Donate SIGN UP

Slippery Sloap

Avatar Image
spathiphyllum | 13:00 Wed 06th Mar 2019 | News
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://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/michael-jackson-radio-stations-music-play-ban-leaving-neverland-documentary-a8809646.html
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 40 of 101rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Avatar Image
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
As I have told ABers for years...History will remember Wacko as a paedophile.


Good decision by the radio station.
Question Author
What about boy george and drugs?

As i've said where is the line..

Boy george is played on every station and even TV adverts.


HEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY


Question Author
Talbot that's just an opinion stated as a fact.
spathiphyllum
What about boy george and drugs?




No children were abused during George's drug taking.
Question Author
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.
Question Author
Why not cancel all Woody Allen films because of the rape scandle?

Or are they saying rape, drugs and murder is OK to make you an artist, but as soon as someone accuses you of touching a kid that's it no more radio for you?
"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.
Question Author
JF I totally agree. Very slippery slope
Question Author
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.
Question Author
Yo Zacks why is pleasure P got his own radio 1 page?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/76ac0243-204f-4769-bd1e-160bbda66f65

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.
Question Author
Think my Vincent example is good. Why promote a man so clearly mentally ill? Should i be like him cus his art is so worshipped?

The guy died with one ear no money and some serious issues....
Book burning, record smashing. Where does it end.
Question Author
When will chris brown be booted out of the media, radio etc.. for being a woman abuser and a sexual predator ay?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/c234fa42-e6a6-443e-937e-2f4b073538a3

What The Funicular is this lol
Question Author
So to sum up - in my opinion, by boycotting MJ and not other artists, Radio stations (knowingly or not) are saying certain actions from artists are fine not to question and others should result in never playing their music again
"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?
retrocop
What's a slippery sloap? Is it a surface with ice and a cant on it as described in Top Gear?



I thought it was what Chris Eubank sometimes dropped in his shower.
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.
spathiphyllum
Talbot do you not get my point of the thread.. What's the difference?



Big difference.
If Boy George wants to do something that may ruin his own life...let him.

If he was supplying drugs to kids and potentially ruining their lives then that's a different matter.
If Jackson owned the Beatles' songs,



IF


Thankfully he or his estate does not own the Beatles songs.

21 to 40 of 101rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Slippery Sloap

Answer Question >>

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.