A Guide to Keeping Your Playlist Woke in the #MeToo Era

by Simone Tranfaglia

October 5th marked the second anniversary since the outbreak of the revolutionary #MeToo movement, which was inspired by activist Tarana Burke’s coining of the term “me too” in 2006. Since then, it’s been full steam ahead in counteracting the intersection of gender and power. Starting with the ousting of Harvey Weinstein; women everywhere have come out sharing their stories of sexual misconduct with the “#MeToo.” 

Within the music industry, I want to make a conscious decision about who I support. Regardless of the talent of the artist, I must decide how I want to impact the industry as a consumer. Which raises the oft-asked question, can you separate an artist from their work? Listening to a certain artist doesn’t always feel like a consumer choice- it seems like such a trivial, private act. But, this is a deeply flawed mentality; who you choose to listen to can greatly support an institutionalized power dynamic. Whether or not the music contains any negative messages; when you expose yourself to the songs of an abuser you are also subjecting yourself to a sense of humanity with said artist. This is a dangerous game because the survivor of these artists’ offenses often has no voice, allowing us to completely disconnect from the situation. This makes it easy to fall into the spinning hole of consumer apathy; we don’t view listening to music as having consequences. However, the profits will go straight into the artists’ pockets. So, listening to R. Kelly or XXXTentacion doesn’t mean that you support their actions but, as the consumers, you are sending the message that their actions will not have consequences.

Artists like, R. Kelly, have always been controversial in the industry; accusations surrounding sexual coercion have been forming for years. Despite that, he continued to produce, and win major awards as the allegations accumulated around him. The survivors' voices were pushed into the dark by the industry so there would be no profit downfall. It wasn’t until the release of the documentary, “Surviving R. Kelly” in January 2019, did people really start to comprehend the depth of his sexual abuse. Big artists rarely serve the subsequent ramifications because they commonly hold the upper hand in the institutionalized power dynamic. Continuing to listen to music by abusers, while commonly unintentional, is helping create this unequal power dynamic. The documentary was able to put it all in perspective, making it impossible for the consumer to disconnect R. Kelly from his music. It brings up the question of how, as consumers, do we withhold our support of the miserable actions these proclaimed artists have committed? It’s quite simple, being proactive in understanding where your attention is profiting. Opting not to listen to R. Kelly could very well impact his wallet. R. Kelly continues to plead not guilty in his hearings, as he is currently being held in the federal Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago. 

The lines can become quite blurred when we look at cases like XXXTentacion. What’s interesting about this case is X’s estate continues to release his music after his death in June 2018. His death was in the middle of his case in court, being charged with domestic battery by strangulation, aggravated battery of a pregnant woman, and false imprisonment. X’s first posthumous album Skins was released in December following his assassination; his second album will release sometime this year along with a documentary. His mother also attempts to save his reputation with The XXXTentacion Foundation which provides “relief for the poor, distressed and underprivileged.” It's hard as a consumer to understand the effects of these albums. Even though it’s not benefiting the artist directly, is it supporting everything he stood for? Many people in his fanbase say he will be remembered for his revolutionary sounds and the messages he brought to his fans. Is it fair remembering him as a “problematic genius” (what his estate plans to brand him as) knowing the abuse he has put on others? Letting his publicist determine how he is remembered, to save face for profit seems undoubtedly irresponsible as a consumer to allow. The industry still benefits from consumer apathy to his unacceptable actions and continues to profit from it.  

Undeniably, I can’t ignore Michael Jacksons’ case when toying with the idea of how to reckon with music by abusers. Within his case it seems there is a very murky gray area, having passed as one of the most commercially successful and highly regarded artists of all time in 2009; two survivors spoke out earlier this year about Jackson's abuse against them in the documentary, “Leaving Neverland.” What’s unique about this situation is Michael Jackson is no longer with us, hence the only consequences against him will fall on his reputation, rather than his profits, tours, etc. Since the breaking of the documentary which brings into light the dark corners of his past, many people have been fighting for his legacy; Michael defenders bring up the case that he was acquitted of all charges of child molestation in 2005. Arguing that these accusations have already been disproved because there is ‘not enough evidence.’ After the release of the documentary, a counter-campaign released an advert, “Facts don’t Lie, People do” which mimics a typical response to victim-blaming.  I struggle to come to a conclusion. Michael Jackson passed being one of the most influential artists of his time; the curator of pop, yet, when allegations of such depth are apparent it’s hard not feeling a sense of guilt as a consumer. I find in Michael Jackson's situation, there is too much gray area to fully grasp what is at stake in terms of music. Do we send Michael Jackson into the archives in today's ‘cancel culture’? Or, can we in some sense, separate his actions from his music? In many ways, while Michael Jackson might be the face on the album cover, it wasn’t only his music. Quincy Jones’ highest selling albums include “Off the Wall”(1979), “Thriller” (1982), and “Bad” (1987). So in listening to these albums, you're not necessarily only supporting Michael Jackson. His situation has only made it clear to me, that it's never going to be black and white in terms of what music is okay to listen to. In some cases, the artists songs will hold more weight to you; cancelling them doesn’t always seem like an option. Still wanting to be a proactive consumer in dismantling the institutionalized power dynamic created by the entertainment industry; it’s important to be informed and weigh your options. Some people in terms of MJ’s case, while not approving of his actions, will not stop listening to him. He has passed away and listening to him doesn’t seem to support the power dynamic any longer because it holds no direct profit to the individual artist, only his estate. He is not continuing to release music like in XXXTentacions’ case. However, choosing to opt out of listening to his music could send a powerful message to the industry higher-ups.

Understanding the effects of consumerism on the industry is hard to comprehend, especially with a medium such as music. While the music you choose to listen to can feel like an intimate personal experience, we must try to be proactive in understanding who we want to promote. The entertainment industry tends to turn a blind eye to sexual abuse, as the consumers, we have control of who’s in the spotlight. The intersection of gender and power continues to be detrimental to many individuals; by not listening to abusers we could send a message to the industry that there will be consequences.