Really shocked about Quest given his love of fun celeb stories...He can dish out the fun stuff but not get really real on the serious stuff.

https://twitter.com/jasmoneyrecords/status/1080836587498422272?s=21

I do wonder why he is teflon still. it's not like he's hitting anymore.

I'm not sure why you'd think he would start now, when it's impossible to think he couldn't.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

https://twitter.com/dreamhampton/status/1080966912169918464?s=19

and the reason he didn't participate was because he was asked to speak on r kelly's "genius"

didn't read the back and forth

https://www.okayplayer.com/news/queslove-dream-hampton-r-kelly-documentary.html

yeah, I would LOVE it if he was like "FUCK R. Kelly"

but WTF does ?uest have to offer besides a "fuck R. Kelly"? Being famous.

We really oughta talk about why Jay-Z ain't there.
After all, dude recorded 2 albums with dude, toured with him...
and the whole Aaliyah thing he has a stake in

Surprised Chappelle wouldn't, though.

grew up in Chicago. Hearing all the rumors validated is crazy as well. This has been a long time coming.

I remember reading about that on here back in the day


----------

IG @h_n_z

You been familiar with R and how he moves from the jump, introduced your niece to him, and now dropping crocodile tears about it smh

2001 she learned about it
2008 she testified and had her family turn against her

“It happened in 2001, when Edwards says she first learned that Kelly had allegedly made a video tape showing him having sex with her then-13-year-old niece.

In 2008, Sparkle testified against Kelly as he faced charges of child pornography. He was eventually acquitted because jurors weren’t convinced the girl in the tape was a minor.

But because Sparkle stood by her conviction she lost the support of her family members, who vehemently denied the girl in the tape was the relative.

Edwards said she lost all of the interactions with them, including family nights and gatherings after church.

“It brings back so many memories and hurt,” she says.”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=newssearch&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj7tqevptTfAhXPc98KHbXRBnYQzPwBegQIARAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fchicago.cbslocal.com%2F2012%2F08%2F02%2Fr-kelly-trial-witness-finds-peace-returns-to-music%2F&psig=AOvVaw1lCXoLWRMIdYFR9AJUmSbf&ust=1546697243189388

these were stories that were known to people...eventually known to the public….. and this n***a stayed get a pass...

justifiably seeing a lot of folks shocked after seeing this.... but not everyone gave this dude a pass...lots of people been on some F R.kelly for the longest because of the same things that people are now seeing and hearing on a show in 2019...


but Fiesta Fiesta, right??

smh...

he's sick fukk, and he's always been a cornball to me...

Not the first or the last to escape from pedo allegations (Polanski, Jimmy Page, Woody Allen, etc)

I'm curious as to why Kellz plus the others are able to skate and Cosby couldn't (Cosby at least wasn't cavorting with minors)

After DECADES of accusations

Honestly, if he had just STOPPED raping after 1988 or whatever the cut off is for statute of limitations he'd probably still be free

link: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bill-cosby-scandal/judge-explains-why-he-unsealed-bill-cosby-court-documents-n387861

"A federal judge said one of the reasons he unsealed court documents in which Bill Cosby admits he gave a woman drugs before sex is because of the disconnect between the comedian's upright public persona and the serious allegations against him.

"The stark contrast between Bill Cosby, the public moralist and Bill Cosby, the subject of serious allegations concerning improper (and perhaps criminal) conduct is a matter as to which the AP — and by extension the public — has a significant interest," Judge Eduardo Robreno wrote in a memorandum Monday. The documents were released after a request from The Associated Press.

Cosby said in a 2005 legal deposition that he had obtained prescriptions of a powerful sedative to give to women with whom he wanted to have sex, according to the documents. His testimony was part of a civil suit involving a woman who accused him of drugging her and sexually assaulting her.

The actor was not charged in connection with these claims and the case was dismissed in 2006."

as I understand it, the whole thing jumped off when Cosby violated parts of the confidentiality agreement (as part of the Constand civil case in the 00s) with his response to all of the allegations. Constand and her lawyer filed a motion to get that unsealed as part of that.

there was also the district attorney's race in Montgomery County PA, in which the Cosby matter was used to highlight the incumbent (Bruce Castor) as unsuited for the job. Castor lost and that further expedited things.

a whole lottery of "unusual events" had to occur before Cosby was even charged.

* - this term is often used derisively from those on the right toward judges with a slant toward social justice. here it applies, because the rich and famous are almost NEVER even confronted in legal matters such as these and certainly not on the grounds by which this was done. moving to unseal the documents because Cosby is a moralizing hypocrite is a move of questionable -legality-, even if I agree with the end result.

>I'm curious as to why Kellz plus the others are able to skate
>and Cosby couldn't (Cosby at least wasn't cavorting with
>minors)

over the course of a long period of time....

His "trial" would have turned out much different if the prosecutors had at their disposal all of the people who are now participating in this current documentary.... They did not.... folks need to remember that.

Kelly skated in court because a lot of people who could have put him in jail at that time didn't participate in that court case....also there were previous incidents....payoffs and the like that if I remember correctly were not brought up during the case....



if you go back to the very beginning of all this.... he was over 20 years old hanging out at the high school...and hanging out at the McDonalds....picking up young girls..in the open and fragrantly....BEFORE he even relased steppin in the 90's...


then after he was a star....he went on national TV multiple times with a 15 year old girl....openly insinuating that they were a couple.... dressed a-like and coupled up literally for the world to see..


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/8wHBgdoYVDU/hqdefault.jpg

https://www.lipstickalley.com/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2Fn1paxk.png&hash=0444be17b1031a2701ee48675ee0cb9e

This was presented to the world.... dude was 25 years old with a 14 and 15 year old like this on national tv...


dude was perving to the world literally for years and people accepted it

don't parents have to sign for their minor children to marry?
I know they have to sign for their contracts (and a marriage license is a contract)

that's why the license had to be forged with the wrong age so that it wouldn't need a signature from the parent...

and no they haven't really ever publically spoken on the details of this...

but obviously a crime was committed when a 27 year old man married a 15 year old girl using fraud....

those involved in that crime could have been prosecuted and convicted had her parents pursued that avenue.... which they did not...

as much empathy as I can have for them regarding her demise....the fact is that they did not protect their daughter from Robert Kelly...and their inaction in that regard facilitated other young girls to be victimized....

Why WOULD they? Seems everyone in this outside of John Legend has first hand knowledge of the abuse. It makes sense for the journalists to be part of this even... it why would Lady Gaga, who presumably hasn’t seen his abuse, take part?

Not really a satisfying answer but a practical honest answer.

If Joe Fly a Kite Documentary asks Jay-Z to participate in his documentary on the recent massacre in the Sudanand he turns it down, doesn't mean he is complicit with the massacre.

Even if it is a worthy cause, a celebrity has to be cautious about what projects they lend their name to and support. I can see how folks would be hesitant to lend their name to a lifeime channel documentary.

I mean as a regular ass person I get hit up to give to charities and attend charity events all the time and I turn down stuff all the time not because I don't give a damn but don't have the time or the money to give to all the worthy causes.

Yeah frequent collaborators with Kelly should speak out now the documentary has created the conversation but I can't see shaming celebrities for not participating in a lifetime documentary just because they were asked to.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

way out. plus they have to be careful of the brands going forward.

but it does imply complicity if you're a jay-z or anyone else that worked with Kelly during his rise and peak. that shit with marrying Aaliyah should have been enough to turn some of those big names away from him. we'll never know who actually chose not to do affiliate themselves with him specifically because of Kelly's history.

I have a difficult time believing that all those folks that did work with him knew nothing about the rumors. they didn't care enough to stop.

Did BOBW, backed off the tour after the tape came out, waited until it somehow became okay to like him again, then did BOBW2. He was only "done" with Kellz once he walked out of a show claiming the lighting man was trying to kill him or whatever. There's no way he doesn't look bad, participating or not.

That was a rap we used to recite from BBD back in the day.

Not defending Kellz but he ain’t the only one. I’m sure it was common back in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Folks ain’t talking because they prolly got a few skeletons in their closet.

i had to sit my homeboy down 2 years ago and pick his brain on why he was just so "it is what it is" about his teenage sister fucking some 30 yo fast food manager. i was more tight about it than he was.

edit: i remember kicking one of our good friends out of one of our college parties because she brought her 15 yo sister to a party talking about "i wouldn't have brought her if i thought she wouldn't be fine around yall." yeah she's fine around US, if it's just like the ones of us you actually know but it's hundreds of people here and we don't know who they are or how they roll.

still is, too. But it was so gross.

Turn on any classic rock station right now. Like half of the rock songs written between 1967-1985 are about trying to get with teenage girls and it wasn't even hidden.

for a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I always wondered how he was legally able to do that.

Florence spent 5 minutes joking about dating her 10th grade chemistry teacher

“It was risky because he backed me up against a bunsen burner”

“His mustache tickled me”

Laugh track popping the whole time too

I remember when I was a kid, my mother loved that show, had to sit thru shows she liked most of the time, but I do remember one time Blanche said she dated all the male teachers in her high school, and all the college professors even though she never went to college.

Hollywood writes lines like this all the time in comedy shows, but 99% of the time, these statements fly right above viewers heads cause of being use to a promiscuous character of the show.

