Following on from the excerpts of Christopher Anderson's recent revelations about Mick's scandalous private life, I am wondering where others draw the line in terms of their admiration of an artist's work when they cannot respect their personal behaviour.

Does it matter at all? Or do they have to have similar values to your own? Or is there a line that artists cannot cross if you are going to give them your time and money?

Yes there is. Doin worthless/tasteless music makes the limit...Jagger is close passing the line with his latest thing Super Heavy...

2 1 2 0

First of all it's the music that matters. Music, music and nothing but the music.
Any information about their private lifes is only of interest if it helps to understand
their music better.
I don't care about their addictions, sexually or drugs-related. But I do find it interesting
to hear how a storm was threat'ning Keith' life when he found out his girl was method-acting
some scenes for Performance with his Glimmer Twin, and that kind of stuff.

Just as long as the guitar plays, let it steal your heart away

we are not worried about petty morals

For me the crossing of the artistic/moral line is when the artist sings, preaches, projects a moral image and then we learn that the artist doesn't respect that code;the hypocrisy turns me off.I know some of them do just that. But Mick' relationships with women,we know how he feels because he tells us in his songs.
Rock and Roll,
Mops

hmmm...a slippery slope, a subject of titillating interest...we know too much these days

its been going on forever. artists aint squeaky clean, I know that comes as a shocking surprise but its true.

Quote
duke richardson
hmmm...a slippery slope, a subject of titillating interest...we know too much these days

its been going on forever. artists aint squeaky clean, I know that comes as a shocking surprise but its true.

t'ain't nobody squeaky clean.

so true. thats all I got.

Jim Gordon killed his mother but he's one of my favourite drummers, still.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Jim Gordon killed his mother but he's one of my favourite drummers, still.

rocknroll needs more heroes like this. i have trouble liking rocknrollers who are likeable sorts...or something....

Quote
duke richardson
so true. thats all I got.

still, I don't consider you an underachiever.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
duke richardson
so true. thats all I got.

still, I don't consider you an underachiever.

on the contrary. I wear too many hats.



I can be one though. and y'self?

Quote
Bliss
Is there a line that artists cannot cross if you are going to give them your time and money?

I'm sure there is, but I can scarcely even begin to imagine where that line might be. If it turned out that one of my heros had a bunch of kids buried in his basement, I suppose that might give me pause ....

I feel uncomfortable liking Clapton after hearing this...

Quote
Bliss
Following on from the excerpts of Christopher Anderson's recent revelations about Mick's scandalous private life, I am wondering where others draw the line in terms of their admiration of an artist's work when they cannot respect their personal behaviour.

Does it matter at all? Or do they have to have similar values to your own? Or is there a line that artists cannot cross if you are going to give them your time and money?

why assume all of that is the truth? i've already seen some of the myths debunked - and it actually none of our business.

Interesting question Bliss! Initially I am thinking as long as the music moves me who cares about his personal ethics?

But upon reflection I must conclude that how we spend our money is the most important statement we can make in creating a world which agrees with us, matches our dream. So if this artist was say supporting some oppressive regime that enslaved little girls or something I would make the conscious decision to not spend any money supporting him or her. Not to say if the song was just so good I had to have it that i might have to rip it..

Secondly and more importantly, I believe that a persons soul is directly related to his or her character and morals and that they probably couldn't produce genuine and authentic music which would touch my soul unless there was a connection at that soul level to me. Could be why I haven't related to much of the recent Stone's music, they have changed in character and morals from being part of the hip, revolutionary thinkers to mainstream upper class rock snobs. Hard to listen to Jagger sing the poor man's Blues type of thing.

Finally the converse is not always true because while I like what I percieve to be Bono's character and morals I can't stand to listen to U2 these days.... peace

They waged war against Lord Byron in his time, but we do not, and Lord Byron is still Lord Byron, and his enemies and detractors are dead and forgotten.

For me...I do not subject artists to a morality test before I invest money or my emotions in their work. I am a consumer, and it is all about the product. Artists in all fields are notoriously unstable people, often at odds with the accepted standards of society.

