To what degree will you support musicians who (openly, possibly or jokingly) include racist, sexist, homophobic, or bigoted messages in their music, or who privately hold such beliefs?

anybody who votes anything other than Option 1 is a disgusting savage imho

clusterfuck awaaaaaaaaay

why should it be a clusterfuck? Looks a perfectly reasonable idea

nah it's an intersting idea, you might have noticed that the things it touches on make people on ILX volatile on occasion however

anyway you left out buju banton and all that homophobic dancehall stuff
xp

and clapton's anti-immigrants speech

idk what my actual answer is, probably the 'used bins' one but I am slightly put off by "questionable" which always seems like such a milquetoast-y word in this context

^^ now we're talking

whether ppl should be listening to eric clapton for musical reasons is a whole other issue of course!

xxp both of those are covered in the examples given surely

I've bought pizza from Dominoes back when it was under the control of a weird Mel Gibsonian separatist and don't feel too guilty about it, but if I had to do it over again, I wouldn't, and I do think just a little less of people who would buy such pizza, but only a little, and I guess the same applies to records.
I mean it's not like there isn't any better pizza/records out there. That would have to be some delicious racist pizza!

i always find it strange that,on ilx at least, homophobic dancehall gets a free pass (kinda, ie not by all but by a fair few) while we are all (rightly) happy to pile on phil anselmo/pantera for his despicable awhite power bullshit (varg too) . Not to mention the sexism in other music forms.

An artist with music that refers to Nazi Germany or other uncool party/beliefs

hahaha, gotta love the word choice, huh?

AG's "despicable bullshit" definitely more fitting but hey, it's not cool, either

I think it boils down to if you like the music you can just ignore lyrics but that's kinda impossible with rap since lyrics are such a huge part. I dont know if dancehall is quite so lyric based?

ie Burzum defenders will point out that the lyrics do not in any way reflect any of vargs "dodgy" views so they can listen to it, and of course they always point out to me "you love james brown who beat his wife and you love rick james and you will still buy their music" and will try to imply that you might see sexism or wife beating or murder or homophobia as not being as bad as racism.

Generally I will not buy music that promotes racism, sexism or homophobic views and really I can't stand to listen to it much either.

I will also try not to give money to obvious bigots by buying any of their records.

As far as records go that are made by bigots but do not actively promote their socio-political views, then I am sometimes okay with listening to them but this totally depends on the record and just how tainted it feels.

Stelfox (iirc) had a line about homophobic dancehall v racist BM which was probably pretty reductionist or whatever but has stuck with me - basically that the stuff that Buju or Ward 21 or whoever comes out with is believed by a pretty giant proportion of the country they live in, maybe even to the point where it's in the national psyche

Varg's somewhat unique thoughts about racial purity are, I feel confident in saying, less prevalent in Norway

and that makes it ok?

the people on here who listen to it and dave stelfox dont have those values, so how can they listen to it?

I have to admit, outside of Varg's notoriety, I wouldn't pay any attention to Burzum at all. Maybe there should be an option for "the only reason I listened to it in the first place was because it was offensive." it's definitely more morbid curiosity than support, though. like wondering what dolphin soup tastes like.

so, how was the "dolphin soup" then?

xps not gonna try and dig up the thread it came from (I have no idea where to start rilly) but I suspect it was more a case of "understand how this comes about" rather than "this makes it OK"

still doesn't explain why people who abhor those views listen to it. it's not private personal beliefs, it's right there in the songs.

I would say it depends. I have no problem buying music from Tory or Republican supporters. They are legit political parties which, even though I disagree with them and know most musicians do as well, I see no reason to boycott for any reason.

Racism (and even homophobia) is different. Although I actually don't know if any musician I actually like to any degree would stand for such ideas. Sure, maybe, Eric Clapton or Morrissey, but I feel Clapton (of which I am not really a big fan either) has apoligized for some of his drunk rants back then, and hasn't really said anything like it for decades by now. And Morrissey has said some things (and written some songs - particularly one) which may be interpreted as racist, but not necessary. I mean, surely, I can easily see why "Bengali In Platform" is interpreted as a racist song by some people, but I can also understand Morrissey's reasoning and alternative interpretations.

i dont see any difference between that and listening to RAC or NSBM bullshit tbh. Couldn't listen to music that contained such abhorrent views in the lyrics.

xp

re: Burzum dolphin soup,
bland, watery, not worth burning a church over.

isn't it a pretty big assumption that you 'should' only listen to stuff made by ppl whose moral compass or belief system approximates your own?

ie Burzum defenders will point out that the lyrics do not in any way reflect any of vargs "dodgy" views so they can listen to it, and of course they always point out to me "you love james brown who beat his wife and you love rick james and you will still buy their music" and will try to imply that you might see sexism or wife beating or murder or homophobia as not being as bad as racism.

