Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Has an artists behaviour ever turned you off their music?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Has an artists behaviour ever turned you off their music? - Page 8

post #106 of 172
For me, it was the Ramones for a time, because Johnny (rest his soul?) was about ten different kinds of conservative macho ****head. But then, I managed to end up in some social situations with Joey, who was the diametric opposite—just a really great cat. It still amazes me that two people who were so different could work together so long.

I could probably say the same about quite a few jazz people, but I don't know...a lot of jazz misbehavior is history that I guess I can kinda marvel at without being totally invested in it. Charles Mingus, for instance, did some unbelievable stuff: There's those stories about him slamming the piano lid down on Toshiko Akiyoshi's hands, and knocking Jimmy Knepper's teeth out. (Let the insidiousness of it sink in: a pianist's hands, a trombonist's mouth.)

On a completely contemporary note, I've never been much of an R. Kelly fan, and all his ******** just seals the deal.
post #107 of 172
Bob Dylan.. Hate his politics..
post #108 of 172
I think Imagine by John Lennon is the breakthrough song for an artist putting forward their religious, political views. John was truly a genius in this way. Instead of provoking people or stating his political views as truth, John was always very conscious of seeing the truth of both sides.....we can see this ambivalence in Revolution when he says "But when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out / in"

I feel when John went solo he started out with self reflection (Plastic Ono Band)

Only at the end of that record with the song "God" do we really hear him expressing political views, and he seems to include nearly every known religion and major iconic figures of the time, only to state that it is only himself which he can believe in. Almost philosophically like Descartes theory, Lennon puts forth the idea that at that point in his life it was only realistic for him to have faith in the only thing he knew was real - himself and his love to Yoko. After seeing the Beatles crumble, I think he must have re-evaluated every faith he ever had.

But in Imagine, he does something that no other artist had ever done before and no one (including him) has ever done since. He expresses his political views in this song by supplanting you in his shoes for a brief moment by asking you to imagine with him the existance or non-existance of certain ideas / ideals and things. He doesn't insist his beliefs, and he doesn't certify them as true. Just asks that you imagine with him what the world would be like without religion, or country boundaries, or heaven, or possesions.......you know the lyrics (haha).....

That is the true artistry of Lennon, that he was able to make you imagine with him (and possibly leave your own beliefs for a moment...if you were open to it) and he did this all without categorizing his thoughts as "good". Nowhere in the song does he express that his vision is the right vision, he even admits that he may be a dreamer, but if for that one moment Lennon had you imagine along with him what the world would be like if we broke down the boundaries we are all taught, then his song moved you in some way.

For that I have tremendous respect for him. It is no wonder that it lands up being his signature song.
post #109 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnomaly View Post
because what they did was wrong, and no society is built on that type of framework. disregarding your Nietzsche or wherever you got that idea, the "strong" don't just go around preying on the "weak". granted it happens economically and what not, because the strong do become strong by exploiting others somehow (generally speaking), but saying that criminal actions should be disregarded is ridiculous. the fact that they are a genius in one sense should have essentially nothing to do with their actions in another.

i mean really, you would be willing to say that what Hitler did was fine because he was genius enough to accomplish it? you're that willing to overlook the moral, social, familial, and every other type of harm that's caused by a crime, solely to maintain this "right" of the genius? that may be, as far as i'm concerned, the most amoral and disgusting thing i have ever heard if that's what you believe.

and why should the capacity of their mind stop me from condemning part of it? we will never fully understand any mind, let alone a supposed genius', so why bother punishing anyone?

edit: and i should add that comparing the Holocaust to a symphony is downright distasteful.
I don't consider myself a genius, so I couldn't tell you what constitutes genius, exactly. But the Greek intellectuals sodomized young boys, and we still recite Plato. What I'm saying is that human life is transitory, where genius persists. The aforementioned Unit 731 (of which I have great interest, so thanks for bringing it up) developed priceless insights in medicine, chemistry, biology, and psychology, at the cost of several thousand lives. There was no Nuremberg for these "criminals". Our government granted them immunity because their work was more valuable than the lives they took. While I'm sure there was more than a little racism involved in that decision, I agree with it. My point is that while genius sometimes manifests itself in unpalatable ways, or is given to disturbing people, it is still rare, and valuable. And, to be frank, human life is a common and replenishable resource.
post #110 of 172
If the music is good, I will listen to it. If the artist/band act like a turd, I may roll my eyes, but I will still listen to it. Usually, negative personal characteristics are integrated into the music (arrogance, pretentiousness, overt nuttiness, etc...), so usually I am turned off by the music that freaks make anyway.
post #111 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Altoids View Post
I don't consider myself a genius, so I couldn't tell you what constitutes genius, exactly. But the Greek intellectuals sodomized young boys, and we still recite Plato. What I'm saying is that human life is transitory, where genius persists. The aforementioned Unit 731 (of which I have great interest, so thanks for bringing it up) developed priceless insights in medicine, chemistry, biology, and psychology, at the cost of several thousand lives. There was no Nuremberg for these "criminals". Our government granted them immunity because their work was more valuable than the lives they took. While I'm sure there was more than a little racism involved in that decision, I agree with it. My point is that while genius sometimes manifests itself in unpalatable ways, or is given to disturbing people, it is still rare, and valuable. And, to be frank, human life is a common and replenishable resource.
Until it's yours that a genius is trying to take.

I'll believe that you honestly believe in what you're saying when you're willing to give up your life to find out the lethal dose of a chimera smallpox virus. Hey, you're helping out humankind!
post #112 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thelonious Monk View Post
not really. i was a bit skeptical about Burzum at first. he burned down 3 churches and killed a man. i shrugged it off and gave the album 2 proper listens; not amazing, but good.
bloody hell, you learn something every day here! - Hliðskjálf is one of my daily try to listen too's, i find it beautiful. how ironic.
post #113 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMahler View Post
That is the true artistry of Lennon, that he was able to make you imagine with him (and possibly leave your own beliefs for a moment...if you were open to it) and he did this all without categorizing his thoughts as "good". Nowhere in the song does he express that his vision is the right vision, he even admits that he may be a dreamer, but if for that one moment Lennon had you imagine along with him what the world would be like if we broke down the boundaries we are all taught, then his song moved you in some way.
I went and re-listened to Imagine after reading your post...and I agree with what you said.

The "no possessions" part is a little out there for me though!
post #114 of 172
This thread went in an interesting unexpected direction!

edit:WTF: this is a 3yo bump!?!?
post #115 of 172
Yeah, I'm probably not evolved enough to make intellectual concessions for evil. Someone in earshot of me once praised slavery for giving us rock and roll, and it took every humane impulse I had in my body to keep from throwing a drink on him. Life is given to randomness and chance, and whereas it's fine if we can learn from the heinous things that happen to us, I'm not sure it means those evils can ever really be forgiven. That's a little different than listening to Frank Sinatra or Miles Davis knowing they were a misogynists—especially if the track you're listening to isn't overtly misogynistic.
post #116 of 172
Kayne West.... Hurricane Katrina... enough said.
post #117 of 172
I guess I'm pretty shallow in my reasoning about talent vs activities. If I enjoy what I'm hearing, great. If I hear that the individual did something wrong; I may feel disgust for a moment and may gossip about it for a bit, but soon I go back to enjoying the results of that talent and generally forgetting the bad stuff.

Then again, about the worst thing I ever heard about any of my favorite artists is one of them married his 13 year old cousin, and another one was gay and married a nymphomaniac.

No real evil people among most of my favorites. Shucks; many of them are long gone DEAD!
post #118 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by kool bubba ice View Post
Bob Dylan.. Hate his politics..
Interesting considering he claims to be apolitical, at least over the past 40 years. The last time he was expressing anything political he was defending the Civil Rights movement and talking about how the world was changing. Hardly controversial view points, hopefully.

As a Miles Davis fan I have learned to suspend personal judgment on artists. The only time it is a problem is when the music expresses the aspect of a personality that I find objectionable. Ted Nugent might be a great example. Both his music and his politics are about savage ignorance and bloated self importance and it turns me off to his music.(obviously I dont want a political argument, this is just my opinion.) Thankfully, nothing about Miles Davis' music says 'i like to beat and degrade women.'
post #119 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leti1285 View Post
Kayne West.... Hurricane Katrina... enough said.
This brings up and interesting question, does an artists behaviour turn you on to their music? Have you ever disliked someones music greatly, but something they did (say building a charity, or going slightly off script during a telethon) make you like them more?

I was never a Kanye West fan, Im still not. But I did give him a proper listen AFTER the whole Katrina stuff.
post #120 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMuffinMan_01 View Post
if i find out that the band members are drunks or drug addicts or stuff like that i can't respect them.
You must have a small record collection.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Music
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Music › Has an artists behaviour ever turned you off their music?