The Separation Between The Artist And The Work

An endless debate. Should Polanski's films be banned simply because he is the director? We also have French authors who were collaborators during the Second World War and anti-Semites who released masterpieces like Louis Ferdinand Céline or Lucien Rebatet.

Imagine listening to an album and loving it, only to find out later that the band did or said some really bad stuff. You'll stop liking the band, but you can't deny that they make good albums.

I heard a guy say that it was because they were bad that they were able to create their works. So we shouldn't separate the artist from the work, but that doesn't mean the work should be buried.

What are you thoughts on the question?

Probably one of the most difficult issues in music. I think it is a very thin line and personally believe that everyone should draw their own line as long as they don't drag it out into the open.

So for example, I am a teacher and happen to love some of Burzum's work even though Varg is clearly a bigot, racist whatever... however, the music itself does not really reflect that .. so to me there is a difference between Burzum and fully fledged NSBM bands .. however, as a teacher I would still never wear a Burzum T-Shirt in public.

Another issue is the "guilty by association" aspect .. like with Mgla, or Alcest where people want to see them burn, because they have had some affiliation with some other band that has a reputation .. or because someone did/said/postet something 20 years ago .. that goes too far in my opinion

"Guilty by association" as you call it is a problem that sadly exceeds music, one of the most stupid and easily avoidable problems, but it's still and always will be a thing.

For Burzum, I understand, I have the same problem with Nokturnal Mortum. They said a lot of NS things in the past, but I can't stop myself from liking their 2009 album "The Voice Of Steel". I think it's a masterpiece. But I never recommend the band to anyone.

And like I said before, it's not only in music, The Book "Journey to the End of the Night" is one of my favourites, and it's often seen as one of the best books in French literature. But because of who the author is, there is a heated debate that we should talk about it this way.

A stupid debate for me, because the author is who he is, he is inseparable from his work, and it is because he is like that that he wrote this book this way. There are many examples of sick minds who have created masterpieces, separating them from their works is useless. Appreciate the work, criticize the author, but do not throw it away, it's dumb to do that in my opinion.

What would be interesting is to study how they created their works, how can a man like that write such a good book for example? If you ask me, the secret is a complicated life, taking unclean products and a disturbed mind.

In general, I have no problem separating the artist from his works. I like Polanski's films - especially the older ones (although “The Ghost Writer” is excellent).

I have a couple of Gary Glitter vinyls in my collection and I'm not going to burn them because the guy is a piece of trash. I am able to appreciate his contribution to the glam scene.

But there must always be an exception to the rule. In my case it is a legend of Polish heavy metal. A guy who inspired both Vader and Behemoth. And who is the most hated musician in the country. Piotr Luczyk. No. Just no.

I think a lot of artists get a pass on things they’ve done because everyone has a different line of what’s a deal breaker and what isn’t. More importantly, I think it depends on when the offensive thing happened and whether it’s still happening. Since this is a metal site I’m going to use purely metal examples to give some thoughts and ask questions I have on the topic as well.

Neige is a good example here because he has association in the past, but is quite far removed from NSBM now, versus someone like Varg who is still actively promoting his views to whoever will have them. I think everyone does stupid things when they are young and if someone is part of a nsbm band as an edgy teenager and then grows out of it, it’s obviously a bad decision and if people don’t have to listen to their music they have that right but we also should allow people the opportunity to move on from their past and not let peoples mistakes follow them forever. If they are still actively doing it it’s a totally different story.

But there’s also quite a bit of double standards within the metal community here. For instance, we do not feature Nokturnal Mortum, but we do feature Burzum. Is it because Burzum is a much more important band in the context of metal? If so, that means we’re willing to put aside the views of the artist because of their importance in metal, even though it also means they will probably be more influential in inspiring more NSBM bands.

In a more recent example, the Antiquus Scriptum situation where someone outright stole the work of someone else and posted it as their own they received quite a bit of (deserved) hate online and their label dropped them right away and made insulting posts on their socials, with users here taking a stance against the band and judging the music based on the context . Obscura on the other hand did the same thing, stealing former members recordings note for note after being explicitly told they could not use them, but it doesn’t seem to be judged in the context of being stolen. Is it because Obscura is a band with a wide following? If so, if instead of stealing riffs for the album they generated them with AI instead would they be here or is it only smaller new artists breaking the unspoken rule that we care about? And if not, do we draw line at using ai to generate an instrument? Or is using it to edit your riff to the point it’s unrecognizable okay as long as it started somewhere original?

Each offense is treated differently as well. NSBM seems to be a hard no for a lot of people, but they don’t agree on where to draw the line at actual murder (Burzum, As I Lay Dying since it was attempted) or abuse whether proven or not (Scott Kelly of Neurosis, Dustie Waring of BTBAM, Marilyn Manson, Till Lindemann) for artists they’re already familiar with, but if they were new artists people might be more likely not to listen in the first place. But all these artists seem to be viewed through a different lens than their works.

