In recent years, there has been a sharp incline in “cancel culture” where public figures deemed to have behaved in an inappropriate, illegal or immoral manner are ostracised by social media.
Naturally this involves musicians as well, and over the years we have seen many artists successfully cancelled, such as Kanye West and (for a while) Rex Orange County. It’s only natural that people can feel distanced from artists they like after they do something immoral, illegal or simply questionable, but should the appreciation of their art be denied simply because of this?
I think a lot of people feel pressured by their peers or on social media to shun the work of artists deemed cancelled – sometimes this is more than acceptable, some artists have definitely behaved in a way that makes them completely irredeemable (Ian Watkins of lostprophets being a classic example of this) and this can make their work near impossible to enjoy.
It seems as though a lot of the cancelling of artists depends on the recency of their controversy. It’s much rarer that you’ll see people bringing up the misdeeds of the likes of Pete Townsend, Antony Kiedis or David Bowie, compared to artists cancelled more recently, like Arcade Fire or Kanye. In this sense I think that it is less about separating the art from the artist, and more just the short attention span of people, the former list being from a time where sex with underage girls was just part of the accepted life of the rockstar.
While not a musician, J K Rowling is a brilliant example of the art being separated from the artist, as the Harry Potter fandom remains strong today, possibly more than ever, yet due to her transphobic views posted online many fans simply deny her involvement in the world she created.
Music, however, is different to books, as with story telling the reader can create an attachment with the characters and not the author. Music is often a lot more personal; artists draw on their own personal life experiences for song lyrics, and people can resonate with songs and subsequently feel a greater emotional connection to the creator of the music.
I think that failing to separate the art from the artist can cause issues for fans, who may feel uncomfortable with the fact that they can relate to someone who can act in ways that alienate them. Despite this, I also think that separating the art from the artist is necessary in some cases.
Some music is simply too good to not be enjoyed, and connections to certain bands and songs can come from completely personal places, like experiences and memories. In this case, the listener should not be punished or shamed for continuing to support a cancelled artist, and instead be allowed to listen at will, and think what they want about the person behind it.
At the end of the day, cancelling is not a real thing. The misdeeds of a band member do not delete their back catalogue, and it is not removed from existence. If you take no mind in what people online have to say about your music taste and think what you want, you can listen to whatever you want and not feel bad.
The opinions of others shouldn’t affect your taste, and people should be free to deal with the controversy surrounding their favourite artist in whatever way they feel fit, without being shamed by those who see fit to push their own morals on others.
Image credit: Unsplash
