Swans: Classic or Dud?

Um Kurt yr conflating nomar and me

you guys are "people" im just talkin bout "people"

neanderthal is technically our ancestor

lol

a swans bro defriended me on fb for posting about the Death in June Nazi thing ... but that's just one dude

when we try to talk about these issues swans bros want to quiet us

xp kurt - swans bro was briefly in a band with our mutual friend whose birthday is today

a swans bro defriended me on fb for posting about the Death in June Nazi thing ... but that's just one dude

― sarahell, Tuesday, March 1, 2016 1:22 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

is there some new thing or just the same thing that's been going on for the past 30 years?

many xp If you're referring to me, I'm not a "Swans bro." Like you, I am generally more inclined to believe an accuser than the accused in these situations for many of the reasons mentioned and linked to upthread. And I'm sorry if this sounds very "I have black friends," but I grew up with sisters and a strong mother, took women's studies courses in college, worked in venues that sponsored women's self defense classes, and generally consider myself a strong supporter of women's rights. I realize this isn't the same as being on the front line, necessarily, but I'd just as soon not be lumped in with fanboys and misogynists.

What I don't understand is why no one, as of yet, has answered my (very reasonable) question above, namely, why does "innocent until proven guilty" not apply here, given the fact that all we have to go on is one person's word against another person's word? Many of you here had already made up your minds the second Larkin posted her accusation.

I've seen some vicious, terrible things said about Gira these past few days, despite the fact that two (credible) women have already come out in his defense and no one else has--as of yet--come forward with accusations like Larkin's. It's also important to remember this is a man with children who are (iirc) just about internet-browsing age, and wild speculation in these instances can damage more than a music career.

why does "innocent until proven guilty" not apply here

because this is not a court of law, it's the internet

is there some new thing or just the same thing that's been going on for the past 30 years?

― robbie ca$hflo (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Tuesday, March 1, 2016 11:26 AM (12 minutes ago)

they played a show where we live.

then this happened:
http://missionlocal.org/2014/11/death-in-june-protest-at-elbo-room/

"(credible)"

gtfo

that is like one step away from "he's the captain of the football team/successful businessman/esteemed politician" defense and wholly ignores the power dynamics at play here

how does one gain sufficient credibility for Wimmels in this case?

'He hasnt raped anyone else'

?

xp So, this "power dynamic" I am ignoring...just so I have this right: this relatively minor figure who owns a small indie label (which seems to currently only exist to release his own music, which is itself often funded by crowdsourcing) is an untouchable tyrant used to "getting what he wants" without consequences, taking advantage of the vulnerable artists on his roster under penalty of being "dropped." This is what you're saying? Sorry, but that's absurd. I would guess that Larkin got "dropped" for the same reason anyone gets dropped: because her records didn't sell. See also: Flux Information Sciences, Mi & Lau, Windsor For The Derby, every non-Swans band to ever record for YGR, etc.

i think you're overcorrecting by sneering at the statements made by a possible rape victim

― nomar, Tuesday, March 1, 2016 6:22 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this x1000

Probably too late to weigh back in on this, as there's been a tsunami of responses since my last comment. In any case, I stand by my use of the word "retort," because that's what it was... a response to an accusation. Simple as that. Look it up.

No one's going to agree, but I get the impression (and this is just my impression...I don't speak for anyone else, "SWANS Bros" or otherwise) that Gira doesn't feel his second statement (wherein he admitted the "awkward mistake") is a reversal of his initial statement (wherein he called Ms. Grimm's accusation a "slanderous lie"). Rightly or wrongly, I don't believe he perceives the events the same way Ms. Grimm does (i.e. while he regrets the event, he doesn't characterize it as rape). Thus, he considers her accusation a lie. I'm not agreeing with him, necessarily (I wasn't there ... and nor were you), I'm just trying to make sense of the narrative. Ms Grimm herself has also since expressed that she wasn't the "perfect victim" (her words) and that the story is "nuanced."

Regardless, unsolicited sexual congress without consent is rape -- whether brutality and force enters into it or not. If indeed he didn't have consent, it was rape.

You previously recorded on Young God. When and why did you leave that label?