The last thing I’ll bring up is how important when the offense took place seems to be. With As I Lay Dying, I really liked their music growing up and listened to them regularly, so when I heard about attempted murder it was disappointing, but didn’t really change how I felt about those albums. However I’ve discovered artists and then found out shortly after there have been some kind of allegations and it’s turned me off from listening to the band.

I think everyone separates the art from the artist when it’s convenient to them, but people don’t have good willpower and if they know there’s music they like they’re probably willing to make an exception. For some they draw the line at fascism, others racism, others misogyny, others sexual abuse, etc. and it’s never totally black and white. For me, I don’t listen to music based on harmful ideology I don’t agree with, but if I listen to a Neurosis song I don’t see that as supporting Scott Kelly’s actions because it doesn’t have much to do with the music and I’m not really supporting him financially. That would change if he wrote music about how abusing others. That was a long ramble but I think this is a cool topic and I have a lot of thoughts on it even they’re a little disjointed.

I agree with what you said Vellichor, but for Polanski, I forgot to say that, although he was the director, one of the most important tasks for a film, he was not alone in doing them.

We cannot, because a guy did reprehensible things, boycott films on which hundreds of others worked, whether actors, editors, directors, cameramen, etc. They did nothing, and by stopping watching the films on which they worked, we are punishing them unfairly.

When the movie "An Officer and a Spy" came out, I heard people wanted to boycott it. It seemed pretty unfair for everyone who worked on it (other than Polanski obviously). Don't give him any awards if you want, but there's no point in boycotting it, because Polanski was already paid anyway and his reputation was already ruined, so we already knew he wasn't going to make any more movies for a long time.

A lot of good points here. Respect.
If you dont mind i will add my 2 cents here.
In my opinion, artist is inseparable from his art and is responsible for it. It is , or should be expression of his point of view, soul or whatever he wants to say or show. Therefore
If i dont like it, or it does not resonate with me(so to speak) it up to me to go away from it or ignore it. Also i can start talk s#+& if it suits my juvenile soul. For example: many many years ago I saw interview with Marilyn Manson on tv. Up to that time I was almost inclined to like his music. Not anymore. The way he and his crew portrayed themselves was absolutely horrible to me. I marked him ( for my own purposes) as a clown and im ignoring his "art" (eye roll here) completely and definitely.
I think I'm pretty laid back , tolerating common artisans stupidity (they are almost like normal people), nevertheless if certain line is crossed , i abandon said artist in a heartbeat.

I think it is a matter of a personal point of view.

Vellichor used Burzum as an example and I will only refer to this one - when I entered the Metal world, Burzum was way far from my checklist because I wasn't familiar with black metal yet, but still the Varg incidents with Euronymous and Ze'ev Tananboim were very familiar to know this guy is a "problematic".
And even after I was interested in black metal, I didn't care to invest much time in his music. I did listen to his top rated albums just from curiosity, but luckily didn't lose.
So why the personal point of view? Because when you get a bomb letter with "You are from Israel and that is enough to hate you forever” - it doesn't hurt one person but an entire group - but it also doesn't affect on everyone.
That's why some people can easily listen to him because he never hurt them, while the other people can still hate him as a racist and yet to listen to his music because he released some masterpieces.

Now I will use (just) two good examples about musicians I was familiar with their music before they were "problematic".
One is Iggor Cavalera, who I believe has a lot of fans here, including myself posted this last year. Any smart person can understand what is wrong with this picture, and this is not a randomly shot, but a well prepared one (the way he holds his shirt and the using of hashtag, and the date).
But yet, is he an antisemite or a terror supporter? I'm not sure yet, so I want to give him the benefit of a doubt and want to hope he does it out of ignorance by thinking he supports a good cause. It is for sure not the first time he gets easily brainwashed.
I'm not sure I will stop listening to Sepultura or Conspiracy if It turns out to be true, unless it was his solo project. but it is a turn off and surely will affect the number of future spins. But again, it affects only on me and on people who thinks like me.

While the second one is Roger Waters, the biggest antisemite musician of our generation.
I knew Pink Floyd before going into metal, and even though I wasn't a big fan of it, I liked some albums that everyone knows.
In this case, it is a simple No.
A person who spreads hate about entire ethnic group and declares publicly for supporting terrorism.
He and his BDS shit movement do everything to sabotage from musicians to perform here.
He isn't just a tiny ignorant musician, but a big and influencer one.
He uses his social media and tv interviews not for his legacy or his solo project, but to spread more lies and hate.
This is not ignorance, no brainwashing - just racism and idiocy.
I can't listen to Pink Floyd today but because I wasn't a big fan in the first place so it's easier, even though the rest of the band are legit, and it was at the time he didn't reveal his true color.
When someone like Waters uses his personality for creating some of his "highlights", it doesn't only affect on a specific person or a group - but the individual me - Yaniv.
But I don't mind if someone likes him, everyone has his choice eventually.

