Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by itrainmonkeys on Feb 14, 2019 18:48:37 GMT -5
Oof.
Also Karen elson and Natalie prass have tweeted stuff. Natalie just saying to believe women but Karen talks about also having a traumatizing experience with Ryan.
Also Karen elson and Natalie prass have tweeted stuff. Natalie just saying to believe women but Karen talks about also having a traumatizing experience with Ryan.
Ryan Adams was going through a period a few years ago where he'd tweet for a couple of weeks about this amazing new female singer/songwriter you just had to check out. I remember both Bridgers and Prass received those Twitter shoutouts around the same time, and when I read in the NYT article that a few other women had similar experiences, but declined to come forward, I immediately thought of Prass.
can you expand on this? seems like we are all accepting of the fact that RA used his position of power to harm and manipulate women. I don't see anyone justifying or defending his behavior.
Mandy Moore is the guest on the next new episode of Marc Maron's WTF podcast, premiering Monday.
The episodes are usually taped well in advance of the airdate, so it's unlikely that her comments to the NYT reporter will be discussed, so who knows if or how much RA will come up in the conversation. I'd expect her to have a lot more to say about Taylor Goldsmith and Dawes.
Interesting point of view on Twitter, quoting a journalist from RA's hometown on the NYT article.
It's one thing to sleep with woman half your age (hell, why do you think most artists want to become famous musicians), but the entire pattern of behavior that the dude displayed points to an abusive character.
Interesting point of view on Twitter, quoting a journalist from RA's hometown on the NYT article.
It's one thing to sleep with woman half your age (hell, why do you think most artists want to become famous musicians), but the entire pattern of behavior that the dude displayed points to an abusive character.
There's a reason why the criminal laws of every state have different degrees of offense for most categories of crime. Spray painting graffiti on the side of a building is a far less serious offense than blowing up that same building.
Some of what was mentioned in the article definitely falls into the category of bad boyfriend/husband. Telling Mandy Moore than he doesn't consider singers to be musicians and considering that "abuse" is ridiculous. So, he pulled opportunities away from the singer/songwriters he was dating after they broke up? Most people do nice things for significant others that they wouldn't do for an ex.
In only one situation mentioned in the article was a law broken and if he goes to prison and/or loses his career over video sexting with an underage girl, that's fair enough. Do the crime, do the time. But let's not pretend that everything else or anything else mentioned in the article is remotely as bad as that.
Let's also acknowledge that, as a society, we have this pernicious habit of giving a "boys will be boys" pass for genuinely abusive behavior to some, while reserving our outrage for others. It took a six-hour documentary for RCA Records to drop R. Kelly (after his crimes were public knowledge 20 years ago), Backstreet Boys keep booking tours despite rape allegations against Nick Carter, Rob Lowe keeps getting one TV series after the next, Chris Brown is still on RCA Records, and on and on and on.
Public figures who have a "matinee idol meets bad boy" image to begin with tend to get a pass that sad-eyed singer/songwriters, comedians, and other non-alpha male types don't receive. I'm not advocating that Ryan Adams, Louis CK, or Anthony Weiner, for example, get the same pass. On the contrary, the reality is that Chris Brown, Rob Lowe, and Nick Carter deserve the same punishment. We just need to ensure that both courts of public opinion and courts of law hold everyone to the same standards, while also recognizing that there's a broad range of bad behavior and some things are morally and legally worse than others.
Post by The Foot Fuckin' Master on Feb 18, 2019 10:48:16 GMT -5
You're absolutely right that there are different degrees of offences, and I agree that being a jerk in a relationship is not a crime. When I saw Bridgers a few months ago, she introduced Motion Sickness as being about someone who was mean to her. Which I kind of shrugged at in the moment, because yeah, shit happens in relationships and hook-ups.
That said, the big takeaway here is that Adams was messing with people's careers in a manner that wouldn't fly past most HR departments. Exposing yourself to your tour opener falls under sexual harassment, regardless if you've had a consensual sexual relationship with them in the past. Also, the whole thing with Adams not wanting to help Bridgers anymore had more to do with "I'll only keep working with you if you keep sleeping with me." Again, these types of arrangements aren't acceptable in other professions either. Especially when it leads to a culture where you are expected to put out as a female to get anywhere.
You're absolutely right that there are different degrees of offences, and I agree that being a jerk in a relationship is not a crime. When I saw Bridgers a few months ago, she introduced Motion Sickness as being about someone who was mean to her. Which I kind of shrugged at in the moment, because yeah, shit happens in relationships and hook-ups.
That said, the big takeaway here is that Adams was messing with people's careers in a manner that wouldn't fly past most HR departments. Exposing yourself to your tour opener falls under sexual harassment, regardless if you've had a consensual sexual relationship with them in the past. Also, the whole thing with Adams not wanting to help Bridgers anymore had more to do with "I'll only keep working with you if you keep sleeping with me." Again, these types of arrangements aren't acceptable in other professions either. Especially when it leads to a culture where you are expected to put out as a female to get anywhere.
I kept trying to type up a response but you captured my thoughts here better than I could, thank you.
mandy moore wtf interview released today. all before the NYT article, even marc's intro, but it was a good interview and they did discuss her marriage to ryan at length. cliffs notes is that ryan was so needy emotionally it left mandy so exhausted she didn't have time for herself or her own career.
You're absolutely right that there are different degrees of offences, and I agree that being a jerk in a relationship is not a crime. When I saw Bridgers a few months ago, she introduced Motion Sickness as being about someone who was mean to her. Which I kind of shrugged at in the moment, because yeah, shit happens in relationships and hook-ups.
That said, the big takeaway here is that Adams was messing with people's careers in a manner that wouldn't fly past most HR departments. Exposing yourself to your tour opener falls under sexual harassment, regardless if you've had a consensual sexual relationship with them in the past. Also, the whole thing with Adams not wanting to help Bridgers anymore had more to do with "I'll only keep working with you if you keep sleeping with me." Again, these types of arrangements aren't acceptable in other professions either. Especially when it leads to a culture where you are expected to put out as a female to get anywhere.
Fair points, all. But is "I'll only keep working with you if you keep sleeping with me" quite as bad where there's no employer/employee or contractual relationship involved? This isn't Ryan Adams hiring a personal assistant and then sexually harassing that assistant. And the analogy of a traditional workplace doesn't hold water here, because unless there's a contract compelling people to work together (like there was in the case of Ke$ha and Dr. Luke), musicians are free to collaborate or not with whomever.
Musicians stop working with other musicians for personal reasons all of the time. "You dumped me, so I don't want to collaborate with you" is as good a reason as any.
Fair points, all. But is "I'll only keep working with you if you keep sleeping with me" quite as bad where there's no employer/employee or contractual relationship involved?
I got this. Yes. It is just as bad. Contact or no contract you should not be expected to sleep with someone to advance your career. I don’t give a shit if it’s how it’s always been done. This is 2019 and it needs to stop. Only way to stop is to call it out.
You're absolutely right that there are different degrees of offences, and I agree that being a jerk in a relationship is not a crime. When I saw Bridgers a few months ago, she introduced Motion Sickness as being about someone who was mean to her. Which I kind of shrugged at in the moment, because yeah, shit happens in relationships and hook-ups.
That said, the big takeaway here is that Adams was messing with people's careers in a manner that wouldn't fly past most HR departments. Exposing yourself to your tour opener falls under sexual harassment, regardless if you've had a consensual sexual relationship with them in the past. Also, the whole thing with Adams not wanting to help Bridgers anymore had more to do with "I'll only keep working with you if you keep sleeping with me." Again, these types of arrangements aren't acceptable in other professions either. Especially when it leads to a culture where you are expected to put out as a female to get anywhere.
Fair points, all. But is "I'll only keep working with you if you keep sleeping with me" quite as bad where there's no employer/employee or contractual relationship involved? This isn't Ryan Adams hiring a personal assistant and then sexually harassing that assistant. And the analogy of a traditional workplace doesn't hold water here, because unless there's a contract compelling people to work together (like there was in the case of Ke$ha and Dr. Luke), musicians are free to collaborate or not with whomever.
Musicians stop working with other musicians for personal reasons all of the time. "You dumped me, so I don't want to collaborate with you" is as good a reason as any.
I really don't know what to say if you don't realize how someone with the critical and commercial success of Ryan Adams, with his own studio and record label and track record of successful production credits, etc. can influence the career trajectory of an up and coming artist. He was in a place of power within the music industry and he abused that position for his own whims. I don't think you can boil the whole thing down to a simple quid pro quo
Musicians stop working with other musicians for personal reasons all of the time. "You dumped me, so I don't want to collaborate with you" is as good a reason as any.
Sure, but look at the broader context: Adams was being emotionally abusive, such as allegedly threatening to commit suicide if Bridgers didn't respond to him in certain ways. Which is a common control tactic. It's the cumulative effect of all the things pointed out in the article that has turned people against him.
Fair points, all. But is "I'll only keep working with you if you keep sleeping with me" quite as bad where there's no employer/employee or contractual relationship involved?
