Can you enjoy entertainment from horrible people?

[Ruisu]

Don't know if anyone said something similar before, but I have no problems listening to Michael Jackson's music even though I know he's actually guilty of abusing those kids (won't buy he was innocent for a minute).

Yeah, Beat It is still cool, and his dance moves still awe me.

So Lostprophets, well, I was listening to their music just a moment ago, and what I really feel bad about is that they are likely never gonna make a new album, ever. I've been a fan of their work for so long, knowing Ian was a sicko doesn't really change how I like their music.

 

[Rob Robson]

If MUSE were put on trial for triple homicide with racist motivations, I don't know. I think I couldn't ever stop listening to the music, because it's too big a part of my life. But I would naturally condemn their actions.

But Phil Fish's games? No... I've seen Fez on sale for as little as 99 cents but... No, just no.

I think the distinction is, 'have I bought it yet'. If no, then no I will not, but if I already did then why stop using what I bought?

 

[Tsun Tzu]

I can pretty reliably separate the artist from their art. Even moviebob!

I kid, I kid.

In this instance in particular (I really could have done without knowing this about the Lostprophets, but eh) I can still do so without much thought. Last Train Home and Shinobi vs Dragon Ninja will remain on my playlists. Watkins was 1/6 of the effort that went into making the songs...so I can afford to be 5/6 guilt free while listening.

 

[Gorrath]

I've never really wrapped my head around this in a way that makes me understand why someone wouldn't separate the two. Especially in the West, we buy things all the time that fund people who are far worse than bigots, idiots and even physically abusive assholes. This is what got me about the Orson Scott Card debate. Hey might get some of your money and he might even give that money to a group who in turn spends it to further an ideology you don't like, but people still buy shoes or games or electronics or even food and housing that furthers abuses that are far worse than what Card stands for (reprehensible as I find it).

One might argue that one is entertainment and the other necessity, but I think that is an over simplification. While I don't rightly care if someone stops supporting an artist because of things they don't like about them personally, I just don't see the point if you aren't consistent in this approach. How much effect does one really have if they fail to buy the next album made by a bigot whilst still purchasing goods, services and entertainment from a myriad of other equally bad if not worse sources?

That's why I have no problem listening to music or reading books by people who I don't agree with or who I think are jackasses. In order to be consistent in my desire to not fund the outrageously unjust, I'd pretty much have to live like a hermit.

 

[TheRiddler]

I think that as long as whatever unsavory views they hold or unsavory actions that they've committed don't seem to leak into their work. Despite OSC's views on homosexuality, I still really enjoy Ender's Game. If I was to find out that my favorite musician was an anti-Semite, I'd still listen to their music unless they came out with a song titled "Fuck the Jews", or similar.

 

[Ruisu]

I've never really wrapped my head around this in a way that makes me understand why someone wouldn't separate the two. Especially in the West, we buy things all the time that fund people who are far worse than bigots, idiots and even physically abusive assholes. This is what got me about the Orson Scott Card debate. Hey might get some of your money and he might even give that money to a group who in turn spends it to further an ideology you don't like, but people still buy shoes or games or electronics or even food and housing that furthers abuses that are far worse than what Card stands for (reprehensible as I find it).

One might argue that one is entertainment and the other necessity, but I think that is an over simplification. While I don't rightly care if someone stops supporting an artist because of things they don't like about them personally, I just don't see the point if you aren't consistent in this approach. How much effect does one really have if they fail to buy the next album made by a bigot whilst still purchasing goods, services and entertainment from a myriad of other equally bad if not worse sources?

That's why I have no problem listening to music or reading books by people who I don't agree with or who I think are jackasses. In order to be consistent in my desire to not fund the outrageously unjust, I'd pretty much have to live like a hermit.

Chinese near-slave like work and all that, right?
All those nike shoes and samsung phones. lol

 

[Gorrath]

I've never really wrapped my head around this in a way that makes me understand why someone wouldn't separate the two. Especially in the West, we buy things all the time that fund people who are far worse than bigots, idiots and even physically abusive assholes. This is what got me about the Orson Scott Card debate. Hey might get some of your money and he might even give that money to a group who in turn spends it to further an ideology you don't like, but people still buy shoes or games or electronics or even food and housing that furthers abuses that are far worse than what Card stands for (reprehensible as I find it).

One might argue that one is entertainment and the other necessity, but I think that is an over simplification. While I don't rightly care if someone stops supporting an artist because of things they don't like about them personally, I just don't see the point if you aren't consistent in this approach. How much effect does one really have if they fail to buy the next album made by a bigot whilst still purchasing goods, services and entertainment from a myriad of other equally bad if not worse sources?

That's why I have no problem listening to music or reading books by people who I don't agree with or who I think are jackasses. In order to be consistent in my desire to not fund the outrageously unjust, I'd pretty much have to live like a hermit.

