Highjacked, tangential post inspired by Zilla's thread "...Happen" re Nugent

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Highjacked, tangential post inspired by Zilla's thread "...Happen" re Nugent

    At what, if any, point would you reject/ignore/repudiate a favoured artist's work due to their (presumed) bad personal behaviour?  I'm not sure what I'd do.

    My favourite musician is Bob Mould, my favourite author Hermann Hesse, my favourite painter Salvador Dali, my favourite film director...not sure....actor Paul Newman....etc.

    To the best of my knowledge none of them ever behaved very badly.  But what if one of them turned out to be a rapist, or a paedophile, or a murderer.....would I shun/ignore/repudiate their art?  Should I? Could I?

    As an example, let's assume Picasso is universally acknowleged as the greatest-ever painter.  But later it was discovered and proven that he was a John Wayne Gacy-like paedophile/murderer/cannibal.

    Could/should/would you try to paint him out of history?  Or could/should/would you not overlook, but accept that despite his (fictional in this example) atrocities his art should stand alone?

    I struggle with this issue....on the whole, to date, my view is I'd hold my nose and accept his art at face value.

    You?

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Highjacked, tangential post inspired by Zilla's thread

    I always though I could separate the art from the artist. I'm no longer so sure of this .I think there is a line I would draw. Take this example. Norman Mailer should have thought this way before he advocated for the release of Jack Abbott, author of 'In the Belly of the Beast'. Thanks to Mailer, Abbott gained his release and subsequently murdered a man. Any man's life is far more important than any creation of "art".

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Highjacked, tangential post inspired by Zilla's thread

    It's a personal judgement call to be sure.

    I have a personal example.  I disowned Cat Stevens as an artist when I became aware he was a Muslim extremist who supported the assassination of Salmon Rushdie.  

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Highjacked, tangential post inspired by Zilla's thread

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    At what, if any, point would you reject/ignore/repudiate a favoured artist's work due to their (presumed) bad personal behaviour?  I'm not sure what I'd do.

    My favourite musician is Bob Mould, my favourite author Hermann Hesse, my favourite painter Salvador Dali, my favourite film director...not sure....actor Paul Newman....etc.

    To the best of my knowledge none of them ever behaved very badly.  But what if one of them turned out to be a rapist, or a paedophile, or a murderer.....would I shun/ignore/repudiate their art?  Should I? Could I?

    As an example, let's assume Picasso is universally acknowleged as the greatest-ever painter.  But later it was discovered and proven that he was a John Wayne Gacy-like paedophile/murderer/cannibal.

    Could/should/would you try to paint him out of history?  Or could/should/would you not overlook, but accept that despite his (fictional in this example) atrocities his art should stand alone?

    I struggle with this issue....on the whole, to date, my view is I'd hold my nose and accept his art at face value.

    You?

     

     

     

     

    I never threw any of my Gary Glitter albums away, all one of them, or Who albums away  because of the child pornogrophy allegations. One was convicted the other had his charges dropped. A lot of rock stars did a lot of bad things in the 70's which they probably do not want brought up nowadays. Jimmy Page apparently got away with things that people go to jail for a long time these days.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ccnsd. Show ccnsd's posts

    Re: Highjacked, tangential post inspired by Zilla's thread

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    It's a personal judgement call to be sure.

    I have a personal example.  I disowned Cat Stevens as an artist when I became aware he was a Muslim extremist who supported the assassination of Salmon Rushdie.  




    I've read several interviews with Cat Stevens where he denies he ever said that about Rushdie. I don't know if he is re writing history post 9/11 or if he truly was mis quoted.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Highjacked, tangential post inspired by Zilla's thread

    Baba:You really did a bad thing stomping all over Tokyo....do you regret it?

    Zilla;Well, Baba. Here's the good part. due to my nasty tantrum, Blue Oyster Cult had a fantastic idea for a new song. It increased my popularity with a whole group of younger folks , who didn't even see the movie or any of the sequels.

    Baba:Blue Oyster Cult, aren't they the guys who sing about vampires, monsters and creepy stuff?

    Zilla:That's right Baba, but they deal in fantasy, kind of like Ted Nugent's 'Terminus Eldorado'...marvelous song, he really was a great Heavy Metal guitarist and he even had Meatloaf on one of his albums, before he was famous. I mean, how cool is that?

    Baba:But, Ted Nugent is a real nutty Ring Wing extremist nowadays.....do you still play his records?

