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.