Artists' personal lives-public latitude

Subject: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: gnu
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 04:08 PM

Now, I know this is VERY controversial. Please don't dismiss this or make this thread entirely about the protagonists I proffer as examples.

I see Ashley MacIsaac is (trying) making a comeback. I always contendnded that he said what he said to that New York music critic with tongue in cheek... just an irreverent lad in the big city, pissed off at the music business in general. He nearly lost everything, along with any respect, whether or not what he said was true or whether it was "shock value". He continued his downfall for whatever reason... perhaps youthful stupidity emboldened by irreverence and rebellion.

My question is, should an artist's contributions to art be disregarded, discarded, because of aberrant behaviour outside the art? That is, must they be a role model? I ask this in light of such as Alice Cooper's art, Warren Zevon's art, and others.... whose art may be considered aberrant, but are somehow lauded, because such aberrance is within the art?

I know it's a fine line, but one worth pondering, I think. No?

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 04:38 PM

Well g, an artist should always be appreciated for their art first and foremost, but, along with taking the applause and the bucks from your fans, there comes some responsibility.
People like Alice Cooper arrive as a fully fledged oddball, so they have an easier ride.
Anyway, to spread the net a bit further, isn't it beholden to us all to set a good example if we possibly can?
JM

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: Jack Campin
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 04:51 PM

He simply expressed an opinion that makes a lot of Americans suddenly disregard their professed belief in freedom of speech, as I understand it. His career was doing fine last I heard anyway - I saw him about three years ago touring with an Irish stepdancer, which was well after the witchhunt started, playing to a full house.

If you want to blacklist somebody, start with fascists. The silence from that Alaskan guy about what he actually believes (apart from boosterism on behalf of criminally corrupt local politicos) speaks for itself.

The folk scene could do with more high-profile performers with louche lifestyles. Collective tight-arsed uprightness just puts the punters off.

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 04:58 PM

There is, for good or ill, going to be a weighing process in the public's minds. And basically that's what will be weighed, consciously or unconsciously, but inevitably:

How significant is the work of this person? Over how long? With what benefits (if any) to the society?

How, if at all, has (s)he transgressed? And how far "outside the pale" has (s)he gone? What, if any, damage has his/her transgression done to the society?

Those (any possibly other) factors will be in the mind of anyone who deals with the life, works, and status of John Doe, (possibly fallen) Artist. The questions in most cases won't be asked quite in the way I said in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, but those matters will be dealt with as influences.

Depending on how each onlooker balances those matters, John Doe may be trashed beyond recall, or may suffer a setback in his career (which he may be able to recover from later), or may actually be "let off" in the court of public opinion. The artist's contributions to his art and to society will be considered, and they may be enough to "get him off", or at least leave him in a position from which he may recover.

A look at Michael Jackson and his progressive alleged misdeeds versus the undoubted excellence of his earlier work is may be instructive.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 05:15 PM

Well, I must admit that my first reaction was "who?".

A quick browse at Wikipedia and my reaction was "so what"?

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: M.Ted
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 05:30 PM

I knew Alice Cooper during the time that the band was starting out, and you'd be pretty surprised by the guy behind the make-up--politcally and socially conservative, liked to golf, in many ways, a typical businessman whose focus was to be as successful as possible, except that his business was selling records and concert tickets.

Most all of the people I know who play and perform for a living are very careful about what they do and say. They know that at the end of the day, the show is the most important thing, and they realize that they have to be on good terms with everyone involve in making the show happen.

Someone who is"just an irreverent lad in the big city, pissed off at the music business in general." won't last long, because they make venting anger more important that their work.

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: semi-submersible
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 06:27 PM

The product - art - is one thing; the attitude toward the artist is another. I doubt the weighing process is so rational in most of us, Uncle DaveO.

As an audience not a performer, I think the first stage is when an image or sound evokes a reaction in me (positive, negative, puzzled, or whatever) "touching" me enough to attract my attention. Otherwise, I swiftly forget this artist's offering if I notice it at all.

Second, I unconsciously weigh the comfort I feel about the source of this impression. I'm not appraising the work or the performer, so much as, again, my inner response to that work or person. If I'm prejudiced against some of the sound combinations or facial features, for instance, then the product has to touch me much more intensely, to keep my attention, than it would if I found the performer attractive or had a bias toward this particular style. (So if I were a white person enjoying Elvis more than I enjoyed non-white performers of the same songs, it might be because my prejudices made me subtly uncomfortable around "Them" despite the quality of their work.)

Finally, as I invest time and attention on a work of art, I start to shift my preferences as I begin to appreciate it more. I find reasons to like it, and I notice more about it. I grow. This is the only semi-rational part of the process.

