xfearbefore is being obtuse about this issue but i'll entertain his comments.

Their brand is premised on being safe space advocates, they even chaired a panel at SXSW titled “Safe Space to Rock: Combating Harassment in Music” (!).
They've grandstanded about how their shows are safe spaces for queer youth to express who they are. Ben allegedly raped a fan after a Pwr Bttm show. He's also been accused of making sexual advances to minors.
"Sissy" is a song about catcallers and street harassment. "Wash" is anti-bullying. "Big Beautiful Day" is queer empowerment and a middle finger to oppressors. They project an image of being trustworthy friends, community organizers, role models for queer youth etc. The whole facade collapses when you become aware that Ben is a sexual predator.

Liv is absolutely complicit as she's known about these allegations for month but swept them under the rug for the sake of their career.

yeah, this whole ordeal is such a shitty, massive blow to the LGBT community.

so it's like if Ike Turner was an anti domestic violence advocate?

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

How am I being obtuse? I was responding to someone claiming their art is focused on advocating against sexual violence, when they've literally never written a single song about the topic ever. Their "brand" and personal social/political beliefs and actions are not the same thing as their art, their art is a very specific thing, their music. And their music says nothing about sexual violence or assault.

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

Being a shitty person doesn't negate the quality of your music. If that's such a problem you guys should probably throw out/delete about half of your music right now. John Lennon was a wifebeater and child abuser. Eric Clapton's a racist/rapist/abuser. Pete Townshend was caught buying child pornography. Chuck Berry videotaped women in the bathroom without their knowledge or consent. James Brown was a serial woman abuser. I could go on and on and on listing the awful shit beloved musicians have done. Just because Chuck Berry taped some woman taking a shit doesn't mean Johnny B. Goode didn't change music forever. Just because I love and listen to Maybelline doesn't mean I support videotaping women in the bathroom for god's sake.



You have to be able to separate the artist from the art sometimes, that's something I've firmly believed in for a long time now. And the act of doing that does not in any way condone the actions of the artist.

The argument people are making here is that it's difficult to separate the art from the artist because Pwr Bttm's political beliefs/attitudes are wholly intertwined with their art. They are specifically attracting fans based on the value systems of consent, individuality, social justice etc.

In other situations the artist and the fan base haven't made an explicit/implicit acknowledgment that those value systems are essential to the relationship. That's why there's an element of broken trust with this debacle.

beautifully said

Album Rating: 4.0 | Sound Off

John Lennon literally wrote a song called "Give Peace a Chance" after he himself admitted to beating up his wife. I'd call that a pretty fuckin' direct contradiction of his social/political message and the fans he was attracting. But I'm gonna go ahead and guess that doesn't stop anyone here from listening to The Beatles. If that's your viewpoint, more power to ya, just be consistent about it is all I'm saying.

I can still appreciate the musical quality of it. Its message is shot, yeah, but if it still sounds nice I'm not gonna turn it off

haven't heard this one yet, but just my general rule of thumb

Does "Give Peace a Chance" have lyrics against domestic violence? Fans of Lennon/The Beatles never invested in the art based on specific shared values. And when it comes to consistency, eh, there are too many variables in this topic to expect music listeners to be consistent. I just think with Pwr Bttm it's pretty clear why the fanbase is disavowing their art. There's a deception and hypocrisy to it given the likely credible allegations.

Well ya know, fuck John Lennon too, so

Album Rating: 3.0

Rapey band.

john lennon was a pretentious twat and a godawful person who wrote pseudo-meaningful trash for geriatric ex-hippies who, while still ruining society for every successive generation, couldn't quite let go of their substanceless, complacent Peace N Love garbage. he fucking sucked get a better example and a better argument.

also, yeah a good deal of historically 'important' music was made by shitheels. congratulations, fuck them too. i'm glad you value certain pieces of art over people in general but there's plenty of art made by not-terrible people and i think it's valid to want to spend time with that instead of Artists What Sexually Assaulted Folks (and Other Deplorable, Actually-Indefensible-if-it-Were-Anyone-Other-Than-An-Artist-You-Don't-Have-the-Spine-to-Disown-Doing-It-esque Actions). people who try so hard so to enforce the "YOU HAVE TO SEPARATE THE ART FROM THE ARTIST" thing are the biggest pussies. i'm glad you liked their thing but this band is probably done, for pretty valid reasons by any standard. you don't have to try so hard.

miss me with your weak shit son.

Allow me to repeat a joke that I put on reddit.

Ahem.

Sure, but John Lennon wasn't in a band which specifically had a non-abuse message. It's not like they were called The Don'tBeatles.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm glad I could use these terrible circumstances to earn like 10 upvotes.

This band can't escape toxic threads, huh? I still haven't even listened to them

Fuck John Lennon [2]

Still need to look more into what happened, but at the moment I'm a bit skeptical

at least this solves the 'most Cosby band' conundrum..

Album Rating: 3.0

I'm not that skeptical tbh, everyone dropped them (Supporting acts, label, management, touring musicians), so...

Skeptical of what?