HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » The DU Lounge (Forum) » The post about Jerry Lee ...

Fri Sep 29, 2017, 11:57 AM

The post about Jerry Lee Lewis birthday made me think

And not to hijack a thread😘

Does liking ones music but despising them as a person cause a almost guilty delimia?

Ted Nugent for example a disgusting person but I really enjoy some of his guitar playing.

Toby Keith

And even some actors and actresses

I guess it's normal to seperate ones likes over how another acts but is there a line?

29 replies, 2526 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 29 replies Author Time Post
Reply The post about Jerry Lee Lewis birthday made me think (Original post)
Watchfoxheadexplodes Sep 2017 OP
Docreed2003 Sep 2017 #1
Watchfoxheadexplodes Sep 2017 #2
Docreed2003 Sep 2017 #3
Watchfoxheadexplodes Sep 2017 #4
Docreed2003 Sep 2017 #7
Watchfoxheadexplodes Sep 2017 #9
Docreed2003 Oct 2017 #23
Docreed2003 Oct 2017 #24
cyclonefence Sep 2017 #5
Watchfoxheadexplodes Sep 2017 #6
malthaussen Sep 2017 #13
cyclonefence Sep 2017 #14
malthaussen Sep 2017 #15
cyclonefence Sep 2017 #18
malthaussen Oct 2017 #19
cyclonefence Oct 2017 #20
malthaussen Oct 2017 #21
cyclonefence Oct 2017 #22
TexasBushwhacker Sep 2017 #17
Docreed2003 Oct 2017 #25
mahatmakanejeeves Sep 2017 #8
Watchfoxheadexplodes Sep 2017 #10
mahatmakanejeeves Sep 2017 #11
Watchfoxheadexplodes Sep 2017 #12
logosoco Sep 2017 #16
Orrex Oct 2017 #26
montana_hazeleyes Oct 2017 #27
oberliner Oct 2017 #28
MiltonBrown Oct 2017 #29

Response to Watchfoxheadexplodes (Original post)

Fri Sep 29, 2017, 12:05 PM

1. I love Jerry Lee

As a musician....as a person, he's a lot to handle. I've had pretty personal interactions with him in the past and the guy can dress you down with the worst curse words and yet would give you the shirt off his back in a heartbeat. I've promised a thread on my times with him once he passes on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Docreed2003 (Reply #1)

Fri Sep 29, 2017, 12:08 PM

2. I probably don't dislike him more than I think

But more "I would not do that" thinking of my own actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Watchfoxheadexplodes (Reply #2)

Fri Sep 29, 2017, 12:15 PM

3. No doubt...me too

Interestingly, if you were to ever ask him, Jerry Lee would probably say the same about his own actions. He's incredibly up front, most days, about his fuck ups....not necessarily regret but honest about them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Docreed2003 (Reply #3)

Fri Sep 29, 2017, 12:18 PM

4. Did he have a closer than we think relationship with

Swaggert and Mickey gilley?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Watchfoxheadexplodes (Reply #4)

Fri Sep 29, 2017, 12:24 PM

7. In what way?

I would say they all were very close when they were younger. Jerry Lee is, arguably, just as impassioned or more so of a preacher than Jimmy, lol, just with more swearing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Docreed2003 (Reply #7)

Fri Sep 29, 2017, 12:33 PM

9. I know it's Hollywood

The movie made it look like both swaggert and Lewis had an almost comical view of each other but with love and respect.

Lewis seeming to know swaggert tries to do the right thing and prods him a bit as if "hey cuz your just like me"

Swaggert knowing although not agreeing with it knew Lewis was "on his way" to being famous.

Although gilley was never mentioned in the movie? Was there interactions with them musically?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Watchfoxheadexplodes (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 09:42 PM

23. While the scene at the end of Great Balls of Fire is probably fiction

I think there’s some good evidence to suggest something close to that actually happened. Like I said, the cousins were as close as brothers as kids and had not Jerry Lee become so famous, they probably would never have pursued their own paths with such dedication. It wasn’t only Jerry Lee that learned to play on that family piano...Jimmy did as well, and Gilley’s early rockabilly songs sound like a mock of Jerry Lee.

I don’t think they’re nearly as close now....as far as I can tell. But they still all share a deep connection and it does show throughout their individual successes and failures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Watchfoxheadexplodes (Reply #9)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 09:46 PM

24. One other thing...

If you want to get a glimpse into the real mind of Jerry Lee Lewis, watch “Walk the Line”...I’m not sure if the writer had researched or if the actor did but the small time he’s on screen, that actor is Jerry Lee. The rocker, the icon, the sinner...that truly fears he’s going to hell because he turned his back on God by leaving seminary and pursuing music...that persists to this day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Watchfoxheadexplodes (Original post)

Fri Sep 29, 2017, 12:18 PM

5. This is an age-old question

known as "ex opere operato" first concerning whether sacraments delivered by a sinful priest were valid, expanded in more modern times to considering whether a horrible person can create something admirable. History is full of dreadful people who gave us magnificent literature, music, dance and visual arts, and I think we deprive ourselves if we judge the work based on the moral turpitude of the creator.

I'm a big fan of Jerry Lee Lewis' music.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyclonefence (Reply #5)

Fri Sep 29, 2017, 12:22 PM

6. Wow

Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyclonefence (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 30, 2017, 10:53 AM

13. First time I ever saw those linked...

IMO, "ex opere operato" has a lot more to do with authority than anything else, which doesn't apply in the case of creative work.

I do agree that the moral turpitude of the creator is irrelevant. Otherwise, how could art be judged absent any knowledge of the artist? If something was good before one knew it was created by a wife-beater, it remains good (from the standpoint of aesthetics) after.

It's perhaps a greyer area if the creator continues to work after one knows he is a wife-beater. It is harder to separate out such knowledge in making judgements.

"Ex opere operato" is IMO related more to the position "You don't salute the man, you salute the uniform."

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 30, 2017, 11:22 AM

14. I think it includes

"don't salute the artist, salute the works." Picasso was a notorious abuser of women. Sir Thomas Malory was a convicted rapist. Wagner was a despicable anti-semite. Dali liked to have sex with boys. These things were known during their lifetimes and are certainly known now. Do we value their works less because they were horrible human beings? Do their personal failures negate the ability of their works to move us, even to make us better persons? Whether this falls technically under ex opere operato is probably not as important as the idea that flawed human beings can do great things, whether they are artists or serving in the military.

Woody Allen is a case I wrestle with personally. I am no longer to go to his movies; I can't get past the allegations of abuse and the damn-near incest of his relationship with Soon-yi, and I don't want to contribute to his financial comfort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyclonefence (Reply #14)

Sat Sep 30, 2017, 12:12 PM

15. The financial angle does complicate it for living artists...

... if one can boycott Hobby Lobby, boycotting Woody Allen follows. Once he's dead, it may be easier to judge his works without mixing in one's judgement of the creator.

But in the case of saluting uniforms, or priests in a state of sin administering the sacraments, the issue is not one of appraising the individual's work, but of due submission to authority. The priest is not judged on how well he administers mass, but whether or not he has the standing to administer mass at all. In a hierarchical organization, such challenges to authority are not usually permitted gracefully.

Aesthetic judgement, however, is judgement; the artist is evaluated on the basis of how good we think his work is. So, while we do have a similarity in separating the rank from the man, and the artist from the work, in the former case, we are discussing whether the man is fit to hold the rank. In art, we are not discussing the fitness of the artist to be an artist (the question does not arise at all), but the value of his work.

There is some crossover, of course: one can evaluate a priest in the exercise of his office, or an officer in terms of how well he does his work. A good captain could also be a rotten man. But in judging fitness, we do not evaluate proficiency: a priest could be poor at administering mass, yet a very good man, and good at the other offices of priesthood. His proficiency at administering mass would not enter into the question of whether or not he is a good priest, or fit to hold the office of priest. (Provided we were permitted to ask the question in the first place)

I would note, parenthetically, that the question of the character of the artist entering into the judgement of the art is not dissimilar to the question of judging art by whether or not it serves the State, or some other institution. In both cases, the work itself is not judged by itself, but in relation to some matter extraneous to the work. It is more a question of morality (however conceived) than of aesthetics. It's also, sometimes, a question of utility: the value of the art is how well it serves some purpose, not as a work of itself.

An ideologue would probably maintain that "good" art cannot be created by anyone who is not an adherent of the ideology; a Platonist would likely argue that Evil cannot create Good. Of course, no one is purely Evil (except, perhaps, Mitch McConnell), so in art we are left with the conundrum once suggested by Jimmy Buffett: "How can you write that sensitive stuff, and then write that trash?" Well, Jimmy tells us, "I can be sensitive on some occasions, and trashy on others." The fact that artists are human, and thus come from different places at different times, should be all that is necessary to answer the OP's question, although further, one might consider that an artist's despicable aspects might not be informing any specific piece of art.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #15)

Sat Sep 30, 2017, 01:25 PM

18. Well, the thing about unfit priests

wasn't really about their authority to perform the sacraments. It was about their personal sinfulness; this was an important cog in the machinery of the Reformation. The fact that the Pope could sanctify a man who stole, cheated and whored his way through life was one of the more potent arguments against Roman Catholicism, and the doctrine that held that an unfit priest could deliver the sacraments untainted by his personal sinfulness struck many theologians as untenable. The downside of this, of course, was the birth of puritanism.

