Ok so I am sure ya'll know things are absolutely crazy today. So it looks quite apparent that R. Kelly is a mentally disturbed man who expresses that anguish by sexually assaulting minors. That much is clear (at least to me). But I had my first kiss to the song "Radio Message" at school dance when I was younger. It is a very beautiful memory to me. Do I erase my my fondness of that song/album? And of course there is MJ in the news again with the molestation accusations. This case is a little less clear (and lets be honest with MJ the whole thing plays out more like a neo-noir crime story then a straight up accusation of sexual misconduct) Now I personally think there is WAYYY more to the Michael Jackson accusations then what is being said in the media (as usual) but the cloud of the accusations is now hanging over his music more than normal lately for me. My question is this: Do we take a hard stance as a society and say art is important and should be protected from bad (supposed in the case of MJ) actions of said creators? Or do we toss it out and try to support artists who are promote peace/love/inclusivity? It's something I am struggling with a lot these days.

[Edited 3/7/19 9:39am]

^^ I don't know if some can separate art from the artist, but all I know is that now whenever I hear a song from R Kelly or Michael Jackson, I can't help but think about the crimes they were accused of, and it does affect the way I used to listen to their music before then and now.

I wouldn't call things crazy when finally the truth is coming out about how MJ silenced and twisted and raped all these boys.

On the subject of Art separate from Artist… the sexual energy in Prince’s music is genuine and my ears I hear something wild, real and enjoyable. On the flip side - even in the days of Billie Jean.. Michaels shit music always turned me off. The sexual energy in the music was FAKE and EMPTY and everything about MJ creeped me out. True some of the grooves were OK but the nut performing the vocals wasn’t selling me in exploring anything genuinely sexually normal. His crap was all fake.

Yes Prince was a control freak and as an artist had some work that was overloaded with religious lyrical diarrhea but I don’t think I can separate the artist from the art or toss it to the side when sitting in the large piece of an album. At least I wouldn’t cancel anything.

With MJ - the art was never genuinely on the same scale as Prince. MJ always made me sick to my stomach and his art was packaged in a way to sell him as something that he wasn’t.

This is such a relevant question - topic was touched on between Colbert and Seinfeld in this clip @ 5:56:





Can you separate the criminality from the art? Do the artists embody the good and the bad - Cobsy was funny - MJ was talented - etc etc but they are also accused of doing some incredibly horrible things. Can we appreciate the good while acknowledging the bad?

I think it is such a personal and individual choice. - after the break Seinfeld comes back and says now that he has mulled it over - he does not think he can listen to Cosby in the same way again even though he was a great inspiriation for him

[Edited 3/7/19 11:01am]

Savannah said:

I wouldn't call things crazy when finally the truth is coming out about how MJ silenced and twisted and raped all these boys.

On the subject of Art separate from Artist… the sexual energy in Prince’s music is genuine and my ears I hear something wild, real and enjoyable. On the flip side - even in the days of Billie Jean.. Michaels shit music always turned me off. The sexual energy in the music was FAKE and EMPTY and everything about MJ creeped me out. True some of the grooves were OK but the nut performing the vocals wasn’t selling me in exploring anything genuinely sexually normal. His crap was all fake.

Yes Prince was a control freak and as an artist had some work that was overloaded with religious lyrical diarrhea but I don’t think I can separate the artist from the art or toss it to the side when sitting in the large piece of an album. At least I wouldn’t cancel anything.

With MJ - the art was never genuinely on the same scale as Prince. MJ always made me sick to my stomach and his art was packaged in a way to sell him as something that he wasn’t.

OMG so agree. You basically described what I have been thinking/feeling all these years but didn't have the words to describe. A little harsher than I may have said it, but yeah I never believed there was any legitimate sexual energy coming off the man. I just attributed that to most likely a closeted homosexuality and left it that. Biut you're right, maybe there was something sinister, not innocent that explained that lack of normal sexual energy

Savannah said:

I wouldn't call things crazy when finally the truth is coming out about how MJ silenced and twisted and raped all these boys.

On the subject of Art separate from Artist… the sexual energy in Prince’s music is genuine and my ears I hear something wild, real and enjoyable. On the flip side - even in the days of Billie Jean.. Michaels shit music always turned me off. The sexual energy in the music was FAKE and EMPTY and everything about MJ creeped me out. True some of the grooves were OK but the nut performing the vocals wasn’t selling me in exploring anything genuinely sexually normal. His crap was all fake.

