Accountability in Music • Page 197

I'm of the opinion that real change is going to come from 1) holding artists accountable for who they choose to associate with and 2) forgiving when a genuine apology is offered and a clear effort is made on the part of said artist to make amends/not make excuses for their actions. This also means we assess situations individually sometimes, because some situations are different than others. Some apologies could be entirely genuine and not mean a damn thing because what the artist did was so egregious and past the point of being justified in any way. Because Lady Gaga has done so much for many marginalized communities, and is herself a victim of sexual assault, there are a lot of conflating issues here which may make some more willing to forgive. And I think that people on both sides here, those that find her apology hard to swallow, and those willing to forgive her, are valid in this case.

That being said - I am not a victim of sexual assault or abuse and so I am not one to tell anybody who has experienced something so horrific how they should feel about it. I know Lady Gaga has dealt with this and I have seen first hand in some of my friends how sexual assault/abuse can alter the perception of the abused and often lead them into a cycle of abuse and the oppression of rationality when confronted with those that abuse. So from this outside perspective and given the other issues I discussed above I am willing to see where Lady Gaga is coming from on this.

I am open to hearing people out on this so please engage me where you feel like I may not have the right idea about something.

 

great piece by pitchfork publication!

How Do We Live With Music Made by Problematic Artists? | Pitchfork

 

I remember thinking in 2013 that Do What U Want was a weird collab (and even back then I knew their AMA performance was remarkably out of touch considering Kelly’s reputation) but I also think Gaga has shown her true colors many times since. I don’t doubt the sincerity of her apology.

((Also the Xtina version of Do What U Want is still on Apple Music and it’s always been better anyway!))

 

My friend showed me the really cringey video interview of R kelly and huffington post that went around a while back
And one part of it really resonated with me.
she was confronting him about his past and how it makes some people not be able to take his work at face value due to the things of his personal life
He said something along the lines of: “you’re talking about my job here. The only ‘boss’ I have is my fans. I go out there and go on stage and it’s a sold out show. My boss clearly is still happy with me. Until my boss says otherwise and when I play a show every person is booing me, then I still have my job so I’m going to keep showing up and going to work”

It just became so clear that that’s really how he (and probably most predators) see these things. It doesn’t matter what Twitter is saying or what the “general population” is saying and reporting about him. As long as he’s able to sell albums and tickets, he’s going to keep doing it and his label etc is going to keep allowing him to.

Of course that’s why I do think it’s up to labels and venues/promoters to put their foot down and refuse to host him. But obviously money comes before all else so as long as he is bringing in money they are going to allow it.

I also don’t want this to be taken that I’m exclusively blaming the fans either. I think the whole ‘who you support’ thing is very complex.
But all of these things obviously work together and provide a culture that still has R kelly working and feeling like he has nothing to apologize for.

 

I wish she'd upload the solo version in its place. Do What U Want is Gaga's best song and while Kelly does a good job on it, he's replaceable enough. The Christina version isn't as good as either of them, though.

 

What value does praising, at all, R. Kelly's version of the song bring to this thread?

 

I think the solo version is better than the Kelly version. I was trying to promote a healthy alternative to the original for those who think the song's good but are hesitant to listen to it because of Kelly.

 

Couldn't that have been accomplished without these additions?

 

You're right. The first remark was just me rehashing the consensus belief while the second was me stating how why Aguilera version was an inadequate substitute, making the solo version more necessary to promote. But yes, the point could have made without those parts.

 

Gaga's statement was frustrating to me because she knew of the allegations and didn't believe them. She compared herself to him and brought up the untrue things that are said about them. To me that mindset highlights the issue of those in power. They stick together and protect each other. She also worked with Terry on that video which she didn't mention in her apology. I think she's truthful in that she wanted to shock but she misjudged. Her whole thing in the beginning was shock and pushing boundaries and as she wasn't matching the success of previous eras I think she just tried to top her own controversy and failed, but that the idea most likely did come from her own trauma. I empathize with her processing of trauma as a survivor myself, but as a survivor I have a difficult time with the fact that the way Gaga processed that was at the expense of other survivors, especially black women. Gaga contributed to the culture that dismisses black victims and survivors and and protects abusers in power. I appreciate her efforts now, but at the same time I'm wrestling with her apology and find that I can't fully praise or condemn her. I just hope she does better going forward.

 

R. Kelly Dropped by Sony Music

Looks like they'll still (presumably) make money off his back catalog but won't release new music from him.

