Should some songs never be sung again?

[Atethehalloweenchocs]

I was at a social event where there was various songs which we were singing along to. One of which was Delilah. Obviously the content is abhorrent, but its a banger of a tune, and something that loads of people know. The day after, found an old playlist with a bunch of Michael Jackson stuff on. AIBU to think it is ok to sing along to a song with a good tune even if the content or artist is problematic?

I don’t understand anything of this? I love Delilah and wouldn’t think twice about listening to it. What’s even wrong with it? And Michael Jackson why not? He’s dead. His music still lives and his text are not worse than any other music.

Seriously, I listen to whatever I like, regardless of the politics/shitty person who made it.

@Nocaloriesinchocolate I was thinking of Wagner when I wrote my last post. Nobody could listen to "Im Treibhaus" and think "nah, I'll give him a miss because he was appropriated by Hitler".

I have same issue with Rooftops by lost prophets. Bangin tune!

But then, the rest of the band deserve the income so....

I’ve just read the words to Delilah 😳
I’ve never read them before, they are quite shocking and don’t really go with the tune 😱.

That's an interesting point. I mean Bill Wyman and Mandy Smith was a big story but there wasn't any paedophile abuse that I remember (to be fair I was working and had two babies in that period so I might have missed it) but yes Polanski had to go on the run (I know there is a consent issue but then Mandy Smith wasn't old enough to consent was she.)

With the racism issue do you think Polanski being Jewish plays a part in that? I do think the change from him being the tragic figure with the murder of his wife and baby changing to him being evil played a part, almost like people felt he hadn't deserved their sympathy.

Very complicated things to figure out with it all.

Why? What would you expect that tune to be about?

It’s a really interesting dilemma. There’s a lot of posters here saying they could never listen to lostprophets again as the lead singer is a convicted paedophile. Which is obviously understandable.

But would it be different if it was the bassist who had been convinced? Or the lead sound engineer or producer? Or the record label owner? These will all be making money/ royalties from the music. Should we never listen to anything producer by Phil Spector?

I think there’s some emotional connection when we listen to a vocalist that means we hold them to certain standards we don do with other musicians or people in the music business more generally.

I've never understood this either. Bowie is still revered but others are villified. Why? What makes one manipulative rock star a filthy paedophile/hebephile and another absolutely unimpeachable? Is it just that no one wants to stop listening to Bowie and the Stones whereas ditching Gary Glitter and Michael Jackson is an easier decision?

That is so amazingly crap!! Thank you for sharing, it's given me a laugh.

Reminds me a bit of The Seekers' song:
Hey there, Georgy girl
Swinging down the street so fancy-free
Nobody you meet could ever see the loneliness there inside you
Hey there, Georgy girl
Why do all the boys just pass you by?
Could it be you just don't try or is it the clothes you wear?
You're always window shopping but never stopping to buy
So shed those dowdy feathers and fly a little bit

I find the lyrics so cringey but it's a really compelling tune!

I dont give that much of a shit. I will listen to whatever I like, even if the singer was a nonce or a murderer.
Most artists are complete fuckups

I’m glad Kate Bush did that. I adore her and hate the fact she inadvertently had RH on a track now knowing what his real self is.

I think the groupie scene was clearly exploitative, but are you really saying its comparable to Gary Glitter hiring trafficked young children to rape in third world countries, or Ian Watkins raping babies?

That's a good question about Polanski and whether racism plays a part in how he's been treated, but I'm very uncomfortable with this line of thought. My understanding is that he was convicted in a court of law of plying a 13 year old with quaaludes and alcohol and anally raping her while she resisted. I'm perfectly comfortable with audiences or colleagues turning their backs on him. I guess the issue is why isn't that done with other figures. Ugh.

That said I am a big believer in separating the art from the artist, and understanding that art can be used to depict bad things, because art is for depicting the whole range of human life, not just the pretty parts. The example of opera made above is a good one.

Music is music. If you didn't listen to it because the artist was questionable at some point, you'd have no one to listen to.

Cross forum bleed I love 💘 it. None the anthem its a terrible dirge of a tune.

I think the main difference is the groupies culture back then. There were a lot of very eager groupies in those days and age was probably never mentioned. Not defending that of course but I don’t think Bowie was ever a danger on the street to girls. I would imagine looking back he was could have been appalled at the lack of his own boundaries in the 1970s rock culture. I can listen to Bowie but I can’t listen to Glitter.

Rolf Harris didn't write the music or lyrics though did he? I can remember when he was first singing it and he said it was an old American piece.

It’s when I catch myself muttering what’s a matter you, hey, gotta no respect. Whadaya think you do hey. That I realise my life has gone very wrong somewhere.

Come on Eileen and Tonight's the Night - both vile, underage rapey lyrics. Should be banned.

@SecretPeston - how is Come On Eileen vile rapey lyrics? He says she's grown up now and he really fancies her in that dress. It's not rapey to lust after someone and want them to take their clothes off.

There are thousands of tracks that use that word.

I think provided there are no royalties being paid to an artist who is a convicted paedophile or similar lowlife there's no harm in songs being played. Just because something seems inappropriate now doesn't mean it has no merit.

To argue that no Michael Jackson songs should be played on the radio is like arguing we shouldn't be wearing seatbelts because Jimmy Savile starred in "clunk click every trip" adverts telling us to do so. Yes he was a disgusting paedophile who abused countless victims but you have to separate the art and the artist's message from their crimes.

Put another way, I'd prefer someone to survive a car crash because they had worn a seatbelt despite Jimmy Savile's offences than them die because they hadn't.

Kate Bush even replaced Rolf's contributions with those of her son on one of the re-releases of her albums (Aerial?).

I’m really conflicted about this one because the original version with Rolf’s voice is so much better. His voice just suits the music. The newer version with her son’s voice just doesn’t work and I find it unlistenable. So I always go back to the original and then of course the Rolf issue intrudes into the music.
She should have replaced him with someone who had a more suitable, aged characterful voice similar to the original imo.