yes, but their is a dangerous power that the person who benefits from the entertainment i.e. the artist HAS a platform in the first place. see something, say something, you know?
We always group people as we're tribal beings. Even identifying as being about individualism is putting yourself into a group. People put themselves into groups to help mitigate harm, which is what transgender people are doing right now. They'd love to be seen as individuals but segments of society refuse to do so. And that is in the US.
Yes. I'm thinking more of bills going through legislatures making it difficult for people to use the bathroom or get gender affirming care. That kind of thing can't be attacked alone.
I struggle with this all the time. I just listened to Michael Jackson last night, and that guy... well, let's just say there's overwhelming evidence that he did some horrible things.
And yet, the art stands out as incredibly important and influential, and a slice of history. This is a tension that continues to exist for me. The closer the art hits to home, the more personally I take it, and the less I can enjoy an artist.
absolutely agree - it's a subjective experience because the tense struggle is palpable when it's an artist you love, and separating yourself from them is like separating a part of your own history, too. is separating the art from the artist the best way to move forward, or the only way? constantly asking myself this and it differs with every artist i think about. thanks for the comment.
MJ is/was a tough one for me. I can't look past what he's done, but it would also be intellectually dishonest to say that I don't listen to his music. I'm not actively seeking it out, but if something like 'Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough' comes on, I'm not changing the channel.
That’s how I feel about Kanye at this point. I won’t deny that his run of albums from College Dropout to My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy are some of the most essential albums of the past two decades and hip-hop, but there’s nothing that makes me want to go out of my way to listen to them at this point.
I have "Gold Digger" on one of my playlists I listen to a lot, but that's only because it's one of the ten greatest pop songs ever made. Let's call it a guilty pleasure.
Kanye was a real tough one for me. I was a Kanye apologist all the way up to YE but he said and did things that just moved the needle too much for me to ever enjoy his music without thinking of all his errors of the past. Dark Fantasy is still one of the best albums of this century but I may never listen to it again and that sucks
Personally I try to avoid even hearing what artists have to say about controversial topics, cos to me that's not why they're a part of my life. It is about the art for me, and escaping the awful stuff in the world. I don't want to know what they think about politics or major issues, because that's completely missing the point of why I'm into them in the first place. And I want to think for myself, not be influenced by opinions from some celebrity who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about. I hold some fairly strong opinions that I don't form lightly, and if I avoided every artist who disagreed with me on something, I wouldn't have much music available. The difference for me is when their awful ideology seeps into their music or they've done or said something truly awful that you really just can't separate from their art, then I'm done. Otherwise, I don't want to know. I fully believe in freedom of speech, and along with that comes freedom to decide whose speech we want to give our attention to.
thanks for your thoughtful response! i appreciate the discourse. you are spot on about if the artist's personal opinions seep into the music, then it's a no go onwards. however, there's also the notion that the artist can continue to carry on harmful behavior or rhetoric by supporting them financially somehow, even if their "art" has nothing to do with it. if we disagree with every artist we support, there wouldn't be much music available - it's possible, but maybe that's the most difficult question we should be asking - why can't we expect more from the artists who choose to make their living from their public art?
I have asked this question for decades. Art is artifice. It is not the artist. Art is interpreted by the observer. If the artist is a shitty person whose views are reprehensible to you, but the art they produce affects you deeply...love the art, not the artist.
BTW, if you want theatrics, makeup, costumes, AND a great live performance that has a plot: ALICE COOPER!
love the notion that Art is artifice, but the artist continues to be supported by the art we support as well, so for me, it's difficult the separate the two since they benefit from it. however, compartmentalization is or can be a crucial aspect of survival in so many ways for us. a question to continuously ponder.
I love KISS, but much of my enjoyment of them — and I've been a fan since the late '70s — derives from the knowledge (and acceptance) of how completely full of shit Gene and Paul are on so many levels. They're great performers, for sure, but I take it with a big grain of salt (and a bigger eye roll) every time they say they're doing something "for the fans," because profit is always the primary motivator. So while I didn't agree with Paul's garbled and ill-informed transgender comments, they also didn't alter my opinion of him or my enjoyment of the band in any way. If those down-punching comments had come from a musician I admired who'd actually spent his career championing the underdog and standing for meaningful things, like Joe Strummer or Billy Bragg, that would be a much different story.
