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?

the Enoch Powell reference in John Cale's Paris 1919 always makes me wince but I'm not binning the album

why does this make you wince? pretty weird to read that song as an endorsement of Enoch Powell. Or do you shun that Elvis Costello's "Less Than Zero" too.

as far as financial compensation being the cruz of the question, um everything is free now.

Or at least anything you want to be free can be.

I wonder what's the difference between boycotting a brand and an artist? Do you feel that a brand boycott is more likely to have a reformative effect? It seems more likely that an organised boycott of an artist would have a quicker financial impact. If a brand or an artist changes the way they behave publically because of financial pressure, does it matter if this change is "sincere"?

seems more likely that an organised boycott of an artist would have a quicker financial impact. If a brand or an artist changes the way they behave publically because of financial pressure, does it matter if this change is "sincere"

anybody who does this probably isn't worth listening to as an artist

are you guys all comfortable with reducing ethics to a capitalist market mechanism y/n

"Everything is free" feels like a v. bad faith argument to me in this case. Not that I'm opening up the death of copyright argument.

re: rap as a good house-pet
but people generally don't want domesticated rap! (unless they have kids, or want to blast it at church or something)

I'd like to know how a feminist like tuomas can listen to some sexist hip hop or say the lex can listen to homophobic dancehall. Is it a bit like mordy listening to NSBM just to kinda "know your enemy" stuff?

pretty sure I've got tons of books/records by casual and not-so casual antisemites

I wonder what's the difference between boycotting a brand and an artist? Do you feel that a brand boycott is more likely to have a reformative effect? It seems more likely that an organised boycott of an artist would have a quicker financial impact. If a brand or an artist changes the way they behave publically because of financial pressure, does it matter if this change is "sincere"?
--a SB-in' artist that been in the game for a minute (Noodle Vague)

Threats to boycott only work if the artist in question gives a shit if you their stuff. Sizzla for example has been pretty vocal in the past about not caring.

pretty sure I've got tons of books/records by casual and not-so casual antisemites

yeah and to me this is a real problem and not one with an easy answer. I really amn't sure on what level I can go "gee Ezra Pound that anti-Semitic stuff was really dumb of you, still you are a great poet come here you big lug I forgive ya". I think facile justifications for our behaviour in these circumstances aren't very honest at all

I guess the other question is, uh, these restrictions only applying to people who are currently alive and working, right? Like I'm not really worried about giving renowned anti-semitic Roman writers money. But should I hold it against Penguin Classics for publishing it? Where do you draw these lines? slippery slope.

still you are a great poet come here you big lug I forgive ya

is this what buying a work amounts to? a hug and a validation? it's just a financial transaction, not an ethical endorsement.

I think the ethical question of should I give money to X should be solved by whether money changes hands, yes.

Threats to boycott only work if the artist in question gives a shit if you their stuff.

This is an argument against the efficacy of boycotting somebody, sure. There's still the question of whether you personally feel indifferent to supporting them. I'm assuming nobody here would drop some money in the bucket if the KKK Choir came a-caroling.

Shakey, I don't "shun" the Cale song, I just wince at that line, which could easily be read as an endorsement. I basically agree with you but I don't think it's outrageous to find occasional lyrics jarring, anymore than it's unusual to wince at anti-semitism in Eliot.

AG, what's RAC or NSBM? I'm not a big dancehall fan but I own plenty of rap with sentiments I don't agree with. Sometimes, like Black Korea or a rapey skit, it makes me want to skip the track, other times not.

with shakey 100%

AG, what's RAC or NSBM?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_Against_Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_black_metal

What the fuck does the singer have to do with the song anyway? Once it's released, it's my song now.

is this what buying a work amounts to? a hug and a validation? it's just a financial transaction, not an ethical endorsement.

what if lots of ppl buying a person's ethically questionable work, say a musician, enables that person to continue making and releasing questionable content to the public-- when, had ppl held off paying, they would "go out of business," in a sense? it may not be an ethical endorsement, but it's a bit more than just a transaction if it enables that person to continue w/ their day job.

it's just a financial transaction, not an ethical endorsement.