Yes Prince was a control freak and as an artist had some work that was overloaded with religious lyrical diarrhea but I don’t think I can separate the artist from the art or toss it to the side when sitting in the large piece of an album. At least I wouldn’t cancel anything.

With MJ - the art was never genuinely on the same scale as Prince. MJ always made me sick to my stomach and his art was packaged in a way to sell him as something that he wasn’t.

OMG so agree. You basically described what I have been thinking/feeling all these years but didn't have the words to describe. A little harsher than I may have said it, but yeah I never believed there was any legitimate sexual energy coming off the man. I just attributed that to most likely a closeted homosexuality and left it that. Biut you're right, maybe there was something sinister, not innocent that explained that lack of normal sexual energy

Savannah said:

I was never into R. Kelly. I was raised on MJ and the Jacksons and those songs will always hold special memories for me.

EmmaMcG said:

That's actually a good question. Can we seperate art from the artist? Or rather, SHOULD we seperate art from the artist. Obviously, people will have different opinions on that but for me personally, I don't get invested in the personal lives of the artists I listen to. I never liked R Kelly so these allegations against him have no bearing on my interest in his music. I am a fan of Michael Jackson though. I always have been. And whereas I feel that it's completely and totally wrong to condemn the man without any proof whatsoever, I've always kept an open mind in relation to his alleged crimes. I don't know if he did it or not. We'll never know if he did it or not. And honestly, I don't care. Like I said, I don't get invested in their personal lives. I listen to the music because I like the music. For me, it's no different than OJ Simpson in the Naked Gun movies. I still watch them and enjoy them, including his performances in them. He's probably a murderer but he was still funny in those movies. Michael Jackson MIGHT be a paedophile but his music is still enjoyable to me. Bill Cosby is a scumbag but I still watch Ghost Dad. So for me, I guess I do separate art from the artist.

This is a great answer, thank you for being so honest. I think i am pretty much in line with you in separating the art from the artist. In spite of his life choices and the accusations about him, I still enjoy Woody Allen movies and think he is a great director. I also listen to and love Michael Jackson's music and think he is immensely talented. However, lately I am finding it difficult to watch Kevin Spacey movies. He is a good actor but he was always reputed to be a jerk - a closeted creepy asshole - and I was not surprised at the exposure of his alleged inappropriate behavior. I just do not like seeing his face or hearing his voice anymore - he makes my skin crawl

In some cases,I have had to separate the artist from their music.There are many great,legendary artists who had "issues".In order for me to continue to enjoy their music,I have had to separate their music from the person that they are.

SoulAlive said:

In some cases,I have had to separate the artist from their music.There are many great,legendary artists who had "issues".In order for me to continue to enjoy their music,I have had to separate their music from the person that they are.

The artist slept with little girls and died of venerel disease but I still love this painting:

EmmaMcG said:

That's actually a good question. Can we seperate art from the artist? Or rather, SHOULD we seperate art from the artist. Obviously, people will have different opinions on that but for me personally, I don't get invested in the personal lives of the artists I listen to. I never liked R Kelly so these allegations against him have no bearing on my interest in his music. I am a fan of Michael Jackson though. I always have been. And whereas I feel that it's completely and totally wrong to condemn the man without any proof whatsoever, I've always kept an open mind in relation to his alleged crimes. I don't know if he did it or not. We'll never know if he did it or not. And honestly, I don't care. Like I said, I don't get invested in their personal lives. I listen to the music because I like the music. For me, it's no different than OJ Simpson in the Naked Gun movies. I still watch them and enjoy them, including his performances in them. He's probably a murderer but he was still funny in those movies. Michael Jackson MIGHT be a paedophile but his music is still enjoyable to me. Bill Cosby is a scumbag but I still watch Ghost Dad. So for me, I guess I do separate art from the artist.

I feel the same way.I'm a huge fan of Rick James and as we all know,he did some crazy things in his personal life and had to serve a prison term for it.But it doesn't stop me from playing and enjoying his music.

I think it's a personal thing. Fortunately for me I can separate and enjoy the music on it's own merits but I understand if everyone can't do that. I don't agree with canceling an artist in the sense of removing their music from streaming services, stores and off the radio.

