honestly I think there’s a certain point where separating the art from the artist is just not possible. not to say that you shouldn’t do it ever, but specific topics like artists being literal nazis, that’s where I draw the line. but, then again, if you are unable to handle listening to problematic artists, then why be in the metal scene, I suppose?

I will listen to music by scumbags of various types and as long as the music isn't about that I'm not overly worried. Though I make no claim to be totally consistent on that, some artists I may drop over something that I will give another a pass on.

But in the end I don't follow any of these people's lives enough to have much clue as to what they are like.

I generally separate. Most metal (actually, most music in general) is not in line with my moral views, but I haven't let that stop me from enjoying it for the last couple decades.

If you rejected every product because the person who made it might have views contrary to your own, you'd be in a very weird place. How do you know the person who manufactured your toothbrush doesn't hold some secret, heinous viewpoints? Yet by buying the toothbrush you are providing financial support so they can keep their job.

Where I draw the line: if my listening promotes clear and substantial support to something/someone I don't support, then I won't do it. Listening to a few tracks on Spotify or Youtube doesn't do much of anything even if it's "bad." Sharing and prominently displaying images with questionable symbols from album covers does.

Is their behavior so offensive that you do not want to support them monetarily in any way? Very few people fall into that category for me. You can always stream using a free Spotify account if that's the case. No money for them in that.

Don’t the bands get paid from ad revenue that way? If you stream on Spotify, the counter ticks.

They get a little. Most mid level artists are not getting much at all, especially if the royalties are split up among several people.

I think full separation of the two is impossible. Even works which have no obvious political value still tend to exist as products of a political system that reflect values of the artist in some way. To some extent, art is always something the artist seeks to bring into the world, even if the statement is as base as "my art has value because I made it". By its mere existence, by its positioning in the market, by the artistic choices made, all art is political, in the same way all identity is political.

But I think what we're really talking about is a bit more practical. So on that level, I think it's broadly fine that people don't spend time researching the personal politics and beliefs of everyone involved in every piece of media they consume. I think it's a bit odd to be a mega fan of a creator and not know anything about them, but... not everyone has the time for that sort of thing.

Where I raise an eyebrow is when people are fully aware of how shitty the people who produce art they like are, and continue to support them financially. I can genuinely say Phil Anselmo was a great vocalist and sure did put in some amazing performances, and I can still enjoy them... while also openly acknowledging he is a racist piece of shit and that I will never willingly give him a single cent again. The same is true for other artists who are racists, homophobes, murderers, abusers, sex offenders, Nazis, etc.? Yeah, no thanks, I want none of it and you don't get my support if I find out.

This is where identity comes in. If I was your stereotypical white dude metalhead who can always feel safe and welcome in the community, who will never be targeted or face discrimination in any significant way simply because of who they are and what they look like, then maybe it'd be easier for me. But since I'm not, I simply cannot and will not support people who actively want to take away the rights of me and my friends, or who would kill me if they thought they could get away with it.

And that's the thing I think so much of this "separate the art and artist" stuff fails to acknowledge. It's so easy to do it when you have nothing at stake.

I talked about the Manowar incident several years back to a friend who likes them after the news broke about Karl Logan's arrest. He said the only Manowar album that he liked that Karl Logan played on was the first one he was on, Louder than Hell. He didn't say whether or not he would still listen to it. I have interacted with others who listen to Manowar, and some say they still love the albums he didn't play on, but won't listen to the albums he played on any longer. Others seem to be okay with listening to them, since he was never the main songwriter (I think he had roughly around one studio album worth of co-writing credits during his time in the band). Had he been the main songwriter, then they might not.

One band that you didn't mention about sex offences was Sabaton, whose former guitarist was convicted of child molestation and possession of child pornography. He was not in the band anymore when that happened. I think I heard one person say they destroyed all of their Sabaton albums after it happened. Most people still seem to be okay with listening to those albums. However, it didn't seem to affect their careers at all, as Sabaton still plays in front of thousands in Europe, where they're superstars. He wasn't in Sabaton anymore when the crimes took place, and I doubt the band knew. I assume that you didn't mention them because maybe you don't listen to them. I don't listen to Sabaton, either, but the verdict most people who listen to them have was that they could separate art from the artist, since he wasn't in a significant songwriting role (he played on five albums, and only had input in about three songs or something like that).

