ChatterBank0 min ago
Slippery Sloap
101 Answers
Well.. we all know artists aint perfect don't we.. So surely boycotting playing music by one of them because of their actions is a slippery slope. When does it stop? So many criminal rappers and some convicted murders, but there music is OK?
I hate double standards and this is a fat one.
Some music even promotes violence and it's still allowed.
https:/
I hate double standards and this is a fat one.
Some music even promotes violence and it's still allowed.
https:/
Answers
I agree. I have always argued in favour of the concept of seperating the artist from the art. If you start judging artistic output by the behavour of the artist, as you say, where does it stop? Once you have condemned all the abusers, do you turn to the tax frauds, the motorway speeders, the non-charity donors? The best way to avoid such a slippery slope is not to...
13:07 Wed 06th Mar 2019
Talbot do you not get my point of the thread.. What's the difference? It's all opinion but crime is crime at the end of the day.. We going to boycott Jackson in case viewers get offended? Well some people are just as offended by drugs.
Where is the line for what is OK and what isn't from an artist? When do we distinguish their art from their persona.
As i've said snoopdog was charged with murder..
It's all as bad as the next but WHY Jackson, why now? It's just a hype being pandered to and in my opinion, a slippery slope.
They are proving their double standards.
Where is the line for what is OK and what isn't from an artist? When do we distinguish their art from their persona.
As i've said snoopdog was charged with murder..
It's all as bad as the next but WHY Jackson, why now? It's just a hype being pandered to and in my opinion, a slippery slope.
They are proving their double standards.
"The notion that an listener would not buy toothpaste because a Michael Jackson song was played before the advert is fanciful"
I don't think that is the concern. People will still clean their teeth, and a small number might choose a different brand. The bigger concern is that listeners might choose a different radio station.
In the case of Michael Jackson though, doesn't his estate own the Beatles' catalogue? Cutting Jackson and the Beatles from a middle of the road radio station would be a huge decision. Backlashes tend to be short anyway, if the backsliding Dixie Chicks are anything to go by.
I would separate art from artist. The alternative is no art at all.
I don't think that is the concern. People will still clean their teeth, and a small number might choose a different brand. The bigger concern is that listeners might choose a different radio station.
In the case of Michael Jackson though, doesn't his estate own the Beatles' catalogue? Cutting Jackson and the Beatles from a middle of the road radio station would be a huge decision. Backlashes tend to be short anyway, if the backsliding Dixie Chicks are anything to go by.
I would separate art from artist. The alternative is no art at all.
I mean what MJ did for race, and poor kids of the world etc..
His music is inspirational andgives no hint of pedophilia, so why boycott it all, some of it very good and powerful, because people may think "weren't he a pedo?" cus when i hear snoop dog, i think, oh, he literally got charged for murder. Not that it affects my listening cus i'm not an idiot.
Surely displaying Vincent van Gogh art is promoting self harm??? He chopped his ear of mental health promotion?? That's how crazy it is IMO.
His music is inspirational andgives no hint of pedophilia, so why boycott it all, some of it very good and powerful, because people may think "weren't he a pedo?" cus when i hear snoop dog, i think, oh, he literally got charged for murder. Not that it affects my listening cus i'm not an idiot.
Surely displaying Vincent van Gogh art is promoting self harm??? He chopped his ear of mental health promotion?? That's how crazy it is IMO.
Yo Zacks why is pleasure P got his own radio 1 page?
https:/
He also has a grammy.. and also a child molestation accusation..
Double standards?
https:/
He also has a grammy.. and also a child molestation accusation..
Double standards?
Talbot - // As I have told ABers for years...History will remember Wacko as a paedophile. //
If history is remembering accurately, it will remember Michael Jackson as an accused, tried, and aquitted paedophile, which is not the same thing.
And because history, like the present and the future, does not operate in a vacuum, it will remember his massive contribution to modern culture as well - because in a sense of culture, it is not possible to separate the art from the artist.
The point spath is making, is that in terms of censorship, you should separate the art from the artist, because access to art should never be reduced in some sort of bizarre notion of 'punishment' of the artist - which it is not, nor should it be, that is what the legal system is for.
If history is remembering accurately, it will remember Michael Jackson as an accused, tried, and aquitted paedophile, which is not the same thing.
And because history, like the present and the future, does not operate in a vacuum, it will remember his massive contribution to modern culture as well - because in a sense of culture, it is not possible to separate the art from the artist.
The point spath is making, is that in terms of censorship, you should separate the art from the artist, because access to art should never be reduced in some sort of bizarre notion of 'punishment' of the artist - which it is not, nor should it be, that is what the legal system is for.
When will chris brown be booted out of the media, radio etc.. for being a woman abuser and a sexual predator ay?
https:/
What The Funicular is this lol
https:/
What The Funicular is this lol
"Think my Vincent example is good. Why promote a man so clearly mentally ill?"
Which contradicts what you have said so far. If anybody was "clearly mentally ill", I would have thought it was MJ.
The question of music ownership is interesting though, now I have had a moment to muse on it. If Jackson owned the Beatles' songs, but McCartney bought MJ's, which would we need to boycott?
Which contradicts what you have said so far. If anybody was "clearly mentally ill", I would have thought it was MJ.
The question of music ownership is interesting though, now I have had a moment to muse on it. If Jackson owned the Beatles' songs, but McCartney bought MJ's, which would we need to boycott?
JF85 - // The question of music ownership is interesting though, now I have had a moment to muse on it. If Jackson owned the Beatles' songs, but McCartney bought MJ's, which would we need to boycott? //
Which brings me back to my original view - if you don't start down the proverbial slippery slope of trying to censor artists for their behaviour, then you won't find yourself drawn into the pointless legal and moral arguments that radio station bosses are wrestling with as we write.
Which brings me back to my original view - if you don't start down the proverbial slippery slope of trying to censor artists for their behaviour, then you won't find yourself drawn into the pointless legal and moral arguments that radio station bosses are wrestling with as we write.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.