A financial transaction with a living artist amounts to some financial support for their work tho, however small. I think everybody here has a line over which they won't cross in terms of supporting artists - it's how we draw that line that interests me.

you could argue that a lot of offensive material has no reasonable non-offensive substitutes, but I'm finding this sort of thing less and less to be the case. for example, someone told me skrewdriver sounded just like korn

I probably find it easier to listen to music by people with objectionable beliefs where there's less of a requirement that i engage on a personal level with the lyricist. For me, Morrissey's music doesn't work in isolation - it needs me to form a bond with him that i'm simply not capable of doing because i find him a repellent individual. That's not really the case with Beenie Man or Busy Signal, even though their viewpoints are objectively far more unacceptable. I've always been deeply conflicted over dancehall, though, and would never buy albums by deeply homophobic acts or see them in concert. Fundamentally, i can't stop loving their music. It's just not possible - it's a hard-wired response. I'll dance to it but i can choose not to financially back it. The same goes for Phil Anselmo or Brigitte Bardot.

Where hip-hop is concerned, i use a complicated combination of sophistry and hypocrisy to keep things ticking over.

draw the line somewhere north of questionnaires for buskers.

which could easily be read as an endorsement

I really don't hear this at all, sorry. Not to derail this thread into Cale territory but that whole song is a very damning indictment of the chummy, bootlicking, social climbing nature of British fascism - "chopping down the people where they stand" etc. Just goes to show how much is open to interpretation I guess

xp

xpost Well no, RAC and NSBM are just shitty music. Those cases are too easy. We wouldn't even know about those bands if not for the extreme politics.

what if lots of ppl buying a person's ethically questionable work, say a musician, enables that person to continue making and releasing questionable content to the public-- when, had ppl held off paying, they would "go out of business," in a sense?

if the person's "ethically questionable" work is well made and compelling in its own right, by all means it is worthy of being supported. Wilde again.

see the problem with Skrewdriver isn't really that their racist, it's that their racism overwhelms their work to such an extent that it renders it totally shitty. Because they place their political agenda above their aesthetic one. Politics and aesthetics can be married in very effective and interesting and engaging ways. Skrewdriver, however, was not capable of this.

I can still go back and listen to old Pantera knowing that Anselmo is a fucking idiot. If I lost my Cowboys From Hell CD, I'd probably go buy a new one and not have that weigh heavily on my conscience. (But there's also the rest of the band, Dimebag, I dunno)

Gene Simmons skeeves me out wrt the way he talks about women but I have loved Kiss since I was 10 years old. Motley Crue showed soft porn at the last show I went to, I will never make the mistake of seeing them live again but I still love their first album.

I don't know where the line is. I think it changes depending on my relationship with the band/artist, whether or not I can rationalize it (and I don't say that meaning it's a good way to be, I'm just admitting it now so as not get called out on it), and whether their view affects how I relate to the music.

I don't know if I'm even saying what I mean here, sorry I'm all over the place

xp

Skrewdriver fans might disagree. It would be really lucky if it just happened that every artist with actively hateful politics made bad art.

never got round to checking it m'self but 'pre-racist Skrewdriver' has pretty solid cult status among your more recrod collectory-y/KBD type punk enthusiasts

I think it's generally agreed that later on their music reflected the quality of their political thought, but again I wouldn't know

Skrewdriver fans might disagree

whether or not there are any Skrewdriver fans who are not card-carrying neonazi sympathizers tells you all you need to know. As a Jew I can still marvel at some of the aesthetic decisions of the Nazis. But Skrewdriver? gtfo

I don't think DJ Mencap's info contradicts my position at all, fwiw.

what I'm saying is that you seem to want to say "this isn't an issue at all because any artist with wholly hateful beliefs makes terrible art" and I don't see that this is necessarily true

xp "In future please bear in mind/Don't see clear don't see far" seems more like a criticism of those who turned on Powell but the broader point is that some lyrics bother me - and that's good, music should sometimes bother me - my first reaction is not to ban them.

