The thing that brought this question up was a conversation at choir practice. We were practicing music for this past Sunday, bearing in mind that the gospel reading was Luke's account of the Beatitudes, the "sermon on the plain". The song "Blest Are They" seemed to be a natural fit. Only trouble was, it wasn't in our OCP music edition this year. Our choir leader wondered why. I said that it was probably because the composer, David Haas, has been in hot water over sexual harassment accusations, and the music publishers dropped him. This occasioned some comments about "cancel culture", and how it seemed to be punishing people who like the song, rather than the composer. After all, there was nothing theologically wrong about the lyrics.
I admit that I have mixed feelings about the subject. David Haas' behavior seems to have been beyond the pale, if the accusations are true. However there are some classical composers whose lives weren't beyond reproach, but their music has lived on after them. In the end, we did use "Blest Are They" as a meditation, rather than for congregational singing.
What are your thoughts on art being separable, or not, from the artist?
I think it is appropriate for a music publisher to end their relationship with an author because of that author's bad behavior especially since he used music conferences and programs to engage in bad behavior.
ReplyDeleteI presume the author can still publish his music in some fashion. There appears to be a way that parishes can publish individual songs in their worship aids for a fee.
I think I would let it up to the music ministry and the parish to decide whether or not to sing the music. I would explain the circumstances to the music ministry. If there were some people in music ministry that objected, I wouldn't use the author's music. If the music was used, I would put a note in the bulletin and ask the congregation to pray for the author and his victims. If a substantial number of people in the congregation objected to the use of the music I would pull it.
For some reason, upon reading Katherine's question, I found myself asking "Can the science be separated from the scientist?" That's an easy one. It's a talent that falls on the just and unjust. I can read the findings of scientists without being bothered by their personal lives. Indeed, if I never meet Isaac Newton in the next world, that'll be fine with me. But the science is amazing. How did he do that? It would seem to be harder with the musical composers because one expects there might be an imprint of their personalities on the compositions. But the Strauss guys were apparently jerks and I can still listen to and dance to their music. I like to think that music passes through the musician or the composer and is not necessarily bound to the person, a little like science. It is a problem when they're bad actors and still alive and you don't want to financially reward them. Perhaps we need to accept that it is possible to be talented and be an asshole at the same time. Certainly true of rock stars. Or scientists. Or anybody.
ReplyDelete"...it is possible to be talented and be an asshole at the same time." Stanley, LOL, that is certainly true.
DeleteIn the long-run, good art will outlive the scandal. John Milton might have been one of the biggest SOBs whoever lived. Ditto Caravaggio.
ReplyDeleteIn the short-run, up to individuals and communities to decide how much pearl-clutching they want to do.
As far as I know, nobody's stopped watching Harvey Weinstein productions. But he didn't write church music.
"In the long run, good art will outlive the scandal." Yes. And a converse situation is also true, good people can produce bad art. I have seen many paintings and poems and novels which demonstrate that. The best you can say is "bless their hearts".
DeleteAnd once in a while you get someone like JS Bach, who was said to be a sincerely devout person; who felt that his musical compositions were a way to praise God. And they live on, 300-plus years after his death. So does our admiration for the man.
With David Haas, I suspect that his music may fade away with time. It's not that it was musically genius-level. It was a way to incorporate scripture into singing for liturgy, that people who aren't musicians can sing. There are and will be many other composers who accomplish this.
My fellow social psychologists have found evidence for the “halo effect,” i.e. if the first piece of information we have about another is positive, e.g. they are beautiful, friendly, wealthy, etc. we are likely to evaluate them as positive on other dimensions about which we have little information. Of course, there is also much evidence for “negative halos.” In all the research on prejudice, prejudiced people who first see another as female, black, Hispanic, an alcoholic, or mentally ill are likely to assume negative evaluations on other aspects of their lives. Part of education and becoming mature is to recognize that other people are very complex, and to be very discerning in how we interact and evaluate other people.
ReplyDeleteThe halo effect of success and celebrity in our society often cloaks people who are liars, robbers, cheaters and sexual predators. Many decades ago, I read an article which divided American males on the basis of Kinsey and other data into two groups. About half preferred monogamous caring sexual relationships. About half were basically sexual predators who enjoyed temporary sexual relationships, might engage in rape, and/or have sex with animals, fellow prison inmates, and homosexuals. We are currently coming to grips with sexual predators who are using their power, status and money to conceal their sexual predation.