I think we may be talking about two different aspects of the same idea.

The notion that "unfit" artists may create objects or experiences of truly elevated beauty is of course not precisely equivalent to a sinful priest administering the means of salvation, but I believe the question it raises is similar--does the worth of the product depend on the personal probity of its creator? Most people, I am sure, do not deprive themselves of esthetic experiences because they know the artist was a dreadful person--my best friend's mother, an ardent Zionist, used to play Wagner at top volume in her house and would always shout to me "Yes, I know he's a son-of-a-bitch."

I believe that among thinking people, the question of the unfit priest (or artist, or military commander, or President) being able to provide a beneficial product, is not much more than an intellectual exercise. As you point out, the question of living artists whose moral qualities we question may be another matter--but if Woody Allen's later movies had received better reviews, I might have been able to overcome my discomfort over his personal life.

An older friend of mine went to Italy and brought back to the nuns who had educated her a magnificent volume of art from the Vatican. When she visited later, she found that the nuns had cut out dresses and pants from the Sears catalog and "dressed" all the nudes--and this was Pope-approved art!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyclonefence (Reply #18)

Sun Oct 1, 2017, 10:14 AM

19. I'm suggesting that the two are about different things.

The dispute about art relates to the product: is it beautiful or not? The dispute about unfit clergy relates to the actor: is he fit to perform the office? Thus the question of art is an aesthetic judgement, and the perceived value of the product differs depending on how much the character of the artist is considered in that judgement. Whereas the value of the "product" of a priest is invariant, and the only question is whether or not the priest is worthy to perform the sacraments. This is a question of authority because, if one answers that the priest is always worthy, despite his character, this is because he has been so anointed by higher authority (ie, his bishop). To question his worthiness is to question authority, hence the social implications of Protestant and various earlier reform movements. "No Bishop, no King," as it were. There are no implications about social hierarchy and order involved in judging art (except when art is seen through the ideological prism, when challenging its worth is again challenging the structure of society). This is why I insist on the distinction.

My own investigations into religious history have brought me to consider that most heresies create an uproar in direct proportion to how much they upset the authority of the hierarchy. Of course, once dogma has been established, any public dissent is automatically a challenge to authority. That doesn't mean that theological issues may not be deeply agitating on their own merits, but that the blood flows when the heretical movement begins to create insubordination among the masses.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #19)

Sun Oct 1, 2017, 11:33 AM

20. I respectfully disagree

IMO, the question we're addressing here isn't about whether a work of art is beautiful or not, or even if it succeeds as self-expression,, but rather whether the character of the artist has or should have any influence on how the art is perceived. Is it fair to reject a work of art created by a monster?

The original question was about Jerry Lee Lewis and his music. Must we avoid his music because he is such a flawed artist? The question isn't whether Jerry Lee's music itself has value--it could be total shit and the question would still be valid.

In the same way, the Vatican asked and answered this question with regard to whether the character of the man "creating" the Eucharist has or should have any influence on whether the sacrament is valid. If one accepts the validity in and of itself of the sacrament, does the flawed human--or artist--bringing the product of the sacrament to its audience influence how we as consumers feel about the validty of the sacrament?

The value of the sacrament, like the value of shit music, is irrelevant to the question. It is a given that the work of art, or the work of the sacrament, is valuable in and of itself--or it isn't. If a very good man, a Jimmy Carter, creates shit art, his moral uprightness doesn't make bad art good. Ergo, a very bad man creating good art, or performing holy work, doesn't make his work bad.

As an artist is a physical conduit for his or her genius, a "tool" if you will of the muses, so a priest is a physical conduit for the grace of god. Does the value of the end product depend on the moral worth of the conduit? The Pope says no, and so do I, right up to Woody Allen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyclonefence (Reply #20)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 11:14 AM

21. Interesting interpretation.

We can, of course, argue about the artist being a "tool" of the muses, whereas the priest is definitely administering the sacrament through no merit of his own. If we want to define art as an expression of the individual, rather than as something with a life of its own, then it would seem there is a distinction between the act of creation and of celebrating Mass. In that case, one might better argue that it is valid to ignore art by bad people, whereas there is no reason to condemn a sacrament administered by a bad priest (especially as no one is worthy to be a priest in the first place). (But no need to re-fight the Reformation, eh?)

A number of artists have said that their will does not enter into their work, and use the "conduit" argument to describe this. An interesting argument, of which I am somewhat skeptical, but whatever gets them through the night.