Any show where two or more females are the lead actors, it's always that one flirty, very sexual active female character, like in Designing Women, 227, Living Single, Sex And The City, 2 Broke Girls, Hot In Cleveland, etc., and they always make hints at how they started being sexual active very early and usually with older men.

>“It was risky because he backed me up against a bunsen
>burner”
>
>“His mustache tickled me”
>
>Laugh track popping the whole time too

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqjcuEvCHZM

>That was a rap we used to recite from BBD back in the day.

I always took it as they were referring to themselves (BBD) being backstage, underaged.

Not only that, she's been a big time player in Hip-Hop and R&B journalism for 25 years. She's known everyone she mentioned since before any of them were famous. They would have made time for her if they wanted to.

documentary is new, its all stuff we have known for a long time.

And the people actually speaking in the documentary are either former employees or women he met when they were 17 or older which is the age of consent in the state if IL. All of the younger girls he messed with and their parents are silent because he paid them and made them sign NDA's.

we know about the NDA, etc.

either way, even if a lot of us old heads know this, there are plenty of people who don't.

Dave Chappelle at least had those sketches making fun of R, but is there a reason people think Quest would be able to add to the discussion.

to speak, especially since she and 15 are cool. that's what I gather from reading the okp article.

?uest has said he didn't want any quotes to be used towards the "he's a musical genius" end.

She has apologized to ?uest for the "male allies" quote.

This is what I was thinking about most of the people listed in that tweet.

Jay-Z is the only person in the list that stood out as a good person to interview. They put out that "Not Guilty" song and two collaborative albums. They also had plans to go on a tour and it fell apart.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfinished_Business_(Jay-Z_and_R._Kelly_album)#Best_of_Both_Worlds_tour

And we all know Jigga man used to be cool with Dame, who was dating Aaliyah before she died.

I don't know what Erykah would say. I remember she referred to R. Kelly as "my brother," or something like that a couple years back when she was hosting the Soul Train Awards. I think she was merely just introducing him. I don't think she supports his actions, but again, what would she add to this documentary? She's not an outspoken artist regarding matters of abuse and sexual assault.

Perhaps dream hampton wanted well-known celebrities to speak out in effort to attract attention to her work. That makes sense, but why not approach someone like Gabrielle Union? To be fair, perhaps dream approached her, too, and she also declined. Gabrielle was very supportive of women protesting that Nat Turner film because of the Nate Parker allegations. Her stance was, "Sis, I understand why you might want to sit this one out. I am a survivor of sexual abuse and I understand."

I had to Google to see if Mary J. Blige and R. Kelly have even collaborated. They have a song from MJB's Share My World album. I don't know what type of history they have beyond that.

Not sure I got your point. Is it because she is an advocate or because she has some relationship to R Kelly?

Looking at the Dream Hampton list it seemed all like people she had relationships with (She wrote Jay's bio for example). It seems the more reasonable people to speak on it are people who had realtionships and know R Kelly.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I guess I was trying to say that if she wanted high-profile folks who had no history with R. Kelly, why not pick someone who is actually outspoken about sexual abuse?

Personally, I think the best people to interview are folks like Jay-Z, who actually worked with him.

I’m sure there’s some collaborators out there that noticed young girls at his house, at the studio and became concerned or at least curious....

Guilty or not, you still gotta pay for lawyers, take time off and go to court and risk losing even more money if found guilty or defamation, slander or whatever other legal term applies.

Even more basic than that, maybe they don't want to be associated with R.Kelly AT ALL, on any level. Why connect their name to his by participating in this documentary?

...that has enabled sexual abusers for decades?

R has been embroiled in legal proceedings for about 20 years now IRT sexual abuse

Never convicted = that should be the issue.

Let's talk about a system that enables this behavior

As some have already stated, I'm not sure what ?uest was going to add to the conversation

To my knowledge, most of the people on Dream's list of celebrities that won't speak out on R...never worked with him...?

A couple of additional points

This documentary follows a BBC documentary that was released less than a calendar year ago

Was there any outcry about celebrities not participating in that project?

That doc sparked the #mute R campaign

Ava
Lupita
and Kerry attached their names to that campaign in support

Were they contacted to participate in this most recent doc?

In the end, this comes off as clout chasing

This headline is released ahead of the premier of the docuseries...in a context that implies the named are complicit in his actions

That's kinda fucked up, especially for ?uest who seems to consider her a friend

Only person I would really want to hear from is Jay anyway

the rest would probably offer stories of hearsay and speculation

Why does she need that for a documentary which includes testimony from the victims and R's camp...?

edit: FOH@putting Dave in this bullshit too

Pee on you was huge blow to R's career...c'mon

https://youtu.be/jjWMsO7AR0Q

Skip to 40 seconds.

It’s odd calling for the justice system to protect folks in this case where as a full community we’ve overwhelmingly protected the sexual predator.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html

are you saying it's not a systemic problem?

are you catholic?

Not conceptually sexual predators but the man who you still have on a playlist.

for his crimes?

Cosby
Weinstein
Moonves
Ailes
The Catholic Church
Nassar

They've all skated criminal prosecution for decades

It's evident to me that there is a systemic problem IRT sexual abuse

I'm not going to point the finger at celebrities in an expectation that it's their responsibility to resolve the issue

He should be behind bars

Should have been there 20 years ago

I'd rather focus on that.

People mad at R Kelly specifically and you went on to talk about sexual predators and the Catholic Church.

That’s like me hating my Scion right now because it sucks up oil and you talking to me about how Ford killed the trolly system and I should really focus on why I’m driving ... I mean. It “makes sense” but I’m mad at my Scion.

and it was designed to suck up oil

but instead you take issue with Honda for not speaking out about it.

In which you both exhibit and don’t exhibit the capacity to critically think in the same vein?

The legal system

AND

people's silence


Yes he's been free way too long.

But people have also been working with him, cosigning him, protecting him, or just staying out of it for too long too.

Both can be true.

It’s oxygen that allowed him to breathe and if oxygen wasn’t allowing r Kelly to have a functioning circulatory system then he wouldn’t be in a position to be a sexual abuser.

and R Kelly never would've had the chance to do anything. Solar system really fucked up if you ask me.

But you knew that when you clicked "Post message." Because you're not actually mad the justice system for letting him skate, either.

How in theeee fuck does RKelly not go to jail when there was a TAPE???

We got football players out here losing jobs off of a video but this dude was on camera and hasn’t served one hour in prison.

and y’all want to blame his fans and the Black community for what?

I lost a bet because I know he was going to jail when I saw that tape and my boy was like “nah, he makes too much money for the industry”

Underage shit is rampant in the entertainment biz and prosecutors turn a blind eye because of the obvious.

I’m not saying we can’t be mad at not but imo when you have evidence on film I don’t know wtf else you need from other people to put a man in jail.

Which isn't a thing anyone thinks. Nobody is like "fuck R Kelly, but a jury said he was innocent, so I can't be mad at that aspect. Go Justice!" or "well, Polanski's not in jail, so I guess we gotta give R Kelly a pass."

In any other circumstance, would you say "well you SHOULD blame the justice system for letting _____ off, not ______ for pulling the trigger?"

How does being mad at ?uest make any more sense?

ya'll taking this post way beyond the context of the OP

Names were named

I'm not mad they didn't want to be involved.

Now ya'll can get back to telling me how I feel

Not .. can we also be angry at, or anger should also be shared
But the directing our angers towards ... as in away from ...
which anyone with just a basic understanding of sentence structure and logic can see you trying to downplay what you said.

as in...I'm not mad at ?uest for not participating in a docuseries that he assumedly has no personal involvement in the subject matter.

Folks want to fry K Michelle or Keisha Cole...have at it

So if I get this correct
You’re saying don’t be mad at Questlove for not speaking about R Kelly, be more angry at the criminal justice system that didn’t stop R Kelly?
You’re not saying anything more than that correct?

20 posts later...

Quests response
Dreams response to the response
An article had been written
And a full conversation had already moved forward in this very post
Only to make a statement about the original post and a very strange one at that.
Please understand why people may have read you wrong.

It’s such a shame that you’re of such limited thought that you can’t see someone working very hard to craft a narrative in which you don’t come across as an idiot. You can have that.

IMO, that energy would be better focused on the actual issue

datall.

We just had a #mute R campaign this past summer

are we really pretending that people aren't speaking out against him

people from within the entertainment industry

you can check out the campaign't webpage

they name names, sponsors, etc...

The OP is like a random list of musicians...which, again, outside of Jay, I wouldn't even ever connect to the issue or R himself

How does that help?

I think this thread got a little derailed because some of ya'll think 15 is your cousin or some shit....some folks around here get very defensive of dude no matter what.

Had 15 not been named, this thread probably wouldn't have gone down like this.

But, if John Legend can speak out...why can't others? Be it 15 or Jay Z or whoever.


An uncomfortable question about "why do you still play his music" is NOTHING when you consider the context.

15 explained he didn't want to be a part of the positive/genius stuff, which cleared it up for me.

Looks like it cleared it up for Dream too.

But on the general topic of the industry looking the other way for so long? Yes, this absolutely deserves to be called out.

But most of us aren't going to get all defensive about the industry saying "what about the system!?!?" as a deflection.

People in the industry need to have more balls.

"Well yeah he did horrible things to kids, but I can't risk my connections"

FOH

I'm halfway through ep 2...and I have to say this is very well done

Very balanced

A couple of family members, survivors, psychologists, etc...

The series is not suffering from the celebrities listed deciding not to participate

specifically, IRT ?uest, they have Nelson George AND Toure

what do you think ?uest could have added to this series that they didn't provide?

ALSO, you're kind of doing exactly what I was afraid of

because they declined, you're assuming they support child molestation and sexual abuse

that's really fucked up

just because somebody declined to be a part of your project, doesn't mean they don't support protecting kids

that's a hop skip and a jump

The industry is speaking out

again

BBC doc 4/18

#mute R campaign

Dream's docuseries

That whole spotify thing happened somewhere in there too

My point is...alladis should not be necessary

I don't look to celebrities for justice

This should have been handled 20 years ago

The system failed all of us, and I'm not putting that responsibility on entertainers.

John Legend is on screen for maybe 30 seconds

...and it's exactly what ?uest alluded to...

He's speaking on I Believe I Can Fly

His appearance has no relation to child advocacy

I'm starting to think folks haven't even watched and/or aren't familiar with documentaries

>How in theeee fuck does RKelly not go to jail when there was
>a TAPE???
>
>We got football players out here losing jobs off of a video
>but this dude was on camera and hasn’t served one hour in
>prison.
>
>and y’all want to blame his fans and the Black community for
>what?
>
>I lost a bet because I know he was going to jail when I saw
>that tape and my boy was like “nah, he makes too much money
>for the industry”
>
>Underage shit is rampant in the entertainment biz and
>prosecutors turn a blind eye because of the obvious.
>
>I’m not saying we can’t be mad at not but imo when you
>have evidence on film I don’t know wtf else you need from
>other people to put a man in jail.

Is there any other criminal activity where you can just pay the plaintiff off...and it goes away...?

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/why-cant-some-juries-convict-on-circumstantial-evidence

at the time and she refused to cooperate = not guilty

They found that man not guilty
Untitled -2009 peaked at 4
2009 he went on tour with K michelle
2009- Keri Hilson got on a track with him
Love Letter -2010 went gold
Write me back -2012 sold 300k
Black Panties -2013 solid 500k and went gold
2013- 2 Chainz got on a track with him
2013- Justin Bieber and Lady gaga had him on tracks

2014- Jennifer Hudson has him on a track
2014- odyssey and Luda got on a track with him
The Buffet -2015 sold 140k
2015 - Jeremiah and lil Wayne got on a track with him
2015 Chance the rapper had him on a track
2016 he went on a 30 plus city tour and made 1.6 million dollars

The list of non single guest appaearances has even bigger names


The justice system is flimsy. Always has been. Always will be. The court of public options though... rides for this dude with time and money and that’s support.

Jay-Z, Quest, whoever don't have the legal authority to incarecerate anybody.

Unless y'all want them to call out the goons for that Street Justice, there isn't much they can do besides continue to not work with him

her line of questioning for him was "as a DJ, why do you still play his music?"
he didnt want to be placed in a position to defend the music when the answer is simply "this is what people love to hear"

if we're friends for 23 years, dont call me out for not being down with your agenda. he's supposed to risk his career or business connections for something he has nothing to do with?

That's a losing debate, dog.

He explained his reasoning. Makes sense.


But this idea that no one should volunteer for an uncomfortable discussion or risk their connections when we are talking about KIDS is disgusting.


No DJ should play his music. Period.


Plenty of good music to play. This isn't hard. At all.

>But this idea that no one should volunteer for an
>uncomfortable discussion or risk their connections when we are
>talking about KIDS is disgusting.

capitalizing the word kids wont change facts, they're all in the entertainment business and not obligated to take public stances about anything


>No DJ should play his music. Period.

Im prone to agree, but who are we to tell innocent parties how to do their jobs? the songs aren't the big issue

appeared on camera.

during the whole pee tape scandal/trial. what a combo

i do NOT recall these events being at the same time.

i would say all that is post scandal..

Tape was out in these streets and being bootlegged Well before that

saved his career, because alot of stations had decided to stop playing his music for much of 2002, going into 2003.

i was maybe 12 or 13 so i dont remember the timeline of events around the whole pee tape

>i was maybe 12 or 13 so i dont remember the timeline of
>events around the whole pee tape

he was literally washed in piss. it was crazy. Chappelle was a fool for striking when that iron was hot.

R. KELLY’S SPOTIFY STREAMS INCREASE 16 PERCENT AFTER DOCUSERIES PREMIER
http://www.xxlmag.com/news/2019/01/r-kellys-music-16-percent-increase-spotify-premiere-docuseries/

Now, Spotify had actually pulled R. Kelly's music last spring but then abandoned the policy a few months later. SMH.
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/06/01/spotify-r-kelly-policy.html

Jay-Z should pull his shit from Tidal, if it's on there.

And damn if I didn't want to throw it on since I haven't heard it in so long.

2 years ago you didn't tell me that you had male friends....



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>2 years ago you didn't tell me that you had male friends....

I wish to god y'all learned how to read.

they were going to take his music off of their playlists. it would still be on the service.

also anyone who knows anything would never think that his streaming numbers getting a bump meant anything.

old music from practically every artist gets basically no streams, so if you're in the news, you will always see a bump just because.


www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Well, damn. I know how to read. I probably should have worded my comment better. I know Spotify his pulled music from playlists and not altogether.

My main point was that Spotify had targeted him due to allegations and now he’s getting a boost there.

More streams = more money.
Less streams = less money.

It means something.

He took a hit when that short-lived policy was announced. https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/8456668/spotify-conduct-policy-fallout-streams-drop-artist-industry-concern

please stop trying to discern things.

if you have old songs, and your name is in the news, there will be more streams of those songs.

it does not indicate anything, and it doesn't mean anything meaningful for kelly's bottom line, because all you have seen are PERCENTAGE NUMBERS

he's getting low teens bump from last week's number, which would've been basically nothing because people who stream listen to new shit.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

she thinks people may be going back to confirm that some of the lyrical content was in fact about his fucked up behavior, if they didn't realize it before

for all kinds of reasons.

it doesn't cost them any extra.

it's so low-friction that it's not a surprise

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

generated renewed interest in him, along with his music. I'm sure some of it is folks still defending him and defiantly listening.

Michael Jackson.


Never. Without a doubt.

- investigated by the FBI for over 10 years, they say he ain't do shit.

- shit they put in the headlines re: "pictures of tortured animals and child porn" could be solved with a simple Google search. shit the FBI found in his home is pretty much public knowledge

- the accuser of the first case he tried to settle is caught on tape more or less admitting to extortion

- physical descriptions of Mike did not match what was found on a strip search

so on and so forth.


I know an acquittal means jack shit often, but in that case I feel it was appropriate.

Mike does not have the fortress of evidence circumstantial and otherwise that Kellz has. he wasn't paying people/their parents off to send their kids with him. he wasn't keeping people hostage.


IMO I think the whole shit (perception) with Mike was his descent into man-child-dom best exemplified in his physical appearance and HOMOPHOBIA.

and best believe that if Kellz was fuckin' boys like this that dude would be cancelled back in the '90s. actually, now that we've seen how he did Dominique, we might need to wonder if he has and we don't know.

I forget what doc I was watching, but that line you quoted hit me hoard

Mike was under FBI surveillance after they raided neverland in...1993...?

So not only did they go through his estate, etc...with a fine tooth comb

But they also put together a file that was bigger than MLK's

...and they never had anything on him...

Just thinking out loud...but all I've heard is how our community has sheltered and protected R, etc...but given the context of how Mike was basically destroyed

I mean, people probably still associate him with being a child molester

It's not completely on us given that example of the powers that be forcing a narrative

So when he was found not guilty...I think it's reasonable...to put some of the blame on how Mike was handled.

A strange omission from a docuseries

that the only time you think you should bring up abuse is to distract from other abuse.

that's the only context where it matters to you.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I was referencing artists who's careers were furthered by working with a known child molester

But let me address your bullshit here

These days on OK we're a small community being there's maybe a total of 20-30 posters left on this site

Most of us conduct ourselves like the adults we are and have genuine exchanges

Which makes your trolling even more alarming

There isn't any need for it

You're running around in different forums hurling insults

Why?

For attention?

We're here exchanging replies everyday

You should try putting on your big boy pants and joining us at the adult table instead of imagining being a fucking loser.

it's all in the interest of building bridges and increasing understanding.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

at the same time, I'm so pissed off at the other parents who took their daughter to the concert for her dad's bday.

no way in hell I taking my daughter to see dude. even outside of the allegations, its an adult concert. for me, I don't want to see my daughter in that type of environment. let alone, invite her into it.

I feel bad for them, but they made some horrible decisions because she wanted a music career. that's the wrong path for any woman.

I was also bothered by the ending as some of the folks were wanting him to be responsible, own up to his actions, atone for his sins. fuck caring for him and expecting anything positive from him.

fuck him, all his handlers and enablers as well.

