Virtue singing – Spotify to pull hateful songs and artists

OK, there's a spectrum, but ...

... surely we all agree that R. Kelly is a bit of a douche?

R. Kelly,..... wow, I'm surprised, given the allegations made against him, and the evidence found in his possession he gets airplay anywhere. It went to trial, there was evidence, somehow he avoided being found guilty, but there was a strong case. Contrast this with how recently, other people have been dropped after mere allegations of misconduct.

with a rock in his fist

oh dear

Finally

I have always found U2 to be profoundly offensive to anyone with a modicum of musical taste. Finally we can block these self-important supposed musicians from the Internet.

dangerous policy

Banning recordings based on the content - fine in principle, care needs to be taken with satircal works etc but OK as long as rules clear and applied even handedly.

Banning recordings by people with criminal convictions - Not a good idea. Reformed criminals and works unrelated to the crimes will be affected, but morally defensible if they had a fair trial.

Banning recordings by people accused but found not guilty of crimes - Terrrible idea, completely wrong in principle, mob justice, completely unjustifiable.

Bootlegs

Derek and Clive were originally just on tapes passed around bands that were using Virgin Studios - theybered never intended for release. Sexual violence, racist lyrics, mocking religion, all there. However, Peter Cook has made a huge contribution to tackling hypocrisy and corruption

Bye Bye Hip Hop

The service has defined hateful as “content that expressly and principally promotes, advocates, or incites hatred or violence against a group or individual based on characteristics, including, race, religion, gender identity, sex, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, veteran status, or disability.”

Given near all hip hop songs glorify violence, misogyny, drugs, and hate, I can only presume Spotify has now delisted the whole genre? I expect rather a few skinhead favourites will also disappear.

Theres a big difference between "find offensive" (passive) and "being offensive" (active). Too often the former is taken as offensive - but I doubt that there is anything left that no one will find offensive.

Now time to check if I can get Macc Lads on Spotify...

Who’d a thunk it...

...the state didn’t even need to pay for the thought-police.

Seriously, rate the music 18+ or allow users to opt in/out of artists, but we know where this is heading (RKelly and others paying Spotify to rethink)

>content that expressly and principally promotes, advocates, or incites hatred or violence against a group or individual based on characteristics...

Part of me says, "at last, a statement so wide it doesn't create discrimination" and another little part of me dies knowing "incites hatred or violence" is, these days, interpreted as, "someone disagreed with me."

I guess Spotify is going instrumental.

I don't believe anyone is qualified enough to act as my censor. Ultimately, something is going to offend someone at some point. If they head down that path, where does it end. Many famous songs have an element of offense, or rebellion against the norm. Art can be beautiful or offensive, placid or frightening and many other things juxtaposed or not.....but it's all about perspective. Even if something happens to offend someone, it should be the right of all people to appraise it. It should be up to people to make up their own minds; not for actors behind the scenes to prevent you from ever hearing it....lest you learn something about the world that might be controversial.

Mack the Knife

Do some research on the long history of this song, and the reactions of various authorities and moral arbiters and artists to gain a complete understanding of all the arguments that will be rolled out and rehashed yet again regarding the issues of censorship, appropriate types of content and ultimate acnowledgement as literary works rather than dangers to society. Then you'll see how all the "what about rap, punk, metal, etc" arguments are direct parallels (the Nick Cave example given is directly and conciously in this lineage of this song, by the way). We are dealing with art and imagination here, and artists often imagine not nice things to make art from.

As to acceptable artist behaviour, well the playlist is going to end up being pretty sparse if that particular criterion is to be used. Read an average rock band biography and you'll find plenty of just causes and impediments to pass the purity tests being set here. Many artists outside of the "rebellious" genres being far more atrocious than the "bad boys" of rock, who are actually nice well behaved boys in some cases.

I presume Saint John Lennon and his popular beat combo will be next in line anyway, he having been a merciless mocker and insulter of the disabled in print, tv interviews, etc throughout these golden 1960s, as a starter example on his particular lengthy charge sheet if we are to suffer another round of trials in this long running series of prosecutions.

I presume Saint John Lennon and his popular beat combo will be next in line

If it decreases the likelihood of hearing Imagine ever again I'm all for it.

On a more serious note, how the hell they named a major airport after such an unpleasant, misogynistic, wife beating, offensive twunt like Lennon I'll never know.