Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 643 posts

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#201

Post by jimkleiber »

mathgorges wrote: post #194
mensetmanusman wrote: post #61

The internet is enabling a new norm in reducing the cost of calling out behavior. Some of this is good, e.g. calling out sexual abuse. Some of this is bad, e.g. cancel culture that has no means of forgiveness.

I've seen this take quite a bit lately with respect to cancel culture and I'm a bit confused about it. Since HN is amazing, I'm hoping someone here can help me understand without it turning into a flamewar. I don't understand how "cancel culture" is substantially different from what we used to call "boycotts", just with the internet for more social lubrication. I suppose theres a risk that the allegations at the cent…

I think one thing that I've noticed is that defamation laws seem really hard to enforce on people speaking on the internet, especially when one can hide behind a pseudonym or straight anonymity.

I guess overall for "cancel culture", I see it similar to boycotts, but often boycotts edit are /edit of a specific individual, and also without the stipulation that the boycott will stop if a behavior changes. AFAIK, the civil rights bus boycotts wanted a specific policy to change and once that policy changed, they stopped their boycotts. Much of "cancel culture" I guess wants an organization's policy to change, but often that policy is to excommunicate an individual and there doesn't seem to be much that the individual can do to seek redemption—but I may be wrong on this.

Would love to hear your thoughts in response.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#202

Post by mgarfias »

mathgorges wrote: post #194
mensetmanusman wrote: post #61

The internet is enabling a new norm in reducing the cost of calling out behavior. Some of this is good, e.g. calling out sexual abuse. Some of this is bad, e.g. cancel culture that has no means of forgiveness.

I've seen this take quite a bit lately with respect to cancel culture and I'm a bit confused about it. Since HN is amazing, I'm hoping someone here can help me understand without it turning into a flamewar. I don't understand how "cancel culture" is substantially different from what we used to call "boycotts", just with the internet for more social lubrication. I suppose theres a risk that the allegations at the cent…

Boycott is me (or you) choosing not to spend your money or do business with a particular entity due to perceived notions about that entity.

This cancel culture stuff is about not just "not reading the article and not going to the site", its an active attack against someone that you don't like.

A boycott is me saying "buzz feed sux, i won't goto one of t heir urls". Cancelling would be me saying Gina Carano sux, i'm gonna call disney over and over until she gets fired.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#203

Post by tabtab »

bjourne wrote: post #192
chiefalchemist wrote: post #12

It's hard to imagine this is only the music industry. Human use sex as a weapon and a tool all the time. True, it might be more useful in the music industry but why would sex as currency only exist there? Where there are humans, there is sex. The obviousness of how that plays out may differ but the underlying theme is universal.

Perhaps because the music industry is so dependent on personal connections and because talent is very subjective? In academia, doctorate students usually do not have to sleep with their supervisors to get their degree.

How do you know that? There are plenty of opportunities for favoritism. For example, listing position on the name of assistants on research papers.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#204

Post by dv_dt »

nabla9 wrote: post #13

It makes perfect sense. Music industry is a economics of superstars. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1803469 Very few stars get huge profits and after that it's long slim tail. Talent or high work ethic is not enough for success, "getting discovered" aka someone likes you and invests the initial money and effort is another factor. If personal effort is not enough and the artist has nothing else, selling your ass for an…

A transaction where the terms are fully disclosed with enforceable clauses and which has a clean starting and ending completion state is very different from what is being described in the article or what you are fantastically proposing.

A sexual assault tied to an entertainment career paths has indefinite terms, consists of unagreed upon jeopardy in terms of what is being exchanged, and for how long. It's nothing like an "opportunity".

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#205

Post by mnouquet »

agumonkey wrote: post #35
subpixel wrote: post #9

I’m reminded of an axiom, which I will paraphrase: Everything is about sex. Except sex, which is about power.

Actually I'd bet that neurologically sex is far from power games, but along each growth the system gets used for personal benefits rather than union. Might be a cultural lens too.

Actually, in a human hierarchical society, power is all about sex.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#206

Post by jimbokun »

mathgorges wrote: post #194
mensetmanusman wrote: post #61

The internet is enabling a new norm in reducing the cost of calling out behavior. Some of this is good, e.g. calling out sexual abuse. Some of this is bad, e.g. cancel culture that has no means of forgiveness.

