uglyredhonda

Official links (while they last): Back of the Tiger Victory Is Free Daylight Actual Triage

That's not how this works, dude. You don't have the authority to be judge and jury, draw a conclusion, and claim that you're right and we all just have to accept it. As has been pointed out over and over again, every person here will make their own judgement. Their judgement is no more or less valid than yours.

Maybe MG knew she wanted to be famous, and used that as a lure to get with her in the first place. Maybe the music project was a way to tie her to him and keep her in the relationship - make it emotionally harder for her to leave. It's not fair to speculate motives. And showing off one's tits in public doesn't automatically make someone an opportunistic liar. Also: we only "knew" that Jen was "an opportunistic character" because MG told us so. Everything she ever did, we learned about from him.

I'm not really sure what "evidence" people would keep in situations like this. A lot of people only keep the texts that are on their current phone. Was he sending them dick pics? What if all of the conversations happened over the phone or in person? In the case of your co-worker - did you need to provide evidence that he was a douchebag, or did your boss take your word for it? And, again, we don't need to be litigating this and coming to a unanimous conclusion. It really comes down to each person here making the decision for themselves. If you think he didn't do anything wrong, you're fully entitled to that. Opinion: he reached out because he wanted something and he felt that they would give it to him if he asked them. That's how manipulative people work. And I say that from being on the wrong end of it at least once. There was a woman I knew a few years ago - she had a shtick where she would invite her current boyfriend to do something, then invite another guy to it, and spend the evening flirting with the other guy in front of the boyfriend. (It wasn't the boyfriend's kink or anything like that.) I was the other guy on multiple occasions over a couple of months, and just assumed she was ready to leave the relationship. Even when I realized what she was actually doing - I was still game to do something with her because her intentions with me felt genuine. (I remember wondering if her boyfriend would ever take a hint.) But her intentions weren't genuine. They never were. I soon discovered she had multiple "other guys" who all thought the same thing - that her relationship was ending. She eventually cheated on her boyfriend with one of those "other guys" (who later became the next boyfriend, and the cycle started over). And, insanely enough, even after that happened - months later, there was still some part of me that would have gone for it if she'd pursued me, because it felt like we had something good when we were together. (Thank God that didn't happen, and, in hindsight, I'm wholly embarrassed that I ever felt that way about her.) With people like that, there's some part of you that denies what's clearly in front of your eyes. You look past the stuff you know is there. Even in worse situations - ie, actual abuse - abused people will frequently return to their abuser if the right entreaty is made. It's a known thing. Logically, you'd think they'd bail, but they don't. It's not a logic play - it's entirely emotional. Wait, so many? I think Aziz Ansari is the one that most people feel was wronged, and even that one is a little mushy. Who else had their career torn down because of false accusations?

I've never been in a situation like this, and I can't speak to her motives, but I can say with experience elsewhere: There's nothing worse than feeling like someone has done something terrible to you and watching them try to get through it without acknowledging any wrongdoing. The further it goes, the more the anger escalates. (Even worse is when the people around them - usually friends - insist that the terrible thing couldn't have happened because "they're not like that", and you end up looking like a lunatic for being upset.) Some people do strive for the major consequences. But usually, any consequence is what they have to settle for, if one happens at all. A public acknowledgement, a promise to do better, acceptance of some kind of punishment/consequence. Something that feels real, even if the person is bullshitting to some degree or only covers a piece of it. What MG posted the other night wasn't anywhere close to that. And, in my mind, he didn't even take that note seriously. He asked for privacy (usually a signal of radio silence for a time of reflection), then posted some goofball thing yesterday about finding and eating his dead mother's sardines. Honestly, I think MG has drawn a line and this is all Hayley's going to get. But that means she's just going to be irate for the near future. Personally, I think that's an ongoing risk to his career, assuming he still has a chance to salvage it. I almost want to ask what your "pretty telling" means, because I'm sure it's going to be awesome. Accusations come out in bulk like this because there's finally an opening for people to talk about things that they've had to keep to themselves, often for years. They read the other stories, there are details that sound familiar, and they have a chance to finally get it off their chest. This happens all of the time, even in your own life. I guarantee there's someone you know who you don't like - if you're at party and you hear someone complain about them, you chime in with the reason you don't like them. You may never have told anyone that story before. (A third or forth person might overhear the conversation and step in.) It doesn't mean you all have improper motives. It's first and foremost a chance to be heard; a chance to commiserate. And, usually, it feels better, even if it doesn't change anything, knowing that someone else can relate to your experience.

