The Beach Boys

Yes, you embrace abuse when you accept the fruit of the abuse.  Look, I understand that this makes you uncomfortable, and you disagree with me.  That is fine, but I'd bet you a million bucks that Brian Wilson, if asked, would quickly admit that if he had the chance to do it all over again, he'd stay the hell away from drugs.  

I too am sure Brian would. Should we not listen to Smile because of that?! Do you fault McCartney for going to the Smile premiere in London a few years back? Was McCartney embracing abuse by doing so? Should no one ever again read, say, Alice in Wonderland?

213runnin,

It seems that you have drawn an arbitrary line in the sand. Do you personally refuse to listen to music produced by anyone who used drugs, or only those who have a public reputation as a drug abuser? When it comes to the Beach Boys' music, you seem to be saying that one shouldn't listen to Pet Sounds or anything recorded subsequent to that album. How about the songs on which Brian had no input? 

You have indicated that your favorite Beach Boys tune is Sloop John B, which was released in 1966, yet Brian's LSD use began in 1965. Are you willing to accept that song because his drug problems hadn't, in your opinion, progressed to the point of "abuse"?

Do you reject the music of Louis Armstrong, Berlioz, Miles Davis, Chopin, or Judy Garland? If you include alcohol abuse in your "no-listen" list, you are rejecting an even greater number of very good musicians.

Personally, I listen to music I enjoy. I don't research the personal shortcomings of the musicians before I listen.   

Personally, I listen to music I enjoy, and don’t research artists for drug use. Nor do I avoid music of known drug addicts, although I think that those who used it as a crutch had or have issues.  I do find that my tastes are such that I never cared for the styles of Jimmi Hendrix or Janis Joplin, and plenty of artists with acid rock, hard rock, death metal and probably most of the other metal varieties.  

The line that I draw is to not revere the resulting chaos that LSD caused Brian Wilson and his music, as some of you seem to do. Smile is quite weird, at least the little of it that I’ve heard, so I never bought it. I actually never knew why it was so strange until after watching the latest Brian Wilson movie, and realizing that some drug dealer ruined the life of one of the greatest American artists of his time. Sorry, I just can’t revere that.

213

Unless you are arguing that we must bear the responsibility for the moral consequences for all of our consumption decisions and their ethical implicarions, you are mistaken.   Accepting the fruit of the abuse isn't endorsing the abuse.

BTW, It IS possible to endorse the abuse - see Timothy Leary and "Turn on, Tune in, and Drop out".  I am NOT suggesting that.

 As Minkwelder notes, the history of musicians and drug abuse is long and varied.  A ton of highly regarded jazz musicians of the '50s used booze, pot and/or heroin.  Add LSD and try to find a significant rock musician who didn't abuse one or more of those drugs during the '60s.  Toss in cocaine and quaaludes and you've covered most of the seventies.  Mix in some ecstasy and....

....you our get the picture.

So, if you ARE insisting that we must examine those ethical implications, then I trust that you consume none of that music.  And none of the following:

I trust that you buy no Chinese made goods, lest you implicitly endorse the Chinese government's abuse of intellectual property rights, etc.  I assume that you don't enjoy any running water in your home, because that was developed by the Romans, and I'm sure that you do not champion feeding Christians to Lions.  You surely don't listen to the blues, so that there's no possible implicit endorsement of slavery.  I'm certain that you've never owned a Volkswagen product, purchased  Bayer aspirin, etc.  This list gets long in a hurry.

If you do none of the above, you're an admirable man indeed.  More principled than I am.  However, if you have done any of the above......