>at the same time, I'm so pissed off at the other parents who
>took their daughter to the concert for her dad's bday.
>
>no way in hell I taking my daughter to see dude. even outside
>of the allegations, its an adult concert. for me, I don't want
>to see my daughter in that type of environment. let alone,
>invite her into it.
>
>I feel bad for them, but they made some horrible decisions
>because she wanted a music career. that's the wrong path for
>any woman.
>
>I was also bothered by the ending as some of the folks were
>wanting him to be responsible, own up to his actions, atone
>for his sins. fuck caring for him and expecting anything
>positive from him.
>
>fuck him, all his handlers and enablers as well.
>
>

aint no amount of dumb alone gonna make you let your daughter go on tour with a nigga *after* you already busted him for some shady interview shit. letting him appoint some handpicked female guardian that was supposedly gonna watch over her just gave them enough plausible deniability so they didnt look *completely* negligent.

just say you were partially blinded by the possibility of your daughter getting rich and blessing yall with some money so the risk was worth it lol.

Everyone was in on it IMO.

They all claim they didn’t know but everyone’s life revolves around this dude.

They knew and half these folks should be locked up right now for helping RKelly

Yeah, I don't understand why everyone involved hasn't been charged

>
>just say you were partially blinded by the possibility of your
>daughter getting rich and blessing yall with some money so the
>risk was worth it lol.
>

Years ago, my cousin said he’d let his daughter go with Kellz. I cused him out. These folks don’t realize that you’re not only selling your child into slavery, but there won’t be any career or money from it. Just a lot of unnecessary trauma and guilt.

The reason Kellz wasn't brought down years ago, despite the evidence, is because his sick behavior is the norm for that industry. Plus he was making the industry a lot of money. There is very little regulation, no oversight, and thus no checks and balances for those with power. Whether Polanski, Woody Allen, or Weistein, the industry is full of wolves ready to pounce on sheep. The game is stacked so we are the ones who present ourselves, especially our babies, to be slaughtered. They take advantage of our hopes, dreams, and aspirations. They get us when we are weak because we sacrificed, god knows what, for that dream.

And that lie of 'anybody can make it' keeps getting fed to us again and again. Television shows like American Idol, The Voice, and then social media and Youtube really push that narrative. Ask most kids today what they want to do and it is the usual singer, dancer, rapper, actress/actor. Back in the day, the dreams were a bit more diverse. Now today's kids think their dreams are unique, but in reality they are being given the same dream. They really believe they gonna get on through one of the media outlets.

And so the sick cycle continues. Fed the dream at an early age ---> develop the talent (this step optional) ---> sacrifice to get put on (sometimes leaving you in a desperate and weakened state) ---> slaughter ---> repeat. Person end up acting crazy, on drugs, suicidal, or all the above.

I mean, it's great to have a dream but it's also important to determine what the sacrifice is, what the sacrifice could be, and whether it's worth it.

very well.

I wonder who helps him manage his business affairs. He doesn't appear to be broke like a lot of artists from that era. He has obviously spent a lot of money with attorneys to cover up his dirt. I would like to see somebody look into his "team" around him that is helping him pull all this stuff off to this day because he is not doing it all by himself.

I’m sure he prolly should be worth 3 or 4 times what he had before the attorneys.

Also, while folks can’t read or write they can usually count.

enabling him are also stealing money.

I don't think he's broke yet, but I don't believe he's caked like he should be either. having a house foreclosed is normally more than just an oversight. I believe he's had at least 3 foreclosed on.

facilitating 30 years of all this.... the actual living arrangements...travel...cover ups..payoffs…

he did, especially his 12-Play/mid-90s era stuff, without being able to read (well). That music was sophisticated R&B. Everyone I've ever heard of who makes music on that level basically needs to be able to write stuff down and read (not necessarily full-on sightreading, but you need to understand keys and chord function really well, which requires literacy).

greats?


"Get ready....for your blessing....."

That’s all you need to know.

it's been pretty standard R&B grooves for the past 20+ years..
I can't even pinpoint what his most complex track even is.

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

Seriously, tek acting like Kellz was writing symphony sheet music.

understanding as they'd need.

Also, the early Blues greats could mostly read and write. But in addition to that, Blues is not harmonically super complex. It's hard to physically play at a high level, but alot of songs are built off 3 or 4 major triads, with minor pentatonics underneath.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG6_xLn0d4w

this post is lacking

saying that this documentary may stir up some new trouble for Kelly and cause more people to come forward like Hannibal Burress did with Cosby.

In particular I was not understanding how parents can say I haven't seen my daughter in 3 years, we have been told she is in this studio, and cops say they can't go in and inquire if the girl is in the studio? I doubt you even need a search warrant to just ask to see if the girl is there. That sounds crazy to me.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

he's got people in the Chicago PD, but its still baffling that its was so hard to get into the studio.

expecting to see something. I didn't. Although, I suppose that was a little soon, it just started on Thursday. I wouldn't be surprised if the Chicago PD doesn't say at least something by the end of the month.

If nothing material comes of this as far as his being arrested again, it will be kind of undeniable that he skated on this because none of the girls were white.

>expecting to see something. I didn't. Although, I suppose
>that was a little soon, it just started on Thursday.

-

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

I've given up on the R Kelly thing. If nothing has happened by now it aint gonna happen


But DRake is one of the biggest rappers. And he likes jailbait



and no one cares lol wtf

I have so many questions...but my biggest question is about the original 2002 charges

He was charged with 21 counts

My understanding, is those are based on tapes

as in, 21 different tapes

I understand the issues with the girl in the pee tape...her and her family not co-operating, etc...

But what happened in the other 20 cases?

Did all of these girls and their families decide not to co-operate as well?

IRT the Florida case being dropped...I don't even understand that at all

They found photos...but weren't allowed to find them...?

So many questions...

Why would there need to be 21 diff tapes?

21 counts based on 1 tape is fairly logical.... I mean the combo or stat. rape, child pornography, child endangerment etc... could rack that up easy no?

himself engaged in sex with underage girls were removed from his home. - ORONIKE ODELEYE

Caught this interview this morning

In addition to the docuseries driving home the point that he had an addiction to filming his sexual encounters, and that members of his circle were not only aware, but also made to view these tapes

It's confusing

I'm assuming that the pee tape was the only tape investigators had

...but the series and interviews make it sound like there was a collection...

Which leads me to ask...were there other tapes, and were there other charges based on additional examples

I still don't understand the Florida thing

They searched his Florida home after the Chicago investigation, found child porn, but weren't allowed to find it...?

...it is Florida though...

was huge. hard to get by that when she aint claiming it and her fam isn't either.

the one juror who they showed on the doc basically said he didn't believe the stories. he wasn't the only one. we still have folks now not believing them girls and their fams.

>I have so many questions...but my biggest question is about
>the original 2002 charges
>
>He was charged with 21 counts
>
>My understanding, is those are based on tapes
>
>as in, 21 different tapes
>
>I understand the issues with the girl in the pee tape...her
>and her family not co-operating, etc...
>
>But what happened in the other 20 cases?
>
>Did all of these girls and their families decide not to
>co-operate as well?

basically there was no way to tell when the tape was made so unless the girls came forward and said that was me and I was X years-old then there's basically no case.


>IRT the Florida case being dropped...I don't even understand
>that at all
>
>They found photos...but weren't allowed to find them...?
>
>So many questions...

If evidence is found in an illegal search (i.e. no warrant etc.) a good lawyer will get that thrown out.

http://www.mtv.com/news/1485672/judge-rules-r-kelly-photos-seized-in-florida-cant-be-used-to-try-him/

"Although a judge did grant a warrant to the Polk County sheriff's detectives for the original search, Circuit Judge Dennis Maloney's new ruling supports the assertion by Kelly's lawyers that there was not enough evidence to justify the search in the first place, according to the AP."

WTF, this is after the charges were filed in Chicago

how could there NOT be probable cause to search ALL of his residences and devices?

>http://www.mtv.com/news/1485672/judge-rules-r-kelly-photos-seized-in-florida-cant-be-used-to-try-him/
>
>"Although a judge did grant a warrant to the Polk County
>sheriff's detectives for the original search, Circuit Judge
>Dennis Maloney's new ruling supports the assertion by Kelly's
>lawyers that there was not enough evidence to justify the
>search in the first place, according to the AP."

who knows they might've bribed the judge...

>WTF, this is after the charges were filed in Chicago
>
>how could there NOT be probable cause to search ALL of his
>residences and devices?

it doesn't really work like that unless its a federal case

https://clarifacts.com/resources/federal-crimes-list/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ENjcGJsghQ

hope they get their daughter back, but their role in this is maddening.

I have a better idea about the beginning tho. apparently, the ruse was that sony was gonna sign their daughter. it was all a lie to capture her. sony wasn't involved. Kellz manager told them this lie

Rkelly's people told the fam that kells would only do exec produced a track or two. they hadn't met him and not talk to him in the early going.

as soon as kellz was mentioned, I'm getting daughter out of this whole picture.

in why the public didn't rage at Kells


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/06/arts/television/surviving-r-kelly-dave-chappelle.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Music

CRITIC’S NOTEBOOK

How ‘Chappelle’s Show’ and ‘The Boondocks’ Kept Us Laughing at R. Kelly

By Aisha Harris

Jan. 6, 2019



The singer R. Kelly is the subject of a six-part documentary on Lifetime, “Surviving R. Kelly.”


The singer R. Kelly is the subject of a six-part documentary on Lifetime, “Surviving R. Kelly.

Jan. 6, 2019


“Surviving R. Kelly,” the six-part documentary about the R&B singer Robert Kelly, who has faced accusations of child and sexual abuse for decades, underscores the theme of accountability — not just of Kelly or his many personal enablers, but of us all.

