Was glam metal misogynistic?

Vexer6 wrote:

I still like Alley cat Scratch, i'm not going to write them off cause of one song.

I write bands off because of one song all the time, if I feel strongly about that one song. At War is another good example. Even despite their generally loony aggro-political lyrics, they would probably be one of my favorite thrash bands...but I just can't listen to stuff like "Rapechase". And since there are a bunch of other thrash bands that don't have songs like that, I can just listen to them.

ZombieHavoc wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

I still like Alley cat Scratch, i'm not going to write them off cause of one song.

I write bands off because of one song all the time, if I feel strongly about that one song. At War is another good example. Even despite their generally loony aggro-political lyrics, they would probably be one of my favorite thrash bands...but I just can't listen to stuff like "Rapechase". And since there are a bunch of other thrash bands that don't have songs like that, I can just listen to them.

I personally think that's a bit silly, bands Megadeth have some songs that annoy me(Dance in the Rain, which is little more then an excuse for Mustaine to bitch and moan about Obama for no reason), but I definitely wouldn't write them off because of it.

I still like At War despite not being fond of that song lyrically, you can always just not listen to the songs you don't like by them if you're using say a playlist on iTunes like myself.

Vexer6 wrote:

ZombieHavoc wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

I still like Alley cat Scratch, i'm not going to write them off cause of one song.

I write bands off because of one song all the time, if I feel strongly about that one song. At War is another good example. Even despite their generally loony aggro-political lyrics, they would probably be one of my favorite thrash bands...but I just can't listen to stuff like "Rapechase". And since there are a bunch of other thrash bands that don't have songs like that, I can just listen to them.

I personally think that's a bit silly, bands Megadeth have some songs that annoy me(Dance in the Rain, which is little more then an excuse for Mustaine to bitch and moan about Obama for no reason), but I definitely wouldn't write them off because of it.

I still like At War despite not being fond of that song lyrically, you can always just not listen to the songs you don't like by them if you're using say a playlist on iTunes like myself.

For sure. And once upon a time I would do just that. I'd put on USA for MOD and just skip past "Are You Hungry"...but I own a ton of music, have Spotify and am interested in hundreds of albums I've still never heard. I've got no time or interest to devote to artists who have lyrics I feel that strongly opposed to.

For the Megadeth example...yeah, I disagree with Mustaine on almost every idea he has. But, that I am aware of, he's never written a song where I thought he was just a shitty, despicable person for it...he can have his political/social/conspiracy theories, however weird they are. If he starts writing songs like Are You Hungry (not that anyone takes Billy Milano seriously, but still), Love Song or Rapechase...and I will really have no interest in hearing him any more. Plenty of music out there.

It's not like I'm launching some campaign against any of these bands...just choosing not to support them. And then chiming in when we have discussions that are applicable on this board.

Well I don't have that much music on iTunes(nowadays I prefer to listen to music on Youtube over actually buying it digitally) so it's not an issue for me. There are certain artists like Ted Nugent whose beliefs I very much disagree with, but rather then not listen to them, I simply do not buy any of their music and opt to listen to it on Youtube so that none of my money goes towards supporting them.

Vexer6 wrote:

Well I don't have that much music on iTunes(nowadays I prefer to listen to music on Youtube over actually buying it digitally) so it's not an issue for me.  There are certain artists like Ted Nugent whose beliefs I very much disagree with, but rather then not listen to them, I simply do not buy any of their music and opt to listen to it on Youtube so that none of my money goes towards supporting them.

I have a weird time with this kind of philosophy. It's a bit like saying, "It's ok if I steal from this person because I don't like their world view." Granted, I'm coming at this as someone who uses Youtube for music videos, torrents, etc., but I'm also the guy who buys the stuff he enjoys because it cost a musician money to make it, whether or not the musician happens to be a creep. Also, if I'm listening to it, stands to reason I'm deriving enjoyment from the thing they invested money in creating.

This isn't a piracy debate starter, but there is something morally bankrupt in the idea of, "I find your ideas reprehensible, so I can do what I want with your creation." If you think the message is crap, don't listen to it. That's the only MORAL response to being offended by an idea. If you listen to it anyway, clearly the message doesn't offend you as much as you thought - either because it's really not that big of a deal or because your own morals aren't that deeply felt. Simply saying, "Oh, I didn't pay for it, so I'm not supporting it," is a bit of a loopy way to argue it. Stealing a copy of Mein Kampf and reading it until it becomes dog-eared doesn't raise FEWER questions because you didn't pay for it...

Hyperbole aside, whatever your own trip with the content/message, it's not the fault of the musician in question and it seems unfair to deny them compensation for their work just because you don't like their views or personality.

I wonder who gets royalties from Mein Kampf now? Not that Hitler would if he were still alive, I assume...like I don't think Charles Manson gets any money for music if someone buys it or the Manson followers who were involved in the murders that wrote books in prison probably don't get paid..I think that's a law, right? Not the point, but just something that occurred to me when reading the post.

I agree with Runicen, as far as this discussion goes. In my opinion, if a band is not worth supporting financially, there's not much reason to be listening to them to begin with.

You know what bugs me? Slayer's altering the final lyric from their cover of "Guilty of Being White" to "Guilty of being right." I don't buy whatever "tongue-in-cheek" explanation it was that King gave for that. Obviously Tom Araya is not like some Caucasian dude singing those lyrics, but it's weird. That has never set well with me. If I hadn't already written Slayer off for their actual music in general, I'd probably be writing them off now. Ha.

Runicen wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Well I don't have that much music on iTunes(nowadays I prefer to listen to music on Youtube over actually buying it digitally) so it's not an issue for me.  There are certain artists like Ted Nugent whose beliefs I very much disagree with, but rather then not listen to them, I simply do not buy any of their music and opt to listen to it on Youtube so that none of my money goes towards supporting them.

I have a weird time with this kind of philosophy.  It's a bit like saying, "It's ok if I steal from this person because I don't like their world view."  Granted, I'm coming at this as someone who uses Youtube for music videos, torrents, etc., but I'm also the guy who buys the stuff he enjoys because it cost a musician money to make it, whether or not the musician happens to be a creep.  Also, if I'm listening to it, stands to reason I'm deriving enjoyment from the thing they invested money in creating.  

This isn't a piracy debate starter, but there is something morally bankrupt in the idea of, "I find your ideas reprehensible, so I can do what I want with your creation."  If you think the message is crap, don't listen to it.  That's the only MORAL response to being offended by an idea.  If you listen to it anyway, clearly the message doesn't offend you as much as you thought - either because it's really not that big of a deal or because your own morals aren't that deeply felt.  Simply saying, "Oh, I didn't pay for it, so I'm not supporting it," is a bit of a loopy way to argue it.  Stealing a copy of Mein Kampf and reading it until it becomes dog-eared doesn't raise FEWER questions because you didn't pay for it...

Hyperbole aside, whatever your own trip with the content/message, it's not the fault of the musician in question and it seems unfair to deny them compensation for their work just because you don't like their views or personality.

Except it's not stealing at all as it's totally legal to listen to music on Youtube, so it's not like say downloading albums off of torrent sites, so no I don't think the argument is "loopy"  or "unfair" at all.

I just don't feel comfortable giving people like Mustaine and Nugent any money as I feel that doing so would in some way be condoning their beliefs, which just does not sit right with me, but the thing is their music for the most part isn't offensive to me lyrically, it's more what they say outside of their music that I have a problem with. hence it makes more to simply not give them money rather then not listen to their music, which I feel does a disservice to the other members of the bands who may not have the same beliefs that the frontmen themselves do.

There's also plenty of other musicians I only listen to on Youtube because their albums are extremely rare and/or expensive, so as much as i'd like to support them, it's just not financially viable.

Vexer6 wrote:

Except it's not stealing at all as it's totally legal to listen to music on Youtube, so it's not like say downloading albums off of torrent sites, so no I don't think the argument is "loopy"  or "unfair" at all.