TL;DR anyone can do whatever he likes, but for me personally, I can't separate an artist from his personality/behavior.
Talented or not, I choose not to listen to a murderer or a racist, there is a lot of other good music out there.

I'm a teacher too, and I sometimes teach works that are problematic because they have something to teach. But I think there are differences in type and degree that should be talked about and that should shape how we treat the works.

It's one thing if the work in question is not problematic, but the artist who created it is. Bad people sometimes make important art. Sometimes that art is even making positive changes in our societies. If so, then praise the art and teach it, but be sure to also mention for transparency sake that the artist is a terrible person and try not to reward them. Let the art do its work and give your money and praise to organizations that work to combat the things that the artist does that are terrible.

It's another thing if the work is uncomfortable and ambiguous, but it is probing topics that need deeper discussion and the artist is not personally part of the problem. If so, then be sure to discuss the topic in a way that doesn't defend or romanticize the parts that are problematic, so that people leave with a better understanding of where the lines should be drawn.

It's another thing if the work itself is not problematic, nor is the artist, but the work has been embraced by fans who are toxic and horrid and using the work to promote their hate. That's a tough one.

It's another thing if the work is done by many people and one of them is a bad person, but no one knew it at the time, or if they only became bad long after. The other artists should not have to suffer for the actions of someone else.

Now if the other artists know that there is a problem, but choose to support the bad person and work with them after the fact, and the bad person is still engaging in the harmful stuff, then they are all a problem and should expect no support.

And if the work seemed to be one thing, but then stuff comes out that makes you feel different about the work and makes you not be comfortable with it anymore, it's okay to talk about that in the open.

Don't hide behind the cover of "but it's art." Face up to the problems and own them if you have to.

Last thing - before I assign anything problematic in a class, I ask myself "is there another work I can assign that serves the same role but doesn't reward awful people or encourage bad people to think they are heroes?" if there is, then I assign the other thing instead.

Written by Vellichor on 11.04.2025 at 21:14

But there’s also quite a bit of double standards within the metal community here. For instance, we do not feature Nokturnal Mortum, but we do feature Burzum. Is it because Burzum is a much more important band in the context of metal? If so, that means we’re willing to put aside the views of the artist because of their importance in metal, even though it also means they will probably be more influential in inspiring more NSBM bands.

There is a very explicit difference between NM and Burzum. Varg may be a racist, an antisemite and plenty of other things, but he never put it in Burzum's lyrics. NM on the other hand have a song called "The Call Of Aryan Spirit". There is no double standard, at least not on MS. The rules for what is or is not NSBM are clearly defined.

On the other hand, I would argue that NM are actually quite revered within the metal community and not shunned at all. The Voice Of Steel is on Metallum's top 10 best rated albums of the 2000s. Their albums are even distributed by Nuclear Blast records in Europe.

I would say the metal community is too tolerant with nazis. At the same time, it's hard to avoid them sometimes, and even I enjoy some NSBM bands. I'd say the best course of action if you want to listen to NS bands is to not promote them in any way. Listen to them on youtube or whatever but don't give them any promotion.

As someone who has firmly anchored political opinions, I always took it for granted that you could listen to NSBM even if you disagree with the message they're spreading, but I know some people who were partially radicalised by the NSBM scene and I think that's what really opened my eyes to the harm that music can cause. Obviously they were already prone to receive such messages and NSBM wasn't the only thing that turned them nazi, but it was a big part of it, and forming a community with other people who listen to these bands really allowed them to spread their harmful ideas and get fully converted.

That's why I also really like that MS doesn't allow NS bands, these bands always attract people with the same ideology and would make this place a lot less friendly than it currently is.

To get back more to the topic, you can separate the art from the artist if you want, but I think it's better to accept that the artist is a piece of shit and ponder whether you're fine with that or not instead of trying to justify yourself. Yes, some assholes have made music that I enjoy, that's life.

Written by Dinruth on 11.04.2025 at 19:15

Probably one of the most difficult issues in music. I think it is a very thin line and personally believe that everyone should draw their own line as long as they don't drag it out into the open.

So for example, I am a teacher and happen to love some of Burzum's work even though Varg is clearly a bigot, racist whatever... however, the music itself does not really reflect that .. so to me there is a difference between Burzum and fully fledged NSBM bands .. however, as a teacher I would still never wear a Burzum T-Shirt in public.

Another issue is the "guilty by association" aspect .. like with Mgla, or Alcest where people want to see them burn, because they have had some affiliation with some other band that has a reputation .. or because someone did/said/postet something 20 years ago .. that goes too far in my opinion

This entire comment sums up my opinion, more or less. I wouldn't wear a Burzum t-shirt, but I do have a Burzum sticker on my fridge. For me, Varg is comedy material, a parody, and someone that I do not take seriously. But I do love a few of his records, and they did shape my musical taste when I was an adolescent. I wouldn't be able to change that, even if I wanted to.