Clinical psychologists, music journalists, activists and others who are interviewed in this Lifetime series echo one another in their explanations of how the musician has managed to escape severe repercussions, legally and professionally, for decades.

Chief among them: the shielding powers of money and fame; society’s indifference toward the suffering of black and brown girls and women; a perception by some that the attacks on any black male celebrity, no matter how credible, are part of a larger racist conspiracy.

Another key factor: Laughter. Two cultural touchstones that helped shape the public’s perception of the Kelly accusations are only mentioned in passing in “Surviving R. Kelly.” But “(I Wanna) Pee on You,” a 2003 sketch from “Chappelle’s Show,” and a 2005 episode of the animated series “The Boondocks” titled “The Trial of R. Kelly,” embody many of the points made in the documentary.

Revisiting them in light of “Surviving R. Kelly” demonstrates how, for years, those who laughed at Kelly were able to ignore the charges against him. It also emphasizes how much the cultural climate has shifted in the era of #MuteRKelly protests, and how much it has stayed the same. (Kelly, who was acquitted in 2008 on charges of child pornography, has denied all allegations related to abuse of and sex with minors.)

In his sketch, the comedian Dave Chappelle took a straightforwardly silly approach to the allegations concerning a sex tape that appeared to show Kelly urinating on a 14-year-old girl. Dressed not unlike Kelly, in a pair of dark sunglasses and a bandanna, Chappelle stars in a music video in which he sings about wanting to urinate on the object of his affections. (“Your body is a porta potty.”) The melody aligns closely with Kelly’s song “Feelin’ on Yo Booty,” which is itself a rather preposterous song. (Kelly finds several comical ways to ad-lib the word “booty” at the end.)


The set is bare bones in comparison to a typical Kelly video; most of it takes place in front of a long white curtain, as Chappelle sprays a garden hose — which is very explicitly labeled “R. Kelly’s urine” — on an ensemble of gyrating women.

That’s an important distinction to make: The actors here are very obviously adult women, not pubescent girls. “(I Wanna) Pee on You” compartmentalizes the Kelly allegations and completely divorces it from its insidious facts; it’s easier (and safer) to poke fun at a grown man’s fetish than to wrestle with claims that he performed his fetish on a minor. (The Detroit Free Press reported that Chappelle, among other celebrities, declined to be interviewed for the documentary series.)

“The Trial of R. Kelly” is the second episode of “The Boondocks,” which centered on the misadventures of the socially conscious 10-year-old Huey and his more brazen, politically incorrect little brother Riley, both voiced by Regina King. The creator Aaron McGruder pulled no punches. With the singer’s highly publicized trial happening close to home, the boys head to Chicago to witness the circus, Riley carrying a “Free R. Kelly” sign.

When they encounter their nerdy neighbor Tom DuBois, who is representing the prosecution against Kelly, Riley lets loose an impassioned — and ridiculous — defense of the singer. Tom, shocked, counters that the alleged victim, depicted in the episode with pigtails and knee socks, is a little girl. Riley is having none of it. “I’ve seen that girl! She ain’t little; I’m little. Gary Coleman’s little.”

He argues for “personal responsibility,” suggests that the girl should have just moved out of the way of Kelly’s urine and adds that he doesn’t want to “miss out on the next R. Kelly album,” should Kelly be sent to jail.

“Boondocks” depicts Riley’s rhetoric as poisonous and the trial as a scathing farce. In the episode, Kelly’s white defense lawyer jumps through absurdist hoops to prove to the predominantly black jury that Kelly is a victim of racism. (He presents Kelly’s N.A.A.C.P. Image Award as evidence, and tells the jury, “They don’t want R. Kelly to be free because they don’t want you to be free!”)

By the end of the episode, Huey, the moral voice of reason, is standing up in the courtroom, admonishing the jurors and everyone else in attendance for giving Kelly a pass because he made good music. Every black person who is arrested “ain’t Nelson Mandela,” he scolds. Later, in voice over narration, he laments that “ignorance won” and he is “vexed at my people.”

As a scathing critique of Kelly’s deeds and black people’s complicity, unlike the Chappelle sketch, this episode still feels fresh, mostly. (Just look at comments on social media blaming the alleged victims in response to “Surviving R. Kelly.”) But McGruder’s stark delineation between Kelly’s supporters and dissenters plays into ugly stereotypes around class: Outside the courtroom, a loud, overweight black woman snacks on fried chicken while voicing her love for the singer; and three male protesters in suits are referred to by a news reporter as “scholars, activists, pillars of the African-American community.” (One of them looks just like Cornel West.)

In reality, black people of all demographics have supported Kelly. As noted in the documentary, the same day he pleaded not guilty to the child sex tape charge, he went to a church event in Chicago, where he performed alongside children, and was embraced by the congregation there.

McGruder overstepped the theme of “we are all responsible” by including the 14-year-old victim in his courtroom scene. (In the real trial, the girl identified as the alleged victim denied it was her in the video.)

In the episode, the girl’s testimony echoes Riley’s earlier argument to Tom: “If I didn’t want to get peed on, I’d just move out the way,” she says with an attitude. It’s hard to imagine this episode airing today and not inspiring backlash. It’s also entirely possible that McGruder wouldn’t make this same creative choice today.

But back when Kelly was still a consistent hit maker, the Chappelle sketch and this “Boondocks” episode were really funny. I can recall laughing about the skit with my friends in college, gleefully reciting lines like “Drip drip drip, pee on you.” I’m sure I chuckled the first time I heard the sassy black victim proclaim she’s not a victim on the stand. Even before the allegations, which I didn’t pay much attention to at the time, I was never much of a Kelly fan — I imagine “I Believe I Can Fly” is playing on loop somewhere in The Bad Place — but I did find him to be an excellent punch line for a long time.

Now, however, it’s impossible for me to watch those episodes and not think about the magnitude of everything Kelly has been accused of.

In the fourth episode of “Surviving R. Kelly,” the music journalist Ann Powers suggests that “Trapped in the Closet,” Kelly’s bonkers episodic soap operetta, was a strategic career move. “I think at some point he probably figured out that playing sex for laughs was a way that he could continue to avoid absolute condemnation for what he might have been doing behind the scenes,” she observes.

It’s hard to argue with this point — even now some have found humor in “Surviving R. Kelly,” roasting him for his rumored inability to read or write. Looking back on “Chappelle’s Show” and “Boondocks,” it’s clear that there was more than one way to let Kelly off the hook, and comedy was one of them. Even if I was never defending Kelly, I was still laughing at him, and effectively ignoring his alleged transgressions.


---------=

Comments from the NY Times readers

(because I know you expect more from NY Times readers than you would from commenters from another site)

Farmer D

Dogtown, USA1h ago

Is there anything funny about an adult male who is a rapist and child porn viewer?

We can take this sorry chapter in American history back to Clarence Thomas and O.J. Simpson (if not further). Thomas and his "high-tech lynching" was a cynical ploy to divert attention from the truth. Simpson did the same, showing a mostly-minority jury shiny toys and glib rhymes to divert their attention from the truth. So we now have an overtly racist man, who hates the color of his own skin, on what used to be a respected institute of justice. We have a multiple murderer walking free.

It would take an essay covering thousands of pages to fully explain how we got here as a people. But here we are, where criminals can trust that they will be acquitted by appealing to a jury's deeply-held individual beliefs that the crime's abhorrent nature should somehow be excused because "the country" was complicit in discriminating against people who look like these criminals. Not against these particular criminals; rather, against people who physically resemble them.

Has there been a "push-back?" Around 60 million people voted for a lying, misogynist, racist white robber baron and con-man to be president. Why?

-------------------=

TLibby

Colorado1h ago

Wasn't the prosecution of Bill Cosby kickstarted by a Hannibal Buress routine? Isn't it just as possible that both South Park and Chappelle were trying to do the same thing?

------------------=

Alan Chaprack

NYC1h ago

"It's also entirely possible that McGruder wouldn't make this same creative choice."

As a (white) fan of The Boondocks since its inception as a comic strip, I feel it safe to say that Aaron McGruder would make EXACTLY "the same creative choice," but the network that aired the cartoon would go all Saudi Arabia and demand changes.

-----------------------=

Terry

NYC2h ago

This article misses the point by a huge mark. In addition to the reporter in Chicago that relentlessly wrote well documented articles subsequently picked up by alternative weeklies like the Village Voice, the Boondocks and Chapelle critique of Kelly was unparalleled (no one else was doing it or commenting) and that Boondocks episode in particular was sharply pointed and on point. Didn’t R kelly try to step to Chapelle over that episode? He certainly got the point. Neither Chapelle nor Boondocks made light of the issue at all. Also no one else was saying anything except buying tickets and collaborating with him.

----------------=


Rob

Buffalo NY2h ago

If Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry were new artists they might all be in jail.

There are many reasons that "dangerous" performers are greatly admired and pursued by their fans. The willingness to transgress is part of their appeal? What does it say about the fans who create these mythical entities?

We don't talk about our attraction to the dangerous, many of whom are daring enough (or narcissistic enough) to pursue public careers and the accompanying adulation, money, power & sex.

The conversation goes far deeper than we're generally willing to scratch.

-------------=

Alan Chaprack

NYC1h ago

@Rob Chuck Berry did go to jail.

-----------------=

Andrew

Brooklyn2h ago

Somehow the comedians bringing this to light and, by the way, doing their job of making fun of this are to blame?

------------------=

Jeff Freeman

Santa Monica, CA2h ago

@Andrew

One hardly needed Dave Chappelle to bring R. Kelly's trial to light. And laughing at is not laughing with. Personally have a problem with finding the abuse and exploitation of a young girl funny. Comedians like everyone else have freedom, not license. We also should not fear being held accountable, of a discussion that enlightens hopefully and moves us forward and that is not blame.

------------------=

John

LINY2h ago

How old is the author? Does she know that the truth is always told first as jest. For R Kelly his turn in the barrel is now.
My child once asked me why society didn’t take care of so many things earlier. Now she tells me she didn’t realize how many things needed fixing.

-----------------=

redweather

Atlanta2h ago

If I understand this column, some things are so odious that using them as a vehicle for humor trivializes them and perhaps, at least in the view of some people, normalizes them. Hard for me to argue with that. There is nothing funny about sexual abuse or the fact that some people get away with it for a very long time.

-----------------=

Tyrone Will

Harrisburg1h ago

@redweather

I don't think Chappelle or McGruder was going for humor, particular at the expense of those that were sexually abused. I think more like satire , especially, in the case of McGruder, of the black community's response to the situation.

-----------------=


Bryan

Chicago2h ago

Comedy is a way to get people talking about issues that are being ignored, not a way to ignore those issues. Were Hannibal Burress's jokes about Cosby letting him off the hook? No, they finally brought attention to what had long been an open secret.

----------------=

JenD

NJ3h ago

I saw Chappelle's skewering of Kelly as a statement about what a creep Kelly was/is and how he was getting away with his abusive behavior. (I watched the Chappelle episode when it first aired.) In that sense, Chappelle was being brave to take down someone that a lot of his audience saw as a person to be admired. Chappelle performed his comedic function admirably: he pointed out the insanity of the act itself, of people defending Kelly, looking the other way, etc. He made people laugh while doing it. That's what comedians do.

----------------=

Emilie

Paris4h ago

Whether we like it or not humour here was a form of denunciation. There are many ways to talk about abuse, Chappelle's may be seen as limited but he did contribute to the public debate on the matter. Your article reminds me of Camille Paglia commenting 20 years ago about Ellen De Generes's coming out on "Ellen": "I wish Ellen had dealt with her coming out more seriously", but what comedians do is comedy. Sure, Hannah Gadsby is right in "Nanette" : comedy does not deal with abuse in an appropriate way. But neither do the news, or school, or church...

---------------------=


Jason Snyder

Staten Island4h ago

Yet it was Hannibal Burress, during his stand-up performance, who took down Bill Cosby. Prior to that it was all rumors and pay-offs. Also #me-too was on the rise at that time. The early 2000s Cosby (and Weinstein, etc) were still doing their thing and their peers and the press that covered them were afraid to take it on. Boondocks had it right, R. Kelly had too many apologists and enablers who'd defend him at all cost. It's Boondocks' job to illuminate, as they did, and it was up to the mainstream press to pick it up from there. Only the latter failed at their job.

------------------------=

Zo

DC4h ago

This is a naïve and simplistic take - at best. The point of comedy, particularly with the comedians the writer Aisha Harris highlights, is to bring serious issues to the fore and examine them in a new, refreshing way. With this twisted take, I guess Ms. Harris cannot tolerate Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee, Chris Rock, Jon Stewart, Bill Mahr, and countless other comedians! If Aisha Harris watched these episodes over a decade ago, and simply laughed, shame on her. But it's highly likely that most of us saw those shows, laughed, vehemently shook our heads, and then had serious discussions with our friends and family about the harm of R. Kelly, his music, and his supporters. These shows woke a lot of people up to the monster of R. Kelly. But Ms. Harris - I'm glad you’re no longer just laughing!

-----------------=


James

Savannah5h ago

Article implies we all have some kind of say over what celebrities do, or what anyone does for that matter. The only say we have over criminal, unethical entertainers and other corporate entities is to not buy their product, just as the only say we have over criminal, unethical politicians is to not vote for them.
Meanwhile, we laugh at the satire until it's not funny anymore (SNL, et al).

----------------=

John Valentine

Memphis5h ago

As an African-American male I'll admit it was heart wrenching to watch the series, but I see the whole thing in a wider perspective. Again, we focus on a single problem, episode, incident, or person, while refusing to address the much larger issue. The larger issue is the exploitation of young girls throughout the entertainment industry, mainly in music, be it in hip hop, rock, R & B, pop, country, etc. This type of behavior is endemic in all areas of the music and entertainment industry. Is there anything more sordid than the treatment of young, rock groupies by some of the biggest names in the business over many decades? Their is enough blame for everyone. From an industry that tolerates the depravity that goes on to the record and entertainment executives who promote these artists to the media that glorify these sick abusers to the fans who support them and their careers to the parents who allow their young girls to be around the abusers to the young girls themselves who foolishly believe being around these type of men make them "special" Though Kelly is a despicable human being, taking down one abuser, or two or three, won't come close to solving this problem. We need a broader discussion about the power of fame, celebrity, and money, and how the three warp our perspective of right and wrong, and reveal just how much we're willing to accept to be part of the "in" crowd.

---------------=


Andrew Lee

San Francisco Bay Area5h ago

You do realize onr point of comedy and satire is to raise awareness. The Daily Show, while bringing humor to the news, is hardly "funny," when you realize the truth it's parodying. If anything, Chapelle brought focus to R Kelley, he didn't make his actions "okay," as you offer.

-----------------------=

that Boondocks episode was one of the best satirical takes on the real life of how people have been straight DUMB about Kellz.

and for better or worse, people associating him with "peeing on little girls" probably did more to inform people about what he's done than the actual reporting on the issue has for years.

that DC and Boondocks MADE people not take it seriously.

I mean the fall of Bill Cosby can be attributed to a comedian bringing light to the issue through humor.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>I mean the fall of Bill Cosby can be attributed to a
>comedian bringing light to the issue through humor.

Bill Cosby was one of those comedians who was claiming to be holier than thou, and always made statements about black people need to rise up and stop the fads and stupid trends.

So when Hannibal B. made serious comments about Cosby with not really jokes but just statements, that made others look at him in a totally different light, with K.Rells, he was smart in the way he basically threw all his actions and info into his music to way people never truly recognized it but only in hindsight they now can see how he was telling his listeners how mentally messed up he really was.

With the music industry always having things done in way we've come accustomed to, such as groupies, orgies, obsessed fans, doing drugs, having criminal records, cheating on their spouses when they travel to city to city, country to country, and etc., people say it's all comes with the territory of being a rapper, singer, rock-n-roll artist...sex, drugs, & rock-n-roll.

There is always those people who's job is to just wrangle up fans for the artists, & band members to have sex with, usually age was never concern to most people, and neither was protective sex either; this is is the number one reason why I think K.Rells has been getting away with his fetish for so many years cause of regulatory practices in the music industry and people who got paid to do a job cause they was good at it, and got paid to keep their mouth shut.

Just like the roadies who's job was to supply artists with drugs, it was known but everyone knew this was something most artists had, we've seen it so many times how our favorite r&b, rap, pop stars who go downhill cause of drugs, dying from them, or being hooked on them until they lose all their money.

Anyway, Bill Cosby thought that since most of his dirt was done years and decades ago he thought he got away with it, so then he started to act like he was untouchable and better than most, his ego is what brought him down, K.Rells is one who has been hiding in the the shadows (or closet, LOL) and under high paid legal attorneys with his situation and fetish.

I didn't watch the special so I'm not up on everything. But this sounds like an absolutely terrible idea.

https://www.tmz.com/2019/01/07/r-kelly-expose-discredit-accusers-new-facebook-page-website-surviving-lifetime-docuseries/

He has them on camera making consent statements

He has them signing agreements

He has them signing statements that their families are trying to extort him, etc...

I expect dumb dumb to hit us with the hostage tapes where they say they are being treated very well

basically.

You had yo steppin slippers on a week ago... now you turkeys tryna crucify the Kang. We’ll guess what Kells gonna be pied pipeN for many years to come. My apologies to the liars and the haters!

I’m just kiddin I’m just thinking what would Max say

at least to speak out against what he’s doing, or to urge him to confess to what he’s done.

he doesn't feel any guilt about it, so nothing for him to apologize or admit. he doesn't care about the girls or their fams. just a whole piece of shit of a human.

but if enough of his peers come out against him then that could change.

I really just want him to get legally pinned for it to keep him away from more women and girls.

honestly, I'm wondering how streets haven't gotten to him. guess his support system is that strong.

>I really just want him to get legally pinned for it to keep
>him away from more women and girls.
>
>honestly, I'm wondering how streets haven't gotten to him.
>guess his support system is that strong.

I have spoken with quite a few older women in my life. A lot of them talk about messing around with older dudes in their 30’s and 40’s when they were teens. Stuff like this has been going on for decades. These older women and families were okay with that was going on. So it is going to be tough to break the cycle. No the streets won’t say a word unless it involves a daughter of theirs.

I think that one day he will have to face charges, but not anytime soon though. Worst case scenario is that he becomes the black Woody Allen and nothing ever happens.