Chinese near-slave like work and all that, right?
All those nike shoes and samsung phones. lol

Indeed, but it goes beyond the outsourcing of jobs to foreign countries. Monsanto is a pretty awful company, but to avoid buying its products you'd all but have to stop buying food from anything but small farmers. Venturing into a mall and walking out with bags of product is a near guarantee that you're supporting a myriad of companies that do woeful things. Not buying a book because you don't like the author's take on religion or politics seems like slapping a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. I don't mean to suggest people shouldn't engage in boycotts of whatever they feel is appropriate, I simply question its effectiveness.

 

[DugMachine]

Most of the time. I like the know about the artists I'm listening to and if they're awful people it might impact the way I look at their music, especially in the lyrics. But I normally listen to instrumental/electronic type music so it's easy to separate the two.

Also, I was never a Lost Prophet fan but that's seriously fucked up.

 

[Arrogancy]

At its core, everyone has dome something objectionable. You aren't going to find someone with whom you agree 100%. Nikolai Tesla endorsed eugenics, George Washington owned slaves, H.P. Lovecraft was a racist. All of these people are well-remembered though. It's important to remember that a creator is not their work, and that a work has a quality of its own that is not inherently tied to the history, personality, and beliefs of the creator.

 

[Gorrath]

Honestly, the people who question why people would boycott an artist when they're constantly supporting horrible things either ignorantly or knowingly, comes across as arguing that, unless you can fix everything in the world, you shouldn't even try. Not giving money to child rapists or bigots does a little bit of good for the world and costs you nothing other than the effort needed to find a new band or read a different book.

So, while boycotting artists might not be the most effective thing to fix the world, it's an incredibly practical and economic way to make it a little better. You can justify that you see works as separate from creators all you want, you're still giving money and support to child rapists and bigots because you can't put in the pathetic amount of effort to find something else to entertain yourself.

Well, I didn't argue that if people don't boycott everything bad that they shouldn't boycott anything bad. What I'm saying is that I question the effectiveness of such boycotts to produce any results. As I mentioned, I'm fully behind anyone who wants to boycott OSC, but I don't expect that it'll have any great effect at this point.

I also wholly disagree with your statement that, "...while boycotting artists might not be the most effective thing to fix the world, it's an incredibly practical and economic way to make it a little better."

Failing to support great works of art, regardless of who created said work, is not at all a practical way to make the world a little better. In fact, I'd say that failing to support a great work of art diminishes the world. If you were to find that one of the greatest artists of our time happened to also be a bigot, would the world be a better place if that artist was not supported through the sale of their work and thus gave up on doing it? While I can separate the art from the artist ideologically, we certainly cannot separate the art from the artist financially, as then the creation of the art would cease.

As for that last bit, I could just reply with: You can justify that you buy Monsanto's products out of necessity, but you're still giving money to a company that pushes small farmers off their land through blackmail and theft because you can't put in the pathetic amount of effort required to find something else to eat. The difference being that, if you don't support Monsanto, you'd still find food to eat, if no one had supported OSC, there would never have been "Speaker for the Dead". One robs you of nothing, the other robs the world of a truly great novel.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I definitely can but I think it's circumstantial. I know a lot of artists (and I guess by a loose enough definition I could be considered one.) They're generally at least a little bit eccentric, if not flat out weird. Sometimes that manifests itself in a way that's what we conventionally view as bad. If an artist contributes something extremely interesting and unique but he's fucked in the head somehow, that's the kind of person it takes to do so.

That said, LostProphets is in my opinion a competent but bland alternative rock group of which the world already has thousands. If he was writing the most obscenely profound and inventive music the world had ever seen, maybe his art would better transcend him as a person, but as it stands, I don't think it will. It also doesn't help that since he's the singer of the band, all their songs are narrated from what is perceived as his point of view.

 

[Queen Michael]

Sure I can. Adolf Hitler was a disgusting pig and a sorry excuse for a human being, but I still really enjoy his dirty limericks.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I don't know, to this day I can't watch a Chris Beniot match with out mentally tracing how close he is calender wise to killing his wife and kid. mind you i don't hate the guy, I think he just snapped and went insane. he had a brain of an 85 year old alzheimer patient at the end.

People still enjoy the works of Bing Crosby, Errol Flynn, Peter Sellers and Marlon Brando.
Heck! Mel Gibson's been entertaining us for years before we found out what kind of person he was.

Don't even get me started on Michael Jackson and Pee Wee Herman!

is it fair to get on Pee Wee's case? He was jacking it in a porn theater. For fucks sake, thats what they're for.

I feel slightly bad because when I heard about Ian Watkins, I kept getting Last Train Home and Rooftops stuck in my head.
But really, they're a band and I liked their music. It's not the band's fault he is how he is and they shouldn't be getting hate.

