Talking about why I don't avoid reviewing the work of problematic artists. My social media: Twitter: / theneedledrop Instagram: @afantano FB: / theneedledrop
Mr. Fantano, it has come to my attention that you are reviewing artists whom have been guilty of using "swear words". I cannot continue to support your content until you stop endorsing this problematic behavior
Thank you for covering this very serious topic. I have been physically (and mentally) unable to watch Mr. Fantano's content due to this issue, despite the fact that I've been praying to the lord before watching a video by Fantano. Despite this, I think it's good to have fellow-minded intellectuals on this website. We all have to live with dark times, but it is good to know that there is always a light shining in darkness. Amen, brother.
I think its less about deliberately drawing an ethical line in the sand, like a personal boycott of an artist (though obviously people can do this as well if they so choose). I think that often its a much more simple question of being unable to look at that artists' work again in the same way, after discovering something sinister about them. Like, I used to really love everything Louis C.K. did, he is a very funny guy, and his comedy specials and TV series have this empathic quality to their tone and humor that let him talk about serious subject matter, and get into really dark comedy with a smile. But after hearing about all of his creepy behavior, I just cant watch any of his shows without thinking about that. It's not a matter of deliberately deciding that I refuse to support him, its simply that this new context has transformed his work. You can't just choose to forget that he's a total creep, that knowledge is with you. Whether that knowledge is enough to put you off from watching his work will depend on how viscerally the details of it get to you, I suppose.
Your last sentence is basically what he was trying to say. It's a personal/subjective decision where someone decides enough is enough, but even if someone else feels it's OK to acknowledge that the work has quality to it, it doesn't mean the person condones the awful actions of the artist in their personal lives. All art is subjective and there's more than one way to view it. You can appreciate certain qualities of the work while rejecting others. There's nuance to it and it isn't as black and white as many make it out to be. Some people however choose to reject nuance because they're adamant about consuming things that reflect their worldview and condemn others who don't do the same.
Yeah I wasn't disagreeing with his overall opinion or implying that he was stating the opposite, just pointing out that this debate tends to be framed a bit like a "boycott" sort of decision people make about the artist, when I think that most of the time (tho not always, obviously), it really isn't that political or deliberate, but just a matter of the artist's behavior bringing new context that might make the art itself unpalatable, even though that art didn't actually literally change.
I felt the same way about Louis CK in that I was really disappointed when the stories about him came out, but I still do enjoy his older work. I generally feel like the perverted nature of his comedy means it wasn't greatly affected by stuff he did, especially since most of it imo came from a place of patheticness rather than deliberate abuse of power. Its not quite like Cosby to me because, aside from the fact that what Cosby did was much worse and much more deliberate, Cosby was known for his fairly clean wholesome comedy.
the art vs artist thing always makes me feel conflicted, especially as an artist myself. I can't separate the two, i know how much an artist's beliefs and values affect what they create. I can appreciate someone's talent but once I've learned something bad about an artist I've admired... It really changes the way I engage with their art. That doesn't mean I'll completely cut out that art from my life if it still holds value to me, but I have to be mindful of how I engage with it. I don't know, its complicated. But I agree that you, as a professional reviewer, can't simply _not_ talk about influential artists, this is your job. I just wish more professionals acted as... professionally as you do about it.
I agree up to the point of it influencing music, I'm most definitely not bumping Johnny Rebel in the whip; I don't really have a problem with 69 unless the man starts talking about statuory rape (I don't like his music, but still).
true but lets not draw the line for some artists and not others... too often i see people saying they wont listen to, let's say X, but then bump Chris Brown every weekend. Let's keep it consistent if you want to draw a line
Why keep it consistent? I don't want to curb my taste in music to not seem like a hypocrite. Sometimes bad behavior makes an artist hard to relate to, sometimes it doesn't.
The thing I have with problematic artists is giving them MONEY through streams and music views. They just do not deserve my money. Any songs by people I morally can’t support that I listen to are on lyric videos that some twelve year old made or a reupload on Soundcloud that doesn’t give said artist any money.
Im in the same boat, if i really like or a song means something deep to me...i will still listen to it if the artist who created it turns out to be a pos....im just going to be smarter about figuring out ways to enjoy that doesn't support the artist financially
Thankyou for this. I've spend a lot of time wrestling with myself over listening to Brand New after all the controversy surrounding Jesse Lacey and it's nice to hear someone like you holding a similar opinion. At the end of the day I still find it difficult to still listen to artists like this but ultimately it's all up to how you feel about it. If it makes you personally uncomfortable then you should probably avoid it. If not then go ahead. At the same time always be aware of what the artist did, and don't completely pass it off as not happening either.
Fully agree. My personal philosophy on this: You can never really know that if an artist is truly good. They might have done terrible things thats not public information. This means that enyone that you think is a virtuous person, might not be. And since the publicly avaible information about any given artist is arbitrary, the judgment about that artist will naturally be arbitrary too. This is the foundation for how i judge art. As best as i can, try to never take anything else besides the artwork itself into account, when im experiencing art. I only take what the artist has presented. If i start to put other things in the mix, i feel like that taints the artists vision. And i think thats disrespectful against the artist. I dont judge how ethical the artist is, how hard it was to make, or how long they worked on it. If i did, then i would judge the ARTIST, and not the artwork. If i want to judge that, then that has to be a seperate judgement. Of course its hard to not be baised like this, but i think its important to try.
Oisin Clancy If by "written for," you mean "stolen by," then you're totally correct. Don't get me wrong, Manson was an evil fuck, but the Beach Boys really did him dirty.
I think a big issue currently facing the music community right now is that morality is sort of a currency now when it comes to musicians. People forget that musicians are people too, make mistakes just like everyone else, and also can be shitty human beings like everyone else. If you hold your favorite artists to such a high moral standard you are missing that basic fact and will be disappointed. Not trying to draw attention away from legit issues, but its aikin to how fundamentalist Christians look at morality.
MegaCrasherMusic i have no problem with having a discussion on Jessie’s (in my opinion, exaggerated) toxic behavior, but i want all that to be separate from the question on whether or not i can like his music, or my worth as a person.
I disagree with the point made at around the 11:00 mark. Often times the art itself is not separate from the artist, meaning that it is often a reflection of the artists self. Maybe not in the movie industry but certainly very often in the music industry.
I think it's just a matter of taking the artist's work at face value. When you listen to a song or read a book for example, your interpretation of it will say more about you than it does about the person that produced it. If it means something to you and resonates, that's all that matters frankly. Death of the author and all that. Also, as Anthony acknowledged, the negative actions of a particular artist don't negate the positive aspects of their creativity they may put into their work, unless of course they are writing about those very negative actions. If an artist produces great work, then that's in spite of the dubious aspects or actions of their self.
While that may be true, I think that when an artist refers to them themselves in their music, the listener should be aware of that while also taking away the part that they identify most with. It's fine to just enjoy a piece of art but you should also think about where that art comes from, imo.
This is a healthy perspective, thank you for sharing! Artistic confidence can easily turn into self indulgent ego stroking. It is the understanding of this force that helps differentiate artists who just have that thing you can't explain.
