On September 27, 2021, Robert Sylvester Kelly (R Kelly), an American singer, was finally convicted on various counts, including but not limited to sexual abuse, racketeering, sex trafficking, etc., even though allegations against him dated back as old as 1994. Why did justice take so much time, is the music industry complicit in this issue, and did this bring about any tangible change?
The complicity of the music industry:
Kelly’s case has exposed enablers who facilitated his crimes, many of those enablers being people working in the music industry and record labels. Music industry executives had been aware of various allegations leveled against him but turned a blind eye due to his success as a performer. First of his various heinous crimes was illegally marrying 15-year-old Aaliyah by getting his tour manager, Demetrius Smith, to obtain falsified identification for Aaliyah, which listed her as 18 years of age. He often utilized people in the industry to facilitate non-disclosure agreements for him, and a lot of these agreements points towards the fact that people around him were aware of the extent of his crimes. For executives of Jive(record label of R Kelly), any problematic behavior was ignored so long as Kelly kept having hits.
And this problem wasn’t just limited to those associated with him. R Kelly came up at a time when young female fans were mistreated, assumed to be sexual objects. The music industry as a whole went through a “groupie culture.”
Groupie culture forms a foundation on which fan-celebrity interactions can cross the line of consent. The heavily gendered norms associated with groupie culture shape those in the industry as well as fans. All sorts of problematic behavior were tolerated because of an apparent ‘fan culture’ existing; the boundary between right and wrong was blurred for these musicians in the name of culture. Frank Sinatra, David Bowie, Bob Dylan, and various other singers were accused by certain fans of sexually exploiting them. Still, the legacy these figures did not suffer due to the fact that these actions were generally seen as morally unproblematic by their own industry. Even with the advent of social media, which has brought upon greater scrutiny on behaviors of these figures, even if they are exposed for misdeeds, they are gradually welcomed again once the heat of scrutiny is off, just like Chris Brown was accused of domestic violence allegations, and even confessed for the same. However, his legacy has not suffered; he still continues to make music and garner success.
There’s a long way to go to protect fans, musicians, and workers in music from harassment and exploitation. For any change in the situation, the music industry as a whole should have a norm of not seeing people as ‘indispensable’ thus not trying to enable their actions.
Will his conviction lead to any tangible change?
Even though his conviction has finally brought justice to countless victims that suffered because of him, there are fears that this might not be the watershed moment for the music industry we thought it was.
Firstly, because the music industry as a whole did not finally turn on R kelly because his morally wrong actions were exposed; if that were the case, they’d have done so in 2017, when a lot of allegations were brought against him. The harsh reality is they just Disassociated with him simply because it was not profitable to associate with him anymore; the fact that they only did so when a documentary regarding his crimes came out in 2019 just further signifies the fact that he only became dispensable for them once it became clear he can't bring any more profits.
Furthermore, the fact that you can still stream his music on streaming platforms is a huge problem in and of itself. Even though YouTube removed his official account, you can still stream his music on YouTube music.
Spotify temporarily removed all his content in 2018 but backtracked on its decision following huge backlash. Platforms such as Spotify and Apple Music see themselves as neutral and not censors, thus tend to take a hands-off approach when it comes to banning content. But can we genuinely remain neutral in these issues? These companies see themselves as platforms where you can consume content, and that content has some degree of separation from the person who made that content. There are several reasons why that’s not true; art is an extension of an artist’s personality. Why all artists have their own distinct approaches to their art is because a person inherently often uses their own life experiences as inspiration to make art; that is why artists often use things like their own relationships, childhood experiences, and struggles to come up with themes for their art, art is essentially a retelling of a particular viewpoint through a medium, this viewpoint is inherent of the person making this art, that is why art can never be neutral because the spectrum through which you communicate to the world is always exclusive to you and never impartial. That is why the neutrality of art is something that can never be true.
Horrible people sometimes make great art, and whether or not that art is accepted by society reflects the kind of moral character society has.
Comments