Michael Jackson: "Leaving Neverland" Documentary r

[TheDude85]

There has been a huge reaction to the recent release of the controversial documentary called "Leaving Neverland" about Michael Jackson's allegedly sexually abusing kids. It caused me to wonder if the public perception of artists' recorded output should change based on the artist's personal life? Should Michael Jackson's standing in the Music Community be negatively effected because of questions on how he chose to live his life? Does the question of paedophelia make "Billie Jean", "Beat It", "Black Or White", or "Thriller" any less great musically?

Same with questions surrounding R. Kelly. There was a TV show called "Surviving R. Kelly" which detailed allegations of child abuse and sexual perversions, which caused some radio stations to vow to never play R. Kelly's music again. Do the allegations merit pulling R. Kelly's music?

This isn't a new phenomena. Back in the day, public perception regarding The Beatles turned significantly sour because of an off-hand comment that John Lennon made about The Beatles being more popular than Jesus. This resulted in mass public Beatles record burnings organized by local radio disc jockeys and religious groups. In some instances, The Beatles never recovered from this controversy.

So the question is, should how we, as a mass of listeners/consumers, allow an artist's personal life effect how their artistic output is evaluated?

[CA Dreamin]

https://www.besteveralbums.com/phpBB2/v...hp?t=21260

[TheDude85]

@StreetSpirit - I saw the thread you linked, before I made my post. While the link you posted discussed the documentary, I was hoping to broaden the scope of the discussion - not confining it to Jackson's guilt or innocence, but the ramifications of an artist's personal life having a positive/negative effect on public perception and overall ranking in his/her artistic output.

In that regard, should an artist's drug addiction be grounds to reduce/enhance his/her status among the public ranking his/her career. For instance, Janis Joplin's drug use that allegedly led to her early death. Does that make her artisitic output held in higher/lower esteem? Is she popularly regarded because she produced what she did in a relatively short period of time? Would she be more or less revered if she hadn't been addicted and lived?

So to re-iterate my question, what effect, if any, does an artist's personal life have on public perception on his/her musical status?

[theblueboy]

It is an interesting question. Though I think there is another similar thread on this broader topic too from fairly recent times but I can't remember the title.

Anyway, generally speaking this doesn't effect my opinion on the work itself. However, I may still be less inclined to listen to it often due to controveries it brings to mind.

[DommeDamian]

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P...Z5966jAqmf

My answer to your question is that I personally like to separate art from the artist, even though if I liked him/her or not. Their personal life is not something I wanna care that much about.

Re: R.Kelly - I do believe that he is guilty, and since his music reflect his allegations/evidence so much, it's hard for me to enjoy certain songs of his. I hope it all makes sense.
_________________
My Top 100 :
www.besteveralbums.com/thechart.php?c=4...amp;page=1

My music:
- www.hyperfollow.com/dommedamian
Spotify: ----------------------------------------------------↓