Accountability in Music • Page 263

I'll be the first one to say that I was a huge fan of this dude and his band before all of this. So everyone should know that I'm not just hating on this guy because I have some kind of axe to grind.

 

I'm just trying to learn and understand here...

 

This is a really poor suggestion because it's not always enough to rely on people not showing up. Look at bands like As I Lay Dying, they're selling out shows, but that guy does not deserve a platform after the horrific acts he committed. When artists get to continue performing they get to continue maintaining a platform from which they abused, and they get to maintain a level of power in the scene as well.

 

I don’t think this band makes near as much money as you think it does lol

 

I'm a fan of his job. Groping people gets you fired? That's a good job to have.

 

I agree that's a bad thing, but what can we do? Educate on the issue, but people have free will to support if they want?

 

thatsthejoke.jpg

 

Let the market decide!!

 

Um...they don't tour. That's the solution. That's what we are advocating for.

 

I get that, but if they tour and people go, they are going to tour.

 

You asked why x situation wouldn't work and I told you, they need to not tour, and that is the solution. It is the responsibility not only of the abuser to have genuine remorse and make that decision, but also of their potential bandmates/label/etc. to not support them. If the artist themselves won't make the decision they should be forced to by others that may have leverage.

 

I don't recall from the original post, did the victim ask them to not tour or ask for anything specifically the band/he do? I can't seem to find the original post here.

 

You need to understand why it doesn't seem like that's all you're trying to do when you say things like this:

 

All I could find was this



And then the FB post response from the band.

 

I think the grey area everyone is struggling with is that the survivor does not want to speak to him even after he has reached out with a mediator. The survivor hasn't suggested anything.

 

The survivor hasn't said anything publicly, all we know is what Dylan himself has said. His representation was that she did not want to engage with the mediator that he hired.

 

Has the victim made any other statements besides the original tweet? I honestly don't know. My quick research on the subject doesn't show anything.

 

She hasn't but she isn't under any obligation to.

 

I guess what I am trying to say is, in the absence of that it seems like there are a lot of demands, outside of what we know what the victim wants or doesn't want.

 

So what if the victim does not care if they are touring?

 

You really think that if the survivor was ok with them touring that Dylan wouldn't have made sure we all knew that from the start? Seems like the first thing he would've done.

 

The problem is, the question "what is enough?" isn't being answered by the survivor in this case. Sometime the survivor is involved in this process, but they never should have to be. If it is healing for them to do so and they have suggestions for how the abuser should move forward then they should honor that; if not, there is no guidebook so to speak on how to do this and that is why we often have conversations like this in this thread.

That being said, there should be a typical response to this. Labels should get involved, the bandmates (if they exist) should get involved, the management should be involved. There should be time away from touring, there should be true reflection and concrete work being done by the abuser. In this case there is some; however without a clear break from touring it seems like they waited just long enough for the buzz to die down and then went right back into going on like nothing happened. That is the core of the issue in this circumstance.

You seem to be missing the point, for all the learning you say you wish to do. If the survivor asked them not to tour they should honor their wishes because making true amends would mean ceding to the wishes of the survivor and what would help the survivor heal.

 

Seems like Dylan didn't get any information from them? But also, who knows what he knows that we don't, thats why I feel like it's better just to go by what the victim is saying. Which isn't really anything, as far as I know?

 

Thank you for answering, I appreciate your thoughts on it.

Was there an instance in this case of the victim asking them not to tour?

Was there any information besides the tweet, and the bands response?

 

And that's exactly why he should be defaulting to "I should probably show some genuine remorse here instead of carrying on with my life because nobody knows what my survivor wants". It's the difference between taking actual responsibility for what he did (and he admitted that he did it) and making some token gestures because he knows he can use the uncertainty and confusion to his advantage and fans will have his back.

It's super convenient to say we should "go by what the survivor is saying" when the survivor isn't saying anything.