I also agree with Yaniv, when he says that "there is a lot of other good music out there"; we have a choice of whom we want to listen to.

When someone starts listening to metal, they soon come to realize that some of their favourite stuff has been/is being made by horrible people. The music is extreme, and it comes as no surprise that some of those making it would have extreme/disgusting personalities and/or views. The timeframe is also important. Much of what was generally accepted in the past would not be accepted today, and this is progress.

I am happy with the line that we draw here on MS, and, as Roman above me said, we feature Burzum because there is nothing in the band's music, lyrics, or imagery that relates to NS ideology, not because it is a too important band to not feature. We have deleted or have blacklisted way too many important bands for this reason.

To be frank, I personally have never been so interested in a musician's political views, personal life, or personality, when listening to music. It does rub me the wrong way that Dagon fancies children, which is as appalling as being a Nazi-sympathiser, but I have not stopped listening to Inquisition and I do not intend to burn my CDs of the band; I just have not bought any new ones, since I found out. I have not changed my opinion on Polanski's films, either. I am often not even aware of these things, because information has to literally fall into my lap. I grew up at a time when we had very little information on musicians' and artists' personal lives, which has now changed due to social media; regardless, I choose to not follow this stuff.

BTW, I feel very proud of the way people are expressing their views here so far. This is exactly what we want Metal Storm to be.

Written by nikarg on 12.04.2025 at 11:04

BTW, I feel very proud of the way people are expressing their views here so far. This is exactly what we want Metal Storm to be.

To be fair I always thought that the metal community was one of the most welcoming and diverse in music.

Of course I still observe some "juvenile" behavior, especially among certain "metal fans" (Falling In Reverse, Sleep Token, nothing wrong with being a fan of these bands but some of them are really annoying).

There are also the NSBM fans but apart from them I am proud to be a metal fan, it is a tight-knit community.

Written by nikarg on 12.04.2025 at 11:04

We have deleted or have blacklisted way too many important bands for this reason.

What would be the ones you banned that you deem important?

Too much to quote and respond to from those who replied to me, but Doez I do see your point and I think that saying “the artist sucks but the music isn’t offensive itself” in the case of someone like Varg is a valid point of view. For me personally, Varg is easy to avoid because I’ve never been much of a Burzum fan anyways, but for someone like Kanye (weird example but I feel similarly here) I used to like his music but now can’t stomach it the same way even though there’s nothing technically wrong with it, and I would feel the same about Varg. I don’t believe these artists should be blacklisted or boycotted though, so don’t misunderstand me. I just personally choose not to because there are thousands of artists who are more in line with my belief and I would rather listen to them anyways. I also agree that listening to an artist and supporting them are two different things and there’s nothing wrong with listening to music others deem offensive if you are not actively supporting it. Tuonelan also makes some really good points, and I agree that it’s important to still have discussion about artists and their works that are controversial. Everyone’s line is drawn differently and I think even across different mediums it varies. I still enjoy Roman Polanski and Lars von Trier films but it’s a bit hypocritical of me when I judge musicians harshly, and I think everyone does that to some degree. It’s impossible to know what every artist has done and at some point you just want to enjoy things you like without feeling guilty and it has lead me to doing a lot less research about what I’m listening to. Second ramble complete, thanks for hanging in there.

I waited too long to make an initial point. So sorry that this looks more like an essay now than part of an ongoing conversation. But it's a topic I spend a lot of my time contemplating and researching.

I'm going to say that 9 times out of 10 in my life, when somebody tells me they "separate the art from the artist", what they actually mean is "I don't want to be bothered with the responsibility of my actions".

The idea of separating the artist from their work, at least the original concept of "Death of the Author" by Roland Barthes argues that the meaning of a (literary) work should develop in the reader and not interpreted by way of including the author's intentions, their views, cultural upbringing, etc.

It could probably be argued that it is impossible to make that separation in a world where artists are public figures with a platform and the reach that comes with it. J. K. Rowling is both the best and worst example here. She's constantly out there redefining the Harry Potter universe, adding to its lore, clarifying her meaning, and even fighting fan fiction. She very much IS the Harry Potter universe. At the same time she very publicly uses her platform to be a voice for the trans-hate community and even funds anti-trans organizations.

Even for authors who have passed away and don't have a public platform anymore, it's often impossible to separate art from artist. I cringe every time someone praises H.P. Lovecraft, an author mostly known for his extreme racism - even by his peers, when most of his stories ooze from said racism. He literally wrote a story in which a guy commits suicide after learning that he partly descends from Africans. (Obviously coded as "apes"). How do you separate work like this from the xenophobia-crazed brain that bore it?