THIS i absolutely empathize with, thanks for you comment, Dan. part of my enjoyment of the band has been from the layer of humor or side eye that i had for them. "the band belongs to the fan" was a line i scoffed at because Gene and Paul have always been the best marketers in music, better than actual musicians, too. someone i've been grappling with lately is Santana because his whole message has been about love and unity, but he said something really stupid about the trans community at a show. he always stood for meaningful things and so now i grapple with it.
Carlos is indeed someone who's stood for some really positive and meaningful things over the years; but he's also a born-again Christian, so I wasn't too surprised or shocked by his views. It just felt like one more disappointment from the Woodstock Generation, just another person who once flew the flag for peace, love and self-expression now advocating for hard limits on all of the above.
When people are in the clouds famous, they have an invisible, or sometimes visible bubble around them. The bubble keeps them infantilized and in their own way, so for a man in his 70's who has been famous for 50 years and has been in a bubble will likely not have a nuanced answer about modern points of view, especially about trans issues. Whether it's religion, like Santana above, or tax brackets or plain ol' naivete and ignorance, I'm generally not surprised when someone that famous does or says something stupid, illegalities aside of course. Artists are also flawed humans and generally ones I wouldnt imagine I'd want to hang with. If their art (not their POV) makes me feel good, Im willing to give it a pass, illegalities aside. ;)
Totally hear you and appreciate the sentiment. There’s def an air of generational grace to give but it’s also tough when their audience soundingly responds in kind and that amplifies a distraught message. If you listen and enjoy but can separate the art from artist then that’s the best case for sure. Thanks for your thoughts!
Yea I'm just hoping the fans can think for themselves and not be sheep. But, sadly, I also know how people can be...it's a hard convo to have for sure. Also, bonus kudos on the Clare D book Monsters shout out
As a historian, I have been trained to analyze events and people objectively and not see a single event like an ill-timed remark as a way of discounting what has already been done. A person or band exists independently from their work and we should base our analysis with this in mind.
i agree with you to a degree. there are so many people who have had single events that should influence our perception of them because the act was so egregious. however, i think you're correct in that we do need to assess the full scope of a life and career to make a judgment and analysis of anyone.
Great question -- appreciate your thoughts, Kadrian. It's one I haven't had to address in a serious way, thankfully. I guess the closest I've come is The Replacements, as it's hard to listen to them after reading Bob Mehr's book about what complete miscreants they were. But I was already listening to them less often, as they don't speak to me in my 50s the way they did in my teens and 20s.
I think it depends on when I discovered an artist and how strongly I identify with them. My two favorite bands of all time are U2 and REM and while the music comes first, the views they express through their songs are important as well. I grew up with U2, having discovered them when I was freshman in high school, and they, REM, Peter Gabriel, and The Police/Sting taught me a lot about the world as I came of age. (Catholic schools in greater Cincinnati in the 1980s were not teaching about apartheid, Central America, and inequality.) If one of those guys came out as a Trumper or anti-trans, I'd be devastated.
On other hand, there's Miles Davis, whose music I love and who was a legendary jerk. But I didn't grow up with Miles and have never invested in his story other than his music, so his history doesn't bother me.
I recently commented on one of Kevin's notes about Ryan Adams -- he was an asshole the first time I saw him live with Whiskeytown (I also heard awful stories from one of his bandmates), so it was easy to tune him out from then on and I've never had a reason to give him a chance.
I didn't really answer your question except to say....it depends. ;-)
THIS! agree with all this - i think there is no answer except the answer that feels right for you as the individual person. art is subjective, and so is our relationships with the artists. i didn't know about The Replacements, but i'll have to dive further as I just began my relationship with them too.
i agree with Miles, too. it's not so much that his history doesn't bother me as much as i never cared for it too much so i have an easier time not supporting him or whose loathsome behavior. it does depend on every artist really.
I think "it depends" sums it up for me. It feels like a discussion that is always fluid & situational, with the calculus being different for each person.
Regardless of what particular artist you discuss here, I appreciated this honest and nuanced self/cultural examination. For me, the one artist I had to completely let go was R.Kelly, whose crimes and convictions far outweighed his musical contribution to my life and, I believe, the world’s. Thanks again for this important essay.
thank you so much for your kind words, Jeremy! i truly appreciate it. for each person, that's the choice to grapple with: do their crimes and CONVICTIONS outweigh their musical contribution? is the stain so large that you can't see the music?
I immediately thought of Eric Clapton when I saw the headline for this post... I won't listen to him anymore. When you have an influential voice, you should be careful with what your voice says. Thanks for the interesting read today, Kevin and Kadrian!
Yeah I thought of Clapton as well. It hasn’t hurt that I can’t stand most of his solo albums so not listening to him is less problematic. Cream though...
Cream is a tougher one more because I have loved Ginger Baker, but thankfully, he's got some solo work and with Fela that makes it easier to not listen to Cream
I hadn’t heard about Stanley’s comments, which are unfortunate and ignorant at minimum. But you don’t even mention Gene Simmons’ decades-long misogyny and sexual harassment, which I find more problematic than Stanley’s recent comments. I know you can’t cover everything, but that feels like a huge omission.
thanks for your response, Steve! to be honest, i personally haven't dived into Simmons' past behaviors so i couldn't include them in the piece. i could only speak to my personal experience of following stanley on instagram and then seeing this post, and it made me start questioning. i am going to do some research on Simmons' though and perhaps it may inform my decision over how my relationship with the band continues now since there's another member at play. it's a subjective experience for sure.
I struggle with this a lot. As a woman, there's always problematic stuff one has to brush aside just to be in the world. My main rule now is that I don't give them money. No streams, no concerts, no purchases. But if I can get something out of the library, I will because that money was already spent and they don't see more from my library usage. It works for me.
thanks for your response, MK, and completely agree with the financial aspect of it. that's how i've been proceeding with a lot of artists, especially the ones whose music i own on vinyl currently but discover the behavior afterwards. i try to cut off the financial support because that continues to support the artist, but enjoying the music without that is a great suggested solve for this.
Ah, we have struggled mightily with this issue over at Exile on Newbury St. We went through a murderer's row (not literally, mostly) of problematic artists from MJ to Roger Waters to Clapton to Van Morrison and so on. The problem with our social media addicted world is that rock stars have a platform to be instantaneously stupid without the benefit of a handler or a few hours of sobriety to stop them. (In old man voice) When I was a kid, we didn't know how horrible rock stars were unless they told us directly in Rolling Stone, Circus, Cream or one of the thousands of music magazines I read. Of course, if they released a song like "Christine Sixteen" the cards were pretty much on the table.
i think your notion of the social media world putting all of these behaviors on display in a public way is the biggest thing that is changing the discourse now. we are more aware of it all now and have to reconcile and question more and more. because it's a relatively new thing, there's no one true answer, but it should be a discourse that continues. thanks for your thoughtful response!
And back then (also in old man voice) things were different. A lot of behavior that would start a riot today was mostly brushed off or looked past. Not saying that was right, just saying that's how it was.
I think everyone's perception of KISS and their career as well as their ending and their avatars is dependent on when you became a fan.
I was 5 years old when I first saw them on TV - 1976. They have been a part of me for nearly all my life. They've done a lot of things that make me cringe over the years, I'm hoping the avatars will be the last...but I'm doubting it.
Nice piece from Kadrian. I’ve been toying with writing a piece on this topic (problematic artists making great art) in 2024 but it’s a ton of research that I don’t really want to re-read. Kudos for the balanced opinion here.