It's all a grand illusion.

Fans need to realize the people they see on the stage and in magazines are different in their private life.

I still sing to MJ's songs and will always remember his cool moves and history being made.

Never been a fan of R Kelly, and never will be. Hard to believe he wrote I Believe I Can Fly...

When I hear or see Ozzie, I always think of that headless bat, though. LOL

SoulAlive said:

EmmaMcG said:

That's actually a good question. Can we seperate art from the artist? Or rather, SHOULD we seperate art from the artist. Obviously, people will have different opinions on that but for me personally, I don't get invested in the personal lives of the artists I listen to. I never liked R Kelly so these allegations against him have no bearing on my interest in his music. I am a fan of Michael Jackson though. I always have been. And whereas I feel that it's completely and totally wrong to condemn the man without any proof whatsoever, I've always kept an open mind in relation to his alleged crimes. I don't know if he did it or not. We'll never know if he did it or not. And honestly, I don't care. Like I said, I don't get invested in their personal lives. I listen to the music because I like the music. For me, it's no different than OJ Simpson in the Naked Gun movies. I still watch them and enjoy them, including his performances in them. He's probably a murderer but he was still funny in those movies. Michael Jackson MIGHT be a paedophile but his music is still enjoyable to me. Bill Cosby is a scumbag but I still watch Ghost Dad. So for me, I guess I do separate art from the artist.

I feel the same way.I'm a huge fan of Rick James and as we all know,he did some crazy things in his personal life and had to serve a prison term for it.But it doesn't stop me from playing and enjoying his music.

I agree with both of you. I still like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski movies, and I like Jack Nicholson,too....and he was pretty tight with Polanski back in the ´70s.

Also....where do we draw the line? I never was a big fan of R.Kelly´s music in the first place and found him stupid long before I heard of the accusations but I still enjoy listening to Fortunate sung by Maxwell, which was written and composed by R.Kelly. I mean, should we expect Maxwell to stop singing that song from now on ? And how does Maxwell feel about singing R´s song?

Then again, Maxwell pretty much owns that song, and as far as I know it´s never been released by R. himself, so people do not necessarily associate it with him.

.

When it comes to Michael Jackson I feel a bit more torn because even though I never was a fan and found him really weird in the later phase of his career I have always liked many of his older songs, and even his newer albums always had at least two or three songs on them that I really liked, including the song that R.Kelly wrote for him.

And in Michael´s case it is a very complicated issue. I´ve been following both sides´ arguments and they both sound plausible to me,though I find the pro-Jackson arguments more plausible at this point but I haven´t seen the full documentary yet, I have mostly read about it or watched footage that tries to debunk the allegations and the docu. It is shocking, however,that a grown man would let little children sleep at his place. Since I don´t know the details I can still enjoy his music but I am not sure if that would be the case if I found out that he really did the things they say he did.

.

I think it´s easier for me to enjoy a movie that was directed by a director who has some skeletons in his closet than listening to a singer. Maybe because music is, to me at least, more of a sensual experience than a film (not that films can´t be a sensual experience but...not as much as music).

I can also enjoy literature that was written by horrible people.

.

I find it hypocritical that some artists seem to get away with their deeds and some don´t.

Radiostatons are boycotting Michael Jackson´s music these days and I saw a meme on FB that was asking why Elvis or Jerry Lee Lewis don´t get banned, too.

.

I wonder if Led Zeppelin, Bowie and others ever experienced this kind of backlash because of who they had sex with. (I genuinely don´t know or remember).

[Edited 3/7/19 15:27pm]

My daughter is a art historian and she mentioned something that has stayed with me. "To be a successful artist often requires a large amount of ego; they are often convinced of the importance of their art. Many artists of all types are not necessarily 'nice' people.

I tend to study the lives of artists whose art has touched me and this practice has led to conflicted feelings about some of them. I have to admit I have had some of those feelings about Prince, at times.

PennyPurple said:

KoolEaze said:

SoulAlive said:

I feel the same way.I'm a huge fan of Rick James and as we all know,he did some crazy things in his personal life and had to serve a prison term for it.But it doesn't stop me from playing and enjoying his music.

I agree with both of you. I still like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski movies, and I like Jack Nicholson,too....and he was pretty tight with Polanski back in the ´70s.