Michael Gira is very difficult to get along with, and I'm not the only person to be on his label for one or two records. I knew it was just a matter of time. I decided to collaborate with him on my last record, because I admired his work and I always wanted to work with him I thought, "How exciting to do that?" So I did and then the next record...you know, he really like dark, heavy, intense music. I wanted to make a more beautiful album and Tony Visconti wanted to work with me, as a collaborator and co- producer -- he recorded a lot of the classic David Bowie records and he plays bass on my whole new record.

I had to choose between the two, and I was like, "I already worked with Michael Gira. So...I'm going to try this guy out." It was between the time between my last record and my newest record, I moved to New York City so, it's just a whole different community of musicians, and a different scene. And the music world has changed so much that I really don't think there's any point on being on a record label. If you've got enough money to put your own record out, you should do it. That's what I did. I don't have to split my profits with anybody now. That's great.

I think that nuanced is an understatement.

Probably too late to weigh back in on this, as there's been a tsunami of responses since my last comment. In any case, I stand by my use of the word "retort," because that's what it was... a response to an accusation. Simple as that. Look it up.

No one's going to agree, but I get the impression (and this is just my impression...I don't speak for anyone else, "SWANS Bros" or otherwise) that Gira doesn't feel his second statement (wherein he admitted the "awkward mistake") is a reversal of his initial statement (wherein he called Ms. Grimm's accusation a "slanderous lie"). Rightly or wrongly, I don't believe he perceives the events the same way Ms. Grimm does (i.e. while he regrets the event, he doesn't characterize it as rape). Thus, he considers her accusation a lie. I'm not agreeing with him, necessarily (I wasn't there ... and nor were you), I'm just trying to make sense of the narrative. Ms Grimm herself has also since expressed that she wasn't the "perfect victim" (her words) and that the story is "nuanced."

Regardless, unsolicited sexual congress without consent is rape -- whether brutality and force enters into it or not. If indeed he didn't have consent, it was rape.

― Alex in NYC, Tuesday, March 1, 2016 3:16 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

^^^^ most sensible thing I've read so far

Gira is not a minor figure in the context of indie rock or noise music or whatever, it's absurd to think so

http://www.marieclaire.com/the-mix/a15753/i-kept-in-touch-with-the-person-who-assaulted-me/

xpost. Neither is Tony Visconti.

I had to choose between the two, and I was like, "I already worked with Michael Gira. So...I'm going to try this guy out.

But I thought she was "dropped" when she confronted Gira about the alleged rape?

People change their stories. It's a thing that happens.

I see.

yours posts are intended to suggest things about Larkin Grimm but they're really saying so much about you

like...obviously it's perfectly valid to sit on the fence and say nothing or to say that since we don't know, we can't judge either party. but these posts...very interesting, i'm steepling my fingers over here. some people who have been assaulted, raped, abused...some of them say something right away, some of them never say anything, some of them blame themselves, some of them try to forget it happened, some of them remain on what *seems* like good terms with the people who assaulted them, some of them even remain close. look at Jerry Sandusky's stepson, who stood by him initially and then finally broke down and revealed what happened to him. oh and iirc he was ostracized by his entire adopted family because of what he said.

"like...obviously it's perfectly valid to sit on the fence and say nothing or to say that since we don't know, we can't judge either party."

I think we were at this point several hundred feet up the thread, but it didn't go over very well at the time.

Think it was the "tell everybody else in the thread that their conversation was useless" is the key part ur missing

Like on the one hand if that's your position fine but others might find the available information sufficient to form an opinion.

I do believe tape tends to curiously always have a higher demand of evidence from the general public.

It's the internet...not court. One can have a gut feeling. Also as stated above...while there is evidence that can come out in a rape case to cast doubt (ie Duke). But in a case from years ago where the victim isn't pursuing criminal charges?

All that's going to come out are additional statements from both sides. There isn't a magic evidence fairy that's gonna make it crystal fucking clear.

And as said above if one is so uncomfortable you can offer support for the victim without accusing the accused if so inclined.

The attempts to dismiss the reactions of many itt who IMO didn't do anything but interpret just what was in front of them is NAGL.

Honestly, neither one of them is particularly reliable. The only thing I see changing this is if other women come forward regarding Gira, which could happen.

