Controversial Artists: Loving Works by People You Hate

Within the past week, several serious allegations of abuse have come out surrounding the ever-so-popular artist your mom loves to hate, Marilyn Manson. Initially starting with Evan Rachel Wood, who came out stating that the shock-rock artist groomed her as a teenager and mentally abused her for years, more and more women who’ve had relationships with Brian Warner have piled on the allegations of sexual misconduct, abuse and misogyny. Within days, Marilyn Manson was dropped from his record label, his manager, and legions of fans, it seems, have overnight turned on him.

I’m not here to debate whether the allegations against the musician are true or not; it seems to be unlikely that so many people would care enough about ‘taking him down’ to falsify claims of misconduct and abuse. Like with Harvey Weinstein, it’s far more likely that one person with the courage to speak up emboldened other women – women who had felt pressure to remain silent for years – to finally tell their own truth. Perhaps Manson has been a terrible person for decades, and people willfully turned a blind eye; perhaps the power that comes with being a household name corrupted him to the point where he felt he could get away with whatever he wanted. Either way, it’s important that the victims of abuse – whether at the hands of powerful people or not – are able to come forward and voice their truths.

What’s fascinating to me about this most recent sensation is not that Marilyn Manson is capable of abusing women or power – I have no doubt he is – but how quickly the masses turned against him. In all the media frenzy I’ve seen regarding the situation, the closest to a counterargument I’ve seen was from Dita Von Teese, who simply said it didn’t align with her experience with Marilyn Manson, although she did eventually leave him because of his behavior and infidelity. Rather, everyone who had supported him throughout his career turned their backs on him in a heartbeat – faster, even, than if they had been completely ignorant of his abusive behavior. This, to me, is perhaps more telling than even the allegations themselves.

It reminds me of what happened with a slightly lesser-known band, Iced Earth, in the wake of the United States Capitol riots earlier this year. Photos of their guitarist, Jon Schaffer, actively involved in the violence surfaced only days after the riots took place, and within days, their label dropped them, the representation was lost, and Schaffer himself is, by all accounts, now arrested and awaiting trial. Although this is not related to sexual abuse as with Marilyn Manson – and there is less evidence that Schaffer was prone to violence prior to the riots themselves – the dropping of the artist like a hot potato is a theme that is starting to become a repeating pattern.

The question this poses for me is this: when an artist, band, producer, or celebrity of any kind ‘goes down’, and unsavory truths come to light about these people, where does that leave their legacy and their body of work? Can their music, their books, or their films still be enjoyed, despite what we now know about them as people? And while the answer might at first seem to be a simple ‘yes’, it doesn’t change the fact that new information can change our perception of old art.

For example, every time I watch The Lord of the Rings – often praised on this blog as one of the best series of films ever made – I’m reminded in the credits that Harvey Weinstein was their executive producer, and enormously influential in getting the films made. To an extent, I owe an abusive, manipulative sexual predator a debt of gratitude for helping bringing to life my favorite movies of all time. Does that somehow taint the enjoyment I get from simply watching the movies, removed from the fact that at the time, Weinstein’s behavior was either unknown, or at least a well-kept secret?

Moving forward, I really enjoy Marilyn Manson’s music. His album Mechanical Animals is a huge part of my youth, and his songs and lyrics spoke to me deeply as a troubled teen. When I listen to his music now, I can’t help but think that it was made by a sexually abusive creep. How can I still listen to his work, knowing now what I do about the man as a person?

Or what about Iced Earth – another band whose music I enjoy? Do I still listen to their releases, despite knowing that their main songwriter is in jail for inciting violence against the literal government of the United States? That he’s a right-wing nut job who would probably just as soon shoot me as look at me?

The paradox here is that art is created by humans – flawed, imperfect, and sometimes downright despicable – but the art itself, removed from the context of the artist, can often be enjoyed regardless of the creator’s original intentions, meanings, or personal beliefs and behaviors. After all, even Mozart has been thought to be a sexual predator and womanizer, but it doesn’t change the fact that, 200 years later, we still enjoy his music as some of the best to have ever been written.

Beyond that, what of financial support? With streaming platforms, every time I listen to one of Marilyn Manson’s songs, he gets money. Not much, but added up over all the fans he has around the world, and it still means that I’m providing a living to someone who I now know to be a fiend. It feels wrong to continue to support someone like that, but at the same time, it doesn’t change the fact that his music means something to me, both from a lyrical and nostalgic perspective. Do I simply cut off an entire part of my life, simply because I don’t agree with an artist’s behavior?

I don’t know if there’s an easy answer to be found here; from Marilyn Manson to Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton to Bill Cosby, there countless examples of celebrities who have done unspeakable, immoral, or even illegal things. I think that, in most cases, most of these people were not inherently bad people to begin with, but I recognize that power corrupts; and while this isn’t an excuse to their behavior, it at least brings into consideration that what these people created and did for the greater good should still be taken into consideration, despite their aberrant, destructive and manipulative behavior.

Marilyn Manson may never create another record after this. If he did, I don’t know if I would want to listen to it. How could I in good faith listen to the words and music of someone who can do such horrible things to other people? But at the same time, I don’t want to stop listening to his existing body of work, because before I knew about his abhorrent behavior, it meant something important to me, and I know it meant something important to millions of others, as well.

I’d be curious to know what you think about this. When unsavory information comes to light about someone you once revered, does it change your perspective on what they already did? Are you still able to enjoy their body of work? Does the new information taint how you perceive not just the artist, but their creations? What are your thoughts?

Music I Love: Rock Mix 1

Track listing:

  1. Black Night – Deep Purple (1970)
  2. Sweet Dreams – Marilyn Manson (1995)
  3. Enter Sandman (S&M) – Metallica (1999)
  4. Amish Paradise – Weird Al Yankovic (1996)
  5. Synthetic – Spineshank (2000)
  6. Coma White – Marilyn Manson (1998)
  7. Smoke on the Water (Live) – Deep Purple (unknown year)
  8. Long Hard Road out of Hell – Marilyn Manson (1999)
  9. Fade to Black – Metallica (1984)
  10. New Disease – Spineshank (2000)
  11. The Night Santa Went Crazy – Weird Al Yankovic (1996)
  12. Californication – Red Hot Chili Peppers (1999)

This is the story of how my life was saved by music, and two kids in high school. If that seems like hyperbole, I’d argue you’ve never known a teenager suffering from clinical depression. There was once a time when I was desperately close to suicide, and this set of twelve songs quite literally stopped me.

Continue reading

Thought of the Week: Heavy Metal Silliness

Iron Maiden, in all their aging glory.

Iron Maiden, in all their aging glory.

I came across a fascinating tidbit yesterday about a catholic school and its radio station. Certain heavy metal bands, it seems, are not allowed to be played or mentioned because of the moniker the band members chose to take. Quite a few of them are pretty vulgar and I won’t repeat them here, but some just made me laugh, because they are actually pretty popular – Alien Sex Fiend, Cannibal Corpse, Cradle of Filth, and even Heaven Shall Burn. If metal is completely not your bag, baby, then bear in mind that Alien Sex Fiend (completely not metal, but whatever) reached #3 in the UK charts with E.S.T. (Trip to the Moon) in 1984; Cannibal Corpse had a glorious cameo in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, and even Heaven Shall Burn write songs mainly about their disgust with racism and injustice.

Some of the most notorious songs are – notoriously – misunderstood by a surprisingly wide demographic.

However…it isn’t like we don’t bring it on ourselves (I include metal bands and fans together, because honestly there isn’t one without the other). Band names like Cannibal Corpse and Revolting Cocks (a side project of Ministry frontman Al Jourgensen; remember Ministry? Every Day is Halloween?) are, frankly, absurd. Granted, there is a strong element of provocation in heavy metal, which is one of the reasons the stricter religious sects are often so put out; religion is often a target of condemnation in metal lyrics (note: religion, not god). No one really likes to be called a hypocrite, and this sort of cynicism abounds in metal.

Some of the most notorious songs are – notoriously – misunderstood by a surprisingly wide demographic. Marilyn Manson was famously excoriated after the Columbine shootings for his song Get Your GunnGet Your Gunn, of course, is about the murder of physician and abortionist David Gunn in 1993 by a pro-life activist, and not, in fact, a suggestion to go out and get gunns. Even heavy metal choir boys Iron Maiden are often called out for the well-known The Number of the Beast, which naturally is about the fear of evil, and the hypocritical actions people take to protect themselves. The members of Iron Maiden are in fact outspoken christians.

Heavy metal has been a part of my life (has more or less defined it, in fact) since my early teens, and while there is a lot of ‘serious’ stuff out there, there are also some examples of spectacular silliness. Take German New York power metal band Manowar:

Just a tad disturbing, wouldn't you agree?

Just a tad disturbing, wouldn’t you agree?

These guys wrote a heavy metal song about playing heavy metal, and in an impressive display of sheer pig-headed stupidity managed to garner themselves three records for loudest band in the world (in 1984, 1994 and 2008), reaching as high as 139 dB. In case you’re wondering, this is about the equivalent of standing with your ear to the engine of a 747 during takeoff. Good stuff.

Rob Halford – none more metal.

Rob Halford – none more metal.

We even look silly, with our unkempt long hair, leather underwear and inability to appear even remotely appropriate for a job interview. We like to shock people, which is probably because we were all shy nerds in high school and want to get back at all the sliced-white-bread twerps that grew up to have 2.4 children, 2 cars, a dog and a six-figure salary.

So yes, catholic school – ban our music. I wouldn’t want Goatwhore playing in my own child’s school either, even though I blast in the car on the way to work every day (not really – I’d actually never heard of them). In fact, bravo for allowing heavy metal to air on their radio station at all. A lot of ‘non-denominational’ schools wouldn’t be so brave. Now if only we had some actual catholic heavy metal bands; Avenging Pope would be awesome.