We have a reasonably good idea as to when he was dropped. MG played the Unison benefit on December 17th. Bernie Breen is the chair of the board of Unision. If I'm not mistaken, one of the videos that ran during the benefit was a Unison promo that used an MG song as the music bed. Article from October about Breen's role with Unison, specifically mentioning his managing MG: https://www.fyimusicnews.ca/articles/2020/10/05/bernie-breen-mission-new-chair-unison At worst, MG was dropped sometime since October. At worst. Otherwise, it happened sometime in the last seven weeks. I'm not sure what kind of PR move reads like: "[The agency] no longer represents Matthew Good. No further comments and/or statements will be made." At best, that sounds like somebody trying to avoid PR altogether.

If it's any consolation, I would be genuinely surprised if he was completely removed from streaming. Ryan Adams' catalog is still streaming, Morgan Wallen's catalog is still streaming - there's a long list of musicians who've gone through similar situations (or worse) who've been dropped by their labels and whose music is still available. I don't think anyone has yet figured what that process would look like to do that. And I think it's possible that MG might control the last few albums as far as streaming goes, anyway.

Wow, and it's not just that one post. He's letting people have it in his feed. What's notable here: Jeremy has worked with MG, and they were friends for a long time. MG had him play a drum solo at his show with Jay Baruchel at Massey Hall in 2014. I noticed another familiar name in that Twitter discussion. I won't name him specifically, but the guy who built and ran MG's website for several years during the late 00s is echoing what Jeremy is saying. (I met him at one of the informal bus meet-and-greets after a show that year - he was helping to manage the line.)

Fair point - somebody else brought it up, and I blanked on how it ended. I was wrong. (The assertion made elsewhere was he was fired after the trial, which wasn't true - he was fired after CBC believed the allegations to be credible, and the allegations included office behavior that he wasn't tried for. He filed a wrongful termination lawsuit, but eventually withdrew it and paid CBC's legal fees.) I'm removing that whole section from my post - the rest of it was the important part.

This is ridiculous, though I understand why people feel this way. It absolutely 100% does not matter what any of us think in this matter, unless people really do think that he should tried in public. Warners and Bernie Breen found the allegations to be credible, and acted on their own. That's it. There wasn't public pressure for them to do anything. Important fact: Bernie Breen has been MG's management since at least 2005. Does anyone here seriously think that a 16+ year relationship would be thrown away with a terse, two-sentence statement if they didn't think there was at least some credibility to the accusations? As has been said multiple times here: you don't have to commit a crime to be fired from your job, or for a company to decide that they no longer want to work with you.

Companies don't have to work with people they don't want to work with, unless a contract says they have to. Personal opinion: his management dropping him is actually the big story here, and a big tell about the veracity of the accusations.

I'd thought that same thing. That's why I was a little surprised (and impressed) that they made this announcement - they easily could have just attributed to some factor like lukewarm sales and wish him the best. Apparently, Global was locked and loaded. https://globalnews.ca/news/7622398/matthew-good-abuse-accusations-hayley-mather/ Key detail in that story - he's been dropped by his management (Bernie Breen), too.

Still everywhere on digital. It's really going to come down to the nature of the drop and the structure of the contract. Typically, a drop is just a drop - no further releases, but the existing ones remain. They might stop pressing physical versions - but, honestly, I think it would have been unlikely for them to press any more copies of the Warner albums, even if this hadn't happened. It's unclear to me who actually controls the music. His digital releases for those albums usually credit "M. Good Productions", and only occasionally mention "Warner Music Canada". M. Good Productions might be a Warner imprint, or he might control the music. Warners at least controls the videos and the physical releases - and the videos are gone, so that might be the only obvious change.

I give them full credit for going on record like this - I half-expected them to drop him quietly to avoid potential blowback. Btw - this also gives the media some cover to report the story.

But saying "he's done good stuff, too" isn't "all sides of an issue". If you're going to use Bundy, I'll use this example: Organized cartels often do a lot of humanitarian work in their communities. Hamas and Hezbollah often clothe and feed their populations - build schools, etc. They'll put that goodwill to tactical use - such as basing their military operations / weapons caches in the basement of apartment buildings where innocent civilians live. When the Israelis attack those locations, innocent civilians die. The good acts don't absolve the fact that they're intentionally getting civilians killed. Even in other cases where it doesn't end in death, criminal organizations often hide their activities under the guise of their good deeds. It's not a "both sides" thing. In this case, a lot of MG's "goodwill" is his outreach about mental illness, and several of the accusations have claimed that he's using his mental illness as a defense for his behavior. That tarnishes / cheapens the goodwill of his mental illness outreach. At best, "all sides" here means waiting for MG to respond, and giving him the benefit of the doubt until he does. It's not: "You know, Hitler also helped a old woman cross the street once."

Swear to God, I almost wrote "It's like saying 'Ted Bundy did good stuff, too'," but I figured comparing MG to a serial killer was out of line.

I used to know a guy who was all around great dude. Funny, charismatic. Helped you when you needed something. Openly promoted women's rights; he frequently wore a hoodie with a popular feminist slogan on it. I once saw him pin his wife to the ground and remind her who was in charge of their relationship. We aren't friends anymore.

You know, you could've just not posted. That's always an option.

I noticed something similar earlier today, but was stalling until I could figure out for sure. I'm still not 100%, but it does look like that's the case. Warner's Publicity site doesn't have him listed, either. However, his Artist page on that site still exists - it just isn't linked up. (I'm not linking that here because it has a Warner contact phone number on it, and I don't want whoever that is to get hammered.) The Google pre-cache for the Artist list page apparently had him a few days ago, but doesn't now: I also noticed that the recent videos were branded as Warner videos in their thumbnails, which might explain why they were removed from YouTube - that whole page was likely under Warner's control. (It makes me think that MG's deal with Warners was a promotion/distribution deal where he controls the music and they control the videos.) Still can't say with certainty (and I doubt Warner will say anything at this point), but it does look like he's been dropped. EDIT: The reason I was hesitant to say with certainty - the videos seem to be set to Private rather than outright deleted. Since they didn't delete his Press page, it's possible that this might all be a pause by Warner.

Yeah, honestly, it could be something completely unrelated to this. I did notice that the more recent music videos are gone (eg: "All You Sons and Daughters", "Sicily"). The music uploads are still there (and still link to that page), just not the videos. * * I'll note that I'm the States, and availability has sometimes been different here.

Updates via Reddit: 1) MG deleted pictures of his kids from his Instagram. 2) His YouTube page is gone. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxel7fCSGaxE-NAKHiFTZCQ PS: probably good not to draw any conclusions.

But that's the risk you take when you become famous. If you don't want your fans talking about you, be a decent person. If you unwittingly do shitty things, apologize. It's no different than in real life. People tend to be more forgiving of someone if they're contrite about their actions, if they show that they're making an effort to be a good person. But it's not uncommon to bail on a friend if it turns out that they're willfully and unapologetically cruel. A few years ago, I spent months watching a good friend verbally abuse his wife, and saw him get physical with her once. His personality had changed slightly after suffering a brain condition earlier that year, but I later found out that he had behaved similarly prior to it happening - he had just been able to conceal it better. I fought it for months, but I eventually realized I couldn't be friends with them anymore. His wife is an amazing, kind woman, and I couldn't witness those things happening to her. By the account of our mutual friends who still hang out with them, he still verbally abuses her, and everyone just chalks it up to "who he is" after the brain condition. ("Yes, he calls her stupid, but he's just kidding around.") She seems okay with it, he makes no effort to apologize, and he hasn't sought out any treatment/therapy for it. Do I still cherish the stuff we did together? Absolutely. Will I ever do stuff with them again? No - I can't. Do they deserve to have friends? Absolutely. But it can't be me. My mental well-being suffered as a result of being in the middle of that mess, and I can't go back there. But again, it's up to the individual. I'm not critical of the friends who stayed loyal. Those I've spoken to also understand why I bailed. I don't see this being any different. Creative people are still people. We may not be friends, but we see them as kindred spirits, and some people just can't be a kindred spirit with someone capable of behaving that way and being unapologetic about it.

"Cancel culture" is the idea that there's a giant cabal of like-minded people that can single-handedly end a person's career. It's a myth, and it's repeatedly spread by right-wing media to criticize "out of control" left-wing politics. The truth is more nuanced. As we've already talked about here, the real question is how much of your audience you lose through inappropriate behavior, and if that's enough to drop you below the tipping point under which you're no longer marketable. MG has lost fans here. He didn't lose them all, and, so far, he's not getting "cancelled" for anything. PS: you guys should take notice of how few women are posting here now. I'm not sure where you learned about the Overton Window, but that's not how it works. The Overton Window represents the area in which conventionally popular political views lie. It goes in both directions - it can shift to the left or to the right over time - but it predominantly represents the positions that politicians can support without flying afoul of popular society. The idea that it's a liberal mechanism to kill "unpopular" thought is a lie perpetuated by right-wing media and personalities.

Really? Name one person that was cancelled by MG.

"Cancel culture" is a right-wing myth. No one ever gets 100% cancelled, for all of the reasons you just said - there will always be people who will support the person no matter what. Even Michael Jackson still had (and has) huge fans, despite all of his insane behavior and everything that he was accused of. What you're seeing here isn't "cancel culture". It's people commiserating about what people have learned about the guy, and deciding for themselves that those things are enough to ruin their fandom. Right or wrong, the MG community will be smaller no matter what happens from here on out. The open question here is if it's enough to do real damage to his career.