Let bygones be: should more legacy acts be censoring themselves?
In 1973, Cher released the music video for ‘Half Breed’, showing the singer imitating Cherokee culture and traditions in a move that would later be deemed cultural appropriation. Fast-forward four decades, and such discussions have intensified, pushing her to announce her decision to part ways with performing the song live and omitting it from her more recent compilation album, Forever. The song’s controversy is clear, but with so many more examples of problematic content in music history, should more legacy acts be censoring themselves?
The heat hasn’t fallen too heavily on Cher’s shoulders following the ‘Half Breed’ backlash, but it also isn’t the only song in her discography to raise eyebrows. This is part of a broader trend in music history, where songs by legacy acts sometimes include slurs and other outdated concepts, often reflecting and reinforcing negative stereotypes of marginalised communities. However, having taken steps to distance herself from ‘Half Breed’, Cher has also reflected on some of her more harmful creative choices by removing them entirely.
While that’s certainly an interesting argument for addressing such discrepancies, many artists’ discographies—especially those who have been around for a while— include dangerous concepts or less-than-dignified implications, most stemming from the general ignorance that characterised the time they emerged from. A similar case to Cher is Fleetwood Mac’s song ‘Gypsy’, which wasn’t intended as derogatory at the time but has since fallen victim to changing societal norms.
Countless others, like the more forthcoming Rolling Stones song ‘Brown Sugar’, deliver provocations that audiences have since deemed unacceptable. There’s a unique case there, however, considering the fact that Keith Richards and Mick Jagger attempted to fly their omission under the radar, telling the LA Times back in 2021 that they had left it out amid an influx of backlash. That said, though it implied momentary reflection, Richards also said he was “hoping that we’ll be able to resurrect the babe in her glory somewhere along the track.”
While the list of musicians retiring songs involving societal insensitivity seems endless, it presents an interesting debate about censorship and how the parameters of discography deletion should fare against education, knowledge, and control over an artist’s legacy. While there are no grounds for platforming songs that include such problematic undertones, is there a difference between acknowledgement and erasure? In Cher’s case, it unintentionally drew more attention to an otherwise forgotten moment in history, but is that an issue in itself?
The issues surrounding songs like ‘Brown Sugar’ remain legitimate; however, they also give rise to important discussions about artistic intention and harmful content. The Stones remain steadfast in their position that the song wasn’t written with any ill intent, but that doesn’t erase the harm it has already caused, nor does it prevent any future interpretations from being changed by evolving values and attitudes. When songs like this “age badly”, should they be removed from history entirely?
There is no simple answer. However, the boundaries between right and wrong in these scenarios seem clear. If, for instance, Cher or Fleetwood Mac continued to perform such songs, knowing that they were now in poor taste, it wouldn’t fare well. And if the Stones decided to bring ‘Brown Sugar’ back into their live performances, there would no doubt be an uproar from audience members who knew the severity of its potential impact.
However, such releases also offer insight into cultural contexts and an understanding of the oppressed in a way that leads to hope for the future. In other words, drawing attention to them might be uncomfortable and triggering for some, but they are also educational opportunities, sparking important conversations about how people and art should approach—or not approach—complex topics that they lack experience in. Stripping these moments from the history books is sometimes as good as ignoring them entirely, which also leads to a general lack of empathy for the struggles they confronted in the first place.
At the same time, an artist’s duty has changed, meaning that such stories and narratives can and should be addressed with more dignity and respect, especially if they are being channelled into their art. We know this because we also know of the slip-ups of some of history’s most influential legacy acts, even during moments when they felt so ardently that they were at the forefront of change, pushing the envelope of culture. As a result, such moves caused more harm than good, meaning they should exist solely for cautionary research and no longer be celebrated as legitimate aspects of modern art.