Having said that, if I lose respect for the artist as a person, my interest tends to wane. I will never watch another Mel Gibson film, and if I had ever been a Gary Glitter fan, I wouldn't be one now.

Quote
Bliss
For me...I do not subject artists to a morality test before I invest money or my emotions in their work. I am a consumer, and it is all about the product. Artists in all fields are notoriously unstable people, often at odds with the accepted standards of society.

Having said that, if I lose respect for the artist as a person, my interest tends to wane. I will never watch another Mel Gibson film, and if I had ever been a Gary Glitter fan, I wouldn't be one now.

What's the gossip about Mel Gibson?

2 1 2 0

Quote
Come On

Quote
Bliss
For me...I do not subject artists to a morality test before I invest money or my emotions in their work. I am a consumer, and it is all about the product. Artists in all fields are notoriously unstable people, often at odds with the accepted standards of society.

Having said that, if I lose respect for the artist as a person, my interest tends to wane. I will never watch another Mel Gibson film, and if I had ever been a Gary Glitter fan, I wouldn't be one now.

What's the gossip about Mel Gibson?

In the new cinematic version of the Bible, Mel, apparently, is going to play Judas Maccabeus, the Jewish liberator against the Ptolemeic Antiochus Epiphanes.

A good question. Personally that hasn't been any problem ever - the privileged life or the bubble in which these spoiled pop stars and celebrities live is just so narrow that it doesn't really matter. I find Jagger's supposed 'bad behavior' rather innocent and funny actually, and I don't give a shit about the feelings of any jerryhalls of the world. Besides, he never claimed to be any Saint... so there is not any 'artistic' hypocracy going on (a'la Bono and all these 'good people' doing charity stuff and whatever )... in his own terms, Jagger is very ethical guy and writes a consistent and coherent story of his hedonistic, opportunistic life in his art - of which the 'bad boy' image is an important aspect.

By contrast, outside the pop realm, there are areas of culture where these kind of questions are asked more seriously. Let me tell you one.

There is no doubt German philosopher Martin Heidegger is with Ludwig Wittgenstein the most influental philosopher of the 20 Century. For many he is the most important one; he is the godfather of so the so called "Continental Philosophy", a huge movement in philosophy (influencing and inspiring the hermeneutics of Hans-Georg Gadamer, the existentialist movement lead by Jean-Paul Sarte, the post-structuralist postmodernism of Jacques Derrida, making Friedrich Nietzsche taken to be as serious philosopher), and altogether reshaping our understanding of history of philosophy and Western culture, and along the process, creating many new topics for philosophical investigation, such as criticism of modern technology.

But Heidegger was a nazi and acted rather efficiently (for a year) in university politics during @#$%&'s Third Reich, and he even didn't seem to regret much of that after the war. And that fact makes, understably, his philosophy for many impossible to be taken seriously or even too dangerous to be read. So there is a huge moral issue - and still ongoing debate among scholars - going on there.

So in compared to issues like that the Jagger case, and his rather wild sexual life, is really children's stuff, if you know what I mean.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-11 12:46 by Doxa.

Doxa

Re Doxa - Mick's infidelity and promiscuity is a personal matter, causing pain to no one but his wives and girlfriends, and perhaps embarrassment to the rest of his family. But by normal standards, his refusal to acknowledge his children - Karis and Lucas - until their mothers went to court or completed paternity tests, and his non-recognition of his marriage to Jerry after 21 years and four children, are nothing less than shameful.

Equally disgraceful is the way he and Keith repeatedly exploited and cheated fellow musicians.

Quote
Send It To me
I feel uncomfortable liking Clapton after hearing this...

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-11-09 21:06 by vudicus.

Quote
Bliss
Re Doxa - Mick's infidelity and promiscuity is a personal matter, causing pain to no one but his wives and girlfriends, and perhaps embarrassment to the rest of his family. But by normal standards, his refusal to acknowledge his children - Karis and Lucas - until their mothers went to court or completed paternity tests, and his non-recognition of his marriage to Jerry after 21 years and four children, are nothing less than shameful.

Equally disgraceful is the way he and Keith repeatedly exploited and cheated fellow musicians.

That's true - even though I think the version of Jagger's personal life is very one-sided, that is, tabloid and sensationalist coloured, and there are reports contradicting them, and besides, none of hix ex-women with whom he has kids seem to really complain, and Jagger looks like having an okay realtionship with all of them nowadays, and all of them say he is a good father (even Marianne re Nicholas). Jagger is not interest in defending himself in public, and I think he knows better than no one that 'any publicity is good publicity'; I suppose 'bad' publicity - of which he used to all of his life as a pop star - just works him alright. Jagger never seem to actually prevail his personal life in public, and honestly I can't really make moral judgment just from the base of biased rumours. I think his 'charmed life' has never been something for us lesser mortals to grasp, and we can't really apply our common moral norms and expectations of behavior to it.

Surely Jagger and Richards are tough guys in business, and their ruthless way to 'use' other people and their ideas is morally questionable. But not a sec does that fact alter the way how much I love their output. When I listen to "Ruby Tuesday" the probable miscredition of Brian Jones does not ruin my experience, nor does Ry Cooder's complaints affect to my view on "Honky Tonk Women". And not even Brian's infamous 'evil side' does not ruin my deep affection listening to his wonderful contribution in many Stones songs. Nor does the awful and ridiculous pirate and bullshitter character Keith Richards portrays these days, change the amount how much I love and admire his music and musicianship (even today when he chooses to give signs of that, which happens very rarely), and his career over-all.

The point I try say is that the regards to your original question - which, like I said, I find a good one - "morals" and "art" do not affect each other, since the realm of moral issues, and the supposed 'sins' in these cases, is rather vague and limited in the end. Thankfully, I don't know these people personally, and do not need to do business with them, though...

- Doxa



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 2012-07-11 15:15 by Doxa.

I could care less. WHat if Mick was a saint? That would be boring. They're Rock Stars, legendary, iconic figures of an iconic time (60s,70s)
They're work speaks for itself. Who cares if the music is good, or if it moves you - their supposed 'sins' is just another facet of their humanity, what makes them real.
And Doxa is right - Mick's peccadilloes are tame in the public arena. He isn't a monster. If an artist makes a racist comment, that would bother me because it speaks to their character. Mick's relationships with women speaks more to his own personal imperfections, hangups etc.....
And Jagger has never been fond of airing out his dirty laundry and always seems to have tried to keep his personal life personal....
His exes to do that for him. He doesn't claim to be a saint.

Quote
stupidguy2
He doesn't claim to be a saint.

he even wrote a song about it

Quote
duke richardson

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
duke richardson
so true. thats all I got.

still, I don't consider you an underachiever.

on the contrary. I wear too many hats.



I can be one though. and y'self?

i strive to underachieve. i was going put an exclamation mark after that statement, but I thought it would display too much energy.

Quote
Bliss
For me...I do not subject artists to a morality test before I invest money or my emotions in their work. I am a consumer, and it is all about the product. Artists in all fields are notoriously unstable people, often at odds with the accepted standards of society.

Having said that, if I lose respect for the artist as a person, my interest tends to wane. I will never watch another Mel Gibson film, and if I had ever been a Gary Glitter fan, I wouldn't be one now.

lmfao, the truth is a bitch isn't it? When it finds you it will work its magic on you whether you like it or not. I think investing your emotions in their work is a quite beautiful statement. I think that is healthy because your interpretation of their work is all about you. Having an emotional investment in yourself, yep, you are alive and well Bliss. peace

Please Bliss, why do you believe all that what that person writes? As I wrote in the other threat, it was not Mick who wanted that paternity test, it was for the court - this is what Luciana said and in Luciana´s own words he was supportive from the beginning. Maybe he made a mistake with Karis, I don´t know, but someone here said, that he bought them a house. And I am sure Jerry can live with the 12m pounds that she got. What for does she want 50? A ceremony in Bali cannot be divorced, because it IS no marriage.