On the other side of the coin, Lostprophets are seen as being extremely taboo to still listen to amongst the 2000s-era alternative rock community. The vast majority of people refuse to listen to them. The verdict from the 2000s alternative rock community was that it was wrong to still listen to them because the member who committed the horrendous crimes was the vocalist and the main songwriter (he had songwriting credits in all but two Lostprophets songs).

Gary Glitter falls in the same boat. He was the co-writer on most of his songs, and he was a solo artist. Had Gary Glitter not been a pedophile, and someone in his backing band had been the pedophile, he might not be considered a hate figure in the UK, and his songs might still get airplay there (he only had one major hit in North America). In terms of other solo artists, John Mellencamp had a band member in the 1980s who would be convicted of child molestation many years later. He played on two of John Mellencamp's albums, including American Fool, the biggest album of Mellencamp's career. The songs from that album continue to get airplay over 40 years later. However, again, the pedophile didn't commit the crimes that we know he committed until years after he was out of Mellencamp's band, and I doubt Mellencamp himself knew anything at the time. Plus, the child molester didn't have any songwriting input.

I remember mentioning the death metal band Pyrexia, whose former vocalist committed a multiple homicide, and was sentenced to life in prison, in a thread earlier this year. He was the vocalist on two albums. Pyrexia have continued without him. I don't know whether or not the murderer had a hand in the songwriting on those albums. Also, I don't know if Pyrexia plays songs from those albums live or not after his conviction of murder. I'd understand it if they didn't if he had written them. But either way, if the murderer didn't write anything, I think deleting the recordings he was on and re-recording those albums with their current vocalist would be a good idea.

So I guess separating the art from the artist depends on the horrible person's role in the band for most people.

Another extreme example of this is probably Michael Jackson. The guy was one of the most fucked up pedophiles than mankind has ever seen. But he is still the king of pop and the most relevant musician of pop culture of the XX century, by far.

I don't know what to think of that, I saw Leaving Neverland, I couldn't finish it, it's too gross and fucked up. But I still think that Thriller, Bad, Off the Wall and Dangerous are amazing albums and classics of pop music.

So, in a personal answer, yes, I can still enjoy those songs and albums, but I can understand that someone else can't and doesn't like to play any MJ songs.

I cannot listen to any Malevolent Creation albums because of that song alone. Why they still got generally accepted by the death metal community after putting that song out is beyond me.

One of Encyclopaedia Metallum's favorite topics.

Man I didn't know this was that bad, that song is really racist. And it's from their fourth album, not their first one.

This is what I could find about that.

Pretty much this. We as a forum have been over this many times, and this is generally how I feel.

I like Filosofem. I'm not a huge Burzum fan or anything, but the fact is Burzum isn't NSBM. Varg might be an asshole, he might be a nazi, he might be generally a scum bag...but what, at least on this album, is nationalist socialist? Nothing as far as I'm aware.

I don't sport a Burzum patch on my vest, but I'm also not going to feel guilty about giving Filosofem an occasional spin.

I can also almost guarantee I have some so called "sketchy" bands in my collection...I only speak English unfortunately so if the lyrics are any other language I'm not going to catch it and I don't care enough to have every lyric translated so I can get approval from the internet.

I've also asked the question a few times about other media formats. In fact, I watched the Hateful Eight last night. Guess who the executive producer was...are we going to hold ourselves to the same standards of sketchiness when it comes to TV and movies?
I also hope nobody drives a Volkswagen.

You gotta draw that line yourself OP, and be able to look yourself in the mirror.


EDIT- FWIW, I also loathe communists but discovered that I had some extreme left/communist/RABM metal in my collection too. Doesn't really bother me and I still listen to it.

That sounds like such bullshit though. They saw him bringing in a song with a slur in it, rehearsed it together, did several takes of it probably, then released the album with said slur printed in the lyrics sheet, and they did nothing?