This quote really doesn't sit well, "My story with Michael Gira is an absolute tragedy that I have kept secret for too long. I am only speaking of it now because after being accused of "lynching" Thomas, I cannot ethically keep Michael's secret any longer. He's a white guy, and his crime was far worse than what Thomas did to me or Margaret."

But at the same time, I'd have no trouble believing Gira did what she says. So, yeah, we'll never know (probably).

I had to choose between the two, and I was like, "I already worked with Michael Gira. So...I'm going to try this guy out.

But I thought she was "dropped" when she confronted Gira about the alleged rape?

― Wimmels, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 20:22 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Two reasons?

xp So, this "power dynamic" I am ignoring...just so I have this right: this relatively minor figure who owns a small indie label (which seems to currently only exist to release his own music, which is itself often funded by crowdsourcing) is an untouchable tyrant used to "getting what he wants" without consequences, taking advantage of the vulnerable artists on his roster under penalty of being "dropped." This is what you're saying? Sorry, but that's absurd. I would guess that Larkin got "dropped" for the same reason anyone gets dropped: because her records didn't sell. See also: Flux Information Sciences, Mi & Lau, Windsor For The Derby, every non-Swans band to ever record for YGR, etc.

― Wimmels, Tuesday, March 1, 2016 2:59 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the argument that "he's just a minor figure in indie music, there CAN'T be a power dynamic there" is the most fucking bizarre thing I have read in this thread and that's a high bar.

also, if you think a puff-piece interview in phoenix new times with the answer "oh, well, I just felt it was time to try something else" is the more credible answer here, then you know very little about journalism

why does "innocent until proven guilty" not apply here

because this is not a court of law, it's the internet

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It doesn't have to be the internet at all - just not a court of law. We aren't considering evidence in a case over a number of days, and "Swans bro" wouldn't be considered to sit in the jury.

Of course the "innocent until proven guilty” concept (which comes up a lot in conversations about of sexual abuse, even when criminal charges are not involved) doesn't apply here.

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is a legal standard used exclusively in criminal cases and is the highest evidentiary standard in all of American law -- so it makes sense that, in that context, there is a “presumption of innocence” that puts the burden of proof on the accuser. After all, the court is potentially incarcerating or even executing someone.

But the evidentiary standards used in other legal cases is far lower; often it's "a preponderance of the evidence," meaning “more likely than not.”

Like, a court of law could take your kids away from you if they’re 51% convinced you abused or neglected them. To suggest that a vastly higher standard should apply to conversation is at best misguided.

so fucking otm

hell even ILX itself usually doesn't put most other issues up to such scrutiny.

I love that I read Wimmel's post until I blanched at "two (credible) women", immediately stopped reading, scrolled down & the next post but one was Adam Bruneau blanching at the same thing

It's enough to make me want to start a band called Two Credible Women, except that I'm not a woman, and I don't want it to be one of 'those bands'

also, if you think a puff-piece interview in phoenix new times with the answer "oh, well, I just felt it was time to try something else" is the more credible answer here, then you know very little about journalism

or human beings and their behaviour

Power dynamics exist pretty much any time 2 human beings are in the same place

^^^^

I am only speaking of it now because after being accused of "lynching" Thomas,

i think i missed what this refers to ... was this part discussed in another thread?

Yeah I've been confused abt that

https://www.facebook.com/larkin.grimm.1/posts/1283943221623036?pnref=story

don't think it was discussed here

Prior to her facebook post about Gira, she had accused Thomas Sayer Ellis of sexual harassment.

Brooklyn Vegan has a fairly comprehensive overview:

http://www.brooklynvegan.com/larkin-grimm-ac/

I think it's worth reading everything to really get a sense of the dynamic of what's going on. But to rephrase Grimm's quote, "I'm getting a lot of shit for the sexual harassment accusation I recently filed because the man involved is black, so *for no other reason* ["I am only speaking of it now because after being accused of "lynching" Thomas"] I am going to accuse someone who is white of rape."

And I'll say once again, that I have no idea what happened 8 years ago, and part of me doubts if Grimm or Gira do either. I don't think either of them are particularly credible. But the idea that Grimm's story "rings true" or anything like that is insane.