    Zilla:Oh, I've got them all.....wouldn't be without them, smashing stuff. You can't hold this kind of stuff against performers....rumour has it Robert Johnson knifed and killed a guy, are you going to say the guy who started Rock'n'Roll is "off limits" because he's a killer?....what if Charlie Manson played on the White Album?...what do you do -throw it away?!!...no Baba, you've gotta separate the art from the artist....otherwise , you know, it's hypocrisy....or something like that.

    Baba:zzzzzzzzzzz 

    Zilla: But who listens to a a big lizard....I mean, really ?...Baba, BABA, WAKE UP!!!!

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: Highjacked, tangential post inspired by Zilla's thread

    So, when a Heisman Trophy winning/ film actor - murders his ex-wife and boyfriend I should ignore the murder and idolize the athlete?

    How about Gary Glitter? A CONVICTED paedofile.....do I still like the music - honestly - no.

    Same with Michael Jackson and the Catholic Church....child rapists don't entertain me.

    But if the artist is gay - who cares? I guess for me it depends on the crime or behavior...

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Highjacked, tangential post inspired by Zilla's thread

    In response to RogerTaylor's comment:

    So, when a Heisman Trophy winning/ film actor - murders his ex-wife and boyfriend I should ignore the murder and idolize the athlete?

    How about Gary Glitter? A CONVICTED paedofile.....do I still like the music - honestly - no.

    Same with Michael Jackson and the Catholic Church....child rapists don't entertain me.

    But if the artist is gay - who cares? I guess for me it depends on the crime or behavior...



    You don't have to "idolize" O.J. Simpson at all. I never did. However, the man's accomplishments can't be erased. He was a very impressive talent on the football field. The Buffalo Bills were never very good when O.J. played for them, they often battled just to stay out of last place. They had no passing game, little or no defense but they had O.J. and some excellent run-blocking linemen. The defenses they played against knew exactly what they were going to do, which is half the battle, they were going to hand the ball to O.J. ...AND STILL THEY COULD NOT STOP HIM!...now, I believe this is just stating facts, not "idolizing" anyone.

    I do not condone gambling, in fact I recommend people stop playing state run lotteries, as they are so heavily slanted agaist winners, it is ridiculous. But the government runs it , so it is encouraged. When Pete Rose does it he is blackballed, he is sick, he is a very, very bad boy. Yet, how do you deny the man his palce in baseball history?.....4256 HITS!!!  I don't care for his bad choices in life, but the man was the type of player everyone should strive to be, never give up ...play hard until the final out.

    Not ever going to stop playing 'Rock And Roll , PT. 1, even if Gary Glitter is the all time worst ( which he probably isn't) viewer of obscene material...I mean this guy is no Jerry Sandusky, and it's a very cool song that I alreadly own, and I bought it before Gary Glitter became a dirty word....or two words.

    I don't buy anything the Catholic church or Michael Jackson's estate has for sale anyway....I do have a Jackson 5 CD that I bought years ago....can't say I play it often, but I 'm not parting with it.

    I own just about every David Bowie CD, I don't agree with his lifestyle choices, but it has zero impact on the quality of his music, and my enjoyment of it. What he does in his spare time means nothing to me.

    I think there is a huge difference between appreciation of the artist or athlete and the talent they have or had, and "idolizing" that person. I'm not sure I've ever "idolized" anyone, but I know that there are lots of talented people who are not someone you want to imitate. 

    What about Mickey Mantle?....many have idolized him for decades, now a book comes out telling just how bad of a drunk and womanizer this guy was. Do you no longer recognize the great talent that he was? ...sure it looks like the guy was kind of a jerk off the field, but while not "idolizing" him, can we still accept his ability to play baseball at a high level?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Highjacked, tangential post inspired by Zilla's thread

    The comments on this thread are why Zilla's OP inspired me to start it...I think it's a fascinating, difficult and, to a high degree, personal issue. Extend the logic onto a spectrum:

    At one end a partner punches the other in the face once, apologises, regrets it and never does it again vs. a convicted paedophile, rapist or murder on the other end.

    To me, if I was certain that my favourite artist (Picasso) or or writer (Hesse) had done the former I wouldn't support it or admire it - it's terrible - but it's not the worst thing - if it just happened the once - that ever happened, was repudiated and not repeated.  None of us are perfect, and it would have no impact on my view of their art.

    But the other end of the spectrum?  If either was confirmed as such a monster, would I write them out of my life?  Could I? Should I?  If it were possible to eliminate them from history it would deny future generations the opportunity to appreciate their art and also to make their own judgement.  But is any less, at some level, a tacit acceptance of their crimes?

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Highjacked, tangential post inspired by Zilla's thread

    Let's call these 'value dealbreakers' of some sort or variety.  