I just don't understand why he's alive still. There are enough people who know what he did for him to be buried somewhere in da Chi...

I don't understand how he's still living.

...that declares "this culture has been going on for decades" (#177)


.....with replies stating "I don't know how he's still alive."


.....uh....


the point of a reply like #177 is saying that a situation is a part of the "culture"


"culture" meaning a level of acceptance.

Yes, I know the docu and the current outcry are trying to change that. But, if they have to "change" something, then guess what the current state is?

that he's crossed the wrong the path. obviously that hasn't happened yet. its probably wishful thinking in some ways.

That same father/brother who would murk R Kelly for messing with their daughter/sister would also raise all sorts of hell about them dating R Kelly in the first place.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

>the point of a reply like #177 is saying that a situation is a
>part of the "culture"
>
>
>"culture" meaning a level of acceptance.
>
>Yes, I know the docu and the current outcry are trying to
>change that. But, if they have to "change" something, then
>guess what the current state is?

The outcry over this is only coming out in this day and age. As I have stated older women in their teens had sex with grown men and were okay with that. In reality that wasn’t the right thing to do, but it was accepted then. There was no real outcry when Kells brought out Aaliyah and singing about Age Ain’t Nothing but a Number. Yet that was a hit record. So acceptance of this behavior has gone on far too long.

Seems like no one else can get close to him.

Biggs confronted him on multiple occasions.

"Get ready....for your blessing....."

How hilarious and ironic would it be if Ronald Isley got close enough to finally whoop his ass over all this?

He screwed dude over in song form on multiple occasions, and got confronted and almost killed over it. Taking his woman a few times, cheating on his goddaughter.

Time for Mr. Biggs to finally catch a caaaaaaaaassseeee.

>Time for Mr. Biggs to finally catch a caaaaaaaaassseeee.

Best OKP reply of 2019 so far. https://youtu.be/-qnSz6Lh5pY?t=212

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

now. He's technically an old man. The only thing that would make him stop is going to jail, castration or death.

How do you just stop being like this all of a sudden? It's not like he was an older guy and thought the girl was older than what she was and it never happened again. Dude has been doing this shit a loooooong time. The craving may always be there, which is wild when you think about it.

Are sexual predators ever really redeemed and don't think or crave it, or is part of them recovering from it just them trying to suppress the cravings enough to get by from day to day?

Shit is scary
and extra fucking scary when someone is in such a position of power. A lot of people around him enabled this behavior too. The whole thing is sickening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7jc9jVJ7dU

wow I didn't know that

It was the inspiration for OKP's GOAT alias, Rubbert Kolly.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-surviving-rkelly-racial-justice-abuse-women_us_5c352ed4e4b0f5aba7d92bc8

R. Kelly’s Time Is Finally Up
headshot
Jamilah Lemieux
Guest Writer

Being an R. Kelly “hater” in early 2000s Chicago was a mighty lonely experience, but the release of a video that featured him engaged in sexual acts with two teenage girls was all the proof I needed to let him go ― though his marriage to Aaliyah in 1995 and the stories I heard about him approaching my friends when we were only in middle school should have done the trick.

For two decades, I have been begging people to stop playing this man’s music. Stop purchasing tickets to his shows. Stop acting like he isn’t to blame for every single relationship he’s had with an underage girl.

Despite mountains of reporting — not nearly enough, mind you — and evidence, people found ways to disregard allegations as rumors, and cited his 2008 acquittal on child pornography charges as a reason to leave the matter be. The same community that knows how unfair and inadequate the criminal justice system can be will lean on it when someone they love has been legally exonerated.

But now, finally, it feels like there is a sea change happening.

Since the first episode of dream hampton’s docuseries “Surviving R. Kelly” aired, I have been inundated with calls, texts, emails and direct messages from friends, colleagues, former classmates and complete strangers. They thank me for appearing in the film and for constantly speaking out about Kelly and his predations. I’ve heard confessions from other survivors of sexual abuse who’ve never shared their stories with anyone, and heard vows to stop supporting a once-beloved artist.

My mother was even approached at a restaurant in the neighborhood where I grew up by a woman who remarked that she remembered seeing us together when I was a child. Then, the woman told my mother that she, too, had suffered at the singer’s hands, when she was just 17. Most significantly, the state of Georgia has reportedly reopened its investigation into Kelly’s actions.

Yet, there are still folks out there who seem to believe that those of us who participated in the project are acting on a desire to destroy the image of a successful Black man for insignificant or unfair reasons, or, perhaps, for no reason at all. Others feel that dedicating six hours of television to his sick offstage behavior represents the disparity in how Black and white male suspects are treated.

One particularly infuriating video shows a Black man weeping at what he describes as the documentary’s insinuation that “one Black man” is “the No. 1 pedophile on the planet.” I didn’t realize there were power rankings for sexual predators, but I suppose it’s not surprising that someone who primarily harms Black victims would chart low on the list.

Those responses are a slap in the face to the Black women and girls who have already endured the indignity of Kelly’s continued success. Who have already been told, implicitly and explicitly, over and over, that our suffering and our success is less important than that of our male counterparts.

Black women have been told that the misogyny of rappers must go unchecked. That the largely Black and male artists who dominate the genre must be allowed to tell their truths without restriction. We’ve long understood that the violent, racist nature of law enforcement means that we cannot seek police aid when we are harmed by one of our own men without risking the possibility that he will be harmed by a responding officer. We know that those same officers are unlikely to believe us or show us the sort of empathy befitting a victim. We’ve also been taught to believe that “fast” Black teen girls are to blame when adult men engage them for sex that they cannot legally consent to have.

And so, there are still those who seem to feel that “Step in the Name of Love” means more than the humanity of both a famed singer like Aaliyah and the formerly nameless and faceless R. Kelly victims who have risked so much to participate in this series.

But letting Black men escape accountability isn’t some sort of retribution for our ancestors who were murdered over false accusations, or for our peers who languish behind bars for crimes that they did not commit. Those of us who really care about justice should focus on creating a world where the race of an abuser will not protect him from punishment, nor ensure that he will be unduly punished.

We cannot undo the darkness of our past or our present by protecting Black men who abuse Black women under the auspices of “racial solidarity.” Furthermore, attempts to let men like Kelly off the hook because of their race implies that Black men are either inherently predisposed to sexual violence or that Black girls and women are inherently incapable of being be victimized.

My desire for R. Kelly to lose his livelihood, social capital and freedom isn’t about revenge or some sort of vendetta. Nor is it “brand building” or an attempt to further my career. I have a responsibility to address the unchecked abuse that Black women and girls face too often at the hands of men. I have an obligation to build a world in which those same girls and women aren’t tasked with protecting those same men out of a sense of racial loyalty.

I’m just a writer and commentator. I didn’t launch #MuteRKelly or set the world ablaze with #MeToo. I didn’t speak out about abuse by a former friend or family member, nor am I one of the brave survivors who endured harm at the hands of the singer. As such, I don’t think I deserve any credit or props. I’m just a Black woman, a Chicago native and a mother doing what I’d want anyone to do if they had the opportunity: standing up for Black girls and for all survivors. Being an R. Kelly hater isn’t so lonely these days, and it’s about damn time.

Jamilah Lemieux is a writer, cultural critic and communications strategist from Chicago. She lives in Brooklyn.

they have damn near everyone in his world in this. I understand why they would want more of his peers, or other artists but so far John Legend is one of the less interesting voices in this doc.

It's really well done so far. I think he's going down behind this thing.

.

I figured he was gonna Roman Pulanski it up when the walls came closing in

Maybe the same will happen with Robert

Just tell us where the tapes are

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/09/entertainment/r-kelly-manager-warrant/index.html

CNN has learned an arrest warrant was issued over the summer for R. Kelly's former manager, James Mason, after Mason was accused of threatening to kill the father of Joycelyn Savage, one of the women featured in "Surviving R. Kelly."

The incident, which allegedly took place in May 2018, was reported by Timothy Savage to Henry County police. Savage claims his daughter is being held against her will by R. Kelly and Mason threatened him for speaking out about it.
Reached by phone Wednesday morning, Mason told CNN he had "no comment" and referred additional questions to his attorney.
In an incident report obtained by CNN, Timothy Savage stated that Mason said, "I'm gonna do harm to you and your family, when I see you I'm gonna get you, I'm going to f***ing kill you."
The case was presented to a Magistrate Judge who issued a warrant in July, citing "terroristic threats and acts." The warrant is assigned to the sheriff's office.
Related: 'Surviving R. Kelly' spurs follow-up calls from DA, attorney for alleged victim's family says
Joycelyn Savage's family has claimed she is having a sexual relationship with Kelly, and that she is being manipulated by him into cutting off contact with the outside world.
Her father says they haven't heard from her in about two years.
She responded to this claim in a video released in 2017, in which she denied she's being held and that she had been brainwashed by the Grammy-award winning singer.
"I just want everybody to know -- my parents and everybody in the world -- that I'm totally fine. I'm happy where I'm at and everything is OK with me," she said in the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hSc9LZi1N4

I haven’t.

the way she was talking about how you couldn't tell her shit and how she'd go off on anyone who criticized R.

I wonder which room maxxx got

https://youtu.be/7sL2i7oT-uM

Peep the secret handshake at 3:12 which tells his recruiters in the audience which girls to approach.

