If Music Could Talk

Flex wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2017, 5:22pm

I think there's plenty of evidence on this board that at one time I was a pretty big fan (along with others here), but once there was enough smoke that even I (who pays almost no attention to celebrity news) had heard of the accusations, it was pretty much fait acompli and I don't think I've consumed a second of his stuff since.

I sort of wonder whether he'll ever make a public statement again. He seems like he's crawling back into his hole for the rest of time.

Wolter wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2017, 5:23pm

Flex wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2017, 5:22pm

I think there's plenty of evidence on this board that at one time I was a pretty big fan (along with others here), but once there was enough smoke that even I (who pays almost no attention to celebrity news) had heard of the accusations, it was pretty much fait acompli and I don't think I've consumed a second of his stuff since.

I sort of wonder whether he'll ever make a public statement again. He seems like he's crawling back into his hole for the rest of time.

Same here. I mean, I used to like Woody Allen movies, too.

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2017, 5:46pm

Wolter wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2017, 5:23pm

Flex wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2017, 5:22pm

I think there's plenty of evidence on this board that at one time I was a pretty big fan (along with others here), but once there was enough smoke that even I (who pays almost no attention to celebrity news) had heard of the accusations, it was pretty much fait acompli and I don't think I've consumed a second of his stuff since.

I sort of wonder whether he'll ever make a public statement again. He seems like he's crawling back into his hole for the rest of time.

Same here. I mean, I used to like Woody Allen movies, too.

Given the growing number of entertainers being accused/admitting their actions, this is going to be interesting how each person goes forward in treating their work. Is it all irretrievably tainted or is there room for separating art from the artist? Is there a standard in terms of the perpetrator or of the particular work? I confess that I'll still watch Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown because they are so compelling and well made, whatever Polanski's crimes. I have a few Woody Allen films that I like, but I'm not as attached to them and so I can leave them aside. I don't think that picking and choosing rises to the level of hypocrisy, but I admit that it's inconsistent. For actors, is their presence in a film going to be problematic for future viewing, even if, say, they're part of an ensemble or aren't the star? The morality of consumption has gotten a lot more sticky.

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2017, 6:11pm

There's also each individual's line of "acceptable misdeeds" and how historical context gets treated. Plenty of unsettling stuff went on between musicians and underage groupies in the late 60s and early 70s, for example. Even if all parties consented, there were unequal power relations at work, as well as drug consumption that compromised ability to consent. Yet, I think it's also a mistake to ignore how much sexual norms were thrown up in the air in that period, that in the process of positively opening up sexual behaviours certain boundaries were pushed too far. Does that mean not being able to listen to Zep or Zappa or Bowie or anyone else who was notable at that time? I certainly don't wag a finger at people who choose not to think about that stuff when they fire up an old album, but neither is it an easy distinction.

Marky Dread wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2017, 6:23pm

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2017, 6:11pm

There's also each individual's line of "acceptable misdeeds" and how historical context gets treated. Plenty of unsettling stuff went on between musicians and underage groupies in the late 60s and early 70s, for example. Even if all parties consented, there were unequal power relations at work, as well as drug consumption that compromised ability to consent. Yet, I think it's also a mistake to ignore how much sexual norms were thrown up in the air in that period, that in the process of positively opening up sexual behaviours certain boundaries were pushed too far. Does that mean not being able to listen to Zep or Zappa or Bowie or anyone else who was notable at that time? I certainly don't wag a finger at people who choose not to think about that stuff when they fire up an old album, but neither is it an easy distinction.

I suspect a lot more ugly shit went on with musicians than what gets mentioned. Do they get some corny let off because they are more cool? If a young girl fan of say Led Zep is underage and a band member took advantage of her but the girl set out with the intention of bagging a band member where do draw the line there? Looking back with a moral view is easy in hindsight but they were very different times. I'm not suggesting a single minute that this is what I consider acceptable behaviour but if you go see Led Zep back in the 70's with groupies etc then it may have been what was expected.

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2017, 6:55pm

Marky Dread wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2017, 6:23pm

Dr. Medulla wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2017, 6:11pm

There's also each individual's line of "acceptable misdeeds" and how historical context gets treated. Plenty of unsettling stuff went on between musicians and underage groupies in the late 60s and early 70s, for example. Even if all parties consented, there were unequal power relations at work, as well as drug consumption that compromised ability to consent. Yet, I think it's also a mistake to ignore how much sexual norms were thrown up in the air in that period, that in the process of positively opening up sexual behaviours certain boundaries were pushed too far. Does that mean not being able to listen to Zep or Zappa or Bowie or anyone else who was notable at that time? I certainly don't wag a finger at people who choose not to think about that stuff when they fire up an old album, but neither is it an easy distinction.

I suspect a lot more ugly shit went on with musicians than what gets mentioned. Do they get some corny let off because they are more cool? If a young girl fan of say Led Zep is underage and a band member took advantage of her but the girl set out with the intention of bagging a band member where do draw the line there? Looking back with a moral view is easy in hindsight but they were very different times. I'm not suggesting a single minute that this is what I consider acceptable behaviour but if you go see Led Zep back in the 70's with groupies etc then it may have been what was expected.

Precisely. It's tough because we do need to appreciate that the Western nations were in the midst of a sexual revolution that, while opening up sexual behaviour between the unmarried and homosexuals—that is, removing stigmas—it also experimented with sex with minors. Chastising individual conduct is tough when they are operating in that kind of environment. Yet that doesn't mean we can't pass moral judgment. This is a question and context I've used with my students to suggest that historians shouldn't detached but that we are allowed to pass judgment, but we are expected to appreciate the context to temper those considerations.

Low Down Low wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2017, 9:39pm

As regards Woody Allen specifically, the more serious allegations levelled against him by members of the Farrow family remain unproven and vehemently disputed, right? I did watch Manhattan not so long ago and found it a bit creepy, but otherwise I'm not convinced he's the unrestrained monster some folk have painted him out to be. I can't help but love his films and some of his recent offerings are up there with the great movies of the 80s and 90s.

Silent Majority wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2017, 4:43am

I've just started watching Parks and Recreation for the first time, unaware that CK was a recurring castmember, and have been able to throw a mental protective bubble around his appearances. It's easier because the cop he's playing is so divorced from his masturbating stage persona or true self. I watched his whole FX series aware of the allegations and there were uncomfortable moments. It's interesting how dated that show already feels.

101Walterton wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2017, 5:30am

Silent Majority wrote: ↑

10 Nov 2017, 4:43am

I've just started watching Parks and Recreation for the first time, unaware that CK was a recurring castmember, and have been able to throw a mental protective bubble around his appearances. It's easier because the cop he's playing is so divorced from his masturbating stage persona or true self. I watched his whole FX series aware of the allegations and there were uncomfortable moments. It's interesting how dated that show already feels.

Which CK?

101Walterton wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2017, 10:15pm

Low Down Low wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2017, 9:39pm

As regards Woody Allen specifically, the more serious allegations levelled against him by members of the Farrow family remain unproven and vehemently disputed, right? I did watch Manhattan not so long ago and found it a bit creepy, but otherwise I'm not convinced he's the unrestrained monster some folk have painted him out to be. I can't help but love his films and some of his recent offerings are up there with the great movies of the 80s and 90s.

Sorry but whilst it may not have been illegal, having a relationship with your partner’s daughter 40 years your junior and for whom you are / were, a guardian is wrong on so many levels.