Not that I would claim to be a Burzum expert, but the Norwegian music press is pretty much aware of stuff that stinks when they find it, and if there was outspoken racism in his lyrics, Norwegian media would surely be quick to point it out and make a case out of it.
There is blatant and outspoken satanism and worship of Evil in the early stuff though.

has anyone mentioned that varg fuckin killed someone?

Don't know what we will learn from these blunt instrument poll choices. I doubt if there's anybody on ILX who doesn't enjoy the work of some artists whose beliefs or actions (interesting distinction) haven't got an element of moral questionableness. I think there are good questions about how we justify these things with what we think are our own beliefs, and the extent to which we engage in special pleading or sophistry or whatevs.

I would say that partly our response to an artist might be the extent to which the offensive beliefs dominate the art: Skrewdriver's racism is a much more total fact of their work than Varg's even, and certainly far more so than say Dannii Minogue's or Morrissey's. The more room an artist gives us to overlook or ignore the stuff that offends us, the more we seem to snatch at the chance to ignore it.

xp there's a disclaimer re that in the OP yes

I used to give a shit. I basically don't now. And I hardly buy any music new so it really doesn't matter much either way.

There is a fair amount of handwringing and excuse-making about homophobic dancehall on boards that care a lot about dancehall. ILX doesn't currently so it's pretty muted these days.

XXX-Post Which I guess was part of worshipping evil. Although killing somebody as (supposedly) evil as himself seems a bit weird in that respect...

has anyone mentioned that varg fuckin killed someone?

― call all destroyer,

i pointed that out to him when he started it and he said he wanted it to be about beliefs and not actions

I would say that partly our response to an artist might be the extent to which the offensive beliefs dominate the art: Skrewdriver's racism is a much more total fact of their work than Varg's even, and certainly far more so than say Dannii Minogue's or Morrissey's. The more room an artist gives us to overlook or ignore the stuff that offends us, the more we seem to snatch at the chance to ignore it.

i am tempted to side w/ this tbh, kinda how i feel ^^

i'm pretty firmly a 'death of the author' person, the grossness has to be blatantly in the music itself before i start to be uncomfortable and even then i've got a high tolerance if i'm digging anything else that's going on in it

It helps that a lot of black metal is less than comprehensible. Also the # of batty boy tunes that make it to mixes, albums I hear is also pretty low.

Interesting poll ilxor
Certainly something I and many others have been thinking about this past week having heard loads of people shouting faggot and/or I fucked Mary in the ass or whatever
The important thing is less "will I listen to/purchase this music with a hateful message" and more "will I acknowledge that this message is hateful". I don't at all think there's anything wrong with hateful art, even Buju fwiw has offered some sort of apology, in a least uncertain terms; the constant reiteration that the middle class LA teenagers in You-Know-What continue to spout homophobic and misogynistic nonsense, both on record and off, and that the journalistic community (not to mention their fans) chalk it up to 'they just don't give a fuck'.
Just as I still think When The President Talks To God was a responsible and commendable statement, yet I still have no ear for Bright Eyes, not even to mention Gaga's super posi gae vibes, with Burzum and OF and others it's more complicated than buy/rent/steal/pass. The message and the surrounding context are as much a part of the art as the song itself. In the case of the two aforementioned artists, I buy them and play them; but I'm significantly much more alarmed at the media's unwillingness to acknowledge and parse the hatred present in one of them as succinctly as they have done so the other.

I just

How many hip hop artists or old blues guys have murdered someone, varg aint on his own here, so i guess that is why ilxor is meaning beliefs rather than actions.

I just nothing, whoops.