But that's just my experience.

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 08:52 PM

Semi-Submersible said:

The product - art - is one thing; the attitude toward the artist is another. I doubt the weighing process is so rational in most of us, Uncle DaveO.

I specifically said that "The questions in most cases won't be asked quite in the way I said in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, but those matters will be dealt with as influences." But the things I mentioned (along with others, I'm sure) will be present in the weighing process just the same. Probably not rationally, and possibly not even consciously, but those things are there and play their part, "as influences".

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: GUEST,Ermin Hirst
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:14 PM

"My question is, should an artist's contributions to art be disregarded, discarded, because of aberrant behaviour outside the art?"


errrmm.. Gary Glitter ???..


.. and Adolf Hitler !!!???

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: GUEST,maple_leaf_boy
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:35 PM

Well, being "pissed off at the music business in general," will cost
an artist. There are people who aren't as talented in music as
Ashley, and they got by; and that is because their good attitudes
helped get them ahead.

When it comes to lifestyles, I guess it depends on the type of
lifestyle they lead. It's really nobodys business and shouldn't
effect the value of their music; but it can and does.

Take a look at what happened to Jerry Lee Lewis for example:
Was comparable to Eliv in success, and was expected to take the title
that Elvis held as "King Of Rock And Roll".
Then they found out that he married his under-aged cousin, while his
second marriage was not legally nullified. (spelling?)
he married his second wife, which made his second marriage illegal,
so it was alright to marry Myra>

Ashley was successful for a while, but the Jay Leno incident is
something that people will remember; as well as when he surprised
his fan base by singing rap music unannounced can be something that
won't be water under the bridge for a while.
Those are other issues.

As for Ashleys personal life: What could he possibly be doing right now that not many other celebrities are doing, and should have a legitimate effect on his success?

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: GUEST,maple_leaf_boy.
Date: 14 Nov 08 - 09:38 PM

Take a look at what happened to Jerry Lee Lewis for example:
Was comparable to Eliv in success, and was expected to take the title
that Elvis held as "King Of Rock And Roll".


Jerry lee divorced his first wife after
he married his second wife, therefore his second marriage wasn't
legitimate. So, he was a "single" man, and marrying Myra was still
alright to him. (According to the movie).

sorry, the jerry lew part got messed up.

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 15 Nov 08 - 12:27 AM

I think folks oughta mind their own business lest a fuckin' piano fall on them..

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: quokka
Date: 15 Nov 08 - 12:43 AM

Hey, don't laugh - it could happen...that's how Eddie Valiant's brother died.

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: semi-submersible
Date: 15 Nov 08 - 01:01 PM

Would Jerry Lee Lewis have been so big if he had not been seen as "the bad boy"?

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: billhudson
Date: 15 Nov 08 - 01:28 PM

A musician friend told me one time,"Bill as you get older you have to work hard at not being bitter." That one seems to go over in my head from time to time. That being said I try to be thankful for what as happen so far. After coming back from the Gulf Coast a few times it puts things in perspective.

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: M.Ted
Date: 15 Nov 08 - 01:56 PM

From what I know about Jerry Lee, he developed a reputation early on for being an erratic performer(much like Mr. McIsaac)--"erratic" meaning that he did what he felt like doing instead of what managers, promoters, booking agents, and audiences expected.

Roy Orbison said that he is the greatest raw rock'n'roll performer ever, but even before his marriage problems came out, he'd burned a lot of bridges by being "raw"--

Jerry Lee and cousins Jimmy Lee, and Mickey Lee are worth studying--Jerry and Jimmy were considerably more compelling, but Mickey was the one who tried the hardest to hang in the game, and he's the one who has had the most enduring success.

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: M.Ted
Date: 15 Nov 08 - 01:58 PM

If it doesn't register right off, I meant Jerry Lee Lewis, Jimmy Lee Swaggart, and Mickey Lee (Leroy) Gilley.

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: gnu
Date: 15 Nov 08 - 02:04 PM

Very interesting and enlightening comments. Thanks. I hope there are more.

As for "who?" and "so what".... odd that you didn't even take the time to read the entire first sentence of my initial post. Of course, IF that was a joke, hahahahaha... ha...

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: GUEST,Faye
Date: 15 Nov 08 - 02:05 PM

I have to admit that when I saw the title of this thread my reaction was also "who?" I read his Wikipedia entry and thought "silly boy" or words to that effect.

If you like him as a musician I suppose that you might put up with what seems to be just immature attention-seeking nonsense. Personally, having read about him first, I wouldn't bother to find out what his musicianship was like, so yes, for me the image of the person does influence me when I come across someone for the first time.

However, if he was musically brilliant, I could live with his stupidity; it's not as if he's a child-molester is it?

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: Sleepy Rosie
Date: 15 Nov 08 - 04:03 PM

The press are far to keen to publicise artists private lives. What someone does outside of their professional life is none of my business IMO, be they a singer of songs, or a bank manager. Just so long as whatever someone gets up to in their private life is not so deeply illegal or morally wrong that they should be in jail, I'm not interested (apart from fleetingly and superficially). If someone does their job well, that's as much as I need to know. I get fed-up of all the baying for blood. Everyone screws up in their lives at some point and says or does something dumb. Ordinary people get addicted to booze, have affairs, have nervous breakdowns, have dysfunctional relationships, etcetara. But fortunately most of us aren't living under a microscope. Plus some of the 'colourful' stories I've heard from people in journalism, about commonly accepted bahaviours within the business, could make just as interesting reading as some of the private lives of those 'aberrant' artists they write about!

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Nov 08 - 04:44 PM

are we any smarter than the age that destroyed the talents of Oscar Wilde?

gary glitter would say not. presumably Jonathan King would say something similar. And Michael Jackson.

Every age seems to have its tabus involving deviant behaviour it will not try to understand.

I'm not sure of where I stand. But it seems strange that we cannot somehow accept that we are either producing deviant behaviour by the way our society is organised, or that there are some humans who have these drives within themselves and society needs a better policy than criminalising them.

I don't make sexual advances to minors because I am more virtuous, or I might get caught - I don't do that because I don't want to.

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Nov 08 - 07:17 PM

What I meant was that I saw nothing particularly remarkable, still less worthy of condemnation, still less worth damning his art for. So that.

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: Bernard
Date: 15 Nov 08 - 07:37 PM

Unfortunately there are too many 'holier than thou' types around who pontificate about the behaviour of others, but have their own skeletons in the closet.

Clearly I cannot name names, but how often do we find, for example, people in charge of upholding the law of the land who use that privilege to further their own ends (in more ways than one!)?

Whilst I don't condone Paul Gadd's behaviour, the music produced by his alter-ego Gary Glitter isn't any different now than it was when he first recorded it... it's just our perception of the individual that has changed.

For some people, that perception cannot be separated from the man and his music, but others are more liberally minded.

Adolf Hitler... wasn't he responsible for making Porsche Senior's dream a reality... the ubiquitous VW Beetle? Think about it!

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: GUEST,maple_leaf_boy
Date: 15 Nov 08 - 09:56 PM

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: Bernard
Date: 15 Nov 08 - 07:37 PM
Adolf Hitler... wasn't he responsible for making Porsche Senior's dream a reality... the ubiquitous VW Beetle? Think about it!



Not only that, but he started an anti-tobacco campaign, that was
mostly successful with his supporters. He knew there were health
risks, and he also personally detested the use of tobacco products.
(It was a featured article on Wikipedias home-page yesterday).

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: M.Ted
Date: 16 Nov 08 - 12:24 AM

There is a view that Mr. McIsaac is simply pursuing the "any publicity is good publicity" idea, also known as "The Spears/ Lohan Principle". Appalling behavior in conspicuously public situations always gets noticed.

His problem is that "bad girl" headlines and cover photos sell "People", "US", and our beloved "National Enquirer", whereas "bad boys" don't get written up anymore unless they buy the farm. None of us want to see that, of course.

Speaking for myself, I'd prefer that he forget about "rapping", ranting, and pop fusion music, and flashing his privates, and focus on the traditional music that he knows and does best. Apparently, even here at Mudcat, that is a minority view;-)

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: Acorn4
Date: 16 Nov 08 - 05:03 AM

I suppose it depends on how much your behavious affects other people.

Gary Glitter and Amy Winehouse are two completely different examples when it comes to sympathy.

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: semi-submersible
Date: 16 Nov 08 - 06:20 AM

It's a moot point whether art's effect on the audience _should_ be influenced by what (we think) we know about its source. It is. It must be, since its effect (the regard or disregard of the artwork) is part of the audience's perceiving the art.

Could works of art even exist, as art, without the audience? (Even the artist is the audience in the moment of looking on his work and finding it good or otherwise.) If one beautiful leaf, framed or photographed, is art, then are its fellow leaves discarded because they were not art, or because they are not regarded as art?

Should a flower pressed by your child "just for you" be regarded more than one found in a second-hand book?

Should a slasher film have less artistic value (I assume there are people who would find artistry in some such) if the filmmaker goes on to act it out upon innocent strangers?

