The Beach Boys

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......

You've used some interesting strawman arguments, but they do not apply to what I've clearly said.  

Your most recent post just popped up.  It's different in tone than some of previous posts.  Please ignore my previous post as you've already addressed it.  I think I get your point, now, but maybe we just hear this particular music differently.  

"Good Vibrations" came out of the Pet Sound sessions and it's a pretty bizarre piece of music - the expected guitar solo is played on electro-theremin.  I've always seen the subsequent direction of Brian Wilson's music as a continuation of that artistic arc.  "Vibrations" was a hit, but it was also a move towards a much less commercially reliable way of producing music.  If you hear Smile as a symptom of drug abuse and believe that it's celebrated for that reason, than I understand your reaction.  I just don't hear the music that way.

213runnin,

"Yes, you embrace abuse when you accept the fruit of the abuse".

How do you explain this, then?:

"Personally, I listen to music I enjoy, and don’t research artists for drug use".

How is it that you're not accepting the "fruit of the abuse", but "some" of us are?
 

"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".
 
I would like to request that you share with us how you concluded that some of us are merely listening to music we enjoy, but some of us "revere the resulting chaos" to musicians that drugs have caused.