If we equate the two acts, then avoiding art due to the character of the artist does seem to be a question, not of the validity of the art, but of the artist, and thus does equate to the question of the validity of the priest. I have been arguing that, as the two acts are different in nature, so the evaluation of the artist is different.

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #21)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 11:36 AM

22. My original point was

that the question of whether the virtue of the creator (or performer, in the case of the priest) has anything to do with the virtue (or efficacy) of the thing created (or performed) is an ancient one, first addressed to my knowledge in the middle ages with concerns over unfit priests.

I think it's a question we continue to address today, witness the unease of some fans of Jerry Lee Lewis' music over concerns with his private life and my own private torture over Woody Allen.

I think that while one might argue that there is not a direct correlation between the functions of a priest and the functions of an artist, the larger question of whether a flawed person can create something not only beautiful but without flaw is common to both examples.

The idea of an artist seeing him- or herself as merely a conduit is an interesting one to me, and I am inclined to believe it may at least sometimes be the case. I have friends who are artists--one of whom actually supports herself by selling her paintings--who are unaware of what seem to me obvious references in their works to ideas other than the subject of the work. When I ask about these references, my friend is usually taken aback, then gradually agrees that she sees what I'm talking about and that she was unaware while she was creating the picture that something else might have been in the back of her mind. Another friend painted a series of Georgia O'Keefeish flower closeups without ever having seen O'Keefe's paintings. When I showed her some O'Keefes, she immediately said, "Oh--I was painting sex pictures!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyclonefence (Reply #14)

Sat Sep 30, 2017, 12:43 PM

17. I feel the same way about Woody Allen and Roman Polanski n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cyclonefence (Reply #5)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 10:02 PM

25. Excellent point...thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Watchfoxheadexplodes (Original post)

Fri Sep 29, 2017, 12:27 PM

8. Ditto on Ted Nugent. His stuff from the late 60s - early 70s is great. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #8)

Fri Sep 29, 2017, 12:43 PM

10. My wife rags on me about Stranglehold lol

How can you listen to that degrading song!

Although the internet is full of what does that song mean. To me it's about the solo and his hand on the fretboard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Watchfoxheadexplodes (Reply #10)

Fri Sep 29, 2017, 12:49 PM

11. I posted this a few weeks ago:



The Amboy Dukes were an American rock band formed in 1964 in Detroit, Michigan, best known for their one hit single "Journey to the Center of the Mind". The band's name comes from the title of a novel by Irving Shulman. In the UK the group's records were released under the name of The American Amboy Dukes because of the existence of a British group with the same name.

The band went through a number of personnel changes during its active years, the only constant being lead guitarist and composer Ted Nugent. The band transitioned to being Nugent's backing band before he discontinued the name in 1975. The group contributed to the foundations of heavy metal and progressive rock. The group's primary genres were psychedelic rock, acid rock and hard rock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #11)

Fri Sep 29, 2017, 01:08 PM

12. On my YouTube

Liked it enough to add few years ago ,😎

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Watchfoxheadexplodes (Original post)

Sat Sep 30, 2017, 12:38 PM

16. This is a good topic! It does come up in life.

I do not listen to "Stranglehold" anymore, but if I did hear it, it would surely bring up good memories of being a teenager! Maybe "the line" would be that I would not spend money to have it on my iPod.

This week with Hugh Hefner dying brought up a lot of bad things he said in the past, but also brought up his work with civil rights activists and NORML.

Charlie Daniels wrote some good music, then it was like something took over his mind in the Reagan years. I do have two of his songs on my iPod because they are still very good.

Everyone has some bad in them, I guess it is a matter of degree. But it does seem like there are some people who have very little good in them. I told myself to keep an eye out for at least one good thing that tRump has done or said, so far I have found nothing. Never found anything good in Cheney either. And even though I do not really like the style of art Bush makes, I will give him some credit for working at something creative. Does it mean I like him? No. But I can see at least one good thing amid the awfulness!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Watchfoxheadexplodes (Original post)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 10:04 PM

26. I hear that his next wife will graduate from high school in just three short years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #26)

Mon Oct 2, 2017, 10:46 PM

27. LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Watchfoxheadexplodes (Original post)

Tue Oct 3, 2017, 06:35 AM

28. Bill Cosby

 

Another example of someone whose work I have always loved but am dealing with those questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Watchfoxheadexplodes (Original post)

Tue Oct 3, 2017, 07:25 AM

29. Jerry Lee is the most talented American rock-n-roll rhythm-n-blues country-n-western boogie woogie

barrelhouse singer and piano player of them all.

His personal life has been chaotic but sometimes madness brings genius.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread