Mar 9, 2009
Do you have to take an artist seriously as a person to appreciate their music?
Like this post?
I separate music and musician because I can’t treat good music seriously if I have to factor in the artist’s farcical persona.
* * * * *
© 2012 Abuyo. All rights reserved.
I assume you do this with other Artists also – authors and actors and so forth?
I imagine there is a level that a discerning person shouldn’t do this – i.e. the artist is so immoral that you shouldn’t really have anything to do with their art.
But I agree with you – U2 hasn’t crossed that line.
That’s probably wise, but very difficult to do. There have been numerous times when I discovered the personality of a favorite artist, and it ruined their music for me.
I can’t make myself forget that I don’t like them.
Example: A favorite band from High School, who’s songs made me want to press on when life seemed impossible, were complete jerks and druggies when I met them on tour.
I wanted to continue to be inspired, but it turns out they just happened to write a few inspiring songs.
Bummer.
I never have understood the U2 craze anyhow, so I’m not much help here.
10 points for using “farcical.”
Alanis Morisette is an artist that I have enjoyed getting to know both through the art as well as interviews about the art. I take her somewhat seriously, though I disagree with her overall spin.
Derek Webb is another I take pretty seriously.
My friend Josh is a fabulous artist. But he wears shoes and socks like these. Surely I can’t take *that* seriously.
I like Wagner’s music, but I detest his anti-Semitism. I love the magic flute but don’t agree with Mozart’s Masonic propaganda. And I love Britten’s music, though I don’t agree with some of his life-style choices.
heh, I thought you wrote “facial persona.”
If we have to respect an artist to appreciate his art, we would not have any art left, and we would have no hope of making our own contribution.
-Adam
U2 is fantastic but yeah, that cover is terrible. Bono is working on another alter-ego character for the upcoming tour (think Machpisto from the Zoo Tv Tour) which pokes fun at celebrity. That’s what the eye shadow is about.
Their new album is great. One of their more spiritually rich efforts. The song “Magnificent” could be sung for praise and worship.
You absolutely have to separate music and musician, or you wouldn’t be able to listen to a lot of the good music, because its authors are different from you.
Imagine being a politically and theologically conservative type and trying to filter your music by whether you agreed with the artist! You’d be stuck with mainstream country and CCM, I think (and some of that would be off limits too). No thanks.
I separate Adam Duritz from Counting Crows. When he’s not singing, he’s one of the whiniest human beings alive. Ok, sometimes the music is whiny too…
“Imagine being a politically and theologically conservative type and trying to filter your music by whether you agreed with the artist! You’d be stuck with mainstream country and CCM”
My thought: What you’d be stuck with is not a good gauge for what you should listen to. If it’s harmful, you shouldn’t listen to it, even if you don’t like all the rest.
But even with that said, I don’t think we’re stuck with CCM.
Surely I have glaring inconsistencies in this area.
I don’t want to hyper-evaluate the undeniable talents and gifts God graciously gives, however we are called to be wise and discerning…
That god gifts unbelievers is clear!
I’m a bit apathetic toward U2, but maybe that’s a minority position.
It depends on the extent to which the artist’s music is self-referential.
Mozart hardly led a life of exemplary moral character, yet for the Church, he created some of the most glorious, heart-breaking music known to man precisely because it was not about him (or us, for that matter), but about ineffable, transcendent Truth.
The question probably boils down to this: Can we glorify God when we listen to the music of an unbeliever? Yes, we can. I think Laurie’s comment pretty much sums it up.
I totally agree with Michael on Adam Duritz. He is very whiny but he has also written some great songs. I feel the same way about Ryan Adams, who is one of my favorites.
I am an unrepentant fan of the Cult and the Black Crowes, so I can’t really speak to this topic with any credibility. I mean: they are on my iPod right now.
So whatever small shread of theological gravitas I have is completely gone now. Suffice it to say that when someone finds a way to put the Psalmist’s words to “She Sells Sanctuary” or “Could I’ve been so Blind”, my sanctification will have been advanced significantly.
There is an answer to Abraham’s question in there someplace. You’ll have to sort it out for yourself.
For the record: don’t bother to compare these bands to anyone in CCM. That’s just self-deception.
Andrew says: “I like Wagner’s music, but I detest his anti-Semitism. I love the Magic Flute but don’t agree with Mozart’s Masonic propaganda. And I love Britten’s music, though I don’t agree with some of his life-style choices.”
Amen to that! Right now I’m playing some Samuel Barber. Both Barber and Britten (20th century composers) were homosexual, and their music relates to that in emotional but not explicit ways. Both of them wrote masterpieces that are very deep and rich and rewarding to play. I have to separate music and the musician. The great thing about music, is that it allows us to get to the core emotions within everyone and the human nature we all share, even when the composer is farcical or immoral or racist.
Coming to this blog almost ensures that I’ll have to use a dictionary.
I think one really has to be careful with music – very careful not to discern it correctly both in itself and the creators of the music. Recently I finished Worldliness by C.J. Mahaney, ed., et al. There is a section of music in there that I was not interested in at all but once I began, I understood that music is the preaching of the singer.
Look, we don’t separate the hymn words from what the words were intended to mean – especially in public or corporate worship. To say that C. Wesley meant something different in “And Can It Be That I Should Gain?” (greatest hymn ever) that what is written and what he believed would be an error. Wesley preaches through that hymn – this is God and His attributes, worship Him because of His kind grace to us, haters of God.
Whether secular, moreover, especially secular music because we want to believe that music apart from sacred music is just music and doesn’t mean as much as we would like to think it really does. Bono preaches from stages, DMB preaches from stage. They are saying to the whole world, viz. their audience and standby listeners, “This is what I believe” set it to a tranced tune “believe it with me.”
we don’t separate the hymn words from what the words were intended to mean
I would say that we separate hymns from what they were intended to mean all the time. I’d say that’s pretty much all we do.
When we sing in church, the songwriter isn’t even in the picture. As we sing, we are saying to God what we mean by those lyrics.
Now, often that will be the same as the writer’s intention, but if it’s not, that doesn’t usually bother us. We probably don’t even know if we’re singing something different than was intended.
We’re singing something true and wonderful from our hearts, and it’s true and wonderful regardless of the heart of the songwriter.
What you’re talking about is common grace. I love this concept. I discovered it while I was working at in Michigan. They do great things there with the arts. The idea is that God can speak through someone without them even knowing it. This is what makes a terrible sinners art beautiful. This is what makes an otherwise dreadful author’s words true and right.
Everyone else is giving an example so, for me, the Indigo Girls personify this concept so well. In college, I listened to all of their loves songs and I knew they were about their lesbian lovers. It didn’t make it any less relevant to my situation.
I’m not listening to the Black Crowes because I’m getting spiritually uplifted, yo: I’m listening because they rock. It’s the same reason some people play sports or ride motorcycles or like to perform in public: it’s a fleshly rush.
I admit is is embarassing. It is even in some sense shameful. When I listen it is because I need a dose of something I know my Christian life should deliver to me, but it does not.
I am not proud of it. I just know it’s true, and I don’t want to shame the idea of “common grace” by saying that music (lyrics or no; if you can decipher Chris Robinson, you are a better man than me) somehow gives me something which is actually godly.
I agree with what Peter said above, and the Mahaney book’s point about singing being a kind of preaching. But it would be really hypocritical of me to say that I can actually live that way. I can’t yet. I need a remedy, yeah, for what is ailin’ me: y’see?
I separate music from the musician… unless it’s Johnny Cash or Vanilla Ice. In both cases, I’m pretty sure they’ve lived whatever they’re singing about. [Ok, I'm kidding about Vanilla Ice].
Frank, it sounds like you would describe your musical tastes as “hard to handle” – am I onto something there? Do you need a remedy, for what is ailing you – I mean me?
If you stopped listening to the Black Crowes, would it be twi-i-i-i-ce as ha-hard, as it was the first time you said goodbye?
My friends bring up these arguments against my favorite musicians all the time, but this is a good way to look at it. It isn’t like we take actors in movies seriously like we do the movie, right?
I think there’s no good way to put a blanket rule on this. I would not own a U2 album because I have a big problem with where those funds would go and what kind of message and lifestyle they would promote. That’s my own conviction — so (to borrow a concept Paul) to me, it would be sin for me to purchase and listen to their music. You’ve got to go with your conscience and talk to the Holy Spirit a lot about what He thinks of your music selection.
But to borrow another concept from Paul, I think that the vast majority of believers tend to err or the wrong side of “all things are permissible… not all things are beneficial.” I would rather miss out on some legitimately good music and keep an alive, devoted heart, than dull myself with hours of empty noise.
What that looks like will vary quite a bit from person to person. But I’m a big fan of “throw it out first, ask questions later” if we’re in any doubt as to how beneficial the music is for us.
I guess it’s porbably obvious that for me, I generally can’t separate the artist from the music. But I don’t think that means it’s impossible, or even necessarily always wrong, to do so.
Amanda,
When you buy shampoo and conditioner from Proctor & Gamble, are you at all worried where those funds would go and what kind of message and lifestyle they would promote?
Michael: If they were touring the world on stage and rallying people to a cause I strongly disagreed with, then I probably would.
I don’t think I stated myself very clearly above; I apologize for that. My problem with U2 is not so much “If they’re not Christian, I won’t buy anything from them,” but I am concerned about the syncretistic message they so vocally promote.
I know we live in a fallen world, and refusing to do business with anyone worldly is not practical or biblical. This is why I tried to emphasize above that it’s a matter of conscience, and what you feel okay before the Lord about supporting.
Answer to the original question:
No. Of course not. Suppose all you know is the name of the artist, you can still enjoy their music. I like the music of 15th century composer Caron. I don’t know anything about him.
True to a point, especially if the artist is particularly vacuous. I found this especially true for a group like REM.
For my most cherished guilty pleasure, The Beatles, there was a brief period of diminished appreciation when I learned more about their songs and their lives. Later on, however, a renewed respect for their entire output developed.
The reason for this phenomenon is because when we first hear a song we kind of mix our own interpretation in with the artists’. And so it means a lot to us because it’s very personal.
But when we learn the artist didn’t intend anything of the kind that we were imagining, the song loses a little of its magic.
I think it’s similar in acting. I see an actor play a great movie role in which he really expressed all the subtle nuances that I would be feeling in that particular situation.
Then I hear him interviewed on Letterman and it just sounds like there’s no one home. I think to myself, “Where is the intellect that went into playing this role?”
Does anyone find the following Bono quotes syncretistic?
“I’d be in big trouble if Karma was going to finally be my judge. I’d be in deep s—. It doesn’t excuse my mistakes, but I’m holding out for Grace. I’m holding out that Jesus took my sins onto the Cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don’t have to depend on my own religiosity.”
“The point of the death of Christ is that Christ took on the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. That’s the point. It should keep us humbled… . It’s not our own good works that get us through the gates of heaven.”
“Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn’t allow you that. He doesn’t let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I’m not saying I’m a teacher, don’t call me teacher. I’m not saying I’m a prophet. I’m saying: “I’m the Messiah.” I’m saying: “I am God incarnate.” And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You’re a bit eccentric. We’ve had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don’t mention the “M” word! Because, you know, we’re gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you’re expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he’s gonna keep saying this. So what you’re left with is: either Christ was who He said He was—the Messiah—or a complete nutcase. I mean, we’re talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. This man was like some of the people we’ve been talking about earlier. This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had “King of the Jews” on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I’m not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that’s farfetched … ”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/interviews/2005/bono-0805.html
It’s always easy to find Bono pandering to Christians with their words. He panders to secularists with their words, too.
I find it hard to receive what he says there as his convictions when he also says stuff like this.
in response to the title question:
no, i do not. if i enjoy the music enough, then i won’t usually let the artist’s personal life get in the way of that (unless it’s extremely distasteful, in which case it’s likely that their music wouldn’t appeal to me in the first place). an artist’s job is to entertain. if they can do that without letting their personal life disrupt it, we shouldn’t need to seek out that information.
however, if i happen upon knowledge about the personal life of a band that i already dislike, that gives me more ammo for disliking them. conversely, if i happen upon positive knowledge about the personal lives of a band i do like, that increases my love and respect for their music.
in general i don’t seek out personal information about a band anyway, so the answer to this question is often inconsequential in regards to my musical habits.
as for u2…meh. musically uninteresting.
i don’t think you have to, but it can be hard to separate for sure. i do get really annoyed when people automatically start boycotting some artist or other because of a comment or article of clothing or revelation of some lifestyle choice. the truth is that EVERY artist out there has made a bad choice at some point, and MOST artists out there have made lots and lots of bad choices; we just don’t always know about it, and we like to keep it that way. seems almost hypocritical (though i do understand that sometimes it’s called for).
another interesting question is, should/can you believe in what an artist expresses if they don’t believe in it themselves? tricky.
To answer Abraham’s original question: no, you don’t have to take an artist seriously to appreciate their music.
I have one big “however.”
It seems to me that part, if not most, of your basis for separating art from the artist is because you don’t want to risk losing the art for yourself, in terms of your own enjoyment. This is understandable. We want art to mean what it means to us and not have our interpretation changed or altered, especially negatively. In my opinion, this is not a high view of art. This is a high view of interpretation, a high view of the audience over the author.
It is my encouragement to instead risk losing the art in order to have a more complete experience of the art. This would involve our getting close to the artist (gasp!) and the artist’s intent/persona/stories that accompany the art. Art must be deeper than our individual interpretations of it. Otherwise what substance does art have if it is solely taken on the basis of an individual?
If you are going to hold to separating art from the artist, it would be proper in your question to say, “Do you have to take an artist seriously as a person to appreciate your own interpretation of their music?”
Krysta – cheers to both Crows and Ryan Adams.
Taking the artist seriously introduces a complexity and frankly, a hassle, that those who use art as entertainment reject. But not always.
Did anyone else see that picture and think someone had popped Bono a good one? Seriously, it looks like a black eye.
(I know, I know… less than deep. :))
Example: Prince. Musical genius…personally….eh…I’ll stick with the cd lol
It’s also worth separating music and lyrics. Can music itself, as a creative pursuit glorify God by itself, without having to have ‘worship’ lyrics?
I think so.. I’m trying to read ‘Resounding Truth’ by Jeremy Begbie, and it’s well worth it if anyone is interested in the fields of music and theology.
well…… I just read all the comments while listening to my favorite ACDC song “whole lotta rosie”. the answer is no.
Thats a funny picture, the edge is not even impressed with bonos makeup!
Ooo – this is the same discussion I have with my wife on a weekly basis!
I tend to fanaticism with music, and I particularly enjoy and respect “different”.
I love to hear Bjork’s vocal rhythms, my wife says she seems to be a wee-bit self-absorbed and pretentious… my response? “I love to hear Bjork’s vocal rhythms”.
Mike Patton (Mr. Bungle, Faith No More and a gazillion other side projects) can legitimately be labeled as all kinds of disrespectful things – I love listening to his voice and the odd things he comes up with.
Recently I developed what my wife calls a “guy-crush” on Tom Waits. To be honest I don’t want to know anything about him personally – I just need to hear his music more than I need that morning cup of coffee!
All the greatest artists must have a screw-loose – I am honestly okay with that.