I can see objectionable lyrics diminishing your pleasure in certain music but options 3 or 4 seem crazy to me. If you like the music, financially boycotting the artist is just pissy and dishonest.

does the "overlooking" theory hold up in say rap, where clean edits are generally not the ones people prefer?

racist, sexist, homophobic work can be very interesting, even just from an anthropological standpoint. If the work is well made and compellingly executed, it's worth absorbing and studying. Wilde said it best: "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all."

subbing out books for records, same difference

i pointed that out to him when he started it and he said he wanted it to be about beliefs and not actions

― Algerian Goalkeeper, Monday, March 21, 2011 6:50 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah ok it's kind of wacky to me to separate one from the other when the ultimate question is "will you financially support this guy" and the two are somewhat related.

aving heard loads of people shouting ..... I fucked Mary in the ass or whatever

y'wot?

cad, i know, but he does as he pleases!

Don't know what we will learn from these blunt instrument poll choices.

it's more complicated than buy/rent/steal/pass

yr both right-- it's more complicated than this. my main point is just to offer up a few considerations re: to what degree one may be willing to invest in/support an artist whose moral/political/etc. beliefs may conflict w/ one's own. trying to stimulate discussion, basically

does the "overlooking" theory hold up in say rap, where clean edits are generally not the ones people prefer?
--Philip Nunez

The clean edits are just pulling out swear words? Not sure how that applies at all.

having heard loads of people shouting ..... I fucked Mary in the ass or whatever

AG- apparently this is an Odd Future lyric, i didn't know it was "loads of people" though-- do they shout it en masse? (and if so, do they say "WE fucked mary in the ass" as would be gramatically correct?)

financially boycotting the artist is just pissy and dishonest.

Consumer politics are condemned to be a selective game and for that reason you could consider them pointless or even hypocritical. I do, a little. Pissy and dishonest seems to be going too far if you're saying that it's pissy and dishonest not to give financial support to somebody whose politics you think are reprehensible, even tho you might enjoy aspects of their work.

racist, sexist, homophobic work can be very interesting, even just from an anthropological standpoint. If the work is well made and compellingly executed, it's worth absorbing and studying. Wilde said it best: "There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all."

subbing out books for records, same difference
--Hyper Rescue Troop (Shakey Mo Collier)

I don't think the question is are they interesting, but more given the enormous amount books, music etc in the world do you want to give money to people who you think are for lack of a better word scumbags.

wasn't there some thread where Dan was schooling Geir about Mozart or Beethoven and Geir confessed that he only knew a couple of Beethoven's symphonies (the 9th and the 5th I think?) does this ring a bell with anyone?

You mean this thread?

I don't think that's the one actually...my bad.

Those anti-semitic things that he supposedly "said" and "wrote" "repeatedly" over a number of "years".

Again, hating Jews (and basically all things non-European) in 1880 was about as common among Europeans as insisting the earth was flat was in 1450.

The shape of the Earth was not only discussed in scholarly works written in Latin; it was also treated in works written in vernacular languages or dialects and intended for wider audiences. The Norwegian book Konungs Skuggsjá, from around 1250, states clearly that the Earth is round - and that there is night on the opposite side of the Earth when there is daytime in Norway. The author also discusses the existence of antipodes - and he notes that they (if they exist) will see the Sun in the north of the middle of the day, and that they will have opposite seasons of the people living in the Northern Hemisphere.

yeah that's the thread I was thinking of Tarfumes - thx

I am not a classical music fan at all, but out of what I've heard of classical music, Mozart is the best for me

That's cool brah. You can like whatever you like. You're not obliged to listen to anything.

Yep, the populist choices, but they are the ones who make him still relevant for more than a handful of classical music nerds.

That is completely, completely false, and I know that from personal experience, rather than just assertion. Admittedly you won't hear many of his great chamber music masterpieces on the barren wastelands of Classic FM, but at least as popular as the works you mentioned are the four great operas Figaro, Don Giovanni, Cosi Fan Tutte and Die Zauberflote, plus Die Entfuhrung, the violin concertos, the Gran Partita Serenade, the Piano Quartets, the C major and C minor Masses, the Haffner, Linz, Paris and Prague Symphonies (not to mention favourites like no 25 and no 29), Other Piano Concerts which you've never bothered with no 9, no 13, no 17, no 10, no 20, no 24, no 25 and no 27, the Sinfonia Concertante.....

People go to see concerts with these pieces who are not by any stretch of the imagination "classical music nerds" (really don't know what to make of that phrase, are you being playful, or insulting, or just bludgeoningly stupid, or....?).

Out of Mozart's big production (he composed an amazing lot within his short life), the earliest works are largely forgotten. Yep, they are stored in there because Mozart is a big name, and because Körchel did a good job sorting his work out, but I think few people actually play them or listen to them.