Does a possible Rembrandt's value truly change as you hear more about who may or may not have painted it, or is there a true value inscribed in heaven, which we mortals merely seek to approximate?

My view is that art is a dialogue between work and audience. An artist is whoever (by whatever labour) causes this dialogue to take place; each beholder is co-creator of the art he (she) experiences. The true value of this art is relative, changing with the context, from person to person and from moment to moment. If a tree falls unheard in the forest it may make what I call a sound, but if a leaf falls unseen or unappreciated it is not what I call art--unless God sees it, which would make it (and the whole universe) art. From His perspective only, of course.

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: Jack Campin
Date: 16 Nov 08 - 06:34 AM

Here's a good one:

Eugene Goossens
more

If she'd done the same, Madonna would just have published a picture book about it.

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: M.Ted
Date: 16 Nov 08 - 03:08 PM

Times have changed, Jack. Nowadays, scandal is used to advance careers, rather than destroy them. Thanks for mentioning Goossens--his story has always interested me. It occurred to me that "Video Killed the Radio Star" was a fictionalized tribute to Goossens--but that's been discussed before.

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: GUEST,maple_leaf_boy
Date: 17 Nov 08 - 01:12 AM

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: M.Ted
Date: 16 Nov 08 - 12:24 AM
There is a view that Mr. MacIsaac is simply pursuing the "any publicity is good publicity" idea, also known as "The Spears/ Lohan Principle".
........His problem is that "bad girl" headlines and cover photos sell
........ "bad boys" don't get written up anymore unless they buy the farm. ........forget about "rapping", ranting/pop fusion music/
flashing privates, focus on trad. music that he knows and does best. Apparently, even here at Mudcat, that is a minority view;-)

That is one perspective, that any publicity is good publicity.
However, with Lohan for example, last year she was skipping out on
scheduled filmings which delayed at least one of her movies, and she
also had five consecutive movies that flopped at the box office.
(Including that one, I think it was "I Know Who Killed Me"). This
was going on while she was on her way to rehab, and cameras were getting shots of her burnt out on hard drugs.

It depends on the type of bad publicity. If it is chronic drug and
alcohol related use, and the ratings are showing that the persons
work is not selling as well as they used to, then it could have
something to do with the quality of their performance. The drugs are
influencing them not to perform well, and turns off the audience.

The performer has a drug problem, and it's not yet publicized:
If the audience doesn't know they're using drugs at first, they might think the performer is having a rough patch, or is burning out; then
once the drug-use publicity starts, they'll start to wonder if they
can rely on the performer enough in the future that there will be a
good performance. Maybe they'll really start to think that the artist
is burning out, and that drugs are just an excuse to cover up the
bad performances.
If they are using drugs, and it doesn't effect their performance
in a negative way, then it could be good publicity; if they publicize
a picture of the artist snorting a line of crack on city billboards,
and posting photos in magazines of them at parties taking dexedrine
and mixing it in their martini, or taking lots of LSD.



I think that he should stick with his traditional style of music, but
he could incorporate a bit of other styles (just some), to help make
the traditional music appealing to other audiences.
Perhaps, an alternative/rock style to the traditional music like
the Barenaked Ladies, or a good rapper like Snoop Dogg. Just one
track of each in a fourteen/fifteen track album. Maybe a country-blues
type song incorporated with one song, and the rest be Celtic music.
Then when those other audiences start buying his music, they might
like his Celtic music too, and want to hear more of his traditional
songs.
That's somewhat a good path to make a comeback. Mainly your style,
but with a small sampling of variety (in good taste).

Subject: RE: Artists' personal lives-public latitude
From: M.Ted
Date: 17 Nov 08 - 02:38 PM

First things first, Maple Leaf--the publisher of the old "Confidential" magazine once said that most of his "celebrity trash" came from the celebrities themselves.

It would be a mistake to believe much, if any, of what you read about Lindsay Lohan. Contrary to what anyone might think, it takes a lot of effort to keep your name in the papers, and publicists are more interested in placing a story than in relating the actual facts.

I didn't see any of the films in question, but I suspect that they weren't the best- properties to start with-chances are, they needed all the publicity that they could get--a controversial star, a little scandal, and lots of publicity about troubles during production, created advance "buzz" so that, on the first weekend at least, people would be curious. After that, word of mouth kills a bad film, but at least the publicists did their jobs.

If LL were really as erratic as the publicity implies, the film producers couldn't get completion bonds, and her career would have been over long ago.



As to Mr. McIsaac--maybe an album of "Duets" with a variety of established Canadian stars--Joni Mitchell, KD Lang, Burton Cummings, Neil Young etc, would put him back on the map--or an Ian Tyson tribute album--