Censorship is the Cancer Killing Art.

In 1985 the Parents Music Resource Center was founded by a committee of four women of political importance: Tipper Gore, Susan Baker, Pam Howar, and Sally Nevius. All four women were dead set on a single mission-to stifle artistic voices they saw as morally corrupt and a bad influence to children in America. During the same time in Soviet Russia, the state government was forcing bands to have state-sanctioned producers who would serve as censors in order to protect the political and moral order of the Soviet regime. This scene become to be known as VIA music and existed up until close to the fall of the Soviet Union. Before this in the 1930's and 40's in Germany, Reich Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels described the radio as "The most influential and important intermediary between a spiritual movement and the nation, between the idea and the people" and as such banned Jewish artists and music that did not promote the Aryan morality. In 2018 the ugly idea of artistic censorship continues to be paraded around by Left Wing social justice activists and Fundamentalist Conservatives all of whom believe that their "correct" vision of morality is so essential to the survival of society that any artist operating outside of that boundary should be "cancelled" or censored. This is how art dies. In the days following the death of rapper XXXTentacion and in the #MeToo movement the idea of musical and artistic censorship has reared its disgusting head more than ever before. The idea that art can be separated from artist now no longer seems like musical orthodoxy but rather an idea held by people who do not care about social progress and morality. Activists have made this clear in recent months and have even started to vocally advocate for a "change" in the way we consume music. For these individuals we must now consume music with a moral consciousness and only listen to artists who conform to the societal or political standards of what "right" is. This concept of "moral listening" has started to infect critical circles as well. Several noteworthy examples can be found on Pitchfork and The Fader, two sites which have considerable sway in music communities. At Pitchfork, Brand New's album Science Fiction was nowhere to be found on the websites year end Top 50 albums list despite the fact it received a 'Best New Music' distinction. This was obviously due to the fact that lead singer Jesse Lacey was accused of being sexually manipulative a whole decade ago. This caused Brand New's final tour to be cancelled abruptly and the critical reputation of one of the 2000's most critically respected bands to evaporate overnight. More recently on Pitchfork in a review of Kanye West's album Ye writer Meghan Garvey decided it was more important to talk about the fact that Kanye West was having his album release party in the most economically unequal area of the United States rather than the music at hand. Even though the album ended up getting a modest 7.0 from the site, the review clearly had a bias against Kanye based upon nothing more than political disdain for the man who had cozied up to President Donald Trump in the past year. The political bias in musical discussion around Kanye West becomes even more clear when you realize that on the site that published the review of Ye in which Kanye's weath is dismissed as being morally corrupt, the lyrical themes of Beyonce and Jay-Z's new album in which they brag about their wealth is called "empowering". The bias is clearly on the nose here. Meanwhile at The Fader, independent reviewers who don't take an overarching theme of reviewing based on a moral premise have been relentlessly attacked. Example #1: Their attack on music critic Anthony Fantano. In The Fader's attack of Anthony Fantano centered around his secondary channel upon which he reviewed internet memes. Anthony Fantano was called racist for his "pandering towards alt-right memes", despite the fact that Anthony Fantano is in a biracial relationship, has vocally supported Bernie Sanders, and has vocally railed against Republicans on multiple occasions. Yet, because Anthony Fantano does not take a moral stand he was labeled with the dreaded 'racist' label and was forced to cancel his entire tour. Even music critics are no longer safe from the march of tyranny that is militant musical moralists hell bent on censoring anything and everything that does not fall in line with their 'correct' vision of the world. The Left Wing line of discussion in regards to censorship based on a moral premise is no different than the Fundamentalist Right Wings line discussion. The only difference is what ills music considered out of line somehow magically perpetuates. For Fundamentalist Conservatives the line of discussion typically revolves around the utterly racist concept that Rap Music and Hip Hop Culture contributes to crimes in Urban America and is destroying African American family structures. In addition to this, Fundamentalist censors rail on any artist they see as perpetuating sexual deviance. For them Prince, Aerosmith, AC/DC, Kendrick Lamar, Eminem, and Katy Perry are all living examples of the America's cultural and religious death kneel. Again, the same line of thought is seen- "my idea of what is morally correct is so important that art I feel does not conform to that should be censored and cancelled". Both sides are massively egotistical when it comes to their line of thought as well. For those who want artistic censorship it does not matter what mistakes you made in life and when they happened, if you have ever done anything wrong in your life down to even thinking about sex with fans (Pinegrove) or behaving like an ass (Eagles of Death Metal) there is legitimate grounds for not only your career to be destroyed, but have your work never be considered a viable artistic body ever again. For people who are in favor of artistic censorship unless you are the second coming of Jesus Christ himself you are unfit for popular attention and critique. And as if these individuals could not be anymore self righteous they present a common line of thought that "If the artist behaves in a way that I don't behave like or holds opinions separate from what I believe in their art is no longer valid". Someone needs to pop these individuals overly inflated egos because nobody, not even them, is not guilty of some sort of sin that they would use against an artist to validate why they should censor the art. People commonly forget that artists are people too. They are not superhumans, they are not divine beings, they are not living reincarnations of Gandhi or Nelson Mandela. Artists are real people, with real struggles, with real emotions, and yes, this means that some artists will be terrible human beings like XXXTentacion, R Kelly, Phil Spector, Mike Love, William Golding, and J.D Salinger. Imagine a world where the music of people like Johnny Cash, Elvis, John Lennon, Miles Davis, Richard Wagner, Morrissey, James Brown, David Bowie, and Chuck Berry was no longer considered 'viable' or 'legitimate' due to their past actions. Bad people can and do make good art and it should not be a surprise because everyone at the end of the day is a human being. Revisionist history of art based on a moral premise of some idea of a 'higher good' will kill art slowly and painfully. The idea of making out media into our social gospel of correct morality by suddenly turning all famous musicians into preachers and social justice activists is not only wrong-but it is a dangerous idea not far removed from the ideas on culture and media presented by the Nazis and the Soviet Union.