Is it okay to still listen to Michael Jackson?

I think should you feel guilty about eating palm oil is a whole other topic

the answer is yes, but Nutella is too good to not have in our lives babes x
 
I don’t know how to answer this, I guess the right thing would be to cancel him, but to what end really? His music is iconic and quite hard to avoid.
 
yes, i'm genuinely interested in hearing your answers?

1) would you believe the guys if they made a compelling documentary?
2) would you then erase Madonna from your life?
Yes & yes, to answer this hypothetical situation.

(But it still wouldn't be as bad as anything that MJ is accused of because the last time I checked, none of Madonna's boyfriends were underage.)
 
I can't stick Morrissey at all now, even The Smiths feels tainted which isn't fair on the others.

Mo Tucker's political views are every bit as bad as Mozzer's but we never see anyone refuse to listen to The Velvet Underground. Phil Spector murdered someone in cold blood, admitted it, spent 4 years denying it and then, finally, got the jail but that Xmas album is everywhere every year. Roy Estrada is in the jail for actual noncing but no-one wants to bin the Zappa and Beefheat album he plays on.

It does feel a bit like we can take it until it's the singer. As long as we're not hearing the voice of an abuser, murderer, paedo, whatever, we're largely happy to bowl along.

Odd.
 
I can completely separate the art from the artist, so yes I can definitely still listen to his music and enjoy it. I can see both sides to the debate though for sure.
 
I think should you feel guilty about eating palm oil is a whole other topic

if you feel guilty about eating Nutella and palm oil then you should feel even more guilty about eating meat and dairy products but that's a conversation that society is not ready to have yet.
 
On the cancelled list with my fave Evil Ellen
 
Oh I forgot about Chris Brown. Not a fan of most of his stuff anyway but I just can’t stomach even listening to him. But there was never any speculation about what he did. He’s quite obviously a wrongun

I can’t bring myself to watch the MJ documentary. It’ll just be too horrific.
 
I liked the odd track, always found it grating how he was hailed as amusical genius and eventually bought around 3 albums (including one GH) but I'm too SELF CONCIOUS when it comes to these things so I had to get rid of them :( just like I did with my Lostprophets and R. Kelly albums (jesus do I like anyone who's not problematic?) oh and no, I didn't give em away to charity shops, I threw them in the bin :shock: what a role model!

It's funny how I'm more likely to hear an R. Kelly song while on a night out than an MJ and it's not like I cover my ears and start screaming at the DJ to turn it off, like lolly says, if anything by them pops up on my Spotify I might leave it.
 
Not that I go out much (Covid or not) anymore, but if I were out and an R Kelly song came on then I would most certainly leave the dance floor and I would definitely give whoever was playing it the thumbs down and also make a *MUCH DISGUST* face.
 
well nobody is forced to watch that doc, especially given the subject matter.
 
Not that I go out much (Covid or not) anymore, but if I were out and an R Kelly song came on then I would most certainly leave the dance floor and I would definitely give whoever was playing it the thumbs down and also make a *MUCH DISGUST* face.
I have been known to tell people to turn R Kelly OFF whenever Ignition (Remix) pops up. Uniformly and without exception they then tell me to DO ONE :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: SDF
I don’t actually believe he was a pedo. Well I guess it’s how you define pedo. Was he troubled, naive and no doubt highly inappropriate? Yeah. But more down to psychological trauma than actually being evil and twisted. I’m sure there were cuddles and secrets and I don’t condone any of it. I haven’t actually seen the documentaries or read all the details so it might be based on my own lack of understanding. Or unwillingness to deal. I was never a fanatic but he was a huge part of my childhood. And I’m keeping the music.

Anyway either way I tend to separate the real life person from the artist. I still have a couple of R Kelly tracks on my playlists.

How do YOU define paedo? Why do you think he isn't one?
 
well nobody is forced to watch that doc, especially given the subject matter.
Well I think Ag's point (and correct me if I'm wrong @Ag) is that it's a bit preposterous to have an opinion (and specifically, one that exonerates Michael Jackson) without watching the documentary.

Believe the victims.