Also....where do we draw the line? I never was a big fan of R.Kelly´s music in the first place and found him stupid long before I heard of the accusations but I still enjoy listening to Fortunate sung by Maxwell, which was written and composed by R.Kelly. I mean, should we expect Maxwell to stop singing that song from now on ? And how does Maxwell feel about singing R´s song?

Then again, Maxwell pretty much owns that song, and as far as I know it´s never been released by R. himself, so people do not necessarily associate it with him.

.

When it comes to Michael Jackson I feel a bit more torn because even though I never was a fan and found him really weird in the later phase of his career I have always liked many of his older songs, and even his newer albums always had at least two or three songs on them that I really liked, including the song that R.Kelly wrote for him.

And in Michael´s case it is a very complicated issue. I´ve been following both sides´ arguments and they both sound plausible to me,though I find the pro-Jackson arguments more plausible at this point but I haven´t seen the full documentary yet, I have mostly read about it or watched footage that tries to debunk the allegations and the docu. It is shocking, however,that a grown man would let little children sleep at his place. Since I don´t know the details I can still enjoy his music but I am not sure if that would be the case if I found out that he really did the things they say he did.

.

I think it´s easier for me to enjoy a movie that was directed by a director who has some skeletons in his closet than listening to a singer. Maybe because music is, to me at least, more of a sensual experience than a film (not that films can´t be a sensual experience but...not as much as music).

I can also enjoy literature that was written by horrible people.

.

I find it hypocritical that some artists seem to get away with their deeds and some don´t.

Radiostatons are boycotting Michael Jackson´s music these days and I saw a meme on FB that was asking why Elvis or Jerry Lee Lewis don´t get banned, too.

.

I wonder if Led Zeppelin, Bowie and others ever experienced this kind of backlash because of who they had sex with. (I genuinely don´t know or remember).

[Edited 3/7/19 15:27pm]

I saw the Bashier(sp?) doc when it originally aired and found it weird and disturbing--but I also, in lieu of the unending legal pursuit of MJ afterwards especially by the DA and FBI found MJ's actions, although bizarre, without actionable legal merit, including in following years by his already discredited accusers. I think he was a very messed up person mentally but that doesn't necessarily equate with what he has been and now is accused of. Yet again. He would have been a tremedously STUPID child molester to let Bashier tape him and also not have put any protections around him. I think as Emma McGee said that he was tremendously naive and gullible. MJ also did bizarre things like dangling his baby from a balcony for the crowd to see. BTW no one mentioned the fact that none of his children ever mentioned any abuse whatsoever--HELLO!

.

He was put through the legal ringer, even the FBI couldn't find any solid basis on which to accuse him. For these two accusers now, who were never given legal merit, I totally question their accusations and motivations. I still remember watching some latter day videos with my son after MJ passed (especially the video where he was nude and had wings) and we just looked at each other like wtf?!! But none of this takes away from the music that I loved and grew up with, and it doesn't for him either. My last say on this sad ass thread...

Depends on how strong of a connection I have to the artist and their art, or it has been so far. Some artist I feel no connection to so their art could be a separate entity from them or any of their behavior. Sometimes it's the artist more than the art, that's been a tricky one, though I have noticed I tend to pull back a bit from the artist even is not totally cancel them out my life. Mostly it's about how strongly do I feel about their trangression.

The answer is found in the Leaving Neverland threads in this forum. Some "cancel," some try to acknowledge the beauty of the art and the flaws of the artist, and some twist themselves into knots to rationalize unhealthy behavior to keep the artist on a pedestal rather than face the reality of who the artist likely was.

Many if not most of the most celebrated musical artists we love are clouded by direct or circumstantial evidence of truly bad things.

[Edited 3/7/19 19:41pm]

[Edited 3/8/19 7:35am]

Cuomo just discussed this very topic with DL Hughley. Hughley said that these songs by MJ and RKelly were the soundtracks to some of our lives growing up. I feel the same with Prince.

drfunkentstein said:

Savannah said:

I wouldn't call things crazy when finally the truth is coming out about how MJ silenced and twisted and raped all these boys.

On the subject of Art separate from Artist… the sexual energy in Prince’s music is genuine and my ears I hear something wild, real and enjoyable. On the flip side - even in the days of Billie Jean.. Michaels shit music always turned me off. The sexual energy in the music was FAKE and EMPTY and everything about MJ creeped me out. True some of the grooves were OK but the nut performing the vocals wasn’t selling me in exploring anything genuinely sexually normal. His crap was all fake.