It's only legal if the artist themselves or the record label uploads the material to youtube. Most of what you find on youtube does not fall under those criteria.

S.D. wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Except it's not stealing at all as it's totally legal to listen to music on Youtube, so it's not like say downloading albums off of torrent sites, so no I don't think the argument is "loopy"  or "unfair" at all.

It's only legal if the artist themselves or the record label uploads the material to youtube.  Most of what you find on youtube does not fall under those criteria.  

That's a good point. Some companies are quite vigilante in having their stuff removed, which tells you all you need to know. And even the ones that aren't vigilante about it, it doesn't mean they are happy about it. I'm sure, especially for a big label with an expansive catalog, it's likely more trouble than it's worth to stay on top of that stuff.

S.D. wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Except it's not stealing at all as it's totally legal to listen to music on Youtube, so it's not like say downloading albums off of torrent sites, so no I don't think the argument is "loopy"  or "unfair" at all.

It's only legal if the artist themselves or the record label uploads the material to youtube.  Most of what you find on youtube does not fall under those criteria.  

Not true, there's the exception of "Fair Use"

Vexer6 wrote:

S.D. wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Except it's not stealing at all as it's totally legal to listen to music on Youtube, so it's not like say downloading albums off of torrent sites, so no I don't think the argument is "loopy"  or "unfair" at all.

It's only legal if the artist themselves or the record label uploads the material to youtube.  Most of what you find on youtube does not fall under those criteria.  

Not true, there's the exception of "Fair Use"

What qualifies as "fair use" with YouTube...when, as I mentioned above, there are labels that are constantly on the lookout for their stuff being uploaded to YouTube. And they successfully have it removed.

ZombieHavoc wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

S.D. wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Except it's not stealing at all as it's totally legal to listen to music on Youtube, so it's not like say downloading albums off of torrent sites, so no I don't think the argument is "loopy"  or "unfair" at all.

It's only legal if the artist themselves or the record label uploads the material to youtube.  Most of what you find on youtube does not fall under those criteria.  

Not true, there's the exception of "Fair Use"

What qualifies as "fair use" with YouTube...when, as I mentioned above, there are labels that are constantly on the lookout for their stuff being uploaded to YouTube. And they successfully have it removed.

There are also plenty of labels that have their own channel. Labels don't mind having odd tracks on there but when someone post an entire album on the day of release, they tend to get understanably pissy.

Vexer6 wrote:

I just don't feel comfortable giving people like Mustaine and Nugent any money as I feel that doing so would in some way be condoning their beliefs, which just does not sit right with me, but the thing is their music for the most part isn't offensive to me lyrically, it's more what they say outside of their music that I have a problem with. hence it makes more to simply not give them money rather then not listen to their music, which I feel does a disservice to the other members of the bands who may not have the same beliefs that the frontmen themselves do.

There's also plenty of other musicians I only listen to on Youtube because their albums are extremely rare and/or expensive, so as much as i'd like to support them, it's just not financially viable.

The first point really doesn't make any sense because you're saying that giving them money for their music (again, which they invested money to record and release) condones and supports a set of beliefs that don't come through in the music, which you enjoy. Again, if giving them money somehow dirties your hands, I'm really finding it hard to understand the logic of how enjoying their work doesn't. And, if you enjoy the music (and do so on a regular basis via uploads that are probably not condoned nor sanctioned), I'm hard-pressed to come up with logic that justifies not paying them for their work.

On the second point, I'm in full agreement and that's actually where I'm very in favor of torrenting stuff. I'd much rather download an album than pay an absurd amount of money to some collector who sat on a 90s CD pressing. The artist gets no money either way, and often enough it's the label refusing to re-release the material, so that's pretty harmless as I see it.

Vexer6 wrote:

Not true, there's the exception of "Fair Use"

it's only "fair use" if you actually DO something with the material...like publish a review for the album. Critics can use copyrighted material because it's necessary for them to do their job...thus fair use. Same reason a record store can play albums over their house stereo system while customers are walking around, it's marketing for their business and thus...fair use. Same reason Weird Al can write parody arrangements of popular tunes...parody is an accepted example of fair use.

Some dude sitting at home listening to an a full album on youtube because he doesn't want to buy it does NOT qualify as fair use.

S.D. wrote:

Same reason Weird Al can write parody arrangements of popular tunes...parody is an accepted example of fair use.

I know that Weird Al will get permission to do parodies (not sure if he always does, but there are stories--true or not?--about obtaining permission from some, like calling Cobain through Victoria Jackson when Nirvana was on SNL and then others about artists not allowing him too--I think there was one like, maybe the Beastie Boys, so instead of a parody of a song, he parodied the style with "Twister"--that might not be the right example though).

EDIT: forgot to include my question...is he required to get permission, or does he just do it as a gesture of goodwill type of thing?

There was a big deal regarding the Coolio parody, Amish Paradise. Apparently, Al thought that it had been cleared, but Coolio wasn't ok with it and there was some beef there for a bit because Coolio was peeved that he couldn't block it due to fair use.

So, that probably answers the question - Al does it as a courtesy but is not legally required to do so.

It has been too many years since copyright law class for me to remember all the finer details of parodies, but I know it is an accepted example of fair use.

Runicen wrote:

There was a big deal regarding the Coolio parody, Amish Paradise.  Apparently, Al thought that it had been cleared, but Coolio wasn't ok with it and there was some beef there for a bit because Coolio was peeved that he couldn't block it due to fair use.  

So, that probably answers the question - Al does it as a courtesy but is not legally required to do so.

Ah yes...the Coolio business. I think that is half of what I was thinking of. The other half, I had to google because I remember something with Eminem, after you mentioned Coolio. He had done a parody of Lose Yourself, but apparently Eminem shut down the video for the song...I'm not sure where the distinction comes in.

I love that possible misogyny in glam metal has led to Coolio not being able to stop Weird Al from doing a parody of "Gangsta's Paradise".

ZombieHavoc wrote:

I love that possible misogyny in glam metal has led to Coolio not being able to stop Weird Al from doing a parody of "Gangsta's Paradise".

Well, both of them would make ugly women so... I'm sorry, I forgot the question...

Runicen wrote:

ZombieHavoc wrote:

I love that possible misogyny in glam metal has led to Coolio not being able to stop Weird Al from doing a parody of "Gangsta's Paradise".

Well, both of them would make ugly women so...  I'm sorry, I forgot the question...  

Ha just an observation on thread derailment.

Vexer6 wrote:

Well I don't have that much music on iTunes(nowadays I prefer to listen to music on Youtube over actually buying it digitally) so it's not an issue for me.  There are certain artists like Ted Nugent whose beliefs I very much disagree with, but rather then not listen to them, I simply do not buy any of their music and opt to listen to it on Youtube so that none of my money goes towards supporting them.

Why not just buy the albums used?

"Rapechase" is one of the few At War songs that doesn't completely suck ass.

Thrash metal is all about riffs. Most of these bands' lyrics aren't meant to be overanalyzed in this way, especially when they're written by young kids and the goal was to merely offend and to shock.

Hadley wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Well I don't have that much music on iTunes(nowadays I prefer to listen to music on Youtube over actually buying it digitally) so it's not an issue for me.  There are certain artists like Ted Nugent whose beliefs I very much disagree with, but rather then not listen to them, I simply do not buy any of their music and opt to listen to it on Youtube so that none of my money goes towards supporting them.

Why not just buy the albums used?

Good point, maybe I will do that.

Not to derail the thread, but I found it interesting that Zombie mentioned the issue regarding Mein Kampf royalties because I had the same question on my mind recently. Look up the Wikipedia entry for it and look at the copyright/royalty section. Apparently, when Hitler died, the estate went to the Bavarian government and they are a lot stricter about censoring it than Americans have, who obtained the rights to the english/US translation and are much more free spirited about teaching it. Also, the original German version will be going into the public domain either this year or the next, but there will still be reservations about the context in which it is taught, read, or distributed.