Yes it is a painful subject matter and there is some uncomfortable detail in there but we're all adults here (unlike the victims) and should be able to 'human up' and put ourselves through those 2 hours if we choose to.
 
i'm more increasingly in the mind that i have no business policing the personal lives of others be it artists, politicians or neighbours. few of us are as morally pure as we'd like to make out. too many artists are driven by demons and it's not a coincidence. if someone is an abuser he definitely shouldn't be given new opportunities or platforms (i.e. chris brown) but to discard an entire body of work of someone like michael jackson or woody allen seems silly to me. and it's a slippery slope.

sidebar: has there been any irrefutable evidence that allen is a monster? i haven't been following closely and only know mia farrow's daughter accused him of abusing her following his rather acrimonious split from her mother and of course the soon-yi affair which was obviously more than a little unsavoury but as far as i remember nothing occurred there without the consent of two of age individuals.
 
I also don't personally believe Allen should be lumped into the list and I especially take issue with actors who willingly worked with him now apologising for it (especially those like Kate Winslet who also worked with factual child rapist Roman Polanski!), but I've also learned that the Allen debate isn't really worth having because people get very upset and accuse you of condoning all sorts of shit and say "believe women!" and it's all downhill from there. Public opinion is not concerned with what we actually know about the case, in that specific instance.
 
too many artists are driven by demons and it's not a coincidence.

Many artists (whether criminals or innocent) are at their most creative phase during troubled and traumatic periods in their lives and in a way we’re indirectly exploiting their misery by watching/listening/reading their products, which if you want to push it that far is also morally tricky.
 
I also don't personally believe Allen should be lumped into the list and I especially take issue with actors who willingly worked with him now apologising for it (especially those like Kate Winslet who also worked with factual child rapist Roman Polanski!), but I've also learned that the Allen debate isn't really worth having because people get very upset and accuse you of condoning all sorts of shit and say "believe women!" and it's all downhill from there. Public opinion is not concerned with what we actually know about the case, in that specific instance.
I'm inclined to agree on Woody Allen. His recent interview with Hadley Freeman was pretty good on this and I think lumping him with Polanski is easy but wrong. It's unclear what happened in the abuse accusations and his currently marriage might be ethically icky, but they've been married for 20 odd years now, so something works.

As you say though, it's an utter minefield!

As for Jacko, I was never the biggest fan so don't miss playing his stuff. I don't expressly go out of my way to avoid it, but also never find myself reaching for it. I've seen him twice live, once pre-1993 and once after, but I did walk out before the end during the latter gig, once he brought on the kiddies and stood in front of a tank being saintly. It was rubbish.

(Best album is Off The Wall)
 
I have more of a problem with Woody Allen than with Roman Polanski. Polanski admitted to a crime and then flew to evade justice when the judge tried to get him a much harsher sentence by throwing out Samantha Geimer's plea bargain AGAINST HER WILL. Whether you think evading justice is right or wrong, that's always been his defense line to justify his fleeing. It's not like he's pretending he didn't do anything. He has apologised to Samantha and in the 80s he paid her a settlement for millions. Crucially for me, she HAS forgiven him and has asked for his sentence to be condoned in the US so he can return.

With Woody, he may have been found NOT GUILTY of the charges of abusing his daughter but I suggest to any Mooper who likes A GOOD READ to go through all the articles published around the time the court case came out (or you can read the court records yourself) and you'll see that the judge REPEATEDLY calls him out for having a very strange and unhealthy relationship with his daughter. I don't think I can make a judgement on whether he abused her or not, but the evidence presented in the trial shows him to be a DODGY AF FATHER (there are some CONFIRMED stories about BEDTIME STORIES and CUSHIONS that are frankly off colour, among several other things) and this is not even getting into the whole FUCKING THE 21-YEAR OLD ADOPTED DAUGHTER OF HIS GIRLFRIEND BEHIND HER BACK. Again, he's given so many technicalities about the whole thing to justify the situation that it all reads a bit like an Amazon tax loophole - yes of course it may be legally fine, but it's incredibly dodgy and the fact you're unrepentant as fuck and trying to present Mia Farrow as a hysterical vengeful harridan when, really mate, you fucked her daughter behind her back while still going out with her, speaks VOLUMES about his character.

To say nothing of the DEMONSTRABLE pattern of LEERINESS and CREEPINESS in his work towards younger girls, from the ICKY subplot about fancying an underage girl in Manhattan to basically writing about his whole episode with Soon-Yi in that Kate Winslet film a few years ago. He's so arrogant to think just because he wasn't convicted he is impeccable and should be exonerated completely. He's even gone to claim on record that he should be a POSTER BOY for the #MeToo movement :manson: when he's a FUCKING CREEP!
 
Amen to tha, @Peekaboo .

And whilst we are on the subject of artists being 'tormented' or 'tortured souls' (@ameraal @RaspberrySwirl ), does that mean we should give them a free pass then? Why restrict this to artists? Why not shopkeepers, cleaners, teachers and nurses? Or are they on some kind of lower intellectual field because they are mere mortals?
 
Creative types get away with a LOT. People almost expect a certain level of tension in a music group and thus behaviour that would get you sacked in any other job is seen as part of the process. Take Mark E Smith: he would regularly turn down/up the amplifiers, move the cymbals out of reach of the drummer, take over on keyboards etc. if I went up to once of my colleagues and turned off their PC, it wouldn't be creative tension, it would be aggressive behaviour and gross misconduct. Turn up for a shift after a few drinks and you'll be in trouble but I've lost count of the number of bands I've seen come on stage after a few shandies and no-one bats an eyelid, even if they're obviously over-refreshed.
 
Amen to tha, @Peekaboo .

And whilst we are on the subject of artists being 'tormented' or 'tortured souls' (@ameraal @RaspberrySwirl ), does that mean we should give them a free pass then? Why restrict this to artists? Why not shopkeepers, cleaners, teachers and nurses? Or are they on some kind of lower intellectual field because they are mere mortals?

I didn’t mean anyone should get away with anything illegal or hurtful, we’re discussing their art/products.

If a scientist was a rapist; would we disregard his work just because of his personal life?
 
I didn’t mean anyone should get away with anything illegal or hurtful, we’re discussing their art/products.

If a scientist was a rapist; would we disregard his work just because of his personal life?
Not their past work, but they should certainly lose their position and should be blacklisted by research funding bodies etc. and should also lose their position on any committees, charities etc.

So by the same token, no one is saying that Woody Allen's films should all be destroyed but should he have been given such a huge platform in Hollywood and all his past brushed under the carpet because he's an artist?

I won't get into the Michael Jackson argument again because, honestly, anyone who hasn't seen Finding Neverland should not offer an opinion.
 
Not their past work, but they should certainly lose their position and should be blacklisted by research funding bodies etc. and should also lose their position on any committees, charities etc.

Even after serving in prison (or however you say that in English)?
 
The Allen case is weird because he's OBVIOUSLY a wrong'un, but one of Mia Farrow's adopted kids has accused HER of abuse, said that her abuse led to at least one of her adopted children killing themselves, and claims she 'coached' the children to incriminate Allen.

It seems like a complicated situation, with both parents being accused of abuse by different children.

I couldn't say with confidence that Woody Allen is a nonce or that Mia Farrow abused the non-white children she adopted, but I can say with certainty that they both seem like THOROUGHLY BAD, WEIRD PEOPLE.
 
And whilst we are on the subject of artists being 'tormented' or 'tortured souls' (@ameraal @RaspberrySwirl ), does that mean we should give them a free pass then?

no. they have to be held accountable and that's what the law is for. obviously it's not always right but there has to be a standard because one day someone might find your morality or parental style "dodgy af".

i believe in giving people the chance to redeem themselves and i don't think achievements in any field should be discarded because the person behind them is accused of/has perpetuated abuse. abuse is all around us and it's not only sexual but physical and emotional and it is often "inherited". we cannot police it all and the important thing is that as a society we are becoming increasingly conscious of it and how to deal with it.

colin powell, who lied to the un to help bush junior start a war killing thousands of people, just gave a speech at the dnc. i'm saving my outrage for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: COB

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom