I really agree with the notion that you both cannot separate art from the artist and that you shouldn't guilt yourself into being unable to appreciate art by "bad" people. I remember when David Bowie died and some people on twitter that I follow voiced some opinions along the lines of "good riddance to pedophiles", referencing his encounter with an underage groupie. But glam rock seems like it specifically aims to create an iconography around excess and stardom, with teenage appeal. That Bowie himself participated in these excesses is of course unfortunate, and I would also agree that framing it as an excess is really giving predators way too much credit since it obscures both their agency and the particular stories victims might have to tell. Maybe that's all true, but the point of art is that it privileges the artist. They're the ones that get to tell the stories and that get to foreground their mental landscape. And as an audience you cannot really get around this.
So maybe John Lennon was a bad person. But he certainly was sincere when writing a song like Imagine, because like any artist he had a complex inner life and had contradictory impulses. And perhaps his invocations of peace could ring rather hollow given that he himself engaged in violent acts in the past, but again, he is the artist, he can foreground his own contradictions and rework these experiences in compelling art. His victims can't, but then they were not artists.
I'm not trying to go too far with this theory of course, but I don't see how one can get around the fact that art is some sort of charismatic force which to some extent absolves artists of their sins.
I never listened to Ted Nugent before. It's interesting to see how un-caveman-ish his actual music is, compared to his image (especially in the early clips). Same goes for David Lee Roth: for all his wild antics, the sounds is not nearly gritty enough. I much prefer Mojo Nixon, or George Thorogood, who actually manage to sound like cavemen, when they put their mind to it ("Redneck Rampage" is pure gold).
Very much enjoyed this thoughtful variation of a theme: “whether and to what extent can we separate art from artist.” In the pop world, Phil Spector, Chuck Berry, Michael Jackson, R. Kelly, etc. all fall within this question in varying degrees. And with T. Nugent, specifically, it helped remind/deepen my understanding that he has created some art via electric guitar.
Nope. I for one don't get it. But then that's why I've never been a Hard Rock fan of this particular ilk, especially if it includes the likes of Van Halen & Co. Always way off my musical compass, which found its delimits in the heavier guitar solos of a Neil Young, infinitely more capable of playing at near this register with genuine melodic content. I admit that a few of Nugent's runs up & down the fret are utterly masterful, but the wide-ranging musicality you attribute to him is lost on me. I'll listen again, and perhaps one more time at maximum volume, but all bets are off.
Correction: it is only the showmanship element that Nugent shares with Van Halen. He's a Sixties' rocker, for Chrissake! Listen to his early Amboy Dukes material, it's much closer to... well, if not Neil Young, then definitely at least Stephen Stills. And while I'll certainly never place Uncle Ted on the same artistic level with Neil, I'd say Ted could certainly teach Neil a thing or two about "genuine melodic content"...
Which only goes to show I need to do a bit of homework before shooting my mouth off (haha). The Amboy Dukes, that rings a distant bell, I'll have a listen. One of the advantages to having little to no contemporary music to listen to is that you suddenly have lots of time to revisit all that music that seemed superfluous at the time but has now acquired renewed import.
I really agree with the notion that you both cannot separate art from the artist and that you shouldn't guilt yourself into being unable to appreciate art by "bad" people. I remember when David Bowie died and some people on twitter that I follow voiced some opinions along the lines of "good riddance to pedophiles", referencing his encounter with an underage groupie. But glam rock seems like it specifically aims to create an iconography around excess and stardom, with teenage appeal. That Bowie himself participated in these excesses is of course unfortunate, and I would also agree that framing it as an excess is really giving predators way too much credit since it obscures both their agency and the particular stories victims might have to tell. Maybe that's all true, but the point of art is that it privileges the artist. They're the ones that get to tell the stories and that get to foreground their mental landscape. And as an audience you cannot really get around this.
So maybe John Lennon was a bad person. But he certainly was sincere when writing a song like Imagine, because like any artist he had a complex inner life and had contradictory impulses. And perhaps his invocations of peace could ring rather hollow given that he himself engaged in violent acts in the past, but again, he is the artist, he can foreground his own contradictions and rework these experiences in compelling art. His victims can't, but then they were not artists.
I'm not trying to go too far with this theory of course, but I don't see how one can get around the fact that art is some sort of charismatic force which to some extent absolves artists of their sins.
Which one is Ted?
Depends if you're asking about Ted Nugent, Teddy Roosevelt, or Dead Cousin Ted from "Day Of The Tentacle".
I've been listening lately to some TED talks. You are correct, George, those are quite dumb and ultra-conservaive.
Wait a minute. TED talks are dumb and ultra-conservative? WHAT? . . . .Besides which, what pray tell has this to do with so-called Uncle Ted?
I never listened to Ted Nugent before. It's interesting to see how un-caveman-ish his actual music is, compared to his image (especially in the early clips). Same goes for David Lee Roth: for all his wild antics, the sounds is not nearly gritty enough. I much prefer Mojo Nixon, or George Thorogood, who actually manage to sound like cavemen, when they put their mind to it ("Redneck Rampage" is pure gold).
Very much enjoyed this thoughtful variation of a theme: “whether and to what extent can we separate art from artist.” In the pop world, Phil Spector, Chuck Berry, Michael Jackson, R. Kelly, etc. all fall within this question in varying degrees. And with T. Nugent, specifically, it helped remind/deepen my understanding that he has created some art via electric guitar.
Nope. I for one don't get it. But then that's why I've never been a Hard Rock fan of this particular ilk, especially if it includes the likes of Van Halen & Co. Always way off my musical compass, which found its delimits in the heavier guitar solos of a Neil Young, infinitely more capable of playing at near this register with genuine melodic content. I admit that a few of Nugent's runs up & down the fret are utterly masterful, but the wide-ranging musicality you attribute to him is lost on me. I'll listen again, and perhaps one more time at maximum volume, but all bets are off.
Correction: it is only the showmanship element that Nugent shares with Van Halen. He's a Sixties' rocker, for Chrissake! Listen to his early Amboy Dukes material, it's much closer to... well, if not Neil Young, then definitely at least Stephen Stills. And while I'll certainly never place Uncle Ted on the same artistic level with Neil, I'd say Ted could certainly teach Neil a thing or two about "genuine melodic content"...
Which only goes to show I need to do a bit of homework before shooting my mouth off (haha). The Amboy Dukes, that rings a distant bell, I'll have a listen. One of the advantages to having little to no contemporary music to listen to is that you suddenly have lots of time to revisit all that music that seemed superfluous at the time but has now acquired renewed import.