If by "earliest works" you his juvenilia and compositions written before the age of about 14, yes, you're right. But a good deal of his late teenage works have plenty of currency and performances. After that of course he still wrote 'early works' but they are firmly in the canon of regularly played and recorded works.

In the case of most composers from this era, they are remembered for a handful of their work, and then another handful of string quartets etc. that a few nerds dig into while the man in the street are largely unfamiliar with them. Big parts of the production of, say, Mozart and Haydn are still unknown to virtually all people, not unknown as in they know it exists, but as in they've never heard it.

This is irrelevant guy, we're on a music message board full of music obsessives and music nerds, what the man on the street knows or cares about is not really that important (unless that's what we're talking about..). The fact is people who love classical music or who are curious about music full stop will if they bother to investigate be exposed to many dozens more of Mozart's works than you know about because they are regularly played and consumed and talked about. Do you give a shit that the man on the street is not aware of 'Supper's Ready' but loves 'Follow You Follow Me' ? Would you use the argument that because the man on the street doesn't know these works therefore they are 'for nerds' ? Are you a 'Genesis nerd', or a 'prog nerd' ?
You're omnivorous when it comes to popular music (after 1963, anyway), you listen to things you don't like because it fills in the gaps of pop history, it lets you know what has been created and what impact it had, even if it's not your cup of tea. and more than that you're just a plain fan of music, so you want to listen to as much as you can, it's all good right? Consequently you are something of a (lol) authority on popular music, because you've listened to artists in breadth and depth, the lesser known as well as the chart-topping. You have not done this with classical music, so you do not know whereof you speak. Why can't you admit this? Yet you still speak on classical music as if you knew anything about it. Why the pretense? And why the disparaging terms for those who have listened to it? Do you really think that music should be curated by people who don't have a clue, but who only go on what 'the man in the street' knows?

― henri grenouille (Frogman Henry), Tuesday, October 12, 2010 10:50 AM (5 months ago) Bookmark

EPIC SONNING

um whoops needs some formatting

I am not a classical music fan at all, but out of what I've heard of classical music, Mozart is the best for me

That's cool brah. You can like whatever you like. You're not obliged to listen to anything.

Yep, the populist choices, but they are the ones who make him still relevant for more than a handful of classical music nerds.

That is completely, completely false, and I know that from personal experience, rather than just assertion. Admittedly you won't hear many of his great chamber music masterpieces on the barren wastelands of Classic FM, but at least as popular as the works you mentioned are the four great operas Figaro, Don Giovanni, Cosi Fan Tutte and Die Zauberflote, plus Die Entfuhrung, the violin concertos, the Gran Partita Serenade, the Piano Quartets, the C major and C minor Masses, the Haffner, Linz, Paris and Prague Symphonies (not to mention favourites like no 25 and no 29), Other Piano Concerts which you've never bothered with no 9, no 13, no 17, no 10, no 20, no 24, no 25 and no 27, the Sinfonia Concertante.....

People go to see concerts with these pieces who are not by any stretch of the imagination "classical music nerds" (really don't know what to make of that phrase, are you being playful, or insulting, or just bludgeoningly stupid, or....?).

Out of Mozart's big production (he composed an amazing lot within his short life), the earliest works are largely forgotten. Yep, they are stored in there because Mozart is a big name, and because Körchel did a good job sorting his work out, but I think few people actually play them or listen to them.

If by "earliest works" you his juvenilia and compositions written before the age of about 14, yes, you're right. But a good deal of his late teenage works have plenty of currency and performances. After that of course he still wrote 'early works' but they are firmly in the canon of regularly played and recorded works.

In the case of most composers from this era, they are remembered for a handful of their work, and then another handful of string quartets etc. that a few nerds dig into while the man in the street are largely unfamiliar with them. Big parts of the production of, say, Mozart and Haydn are still unknown to virtually all people, not unknown as in they know it exists, but as in they've never heard it.

This is irrelevant guy, we're on a music message board full of music obsessives and music nerds, what the man on the street knows or cares about is not really that important (unless that's what we're talking about..). The fact is people who love classical music or who are curious about music full stop will if they bother to investigate be exposed to many dozens more of Mozart's works than you know about because they are regularly played and consumed and talked about. Do you give a shit that the man on the street is not aware of 'Supper's Ready' but loves 'Follow You Follow Me' ? Would you use the argument that because the man on the street doesn't know these works therefore they are 'for nerds' ? Are you a 'Genesis nerd', or a 'prog nerd' ?

