Your opinions please!

Submitted by sweet___sophie on 16th April 2007

Tags:

Hi everyone I'm a Media Studies Student from Somerset, and for my final A Level exam in June I am required to answer the following question: "Is it morally right to listen to and enjoy the music of criminals?" Public opinion is essential for top marks so please discuss away :D Thanks, Sophie xx

1276 reads

Papageno

19 April 2007 - 5:47am

Who are the criminals in question? What are the allegations against them? How does listening to their music abet their criminal action (unless your waiting in the get away car, listening to their music, while they are committing the bank robbery; but then, is the abetting in listening to the music, or in driving the get away car?)? Francois Villon is a very great poet who committed crimes and is even believed to have been hanged, for murder. Does reading his poetry make us responsible for his crimes? Jean Genet is one of the great writers of the XXth century, who not only did time for desertion, prostitution, and burglary, but who in his books (see Querelle de Brest), celebrates the much hated and thoroughly cruel Milice, and even the Hitlerians, precisely for their allowing themselves a binge of uninhibited criminality. Does our reading Genet make us responsible for Genet's crimes? For Hitler's? Would our ceasing to read his books bring holocaust victims back to life? Maybe not. But then, maybe does none of this apply to rappers and punks; they do seem more inclined to criminality than Vivaldi, Haydn, Mendelssohn et alii. Good luck with your studies, sweet sophie. Lots of us would commit crimes for a girl with a name like that. Would it be morally right to hand us over to the police? Sweet Sophie indeed. Few of us are musicians, though. Who is to say?

sweet___sophie

24 April 2007 - 2:42pm

Hi guys, first off, thanks alot for your responses, very interesting stuff! However, I can't help but disagree with you,Papageno, as the poets, writers and dictators your speak of are long deceased and can no longer cause corruption to our society, at least not directly. The question I am debating is whether or not listening to, and therefore promoting, music which is produced by hardened criminals is right in our modernised society. OK so you asked for an example: R Kelly, a black R&B solo artist has been tried for paedophilia. Pete Doherty, a white rock artist has been tried and convicted for numerous drug charges and driving under the influence, as well as car theft. Cheryl Tweedy, a young white pop singer has been tried for grievous bodily harm. Snoop Dogg, a black rapper has been repeatedly tried for gun and drug possession. I have plenty more where that came from, but I think these varied examples are enough to further stimulate the debate. Clearly the crimes committed vary enormously, and through out my research I have come across many who couldn't care less whther their favourite aritist did drugs, carried guns, perved on children or phscially attacked innocent civilians. But the point is, do people really not care whether they are filling the pockets of and increasing the fame of people who have either committed some grave moral wrong doing, or who merely set a bad example to society? I must say I am more inclined to agree with Englishman, in that I would not feel right listening to the music of somebody who had murdered, raped etc. if it meant they gained form it in anyway. From my personal exaperience I was shocked to discover R Kelly's crimes and now try to avoid listening to his music. However in other circumstances such as drugs or violence it is really down to the individual, whether they are offended by it or not. So... any more thoughts guys?! :)

englishman

24 April 2007 - 5:56pm

Sophie, in an ideal world it would be down to an individual choice whether you listen to music by someone who has committed crimes and for you to decide whether that was OK or not. I think the problem is that the music industry is responsible for promotion to such a huge extent that the success or otherwise of an artist is much more dependent on this promotion than on his/her qualities as a musician. This then means that it is the music industry that decides whether the criminal offences of a musician are worthy of him being effectively banned or not. They would obviously base that on their marketing department's view on the potential value of continuing promotion or letting the person sign a contract elsewhere. If enough people took a moral stance, it would have an effect on the record companies, but I suspect that this would not happen. In many cases a record company taking a moral view would be accused of censorship and chastised by annoyed fans. And sometimes notoriety increases sales. Personally, I would not listen to, or buy the music of, people who had committed serious crimes unless I was convinced there was significant mitigating circumstances. I think it wrong that they should make money as a result of their notoriety and, taking a longer term view, I would wish that the record company would take a position on whether they should continue to promote this person and make him/her wealthy as a result. On the other hand, if you didn't listen to music from musicians who had committed drug offences there would not be much left, at least in the jazz and popular sections :-) Message was edited by: englishman

Courtney Hamilton

26 April 2007 - 11:28pm

"On the other hand, if you didn't listen to music from musicians who had committed drug offences there would not be much left, at least in the jazz and popular sections." I agree, indeed, it could be argued that some of the best music we've ever heard was done by people who were breaking the law at the time they made the music. Someone mentioned Pete Docherty for example, I personally think he's an extremely talented musician - I've seen him, and the Libertines, and Babyshambles live on many occasions, and they were absolutely fantastic. How about Bob Marley, who smoked the most amount of gunja? What about reggae musicians in general? Smoking dope is part and parcel of the culture. The same goes for most of the pop world - indeed, if you have a moral problem listening to music by those who have been convicted of an offence, the only music you would be left with is Max Bygraves or worse. The truth is, when it comes to music, you have no choose but to throw morality out of the window, and go beyond morality towards a much more open and far reaching aesthetic.

Wingman07

28 April 2007 - 5:56pm

Hi, Despite being a regular at this site I only decided now to have a look at the forums... This is my very first post! Sophie: "The question I am debating is whether or not listening to, and therefore promoting, music which is produced by hardened criminals is right in our modernized society." Regarding this issue, I think it is difficult to decide 'right' in moral terms easily here. For me the real issue has more to do with justice: Once you have been found guilty and paid your dues (a fine, jail-time, etc.) then that's it as far as I am concerned. No-one should be punished more (or less) than is appropriate, and therefore, whether it is 'right' to listen to criminals music is something everyone has to decide for themselves. Would I stop listening to a band I liked because I found out they were criminals? Maybe, but probably not.

CyroMax

5 May 2007 - 5:35pm

Hello Sophie, I think most of the cases were covered. I will just add something Is it morally right to listen to and enjoy the music of criminals? First, I agree with Wingman07 when he says "I think it is difficult to decide 'right' in moral terms easily here". I hate to go political in music section, but let me illustrate the point. If you ask GWB, whether Iraq war was right or wrong. He would say (and I am not quoting him), oh yes, it was probably a good idea. I am a person of the left (well, most of my views) I would say GWB has delusional sense of moral. So, what is wrong for me is right for GWB. So, it boils down to your definition of right and wrong. Second, there is no relationship between listening to a criminal's music and criminals. He is a criminal because of the Law. Laws are created by men. Not all of us agree with an arbitrary Law. Again depending on the Law he broke. So, there are people who agree/ disagree/ neutral with the Law. But, depending on the moral of an individual, he may or may not be regard as a criminal. So, the point I am trying to make is that I think Law does not necessarily have to follow moral. Third, I think if we follow that rule. Then you will have to avoid a tons of excellent musics. Why would you want to do that? But I agree, you sould listen to the music unless there is a connection between criminal and criminal activity. :-)

AlfredKappell

5 May 2007 - 11:59pm

Looks like Sophie's paper will be about her own opinions, not the public's opinion. Self-centeredness is of course the norm with young people these days. But what's the point polling the members of this forum?

sweet___sophie

17 May 2007 - 9:56am

What the...?! Is it just me or did that come from no where? The point in posting on forums is that you discuss your opinions with people, which inevitibly leads to agreements and disagreements. The fact that I disagreed with some one's opinion on the matter by no means justifies a comment like that... but then rudeness is of course the norm with delusional old men these days!!

englishman

19 April 2007 - 9:20pm

At first sight, you can listen to what you like. It would be like saying you cannot hear the opinion of someone who has committed a crime. I am aware that Richard Strauss sympathised with Nazism and that Hitler liked Wagner, but that, in itself, does not make their music evil or even corrupting. You can buy and read the works of Mao, Marx or Hitler's Mein Kampf. I suppose one thing you should consider from a moral aspect is whether that person is benefitting through royalties, or even through a feeling of support for his previous actions. I think that would weigh in my mind when making such a decision. If I considered the crime sufficiently serious, I would not wish such a person to benefit in this way so I would then, in effect, self censor my listening.