And when it comes to modern pop culture, I find the concept almost impossible to apply. I would argue that it is close to impossible to interact with any piece of art in modern pop culture without its creator benefitting from that in some form. Specifically in music. Anything from an online stream, to a Facebook page visit, buying a CD or shirt, wearing such a shirt in public, going to a show, even talking about artists with your friends (or here on MS) will eventually benefit the artist. The phrase "there is no bad PR, only no PR" very much applies here.

What I see almost every time someone uses "I separate the art from the artist", is that these people are very much aware of these implications but unwilling to face their own responsibility in it. This goes so far that exactly these people will often immediately jump to the side of an artist to defend them, whenever accusations are made public. They don't separate anything, they engage in a deep parasocial relationship with the artist. One that makes it impossible for them to acknowledge even the possibility of artists they like being terrible human beings.

So for most of these people, the only thing the phrase is good for, is a cop-out. These people don't want to think about their own responsibility in a pop-culture artist-fan relationship, they just want to ignore what it means and do whatever they like.

I don't even find that an inherently terrible approach, but I'm surprised why people aren't just open about it. There's no need to veil your approach in fancy words when you can just as well be open and say "I don't care about the consequences of my actions", "I don't care about the victims of sexual abuse", "I don't care about queer or trans erasure", "I don't care about racism", or "I don't care about murder victims", "I don't care about genocide". That's what people do when they jump to the defense of Lindemann, Manson, Varg, Lambesis, or Dagon.

Actually making that separation, to me, means investigating the consequences of fandom in modern pop culture and being willing to accept that one's own actions can negatively affect other people, no matter how abstract that effect may be. To develop a robust set of ethics to apply to these situations that enables the drawing of lines without those lines just feeling arbitrary.

Why are so many people more willing to condemn Schaffer and Lambesis than Lindemann or Manson? Why do we keep coming back to "but he was never convicted" in alleged cases of sexual abuse, even in the face of overwhelming accusations? That doesn't signal to me that someone has gone through the process of contemplating what it means to still support an artist, it screams "I don't want to deal with this", which is fine (even though I'll still judge you for it), but be honest about it.

I guess my personal example would be Marilyn Manson. His music was extremely formative for me as a teenager and three of his albums were still frequent go-tos for me, even a few years ago. I'm not going to burn those CDs, but I'll be damned if such a PoS will ever get any public recognition from me again. Yet we still give him a platform on this site, where people will fervently defend him when he's being called out for his actions, and I hate everything about that. If it were up to me, he would disappear from this site along with every artist who's know to be a nazi, a misogynist, or whatever other despicable things you can be. By giving these people a platform we help making them stronger and further disenfranchise their victims. And saying "back in my day, we didn't even know what a musician did in their free time" is just the same kind of cop-out. I don't think it's everyone's responsibility to research an artist they just found, but once you know they're a shitty human being, you do have a responsibility as a fan in modern pop culture.

I'd much rather we as a community move away from this smoke-bomb discussion and towards more accountability in fandom. Towards acknowledging responsibility and condemning terrible behavior. If that means we all have to face our roles in toxic fandom, then so be it. I'd rather be part of a community that can accept ambiguity and dichotomy as parts of reality than one that constantly tries virtual signal for the benefit of nobody by the speaker.

Generally I've no issue separating them, but I also don't really go investigating musicians backgrounds or political views either

And then the ones that get a lot of press I tend not to like the music anyway, like Lambesis with his hitman, or Draiman from Disturbed supporting a genocidal regime. Terrible people, terrible music

Written by corrupt on 12.04.2025 at 18:29


Why are so many people more willing to condemn Schaffer and Lambesis than Lindemann or Manson? Why do we keep coming back to "but he was never convicted" in alleged cases of sexual abuse, even in the face of overwhelming accusations?

I am not familiar with the accusations surrounding Lindemann and Manson, but with rare exceptions (terrorists for example), I maintain faith in justice and the principle of presumption of innocence that we have in France.

Maybe the evidence is overwhelming, but since the Johnny Depp case where everyone was convinced that he was the only guilty one in the story, even though in the end it wasn't that obvious, I take a step back from my judgments. Maybe the evidence against Manson is "overwhelming", but I prefer to let the justice system decide.

I would never judge someone found guilty and someone presumed guilty in the same way. I have always had trouble understanding people who defend or attack celebrities accused of this or that, personally I am not the justice system, I am not going to take a position as if I knew something in a case, because I don't.

Corrupt says many things right. What it boils down to is when people talk about this "separation" it is the separation of themselves from the author and their deeds/beliefs/whathaveyou, not the work from the author. Separating the work from the author is the easy step and also the superficial one. However, this happens in a social context and acknowledging the consequence of this decision is what isn't happening in most cases. It is this other - the separation of themselves from the author - that people are insecure about and feel threatened when questioned and called out because it's not about someone else (eg the author) at that point - it's about them, it's about something personal and that is sacred.

Whether one wants it or not, guilt by association is at play and if for someone it is acceptable to draw the line at this point, for other's it might be less so. It's fine to agree to disagree but one should own up to playing their part in this intertwined mess of social relations. If one condemns racism or sexual abuse on the one hand but is otherwise fine to enjoy the work of authors accused of that on the other hand without acknowledging the hypocrisy of how they might enable the very thing they condemn, well, fine. So be it. One shouldn't be surprised, though, when others start keeping their distance or question the integrity of their moral framework. It's not like it's always possible to live up to the high ethical standards we or other's set us but the failure to do so should make everyone uncomfortable with their own selves to start asking the tough questions and strive for betterment because without it we're complacent and accepting of the very thing we want to condemn.

If enjoying the work of a despicable person doesn't at least give one a moment's pause and bring questions about the author to the forefront then one probably hasn't thought long and hard enough about it. It's fine to proceed but that pause and those thoughts should at the very least be the price one pays for being part in whatever the issue is.

As an afterthought. What is ethical is not the same as lawful. One may not be guilty in the eye of the law but can still have acted immorally. Although heavily intertwined, it's a whole different discussion that should probably be kept separate from the topic at hand.

I.

Written by Ivor on 12.04.2025 at 20:29


As an afterthought. What is ethical is not the same as lawful. One may not be guilty in the eye of the law but can still have acted immorally.

That's right, but you're not going to tell me that it took someone accusing Manson for us to know that he did immoral things, that's always been part of what made him famous.

That's why I had a hard time understanding people who were shocked by the accusations. Whether they're true or false, it's wasn't a surprise to me.

Written by Dinruth on 12.04.2025 at 14:33

What would be the ones you banned that you deem important?

Off the top of my head, Peste Noire, Satanic Warmaster, and, of course, Grand Belial's Key & Arghoslent. One could also make an argument for the importance of Absurd, Abyssic Hate, Graveland, and Nokturnal Mortum.

Written by Ch'ti on 12.04.2025 at 20:38

That's right, but you're not going to tell me that it took someone accusing Manson for us to know that he did immoral things, that's always been part of what made him famous.

That's why I had a hard time understanding people who were shocked by the accusations. Whether they're true or false, it's wasn't a surprise to me.

I'm not going to tell you anything. You and everyone else can draw their own conclusions on the matter and I'd rather keep Manson in particular out of it lest this discussion that's been going fine so far degenerated to the "but he wasn't convicted" level. Maybe it took for the accusations to reach the courthouse for the majority of people to acknowledge that what's been circulating for years is perhaps something more than a simple plausibly deniable hearsay. Or maybe it was a welcoming open door for them personally to distance themselves from what they had been denying or avoiding for years. Or maybe they came to the conclusion that not everything's black and white. Or that everyone's likely crooked. Or maybe they don't know how to think for themselves and jumped on the wagon or whatever, you know. Faulting or ridiculing someone for taking the stand with the weak shouldn't be frowned upon, though, especially if it so happens that the law isn't able to bring people to justice on what is considered a technicality. As I said, that particular avenue of discussion should be for another topic. What is related is whether conviction or acquittal makes a difference on how one perceives the work of the judged artist.

I.

I don’t believe that innocent until proven guilty is quite as reliable when it comes to public figures or celebrities because one party typically has millions of dollars and lawyers on retainer, while the other party usually has their word and a standard income. It makes me very suspicious anytime there are accusations that are dropped or settled out of court.

Well, I don't think any piece of art should ever be "banned" in any form, so separating the author and the art is a no brainer for me.

I just find it kinda amusing the thought of metalheads discussing banning music for whatever reason. After all, metal was always exactly about being able to do art concerning topics that were considered too heavy by the status quo. Ever since the beginning.

Written by Karlabos on 13.04.2025 at 02:48

Well, I don't think any piece of art should ever be "banned" in any form, so separating the author and the art is a no brainer for me.

I just find it kinda amusing the thought of metalheads discussing banning music for whatever reason. After all, metal was always exactly about being able to do art concerning topics that were considered too heavy by the status quo. Ever since the beginning.

Definitely not banned. But does "not banned" mean we should promote it?

Any group must be measured by who and what it accepts in their midst. We draw the line at racism in music because we don't want to platform artists promoting ideologies that cause people suffering. That doesn't mean they don't exist or that these bands don't thrive. And it also has very little to do with the separation of art and artist. In this case the art is the issue, not the artist.

And for the record, I think Nik's opinion in this matter is terrible. It's not only in opposition to our mission, it goes against many things I personally value in life. We already have a getting into article about Burzum that should really be deleted in my opinion, or at least get a big disclaimer. That is us platforming the music of a known racist and antisemitic bigot. Removing that, or even Burzum's profile from Metal Storm wouldn't be "banning" him, it would be showing that we don't tolerate this kind of ideology in our midst.

Just out of curiosity, corrupt, and I do not intend this to be a counter-argument, because it just follows the "whatabout"-strategy. Nevertheless, for the sake of playing devil's advocate: Do you also boycott companies that use child labour, exploit their workers and/or destroy the environment?

The only reason I am saying this is that if you do .. well I draw my hat, you are a better person than 99% of us... if you don't .. then your high horse isn't that high.

But I do agree with your point that most often the separate the art from the artist comes from I "Idon't want to be bothered with the responsibility of my actions" .. as it is the case with myself and Burzum .. or Rammstein for that matter .. or Wagner ... are/were they good people? Definitely not in Vargs case, I know too little about Wagner to judge .. and Till is at least dubious, but the rest of the band? Still I do not believe that ostracizing them from society solves anything

Written by corrupt on 13.04.2025 at 06:26

And for the record, I think Nik's opinion in this matter is terrible. It's not only in opposition to our mission, it goes against many things I personally value in life. We already have a getting into article about Burzum that should really be deleted in my opinion, or at least get a big disclaimer. That is us platforming the music of a known racist and antisemitic bigot. Removing that, or even Burzum's profile from Metal Storm wouldn't be "banning" him, it would be showing that we don't tolerate this kind of ideology in our midst.

I was not going to reply to your original comment, even though I find it to have a lot of oversimplified generalizations and arbitrary assumptions. I mean, people are not going to hold themselves responsible or accountable for things that they are not, just because you think they are or because you say they are. I have said my opinion in the Manson and other threads, and there is no point in repeating it. But, damn, saying that I have an opinion that goes against Metal Storm's mission is really crossing a line. So I am asking: which part or parts of my comment specifically goes is in opposition to which part or parts of our mission statement?

Written by nikarg on 13.04.2025 at 09:32

I was not going to reply to your original comment, even though I find it to have a lot of oversimplified generalizations and arbitrary assumptions. I mean, people are not going to hold themselves responsible or accountable for things that they are not, just because you think they are or because you say they are. I have said my opinion in the Manson and other threads, and there is no point in repeating it. But, damn, saying that I have an opinion that goes against Metal Storm's mission is really crossing a line. So I am asking: which part or parts of my comment specifically goes is in opposition to which part or parts of our mission statement?

My post definitely oversimplifies a lot. Although its assumptions are not so much arbitrary as drawing from personal experience, which I did did point out. I do, however, find the responsibility aspect of this discussion more interesting and more important than people's individual lines. That applies both to us as a platform for these bands as well as people's individual consumption behavior.

Saying your opinion goes against our mission was poor choice of words, sorry for that. What I stumbled over was "We have deleted or banned way too many important bands". I totally disagree with that. For one, importance shouldn't play a role. Fame and influence doesn't give you a free pass to violate social norms. And when I look at our database, I think we haven't removed nearly enough, if we wanted to take that platforming aspect seriously. You and I have never seen eye to eye on this, but I didn't want your opinion to be the only staff one on this matter here.

Written by Dinruth on 13.04.2025 at 08:16

Just out of curiosity, corrupt, and I do not intend this to be a counter-argument, because it just follows the "whatabout"-strategy. Nevertheless, for the sake of playing devil's advocate: Do you also boycott companies that use child labour, exploit their workers and/or destroy the environment?

I can't say I do. I'm not saying that I'm not trying to live a conscious life, either. That's why I mean by being able to tolerate ambiguity. I don't make these points from off my high horse, I'm very much in the same boat as everyone here, having the same issues disassociating myself from artists I used to love who turn into assholes (or turn out to have been assholes all along).

But even if I couldn't live up to all of my self-proclaimed standards, that shouldn't prevent me from setting them. You already said that this discussion verges into whataboutism-territory, which also often happens when people don't want to deal with an issue. In my opinion, we all have to deal with our roles in life and the effects it has on the people and the world around us. The only thing I find unacceptable is to look away from that and claim the entitlement to the good aspects of a privileged life without acknowledging the negatives. In my personal experience, once I start investigating these aspects, I will automatically make changes to my life to lessen their effect. That'll never lead to a perfect life, but even small changes to personal habits can make a huge difference in the long run. And when you do decide to do something irresponsible like flying to another city for a weekend trip, you do it consciously, without that becoming a habit you never reflect upon.

I guess I'm more in the "even small changes should be celebrated" camp than the "if there's no perfect life, what's the point in even trying" one. Every small step you make is a good one. And nobody applying arbitrary standards to you gets a say in that.

Does any of that make sense?

Ok, I will first put some perspective here, for our users, before anyone thinks that this is going to be a popcorn discussion. corrupt and I are real-life friends, and our friendship and mutual respect goes beyond Metal Storm, and not seeing eye to eye on something cannot and will not change that.

Now, on the matter at hand, apology accepted (of course). I, in turn, need to apologise for the part "We have deleted or banned way too many important bands", which was my own poor choice of words, and I only realized how it could be misinterpreted when Dinruth quoted me. I did not edit my post exactly because someone had quoted me and hoped that no one would take it the wrong way. What I wanted to point out was the fact that we do not care how important or popular a band is; as long as it falls outside our rules, we will not feature it, and we have done it with many bands. I am in agreement with you, corrupt, that we have not removed nearly enough. The reason for this, at least on my part, is the lack of time for appropriate research. In any case, the phrase "way too many" did not imply that we shouldn't have acted the way we did; quite the opposite. But I do see how I should have written it differently to make my point clear.

As far as responsibility goes, we all have our own personal experiences, but these experiences are not nearly enough to draw general conclusions. If we do view every person as an individual, putting them all in one bag and labelling them, just because they enjoy the music of Burzum or Inquisition or AILD, and without having any other knowledge of who they are, what they do, and what they believe in, is plain wrong, in my opinion, and it is also dangerous. The phrases "I don't care about the consequences of my actions", "I don't care about the victims of sexual abuse", "I don't care about queer or trans erasure", "I don't care about racism", or "I don't care about murder victims", "I don't care about genocide" are the ones I consider to be arbitrary assumptions. Listening to an artist does not, in any way, mean that you also "support" or "defend" their real-life actions or views. And, as far as Lovecraft goes (and even though I have no affinity whatsoever toward his literary work), the way art is interpreted rests upon the individual that receives it. More often than not, the audience takes a completely different message to the one that the artist intended to send. We both know of a black trans person that is very much into Lovecraft's work, so there is that.

Which brings me to one last point; I agree with you that ambiguity and dichotomy exists as part of real life. No one is perfect, and we all have our flaws. Each person draws their own lines, but, before we openly express a general opinion, based on said drawn lines, we have to look at ourselves first and be careful when using characterisations. I know it is difficult to comprehend how, for example, one person can at the same time listen to Inquisition and also defend child victims of sexual abuse in their line of work, but it can happen. Life is complex.

All that said, I totally respect that you wanted to have a different staff view expressed here, and I am glad that your view is documented, of course. After all, we do not disagree on the moral aspect of it all; but we partly disagree on what constitutes a breech of these morals.

edit: Since you replied to Dinruth, while I was writing this, let me just say that, yes, every small step is a good one, and it does make a difference. We should all strive to become better individuals and to always question ourselves and our actions.

Written by corrupt on 13.04.2025 at 06:26

Written by Karlabos on 13.04.2025 at 02:48

Well, I don't think any piece of art should ever be "banned" in any form, so separating the author and the art is a no brainer for me.

I just find it kinda amusing the thought of metalheads discussing banning music for whatever reason. After all, metal was always exactly about being able to do art concerning topics that were considered too heavy by the status quo. Ever since the beginning.

Definitely not banned. But does "not banned" mean we should promote it?

Any group must be measured by who and what it accepts in their midst. We draw the line at racism in music because we don't want to platform artists promoting ideologies that cause people suffering. That doesn't mean they don't exist or that these bands don't thrive. And it also has very little to do with the separation of art and artist. In this case the art is the issue, not the artist.

And for the record, I think Nik's opinion in this matter is terrible. It's not only in opposition to our mission, it goes against many things I personally value in life. We already have a getting into article about Burzum that should really be deleted in my opinion, or at least get a big disclaimer. That is us platforming the music of a known racist and antisemitic bigot. Removing that, or even Burzum's profile from Metal Storm wouldn't be "banning" him, it would be showing that we don't tolerate this kind of ideology in our midst.

Of course, when it comes to art done by artists with uh.. questionable backgrounds, every person is entitled to their own opinion on whether they should consume the art freely, should consume but not promote it, should boycott it or should boycott and additionally fight actively against it. But regardless of one's personal view, I believe one shouldn't aim to impose their view on the others. When a person or group active fights for some piece of art to be banned in a certain sense, I can't help but to think it sort goes on the other way from the purpose of the genre.

I don't think it's that big of a deal when a site like MS does it, because MS is not a public site, it's a domain made by some random people that had a common view, and thus they have no obligation of equally featuring the bands here without a personal system of priority. The staff could come up with any rule to feature or not a band here, it's all up the staff, really. Personally, I still disagree with the policies but I am aware they have to be respected if someone wants to be a member of this community. In a sense it can be thought of an amalgamate of a single person with an own set of views about which artists they would want to talk about and then we are just inviting ourselves into interacting with such entity about that particular set of artists. Then if we try yo overstep, he just says "nah, I don't wanna talk about it", and that's ok.

Anyway, people can act however they want, but I just find it a bit funny when they do that.