Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tevaburger

Ryan Adams

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

you could only be right if men in power who abuse that power then abuse that power over a black man and not a white man.

But there is a lack of diversity in news rooms. Black males are a huge minority in journalism so it's a different kind of power struggle which is systematic by denying black males the opportunity to be a part of the industry in the first place. Which in turn, leads to a certain kind of journalism.

Anyway these sorts of conversations on here usually take a turn for the worse and or veer away from the issue in hand which can be disheartening so...

Back to Ryan Adams.

Edited by jyoung

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jyoung said:

Back to Ryan Adams.

Indeed. 

No particular issue with him being an asshole to women. Awful behavior obviously but millions of people do it. Exposing himself to kids/teenagers/people he suspected may be underage is a career ender though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jyoung said:

But there is a lack of diversity in news rooms. Black males are a huge minority in journalism so it's a different this kind of power struggle which is systematic by denying black males the opportunity to be a part of the industry in the first place. Which in turn, leads to a certain kind of journalism.

Anyway these sorts of conversations on here usually take a turn for the worse and or veer away from the issue in hand which can be disheartening so...

Back to Ryan Adams.

the abuse of power was by a musician, not someone in a newsroom.  I don't get where race is any part of it.

He was seemingly abusing women, because they were women. He was able to do that because he was in a position of power.

It's been known for black men to do the same when they're in a position of power.

It's the position of power that facilitates it, not race. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The age old question: whether as a blanket rule or on a case by case basis, can you separate art from artist? Can two contradictory beliefs sit side by side without cancelling each other out? Is it truly possible to simultaneously hold the beliefs in your head that, yes, Ryan Adams is a sleazy creep, but that entirely separate from that, standing on its own, unencumbered by the misdeeds of its creator, his music is also really fucking boring.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Winslow Leach said:

The age old question: whether as a blanket rule or on a case by case basis, can you separate art from artist? Can two contradictory beliefs sit side by side without cancelling each other out? Is it truly possible to simultaneously hold the beliefs in your head that, yes, Ryan Adams is a sleazy creep, but that entirely separate from that, standing on its own, unencumbered by the misdeeds of its creator, his music is also really fucking boring.

:lol: 

I once heard a sleazy story about a musician I admire.

It made me a bit queasy but I still love his music. 
I wouldn't want to be his lover tho. :P  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

the abuse of power was by a musician, not someone in a newsroom.  I don't get where race is any part of it.

I was originally talking about the Telegraph reporter being a white male complicit in abuse (he excused illegal behaviour and emotional abuse as 'creepy'). Someone asked me why him being white has anything to do with it to which I explained that in his job in journalism, he didn't experience what these women have (which was probably because he is a white male). This is what I meant about these discussions veering off in other directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jyoung said:

I was originally talking about the Telegraph reporter being a white male complicit in abuse (he excused illegal behaviour and emotional abuse as 'creepy'). Someone asked me why him being white has anything to do with it to which I explained that in his job in journalism, he didn't experience what these women have (which was probably because he is a white male). This is what I meant about these discussions veering off in other directions.

Oh, OK, I get what you're meaning.

Tho i'd say him as a journalist would probably have little to do with things (apart from the opportunity to express his words there, of course), and more likely just the default of being a white male, plus a high chance of a privileged upbringing (as that's the case with a lot of journos).

I'd disagree that he's excusing it; 'creepy' is clearly a negative term (and he'll have been stepping around libel laws). Just because he's not giving it the levels of condemnation you think are appropriate doesn't make him excusing anything.

(just to be clear i've not read the article and am commenting only from the snippets within the tweets).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Neil McCormick's been a punchline in music critic circles for as long as I can remember. 

he may or may not be a dick.

I'm commenting about some of the hyperbolic reaction to what he chose to say rather than what he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'd disagree that he's excusing it; 'creepy' is clearly a negative term

If he has genuinely read the article and doesn't think that any sexual crimes occurred, he's been sniffing glue and is excusing it. The girl was 14 when they started speaking. She's said that he exposed himself on Skype. There were 3,217 text messages over a nine-month period when she was 15 and 16.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, jyoung said:

If he has genuinely read the article and doesn't think that any sexual crimes occurred, he's been sniffing glue and is excusing it.

There was nothing about "no sexual crimes occurred" in the tweet initially posted here; I've been commenting from (just) that.

And I'm not able to find McCormick saying no crimes were committed.

edit: managed to get google to present me that snippet. 

Well, the man's a moron then.

But just-perhaps he was meaning in a physical-and-the -the-same-room sexual crimes way, rather than online-remote crimes?

Edited by eFestivals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem with not separating the artist from the music is that by downloading/streaming/purchasing the artist's music you're lining the pockets of someone who, in this case, has been proven to have abused a minor (let alone the remaining allegations). 

If his crimes aren't enough to taint your view on his music enough to mean that you stop enjoying it, then I suppose fair enough. Each to their own. But the root of many of these types of crimes is abuse of a position of power. That power comes in large part through relative wealth. Let's not perpetuate that by continuing to support artists with these types of history. I suppose it may be different if you were listening on a vinyl purchased years ago and not contributing to stream or download count.

Also, in response to the "changing attitudes" arguments, this just doesn't wash. If Adams genuinely believed, as a result of the attitudes of the times, that texting an underage girl was fine then why would he have sent messages worrying about her age or comparing himself to R Kelly? We're also not talking about something that happened 200 years ago. These allegations, and all of those similar cases, are in relatively recent history. I don't think anyone could put their hand on their heart and say that the perpetrators genuinely thought what they were doing was acceptable. If they did, why hide it? Why would NDAs exist etc.? Doesn't make sense and it just serves to excuse their behaviour. 

All that said, it's encouraging to see so many people on here supporting the women who made these allegations and calling out these crimes for what they are.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

There was nothing about "no sexual crimes occurred" in the tweet initially posted here; I've been commenting from (just) that.

And I'm not able to find McCormick saying no crimes were committed.

McCormick says "New York Times piece doesn't accuse him of sexual crimes"

It literally does... NYT says "In Ohio, where Ava lived, it is a felony to solicit, exchange or possess any material that shows a person under 18 engaging in sexual activity. New York, where Adams was during some of these exchanges, has similar laws regarding children younger than 17, and federal statutes use 18 as the age of adulthood."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jyoung said:

McCormick says "New York Times piece doesn't accuse him of sexual crimes"

yeah, I found it. See my edit above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sundance said:

Also, in response to the "changing attitudes" arguments, this just doesn't wash. If Adams genuinely believed, as a result of the attitudes of the times, that texting an underage girl was fine then why would he have sent messages worrying about her age or comparing himself to R Kelly?

I wasn't suggesting he might have been thinking it was fine back at the time.

I was simply pointing out that wrong things anyone might have done in the past are things they might not repeat today because of changed attitudes.

At worst it might be because they felt they could get away with it then but couldn't now, and at best because they've realised the error of their previous ways.

Changed attitudes in society change the minds of the previously-scumbags as well as 'good' people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Nal said:

Indeed. 

No particular issue with him being an asshole to women. Awful behavior obviously but millions of people do it. Exposing himself to kids/teenagers/people he suspected may be underage is a career ender though. 

I agree but as men in 2019 I think it's really important that we also condemn such behaviour towards women

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Supernintendo Chalmers said:

I agree but as men in 2019 I think it's really important that we also condemn such behaviour towards women

Goes without saying yeah. In this case though, theres worse to focus on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I wasn't suggesting he might have been thinking it was fine back at the time.

I was simply pointing out that wrong things anyone might have done in the past are things they might not repeat today because of changed attitudes.

At worst it might be because they felt they could get away with it then but couldn't now, and at best because they've realised the error of their previous ways.

Changed attitudes in society change the minds of the previously-scumbags as well as 'good' people.

It was 4 years ago, I think that's recent enough for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure we could all look back in our own lives and be embarrassed/ashamed/regretful of things we've done to people especially when relationships are involved.

But, having read the article, this does not seem like he was just being an asshole to women. He appears to have systematically pursued a strategy of using females he found attractive and then, once they were no use to him any more at best ignored them and at worst actively hindered their career. That's not okay.

With regards to the underage girl, you'd hope (but feel imagine it unlikely) that it would be dealt with by the legal system. For everything else, the legal system doesn't cover so to stop this type of behaviour it needs social condemnation and people to stand up and say it's wrong.

Edited by Garrett_Salas
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, priest17 said:

It was 4 years ago, I think that's recent enough for me.

#metoo is only a year or two old isn't it?  That's the big change i'm thinking about with my comments.

I reckon it's very likely that much less stuff like this has been going on since #metoo started, and that's a good thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

#metoo is only a year or two old isn't it?  That's the big change i'm thinking about with my comments.

I reckon it's very likely that much less stuff like this has been going on since #metoo started, and that's a good thing. 

Yeah but surely the point of #metoo is to not let stuff like this go easily? Its what seperated this from, say, Led Zeppelin as this was a relatively recent thing, while at the same time he benefited from having a reputation of being the exact opposite. He shouldn't be let off because the victims story only got heard 2 years after other victims. 

I'm not after his head here or anything, but he deserves a bad reputation now and not to have his story spun into a reasonable action. He's not the devil and others have done far worse but there's enough here to not thanku,next it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Garrett_Salas said:

I'm sure we could all look back in our own lives and be embarrassed/ashamed/regretful of things we've done to people especially when relationships are involved.

But, having read the article, this does not seem like he was just being an asshole to women. He appears to have systematically pursued a strategy of using females he found attractive and then, once they were no use to him any more at best ignored them and at worst actively hindered their career. That's not okay.

With regards to the underage girl, you'd hope (but feel imagine it unlikely) that it would be dealt with by the legal system. For everything else, the legal system doesn't cover so to stop this type of behaviour it needs social condemnation and people to stand up and say it's wrong.

Yup this. It wasn't a one off thing you could say was a relationship that went wrong,  it seems it was systematic and long running abuse of different fans/fellow musicians. 

From various musicians on Twitter and that recent new York bands oral history, he's always been a massive dick who no one liked. That's different to being an abuser of course, but I wouldn't expect most people rushing to defend him

 

In wider terms, his record company/producers almost definitely knew what he was doing but let it slide for their own benefit. Same with r Kelly 

Edited by zahidf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...