KISS was definitely a Boomer band; I can't really think of anyone who can be called a "GenX band" that existed before 1980-81. They were a paragon example of what I've come ever more to believe about rock and roll - "it ain't what you do; it's how you do it". I've played their songs, in public and (more often) in semi-private jam sessions; and yeah, they aren't Paganini by any stretch, but they're good, solid rock songs with good "riffs" that are fun for musicians to play. Most of the people I know who are huge KISS fans are guitarists, now that I think about it; most of whose own music outdoes KISS and Ace in complexity and skill, but they love those riffs.
Anyhow.
The problem with listening to Boomer-era rock musicians is that, to the extent their wealth allows, they live in a world that is gone.
I don't know how to briefly summarize this, but there is still a "legacy structure" around them, of producers, writers, publicists, label reps, old-timers from radio and concert promotion, and all sorts of associated folks from "back in The Day". These are the only folks they talk to, play golf with, see at events, etc.; and this society has a habit of sealing the rest of the world off from them. In that group there are people with some pretty rancid views about the modern world, and those get passed around like gossip in a retirement home. Many of those views are also shared by their Boomer fans, whose flattery they still rely on for assurance of their cultural power and significance; and who form the outer layer of their "bubble". So when these musicians occasionally talk to the outside modern world, the common views and opinions of their bubble slip out, including the rancid ones, bc that's what "everyone they know" thinks. I think that's what happened with Paul; and the resulting collision with modern reality and lack of deference stung him badly. He and Gene have been surrounded by "yes men" so long that they've forgotten what "No" sounds like. It happens a lot, and it's why I particularly "separate art from artist" in cases like this.
yes, but their is a dangerous power that the person who benefits from the entertainment i.e. the artist HAS a platform in the first place. see something, say something, you know?
We always group people as we're tribal beings. Even identifying as being about individualism is putting yourself into a group. People put themselves into groups to help mitigate harm, which is what transgender people are doing right now. They'd love to be seen as individuals but segments of society refuse to do so. And that is in the US.
Yes. I'm thinking more of bills going through legislatures making it difficult for people to use the bathroom or get gender affirming care. That kind of thing can't be attacked alone.
well said MK!
I struggle with this all the time. I just listened to Michael Jackson last night, and that guy... well, let's just say there's overwhelming evidence that he did some horrible things.
And yet, the art stands out as incredibly important and influential, and a slice of history. This is a tension that continues to exist for me. The closer the art hits to home, the more personally I take it, and the less I can enjoy an artist.
absolutely agree - it's a subjective experience because the tense struggle is palpable when it's an artist you love, and separating yourself from them is like separating a part of your own history, too. is separating the art from the artist the best way to move forward, or the only way? constantly asking myself this and it differs with every artist i think about. thanks for the comment.
MJ is/was a tough one for me. I can't look past what he's done, but it would also be intellectually dishonest to say that I don't listen to his music. I'm not actively seeking it out, but if something like 'Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough' comes on, I'm not changing the channel.
That’s how I feel about Kanye at this point. I won’t deny that his run of albums from College Dropout to My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy are some of the most essential albums of the past two decades and hip-hop, but there’s nothing that makes me want to go out of my way to listen to them at this point.
I have "Gold Digger" on one of my playlists I listen to a lot, but that's only because it's one of the ten greatest pop songs ever made. Let's call it a guilty pleasure.
Kanye was a real tough one for me. I was a Kanye apologist all the way up to YE but he said and did things that just moved the needle too much for me to ever enjoy his music without thinking of all his errors of the past. Dark Fantasy is still one of the best albums of this century but I may never listen to it again and that sucks
Personally I try to avoid even hearing what artists have to say about controversial topics, cos to me that's not why they're a part of my life. It is about the art for me, and escaping the awful stuff in the world. I don't want to know what they think about politics or major issues, because that's completely missing the point of why I'm into them in the first place. And I want to think for myself, not be influenced by opinions from some celebrity who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about. I hold some fairly strong opinions that I don't form lightly, and if I avoided every artist who disagreed with me on something, I wouldn't have much music available. The difference for me is when their awful ideology seeps into their music or they've done or said something truly awful that you really just can't separate from their art, then I'm done. Otherwise, I don't want to know. I fully believe in freedom of speech, and along with that comes freedom to decide whose speech we want to give our attention to.
thanks for your thoughtful response! i appreciate the discourse. you are spot on about if the artist's personal opinions seep into the music, then it's a no go onwards. however, there's also the notion that the artist can continue to carry on harmful behavior or rhetoric by supporting them financially somehow, even if their "art" has nothing to do with it. if we disagree with every artist we support, there wouldn't be much music available - it's possible, but maybe that's the most difficult question we should be asking - why can't we expect more from the artists who choose to make their living from their public art?
