[slg]

Reading this obituary reminds me of Michael Jackson's death. Someone dies and suddenly all the bad things in their life are expunged. Berry was a very influential and talented musician but he spent time in prison related to being caught with a 14 year old suspected prostitute. He spent time in prison for robbery. He spent time in prison for tax evasion. He settled a lawsuit for video taping 50+ women including underage girls in the bathroom of his restaurant. I get it, no one is perfect and a person's death is a time to celebrate their life, but these crimes are part of his legacy. Not even giving them a passing mention in his obituary sends a horrible message that if you are talented enough you can get away with anything.

EDIT: This is currently the top comment, which likely isn't fair either. These things are a part of the story of his life but they also probably shouldn't be the top line. My point is simply we should be talking about his entire life and this is a poor obituary for not even mentioning it. The New York Times has a better obituary available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/18/arts/chuck-berry-dead.htm...

[justinator]

To be perfectly honest, it's rock 'n roll, not church choir music.

Rock 'n Roll used to be dangerous music performed by minorities before the Civil Rights Movement, and listened by rebellious teenagers, before it was co-opted, watered down, and packaged up. If you're not listening to Chuck Berry, and you don't pick out innuendos, you're not listening hard enough.

The Sex Pistols covered Chuck Berry - the bassist was a heroin addict that killed his girlfriend, then himself.

The Beatles covered Chuck Berry - John Lennon is not looked upon with a positive light given how he treated his son and first wife.

The Rolling Stones covered Chuck Berry. People have been murdered at their shows.

Rock 'n Roll is filled with the causalities of unstable, chemically dependent, suicidal people. Chuck Berry was Rock 'n Roll.

[slg]

I don't disagree. My counter would be would you ever tell the story of Rock n' Roll without mentioning how damaged, disenfranchised, and rebellious the people who created or where drawn to it were? If not, shouldn't it be mentioned in one of the creators obituary how damaged they were?

[lostlogin]

Those things you mention are self destructive, the comment you were replying to was specifically mentioning damaging others, vulnerable ones in particular.

[djtriptych]

Wait was Michael Jackson ever convicted of a crime? How can you conflate the two?

[kasabiel]

Was MJ ever convicted of a crime? NO.

Maybe you should ask the question in a different way, such as was MJ the victim of a which hunt to frame him for a crime he never commuted. In that case the answer is undoubtedly, YES.

[MisterBastahrd]

No, but he settled lawsuits accusing him of being a child predator before they made it to court.

[djtriptych]

It was settled by his insurance company, against MJ's wishes. He was also actually tried, and found not guilty on 14 charges.

Not quite the same boat as Chuck Berry.

In any case, I'm a "separate the art from artist" kind of guy. There are no saints.

[volkk]

At what point do you conjoin the two? Does the line vary? If a brilliant painter turns out to be a convicted pedophile, for instance, would you still hang their art on your wall? Just curious to hear opinions. I was just wondering about this sort of thing the other day.

[lordnacho]

I think it depends on how influential you think the artist's life is on what he produces. I think that varies a lot from artist to artist.

If some painter has suffered from depression and does amazing paintings about it, the guy's bio should reflect that.

If Chuck Berry has has a tumultuous life, leading him both to those convictions as well as this new form of music, that should be part of his story. It might not be that way, I don't know enough about him to know, but his biographers will decide.

There's also the personal question of whether you want to support a criminal. Say Roman Polanski does a new movie. It might be a great movie not concerning underage sex, but I would still have a think about whether I wanted to pay a guy who is a fugitive from justice. I don't think I should compel anyone else to decide one way or the other; I think it's perfectly legal to watch his movies, so up to everyone to decide.

[erikpukinskis]

In theory you could enjoy the art just as art, but I tend to like art because I enjoy learning from how they saw the world. Finding out they were doing horrible things makes me less excited to absorb their life lessons, which makes the art less interesting to me.

[djtriptych]

I guess I'd say that great art always speaks truth, and that truth has no need for morality.

In particular I might argue that society might be better off if we were collectively more offended by bad art than by good art made by bad people.

[volkk]

I see the argument. How bout this scenario: We uncover that Hitler (hello Godwin's law) was a master sculptor, absolutely unparalleled. His art speaks volumes, especially to those unbeknownst of its origins. How do you see the art being viewed then? On one hand, he has the legacy of attempting genocide, but on the other hand his art is amazing. What are the morality guidelines behind this sort of predicament?

Does humanity keep it on display in a museum and continue his legacy in the vicinity of works such as Rembrandt's? Even though it would undoubtedly offend millions? Does the fact that it's great art outweigh the social negativity surrounding the whole predicament?

[agumonkey]

Also, the father of one child ended up commiting suicide IIRC. Most of us think it was guilt of using his kid as blackmail.

Also I've read MJ caved in settling because the constant lawsuit exposure was a career death sentence. No matter how just or unjust it would be, settling was the only liveable option for him.

The oddest part of MJ's defense on the subject were the few interviews were he would appear quite confused. But there's his personality under pressure, after a time it's quite possible he was just stuck into a corner and couldn't express himself.

For such a celebrity under so much scrutiny I'd side with him, nobody managed to find sufficient proof.

[pthreads]

The BBC video does mention his troubles with the law. It's not at length but it does put things in context.

[erikpukinskis]

How could a 14 year old be a prostitute? You mean a sex trafficking victim? He got caught with a child sex trafficking victim.

[umanwizard]

What's your point? The two aren't mutually exclusive. Sex trafficking victims are a particular subset of prostitutes.

[erikpukinskis]

That's like saying people whose homes have been burglarized are a subset of electronics stores.