    What happens if you don't pay attention to 'sensational' news (some of us avoid it),  b/c it's often ridiculous and/or about 'celebrities' we don't care about, and in some cases, have never heard of?    What if you're blissfully ignorant?   The news fell through the cracks somehow.

    Then, one day a friend tells you, or you hear, out of the blue, that one of your favorite musicians did ... what?!   Of course I'd be troubled, as would you, but would I stop listening to the old albums that were produced long before the crime was commited?   I don't see any reason to do that, and don't think it means I condone the newly reported crime.   But then again, I've never been put in that position. 

    On the other hand, these dealbreakers happen all the time in politics, sports, and all manner of disciplines where a person or institution may be in the public eye.   There are medical mistakes resulting in irreversible damage (oops, the wrong organ was removed with a medical record mix-up).   

    What about sports?  There is a new (not the first) book on Pete Rose called, "Pete Rose: An American Dilemma"  by Kostya Kennedy.   Is Pete Rose "dead to you" because of what he did 25 years ago, or does he deserve to be given credit for his remarkable career?    Here's a short excerpt from the book review (for those interested):

    "Kostya Kennedy, assistant managing editor of Sports Illustrated and author of the superb “56: Joe DiMaggio and the Last Magic Number in Sports,’’ wastes no time in getting to the point: “Does Pete Rose belong in the Hall of Fame?” he asks on the first page of “Pete Rose: An American Dilemma.’’

    It’s now been nearly a quarter-century since Rose was banned for life from Major League Baseball for betting on games, a span nearly as long as the 24 seasons he spent in the majors starting in 1963. 

     

    But the controversy surrounding him remains an open sore in the sport. “[A] moral conundrum,” as Kennedy puts it, “that over the course of its long and changing life has burrowed through every level of the game and expanded far beyond sports talk.” 

    There have been numerous books on Rose since his banishment, most notably James Reston Jr.’s 1991 “Collision at Home Plate’’ and Michael Sokolove’s 1990 “Hustle: The Myth, Life and Lies of Pete Rose,’’ but “An American Dilemma’’ brings Rose’s story up to date, laying out the cases for and against him better than any
    previous account.    Looking at Rose as a player, Kennedy presents an air-tight case for his worthiness in the Hall of Fame "

     

    Now, is there a difference because, using the Pete Rose example, his crime was inside baseball, his profession, as opposed to let's say, he was arrested for domestic violence and revealed as a wife beater?   

    Deal breakers are very hard to pin down.  

     

    (as for the book, if you're interested, I read about it in the Globe, but you can find write-ups elsewhere; it's hot off the press, out today):

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/reds/2014/03/10/pete-rose-an-american-dilemma-kostya-kennedy-book-cincinnati-reds-column/6248199/

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Highjacked, tangential post inspired by Zilla's thread

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    Let's call these 'value dealbreakers' of some sort or variety.  

    What happens if you don't pay attention to 'sensational' news (some of us avoid it),  b/c it's often ridiculous and/or about 'celebrities' we don't care about, and in some cases, have never heard of?    What if you're blissfully ignorant?   The news fell through the cracks somehow.

    Then, one day a friend tells you, or you hear, out of the blue, that one of your favorite musicians did ... what?!   Of course I'd be troubled, as would you, but would I stop listening to the old albums that were produced long before the crime was commited?   I don't see any reason to do that, and don't think it means I condone the newly reported crime.   But then again, I've never been put in that position. 

    On the other hand, these dealbreakers happen all the time in politics, sports, and all manner of disciplines where a person or institution may be in the public eye.   There are medical mistakes resulting in irreversible damage (oops, the wrong organ was removed with a medical record mix-up).   

    What about sports?  There is a new (not the first) book on Pete Rose called, "Pete Rose: An American Dilemma"  by Kostya Kennedy.   Is Pete Rose "dead to you" because of what he did 25 years ago, or does he deserve to be given credit for his remarkable career?    Here's a short excerpt from the book review (for those interested):

    "Kostya Kennedy, assistant managing editor of Sports Illustrated and author of the superb “56: Joe DiMaggio and the Last Magic Number in Sports,’’ wastes no time in getting to the point: “Does Pete Rose belong in the Hall of Fame?” he asks on the first page of “Pete Rose: An American Dilemma.’’

    It’s now been nearly a quarter-century since Rose was banned for life from Major League Baseball for betting on games, a span nearly as long as the 24 seasons he spent in the majors starting in 1963. 

     

    But the controversy surrounding him remains an open sore in the sport. “[A] moral conundrum,” as Kennedy puts it, “that over the course of its long and changing life has burrowed through every level of the game and expanded far beyond sports talk.” 

    There have been numerous books on Rose since his banishment, most notably James Reston Jr.’s 1991 “Collision at Home Plate’’ and Michael Sokolove’s 1990 “Hustle: The Myth, Life and Lies of Pete Rose,’’ but “An American Dilemma’’ brings Rose’s story up to date, laying out the cases for and against him better than any
    previous account.    Looking at Rose as a player, Kennedy presents an air-tight case for his worthiness in the Hall of Fame "

    Now, is there a difference because, using the Pete Rose example, his crime was inside baseball, his profession, as opposed to let's say, he was arrested for domestic violence and revealed as a wife beater?   

    Deal breakers are very hard to pin down.  

    (as for the book, if you're interested, I read about it in the Globe, but you can find write-ups elsewhere; it's hot off the press, out today):

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/reds/2014/03/10/pete-rose-an-american-dilemma-kostya-kennedy-book-cincinnati-reds-column/6248199/

     



    As a player based on performance on the field, Rose does belong in the Hall of Fame. But there are other criteria that are keeping him out of it. That has to do with how the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame is run. Like Shoeless Joe Jackson before him, Rose got caught and was banned from Major League Baseball. Jackson is one of the all-time greatest players in the history of professional baseball. If Shoeless Joe can't get in, (although some question if he was really guilty) than neither can Rose. Halls of fame can use any rules and criteria they want. It doesn't have to be purely about on the field performance. Are there cheaters in the MLB HoF? Sure, there are. Maybe they didn't get caught. Maybe the voters looked the other way. A lot of it is arbitrary. But once you are caught and your guilt is decided on it is a done deal. It doesn't have to be fair.

    As to music, some people won't listen to music based mainly on their personal distaste for a performer, let alone for any wrongs they might have done. Such polarizing figure include Bono, Sting, and Springsteen. Sometimes we have trouble separating the art form the artist for shallow reasons, forget about moral judgement. I think we decide to overlook terrible things when we enjoy something so much we can't do without it. Many of the products we purchase come from immoral sources that we may not really want to know about. If we did, we may have trouble being able to afford food and clothing. Moral purity may not be a goal any of us really want to pursue at the cost of our comfort. I don't know that many people could really live that way.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Highjacked, tangential post inspired by Zilla's thread

    In response to devildavid's comment:


    As a player based on performance on the field, Rose does belong in the Hall of Fame. But there are other criteria that are keeping him out of it. That has to do with how the Major League Baseball Hall of Fame is run. Like Shoeless Joe Jackson before him, Rose got caught and was banned from Major League Baseball. Jackson is one of the all-time greatest players in the history of professional baseball. If Shoeless Joe can't get in, (although some question if he was really guilty) than neither can Rose. Halls of fame can use any rules and criteria they want. It doesn't have to be purely about on the field performance. Are there cheaters in the MLB HoF? Sure, there are. Maybe they didn't get caught. Maybe the voters looked the other way. A lot of it is arbitrary. But once you are caught and your guilt is decided on it is a done deal. It doesn't have to be fair.

    As to music, some people won't listen to music based mainly on their personal distaste for a performer, let alone for any wrongs they might have done. Such polarizing figure include Bono, Sting, and Springsteen. Sometimes we have trouble separating the art form the artist for shallow reasons, forget about moral judgement. I think we decide to overlook terrible things when we enjoy something so much we can't do without it. Many of the products we purchase come from immoral sources that we may not really want to know about. If we did, we may have trouble being able to afford food and clothing. Moral purity may not be a goal any of us really want to pursue at the cost of our comfort. I don't know that many people could really live that way.


    I know you are correct re: the rules and values of MLB (note: I liked the idea that the article mentioned that the issues surrounding Pete Rose's ruination have expanded far beyond sports) ... and that you divided the two types of dealbreakers; as you realize, I was just tossing the idea that we are faced with thoughts / decisions about our values and loyalties often, in the big picture.   In politics, a person is resigning in shame one minute, and in the next, hired as a talk show host or news commentator.   Talk about moving on.  

    As for what we purchase and what we know about the source, that's another good example of morals and what we choose to ignore.   This is why it's not a good idea to get too uppity about values, I suppose.

    One thing I will say, as it pertains to the "do-gooders" among the rocker crowd: I have no issues.   In fact, after many of our discussions, I find I am now, more tolerant than I have ever been.   If someone lends their name for a good cause, forks over money, plays in concerts for worthy causes, etc., it says a lot about the society we live in that people criticize them for it.   They make more of a positive impact, voluntarily, than most of the jack***** we vote into office.   What's that expression?  "No good deed goes unpunished"  seems apropos.  :D

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share