I have asked this question for decades. Art is artifice. It is not the artist. Art is interpreted by the observer. If the artist is a shitty person whose views are reprehensible to you, but the art they produce affects you deeply...love the art, not the artist.
BTW, if you want theatrics, makeup, costumes, AND a great live performance that has a plot: ALICE COOPER!
love the notion that Art is artifice, but the artist continues to be supported by the art we support as well, so for me, it's difficult the separate the two since they benefit from it. however, compartmentalization is or can be a crucial aspect of survival in so many ways for us. a question to continuously ponder.
alice cooper has it all for sure too, but he's unfortunately of a similar camp as Paul Stanley. i just never liked his music as much as KISS's though: https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/alice-cooper-vampyre-cosmetics-collection-trans-comments-1235401594/
I'm not a big fan of Cooper, but he puts on a show.
I like The Clash.
'Art is artifice' is a great way to look at things.
I love KISS, but much of my enjoyment of them — and I've been a fan since the late '70s — derives from the knowledge (and acceptance) of how completely full of shit Gene and Paul are on so many levels. They're great performers, for sure, but I take it with a big grain of salt (and a bigger eye roll) every time they say they're doing something "for the fans," because profit is always the primary motivator. So while I didn't agree with Paul's garbled and ill-informed transgender comments, they also didn't alter my opinion of him or my enjoyment of the band in any way. If those down-punching comments had come from a musician I admired who'd actually spent his career championing the underdog and standing for meaningful things, like Joe Strummer or Billy Bragg, that would be a much different story.
THIS i absolutely empathize with, thanks for you comment, Dan. part of my enjoyment of the band has been from the layer of humor or side eye that i had for them. "the band belongs to the fan" was a line i scoffed at because Gene and Paul have always been the best marketers in music, better than actual musicians, too. someone i've been grappling with lately is Santana because his whole message has been about love and unity, but he said something really stupid about the trans community at a show. he always stood for meaningful things and so now i grapple with it.
Carlos is indeed someone who's stood for some really positive and meaningful things over the years; but he's also a born-again Christian, so I wasn't too surprised or shocked by his views. It just felt like one more disappointment from the Woodstock Generation, just another person who once flew the flag for peace, love and self-expression now advocating for hard limits on all of the above.
totally agree. it's just so disappointing for sure. i hope the public backlash has caused him to question his own views as well
When people are in the clouds famous, they have an invisible, or sometimes visible bubble around them. The bubble keeps them infantilized and in their own way, so for a man in his 70's who has been famous for 50 years and has been in a bubble will likely not have a nuanced answer about modern points of view, especially about trans issues. Whether it's religion, like Santana above, or tax brackets or plain ol' naivete and ignorance, I'm generally not surprised when someone that famous does or says something stupid, illegalities aside of course. Artists are also flawed humans and generally ones I wouldnt imagine I'd want to hang with. If their art (not their POV) makes me feel good, Im willing to give it a pass, illegalities aside. ;)
Totally hear you and appreciate the sentiment. There’s def an air of generational grace to give but it’s also tough when their audience soundingly responds in kind and that amplifies a distraught message. If you listen and enjoy but can separate the art from artist then that’s the best case for sure. Thanks for your thoughts!
Yea I'm just hoping the fans can think for themselves and not be sheep. But, sadly, I also know how people can be...it's a hard convo to have for sure. Also, bonus kudos on the Clare D book Monsters shout out
It would be a better world for sure. And thanks!