You're omnivorous when it comes to popular music (after 1963, anyway), you listen to things you don't like because it fills in the gaps of pop history, it lets you know what has been created and what impact it had, even if it's not your cup of tea. and more than that you're just a plain fan of music, so you want to listen to as much as you can, it's all good right? Consequently you are something of a (lol) authority on popular music, because you've listened to artists in breadth and depth, the lesser known as well as the chart-topping. You have not done this with classical music, so you do not know whereof you speak. Why can't you admit this? Yet you still speak on classical music as if you knew anything about it. Why the pretense? And why the disparaging terms for those who have listened to it? Do you really think that music should be curated by people who don't have a clue, but who only go on what 'the man in the street' knows?

― henri grenouille (Frogman Henry), Tuesday, October 12, 2010 10:50 AM (5 months ago) Bookmark

FIXED

I was reading that thread like 'lol omg classic Geir' and then realized it was from Oct 2010, which is even more lol.

aerosmith in fine form on that thread too

"Again, hating Jews (and basically all things non-European) in 1880 was about as common among Europeans as insisting the earth was flat was in 1450."

Pretty sure that not everyone was openly advocating for the genocide of Jews in 1880.

I mean Wagner produced like ACTUAL ANTI-SEMITIC BOOKS. It's not like he was just whispering "I hate jews" to his friends.

Was not aware he did. I thought he was first and foremost Hitler's favourite composer because of all the "Arian" bombast in his music and "stage shows".

Long xpost. My mistake on Rocky Horror: it's Patricia Quinn in the credits, but the lips on the Rocky Horror poster are Lorelei Shark, the model from disco demolition night. That is all.

Was not aware he did. I thought he was first and foremost Hitler's favourite composer because of all the "Arian" bombast in his music and "stage shows".

Geir if you would only read the thread before making assertions. We spent a fair few posts describing & linking to discussions of Wagner's active side-career as a professional anti-semite. He wrote a book called "Jewishness in Music." This is not a secret, it's commonly mentioned when discussing Wagner.

Want to voice my agreement with the point about modern staging and how it can be used to reflect on Wagner and conceiveably rehabilitate whilst also condemmning him. I saw Parsifal at ENO a fortnight ago and the staging clearly presented the implications in the libretto, that the Grail Knights ARE a mad cult whose obsession and insanity has cut them off from reality. The stuff about 'pure blodd' in the last act is thus shown to be a feature of the morbid old-world religious-mania in an inherently bankrupt philosophy.At the end Kundry doesn't die, instead she goes off with Parsifal along the train tracks that lead out of the Grail Knights' compound (tracks which 'lead straight to Auschwitz' in the phrase of one reviewer.) The idea is that Parsifal and her are now happily in love. I haven't seen any other productions of Parsifal, but the funny thing is that the music, aside from some triumphalism in the last act, generally supported the director's vision. It is a score for a horror film, certainly in the first two acts, and this reinforces the feeling that we are looking at some kind of bizarre, horrifiying, Sci-Fi relaity in which civillization has broken down and only primitive, magical beliefs and superstitions can be clung to. In this light the anti-semitism of the lines about 'pure blood' make complete sense, and become reclaimed. The Grail Knights and their mania stand as a warning. If Wagner did not mean this to be the case, his music certainly proclaimed it.

The art is better than the artist.

Which reminds me of what George Steiner said in a BBC profile of Wagner in 1997, which handily is transcribed online:

Narrator

In the last year of Wagner's life his racist views became more extreme. The only way to redeem "the lower races" as he called them was by an infusion of the pure blood of Christ whom he believed was not Jewish but Aryan. Cosima's diaries show that he was increasingly preoccupied by what he regarded as "the Jewish problem". While he was composing Parsifal, he read that 400 Jews had died in a fire in a Viennese synagogue. Wagner made the drastic joke to Cosima that perhaps all Jews should be burned.

Professor George Steiner

You can go at that in a number of ways. My own conviction is people like ourselves—ordinary people—cannot grasp what is going on in the mind of a titanically complex creator who can create Parsifal and then say absolutely barbaric inhumanities. So I say that the man who has given us what he has, musically, lies outside my range of understanding. That doesn't mean it doesn't make me bitterly disturbed, ill at ease, but that—to put it very vulgarly if I may—that's my problem and not his.

