A long-standing debate—whether one can separate the art from the artist—has found new insight from a study by Cornell University. Researchers discovered that, in the realm of music, listeners largely continue to enjoy songs despite troubling revelations about the performers. In some instances, controversies even boosted an artist's popularity temporarily.
Streaming Behavior After Scandals
The study focused on high-profile cases, including R. Kelly, Morgan Wallen, and Sean 'Diddy' Combs. R. Kelly, now serving 31 years for crimes including child pornography and sex trafficking, saw his music remain popular on Spotify even after the platform removed his songs from official playlists in 2018. Professor Jura Liaukonyte, who led the research, explained, 'For songs that were not removed from Spotify-curated playlists, we found no evidence of a comparable pullback in intentional listening. Consumption dropped not because listener preferences suddenly changed, but because the platform's discovery tools made it harder for listeners to encounter R. Kelly's music.'
Controversies and Streams
Morgan Wallen faced backlash after a video surfaced of him using a racial slur, while Diddy was jailed for transportation to engage in prostitution. Despite widespread media coverage and social media condemnation, the analysis showed no sustained decline in streaming demand. In fact, short-term increases in streams were observed following the scandals. Declines only occurred when streaming platforms altered their algorithms or playlists, reducing the artists' visibility.
Power of Streaming Platforms
Professor Liaukonyte emphasized the growing influence of streaming services as cultural gatekeepers. 'Our findings underscore the growing power of streaming platforms as cultural intermediaries. While fans and activists may frame cancellation as a consumer-driven boycott, the economic consequences in our setting hinged on a specific set of editorial and algorithmic decisions by Spotify—highlighting more broadly how much power streaming platforms can wield over an artist's visibility and income.'
Public Opinion Divided
The debate continues online, with Reddit users expressing varied views. One commenter noted, 'For me, if they are not singing about their negative beliefs or crimes then it's okay.' Another added, 'It can be useful to know who's responsible for music sometimes, but it's not necessary for enjoying it...the music deserves to be enjoyed just for what it is, without attachments.' A third said, 'It has to be decided on a case by case basis. I don't seek out information on artists. I assume most successful artists are assholes. But if I know one did really bad things or is really, really stupid, then I probably don't want to listen to them anymore.'
Implications for 'Cancel Culture'
The researchers suggest that these findings complicate popular narratives about 'cancel culture.' They hope the analysis provides a foundation for understanding how platforms and social movements together shape the conditions under which listeners separate the artist from the art. Professor Liaukonyte concluded, 'We hope our analysis offers an initial step toward better understanding how platforms and social movements together shape the conditions under which listeners separate the artist from the art, a question that future work can continue to explore in broader settings.'