 

^^ How brave, now that popular opinion is in their favor!

 

This may indicate that some sort of serious legal action is imminent against R. Kelly because that would give Sony a lot more reason to say they have a right to break the contract. Kelly might also be better off getting out of the contact so he wouldn't have to argue with Sony that he should remain in the contract if he is about to face charges or work out some civil settlement which Sony could find out about. Civil cases are in general something that can be searched for in public records though details may be kept sealed from the public.

He's also not been doing as well in recent years in releasing records and touring as he was doing 10-20 years ago, which may be another reason Sony would want to drop him, though I don't know what their objectives or expectations were where that's concerned.

 

I don’t think Sony/RCA would be too worried about a legal challenge from R. Kelly. There’s likely a “morals clause” in the contract, something like:

“If, at any time during the Term, in the opinion of Company, Artist becomes the subject of public disrepute, contempt, or scandal that affects Artist's image or goodwill, then Company may, upon written notice to Artist, immediately suspend or terminate this Agreement and Artist's services hereunder, in addition to any other rights and remedies that Company may have hereunder or at law or in equity.”

A legal challenge would also expose him to discovery which could make a lot of these things come out (even more) and be an official part of the public record.

They also likely allowed him to release some things independently to establish that his damages are non-existent or less than he otherwise would claim, i.e. that he’s still able to release music and make money without them.

 

...if that last bit is true, I'm going to scream from the (unrelated but) horrendous irony that an established predator would've been given more freedom in his "punishment" than Sony gave Kesha when she requested release to save her FROM an ~alleged~ predator.

Like, I understand that the situations are vastly different, in case anyone feels inspired to explain that to me - please don't. I'm still going to be over here internally yelling about the irony.

 

Found the lawyer.

 

Bingo! Too many people are saying "He's done" when he has a combined 10 million monthly listeners on Spotify and Apple Music. He can self-release his next album, and it will debut in the top 10 like his other records. His last proper album peaked at 16, but I'm certain all of this news will probably bring his fans out in droves to buy his new album on day one, giving it a number one push. As long as people are still willing to buy his music or buy tickets to see him perform, R. Kelly isn't "canceled". That's just the harsh reality of things. I wouldn't be surprised if some other major label picked him up.

 

Sorry if it doesn't start at 23:05 but in a genre where accountability is lacking (maybe pop punk is guiltier but still), this is refreshing:

 

Thanks for making that point, TerrancePryor, I'd only disagree about the last sentence where you said another major label might pick him up. Yes, another major label might want to pick him up, but I don't think he needs a major label or any particular label at all. He might be better off with only management and PR running his business, if like many musicians most of his income stream is going to come from streaming, concerts, and marketing himself like an influencer rather than selling albums and singles.

Thanks, KidLightning, especially for referencing that contractual language But what does that mean for an artist like R. Kelly, who when he signed to Sony (2012) had already amassed a history of twenty years of behavior that might incite "disrepute, contempt, or scandal" -- he's not an artist who aspired to be a member of the New Kids on the Block or Boyz II Men, he's one for whom scandal adds to his value, even when he denies it, like when he calls himself "The Pied Piper of R&B" ( Why R. Kelly Calls Himself “the Pied Piper of R&B” )?

2012 was ten years after he had charges filed against him for child pornography and four years after those charges were dropped ( R. Kelly - Wikipedia ). I don't think anything has come out against Kelly since 2012 that is clearly more damaging than has come out before that, and the language of a morality clause holds an artist accountable for past behavior, not to changing views that society may have of their misconduct.

Assuming Sony knew nothing more about R. Kelly than was in the mainstream news media and (credible) music industry and fan media, what would it take for R. Kelly to violate a morality clause like that? It shouldn't just be an outright conviction on some charge, because the purpose of a morality clause is the assumption that an artist and label, etc, has a reputation to uphold, and reputations can be damaged by allegations, not just convictions.

 

and that is (one reason) why he’s been getting away with it for so long. celebs with a platform defending/excusing him.

 

People look really stupid when they think they've caught someone not being ideologically consitant. "Oh so you breath air but I see you take a second between each breath. Strange, huh".

 

Idk if I only started noticing recently but Erykah Badu seems like... really far out? Most of what she's said publically the last few years is weird/crazy ramblings, as exemplified by her tweet there which might actually be the most galaxy brain take on abuse I've ever read

 

For Spotify users that wish to block certain artists/bands: New Spotify Feature Allows You to Mute Artists | Pitchfork