The charges against Haas are not that he cheated on his wife by having another lover, which might happen to a male who prefers sexual monogamy, but that he used his concerts and workshops to prey upon vulnerable women. I think the music industry should be praised for distancing themselves from any support or involvement in those practices. What we know about sexual predation is that we should not wait for heroic women to come forward with charges and lawsuits. As soon as we become suspicious, we should begin to rein in the opportunities for such behavior. While this may lessen the professional opportunities of a potentially innocent person, it is OK as long as the music is not made totally unavailable.
Whether or not musicians and parishes refrain from supporting Haas career should depend mostly upon what victims have to say. It is very possible that in most choirs, and certainly most parishes that there are women who are victims of sexual predation by family, friends or professionals. I think they should know the charges against Haas as everyone should know that life is complex and good musicians may be sexual predators. If there are women (or even men who know victims) who are now uncomfortable with singing Haas music, we should defer to them. Likewise, we should inform people in our parishes of the charges again Haas. Sexual predation is rampant in the music industry and in music education. There is a lot of opportunity in those sound-proof practice rooms with often close physical relationships for sexual predators. We should not be ignoring this any more than we should ignore close relationships of priests, coaches, scout leaders, etc. with the vulnerable. Someone whom we know may be a sexual predator, or the victim of a sexual predator. Maybe we should abstain from enjoying Haas music in solidarity with the victims of all sexual predation.
Abstaining from Haas' music works for me. I wasn't that enamored of it in the first place. I'd rather sing Bach and Palestrina. But I'm probably the only person in choir who would want to. And it would probably be a induce the rest of the congregation to attend the 7:00 am silent Mass.
DeleteI agree with Jack that we can't ignore credible accusations or give sexual predators opportunities for harm.
Not for the first time, I have wished for an edit function. "be a induce" should just read "induce".
DeleteYikes, Kinsey! There's a lightning rod of controversy.
Delete50% of males are sexual predators? I don't sense that and I hope there's a systematic error there in the Kinsey report. It's an old study and perhaps newer techniques in psychological surveying would have less horrific results.
DeleteStanley, I think you are right that 50% way overestimates them. The question in my mind is, who did they survey? Wasn't Kinsey a clinical psychologist? If the survey pool was patients, then that definitely would have skewed the study.
DeleteIt's my understanding that a lot of Kinsey's work has been criticized bc he emphasized the biological over the social/psychological. His methodology was also called into question when his studies of children was traced back to the journal of a single pedophile.
DeleteKatherine and Jean, I figured something had to be skewing the sampling. In my work circle, the predators were usually known and there were only a couple of them in a population of hundreds. And they were usually individuals I didn't care for from the get go.
DeleteI don't know how Kinsey defined "predatory." Sounds, from Jack's reference, like he was not very nuanced.
DeleteI don't have a lot to add to the comments. I think it's a difficult question to answer.
ReplyDeleteA point of comparison might be Woody Allen. I guess Allen isn't accused of committing any crimes (as far as I know). But he had that really odd and creepy set of circumstances with his wife and step-daughter. When that became public, my impression is that Allen's public reputation was transformed, in a very bad way. And my impression (which admittedly isn't very well-informed) is that his films fell out of popular favor after that.
Another point of comparison might be Mel Gibson. At one point, he was very popular and was considered box office "money". I don't know that his fall from public grace began with the making public of his drunken anti-Semitic tirade, but my impression is that it "sealed the deal". His films still appear on television from time to time, but it's hard for me to watch his performance in one of them without thinking about him. But of course, it's very difficult to build a mental wall of separation between a film actor and his performance because that's him on screen. For David Haas, the case is a little different because, while he wrote the song, he isn't the one performing the song at a parish mass. There is a degree of separation there.
I'm confident that most Catholics have never heard of David Haas, and even among those who have, most are unaware of the scandal associated with him. I discovered this within the last year in a conversation with some choir members (women, as it happened) who asked me why we're not doing his music anymore. When I told them why, they all gasped audibly, and then they immediately declared their solidarity with his victims.
These comparisons and that anecdote don't necessarily tell us how we *should* think about the question, but they may illustrate the public's views. Seen in this light, it's not difficult to see how we've arrived at "cancel culture".
