|
|
Post by respect77 on May 25, 2018 23:09:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mjjfan810 on May 26, 2018 0:30:37 GMT
Sanity prevails.
Didn't R Kelly actually enjoy a significant increase in his streaming numbers after this whole debacle?
If someone wants to take a stand against R Kelly's personal conduct then that's their prerogative. But it is not the business of music providers to play Judge and Jury with the artists whose music they host. Should Barnes & Noble stop selling TS Eliots works as he was a known anti-semite? Maybe Amazon should disallow Catcher In The Rye from being on any best reads lists as J D Salinger is alleged to have had numerous relationships with underrage women?
|
|
|
|
Post by HIStoric on May 26, 2018 0:36:17 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mjjfan810 on May 26, 2018 0:46:11 GMT
Maybe not a significant increase, but an increase nonetheless. Not exactly the desired effect. |
|
|
|
Post by Russg on May 26, 2018 18:11:06 GMT
Sanity prevails. Didn't R Kelly actually enjoy a significant increase in his streaming numbers after this whole debacle? If someone wants to take a stand against R Kelly's personal conduct then that's their prerogative. But it is not the business of music providers to play Judge and Jury with the artists whose music they host. Should Barnes & Noble stop selling TS Eliots works as he was a known anti-semite? Maybe Amazon should disallow Catcher In The Rye from being on any best reads lists as J D Salinger is alleged to have had numerous relationships with underrage women? So R Kelly should continue to be allowed to exploit his position, fame, wealth and status to take advantage of underage women while the industry continues to yet again turn a blind eye? Just because MJ was falsely accused, it doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that the legal system in America have consistently failed to properly investigate R Kelly's conduct. I can't help but feel as if some MJ fans are afraid to call out genuine child abusers in the industry. |
|
|
|
Post by mistermaxxx08 on May 28, 2018 0:24:32 GMT
i can't stand the fakery of a industry trying to police things and act like they don't want the money they have made off such individual.
Ostricizing artists and entertainers should happen when it counts not as a example when they aren't happening any longer.
Spotify is full of it because I bet Phil Spector's estate still is making some coin off his Productions.
|
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on May 28, 2018 3:54:01 GMT
Sanity prevails. Didn't R Kelly actually enjoy a significant increase in his streaming numbers after this whole debacle? If someone wants to take a stand against R Kelly's personal conduct then that's their prerogative. But it is not the business of music providers to play Judge and Jury with the artists whose music they host. Should Barnes & Noble stop selling TS Eliots works as he was a known anti-semite? Maybe Amazon should disallow Catcher In The Rye from being on any best reads lists as J D Salinger is alleged to have had numerous relationships with underrage women? So R Kelly should continue to be allowed to exploit his position, fame, wealth and status to take advantage of underage women while the industry continues to yet again turn a blind eye? Just because MJ was falsely accused, it doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that the legal system in America have consistently failed to properly investigate R Kelly's conduct. I can't help but feel as if some MJ fans are afraid to call out genuine child abusers in the industry.No, MJ fans aren't afraid to call out genuine child abusers in the industry, you just didn't understand and/or misinterpret the discussion in this and the other R. Kelly thread. Maybe you should read again the posts here and the R. Kelly thread as to what was the criticism regarding Spotify's actions, because it seems like you don't understand. It's simply that Spotify isn't a court and isn't judge and jury. It's not about R. Kelly or his guilt or innocence, it is about the principle itself. Today it is R. Kelly they ban from their playlists, tomorrow it is someone innocent like MJ. Both have been accused, after all. And if they start banning artists based on alleged conduct and allegations outside their music where does it end? Eventually they will have to ban 60% of the artists for something. And if they don't then they are hypocrites. Many of them have been accused of something: sexual misconduct, violence, mysogyny, racism, drugs etc. Some of them really guilty of what they have been accused of, but some innocent. Spotify is simply not a judge or jury or a court or a moral police to determine anyone's guilt or innocence - and that's simply the point here. No one was defending R. Kelly! And while we are at it - like mjjfan810 pointed out - why do we stop at music? Then we can start boycotting movies for the personal conducts of the actors, actresses, directors, producers and others - or just for allegations against them. Then we can move on to literature and throw out half of our libraries, because when you look into it many of those writers and authors weren't saints either. As much as I don't like R. Kelly (and yes, I think he is probably guilty) he was right in pointing out the hypocrisy. That meanwhile Spotify doesn't have a problem promoting artists with violent, mysogynic, hateful lyrics or other artists who also have been accused of something. R. Kelly should be punished, I agree, but it is not Spotify's task to play that judge and jury. His trial could have gone differently if his alleged victim who is on the video had testified. She didn't and I feel that made a lot of difference, because so Kelly's lawyers could cast enough doubt on the tape's authenticity (whether it was Kelly on the tape and whether the girl on it was really underage). FYI, I banned R. Kelly from my personal playlists. I had Aaliyah's Back and Forth on my list because it is a great song, but I cannot stomach it now, knowing what was behind that collaboration. But I think this is a decision that users should make for themselves. Spotify should stay in its lane and stop playing moral police. |
|
|
|
Post by mistermaxxx08 on May 28, 2018 15:56:33 GMT
it ain't for nobody to judge because again if you gonna hold this artist or that artist morally as this or that well you will clear you cd's tapes, albums or files because most acts got something shady in there character and if you like the music then like the music.
Music is a gift not something that you act like a god given talent you just ignore. if I supported any artists talent before and unless I personally don't like there work no more than I let it go however not doing it for political correct and certainly not over some clown music service site which pays artists pennies on the dollar anyway
|
|
|
|
Post by Russg on Jun 1, 2018 19:26:50 GMT
So R Kelly should continue to be allowed to exploit his position, fame, wealth and status to take advantage of underage women while the industry continues to yet again turn a blind eye? Just because MJ was falsely accused, it doesn't mean we can't acknowledge that the legal system in America have consistently failed to properly investigate R Kelly's conduct. I can't help but feel as if some MJ fans are afraid to call out genuine child abusers in the industry.No, MJ fans aren't afraid to call out genuine child abusers in the industry, you just didn't understand and/or misinterpret the discussion in this and the other R. Kelly thread. Maybe you should read again the posts here and the R. Kelly thread as to what was the criticism regarding Spotify's actions, because it seems like you don't understand. It's simply that Spotify isn't a court and isn't judge and jury. It's not about R. Kelly or his guilt or innocence, it is about the principle itself. Today it is R. Kelly they ban from their playlists, tomorrow it is someone innocent like MJ. Both have been accused, after all. And if they start banning artists based on alleged conduct and allegations outside their music where does it end? Eventually they will have to ban 60% of the artists for something. And if they don't then they are hypocrites. Many of them have been accused of something: sexual misconduct, violence, mysogyny, racism, drugs etc. Some of them really guilty of what they have been accused of, but some innocent. Spotify is simply not a judge or jury or a court or a moral police to determine anyone's guilt or innocence - and that's simply the point here. No one was defending R. Kelly! And while we are at it - like mjjfan810 pointed out - why do we stop at music? Then we can start boycotting movies for the personal conducts of the actors, actresses, directors, producers and others - or just for allegations against them. Then we can move on to literature and throw out half of our libraries, because when you look into it many of those writers and authors weren't saints either. As much as I don't like R. Kelly (and yes, I think he is probably guilty) he was right in pointing out the hypocrisy. That meanwhile Spotify doesn't have a problem promoting artists with violent, mysogynic, hateful lyrics or other artists who also have been accused of something. R. Kelly should be punished, I agree, but it is not Spotify's task to play that judge and jury. His trial could have gone differently if his alleged victim who is on the video had testified. She didn't and I feel that made a lot of difference, because so Kelly's lawyers could cast enough doubt on the tape's authenticity (whether it was Kelly on the tape and whether the girl on it was really underage). FYI, I banned R. Kelly from my personal playlists. I had Aaliyah's Back and Forth on my list because it is a great song, but I cannot stomach it now, knowing what was behind that collaboration. But I think this is a decision that users should make for themselves. Spotify should stay in its lane and stop playing moral police. I understood the thread perfectly well, but thank you for the condescension.
It's not about Spotify playing judge and jury, it's about large corporations not giving a platform to a creep who has abused his position and power for decades. He may have managed to avoid incarceration, but anyone with a thinking brain knows that he is guilty, hence the #muteRKelly campaign. The very reason that there has never been a #muteMJ campaign is because there was plenty of reasonable doubt in his case. Even those who have suspicions will admit that the people accusing MJ look shady as fuck and both 93 and 03 cases looked like a shakedown.
Not so with R Kelly and with the current #MeToo climate raising awareness and exposing the culprits who have been getting away with terrible crimes for decades, now feels like the right time for the industry (incl Spotify) to take a stand against such people. Just because the legal system has failed to do right by Kelly's victims, it is clear as day that the court of public opinion smells a rat. Comparing it to MJ, even at the height of his public backlash in 2003-5, people were always very divided about his innocence/guilt. With R Kelly, everybody is in agreeance that he is a guilty man walking free, so why should the industry still support him? I bet Spotify don't have Gary Glitters music on their playlists.
I'm all for innocent until proven guilty, but sometimes the courts get it wrong and I think everybody accepts that this was the case with R Kelly.
|
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jun 1, 2018 20:41:41 GMT
No, MJ fans aren't afraid to call out genuine child abusers in the industry, you just didn't understand and/or misinterpret the discussion in this and the other R. Kelly thread. Maybe you should read again the posts here and the R. Kelly thread as to what was the criticism regarding Spotify's actions, because it seems like you don't understand. It's simply that Spotify isn't a court and isn't judge and jury. It's not about R. Kelly or his guilt or innocence, it is about the principle itself. Today it is R. Kelly they ban from their playlists, tomorrow it is someone innocent like MJ. Both have been accused, after all. And if they start banning artists based on alleged conduct and allegations outside their music where does it end? Eventually they will have to ban 60% of the artists for something. And if they don't then they are hypocrites. Many of them have been accused of something: sexual misconduct, violence, mysogyny, racism, drugs etc. Some of them really guilty of what they have been accused of, but some innocent. Spotify is simply not a judge or jury or a court or a moral police to determine anyone's guilt or innocence - and that's simply the point here. No one was defending R. Kelly! And while we are at it - like mjjfan810 pointed out - why do we stop at music? Then we can start boycotting movies for the personal conducts of the actors, actresses, directors, producers and others - or just for allegations against them. Then we can move on to literature and throw out half of our libraries, because when you look into it many of those writers and authors weren't saints either. As much as I don't like R. Kelly (and yes, I think he is probably guilty) he was right in pointing out the hypocrisy. That meanwhile Spotify doesn't have a problem promoting artists with violent, mysogynic, hateful lyrics or other artists who also have been accused of something. R. Kelly should be punished, I agree, but it is not Spotify's task to play that judge and jury. His trial could have gone differently if his alleged victim who is on the video had testified. She didn't and I feel that made a lot of difference, because so Kelly's lawyers could cast enough doubt on the tape's authenticity (whether it was Kelly on the tape and whether the girl on it was really underage). FYI, I banned R. Kelly from my personal playlists. I had Aaliyah's Back and Forth on my list because it is a great song, but I cannot stomach it now, knowing what was behind that collaboration. But I think this is a decision that users should make for themselves. Spotify should stay in its lane and stop playing moral police. I understood the thread perfectly well, but thank you for the condescension.
It wasn't condescension. I just found those remarks just as offensive and unfair as you might have found mine condescending. Because the way you framed it wasn't the argument made here AT ALL. You managed to generalize the MJ fandom based on that strawman too and portray them as people who refuse to call out genuine child molesters in the industry. Highly offensive and also untrue. And you made that accusation and generalization simply because we disagree on how Spotify handles the matter - not on R. Kelly's guilt or innocence. What my point is (and as I see some other's too) that I don't think it is Spotify or and music provider's job to make up for what we think the Court did wrong. I understand that there is a desire to serve justice to Kelly's victims, but I don't think this is the way and I do think it is a dangerous precedent, that could eventually lead to the stigmatization of innocent people as well - based on mere allegations. Even if R. Kelly himself would deserve it, try to look past his case a bit and how far it could take us. You say "everyone knows" that MJ's case at least has enough reasonable doubt, but how much can we trust our assumption that really "everyone knows" that? My experience is rather that people know jack shit about the allegations against him. That's why you see BS like the fake "FBI files" story or false "child porn" story spread all across the media like wild fire. Many people still refer to those as if they are facts. Those were blatantly false claims made by a tabloid, but no other publication which rehashed it has ever bothered to fact check it - including papers that aren't considered tabloids (except for People magazine in the latter case). So what is the guarantee that when the next such BS spreads around about MJ, people who run Spotify won't feel like acting on it? Or if they see Robson run his rounds in the media? There is simply no guarantee. And let's not put our trust in the "court of public opinion" that much either - especially as MJ fans we should know better than that. Do you remember those polls about MJ in 2005? It was also the "court of public opinion" which lynched innocent people or burnt "witches" back in the day. But forget MJ too. He was an innocent man being falsely accused. What about those artists who weren't just falsely accused of something abhorrent? Will Spotify play moral police on Elvis dating (and drugging!) a 14yo Priscilla? Will Spotify ban all the rap artists' music from their playlists who rap about violence, guns, drugs and are mysogynic? That would be like 80% of rap music. What about all the old 70s and 80s rock bands, many of whom have stories about them to have slept with underage groupies? Or those rock stars who even have songs about such things. What about artists who have made blatantly racist comments, such as Eric Clapton, Elvis Costello. Guns 'N' Roses had a racist song back in the day and on top of that Axl Rose made some racist comments. The list could go on. I just don't think that this would be a good precedent, regardless of Kelly himself being guilty. Yes, justice should be served and hopefully one day it will catch up with him (look how long it took with Cosby). But it is not Spotify's job to serve that justice - and I don't think them not putting him on their playlists would serve any kind of justice to Kelly's victims either. It would only create a messy precedent. |
|