**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/13/arts/music/mute-r-kelly.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Music


Why It Could Be Hard to Mute R. Kelly

Prosecutors in two states are gathering information on R. Kelly, but bringing a case against him could be challenging.CreditFrank Micelotta/Invision, via Associated Press



By Elizabeth A. Harris and Ben Sisario

Jan. 13, 2019

He has been accused of having sex with minors. At 27, he married a 15-year-old girl. Some women say he runs an emotionally abusive sex cult.

But in more than two decades of persistent allegations, the R&B star at the center of them, R. Kelly, has never been convicted of a crime, and in no meaningful way has his career suffered.
The #MuteRKelly campaign to punish him legally and commercially hopes to change that, receiving new life in recent days after a widely watched Lifetime documentary, “Surviving R. Kelly,” devoted six episodes to his history with women. Prosecutors in Chicago and Atlanta have started looking into Kelly’s conduct.



“He uses his talent to prey on women, to abuse us,” Asante McGee, who appeared in the documentary, said in an interview. McGee said Kelly prohibited her from looking other men in the eye and required that she ask permission to leave her bedroom or go to the bathroom. “A regular person on the street couldn’t have gotten away with what he’s gotten away with.”


The documentary has had some early effect. Some radio stations have stopped playing his music, and a concert appearance in Illinois was canceled.

But there are significant challenges to bringing a criminal case against Kelly, and various reasons his record label might decide to keep him on, even as calls for a reckoning grow louder.



He’s been tried before


Among the longstanding allegations against Robert Kelly is that he has had sexual relationships with minors. Kelly, 52, has settled lawsuits dating back to the 1990s alleging he had sex with underage girls. More than 20 years ago, Vibe magazine questioned the validity of a marriage certificate showing that Kelly had married the singer Aaliyah when she was 18. She was actually 15, and the marriage was annulled. (Aaliyah died in a plane crash in 2001.)

On ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Friday, Kelly’s lawyer, Steven Greenberg, threatened to sue Lifetime for defamation and said Kelly denied ever having a sexual relationship with someone under the age of consent. He said Kelly did not know that Aaliyah was 15 when they married.

On Tuesday, Kimberly M. Foxx, the state’s attorney for Cook County, Ill., publicly asked any potential victims and witnesses to come forward, and prosecutors in Fulton County, Ga., where Kelly also has lived, have begun gathering information.

Even so, any case could be difficult to try. It routinely takes people many years to come forward, by which time memories have faded and records have vanished.

“These cases are hard because, typically, the crime occurs behind closed doors,” said Marci Hamilton, the founder of Child U.S.A., which proposes policies to address the sexual abuse of children.


Kelly’s courtroom history might also, in a sense, raise the bar to put him on trial. In 2008, he was acquitted of child pornography charges despite a 27-minute video that prosecutors said showed him having sex with and urinating on a 13-year-old girl. But the girl in the video never testified, and Kelly’s lawyers successfully argued that her identity could not be proven.

That experience could make prosecutors wary. “Sometimes there is a reluctance to go back,” said Paul Mones, a lawyer who represents victims who were abused as children.


The question of free will looms large


The more recent allegations against Kelly, many previously outlined by the music journalist Jim DeRogatis on BuzzFeed News, revolve around what has been described as a sex cult. Kelly is said to have exhibited almost total control over women who lived or traveled with him, dictating their movements, when they could eat and when they could go to the bathroom.

Kelly’s lawyer told CBS that the women who lived with him were attracted to a “rock ’n’ roll life” and did so voluntarily.

“They were perfectly consensual relationships,” Greenberg said. “Whatever occurred, I’m not someone who should be judging, nor should any of us be judging, someone’s personal relationships, what goes on in their bedrooms.”

He called those who appeared on the documentary “a bunch of disgruntled people who are looking for their 15 minutes of TMZ fame.”

Kelly’s accusers say he brainwashes the women into submission, but cases that involve psychological control can be exceptionally difficult to prove, lawyers say. Alan W. Scheflin, a professor emeritus at Santa Clara University School of Law, recalled a case in which someone was found to have been falsely imprisoned because their clothing was taken away and they would have had to flee naked. But he said that duress is usually considered to be something physical, like being locked in a basement.

“It’s so horrible and so frustrating because there aren’t remedies focused specifically on this issue,” he said.

Prosecutors can try to argue that a person is being illegally restrained when they have been threatened with harm if they leave. Federal prosecutors in New York have brought charges against the leaders of a group called Nxivm, alleging that they forced women into sexual slavery by demanding they turn over compromising material, such as sexually explicit photographs of themselves, as “collateral” that would be used against them if they left or spoke out publicly. (The leaders have also been charged with other crimes, including financial ones.)


In an email, a lawyer for the group’s founder, Keith Raniere, said the government’s charges of sex trafficking and forced labor were “baseless and unprecedented.”

In “Surviving R. Kelly,” a person identified as a former employee of Kelly’s said he would make women write false statements to incriminate themselves or their parents, saying they stole from him, for example. The former employee described those statements, and sex tapes Kelly recorded of the women, as a form of insurance to stop them from speaking out.


Even if that were considered criminal, bringing a case is difficult without cooperating victims.


The parents of one woman believed to be living with Kelly, Joycelyn Savage, say she is being held against her will, according to their lawyer, Gerald A. Griggs. But in a video interview published by TMZ in July, Savage said she was not Kelly’s captive and was “in a happy place with my life.”

The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office has said it has received calls about Kelly since Foxx made her public plea. Police officers went to Kelly’s home at Trump Tower in Chicago on Friday after receiving a tip that two women were being held there against their will. A spokeswoman for the department said two women were found who said they were there voluntarily. It is unclear what other reports the authorities have received.


R. Kelly music is still in demand


As public reaction to the documentary has grown, some radio stations have pledged to stop playing his music. According to Mediabase, which tracks terrestrial radio stations, plays of Kelly’s music have dropped, from more than 220 “spins” per day in recent months to less than 100 a few days after the documentary aired.

And a concert Kelly was supposed to host in Springfield, Ill., in April had its application denied by the state because of security concerns spurred by anti-Kelly protests, The Chicago Tribune reported.

Much attention has focused on Kelly’s record company, RCA, a division of Sony Music Entertainment. On Friday, the advocacy group UltraViolet flew a banner over RCA’s offices in Culver City, Calif., calling on the label to cancel its contract with the star.



shirleyhalperin
✔@shirleyhalperin


31
2:51 PM - Jan 11, 2019

See shirleyhalperin's other Tweets


“It is long past time for RCA to dump R. Kelly and take a stand against abuse,” the group said in a statement.



But neither RCA nor Sony has commented on the documentary, nor on the calls to end their relationship with Kelly.

According to music industry lawyers and executives, the question of whether RCA will part ways with Kelly is less about if it has the right to cancel his contract than about if it wants to — and what it would cost the label.

Dropping a well-known artist is not a decision any record company takes lightly, these executives said. And however much the company’s reputation may suffer now from keeping Kelly on its roster, RCA’s executives may be weighing the risks of being accused of censorship, or of jettisoning its contractual obligations.

“The risks for RCA/Sony are glaringly obvious — subjecting themselves to public pressure, being viewed as condoning bad behavior, lacking sensitivity, and choosing money over integrity,” said Jeff Rabhan, the chairman of the Clive Davis Institute of Recorded Music at New York University.

But, Rabhan added: “Societal outrage is best demonstrated by simply not purchasing his music or tickets to his concerts. It would be ill-advised for RCA/Sony to make business decisions solely based upon a groundswell of current publicity and outrage surrounding the allegations.”

Several executives pointed to the industry furor last year after Spotify instituted a vaguely articulated “hateful conduct” policy that appeared to largely affect black artists, including Kelly. The policy — which removed some artists’ work from official Spotify playlists — was canceled three weeks after it was announced.

Then there is the question of Kelly’s many fans. By the end of Lifetime’s first broadcast of “Surviving R. Kelly,” daily streams of his songs in the United States more than doubled, according to Nielsen, from 1.9 million the day before the series began to 4.3 million on its last day.

Kelly’s most recent RCA album was “12 Nights of Christmas” in 2016. Although his contract with RCA is private, and may in some ways still be governed by the deal he signed in 1991 with the Jive label, which is now owned by Sony, industry lawyers said the power imbalance of most artist contracts likely gives RCA many ways to cancel the deal.

The label may be able to decline an option to extend Kelly’s most recent deal, and many contracts give the label a right to pay the artist a fee rather than release new material, known as “pay or play.”

“You can always drop an artist,” said Elliot Groffman, a music lawyer in New York. “The only issue is what obligations you have to that artist if you drop them.”

Although morals clauses are rare in record deals, several lawyers said, the severity of the accusations against Kelly, and the fact that prosecutors are looking into them, may let RCA argue that its association with Kelly has become damaging to the company, and give it a way out.

Kelly could always accuse RCA of breaching its contract through “bad faith” — intentionally failing to fulfill its obligations — but that is unlikely, said Laurie L. Soriano, a music lawyer in Los Angeles.

“I think no one would consider this a matter of bad faith,” Soriano said, “given the situation we are talking about.”
Joe Coscarelli contributed reporting.

https://www.tmz.com/2019/01/14/kanye-west-compares-r-kelly-michael-jackson-allegations/

Ya'll ain't gon take this revenue stream from her goddamit!