I got this. Yes. It is just as bad. Contact or no contract you should not be expected to sleep with someone to advance your career. I don’t give a shit if it’s how it’s always been done. This is 2019 and it needs to stop. Only way to stop is to call it out.
I disagree. Ryan Adams was under no obligation to talk up these struggling young artists on social media, nor was he under any obligation to work with them.
He also didn't have a lot of control over their careers and his ability to give them a boost was limited to his presence on their recordings, using them as an opener, or talking about them on social media. You know who has a lot more power over an nearly-unknown artist's career than Ryan Adams? Literally every single person who books musical acts on TV shows, not to mention everyone in a position to select what gets played on broadcast radio, internet radio, and satellite radio. Let's not forget about every festival booker.
Yes, Ryan Adams was a "big star" compared to Bridgers, Prass, etc. when he was involved with them, but the guy can't even get his own songs on the radio.
Fair points, all. But is "I'll only keep working with you if you keep sleeping with me" quite as bad where there's no employer/employee or contractual relationship involved? This isn't Ryan Adams hiring a personal assistant and then sexually harassing that assistant. And the analogy of a traditional workplace doesn't hold water here, because unless there's a contract compelling people to work together (like there was in the case of Ke$ha and Dr. Luke), musicians are free to collaborate or not with whomever.
Musicians stop working with other musicians for personal reasons all of the time. "You dumped me, so I don't want to collaborate with you" is as good a reason as any.
I really don't know what to say if you don't realize how someone with the critical and commercial success of Ryan Adams, with his own studio and record label and track record of successful production credits, etc. can influence the career trajectory of an up and coming artist. He was in a place of power within the music industry and he abused that position for his own whims. I don't think you can boil the whole thing down to a simple quid pro quo
Commercial success? He's hardly a household name and the number of people who've never heard his songs greatly outnumber those who do.
As for PAXAM, it's less a label than a vanity imprint distributed by Universal Music Group. He's not putting vinyl and CDs into brick-and-mortar stores, UMG does. (And how much does that even matter anymore, in an era when a teenager can upload a song to YouTube and it will be watched by millions?)
As for his status as studio owner, there are many studios in L.A. He's not overseeing a significant percentage of the recording studio access available in SoCal.
But is "I'll only keep working with you if you keep sleeping with me" quite as bad where there's no employer/employee or contractual relationship involved?
Yes it fucking is. It's abuse of power/opportunity. It's basically prostitution to say "I'll give you what you want if you keep fucking me".
I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to defend what he's been doing to multiple people, based on their accounts. Just because the article has a few examples doesn't mean those are the ONLY examples. He was manipulative, emotionally and verbally abusive, and used his fame and power to lure women into relationships and then try to control them (through threats of suicide and isolation tactics).
I got this. Yes. It is just as bad. Contact or no contract you should not be expected to sleep with someone to advance your career. I don’t give a shit if it’s how it’s always been done. This is 2019 and it needs to stop. Only way to stop is to call it out.
I disagree. Ryan Adams was under no obligation to talk up these struggling young artists on social media, nor was he under any obligation to work with them.
What does that matter at all? Obligation has nothing to do with this. He talked up the young artists as part of his controlling/manipulating.
He also didn't have a lot of control over their careers and his ability to give them a boost was limited to his presence on their recordings, using them as an opener, or talking about them on social media. You know who has a lot more power over an nearly-unknown artist's career than Ryan Adams? Literally every single person who books musical acts on TV shows, not to mention everyone in a position to select what gets played on broadcast radio, internet radio, and satellite radio. Let's not forget about every festival booker.
You're completely ignoring what Mandy Moore said and how her career basically became controlled by Ryan after he manipulated her into isolating herself from others and convincing her that he was the ideal producer. He certainly had a lot of influence on some of their careers.[/quote]
Yes, Ryan Adams was a "big star" compared to Bridgers, Prass, etc. when he was involved with them, but the guy can't even get his own songs on the radio.
He could, because there are articles coming out about how radio stations have quietly stopped playing songs of his that they normally used to. I've heard him on the radio.
But is "I'll only keep working with you if you keep sleeping with me" quite as bad where therhe's no employer/employee or contractual relationship involved?
Yes it fucking is. It's abuse of power/opportunity. It's basically prostitution to say "I'll give you what you want if you keep fucking me".
I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to defend what he's been doing to multiple people, based on their accounts. Just because the article has a few examples doesn't mean those are the ONLY examples. He was manipulative, emotionally and verbally abusive, and used his fame and power to lure women into relationships and then try to control them (through threats of suicide and isolation tactics).
So, he was a bad boyfriend and someone these women would have been better off avoiding.
It's important to distinguish between actual abuse and the millennial definition of abuse, which is to label anyone or anything which isn't 100% supportive of you or 100% in agreement with you as abusive or triggering. There are countless victims of rape and sexual abuse whose experiences and pain you diminish by painting Ryan's exes as being remotely in the same category.
As the Jacksonville, NC newspaper editor wrote, we should be uncomfortable with the way the NYT article mixed together such a diverse range of anecdotes and experiences that didn't necessarily belong in the same conversation.
A lot of the response to the Ryan Adams article has been to paint his
Emotional abuse IS abuse, gtfo with this "millennial" nonsense. That's just what people say who want an excuse for being shitty people. God forbid people don't tolerate emotional abuse and controlling behavior anymore.
I disagree. Ryan Adams was under no obligation to talk up these struggling young artists on social media, nor was he under any obligation to work with them.
What does that matter at all? Obligation has nothing to do with this. He talked up the young artists as part of his controlling/manipulating.
He also didn't have a lot of control over their careers and his ability to give them a boost was limited to his presence on their recordings, using them as an opener, or talking about them on social media. You know who has a lot more power over an nearly-unknown artist's career than Ryan Adams? Literally every single person who books musical acts on TV shows, not to mention everyone in a position to select what gets played on broadcast radio, internet radio, and satellite radio. Let's not forget about every festival booker.
You're completely ignoring what Mandy Moore said and how her career basically became controlled by Ryan after he manipulated her into isolating herself from others and convincing her that he was the ideal producer. He certainly had a lot of influence on some of their careers.
This sort of thing goes on in so many marriages and long-term relationships, whether based upon disagreements over the careers of one or both partners, lifestyle choices and habits, even things as small as who controls the remote or where you're going out to dinner. This push-pull power struggle happens in a lot of relationships. It's not necessarily indicative of a healthy relationship, but it doesn't merit an expose in the NY Times, either.
Yes it fucking is. It's abuse of power/opportunity. It's basically prostitution to say "I'll give you what you want if you keep fucking me".
I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to defend what he's been doing to multiple people, based on their accounts. Just because the article has a few examples doesn't mean those are the ONLY examples. He was manipulative, emotionally and verbally abusive, and used his fame and power to lure women into relationships and then try to control them (through threats of suicide and isolation tactics).
So, he was a bad boyfriend and someone these women would have been better off avoiding.
He was exposing himself to some of these women and was seemingly grooming an underage girl for years, including requesting photos from her.
It's important to distinguish between actual abuse and the millennial definition of abuse, which is to label anyone or anything which isn't 100% supportive of you or 100% in agreement with you as abusive or triggering. There are countless victims of rape and sexual abuse whose experiences and pain you diminish by painting Ryan's exes as being remotely in the same category.
What are you talking about? There isn't a "millenial definition" of abuse. This is classic emotional/verbal abuse and manipulative and controlling behavior. Nobody but you is painting Ryan's exes as being victims of physical abuse or rape. We all understand what the issue is here and it's his behavior. Recognizing these forms of abuse does not diminish other victims of other kinds of abuse.
As the Jacksonville, NC newspaper editor wrote, we should be uncomfortable with the way the NYT article mixed together such a diverse range of anecdotes and experiences that didn't necessarily belong in the same conversation.
The conversation was about his shady behavior and how he's used his fame and power to get what he wants. There's a pretty clear connection to all of those women's experiences.
Why does it make you uncomfortable that a man is being held accountable for his actions and behavior from women he's had relationships with? Why can't they all be in the same conversation of a famous person's shitty behavior?
What does that matter at all? Obligation has nothing to do with this. He talked up the young artists as part of his controlling/manipulating.
You're completely ignoring what Mandy Moore said and how her career basically became controlled by Ryan after he manipulated her into isolating herself from others and convincing her that he was the ideal producer. He certainly had a lot of influence on some of their careers.
This sort of thing goes on in so many marriages and long-term relationships, whether based upon disagreements over the careers of one or both partners, lifestyle choices and habits, even things as small as who controls the remote or where you're going out to dinner. This push-pull power struggle happens in a lot of relationships. It's not necessarily indicative of a healthy relationship, but it doesn't merit an expose in the NY Times, either.
You're continually ignoring the fact that he was chatting suggestively with an underage girl and he knew what he was doing was wrong at the time. You are trying so hard to paint this as "What's the big problem? All couples fight with each other?".
Threatening to kill yourself to your partner because they won't leave an event and engage in phone sex with you or isolating your partner from their business ties and relationships is not the fucking same as fighting over the remote.