MarshallStacks said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

^ 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]

Indeed.

I think everyone has the right to decide who they listen to and why they decide not to support an artist. Whether I agree or disagree with your choice, is neither here or there.

"The only person you know is YOU". This why so many people struggle when they've discovered celebrities, like all humans have q feet of clay. I find the obession/worshipping in the U.S. with celebrites, fame, and wealth, distrubing.

MarshallStacks said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

^ 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]

Many artists are troubled and use their art as an escape so the two often go together. In the past, when information was less readily accessible, art could be appreciated without having to take in the baggage that came with the artist. But with the ever-contant presence of the news in our internet era, it is hard to avoid information and thus almost impossible to dissociate the art from the artist's life.

Does that mean that we have to reject both? It depends. The artist may still have the freedom to express themselves through their art, but the recipient, their audience have a choice too. Freedom goes both way. Times have changed, with freedom comes more rights and people nowadays tend to draw a clear line between what they are ready to accept or not.

And while it is easier to tolerate an artist despite the mistakes they may make in private, when these mistakes are against the concensus and transpire publicly through their art, it is usually a big no-no. Racist undertones are no longer accepted for example, as it was recently the case for one of Gucci's latest creation (which was thankfully promptly 'cancelled'). In this case the art was cancelled but not the artist. But what then if the artist repeatedly offends and shows no remorse?

All this to say that these days may not be so 'off the wall' after all... P-Y-T anyone?

[Edited 3/12/19 15:55pm]

CherryMoon57 said:

MarshallStacks said:

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]

Many artists are troubled and use their art as an escape so the two often go together. In the past, when information was less readily accessible, art could be appreciated without having to take in the baggage that came with the artist. But with the ever-contant presence of the news in our internet era, it is hard to avoid information and thus almost impossible to dissociate the art from the artist's life.

Does that mean that we have to reject both? It depends. The artist may still have the freedom to express themselves through their art, but the recipient, their audience have a choice too. Freedom goes both way. Times have changed, with freedom comes more rights and people nowadays tend to draw a clear line between what they are ready to accept or not.

And while it is easier to tolerate an artist despite the mistakes they may make in private, when these mistakes are against the concensus and transpire publicly through their art, it is usually a big no-no. Racist undertones are no longer accepted for example, as it was recently the case for one of Gucci's latest creation (which was thankfully promptly 'cancelled'). In this case the art was cancelled but not the artist. But what then if the artist repeatedly offends and shows no remorse?

All this to say that these days may not be so 'off the wall' after all... P-Y-T anyone?

[Edited 3/12/19 15:55pm]

Great post, as always!

I find this to be a very thought-provoking topic. Seems there's never the right answer to it.

I'm extremely disgusted by R Kelly. But his songs on my itunes,...I haven't and don't think I will delete them. The memories I have attached to those tunes are very separate from R.Kelly the person, I used to jam to those tracks with my friends and they remind me of certain memories I have with them.

I bet in the 70s and 80s when women didn't have much of a voice and all female fans were considered groupies...as disturbing as it sounds, sexual harassment was a prevalent practice among A LOT OF rockstars. We all know that and yet we still choose to listen to their music. The heck is wrong with us.

happinessinitsuncutform said:

I find this to be a very thought-provoking topic. Seems there's never the right answer to it.

I'm extremely disgusted by R Kelly. But his songs on my itunes,...I haven't and don't think I will delete them. The memories I have attached to those tunes are very separate from R.Kelly the person, I used to jam to those tracks with my friends and they remind me of certain memories I have with them.

I bet in the 70s and 80s when women didn't have much of a voice and all female fans were considered groupies...as disturbing as it sounds, sexual harassment was a prevalent practice among A LOT OF rockstars. We all know that and yet we still choose to listen to their music. The heck is wrong with us.

Grand Funk Railroad.

On the road for forty days / Last night in Little Rock put me in a haze / Sweet, sweet Connie -- doin' her act." “Sweet Connie” Hamzy was a famous groupie that had allegedly been with a number of famous people and musicians -- including Bill Clinton during his time as governor of Arkansas. “She had the whole show and that's a natural fact” alleges that Connie had been with the entire band, but she told VH-1 that wasn't entirely true – according to her, she never got to Mark Farner.

https://ultimateclassicrock.com/grand-funk-railroad-were-an-american-band-lyrics-uncovered/

Moonbeam said:

CherryMoon57 said:

Many artists are troubled and use their art as an escape so the two often go together. In the past, when information was less readily accessible, art could be appreciated without having to take in the baggage that came with the artist. But with the ever-contant presence of the news in our internet era, it is hard to avoid information and thus almost impossible to dissociate the art from the artist's life.

Does that mean that we have to reject both? It depends. The artist may still have the freedom to express themselves through their art, but the recipient, their audience have a choice too. Freedom goes both way. Times have changed, with freedom comes more rights and people nowadays tend to draw a clear line between what they are ready to accept or not.

And while it is easier to tolerate an artist despite the mistakes they may make in private, when these mistakes are against the concensus and transpire publicly through their art, it is usually a big no-no. Racist undertones are no longer accepted for example, as it was recently the case for one of Gucci's latest creation (which was thankfully promptly 'cancelled'). In this case the art was cancelled but not the artist. But what then if the artist repeatedly offends and shows no remorse?

All this to say that these days may not be so 'off the wall' after all... P-Y-T anyone?

[Edited 3/12/19 15:55pm]

Great post, as always!

Thanks moonbeam!

For me,it's never been difficult to separate the artist from the song.I have read alot of tell-all books about many of my favorite artists and as you can expect,many bad things are revealed about them.And yet,I can still play their songs/albums and enjoy the music.I look at it this way: who they really are in their personal life is none of my business,anyway.I don't know them personally.I don't hang out with them.I don't work for them.My interest in them is strictly because of the music.

I recall something that Sinead O'Connor said in the 90s.She was angry at Prince because of that "incident" where he supposedly argued with her at his home.She said that,in order to continue to perform "Nothing Compares 2 U" during her shows,she has to "separate the artist from the song,which I was already doing anyway.But I'm just really pissed at him,so it's kinda hard to do now".

SoulAlive said:

purplethunder3121 said:

MarshallStacks said:

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]

Indeed.

And Elvis was a pedophile and nobody seems to be turned off by it.

[Edited 3/16/19 16:06pm]

[Edited 3/16/19 16:07pm]

ItsLetoyaBaby said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Indeed.

And Elvis was a pedophile and nobody seems to be turned off by it.

[Edited 3/16/19 16:06pm]

[Edited 3/16/19 16:07pm]

Not a pedophile, an ephebophile. Man who prefers girls in the 13-18 age range.

[Edited 3/16/19 19:51pm]

Yeah it's an interesting question, obviously it's time to move creepy MJ's albums to the back of the shelf again, I can separate to a degree I guess it depends on the nature of the action, whether there is conjecture on the allegations, if the woman is a mental case, etc, but that mindset would be different for a confirmed POS like Roman Polanski or Charles Manson where it's clear cut and someone suffered against their will.

EmmaMcG said:

darlingnikkkki 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 grew up with MJ’s music and I don’t have a problem with the music he made with the Jackson 5 as a kid but I doubt I can listen to Heal the World again given the message of the song and what he was doing to the kids in his bedroom especially the graphic details of the abuse which he remained unrepentant and in denial until his death. The $20+M hush money he paid to settle that one case out of court is damning to me. If I wasn’t guilty of a crime I won’t even pay a dollar.

What makes you so sure this is true, was it the graphic details?

I have decided to still listen to Michael Jackson, simply because - until proven otherwise - the quality of his music to me is far superior than any shifty allegations.

RJOrion said:

i never waa a fan of R.Kelly anyway...and even though i think MJ was behaving inappropriately with young boys, it doesnt change my feelings about his music, or Jackson 5 music, which i still enjoy regularly...after years of observation, it appears most of the entertainment icons seem to be weirdos and deviants of some sort anyway...that may even be a requirement in the entertainment industry...thats THEIR business tho...just entertain me...

I feel the same way: if your album is good,I will buy it and enjoy your music.The person that you are outside of the spotlight is your business and I don't really care about all that.

and yeah,I never liked R.Kelly anyway,either

RJOrion said:

i never waa a fan of R.Kelly anyway...and even though i think MJ was behaving inappropriately with young boys, it doesnt change my feelings about his music, or Jackson 5 music, which i still enjoy regularly...after years of observation, it appears most of the entertainment icons seem to be weirdos and deviants of some sort anyway...that may even be a requirement in the entertainment industry...thats THEIR business tho...just entertain me...

MJ LOVED R Kelly, "Ignition" was his favorite song.

darlingnikkkki said:

CherryMoon57 said:

PatrickS77 said:

EmmaMcG said:

Honestly, I don't believe Michael Jackson was a kiddie fiddler. But even if there was indisputable proof that he was guilty, I'd still listen to his music. My opinion of the man would change but not my opinion of his music.

Same here.'Off The Wall' is one of my favorite albums.Regardless of what Michael did in his personal life,it wouldn't change my opinion of the music itself.Great music will always be great music,no matter what is later revealed about the artist.

.

[Edited 3/21/19 5:49am]

RJOrion said:

RJOrion said:

Free2BMe said: