Lennon had feet of clay big time. Like a lot of people who can produce brilliant work, on a personal level they can be at the very least questionable. I find it helpful to consider the work separately to the person, but that doesn’t always happen, Gary Glitter being a good example. Very few people are near perfect both personally and in what they create, and as I say I believe John Lennon is a good example of that.
So your point is that not everyone is perfect? Im going back to bed, I need to lie down after that unexpected news.
As I understand it John Lennon was physically and emotionally abusive to his partners and child(ren). I guess it's up to the individual to decide whether that should be classed under 'not everyone is perfect' or something worse.
I personally have no clue where the line is drawn when it comes to cancelling music. I'd never, ever listen to Glitter, R Kelly or LostProphets again, but that's easy to say as I didn't listen to them anyway. Lennon didn't do anything as heinous as the aforementioned but then again, beating women should probably be taken seriously. The Beatles will never be cancelled, but I do think saying "nobody is perfect" is a pretty lazy addition to the conversation.
Did he humiliate disabled people? First time I’ve heard that. Am I feeding the troll?
Apparently when they became famous they were often presented with disabled people to meet before gigs, and brought into the dressing room afterwards "as if meeting the Beatles could heal them". They supposedly used to warn each other by saying "Cripples!" to give each other a heads up of another unexpected presentation.
He used to pull "Cripple" faces, and do mocking "Cripple" dance steps on stage. He always had a cruel nasty sense of humour (hence his Rutles name Ron Nasty), until his late sixties transformation into the Peace and Love John Lennon following Yoko's arrival. It may just have been examples of the infamous Scouse "Wit" we've all heard about.
He also used to cruelly mock Brian Epstein (their manager) as "Queer Jew" or "Rich Jew Fag", often to his face.
Apologies for the repeated use of terms that are rightly no longer considered acceptable, but that is what was apparently used at the time.
I think it's very sad when people can't distinguish between an artist and their art.
You could genuinely listen to LostProphets knowing that the man singing the song tried to - and I don’t even want to type this - have sex with a baby?
It's perfectly possible to appreciate art while finding the artist abhorrent.
I think your attitude over-romanticises 'art' but I do accept your point, even if I don't think you need to feel sad for people who feel otherwise. In the case of LostProphets, which is arguably the most extreme case, I think it would be downright weird to feel sad for those who don't want to hear what that man chooses to sing. I feel that they are intrinsically linked and to some extent it's awfully convenient to feel as though it's okay to separate the two, and even easier if you're not the one who was harmed by the artist. It's certainly hard to imagine any of Glitter's victims separating the two. You can merrily listen away to some pretty disgusting humans that way. Given the amount of media we have access to, I am happy to not press play on Do You Wanna Touch Me!
I think it's very sad when people can't distinguish between an artist and their art.
You could genuinely listen to LostProphets knowing that the man singing the song tried to - and I don’t even want to type this - have sex with a baby?
It's perfectly possible to appreciate art while finding the artist abhorrent.
I think your attitude over-romanticises 'art' but I do accept your point, even if I don't think you need to feel sad for people who feel otherwise. In the case of LostProphets, which is arguably the most extreme case, I think it would be downright weird to feel sad for those who don't want to hear what that man chooses to sing. I feel that they are intrinsically linked and to some extent it's awfully convenient to feel as though it's okay to separate the two, and even easier if you're not the one who was harmed by the artist. It's certainly hard to imagine any of Glitter's victims separating the two. You can merrily listen away to some pretty disgusting humans that way. Given the amount of media we have access to, I am happy to not press play on Do You Wanna Touch Me!
That's really interesting. Obviously we're coming at the issue from different directions and my take is based on the certainty that no-one is infallible. If you were to ignore all the artwork from artists who broke the law or who did regrettable things, the pool of available talent would be minuscule.
No Jerry Lee Lewis who married his 13 year old cousin? No Rolling Stones, whose lead singer and guitarist were sentenced to jail for drugs and whose bass player was in a sexual relationship with a 14 year old? No Caravaggio, who killed a man? No Picasso who handled stolen goods?
Sometimes criminal acts make art more important - Banksy, for example. But breaking the law should never diminish an artist's work.
The debate about the person and their work is an interesting one which is a reason I used that Bible quote yesterday (Book of Daniel for anybody interested) ‘the toes of the feet were part of iron and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken’. I am not Biblical, I first encountered the phrase in a book of short stories about football written by Brian Glanville, the specific story concerned a teenage football fan eager to get the autograph of his hero, but the player sneered and threw the precious autograph book down into a puddle. Very few greats were personally perfect, but in acknowledging the imperfections one can take a step closer to truth.
I think it's very sad when people can't distinguish between an artist and their art.
You could genuinely listen to LostProphets knowing that the man singing the song tried to - and I don’t even want to type this - have sex with a baby?
It's perfectly possible to appreciate art while finding the artist abhorrent.
I think your attitude over-romanticises 'art' but I do accept your point, even if I don't think you need to feel sad for people who feel otherwise. In the case of LostProphets, which is arguably the most extreme case, I think it would be downright weird to feel sad for those who don't want to hear what that man chooses to sing. I feel that they are intrinsically linked and to some extent it's awfully convenient to feel as though it's okay to separate the two, and even easier if you're not the one who was harmed by the artist. It's certainly hard to imagine any of Glitter's victims separating the two. You can merrily listen away to some pretty disgusting humans that way. Given the amount of media we have access to, I am happy to not press play on Do You Wanna Touch Me!
That's really interesting. Obviously we're coming at the issue from different directions and my take is based on the certainty that no-one is infallible. If you were to ignore all the artwork from artists who broke the law or who did regrettable things, the pool of available talent would be minuscule.
No Jerry Lee Lewis who married his 13 year old cousin? No Rolling Stones, whose lead singer and guitarist were sentenced to jail for drugs and whose bass player was in a sexual relationship with a 14 year old? No Caravaggio, who killed a man? No Picasso who handled stolen goods?
Sometimes criminal acts make art more important - Banksy, for example. But breaking the law should never diminish an artist's work.
Justin Roiland of Rick and Morty fame is embroiled in an interesting case that I think is relevant here. Roiland's comedy has long skated close to the edge of bad taste, and I thought he liked pushing boundaries, saying things that many others wouldn't have the balls to say. It wasn't always funny, sometimes it was weird, but that's comedy, right? It can and has to be edgy at times.
However, more recently it has come to light that Roiland has been attempting to groom teenagers, saying some seriously sick shit. So when I look at his past comedy on the show - and some stuff I thought he was saying for laughs publicly - suddenly it's all a bit unsettling. I don't think I can go back and enjoy Rick & Morty episodes in the same way. He has, to me, diminished his earlier work with his later behaviour because it is quite blatantly connected to his outlook on life.
I kind of see Ian Watkins through the same prism. Some of his lyrics could be interpreted very differently now we know what he wanted in life.
Also, I don't know if it's as simple as 'they broke the law' that stops me appreciating artists. I don't care if an artist's been done for drug possession. Or if they got drunk and vandalised a hotel room. I don't quite know what it is - are there certain crimes that I can't forgive? Is it only people who did things that negatively impacted others, and that directly affect how I receive their work? I really don't know.
I'm pretty sure Jerry Lee Lewis's marriage was legal in the state they got married in so should he even be in the conversation? Probably yes, because marrying a 13-year-old is fucking disturbing. So it's not as simple as what the law dictates. And yet Myra Lewis has lived a perfectly happy, untroubled life by her account and regrets nothing, so I don't feel particularly bad about listening to Great Balls Of Fire. The same can be said of the teenager who lost her virginity to David Bowie in a hotel threesome. She was under age and yet she talks about the experience positively and fondly, and again wasn't ever troubled by what happened to her. Maybe that makes it easier for me to continue to like someone, and maybe that's a bit hypocritical. As you say, everyone is fallible. So where do I draw the line?
I think maybe up to us individually to feel free to think, nah fuck that. I don't want to know that artist any more. So perhaps I am not in disagreement generally, I just have a few lines where I think, that's been crossed and I don't want to listen to or watch you any more. And ultimately, to your original point, I don't think you have to feel sorry for anyone who does feel that way.
Comments
DON'T FEED THE TROLL
I personally have no clue where the line is drawn when it comes to cancelling music. I'd never, ever listen to Glitter, R Kelly or LostProphets again, but that's easy to say as I didn't listen to them anyway. Lennon didn't do anything as heinous as the aforementioned but then again, beating women should probably be taken seriously. The Beatles will never be cancelled, but I do think saying "nobody is perfect" is a pretty lazy addition to the conversation.
The Beatles' reputation will survive any criticism that is thrown at its members.
He used to pull "Cripple" faces, and do mocking "Cripple" dance steps on stage. He always had a cruel nasty sense of humour (hence his Rutles name Ron Nasty), until his late sixties transformation into the Peace and Love John Lennon following Yoko's arrival. It may just have been examples of the infamous Scouse "Wit" we've all heard about.
He also used to cruelly mock Brian Epstein (their manager) as "Queer Jew" or "Rich Jew Fag", often to his face.
Apologies for the repeated use of terms that are rightly no longer considered acceptable, but that is what was apparently used at the time.
No Jerry Lee Lewis who married his 13 year old cousin? No Rolling Stones, whose lead singer and guitarist were sentenced to jail for drugs and whose bass player was in a sexual relationship with a 14 year old? No Caravaggio, who killed a man? No Picasso who handled stolen goods?
Sometimes criminal acts make art more important - Banksy, for example. But breaking the law should never diminish an artist's work.
I am not Biblical, I first encountered the phrase in a book of short stories about football written by Brian Glanville, the specific story concerned a teenage football fan eager to get the autograph of his hero, but the player sneered and threw the precious autograph book down into a puddle.
Very few greats were personally perfect, but in acknowledging the imperfections one can take a step closer to truth.
However, more recently it has come to light that Roiland has been attempting to groom teenagers, saying some seriously sick shit. So when I look at his past comedy on the show - and some stuff I thought he was saying for laughs publicly - suddenly it's all a bit unsettling. I don't think I can go back and enjoy Rick & Morty episodes in the same way. He has, to me, diminished his earlier work with his later behaviour because it is quite blatantly connected to his outlook on life.
I kind of see Ian Watkins through the same prism. Some of his lyrics could be interpreted very differently now we know what he wanted in life.
Also, I don't know if it's as simple as 'they broke the law' that stops me appreciating artists. I don't care if an artist's been done for drug possession. Or if they got drunk and vandalised a hotel room. I don't quite know what it is - are there certain crimes that I can't forgive? Is it only people who did things that negatively impacted others, and that directly affect how I receive their work? I really don't know.
I'm pretty sure Jerry Lee Lewis's marriage was legal in the state they got married in so should he even be in the conversation? Probably yes, because marrying a 13-year-old is fucking disturbing. So it's not as simple as what the law dictates. And yet Myra Lewis has lived a perfectly happy, untroubled life by her account and regrets nothing, so I don't feel particularly bad about listening to Great Balls Of Fire. The same can be said of the teenager who lost her virginity to David Bowie in a hotel threesome. She was under age and yet she talks about the experience positively and fondly, and again wasn't ever troubled by what happened to her. Maybe that makes it easier for me to continue to like someone, and maybe that's a bit hypocritical. As you say, everyone is fallible. So where do I draw the line?
I think maybe up to us individually to feel free to think, nah fuck that. I don't want to know that artist any more. So perhaps I am not in disagreement generally, I just have a few lines where I think, that's been crossed and I don't want to listen to or watch you any more. And ultimately, to your original point, I don't think you have to feel sorry for anyone who does feel that way.