I'll still listen to them, it's just sickening to know what we know about the singer but it doesn't invalidate how much I liked them.

On a similar note, the video to 'A town called hypocrisy' looks sinister in light of recent events.

This I am suspicious of. How can someone be band mates with a person like this and not possibly know?

It's like waking up one morning and finding out your room mate is The Joker.

 

[EeveeElectro]

-snip-

You'd be surprised actually. You'd be really surprised. I lived with a child rapist for 9 years and didn't know a thing, when it all came out it was a punch to the gut because you just had no idea. If they were open about it, they'd get caught.

Of course they'd hide it, if a band member got wind of it, I hope they'd have the right morals and go to the police. Or maybe they knew and knew it would wreck the bands reputation and they'd sell no more records? But then, I don't want to be as cynical to assume someone would think like that, it's just disgusting.

How did the media not even catch wind of it? Apparently his ex tried telling the police because he TOLD her he wanted to rape a baby but they apparently ignored her and signed her off as a crazy fan.

On a similar vein that I forgot to add in my first post, it becomes a problem when you DEFEND their person and their horrible actions. I actually saw some LP fangirls with a "I don't give a shit, I wear my LP shirt with pride!!!! fuck u all!!!"
And I've seen countless girls say "Oooh, Chris Brown, I'd let you beat me up!"

 

[ForumSafari]

I won (???, that should be "own) a copy of Burzums Filosofem, i can separate an artists personal life from his actual work. I don't even mind giving him money for his art, unless he suddenly decides to advertise that he's using said money to further his cause and as long his work doesn't reflect his idiotic behaviour.

well said. This debate may be new to mainstream audiences but it's a situation well known to Burzum fans and other black metal lovers. The fact is a persons expression can stand apart from the person that makes them. Many popular artists in the nerd sphere had opinions that many would disagree with today.

also listen to jeg faller, i think it's post prison and the entire Fallen album is very good, jeg faller is the best track imho.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

I don't care what kind of people produce my media. Every day I use products produced by what essentially amounts to third world slavery. Giving money to terrible people is a sad reality of living in a capitalist society.

 

[Korolev]

You can enjoy things made by horrible people. By all accounts Wagner was a horrible, nasty, anti-semitic, nationalistic bigot - but he made DAMN good music. Music that, unfortunately, was really loved by the Nazis. But just because the Nazis liked something doesn't mean it is wrong to like it. I'm pretty sure the Nazis liked cars and sunny weather - that doesn't me we can't like cars or sunny weather. The Nazis were evil because they killed millions, not because they liked Wagner's music and I'm pretty sure that Wagner's music didn't give them the idea to invade Russia.

If the work in question doesn't PROMOTE horrible values, then it's fine.

 

[Korolev]

You can also sort of bring yourself to admire the things bad people do. The Nazis, to go back to them, tiring as they are, accomplished some amazing things. They were evil and horrible and nasty you could get, and the harm they did outweighs their achievements by 100000 times, but they still did do some nifty things - or, to say, those under them achieved some nifty things. The German Army fought tremendously well during the Second World War - on a per-unit, per soldier level, no other army of the Second World War fought as well as they did. They lost because their leaders were bone-headed and they took on too many enemies. But the fighting skills displayed by the Germans was pretty astonishing. Of course, it was in service of a truly, horribly evil cause - but still, when you read about what the German Army was capable of, you can sort have a grudging respect for what they managed to pull off. Same with Genghis Khan - he was a horrific mass murderer, but his military skills were something to write home about, because he never lost a fight. Admiring Genghis Khan's skills doesn't mean I like what the guy did (the low number of deaths the Mongol Hordes Killed is about 40 million - and that is the LOW estimate, which isn't that much less than the number Hitler killed in Europe) - but when someone fights well, there's no point in denying it. When someone does something well, there's little point in trying to say "NO THEY DIDN'T" just because they were bad people.

Bad people can be skilled. Evil people can be talented. Look at the Roman Empire - many Historians are fascinated by the Romans, emulate the Romans to some extent, cherish their history and culture. But LOOK AT WHAT THE ROMANS DID. Read the History of the Roman Empire - it was one of slavery and bloody conquest and heavy taxation and sheer misery for those who unfortunately happened to live in the path of the Legions. The Ancient Romans did not have a nice society - not at all. If the Romans were around today, everyone would be calling them horrible, evil people - which is what they were back then. But still - they built some damn nice buildings. Their governmental structure was very efficient for the time. Their armies fought EXTREMELY well. They were the Evil Empire, but you've got to hand it to them that they knew what they were doing - they didn't conquer the known Western World by accident. They were talented, and some of things they achieved take your breath away. But they were bad people.