Yeah I think the same, I didn't know all of this about Malevolent Creation and I have always dig their first album. But that Blachowicz guy looks really bad, like a full-on real racist. The song is straight up shitposty, it sounds like something a basement dweller 4channer would write in /b/.

I think Karl Logan is a piece of trash but his guitar solos and overall work on Louder Than Hell sound great.

I think it depends on the genre and in this case in Black M or some other metal subgenre, I feel that the artist cannot be separated from the music, since it is always linked to the ideology of the author and the same history/biography of the artist. All Black M bands write and are inspired by their lives and let's face it, most have struggled with depression, anxiety, among other mental problems, and have managed to express their experiences in their music, so their lyrics are very intimate and personal, unlike other pop or even Glam artists, who talk more about girls, excesses, substances, etc; In Black it is usually an internal struggle and with others, they are always very honest talking about what they are against and therefore, they emphasize those issues in a very brutal and violent way but this does not mean that they are different from comic artists, for example, that they must exaggerate certain traits or characteristics of their characters to clarify their ideologies, it is a very simple example but I think it works for its straightforward understanding.

Also, [b]we must take into account that the objective of these bands is to provoke, as I mentioned before, but those provocations should not be taken seriously[/b], for example, Carpathian Forest, and they themselves have clarified it, because it is only artistic expression, controversial and out of the ordinary, in addition, a social complaint is always dedicated to specific groups, such as Christians, Catholics, minorities, in general, humans, and it is not to completely denigrate these groups, but rather, a criticism of their roots, beliefs , regulations, fanaticism, fascisms, morals and what they represent or unfortunate historical events of certain cultures such as indoctrination and injustices, characterizing themselves as these groups and in their lyrics being completely evil and sadistic.

That said, I do not deny that there are bands with very Neo-Nazi ideology and that many of these are racist, they do demean women, they denigrate minorities, and they tend to have a closed mind, but equally, [b]it should not be taken seriously that hatred[/b], but rather, as a radical ideology that we do not have to agree with if we do not want to, because not even those bands commit those types of crimes, of course, except for you know who, but in itself, it is the grotesque and audacity that they declare what [u]we should truly listen[/u] to and without thinking about it, attracts us, but not because we empathize with their hatred, but, with that [b]anger[/b] and how these bands [b]dare to be honest [/b] and express themselves as they please without worrying over any consequence and I think, that although most of us do not know how to express it, we like that honesty, because I believe that we have the ability to empathize with those around us, and we are aware that honesty is not something that is seen in all people, [u]including us[/u].

That's a bit of a weird example I'd say. The fact that someone is unable to fully comprehend the lyrics, or comprehend them to an extent (nuances and so on), doesn't meant at all there is nothing to understand. This only goes to show there are difficulties and obstacles for certain people to fully engage with the music.

And yeah, I count myself among those in some instances. It's not related at all to this topic, but I'm a big fan of Iceland's Carpe Noctem, and of course I've been google translating their lyrics. It's completely accurate to say I am at least a couple of steps removed from any real understanding though.

On the flip side, I'd say I absolutely do have a better, more comprehensive grasp of the music made by The Stone (Serbia). At one point, they upped their game in the lyrics department significantly, and they are an important part of the music, enhancing it even. I've tried seeing what a non-ex-Yu speaker would get when using GT, and it was laughable unfortunately.

I separate the art from the artist. If I don't like an artist's political stance AT ALL but I appreciate their music, I steal their albums from illegal sources and don't talk about the artist anywhere. This way I "separated" (stole) the art from the artist and the assholes don't get money OR exposure. Lol.

What I find much more relevant is the question of whether great art can be made by bad people. Suppose it can't, and great art can only be made by good people, that would seem like a very one-eyed and reductive view of art.

why would it bother you? do people get offended at lyrics about workers rights or criticism of American imperialism or something? It's not at all similar to listening to NSBM, the discomfort with NSBM is the bigotry, which is not a trait of RABM. What a weird thing to conflate.