As a historian, I have been trained to analyze events and people objectively and not see a single event like an ill-timed remark as a way of discounting what has already been done. A person or band exists independently from their work and we should base our analysis with this in mind.
i agree with you to a degree. there are so many people who have had single events that should influence our perception of them because the act was so egregious. however, i think you're correct in that we do need to assess the full scope of a life and career to make a judgment and analysis of anyone.
Great question -- appreciate your thoughts, Kadrian. It's one I haven't had to address in a serious way, thankfully. I guess the closest I've come is The Replacements, as it's hard to listen to them after reading Bob Mehr's book about what complete miscreants they were. But I was already listening to them less often, as they don't speak to me in my 50s the way they did in my teens and 20s.
I think it depends on when I discovered an artist and how strongly I identify with them. My two favorite bands of all time are U2 and REM and while the music comes first, the views they express through their songs are important as well. I grew up with U2, having discovered them when I was freshman in high school, and they, REM, Peter Gabriel, and The Police/Sting taught me a lot about the world as I came of age. (Catholic schools in greater Cincinnati in the 1980s were not teaching about apartheid, Central America, and inequality.) If one of those guys came out as a Trumper or anti-trans, I'd be devastated.
On other hand, there's Miles Davis, whose music I love and who was a legendary jerk. But I didn't grow up with Miles and have never invested in his story other than his music, so his history doesn't bother me.
I recently commented on one of Kevin's notes about Ryan Adams -- he was an asshole the first time I saw him live with Whiskeytown (I also heard awful stories from one of his bandmates), so it was easy to tune him out from then on and I've never had a reason to give him a chance.
I didn't really answer your question except to say....it depends. ;-)
THIS! agree with all this - i think there is no answer except the answer that feels right for you as the individual person. art is subjective, and so is our relationships with the artists. i didn't know about The Replacements, but i'll have to dive further as I just began my relationship with them too.
i agree with Miles, too. it's not so much that his history doesn't bother me as much as i never cared for it too much so i have an easier time not supporting him or whose loathsome behavior. it does depend on every artist really.
I think "it depends" sums it up for me. It feels like a discussion that is always fluid & situational, with the calculus being different for each person.
Regardless of what particular artist you discuss here, I appreciated this honest and nuanced self/cultural examination. For me, the one artist I had to completely let go was R.Kelly, whose crimes and convictions far outweighed his musical contribution to my life and, I believe, the world’s. Thanks again for this important essay.
thank you so much for your kind words, Jeremy! i truly appreciate it. for each person, that's the choice to grapple with: do their crimes and CONVICTIONS outweigh their musical contribution? is the stain so large that you can't see the music?
That was a tough one for me too. I'm not the biggest R & B fan int he world, but some of his songs played a big role in various stages of my life.
I immediately thought of Eric Clapton when I saw the headline for this post... I won't listen to him anymore. When you have an influential voice, you should be careful with what your voice says. Thanks for the interesting read today, Kevin and Kadrian!
Yeah I thought of Clapton as well. It hasn’t hurt that I can’t stand most of his solo albums so not listening to him is less problematic. Cream though...
Totally!
Cream is a tougher one more because I have loved Ginger Baker, but thankfully, he's got some solo work and with Fela that makes it easier to not listen to Cream
thanks, jessica! completely agree on Clapton. it's really disappointing and the things he believes outweigh his musical contributions in my mind.
100%, and I really enjoyed your piece!
Thank you so much!
Me either, though to be fair, I lost interest in him once I learned how many of the songs of his I liked were JJ Cale covers.
I hadn’t heard about Stanley’s comments, which are unfortunate and ignorant at minimum. But you don’t even mention Gene Simmons’ decades-long misogyny and sexual harassment, which I find more problematic than Stanley’s recent comments. I know you can’t cover everything, but that feels like a huge omission.
thanks for your response, Steve! to be honest, i personally haven't dived into Simmons' past behaviors so i couldn't include them in the piece. i could only speak to my personal experience of following stanley on instagram and then seeing this post, and it made me start questioning. i am going to do some research on Simmons' though and perhaps it may inform my decision over how my relationship with the band continues now since there's another member at play. it's a subjective experience for sure.
I struggle with this a lot. As a woman, there's always problematic stuff one has to brush aside just to be in the world. My main rule now is that I don't give them money. No streams, no concerts, no purchases. But if I can get something out of the library, I will because that money was already spent and they don't see more from my library usage. It works for me.
thanks for your response, MK, and completely agree with the financial aspect of it. that's how i've been proceeding with a lot of artists, especially the ones whose music i own on vinyl currently but discover the behavior afterwards. i try to cut off the financial support because that continues to support the artist, but enjoying the music without that is a great suggested solve for this.
I like it.
Ah, we have struggled mightily with this issue over at Exile on Newbury St. We went through a murderer's row (not literally, mostly) of problematic artists from MJ to Roger Waters to Clapton to Van Morrison and so on. The problem with our social media addicted world is that rock stars have a platform to be instantaneously stupid without the benefit of a handler or a few hours of sobriety to stop them. (In old man voice) When I was a kid, we didn't know how horrible rock stars were unless they told us directly in Rolling Stone, Circus, Cream or one of the thousands of music magazines I read. Of course, if they released a song like "Christine Sixteen" the cards were pretty much on the table.
i think your notion of the social media world putting all of these behaviors on display in a public way is the biggest thing that is changing the discourse now. we are more aware of it all now and have to reconcile and question more and more. because it's a relatively new thing, there's no one true answer, but it should be a discourse that continues. thanks for your thoughtful response!
Fair point!
And back then (also in old man voice) things were different. A lot of behavior that would start a riot today was mostly brushed off or looked past. Not saying that was right, just saying that's how it was.
I think everyone's perception of KISS and their career as well as their ending and their avatars is dependent on when you became a fan.
I was 5 years old when I first saw them on TV - 1976. They have been a part of me for nearly all my life. They've done a lot of things that make me cringe over the years, I'm hoping the avatars will be the last...but I'm doubting it.
Haha they wouldn’t be KISS if they stopped at the avatars alone
Nice piece from Kadrian. I’ve been toying with writing a piece on this topic (problematic artists making great art) in 2024 but it’s a ton of research that I don’t really want to re-read. Kudos for the balanced opinion here.
Appreciate the kind words! It’s def takes a toll doing this type of piece but I’ll keep an eye out for when you do write it
KISS was definitely a Boomer band; I can't really think of anyone who can be called a "GenX band" that existed before 1980-81. They were a paragon example of what I've come ever more to believe about rock and roll - "it ain't what you do; it's how you do it". I've played their songs, in public and (more often) in semi-private jam sessions; and yeah, they aren't Paganini by any stretch, but they're good, solid rock songs with good "riffs" that are fun for musicians to play. Most of the people I know who are huge KISS fans are guitarists, now that I think about it; most of whose own music outdoes KISS and Ace in complexity and skill, but they love those riffs.
Anyhow.
The problem with listening to Boomer-era rock musicians is that, to the extent their wealth allows, they live in a world that is gone.
I don't know how to briefly summarize this, but there is still a "legacy structure" around them, of producers, writers, publicists, label reps, old-timers from radio and concert promotion, and all sorts of associated folks from "back in The Day". These are the only folks they talk to, play golf with, see at events, etc.; and this society has a habit of sealing the rest of the world off from them. In that group there are people with some pretty rancid views about the modern world, and those get passed around like gossip in a retirement home. Many of those views are also shared by their Boomer fans, whose flattery they still rely on for assurance of their cultural power and significance; and who form the outer layer of their "bubble". So when these musicians occasionally talk to the outside modern world, the common views and opinions of their bubble slip out, including the rancid ones, bc that's what "everyone they know" thinks. I think that's what happened with Paul; and the resulting collision with modern reality and lack of deference stung him badly. He and Gene have been surrounded by "yes men" so long that they've forgotten what "No" sounds like. It happens a lot, and it's why I particularly "separate art from artist" in cases like this.
Incredibly well said and great context for what may have happened here. I totally agree in this instance. Thanks for your thoughts!