Narrator

Richard Wagner died in Venice on the 13th of February, 1883. He was nearly 70. Wagner's legacy has been immeasurable. His music stands at the threshold of modern Western classical music and his influence on such composers as Mahler, Schoenberg and Debussy was immense.

Robin Holloway

Wagner has influenced virtually every composer since, with some exceptions like Stravinsky, who were very anti-Wagner. But the violence of their hatred is a form of tribute—a form of being Wagnerian by default, by opposite.

Roger Norrington

I find it difficult to see this man writing music. I can see him running a country, or at least an airline, or probably owning a few. But I can't see him writing music.

Magic Fire Music

Professor George Steiner

How can you have among the highest achievements of beauty or speculative elegance and audacity of the human mind and conscience and guts and viscera on the one hand, and the awfulness on the ohter? Wagner's music, as they say it in court, is Exhibit A.

Judaism in Music is available online. How can people interested in racism / prejudice in music not read this?

"The first thing that strikes our ear as quite outlandish and unpleasant, in the Jew's production of the voice-sounds, is a creaking, squeaking, buzzing snuffle (15) : add thereto an employment of words in a sense quite foreign to our nation's tongue, and an arbitrary twisting of the structure of our phrases—and this mode of speaking acquires at once the character of an intolerably jumbled blabber (eines unertraglich verwirrten Geplappers); so that when we hear this Jewish talk, our attention dwells involuntarily on its repulsive how, rather than on any meaning of its intrinsic what. "

"Again, hating Jews (and basically all things non-European) in 1880 was about as common among Europeans as insisting the earth was flat was in 1450."

Pretty sure that not everyone was openly advocating for the genocide of Jews in 1880.
--Fig On A Plate Cart (Alex in SF)

Nor for that matter were there really that many flat-earthers by 1450.

Aristarchus, wasn't it? With his pole in the ground? Worked out the curvature of the earth in whatever BC. Font of knowledge me. Sure it was a couple of religious outliers who propagated the flat earth thing in the late medieval period and were more or less mocked/ignored.

Appropriately enough "Geir" is like something from German folkolre

Geir is a male name common in Iceland and Norway, rare in Sweden, and very rare in Denmark. It is an ancient Nordic name meaning "spear" or spear of God, as in the lightning bolt of Oden, and is one of the original nordic runes[1][2]

In Norway, its popularity peaked in the late 60's and early 70's. Nowadays it is an uncommon name among newborns in Norway but still holds its place in Iceland.

I didn't mean the name, I meant that ridiculous comical creature "Geir" known to inhabit this message board

Geir if you would only read the thread before making assertions.

lol dude geirbot is not programmed to process information

My own conviction is people like ourselves—ordinary people—cannot grasp what is going on in the mind of a titanically complex creator who can create Parsifal and then say absolutely barbaric inhumanities.

Lord, these are the types of statements I was being confused about upthread. Maybe I am insufficiently in touch with the incomprehensible divinity of Wagner's musical output, but it will just never strike me as all that ungraspable or mysterious that someone creates magnificent things while being small-minded and barbaric. It's true of a massive number of people who create magnificent things! I'm seriously tempted to say that it might help some people create something magnificent if they're limited in this way, insofar as they wind up with a very fixed and dramatic view of the world to assert.

^I agree wholeheartedly with this

yeah me too

I get it coming from Steiner - he's one of the few crits still standing from mid-20th High Seriousness, & that tends to involve giving art some hefty work to do - revelation of truth of ourselves, the human condition, quiddity of being, finding forms answerable to the enormities of the century, language going beyond language, hard lines between high art and mass culture etc; so that involves some serious agonising when someone who is incontestably a master of the music tradition is a piece of shit vile anti-semite - & all magnified because Steiner's Jewish. He came back to the problem in the TLS recently w/r/t Celine & seemed to get stuck again.

Feel pretty far from his position myself; never quite been the High Serious type. I mean this:

I'm seriously tempted to say that it might help some people create something magnificent if they're limited in this way, insofar as they wind up with a very fixed and dramatic view of the world to assert.

Makes literary sense to me - destructive visionary force of the Modernists who flirt with (or marry) fascism is very powerful; Celine's sense of the fuckedness of the world is at the heart of him (BUT along with a kind of tenderness for those being destroyed by life that's harder to reconcile to evil opinions). I dunno.

