argument. Take time to watch it.

1

IHaveAWalkingCastle t1_jcobwer wrote

Whenever you listen to a song you gain some agency over it. You are interpreter of that piece of art and it means something to you that it doesn't mean to the person who created it, based on your own life experience. That said, fuck financially supporting someone with obviously harmful views, or who has committed obviously harmful acts. The monetary support is the issue in the current musical climate.

1

DerTeufelkind t1_jcoipzk wrote

It really depends on how heavily they lean on their views, and if their views are troublesome or not. I wouldn't listen to Burzum, for example, because Varg is abhorrent, but right-wing views in general are common in black metal, and I do enjoy some of the bands. I wouldn't deem right-wing views as enough to drop a band, in spite of my objection to the right-wing, but going further into far-right views would be an immediate no, because I'd then be supporting fascists. I'm not entirely sure if I'd support far-left bands either, especially if it was a significant part of them and their music, because there are issues with the far-left as well, though for vastly different reasons.

1

darw1nf1sh t1_jcovumh wrote

Replying to specialspartan_ (#2,260,823)

No, they didn't. The question is should you even enjoy or listen to music created by problematic artists. Mozart was an asshole. Wagner was an antisemite. We still listen to their music and enjoy it apart from the composer. That has nothing to do with the moral question of whether stealing a product is justified or not.

0

specialspartan_ t1_jcp1u9f wrote

Replying to darw1nf1sh (#2,262,155)

It absolutely does. Appreciation of art and music is an integral part of the human experience and losing that due to a concern over giving financial support and enabling assholes and abusers is a terrible choice. The obvious solution is to enjoy the art you want to and steal it from those you don't want to enable so that you are not forced to choose to deprive yourself of what you love or enable such people.

1

Heart_Juice t1_jcp2s3q wrote

I don't feel the need to separate anything; the political views are part of the experience for me.

A revolution is almost always a terrible idea, and I agree with next to nothing that RATM stands (or stood) for as regards political action. But when I listen to their music, I feel like getting a boom blaster, plastering a flag that says "guerilla radio" to it, and going around town barechested with a megaphone while I advocate a communist takeover. Perhaps I even imagine it joyfully. What I can't stand is when music feels fake, or clearly separated from the artist (the problem with RATM, amongst so many others, "selling out"? They're all filthy rich at this point, so how convincing now is their revolutionary spirit?)

It's play, which doesn't mean you shouldn't take it seriously. Burning churches is stupid, murder is evil, but it's part of Burzum's charm; the point is that - despite his edgelordness - he is far darker than most people mentally.

It extends to everything. It wouldn't suit South Park to have been made by modern liberals (and they never would have). I have no idea which artists I agree with politically - a point here and there - and that's all I need, because most political or philosophical aspects of music reduce to a simple point or emotion that I can recognize in myself; RATM's revolutionary mayhem or their anger at unfairness, South Park's cynical distance from society, even Burzum's embrace of darkness and spiritual isolation, Megadeth's "this is my life and it's none of your business" libertarianism.

To me, the stupidity begins when you're no longer playing and you let the musician actually tell you what to believe.

1

darw1nf1sh t1_jcp3l8i wrote

Replying to specialspartan_ (#2,262,489)

You don't need art to live. It isn't food, or water, or shelter. Your desire to have it does not give you a right to steal it, regardless of the artist. There is no justification for it morally or ethically. Your inability to afford it or unwillingness to support the artist, does not give you carte blanche to steal it.

0

darw1nf1sh t1_jcp98cg wrote

Replying to specialspartan_ (#2,262,723)

So you agree with me then that stealing food if you are starving is different from stealing music you don't need but want? We could argue the ethics of homelessness, but we aren't. We are talking about piracy of unnecessary things. You can rationalize it however you want, but it is theft.

1

[deleted] t1_jcp9tnm wrote

I really can’t bear this trend - and it is a trend - of people caring so intensely about the personal morality of others and making almost everything into politics. It really seems like even less than a decade ago, they did it a lot less, and I honestly can’t wait for it to end. So yeah, I separate the art from the artist in moral terms because I generally couldn’t care less about others’ morals. If I just happen to find them an annoying person, on a purely personal level, then it’s different.

1

fungus-and-bugs t1_jcpcy9f wrote

No one is 100% evil. To erase the good one has done only serves to accentuate the bad. If the art doesn’t make me think of their atrocities then I’ll still appreciate it. But I also understand if someone has a hard time separating the art from the artist.

1

ViralTheFrog t1_jcs0b9f wrote

I don't separate musicians from their art, nor any other artist from theirs. If they're a piece of shit, I refuse to do anything to support them.

1