In the case of certain Morrissey records or 70s Ray Davies, my aversion to certain political ideas is inseparable from my aversion to the pinched, misanthopy behind them. Political and aesthetic considerations aren't inseparable - they can be intertwined even in the tone of voice.

the thorough logic of ilxor's poll choices is funny because i don't know anyone who actually abides by a hard and fast rule when it comes to even...thinking about artists w/problematic views, let alone buying their music. we're all pretty inconsistent and illogical about it, i think.

it actually feels more dishonest when i take the moral high ground against, say, chris brown or odd future, knowing that i listen to artists who've done or said worse. homophobic dancehall is even easier to ignore given that in the UK it's so easy to follow dancehall but never come into direct contact with that side of it - what UK dancehall DJ would play those songs?

think it's important not to just shrug this off even - especially if you're a fan - but not to the extent that you end up castigating every rapper for saying "bitch" or something. but praising odd future's lyrics as ~youthful energy~ isn't much better. think it's also important to be honest about when the amorality is the appeal and why - like, i don't just tolerate eg t.i. and lil kim threatening to beat people up on record, that's why i enjoy it. once you admit that to yourself, as i said, it feels dishonest taking any sort of moral high ground. as a journalist there's no way you can sweep the more unpleasant stuff under the rug - idk it's hard to justify though, why would i take beenie man to task over homophobia or odd future over rape, but wouldn't even think of asking t.i. about violence?

that post is totally confused but that's pretty much reflective of the fact that i have no consistent position on this matter that would hold up to logical scrutiny at all.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5Pi-oW7O-9M/THxEnBrmhVI/AAAAAAAAAF4/_AD9VVan7Q8/s320/Not+again.jpg

(i think withholding financial support is probably the best "solution" to loving the music but finding the message repugnant)

thankyou for your pertinent and thoughtful contribution to the thread, siegbran

didn't this thread happen a few months ago? i guess that one was just racism based, whereas with this one people can get really really angry with each other about other isms.

I agree with all of what lex said, really. What bothers me about this discussion is the idea that people can hold a consistent, honest position on this stuff - I think that's a misguided belief and I think it's often self-justifying in a way that isn't necessary.

otm

Thank you for rehashing the exact same discussion once again, I'm sure we can finally solve this dilemma once and for all, so we can all sleep safely.

"Welcome back to Chipping and Sodbury
You can have another chance
It must all seem like second nature
Chopping down the people where they stand
According to the latest score
Mr. Enoch Powell is a falling star"

I cannot understand how anyone could read these lines as "John Cale approves of Enoch Powell" - he's describing people who are very, very clearly not avant garde welsh musicians

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'

I feel like there's a widespread addiction to a certain myth/narrative about fresh new music -- the smart-ass teenagers who "just don't give a fuck," and/or people's own teenage experiences of discovering something that felt shocking and naughty -- that's creating a total feedback loop around this act.

It's hard to unpack, though -- when I finally ran up against writing about them, I filed something I considered highly skeptical, but by the time it went up, the context had gotten changed and it just looked like a rave.

"this isn't an issue at all because any artist with wholly hateful beliefs makes terrible art" and I don't see that this is necessarily true

no this isn't true at all. I was just giving a specific example of why Skrewdriver suck - which is not because they're racist, but because they're racism overwhelms their art to a degree that makes it bad. It is a poorly conceived and executed aesthetic, with no depth, no subtlety, no artistry.

Ice Cube espouses some "wholly hateful beliefs" about women, homosexuals, Koreans, and Jews (he also has some unflattering things to say about white people) on Death Certificate, but I think that is also one of the best rap albums ever made, even if I do skip "Black Korea" every time. The reason is that the work functions so well as a whole and is so beautifully executed - the beats, the rhymes, the overarching concept, the degree to which it accurately reflected the west coast's black community at the time, the debates it provoked, the level of detail - it is a very deeply absorbing work, you can get lost in it.

xp

Shall we discuss tomorrow whether rap can be considered music, or merely talking over someone else's music?

xpost

So out of interest Shakey, would an artist's politics ever stop you from buying their work if you thought it was good enough?

I can't think of any instance where it has...