Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Chris Brown: The Quiz

Posted by on Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:28 PM

In 2009, Chris Brown was convicted of felony assault for beating up his then-girlfriend Rihanna. This past Sunday, Brown performed twice on the Grammy Awards and took home the award for Best R&B Album. Many people are not happy.

 

Comments (22) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
You need another option: He should be in prison for attempted murder.
Posted by pragmatic on February 15, 2012 at 1:45 PM
undead ayn rand 2
Mostly the third. He's done his "debt to society", but this isn't about the law, this is about the court of public opinion. He jumped immediately back in the spotlight without remorse, only a few coached interviews and a lot of barely repressed anger. He's an entitled douchebag, and from the GMA interview, not all together still. I hope he finds peace, but he's not entitled to being a role model. The fans and music establishment I loathe more than him, as they enable this sort of behavior.

I mean, I can still listen to artists who lived asshole lives. Ike Turner, James Brown, Rick James, but really, Chris Brown's music isn't *THAT* great, we wouldn't lose anything by not propping him up.
Posted by undead ayn rand on February 15, 2012 at 1:46 PM
alithea 3
vice magazine's tumblr summed up what i feel pretty closely:

“It’s not that Chris Brown is categorically unforgivable. It’s more that he’s no longer an acceptable vehicle for corporations to use to sell products to young adults. On a human level, I’m more than willing to eventually forgive Chris Brown, once he seems genuinely remorseful and changed (which, at this point, he definitely does not). But there’s no obligation to continue supporting him as a pop star. Chris Brown would not exist without millions of dollars of production and marketing and styling and whatever else. He’s not some troubled genius that exists on his own, creating pop music in a corner. He’s just a handsome and fit guy who can dance and sing pretty well. There are plenty of other people who are more than capable of filling that role and who haven’t beat a woman into a state of unconsciousness. Why not give one of them a chance to be rich and famous instead?”

so, like, that except with 20% more "fuck a society that forgives domestic assault in the name of a dollar".
Posted by alithea on February 15, 2012 at 1:49 PM
Baby Blue 4
I'm still in shock that he an Rihanna performed at the same show let alone the fact that anyone would give him an award for ANYTHING.
Posted by Baby Blue on February 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM
undead ayn rand 5
@3: "Chris Brown would not exist without millions of dollars of production and marketing and styling and whatever else. He’s not some troubled genius that exists on his own, creating pop music in a corner. He’s just a handsome and fit guy who can dance and sing pretty well. There are plenty of other people who are more than capable of filling that role and who haven’t beat a woman into a state of unconsciousness. Why not give one of them a chance to be rich and famous instead?”"

They've already sunk millions of bucks into selling him as a pop icon, I'm sure they see him as an "investment".
Posted by undead ayn rand on February 15, 2012 at 1:58 PM
venomlash 6
Can't there be an option for "..............*crickets*"?
Posted by venomlash on February 15, 2012 at 2:10 PM
7
Did you guys know that Janet Jackson was banned from the Grammys in 2004 for her wardrobe malfunction at the Super Bowl, but Chris Brown has been allowed to perform at them even though he beat Rihanna to a state of unconsciousness? He hasn't performed at them since the incident, but not because he was actually banned. Good to know the Grammys has their priorities in order.

Oh, also, in case you've been living under a rock:

"In an interview with ABC News Radio aired before Sunday's awards show, Grammy Executive Producer Ken Ehrlich spoke of giving Brown a second chance by having him perform at the ceremony.

“'I think people deserve a second chance, you know,' Ehrlich said. 'If you’ll note, he has not been on the Grammys for the past few years and it may have taken us a while to kind of get over the fact that we were the victim of what happened.'"

