Funny you should ask this question. While I am aware of things going on that Jim may or may not be aware of (but he probably is) under his own nose amongst his people, and Jim sins by his silence to people of authority (the rat you bcome may save the next life you meet, J.S.!), believe me or not, I don't think that negates Jim's work in any way.
-- Doesn't mean he's not an ass sometimes. We all are.
-- Doesn't mean he doesn't put his pants on one leg at a time. We all do.
-- Doesn't mean his music isn't the greatest. It is.
> and guns down 47 people with an Uzi. He pushes a little
> old lady down a flight of stairs and steals candy from a
> baby before throwing himself in front of a bus, taking his
> own life. Hypothetically, of course.
>
> Does this ultimate act of villainy (or insanity? Its all
> the drugs, people!) negate Jim's body of work? Do you
> still love his music? Can you still stomach his music?
> Should radio stations still play the hits? Does the very
> thought of Jim Steinman now disgust you?
>
> Are the songs now a celebration of the Jim That Was,
> standing separate from the Jim That Was at the Last? Or
> can the two aspects never be considered separately?
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
|