I've seen this take quite a bit lately with respect to cancel culture and I'm a bit confused about it. Since HN is amazing, I'm hoping someone here can help me understand without it turning into a flamewar. I don't understand how "cancel culture" is substantially different from what we used to call "boycotts", just with the internet for more social lubrication. I suppose theres a risk that the allegations at the cent…

People getting fired for an allegation that doesn't pan out, but by then their reputation and career are already destroyed.

Or comments taken out of context or missing nuance.

Or punishment out of proportion to the offense.

In the past, boycotts were aimed at corporations. Not buying or consuming a specific product, or protesting that company. Cancel culture is more aimed at individuals.

Suing for defamation can be expensive and risky, and doesn't necessarily restore reputational damage even if you win.

Obviously, some people clearly guilty of the accusations against them and deserve the consequences being meted out against them.

But there is also a long history of "witch hunts" and people being punished in ways that don't deserve. Social media is enabling a new form of that, which is what we call "cancel culture".

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#207

Post by jaegerpicker »

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #7

what interests me is: how do people maintain their integrity in such a foul environment? I mean if you can't look yourself in the mirror then how do you keep on creating anything?

This assumes that everyone views integrity in the same way. Not everyone views sex as a sacred rite that a lot of cultures make it out to be. Regardless of my views or your views using sex for gain isn't wrong or immoral to everyone. I don't support or think it's right for anyone to have no other option but some people would argue that having the option is better than not and I shouldn't enforce my morals on them.

Note: I'd never use sex in a bargain, vows and dealing with peoples emotions is a very serious thing to me. I'm not everyone though.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#208

Post by mnouquet »

A12-B wrote: post #26
subpixel wrote: post #9

I’m reminded of an axiom, which I will paraphrase: Everything is about sex. Except sex, which is about power.

I've always thought this phrase is a bit silly. It completely erases the existence of asexual people and their goals and ambitions.

Even with asexual people, it's all about sex... or the lack of thereof. Asexuality is a sexuality.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#209

Post by mnouquet »

kgwxd wrote: post #64
A12-B wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always thought this phrase is a bit silly. It completely erases the existence of asexual people and their goals and ambitions.

It's also leaves out everyone for whom sex is not about power. It's like saying knives are for stabbing, which is true, if you're going to stab someone.

Either conscientiously or inconscientiously, sex is about power.

Re: 'Sexual favours were the norm in music industry'

#210

Post by bluGill »

agumonkey wrote: post #148
shakow wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The big question is will internet free the good artists that were gatekeeped I don't think so. What they need the most is publicity, and this is not magically granted by internet. Just take a look at e.g. Spotify; I'm sure there are hundreds of extremely gifted artists sitting down at barely a few dozens listenings, just because no one found them.

But it's interesting. Do we like artists due to marketing only ? Or seducing feature over artistic quality. A small but gifted artist on Spotify could, in theory (in theory), generate word of mouth at quickly get known. Sometimes I believe that labels were filters for that. They could see who was just very good and who had some 'it factor'.

The problem is there are more great artists with the potential than the world needs. Only one artist can be number one for the week in any given week, and the artist who holds that often does for several weeks (and often they get a second hit). People like a small amount of change in life, which means they listen to a few artists, then change to a different one. Then they grow up/old and review that set of artists for memory sake and need even less new great ones.

I don't have time to listen to all the great music in the world. Even if "God" gave me a list of all the great artists trying to record today, it would take me more than a day to listen to all their recordings. So the labels choose for me, and to a large extent it doesn't matter which ones they choose, what matters is there is a filter to gets the right amount of music to me. In the world being great isn't enough as there are more than enough greats, so if you can great, good looking (this helps me overlook any of your faults - I'd like to think otherwise but I know better), and good in the bed of the label - you make it. If you fail any of the above three you have probably lost (note to the good looking, the labels may use you for sex knowing that you won't make it).

Note too that labels bring in other help for the great. I can record music in my basement: I don't have the best microphones, but they are good enough to pick up the sump pump in the corner. I can mix tracks in my basement as well, lets just say I'm not quitting my day job. I could go on about other parts of the process of turning a great artist into a great recording for mass consumption that labels have figured out.

Post reply on HN