Yes Prince was a control freak and as an artist had some work that was overloaded with religious lyrical diarrhea but I don’t think I can separate the artist from the art or toss it to the side when sitting in the large piece of an album. At least I wouldn’t cancel anything.

With MJ - the art was never genuinely on the same scale as Prince. MJ always made me sick to my stomach and his art was packaged in a way to sell him as something that he wasn’t.

OMG so agree. You basically described what I have been thinking/feeling all these years but didn't have the words to describe. A little harsher than I may have said it, but yeah I never believed there was any legitimate sexual energy coming off the man. I just attributed that to most likely a closeted homosexuality and left it that. Biut you're right, maybe there was something sinister, not innocent that explained that lack of normal sexual energy

Right! No legit sexual energy. The sexual energy in your first kiss during "Radio Message" makes it more of YOUR SONG and less his. So keep it and cherish it as yours.

The decision to divorce yourself from the art is personal indeed.. I remember when dozens of friends who I thought loved Prince's music tossed his whole collection when he sued his fans back in 99. For them it was personal and I didn't question it but Prince was pure adult entertainment for most of his music career... MJ was not adult entertainment to me, and when his empire tried to pass him off as one, his "act" was a bad one that I could see right through. The fact that he kept getting away with it while a global childrens entertainer was purely sinister. What kind of art is left? His art of deception. Most people I know will never admit they were deceived - and MJ fans are going to stay blinded by the brightness of thier childhood hero. I think its rooted deeper in protecting a personal journey and being innocent.

namepeace said:

The answer is found in the Leaving Neverland threads in this forum. Some "cancel," some try to acknowledge the beauty of the art and the flaws of the artist, and some twist themselves into knots to rationalize unhealthy behavior to keep the artist on a pedestal rather than face the reality of who the artist likely was.

Many if not most of the most celebrated musical artists we love are clouded by direct or circumstantial evidence of truly bad things.

^ Yes.

PennyPurple said:

Cuomo just discussed this very topic with DL Hughley. Hughley said that these songs by MJ and RKelly were the soundtracks to some of our lives growing up. I feel the same with Prince.

yes,I grew up listening to the Jackson 5 and Michael's later solo stuff.There's no way I can just suddenly "ban" all that music from my life.

SoulAlive said:

PennyPurple said:

Cuomo just discussed this very topic with DL Hughley. Hughley said that these songs by MJ and RKelly were the soundtracks to some of our lives growing up. I feel the same with Prince.

yes,I grew up listening to the Jackson 5 and Michael's later solo stuff.There's no way I can just suddenly "ban" all that music from my life.

Me too - I'll still listen. I have such happy memories of dancing to The Jackson Five, Off the Wall and Thriller and Bad.

I am sure Prince had a controlling nature and it makes songs like "I'm gonna build a BIG TALL WAAAAAALL!" not very enjoyable.

When one's catalog is full of sexually explicit hits, and so is your police record, it becomes more difficult to separate.

I would say to the passive listener, the songs only mean what the star's current profile conjures.

For a fan of a song, a memory attached to a song would have more meaning than any lyric or artist's reputation.

DiminutiveRocker said:

namepeace said:

The answer is found in the Leaving Neverland threads in this forum. Some "cancel," some try to acknowledge the beauty of the art and the flaws of the artist, and some twist themselves into knots to rationalize unhealthy behavior to keep the artist on a pedestal rather than face the reality of who the artist likely was.

Many if not most of the most celebrated musical artists we love are clouded by direct or circumstantial evidence of truly bad things.

^ Yes.

Indeed. Leonardo da Vinci, who never married, spent most of his adult life living with and supporting a household of apprentices and assistants, all of whom seem to have joined his employ as young boys.

No further facts or evidence exist on this matter, though rumours persisted at the time. Many of these youths lived with and supported him for many years, a couple even inheriting his worldly goods after his death.

Are we to burn the Mona Lisa?

Another great and revered artist, Carravaggio, was convicted of killing a man in a brawl over a prostitute.

Not trying to compare MJ to these guys in terms of artisitic greatness, other than to say -

These kinds of debates are nothing new.

[Edited 3/12/19 13:29pm]