Do what you feel is best based on your own morals, ethics and beliefs. I separate art from artist to a certain point, thats based on my own morals and ethics. I dont actively seek out lyrics to extreme metal so im sure im missing some sketchy shit, but life is short enough and I dont have time to check all lyrics and all backgrounds of people associated are. That is, quite frankly, exhausting, but well known groups and artists whos beliefs i am aware of, or who someone points them out to me, I will decide myself upon separating or not.

A lot of people get hilariously mad at leftism existing at all and then pretend they're "apolitical" or that their interest in racist stuff is entirely for the riffs.

It's always absurd to me when people will just cut out everything except the status quo American capitalism. NSBM is a whole other world from just a regular political ideology. I guess communism used to have different connotations, but it should be obvious what a lot of people today mean by it...

I mean, it seems pretty self-evident that terrible people can make great art. But that doesn't mean the art should stand free from critique or be something we preserve for all time.

The go-to example from film school 101 is Birth of a Nation - it was the first film that pioneered many fundamental cinematic techniques. It is often, to this day, considered required viewing for any film student. But, it is also flagrantly racist and venerates the KKK as heroes. Even if you want to play the "it was a different time" card, it's hard to overlook what the film's message is.

While many works are important in some way, whether for their sheer scope of human accomplishment, technological innovation, artistic beauty or historic value, it's also pretty obvious that being tied to awful people or ideologies can tarnish and even invalidate a work's social and cultural importance. It doesn't behoove us to venerate such works or preserve them forever - see also Confederate statues, which may have some historic importance, but are plainly products of a fundamentally reprehensible worldview, and many were made to help retroactively justify atrocities.

In other words, no, you do not in fact gotta hand it to the Nazis that they had great fashion sense, because they were still fucking Nazis.

Of course you can separate these things.

What you can't do is lie to yourself about what you're doing - the exercise of it.

Critically engaging with art is healthy.

I'm curious - are there many people who specifically identify as communists these days? Someone can correct me if I'm badly off, but the picture I happen to have in my head looks like:

(1) Marx used the term "communism" to refer to the stage of societal evolution that he predicted would emerge from socialism, once the socialists' ways of doing things - i.e., egalitarianism, democracy, public ownership of the means of production - had become so ingrained and automatic that the formal governmental apparatus became unnecessary and "withered away." (And socialism itself had previously emerged from capitalism, once the basic animating forces of capitalism had brought about its inevitable collapse.)

(2) But historically, after Marx, there emerged these systematically murderous, tyrannical regimes which happened to call themselves "communist" despite their practices being violently opposed to the spirit of Marxian communism. And for a while (and still today to a large extent), the term "communism" came to be popularly used in this sense (rather than Marx's), to describe anything resembling the views and practices of these oppressive regimes.

I'm not sure how accurate this picture is, it's just what I've happened to cobble together from various conversations over the years, but anyway, I think it's pretty uncommon for the various sorts of leftist/socialist/Marxist/Marx-sympathizer etc. to actually label themselves "communist" these days - probably because of the confusion created by (2).

[Edit: bad phrasing, typo]

I have no problem identifying myself as a Communist, if people who have never read Marx in their lives want to pejoratively associate me with Stalin or Pol Pot that's their problem, not mine.

I know plenty of people who identify that way... or at least have vague beliefs to the general tune the other guy was talking about, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, pro-worker, pro-union, I'd say all those things describe me even if I don't really like to put one specific label on my actual political beliefs.

It's not just about "views contrary to your own". Like, I don't give a shit if musicians I like are Christians, Muslims, a little further on the right or a little further on the left of the political spectrum. That's never the point. The point is about supporting people who have very problematic views or did very problematic things.



This is entirely beside the point, and 100% a non sequitur argument. Nobody can be expected to know every single thing about every single artist they like, or to know every single thing about every single product they buy. That's just not possible. This simply cannot be compared to someone who actually knows that a musician they like has committed sexual crimes or holds racist positions, and decides to purposefuly dedides to ignore this to keep supporting said musician. These are two entirely different things that you simply can't compare.



I really wish people would stop saying this, because this is just plain not true. Most bands I know don't have shady and/or shitty people in their ranks. I just pulled up my top 20 metal bands I listened to during the last year on last fm. Please, find dirt on these bands for me: Sulphur Aeon, King Gizzard & The Lizard Wizard, Bolt Thrower, Fulci, Frozen Soul, Blut Aus Nord, Carcass, Caligula's Horse, Ahab, Ebony Pendant, Panopticon, Napalm Death, Voivod, Blood Incantation, Kalmah, Death, Nile, Ad Nauseam (the drummer was in some nsbm band when he was 16, has since apologized and said he didn't support these views), Blackbraid (leader was drunk at a festival once and picked a fight with security, not looking great, but nothing to write the band off about), Blood Red Throne. If you can find something truly problematic about these bands, let me know. And I'm talking about something really bad, not some guitar player being a bit of a jerk, or the drummer of another band clogging the toilets of some venue or whatever.

I understand your frustration with that statement. It seems to dismiss legitimate concerns about artists' behavior and suggests a false equivalence that all artists are problematic. One of those "you can't have genius without insanity" shallow arguments. Holding artists accountable for their actions is important because it sets a standard and discourages harmful behavior.

Ignoring or excusing harmful behavior can be hurtful to victims and marginalized groups. Most metal fans used to be largely white, Western, hetero, male - all the markers that make life relatively easier compared to those that are not. If you are not part of a marginalized group, you rarely understand how inequality and injustice bite, except from a theoretical appreciation. Marginalized groups do not need to go to university to know they were fundamentally fucked from the get.

As a black man in America who is part of a metal community where some bands spew hateful rhetoric not unlike that of political actors, I have learned to critically analyze (and appreciate) the inherent complexity celebrities and artists possess. Separating the art from the artist becomes then an exercise in critical assessment than anything definitive.

This video, although it doesn't deal with metal, touches on the broader subject of not thinking of these people as saviors or standards for behavior:

At the end of the day it's important to make sure active, live scenes for art are kept free of predators and dangerous people. At the same time it's thorny when you learn things about people whose art you already like years or decades after the fact, and that's just a conversation that will never really be easily put into a box. I don't know that it will ever have a satisfactory answer across the board for every case.

Like yeah if they're doing harm, then fuck it, make sure they're barred from everywhere from now on... that said, if I have the albums and like them, pretending I don't like them anymore is just sort of pointless and self-serving.

I don't want this to devolve into politics here, but personally I find the fact that more people have died in the name of communism than to fascism one reason why I would find it just as distasteful. I loathe authoritarian politics, and both fascism and communism fall into that category.
Reading the above comments I'll address a few things I've heard/read/whatever when discussing this with self professed communists.
- they either defend authoritarian regimes or claim it wasn't "real communism" which I agree with, as real communism is a fantasy.
- they can never explain exactly how they want to institute their communist ideal without employing a bunch of men with guns will take by force from whatever group finds themselves unlucky enough to be in the Kulak's shoes.
- yes, when someone is a self professed communist I do indeed lump them in with other self professed communists that came before, like Stalin and Pol Pot. I do the same with fascists. Seems fair.
-You can criticise American *anything* and be for workers rights without being a communist.

Apologies for the political discussion, just answering a question.

It is pretty much INACCURATE. Marx was amongst the first people in the modern history to openly call for genocide of the awkward societies/nations. To add fuel to that fire, he also theorized the CLASS STRUGGLE which created that vortex with catastrophic results for hundreds of millions. Yes, Marx himself with it's "humane theory". Only that he didn't lived to see what his followers did. So please, stop calling communism "a good theory with a distorted reality".

Yeah, I mean for me it goes beyond criticizing America and into just being against the capitalistic, warlike ideology that defines the whole country - I'm fundamentally not for any of it. As to the point about never being able to explain how to implement things, I'm just trying to do whatever I can to advocate for workers and against war and wealth hoarding any time I can. It's difficult to really enact change, a lot of it ends up being pretty incremental at the end of the day - and you just do whatever you can to hopefully uplift people. I've done petitions, turned up for protests and marches, supported various candidates at various levels, I dunno. I think where I was against this whole argument was just the implication that we all have to just buy into what I see as American propaganda and all that rah-rah patriotic bullshit I hate. I get what you're saying about communism as a historic thing but I don't know what else you'd call my beliefs... certainly not anything remotely capitalist or moderate. And in general I'd rather read bands with that kind of ideology over a bunch of racist, fascist stuff, which is all I was objecting to.