It sounds like he's talking about God in the Old Testament.

That's Steuner for you

Steiner, even

i can buy that people who succumb to the small-minded assholery of their day are capable of remarkable achievements in a variety of fields, but I think art is an arena where such small-minded assholery is a good indication that your art is infantile, easily-replaceable pedestrian junk as well.

Wagner does seem to be full-on bonkers though, rather than casual douchebag, but I guess being one doesn't preclude being the other.

It sounds like he's talking about God in the Old Testament.

― oɔsıqɐu (nabisco), Thursday, 24 March 2011 17:20 (1 hour ago)

Apposite! Both create the world in their respective texts, both were hateful raging assholes who inspired their followers to a religion..

The amount of focus and ambition and effort required to achieve those monumental works of art is not necessarily going to come from someone who is well-adjusted. I think that a basic knowledge of human frailties sooner or later was destined to undermine the High Seriousness school of thought.

ayo old testament god is a bro, he always had the dankest manna

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

thank fuck we'll finally know how many ilxors enjoy the Macc Lads

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

now you know, noodle vague

wow way to go ilx, you amoral beast

OK, let's bite the elephant..

It's understandable how Wagner's 'beliefs' can run alongside his need to create beautiful/masterful works, rather than informing them directly.

Whereas Gary Glitter's works quite often (OK, more than once) have examples of how his predilections form a part of his.

(check the lyrics of this one, for instance)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcmWtE5u41s

Glitter Band >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary Glitter anyway

At least 10 Eric Clapton and/or Elvis Costello fans who voted. Two of the more racist musicians of the rock era.

XXX-Post At least he didn't do a cover of "Happy Birthday Sweet Sixteen"...

I guess I abstractly understand the impulse to not stifle art that led so many people to vote the way they did but really this just reinforces to me the difference between feeling like you have the luxury to overlook or academify beliegs that run counter to your own and feeling like you do not.

One reason why I do my best not to support people whose views I find inimical is because success implies acceptance/approval. I do not want to give racists the mistaken impression that I am okay with their beliefs by giving them money; ditto homophobes and sexists, but there I have the luxury of being able to sometimes abstract my feelings from the sentiments being expressed because I am not their target.

This is also a case where falling into a side career of classical music via performance and connections rather than formal study is awesome/troubling, because while I knew a lot of the shit discussed upthread I'd never really gotten too in depth with it; I would have had much more of a problem doing "Der Meistersaenger" had I known all of this in this detail (although I bagged out of that concert anyway for a paying gig, lol).

XXX-Post At least he didn't do a cover of "Happy Birthday Sweet Sixteen"...

The song involves being in bed with a girl, and waiting until midnight on the eve of her birthday, at which she becomes of legal age, and he enters her.

so.. !

Confess to being on firmer ground discussing Gary Glitter's oeuvre than Mad Richie Wagner's

I find lately that I am more susceptible to this, simply because there is so much great music that isn't problematic in the ways described in this thread, that it feels weird to feel like I *have* to listen to this band with problematic imagery/ideas.

take Destroyer666, I liked their new album a lot, and then the more I learned about KK Warslut being a misogynist, racist shitbag, I haven't felt compelled to return to it. I think though when you actually see examples of this behavior on your doorstep in everyday life and the ugliness it entails, it's harder to handwave away.

and yet obviously there is this contradiction because I still listen to hip-hop which is rife with misogyny, so it's hard to figure out where I draw the line. Yet homophobia, in hip hop (and well any genre) tends to be the thing that's non-negotiable for me now.

Even a few years ago, when I saw Dave Chappelle, there was a large part of his set due to homosexuality and transexualism. It was uncomfortable because Dave asked the audience to give it up for the gay community, and like 15% of the audience cheered while the rest of the crowd leered with deadpan stares, either because they were afraid to admit they were ok with homosexuality or because they probably actually weren't. And although Dave himself is pretty laissez-faire about the community, his bit on the transgender community was problematic because he worked in a bit for LOLs about "ok it's fine that you want to be transgender but why do *I* have to change my pronoun game for you" (uhh, because it's what that person wants and is a show of respect) and LOLing that someone who identified as a woman still had a dick and that shit was getting raucous laughter and it almost brought what had been a fun show to a halt for me before he went back into innocuous territory.

not going to front like I have a consistent means of determining what I will and won't listen to but definitely as I've aged it's been easier to stop listening to problematic voices.