I agree with Jack's point that, inasmuch as Haas used his celebrity in church settings to groom his victims, we shouldn't enable that. What about the financial aspect of it? Every time we purchase music composed by Haas, he earns a royalty. Those OCP hymnals are annual subscriptions, so if OCP was to include his music in their products, they'd be obligated to continue paying him. So I laud OCP's leadership for doing the right thing. On the other hand, our parish doesn't do the annual subscription; we have "permanent" hymnals (from GIA) which already were bought and paid for before we knew about Haas. He had already been compensated for that transaction before the story broke. Our singing his music from those hymnals doesn't earn him any additional royalties; in a sense, those were pre-paid. Even so, we're not singing his music. And it kind of sucks, because some of those songs were pretty good, and the alternatives are not as good. His sins have impoverished our worship.
We as society need to recognize the prevalence of sexual abuse and its costs to our society. Decades ago, I had the data in the public mental health system to recognize that. Regardless of a person's diagnosis, the presence of sexual abuse resulted in a far longer and most costly treatment. Those large costs did not factor in the costs from other systems such as welfare, and criminal justice. This is not something that we should turn a blind eye toward or sweep under the rug.
DeleteI am not particularly concerned about punishing perpetrators. Exposing and being conscious of the problem is far more important. I don't think it is helpful to just quietly band the composer's music without telling people why.
Jim mentions cancel culture above. I dislike the term because it's what the right-wing says to accuse the snowflakes of censorship every time there is even a whiff of criticism of one of the right wing's darlings.
ReplyDeleteThat said, ideologues on left and right can get annoyingly screechy about not putting money in the pockets of those with the "wrong" if not criminal ideas.
Most recently, JK Rowling, who isn't even on our reading lists, has been knocked about in my book group by the right for promoting Wiccan ideas and by the left for her anti-transsexual views. (Both views are misreads of her work and opinions, imo.)
I don't want to discuss books with women who want to give lectures about authors, and I get testy with people who put their virtue on parade.
But we all draw lines in the sand. I will not feed the estates of Ayn Rand or Norman Mailer by purchasing more of their books. And I decline to participate in discussion groups about their works, in which are embedded ideas I find disgusting (which opinion I arrived at by reading at least two of their works).
I have "cancelled" them in my own life, but I'm not about to go to the library and try to get them banned or even discourage others from reading them.
I can see where the Haas case is different, though. A guy who admitted using his reputation as a composer to mack on women in a confined space. I think it might be right and proper to drop his work out of rotation, tho the publishers seem to be doing that on their own.
I'm not for banning any books from libraries (okay, maybe hardcore porn). Let people see for themselves what is wrong, or right, with them.
DeleteIt may be somewhat of a moot point. I have a couple of friends who are librarians. They say that in order to maintain accreditation, you have to cull your collection. It is mostly based on circulation. If they don't get checked out, they get culled. Exceptions are made for some of the classics, I suppose Dickens and Shakespeare, etc. But I can't see some of the books people want to ban getting checked out very often. It sometimes takes care of itself.
In general, I am not in favor of banning music or books because one dislikes the composer's or author's views or behavior.
DeleteBanning books and music is an exercise in futility. At least until trump brings book burning back during his next administration. Not spending time or money to support the works of an author or musician whose views or behavior are not something that you want to support is fine.
DeleteMy husband and I vacationed in Florida for more than 40 years, almost every year. But we have “canceled” Florida for the foreseeable future because we do not want to support the businesses of trump supporters. We will now support the small and large businesses of Hawaii instead. Visit the kids in California then head across the ocean. Hawaii is very diverse, far more beautiful than Florida, and it’s blue. ;)
Hawaii! Good choice, Anne. My favorite vacation ever, ten years ago. Not that I'm a big-time traveler. But that's one place I'd visit again, in a heartbeat.
DeleteI served on the local library board and worked for the state library association over several years.
DeleteLibrary censorship is very subtle and insidious. A patron comes in complaining about an author, the library director, often with no MLS degree, decides he doesn't want the headache of complaints (especially in a year where there's a millage election), and just doesn't order books by that author any more.
Or some fundamentalist gets appointed to the library board and starts trying to drive the collection with jabber about "community standards." He'll get everybody worked up about certain books by arguing that the library has a finite amount of $$ and it should be spent on what a majority of residents (i.e., his cohort of friends and fellow travellers) want to read.
And every time there is a book burning in Dimwittsville, it alerts libraries that certain books are in the crosshairs. Some library directors will avoid those books so as not to garner attention.
Oh boy. It never occurred to me that serving on a local library board could be so fraught. Is nothing safe from controversy ?
DeleteLibrary boards have always been fraught. Watch Storm Center with Bette Davis.
DeleteThat probably explains why my cousin- in- law in a small town in Rhode Island resigned from heading the library board last year. I’ve never known her to resign from any of her many commitments in the years that I’ve known her.
Delete