I personally separate the art from the artists 99% of the time. But i find this whole movement of "don't support thisbecause of this" to be weirdly fixated solely on sexual abuse. Not saying that sexual abuse isnt a legitimate reason or people are stupid for not separating the art from the art. I just think it's kind of strange and inconsistent to claim to not want to support problematic artists but it seems to me not only is that considered by far the most common offense but it seems to be considered the worst offense by far. Yet, even worse shit like murder is not only not considered equally unacceptable, it's fucking completely acceptable. like 6ix 9ine is a pretty common example. Which is fine but those same people will scream free tay-k. So supporting murderers is fine. It's ok that he was involved in the murder of a young chick or beating up an elderly man or all the other murders and crimes he's committed. I just don't see any logical reasoning behind what is or isn't acceptable. The only reason I can come up with is this started with the me too movement and is actually not actually this open dialogue about what is or isn't acceptable. It's just the same debate people have been having ever since the me too movement. It is what it is so lets be honest about it and not act like this discussion is this open all encompassing thing.
Definitely agree with all the points you made. People say if you still listen to the music after finding out what someone did, then you're showing support for that artist, but I view it more like this: if I DON'T listen to it, I'm not going to get the money back that I spent on it and because I bought it in the first place, said artist already has my money, why not continue enjoying the art that I paid for if I like it? It doesn't mean I support what the person did, I'm just consuming the art that I paid for. It makes more sense to cease purchasing anything from them in future rather than to all together stop listening to the work I fell in love with in the past. (And in the personal case I'm referencing, the artist may have written and sang the song, but he's not my reason for liking it. I originally fell in love with the lyrical content and the music video which had some of my other favorite people in it. The artist himself was only in it for like 2 seconds. Yet if people knew I listened to it they'd call me out for "supporting" a shitty person.)
Personally, I think this entire concept of "separating art from the artist" is really not hard to get behind, and something that many millions of people do every day, even if they say they would "never." This fact is validated by one instance alone and that is the Chris Brown phenomenon. After he did that to Rihanna, literally no more than a year or 2 later he had number 1 hits and was the hot feature on literally every artists song. His music was still bumping at clubs and parties and people jammed to his next several albums like nothing had happened. People like to think that they would "never" support someone who did bad stuff, but clearly they do. In my opinion, enjoying a particular song and disliking the person who made it are totally separate and you can do both at once. What it comes down to is whether or not you personally are willing to listen to or support someone who did bad stuff. If your morals get in the way of you being able to enjoy something, then you are not obligated to still enjoy it or still listen to it.
I really hate it when people use "problematic" in this way as if it's problematic to a specific agenda, rather than their actions just being reprehensible.
If you find that you rid yourself of art made by someone who did something "reprehensible"...whatever that might mean to you...you'll soon find you have no art to consume. And even your own is tainted.
Great points. But I just cannot agree. Yes it's true on paper all the points on crimes and artistic output of a person being separate. However I believe in real life, by supporting artists that commit heinous crimes, it normalizes and diminishes the actions of these people. I believe there is a reason people who assault or sexually abuse people get ostracized from many parts of society. And it's a great sign of American/western values that this happens. We're inviting the celebrities into our homes when we make the abusers household names. You shouldn't invite a criminal to work for you, right? Why should you pay an artist your time I am so glad you're such an open and awesome creator that you make this kind of video and conversation though! Needs to be spoken about more
STOP ASKING ME TO CHANGE MY NAME GOOGLE! Yeah but it's so entirely arbitrary is the point. Does this only extend to assault, what about theft, what about white collar crime? What's the moral litmus test to determine when an artist's actions are too heinous to support.
I mean isn't it all arbitrary anyway? When would you consider hiring someone? Or what crimes would stop you being a friend with someone, would you still stay in contact with a close friend that abuses their partner? Some would say yes some would say no. It's all arbitrary
No, listening to music is also nothing like inviting the artist into your home. Some music sounds hateful, fucked up and awesome. Occasionally the people who make it are the same minus the awesome part. It's not really suprising though, and not all art is created to create positive vibes. Ultimately I think art outlives the artist, no one gives a flying fuck about the lives long dead classical musician/artists/writers etc. lived
Thank you for this. These are my exact thoughts on this subject and you said it in a clear and articulate way. I've always been too afraid to put them into words because I feel people just don't want to understand these days. It's always a "you're with us or against us" tribal mentality bullshit when the conversation is a lot more nuanced than that.
I think the main thing is that your platform is so wide-reaching that reviewing a problematic artist will be directly responsible for a (albeit possibly short) surge in purchases for that artist after a review is dropped regardless of positivity. Do you want to knowingly support these artists monetarily, indirectly or otherwise? If so, go for it man. But just know that you, yourself, Anthony, are making these people more money.
One of the biggest examples of this for me is Phil Spector. He helped produce some of the most amazing songs and albums ever made and I think his actions are absolutely horrific
You perfectly articulated the very complex moving parts involving the ideal of virtue and the layers of shame and fear and paranoia some might experience when wanting to promote or support artists and people at large. Thank you for your contribution To remove the weird stigma our society has pertaining to “religion” The truth of the matter is, we are extensions of the universe The universe is by nature, gruesome and terrifying Dark but also light We are just bodies who will consistently be taken over by all energies and frequencies “Good” or “bad” High or low We will be “sinful” and have misdeeds And we will be “holy” or practice “good will” It’s so good to talk about this objectively so that we can remove as much shame as possible and just be naturally and fearlessly, human
Nuanced take, melon, i agree with you mostly, especially about why you review these problematic artists. What i want to add, however, is a note on our responsibility, especially in the wake of the #metoo movement, to have higher standards for artists moving forward. I think its kind of a moot point boycotting older artists, unless you do have a visceral reaction, but i think for folks like me, without a platform like yours, where our entire power is in our consumption and attention, to not give it to artists that create a dangerous environment in music scenes.
My only issue is, let's talk about one of these South Florida rappers for example- pick any one of em cause most of em have a case against them right now. My issue is, if you do listen to them, actively, and stream or buy their music, or even mention their name, the money/clout associated with that doesn't just fall into some void. If you buy someone's album, they get paid for it. It's funding their pockets. And unless they personally want to change their ways you're literally funding shitty behavior you know? And that money allows them to stay on the platform of someone who may be just as talented with none of the bs. Idk that's just my take. Like, if someone is playing a catchy song, don't be that dick to ruin the moment and tell them to turn it off, but be aware that if you personally buy into it, then your money is going directly to them
Lunatikkrazie azylum I've been thinking the same thing. I see him on gaming channels like alpharad and other nintendo related content. And then I start watching melon head and. BAM. He's already here as well.
to the point at 7:11, I would say paying for the art does contribute in some cases to protecting that person from facing justice as it contributes to their ability to fight legal battles (albeit in an indirect fashion).
I like the music of the band Shining and other DSBM (depressive/suicidal black metal), but my answers to their moral decisions include, not buying their albums/merch, and not attending shows. essentially not giving them money because they use it to tell people to unironically kill themselves,
I think one distinction you forgot to make is how relevant the transgression is to the current success of the music. For example, if a band continues to use their earnings, position or fame to perpetuate a problem, then I'll cut them off. If it's something minor done in the past that they are no longer doing or supporting with their music then whatever.
Separating art from artist is a tricky thing. I think the points you laid out make sense. Right now I'm wrestling with wether I want to see The Smashing Pumpkins live when I can't get down with Billy Corgan as a person because of his association with evil shitheads like Alex Jones... Yet his music was super important to me growing up... I'm not sure what I'll do yet.
Hey If you don't feel like giving an artist money for any kind of reason, yet you still wanna listen to their music you can always pirate their content.
You shouldn't let someone's else viewpoints prevent you from interacting/seeing them. Who cares if Billy Corgan likes Alex Jones? If you want to see them then see them. Calling Alex Jones "evil" is an over-characterization anyway. He's no more evil than your fellow showman.
I think my outlook on it is the aspect of giving the artists money by supporting them. I think it's okay to separate the art from the artists, but when you stream or their music or attend their shows you are giving that person monetary gain. If you listen to the music or already own the music is one thing, but giving the artist money is where I end up drawing the line.
"Problematic" literally means anything from 'abuses young women' to 'doesn't support my political cause' to 'was dismissive when I asked them for a selfie'
Hey anthony. Nice points, you've got a compelling argument. If you don't mind, though, I think I'm going to have to respectfully disagree, for two reasons. first, in reference to your point about audiences not being bad people for listening to shitty artists' music. So, let's use XXXtentacion and his fanbase as an example. I don't think that everyone of his fans are people who condone domestic assault. That would be crazy to say. However, I think being a fan of X requires ignorance on the part of the fan in order to enjoy it. And that ignorance can be unintentional, or even worse, intentional. My second point is that you have a very big audience on your main channel. By reviewing a record, you will undoubtedly expose at least some people to a new artist. By reviewing a record, you effectively create new listeners for that artist. And I love that! I've gotten into new music because of you (and from the bottom of my heart, thank you). But at the same time, when you review a problematic artist, you are kind of giving them a platform. With X, you obviously did not put him on a pedestal, but you still created new listeners and maybe even new fans for him. Read this or ignore it if you want, no problem! Love ya melon. Keep being you.
I like your approach to dealing with problematic artists because you make sure to mention what's problematic about them (e.g. XXXtentacion and, more recently, 6ix9ine) and in doing so allow your audience to take in all the facts on this artist and this piece of art so that they can make a decision on whether or not to buy it. A lot of the artists you review I either haven't heard of or don't know anything about beyond the name, so it's helpful that you still review problematic artists because for me it means that's one less artist I might pick up an album by without realising they're problematic. By reviewing these artists despite their problematic nature, but without ignoring that nature, you contribute to the overall discussion and keep your viewership informed in a way that you simply couldn't if you outright refused to review these artists.
I get a lot of shit from people because I do like a few musicians who are labeled problematic (accused or convicted) and I just appreciate the talent they bring not who they are as a person. For example, I like Melanie Martinez and I was shocked by the accusations made against her and I'm not going to stop listening to her music, but I will definitely look at her a different way.
One thing you touched on that I really agree with is that there is probably a selection bias when it comes to great artists and them being problematic. What kind of person dedicates themselves to the music industry (especially when we are talking about artists from the 20th century)? These probably aren’t well adjusted, healthy people. Someone who is willing to be as reckless as to throw away stable life prospects for the almost impossible achievement of becoming a successful artist. Is it shocking that a lot of these people have done reprehensible things? I’m not saying it’s good, it’s quite the opposite, I’m just saying it ain’t surprising.
One thing that I think is important to mention is to realize that what a musician might say in a song is in an artistic light and they may not actually condone said action. Foster the People is obviously not condoning school shootings in Pumped Up Kicks and Okkervil River is not condoning murder in Westfall. They are bringing light to a situation from different perspectives.
Fantano you're quickly becoming my favorite TH-camr. You're very good at making both serious and memey videos and reviews that are interesting and engaging. Nice vid, melon
I think the answer to that question you posed- why does liking their work feel wrong- is more complicated than it maybe seems. 1. We view great artists as being more special than everyone else 2. Art is deeply personal, creation of art is putting one's self into something So, affirming great art by shitty people maybe shouldn't feel differently than if I said that a wifebeater made a nice paper airplane, but it always will. Given that really hard question... I think this subject has a lot more complexity. Because liking someone's art, is, affirming them. It always will be in that tiny way. Your job, as a critic, is probably to be as objective as possible. But what the rest of us do with that perspective and our own is a twisty, fucked up subject.
At the end the day, you consider it your job to review problematic artists. A lot of us choose to work for problematic companies/industries. It's each persons choice to do their job anyway or to change their job if they feel their ethical disposition requires it.
If you buy past Crystal Castles albums, wouldn’t you be supporting Alice as well through royalties and other pay? I understand not buying future releases without her and I won’t be, but buying albums she was on puts money in her pocket as well.
I think this feeds into the issue many people have, myself included, that people you don't like can say things you do like, and you can appreciate it. To a much harsher degree, but I think the idea stands.
I dont know nearly as much as you do about music, but dont you think certain people might be influenced by music they listen to that was maybe created by murderers? What if the song is about murder and is spreading false and wrong ideas to whoever listens to it? I actually often find that artists i really like influence my behaviour and not only the music im listening to.
As someone who draws a few lines, I totally agree and can absolutely understand that it's arbitrary and people will decide differently which ones to draw. But I do think that if you would financially support someone who's reprehensible (again, according to your own judgement) then you should pirate it instead. Not like some workaround where you just look for the slightest excuse to be "allowed" to do that (which is stupid in the first place because like, it's just you who's judging it anyway and you know exactly what you're doing). But in a genuine sense. Having said that, I still don't tend to do that. I tend to just simply not experience stuff, because there's so much stuff out there that I honestly don't need to, and also because well... I just kinda feel gross when I watch stuff like that. Or hear stuff like that. If I know that a big part of it comes from a monstrous individual then... I can't enjoy it, not fully. And not in the same way that I used to enjoy it, if it's something that I enjoyed before finding out. That's not a choice that's just a gut reaction. But yeah if you're fine with that kind of thing and don't want to give the creators money, but still do want to watch it, I say pirate it. Not the only reason for pirating stuff (nor the only valid reason) but certainly a good fix to a tricky situation. I mean it's against the law, but since when has the law ever stood for what's right. That's my solution anyway, it's not the only solution. And yeah it does screw a lot of other people (who didn't do anything wrong) out of earnings at the same time but hey, that thing that you only checked out because you needed a piece of entertainment to fill the hole of the one you boycotted? They're getting that money instead, and nobody on that project (as far as you know) is a rapist that you're supporting the rape lifestyle of, or a murderer that you're supporting the murder lifestyle of. So yeah it's not ideal that most of the first lot got unfairly rewarded. But it's more ideal that all of the second lot didn't. As well as the people who bankroll such things maybe, eventually, finally learning the lesson that people won't put up with their defense of that crap... ... or maybe not. And especially if it's something like a unique perspective or documentary (as opposed to just some normalization or glorification with nothing original to say), I can absolutely see that absorbing yourself in a more genuinely disturbing piece of art could be moralistically valuable in and of itself. I get that. I'm not unproblematic myself, either. So there's an aspect of "who am I to judge" to it, too. However to that I tend to just say "a human". That's all you need to be. Even a shit person refusing to engage with the work of another shit person, is still a good thing in general. On the other hand, the world does absolutely force everyone to support deeply immoral stuff. And you gotta have quality of life, and you gotta have a degree of selfishness (even the most selfless among us), and that's not wrongheaded in the slightest. So that's where the arbitrary picking and choosing comes from. None of us can do everything, but all of us want to do something. And even if it's just an ego trip to make you feel better, that drive itself comes from a good place, and does overall good, so why the hell stand against it. It all helps. What I don't like are two things. Firstly when someone picks on one person's way of being good in the world, and says that's invalid just because it isn't their way of being good in the world. And secondly when, in order to be okay with enjoying a piece of art, someone wilfully pretends that the artist didn't do what they did, or is better than they are, or - worst of all - that the obviously bad thing they did wasn't really bad at all, or shouldn't affect people like it's understandable that it'd affect people. That's a bunch of crap. If you need that to enjoy the art, then you shouldn't be enjoying the art. If you don't, then go right ahead, more power to you. But at the same time be cool with me not doing so. At the same time there are things that I do overlook so I'm not like, entirely one way or the other on this. It's a complex subject and an interesting one and at the end of the day we're all just muddling through.
I agree with most of what you say. Art and the artist are two inherently different things, and you can certainly enjoy an artistic work while disliking the creator's character or behavior. However, I'd argue that if you find the actions of an artist morally reprehensible then you probably shouldn't financially support that artist. It's one thing to critique the art for what it is, irrespective of who the creator is and what they've done, but it's quite another to directly contribute to that artist's quality of life.
Just a thought: I feel that right now there's an odd double standard when it comes to different types of music and their approach to problematic artists. Rock bands seem to get the hammer any time one of their members does something bad (Jank, Brand New, etc.) but in the hip-hop realm, many artists with allegations and criminal charges against them still manage to become some of the hottest names at the moment (Tay-K, 6ix9ine, etc) I guarantee you'll find someone out there who gets angry that you still listen to your Brand New records but they still love to jam R. Kelly in the whip
hmm, It has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Most peoples art correlates with their actions and ideas in many cases. Though some are very well hidden
Fantano definitely has a distain for Chris Brown outside of music. He almost never compliments any thing he does & seems to dislike him. Either way Chris Brown is one of the last traditional contemporary male R&B artist and extremely influential.
cooljay cooljay I agree. I think Brown's peak was from 2006 to 2012. But I think his personal demons have gotten in the way of his full potential. His vocals are no longer top tier and he needs auto tune almost always. I'm not the biggest CB fan but I always felt he should have taken the mantle of R&B-pop megastar mantle from Usher which he received from Michael Jackson. Unfortunately that mantle was passed to Bieber 😕😕
One thing you didn't mention that I want to point out: even if where you draw the line with these things is a personal decision (which it absolutely is, I won't dispute that), it's also a moral decision. If two people draw that line in different places, their moral worldviews are on some level different. No, it's not a big deal; no, it's not worth condemning someone over. But it's not nothing either: if I know someone draws that line differently than I do, it will affect how I see them.
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 13](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NlY2uzrALY8/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Watch Party] RoV Pro League 2024 Winter | ( Bacon Time Vs PSG )](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zM25REvnJW4/mqdefault.jpg)
I K E E P G I V I N G B A D P E O P L E G O O D R E V I E W S
it doesn't sound so bad when I type it in the comments section
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
You’re not reviewing the person. You’re reviewing art.
rips up a shoe
Is that the new Modest Mouse album?
wear me
wear him
Nah thanks am already gay
wear the red flannel over the yellow over the blue
swine
blessings be unto you great yellow flannel
Anthony, if you really want to review old nazi marching anthems you can just tell us.
Kek
Light to decent 5
I'm feeling a strong 10 on this one
Mr. Fantano, it has come to my attention that you are reviewing artists whom have been guilty of using "swear words".
I cannot continue to support your content until you stop endorsing this problematic behavior
Thank you for covering this very serious topic. I have been physically (and mentally) unable to watch Mr. Fantano's content due to this issue, despite the fact that I've been praying to the lord before watching a video by Fantano.
Despite this, I think it's good to have fellow-minded intellectuals on this website. We all have to live with dark times, but it is good to know that there is always a light shining in darkness.
Amen, brother.
HAHAHAH XD
GO GO GADGET FLOW
What?! He supports artists who swear?! That's fucking immoral that is.
Cool Cat Studios it's so obviously a joke
We all know exactly who you’re talking about Anthony
Cal Chuchesta
Some consider melon a problematic artist
CezaMVO I hope he can review himself oh wait he already did
Tiago Lageira 🔥🔥🔥
ouch too hot
*interviews sam hyde for internet fascist clicks*
Haha "some people"
Seems a bit hypocritical coming from the guy who starts every video quoting entire Benito Mussolini speeches.
@@sillyandlittle nope
I think its less about deliberately drawing an ethical line in the sand, like a personal boycott of an artist (though obviously people can do this as well if they so choose).
I think that often its a much more simple question of being unable to look at that artists' work again in the same way, after discovering something sinister about them.
Like, I used to really love everything Louis C.K. did, he is a very funny guy, and his comedy specials and TV series have this empathic quality to their tone and humor that let him talk about serious subject matter, and get into really dark comedy with a smile. But after hearing about all of his creepy behavior, I just cant watch any of his shows without thinking about that. It's not a matter of deliberately deciding that I refuse to support him, its simply that this new context has transformed his work. You can't just choose to forget that he's a total creep, that knowledge is with you.
Whether that knowledge is enough to put you off from watching his work will depend on how viscerally the details of it get to you, I suppose.
Your last sentence is basically what he was trying to say. It's a personal/subjective decision where someone decides enough is enough, but even if someone else feels it's OK to acknowledge that the work has quality to it, it doesn't mean the person condones the awful actions of the artist in their personal lives. All art is subjective and there's more than one way to view it. You can appreciate certain qualities of the work while rejecting others. There's nuance to it and it isn't as black and white as many make it out to be. Some people however choose to reject nuance because they're adamant about consuming things that reflect their worldview and condemn others who don't do the same.
Yeah I wasn't disagreeing with his overall opinion or implying that he was stating the opposite, just pointing out that this debate tends to be framed a bit like a "boycott" sort of decision people make about the artist, when I think that most of the time (tho not always, obviously), it really isn't that political or deliberate, but just a matter of the artist's behavior bringing new context that might make the art itself unpalatable, even though that art didn't actually literally change.
FrankieSmileShow fosho I agree with that pretty much 👍
I felt the same way about Louis CK in that I was really disappointed when the stories about him came out, but I still do enjoy his older work. I generally feel like the perverted nature of his comedy means it wasn't greatly affected by stuff he did, especially since most of it imo came from a place of patheticness rather than deliberate abuse of power. Its not quite like Cosby to me because, aside from the fact that what Cosby did was much worse and much more deliberate, Cosby was known for his fairly clean wholesome comedy.
Enrique Godinez This
I respect your stance on the issue, but you didn't have to call XXXTentacion the N word, with the hard R no less.
Ninja-killer?
the art vs artist thing always makes me feel conflicted, especially as an artist myself. I can't separate the two, i know how much an artist's beliefs and values affect what they create. I can appreciate someone's talent but once I've learned something bad about an artist I've admired... It really changes the way I engage with their art. That doesn't mean I'll completely cut out that art from my life if it still holds value to me, but I have to be mindful of how I engage with it. I don't know, its complicated.
But I agree that you, as a professional reviewer, can't simply _not_ talk about influential artists, this is your job. I just wish more professionals acted as... professionally as you do about it.
Very well said
Hi Ross
No way
Weird how this only has 45 like but is the topmost comment
I choose to draw no line. I separate the artist from the art. If someone finds Hitler's mixtape hit me up.
Teak here it is th-cam.com/video/ai6ZozG1S7c/w-d-xo.html
wow! you're epic!
I agree up to the point of it influencing music, I'm most definitely not bumping Johnny Rebel in the whip; I don't really have a problem with 69 unless the man starts talking about statuory rape (I don't like his music, but still).
Teak found it dude it’s called “a speeding bullet to heaven”
Teak 👍
Hm
Takeshi69 likes em ages 6-9
*teriyaki69
*takeshit69
Are we forgeting michael jackson has the same charges against him? All tekashi did was slap someones ass, who's age he wasn't aware of.
gmasters2 he slept with her didn't he?
Wolvenn No, his friend is doing time because he got head; but tekashi is on video slaping her ass. That's what he's being charged for.
Anthony,you can’t label every African American artist “problematic” just because of their skin color.
OL
L
why not?
dank_asian_snacks bitch
Hahahahahahahahahaha this is the one time this type of comment fkn killed me 😂😂
Im problematic fandango, review me.
Light 2
9/11
Loved it 10/9
Decent to strong 4
I said review me, not hurt me.
I think it's ok to enjoy the art of bad people, but if you feel that way, don't go out of your way to give them your money.
Buy pre-owned or pirate it is the route i go tbh
@@markattenborough9107
I do that with artists I like too
[ this post was made by broke gang ]
true but lets not draw the line for some artists and not others... too often i see people saying they wont listen to, let's say X, but then bump Chris Brown every weekend. Let's keep it consistent if you want to draw a line
I like the song Lil Yachty has with pnb rock but i always take it off soon as I remember pnb pisses in hotel room floors and jumps lil B.
Why keep it consistent? I don't want to curb my taste in music to not seem like a hypocrite. Sometimes bad behavior makes an artist hard to relate to, sometimes it doesn't.
X is a horrible human being. Chris isnt as bad. Not even close.
Miguel Danlag just a year ago Chris gave death threats to his ex. He's a pretty shitty person still
Idk why you'd listen to either
6:07 When you haven’t told somebody you’re vegan in 6 minutes...
Zac Jones Can you give me this medal....cause I deserve it.
Timothy Roberts - I agree was just making a little joke 👍🏻
The thing I have with problematic artists is giving them MONEY through streams and music views. They just do not deserve my money. Any songs by people I morally can’t support that I listen to are on lyric videos that some twelve year old made or a reupload on Soundcloud that doesn’t give said artist any money.
Im in the same boat, if i really like or a song means something deep to me...i will still listen to it if the artist who created it turns out to be a pos....im just going to be smarter about figuring out ways to enjoy that doesn't support the artist financially
Thankyou for this.
I've spend a lot of time wrestling with myself over listening to Brand New after all the controversy surrounding Jesse Lacey and it's nice to hear someone like you holding a similar opinion.
At the end of the day I still find it difficult to still listen to artists like this but ultimately it's all up to how you feel about it. If it makes you personally uncomfortable then you should probably avoid it. If not then go ahead.
At the same time always be aware of what the artist did, and don't completely pass it off as not happening either.
who's here after the unreviewable Kanye album?
Fully agree. My personal philosophy on this:
You can never really know that if an artist is truly good. They might have done terrible things thats not public information. This means that enyone that you think is a virtuous person, might not be. And since the publicly avaible information about any given artist is arbitrary, the judgment about that artist will naturally be arbitrary too.
This is the foundation for how i judge art. As best as i can, try to never take anything else besides the artwork itself into account, when im experiencing art. I only take what the artist has presented. If i start to put other things in the mix, i feel like that taints the artists vision. And i think thats disrespectful against the artist.
I dont judge how ethical the artist is, how hard it was to make, or how long they worked on it. If i did, then i would judge the ARTIST, and not the artwork. If i want to judge that, then that has to be a seperate judgement. Of course its hard to not be baised like this, but i think its important to try.
Review Charles Manson's music
Kairu-kun I fucking love that Charles Manson has written songs for the BEACH BOYS of all people.
Fuckin yes
Classic review
Oisin Clancy If by "written for," you mean "stolen by," then you're totally correct.
Don't get me wrong, Manson was an evil fuck, but the Beach Boys really did him dirty.
Mediocre overall. Above average writing though!
I think a big issue currently facing the music community right now is that morality is sort of a currency now when it comes to musicians. People forget that musicians are people too, make mistakes just like everyone else, and also can be shitty human beings like everyone else. If you hold your favorite artists to such a high moral standard you are missing that basic fact and will be disappointed. Not trying to draw attention away from legit issues, but its aikin to how fundamentalist Christians look at morality.
Now 5 years later he shames anyone who listens to Chris brown and Kanye west joe progressive melon .
Review Charles Manson's album
Ty Anthony, hopefully now people will stop getting on me/ others for continuing to love Brand New. Made a lot of valid points.
MegaCrasherMusic i have no problem with having a discussion on Jessie’s (in my opinion, exaggerated) toxic behavior, but i want all that to be separate from the question on whether or not i can like his music, or my worth as a person.
I disagree with the point made at around the 11:00 mark. Often times the art itself is not separate from the artist, meaning that it is often a reflection of the artists self. Maybe not in the movie industry but certainly very often in the music industry.
I think it's just a matter of taking the artist's work at face value. When you listen to a song or read a book for example, your interpretation of it will say more about you than it does about the person that produced it. If it means something to you and resonates, that's all that matters frankly. Death of the author and all that. Also, as Anthony acknowledged, the negative actions of a particular artist don't negate the positive aspects of their creativity they may put into their work, unless of course they are writing about those very negative actions. If an artist produces great work, then that's in spite of the dubious aspects or actions of their self.
So? What the artist put into it and what the listener gets out of it can be totally different.
While that may be true, I think that when an artist refers to them themselves in their music, the listener should be aware of that while also taking away the part that they identify most with. It's fine to just enjoy a piece of art but you should also think about where that art comes from, imo.
JK Music Maybe that's the way you approach a piece of art but that doesn't mean it applies to everyone. I can separate the song from the person.
Do a Radiohead Madness Bracket MELONHEAD!!
Bracket month is over
It’s April
Oh Really?When will it come back?
March 2019
Ryan Wolfe Wut....😱😑
This is a healthy perspective, thank you for sharing! Artistic confidence can easily turn into self indulgent ego stroking. It is the understanding of this force that helps differentiate artists who just have that thing you can't explain.
I love Burzum but that does not make me a white supremacist. I love Chief Keef but that does not mean im a murderer.
I love Barney but that does not make me a dinosaur supremacist.
i like melon reviews but that doesnt make me a melon
Emma what’s so bad about being a melon you meloncist?
just kidding i am in fact a melon myself
But is Varg ACTUALLY a white supremacist??
LETS FIND OUT
You're so brutally honest.
This is why we love you.
I personally separate the art from the artists 99% of the time. But i find this whole movement of "don't support thisbecause of this" to be weirdly fixated solely on sexual abuse. Not saying that sexual abuse isnt a legitimate reason or people are stupid for not separating the art from the art. I just think it's kind of strange and inconsistent to claim to not want to support problematic artists but it seems to me not only is that considered by far the most common offense but it seems to be considered the worst offense by far. Yet, even worse shit like murder is not only not considered equally unacceptable, it's fucking completely acceptable. like 6ix 9ine is a pretty common example. Which is fine but those same people will scream free tay-k. So supporting murderers is fine. It's ok that he was involved in the murder of a young chick or beating up an elderly man or all the other murders and crimes he's committed. I just don't see any logical reasoning behind what is or isn't acceptable. The only reason I can come up with is this started with the me too movement and is actually not actually this open dialogue about what is or isn't acceptable. It's just the same debate people have been having ever since the me too movement. It is what it is so lets be honest about it and not act like this discussion is this open all encompassing thing.
Definitely agree with all the points you made. People say if you still listen to the music after finding out what someone did, then you're showing support for that artist, but I view it more like this: if I DON'T listen to it, I'm not going to get the money back that I spent on it and because I bought it in the first place, said artist already has my money, why not continue enjoying the art that I paid for if I like it? It doesn't mean I support what the person did, I'm just consuming the art that I paid for. It makes more sense to cease purchasing anything from them in future rather than to all together stop listening to the work I fell in love with in the past. (And in the personal case I'm referencing, the artist may have written and sang the song, but he's not my reason for liking it. I originally fell in love with the lyrical content and the music video which had some of my other favorite people in it. The artist himself was only in it for like 2 seconds. Yet if people knew I listened to it they'd call me out for "supporting" a shitty person.)
Personally, I think this entire concept of "separating art from the artist" is really not hard to get behind, and something that many millions of people do every day, even if they say they would "never." This fact is validated by one instance alone and that is the Chris Brown phenomenon. After he did that to Rihanna, literally no more than a year or 2 later he had number 1 hits and was the hot feature on literally every artists song. His music was still bumping at clubs and parties and people jammed to his next several albums like nothing had happened. People like to think that they would "never" support someone who did bad stuff, but clearly they do.
In my opinion, enjoying a particular song and disliking the person who made it are totally separate and you can do both at once. What it comes down to is whether or not you personally are willing to listen to or support someone who did bad stuff. If your morals get in the way of you being able to enjoy something, then you are not obligated to still enjoy it or still listen to it.
I really hate it when people use "problematic" in this way as if it's problematic to a specific agenda, rather than their actions just being reprehensible.
Thank you for this comment. You put my thoughts into words.
If you find that you rid yourself of art made by someone who did something "reprehensible"...whatever that might mean to you...you'll soon find you have no art to consume. And even your own is tainted.
Excellent fucking point, and one that very few seem to recognize.
Great points. But I just cannot agree.
Yes it's true on paper all the points on crimes and artistic output of a person being separate. However I believe in real life, by supporting artists that commit heinous crimes, it normalizes and diminishes the actions of these people.
I believe there is a reason people who assault or sexually abuse people get ostracized from many parts of society. And it's a great sign of American/western values that this happens.
We're inviting the celebrities into our homes when we make the abusers household names. You shouldn't invite a criminal to work for you, right? Why should you pay an artist your time
I am so glad you're such an open and awesome creator that you make this kind of video and conversation though! Needs to be spoken about more
STOP ASKING ME TO CHANGE MY NAME GOOGLE! Yeah but it's so entirely arbitrary is the point. Does this only extend to assault, what about theft, what about white collar crime? What's the moral litmus test to determine when an artist's actions are too heinous to support.
I mean isn't it all arbitrary anyway? When would you consider hiring someone?
Or what crimes would stop you being a friend with someone, would you still stay in contact with a close friend that abuses their partner? Some would say yes some would say no. It's all arbitrary
No, listening to music is also nothing like inviting the artist into your home. Some music sounds hateful, fucked up and awesome. Occasionally the people who make it are the same minus the awesome part. It's not really suprising though, and not all art is created to create positive vibes. Ultimately I think art outlives the artist, no one gives a flying fuck about the lives long dead classical musician/artists/writers etc. lived
Thank you for this. These are my exact thoughts on this subject and you said it in a clear and articulate way. I've always been too afraid to put them into words because I feel people just don't want to understand these days. It's always a "you're with us or against us" tribal mentality bullshit when the conversation is a lot more nuanced than that.
100% agree. I dislike a lot of artists, but don't hate their art. Simple as
I think the main thing is that your platform is so wide-reaching that reviewing a problematic artist will be directly responsible for a (albeit possibly short) surge in purchases for that artist after a review is dropped regardless of positivity. Do you want to knowingly support these artists monetarily, indirectly or otherwise? If so, go for it man. But just know that you, yourself, Anthony, are making these people more money.
One of the biggest examples of this for me is Phil Spector. He helped produce some of the most amazing songs and albums ever made and I think his actions are absolutely horrific
Grumo gala his immense influence on music production transcends the life he lead
You perfectly articulated the very complex moving parts involving the ideal of virtue and the layers of shame and fear and paranoia some might experience when wanting to promote or support artists and people at large. Thank you for your contribution
To remove the weird stigma our society has pertaining to “religion”
The truth of the matter is, we are extensions of the universe
The universe is by nature, gruesome and terrifying
Dark but also light
We are just bodies who will consistently be taken over by all energies and frequencies
“Good” or “bad”
High or low
We will be “sinful” and have misdeeds
And we will be “holy” or practice “good will”
It’s so good to talk about this objectively so that we can remove as much shame as possible and just be naturally and fearlessly, human
Nuanced take, melon, i agree with you mostly, especially about why you review these problematic artists.
What i want to add, however, is a note on our responsibility, especially in the wake of the #metoo movement, to have higher standards for artists moving forward.
I think its kind of a moot point boycotting older artists, unless you do have a visceral reaction, but i think for folks like me, without a platform like yours, where our entire power is in our consumption and attention, to not give it to artists that create a dangerous environment in music scenes.
Surprised at the lack of Deathspell Omega comments
I think this is one of the best vids you’ve ever put out.
My only issue is, let's talk about one of these South Florida rappers for example- pick any one of em cause most of em have a case against them right now. My issue is, if you do listen to them, actively, and stream or buy their music, or even mention their name, the money/clout associated with that doesn't just fall into some void. If you buy someone's album, they get paid for it. It's funding their pockets. And unless they personally want to change their ways you're literally funding shitty behavior you know? And that money allows them to stay on the platform of someone who may be just as talented with none of the bs. Idk that's just my take. Like, if someone is playing a catchy song, don't be that dick to ruin the moment and tell them to turn it off, but be aware that if you personally buy into it, then your money is going directly to them
Nice video.
There's a starman waiting in the sky Liked because Speedwagon.
There's a starman waiting in the sky Do you use bots or something?
Lunatikkrazie azylum I've been thinking the same thing.
I see him on gaming channels like alpharad and other nintendo related content.
And then I start watching melon head and. BAM. He's already here as well.
cooljay cooljay who gets 60+ likes for commenting “nice vid” lol
problematic
to the point at 7:11, I would say paying for the art does contribute in some cases to protecting that person from facing justice as it contributes to their ability to fight legal battles (albeit in an indirect fashion).
Can't wait for your Chris Brown reviews to drop!
Great video. Enjoyed your bit about Dancer In The Dark. I'm so excited to hear you discuss it on the Sardonicast!
bring back World Peace
Snowking587 MDE NEVER DIES
Sam will be dead before that happens.
ＨＩＤＤＥＮＳＷＡＳＴＩＫＡＳ
I like the music of the band Shining and other DSBM (depressive/suicidal black metal), but my answers to their moral decisions include, not buying their albums/merch, and not attending shows. essentially not giving them money because they use it to tell people to unironically kill themselves,
Damn melon, uploading this just as I finish watching hollywood exposed videos. U must be psychic
I think one distinction you forgot to make is how relevant the transgression is to the current success of the music. For example, if a band continues to use their earnings, position or fame to perpetuate a problem, then I'll cut them off. If it's something minor done in the past that they are no longer doing or supporting with their music then whatever.
Separating art from artist is a tricky thing. I think the points you laid out make sense. Right now I'm wrestling with wether I want to see The Smashing Pumpkins live when I can't get down with Billy Corgan as a person because of his association with evil shitheads like Alex Jones... Yet his music was super important to me growing up... I'm not sure what I'll do yet.
Hey If you don't feel like giving an artist money for any kind of reason, yet you still wanna listen to their music you can always pirate their content.
I remember watching a conversation between the two and Billy was disagreeing with a lot of what Alex was trying to promote.
maybe he is, what he eats
You shouldn't let someone's else viewpoints prevent you from interacting/seeing them. Who cares if Billy Corgan likes Alex Jones? If you want to see them then see them. Calling Alex Jones "evil" is an over-characterization anyway. He's no more evil than your fellow showman.
Nick Scott who gives a fuck
I think my outlook on it is the aspect of giving the artists money by supporting them. I think it's okay to separate the art from the artists, but when you stream or their music or attend their shows you are giving that person monetary gain. If you listen to the music or already own the music is one thing, but giving the artist money is where I end up drawing the line.
The word “problematic” is tossed out like it’s fucking nothing
"Problematic" literally means anything from 'abuses young women' to 'doesn't support my political cause' to 'was dismissive when I asked them for a selfie'
Hey anthony. Nice points, you've got a compelling argument. If you don't mind, though, I think I'm going to have to respectfully disagree, for two reasons. first, in reference to your point about audiences not being bad people for listening to shitty artists' music. So, let's use XXXtentacion and his fanbase as an example. I don't think that everyone of his fans are people who condone domestic assault. That would be crazy to say. However, I think being a fan of X requires ignorance on the part of the fan in order to enjoy it. And that ignorance can be unintentional, or even worse, intentional. My second point is that you have a very big audience on your main channel. By reviewing a record, you will undoubtedly expose at least some people to a new artist. By reviewing a record, you effectively create new listeners for that artist. And I love that! I've gotten into new music because of you (and from the bottom of my heart, thank you). But at the same time, when you review a problematic artist, you are kind of giving them a platform. With X, you obviously did not put him on a pedestal, but you still created new listeners and maybe even new fans for him.
Read this or ignore it if you want, no problem! Love ya melon. Keep being you.
The killanary realm? That sounds like a very scary place, anthony 😳
I like your approach to dealing with problematic artists because you make sure to mention what's problematic about them (e.g. XXXtentacion and, more recently, 6ix9ine) and in doing so allow your audience to take in all the facts on this artist and this piece of art so that they can make a decision on whether or not to buy it. A lot of the artists you review I either haven't heard of or don't know anything about beyond the name, so it's helpful that you still review problematic artists because for me it means that's one less artist I might pick up an album by without realising they're problematic. By reviewing these artists despite their problematic nature, but without ignoring that nature, you contribute to the overall discussion and keep your viewership informed in a way that you simply couldn't if you outright refused to review these artists.
To me it seems that a lot more artist in today’s world have some kind of fucked up past. Why is this so damn common now?
TheCosmicLad because social media makes everything more visible than before and makes it easier to find out
I get a lot of shit from people because I do like a few musicians who are labeled problematic (accused or convicted) and I just appreciate the talent they bring not who they are as a person. For example, I like Melanie Martinez and I was shocked by the accusations made against her and I'm not going to stop listening to her music, but I will definitely look at her a different way.
Even after I found out Anthony is an alt-right musiccritic I didn' stop watching his show
One thing you touched on that I really agree with is that there is probably a selection bias when it comes to great artists and them being problematic. What kind of person dedicates themselves to the music industry (especially when we are talking about artists from the 20th century)? These probably aren’t well adjusted, healthy people. Someone who is willing to be as reckless as to throw away stable life prospects for the almost impossible achievement of becoming a successful artist. Is it shocking that a lot of these people have done reprehensible things? I’m not saying it’s good, it’s quite the opposite, I’m just saying it ain’t surprising.
It's quite true. Just look at Kanye West: He's rich, famous, and successful, but has a habit of doing some _very_ crazy stuff.
review John Wayne Gacy's new album I'm a Good Guy Once You Get to Know Me.
Nah, fuck that. He stole his album art from Acid Bath.
One thing that I think is important to mention is to realize that what a musician might say in a song is in an artistic light and they may not actually condone said action. Foster the People is obviously not condoning school shootings in Pumped Up Kicks and Okkervil River is not condoning murder in Westfall. They are bringing light to a situation from different perspectives.
the term problematic is *very* problematic
This is completely valid. You actually enlightened me on how to approach artists who are involved in acts I find questionable. Respect!
So damn important and a point that will have to be made again in another 20 years when a new generation has to step up and learn this lesson.
“The killinary realm” lol Fantano I love you
this is a really good album
*throws it*
Fantano you're quickly becoming my favorite TH-camr. You're very good at making both serious and memey videos and reviews that are interesting and engaging. Nice vid, melon
Ofcourse Melon had to throw in being Vegan in the video just like Logic does with being Biracial in his music
I think the answer to that question you posed- why does liking their work feel wrong- is more complicated than it maybe seems.
1. We view great artists as being more special than everyone else
2. Art is deeply personal, creation of art is putting one's self into something
So, affirming great art by shitty people maybe shouldn't feel differently than if I said that a wifebeater made a nice paper airplane, but it always will.
Given that really hard question... I think this subject has a lot more complexity. Because liking someone's art, is, affirming them. It always will be in that tiny way.
Your job, as a critic, is probably to be as objective as possible. But what the rest of us do with that perspective and our own is a twisty, fucked up subject.
wifebeater wednesdays
At the end the day, you consider it your job to review problematic artists. A lot of us choose to work for problematic companies/industries. It's each persons choice to do their job anyway or to change their job if they feel their ethical disposition requires it.
Hopsin's existence is problematic
Thanks Antony, this has been a personal struggle for me, great vid
If you buy past Crystal Castles albums, wouldn’t you be supporting Alice as well through royalties and other pay? I understand not buying future releases without her and I won’t be, but buying albums she was on puts money in her pocket as well.
Most of us have done bad things. .
Do you have to mention in every video that your favorite book is Mein Kampf?
I think this feeds into the issue many people have, myself included, that people you don't like can say things you do like, and you can appreciate it. To a much harsher degree, but I think the idea stands.
No line for me. Sorry, If it sounds Good, it sounds Good and I will listen and enjoy it no matter what the person has done. That's how I feel.
I dont know nearly as much as you do about music, but dont you think certain people might be influenced by music they listen to that was maybe created by murderers? What if the song is about murder and is spreading false and wrong ideas to whoever listens to it? I actually often find that artists i really like influence my behaviour and not only the music im listening to.
Look, everyone of us in here will turn up the sound if Ignition Remix comes on the radio. We're capable of separating art from the artist.
As someone who draws a few lines, I totally agree and can absolutely understand that it's arbitrary and people will decide differently which ones to draw. But I do think that if you would financially support someone who's reprehensible (again, according to your own judgement) then you should pirate it instead. Not like some workaround where you just look for the slightest excuse to be "allowed" to do that (which is stupid in the first place because like, it's just you who's judging it anyway and you know exactly what you're doing). But in a genuine sense.
Having said that, I still don't tend to do that. I tend to just simply not experience stuff, because there's so much stuff out there that I honestly don't need to, and also because well... I just kinda feel gross when I watch stuff like that. Or hear stuff like that. If I know that a big part of it comes from a monstrous individual then... I can't enjoy it, not fully. And not in the same way that I used to enjoy it, if it's something that I enjoyed before finding out. That's not a choice that's just a gut reaction.
But yeah if you're fine with that kind of thing and don't want to give the creators money, but still do want to watch it, I say pirate it. Not the only reason for pirating stuff (nor the only valid reason) but certainly a good fix to a tricky situation. I mean it's against the law, but since when has the law ever stood for what's right.
That's my solution anyway, it's not the only solution. And yeah it does screw a lot of other people (who didn't do anything wrong) out of earnings at the same time but hey, that thing that you only checked out because you needed a piece of entertainment to fill the hole of the one you boycotted? They're getting that money instead, and nobody on that project (as far as you know) is a rapist that you're supporting the rape lifestyle of, or a murderer that you're supporting the murder lifestyle of. So yeah it's not ideal that most of the first lot got unfairly rewarded. But it's more ideal that all of the second lot didn't. As well as the people who bankroll such things maybe, eventually, finally learning the lesson that people won't put up with their defense of that crap...
... or maybe not. And especially if it's something like a unique perspective or documentary (as opposed to just some normalization or glorification with nothing original to say), I can absolutely see that absorbing yourself in a more genuinely disturbing piece of art could be moralistically valuable in and of itself. I get that. I'm not unproblematic myself, either. So there's an aspect of "who am I to judge" to it, too. However to that I tend to just say "a human". That's all you need to be. Even a shit person refusing to engage with the work of another shit person, is still a good thing in general.
On the other hand, the world does absolutely force everyone to support deeply immoral stuff. And you gotta have quality of life, and you gotta have a degree of selfishness (even the most selfless among us), and that's not wrongheaded in the slightest. So that's where the arbitrary picking and choosing comes from. None of us can do everything, but all of us want to do something. And even if it's just an ego trip to make you feel better, that drive itself comes from a good place, and does overall good, so why the hell stand against it. It all helps.
What I don't like are two things. Firstly when someone picks on one person's way of being good in the world, and says that's invalid just because it isn't their way of being good in the world. And secondly when, in order to be okay with enjoying a piece of art, someone wilfully pretends that the artist didn't do what they did, or is better than they are, or - worst of all - that the obviously bad thing they did wasn't really bad at all, or shouldn't affect people like it's understandable that it'd affect people. That's a bunch of crap. If you need that to enjoy the art, then you shouldn't be enjoying the art. If you don't, then go right ahead, more power to you. But at the same time be cool with me not doing so.
At the same time there are things that I do overlook so I'm not like, entirely one way or the other on this. It's a complex subject and an interesting one and at the end of the day we're all just muddling through.
a shining vegan moment in this one, we stan a legend
I agree with most of what you say. Art and the artist are two inherently different things, and you can certainly enjoy an artistic work while disliking the creator's character or behavior. However, I'd argue that if you find the actions of an artist morally reprehensible then you probably shouldn't financially support that artist. It's one thing to critique the art for what it is, irrespective of who the creator is and what they've done, but it's quite another to directly contribute to that artist's quality of life.
Just tell them that if they do anything bad then you won't wear the yellow flannel when reviewing their album. That'll make them think twice.
Maurice Flores the flannel is the greatest marketing ploy in the world
While I don't agree with your stance here, you communicated it very well and I understand where you're coming from. Much respect, my friend
Do a classic review of a GG Alan album
none ..... the end
Just a thought: I feel that right now there's an odd double standard when it comes to different types of music and their approach to problematic artists. Rock bands seem to get the hammer any time one of their members does something bad (Jank, Brand New, etc.) but in the hip-hop realm, many artists with allegations and criminal charges against them still manage to become some of the hottest names at the moment (Tay-K, 6ix9ine, etc)
I guarantee you'll find someone out there who gets angry that you still listen to your Brand New records but they still love to jam R. Kelly in the whip
Antoine Trivago, review watch out
hmm, It has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Most peoples art correlates with their actions and ideas in many cases. Though some are very well hidden
Fantano definitely has a distain for Chris Brown outside of music. He almost never compliments any thing he does & seems to dislike him. Either way Chris Brown is one of the last traditional contemporary male R&B artist and extremely influential.
Paul Bessman II we don’t neeeed 2 and a half hours of Chris Brown (haaaaaah)
cooljay cooljay I agree. I think Brown's peak was from 2006 to 2012. But I think his personal demons have gotten in the way of his full potential. His vocals are no longer top tier and he needs auto tune almost always. I'm not the biggest CB fan but I always felt he should have taken the mantle of R&B-pop megastar mantle from Usher which he received from Michael Jackson. Unfortunately that mantle was passed to Bieber 😕😕
To break this down in just 4 words:
Observation is not implication.
I finally heard you mention my boy Nick Cave and instantly came.
One thing you didn't mention that I want to point out: even if where you draw the line with these things is a personal decision (which it absolutely is, I won't dispute that), it's also a moral decision. If two people draw that line in different places, their moral worldviews are on some level different. No, it's not a big deal; no, it's not worth condemning someone over. But it's not nothing either: if I know someone draws that line differently than I do, it will affect how I see them.