Communism, as an ideology, is not racist and hateful, while Nazism and white supremacism are. And if you dig around most RABM, the themes are, like werewolfgraveyard said, about workers rights, fighting capitalism, imperialism and neonazism and whatnot, and basically never in favor of Stalinism or Maoism.

Like Defenestrated said, the marxian communist ideals, and anarcho-communist ideals are at the polar opposite of what happened under the regimes of Mao and Stalin. Whether you believe that communism will always devolve into authoritariasm is your own opinion, and it's fine if that's what you think, but like I said, most RABM bands don't celebrate the authoritarian side of communism, so it is a weird conflation to compare these bands to NSBM bands, as they have basically nothing in common.

But hey, if there are Stalinist bands, I will hate them just as much as any NSBM band, believe me.

On your last point, fair enough.

On the earlier point about it being my opinion- it's not though. Unless you're talking about a small commune living with all like minded people (which I have zero issues with) the ONLY way to implement communism is through violence and authoritarianism. This is why despite people claiming to be peaceful communists it really never resonates for me. It requires violence, even if some want to only sing/talk about the utopian side of things.

Simply put, you have farmers who own large swaths of land and grow a lot of crops. You have a guy who owns a factory and employs workers, or a guy who owns a few houses and rents them.
The government says "those are mine now" and the owners say "no".

What then? There's only one answer, and it requires a strong central government who employ men with guns- and once that government has the power to take things from people they will never give it up.

If you told me that with no other context I wouldn't personally consider you to be a communist.


ETA- I realize I'm in the minority in the metal scene when it comes to politics (no, I'm NOT MAGA if anyone is wondering) but it I always find it odd that fascists are universally loathed (as they should be) but communists get a pass. I totally get the IDEALS are totally different, and that's fair, but at the end of the day the implementation is just as violent and authoritarianism...IMO being based on "good intentions" rather than "master race" nonsense really makes little difference when the camps are just as full.

Yeah but the violence of capitalism - leaving people to die on the streets without homes while a bunch of faceless companies hoard the housing, turning people away from medical care, bottoming out their safety net if they don't have a job - is still violence too even if it's not like the authoritarian regimes of decades past. That's every bit as vile as these old governments you're referencing, and doesn't deserve any respect either. And that's what America embodies to me.

Like in your example - under capitalism, the guy who owns the factory can fire you whenever and then you and your family don't have health care. The landlord can kick you out for no reason and then you're on the streets.

Ideology is ideology, but there's not really any way to say this is justifiable.

I strongly disagree with all of this, and like Defenestrated said, the Marxian Communist ideal just never existed, and most of what we have experienced as "communist" regimes were never communist to begin with and were lead by a oligarchy of a few people controlling everything. The few times there were actual socialist regimes being built, they were destroyed in violent repression, like the Prague Spring showed us.

Anyway, this is entirely beside the point, because there is simply no equivalence between rabm bands singing about an egalitarian utopia where the workers are free and own the means of production versus an nsbm band singing about committing genocide on all the jews. The whole "Yeah but communism doesn't work" argument is completely, 100% beside the point. Again, if we were talking about bands who sing about how great the Cultural Revolution in China was because they killed a bunch of people, then it would be an entirely different discussion. But it's not like that.



That's because you keep comparing Nazism with Maoism/Stalinism, while RABM bands don't support these. Again, if you want to debate whether communism actually works or not it's fine, but it's entirely beside the point, as these far-left bands we are talking about just aren't celebrating the "real life failed attempts of communism", they are celebrating an ideal. And when you compare the nazi ideal and the communist ideal, one is CLEARLY about genocide and a master race, while the other isn't.

Idea versus execution are two very diffrent things.



Also all of this is true.