So, let’s start with an obvious statement. Brilliant musicians are often shitty people. Miles Davis, who re-invented jazz so many times that you can nearly get a good idea of the genre’s history just by listening to him, admitted to beating his third wife, Cecily Tyson.
So, it’s a fairly obvious fact, great musicians can be awful people. Does anyone really think Beethoven, who was born in 1770, would have had moral values that aligned perfectly with people who live in the 21st century, you know, the century you live in unless this blog is still read long after I’m dead?
So, the solution is clear. Morally problematic people, awful people, perhaps even evil people, are often capable of making great music or great works of art. So the only solution to all this, is to separate the art from the artist. Great, we can all go home and not think about this issue any more. Can’t we? Can’t we?
I’m afraid not.
Holding the opinion that a great musician was a bad person is perfectly fine. If the moment you hear a Miles Davis song being played, your spirit instantly soars, there’s no need to be ashamed of that. Your enjoyment of the song does not mean you condone any of the terrible things that this man did. However, if you buy music, from a musician who is still alive, and currently making music, you have to ask the question, is your money helping to finance whatever terrible things they are doing.
Let’s take a look at a video from Sky News Australia, which I will hence forth be referring to as Pro-Genocide Southern Hemisphere New Station. Yeah, they’re quite bad. At least with Irish news you’ll get something like, “I’d like to take four seconds to acknowledge that dead Palestinians is kind of sad before apologizing for the genocide.” With Pro-Genocide Southern Hemisphere News Station you don’t even get that, it’s basically, “G’Day mate, genocide is great now let’s throw some shrimp on the barbie!”
That was an extremely offensive depiction of an Australian. And I am willing to apologize for it as soon as Australia apologizes for Rupert Murdoch.
So this video is an example of some of the dreck that Pro-Genocide Southern Hemisphere News Station produces:
In this video, the talking people whinge about a Thom Yorke concert, where a Pro-Palestine activist heckles Thom Yorke and he walks off stage. So, apparently, this activist, “ruined everyone’s night”.
EHHHHHH, NO!!!!!! For my non-Cork readers that translates as, “That is most certainly not the case old chum.” Thom Yorke was the one who walked off the stage, so the person who ruined everyone’s night was Thom Yorke! Musicians get heckled all the time, for reasons far less important than the fact that there’s a genocide going on. I wonder would Pro-Genocide Southern Hemisphere News Station have been as sympathetic to Thom Yorke for walking off had the heckler made some comment about his appearance, or had said the song he is playing sucked, or just blurted out some drunken incoherent nonsense. Me thinks in that instance, Pro-Genocide Southern Hemisphere News Station would have criticized Thom Yorke for ruining everyone’s night, and would have told him to grow a thicker skin and suck it up!
There’s a reason I’m talking about Thom Yorke, and not just as a pretext for having a go at one of the many news organizations owned by the dastardly Rupert Murdoch, though that’s part of it. The reason I’m talking about Mr Yorke is that.
I love Radiohead’s music. OK Computer is a fucking masterpiece. At that point, the band could have split up and would still have been remembered decades later for their contribution to, what I’m going to call prog tinged alt-rock, but then they produced Kid A, Amnesiac and Hail to the Thief, which contained the same kind of re-inventing of the wheel that happened with OK Computer. For most bands, OK Computer would have been a high point, that was never equaled, but Radiohead continued to innovate.
So how should we respond to the fact that since the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement begun, calling for a boycott of Israel, Radiohead continue to play there?
In 2017, director Ken Loach, famed for his films that document the treatment of the British working class, wrote an open letter asking Radiohead to reconsider playing in Israel.
I’d like to talk a bit about an argument Tom Yorke makes for playing Israel in this BBC article:
“Music, art and academia is about crossing borders not building them, about open minds not closed ones, about shared humanity, dialogue and freedom of expression.”
How does Radiohead playing in an apartheid state bolster any of the values he just described? It’s not like, as many people in the world believe, it is simply a case that Israelis and Palestinians are mean to each, why oh why can’t they just get along! I’m all for crossing borders not building them, I’m all for shared humanity, and I’m all for puppies and kittens, but I feel Mr Yorke has completely failed to explain how any positive value is endorsed by them playing Israel. If a band that is celebrated worldwide for their musical ingenuity, plays Israel, it sends the message that, Israel, a state that has committed apartheid against the Palestinian people since 1948, and now, is wiping them off the face off the Earth, is a valid state that should be respected. There is a history of countries committing apartheid and genocide trying to gain legitimacy by inviting really celebrated musical acts to play for them. Queen played South Africa in 1984 during the apartheid era, which drummer Roger Taylor has since admitted was a mistake:
To me it’s quite simple, Israel needs to be de-legitimized. Israel needs to be seen as a pariah. You shouldn’t get to take away the homes, civil liberties, and the lives of Palestinian people, and get to be viewed as a really cool country, that even Radiohead play in!
For some reason, everyone understands this concept perfectly fine when it comes to South Africa. But Israel gets a free pass, as always, for some reason.
Everyone understands this concept when it comes to Russia, hence their exclusion from the Eurovision and the Olympics, as I’ve previously talked about:
But, Israel gets a free pass. When it’s Russia, or when we look back on apartheid South Africa, it’s, yes the boycott was totally justified. But when it’s Israel, it’s some horseshit about how the people who are really intolerant are those who are boycotting Israel or some other nonsense.
So, do I separate the art from the artist? In one respect, yes. Nothing about the fact that Radiohead refuse to boycott Israel changes the fact that OK Computer and Kid A are absolute classics. But, where separating the art from the artist becomes a problem is when someone chooses to continue giving their money to an artist who is doing something that is unethical. If I pay for Radiohead’s albums, or pay to see them live, I am enabling them to continue playing in Israel. If enough people stopped buying their music, they would be forced to change, and instead play in, well, anywhere other than Israel. It’s a big world, plenty of venues for them to play!
I respect what Radiohead has done for music, and that will never change. But, unless they change their policy of helping to prop up Israel through their music, I think people should seriously consider whether they want to give them their money by buying their albums or by going to see them live. “Separating the art from the artist” is not a get out jail free card for supporting unethical bands.
Ponderings Of An Autist 
One thought on “On “Separating The Art From The Artist””