Chris Brown apologism makes my blood boil.
Posted by daftgiraffe on February 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM
TheMisanthrope 8
Where's my option for "He sucks anyways, and should be kept off the stage at all costs."
Posted by TheMisanthrope on February 15, 2012 at 2:21 PM
9
@7: Wait a minute, a Grammy producer said the Grammys were the victim?! Seriously?
Posted by Christy O on February 15, 2012 at 3:18 PM
10
Who's Favio?
Posted by cracked on February 15, 2012 at 3:23 PM
David Schmader 11
9: Yes. Both Rihanna and Chis Brown were scheduled to perform at the 2009 Grammys, but had to bail when Brown sent Rihanna to the hospital and himself into police custody. Poor Grammys, they had to scramble around and find replacement performers at the last minute. There are no words.
Posted by David Schmader on February 15, 2012 at 3:24 PM
12
He can be forgiven as a human being once he actually reforms himself, but he doesn't deserve the wealth, privileges and adoration afforded to pop stars.
Posted by Amanda on February 15, 2012 at 3:26 PM
13
What about the fact that Chris Brown still acts like a spoiled child after his interviews and on twitter? Shouldn't that count for something. Is there no anyone else that we can fawn over now that he has proved himself less intelligent than the chair he threw through the window after the Good Morning America interview?
Posted by nickunltd on February 15, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Chris in Vancouver WA 14
My last name is Brown, and it's very weird seeing my name in a SLOG post. What did I do wrong now?
Posted by Chris in Vancouver WA on February 15, 2012 at 3:57 PM
leek 15
I have a whole ball of bad feelings about this situation, including the fact that it really bothers me to keep seeing the badness of this situation boiled down to "a man should never hit a woman" or, as here, "brutally beating a woman should indeed disqualify someone..."

I realize that on average, women possess less upper-body strength than men, and that the average woman is socialized to be more passive than the average man. But I think it's still a form of discrimination to talk in blanket terms about what men should and should not do to women. Speaking up in favor of a female victim of a crime becomes reinforcement of the idea that men and women deserve different treatment, and I hate that.

"A person should never hit another person except in self-defense or to defend someone else" sounds lame, I agree. "A person should never hit another person who has less physical or emotional strength," way too complex. Just... fuck it, there's no good solution. But in some tiny way, these ways of talking about it isn't helping things.

Also, I vote #2 (with the change to "vulnerable person," maybe?)

Shut up, leek.

Posted by leek on February 15, 2012 at 4:05 PM
seandr 16
Wow, I don't really follow tabloids, so I just assumed the violence was an impulsive single-push/hit type scenario, maybe after too much booze, similar to what went down between Richard McGyver and his wife.

Then I read the police report.

Wow. I'm stunned that he still has a singing career.
Posted by seandr on February 15, 2012 at 4:12 PM
Supreme Ruler Of The Universe 17

Hip hop is dead.
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://yrihf.com on February 15, 2012 at 5:08 PM
Free Lunch 18
@16 - Yikes! I too assumed he "just" clocked her once or something, not a sustained beating that took minutes.

Michael Vick went to jail for 18 months for abusing dogs (as he should have), but I guess beating your girlfriend to a pulp doesn't rate prison time.
Posted by Free Lunch on February 15, 2012 at 6:22 PM
19
@15: "Just... fuck it, there's no good solution. But in some tiny way, these ways of talking about it isn't helping things."

Partners shouldn't beat their partners into pulp. Shut up leek.
Posted by you're not really practicing feminism on February 15, 2012 at 6:46 PM
watchout5 20
I'm just glad my money didn't go to supporting any of it. Rename this to "which label wants to pay the most money to win a popularity contest among people with limited musical interest"
Posted by watchout5 http://www.overclockeddrama.com on February 15, 2012 at 10:04 PM
21
The Grammys are supposed to be about art, not morality. If his art if genuinely meritorious enough to be worthy of an award, he should get the award. His music doesn't make him and less of a thug and a douche.
Posted by I have always been... east coaster on February 16, 2012 at 1:16 PM
undead ayn rand 22
@21: "The Grammys are supposed to be about art, not morality. If his art if genuinely meritorious enough to be worthy of an award, he should get the award"

This is about featured and headlining performers, not artistic merit.
Posted by undead ayn rand on February 16, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy