The Cranberries, Bad Wolves, and the morally gray.

 According to this article, Cranberries guitarist Noel Hogan and drummer Fergal Lawler, are stating they were unhappy with the timing of Bad Wolves release of their cover version of Zombie. I want to weigh in on this a bit. I have thought about since I heard it some time yesterday evening via this video from rock feed.

 First let me say there is no simple answer to this. I can see both sides of this argument.

 According to the article Dolores O'Riordan was supposed to record her guest vocals spot the night of her passing. This is important because just 3 days later Bad Wolves released their cover.

 So why then? Was it coincidental? Well there could have been plans to release the cover as a single absent O'Riordan's part already in place. But we are talking 2018. Well within the digital era, when a band, especially one on a small label, can drop new material at a moments notice. Speaking of labels it very well could have been entirely up to them. I know nothing at all about Eleven Seven Music. But it is not uncommon for an up an coming band to have little to no control over these types of decisions.

 Either way, or any other way, this went down I can see why it looks bad, and how Cranberries members would find it distasteful. On the face of things it looks like Bad Wolves was attempting to capitalize on the news of O'Riordan's death. As unfortunate as it is, there is no doubt that celebrity deaths make tons of money. So if we look at it from a shrewd business standpoint, there is no denying the timing of the release maximized exposure, and therefore revenue generated. There is little doubt in my mind that Bad Wolves wouldn't be nearly as big at this point in their career without this cover, and the timing of it's release. I don't think you can make an argument otherwise. So I can see why it could look like the band and label were seeing nothing but a big pay day.

 That said the band not only payed tribute to O'Riordan in the music video, but donated at least $250,000.00 to her surviving family. They had stated that it would be everything they made from the song. Now whether that is just the bands cut or if the label was in on this too, I do not know. It also appears that we cannot confirm that the band continues to give their cut to the family. Regardless it's hard to imagine that they didn't increase exposure for O'Riordan and the Cranberries to a younger crowd. Something I don't think can be taken as a bad thing. A musician generally just wants to be heard and appreciated. So in some way Bad Wolves must have helped that.

 Now if we are again going to take a cynical look at it, we could say that all of this was leveraging someones death and their loved ones pain to gain attention and drive sales. I can see where this idea could come from. I won't make a claim to know otherwise, it may very well be true. But why do members of the Cranberries come out now to say these things. It's been two years. I suppose they could have been directly asked about it. I can't seem to back link to the actual interview, so I am going to make the assumption they were. If not it would seem an awful lot like the pot calling the kettle black.

 We can take one side or the other. That's what almost everyone who comes across this story will do. But I think there is a bigger picture to be viewed and a greater question to be asked. I believe we can plant this issue firmly in the gray area.

 If we choose to take sides we have only two real options.

 A. Bad Wolves happened to have a cover recorded and leveraged someones death to catapult themselves into stardom. They must be assholes.

 or

 B. Cranberries members are being selfish about the whole thing. The band donated money to the family and paid her tribute. They must be assholes.

 However if we choose to step back, look at the entire picture, and ask the right questions, our perspective just may change.

 Here is the thing. It is entirely possible that Bad Wolves and their label made a conscious decision to release the single when they did. They may have done it for the primary purpose of gaining attention. But that does not mean they did the wrong thing. Depending on your personal moral boundaries it could be objectionable, maybe scummy or insensitive. But it doesn't make it entirely wrong.

 Had Bad Wolves just put out the cover, it still would have gotten coverage by every music outlet from Rolling Stone to Metal Injection. It still would have been all over the radio because radio loves cover songs. They could have then released a music video that opened like every other music video. A shot of the band, right into music, no imagery calling back to the Cranberries original music video. But they didn't. They paid, I believe, an appropriate amount of respect. They used the video to point the focus towards Doloras O'Riordan. As far as we know the band themselves haven't made a dime off of the song, instead giving it all to the family.

 The bottom line is no one lost in this situation. Yes it was the break for Bad Wolves. But the Cranberries also got paid. Bands get a cut if their song is covered. The timing helped them too. The family got help. Nothing can replace a loved one. But there isn't anything we can do to get them back once they are gone. All we can do is the best we can to help, and comfort. The timing of the release made that attempt by the band all the more effective. Most importantly O'Riodan got the respect and recognition she deserves through all of it. I imagine even today, two years later, it's still making an impact.

 I suppose what i'm driving at here is this. Is an act that could be considered morally objectionable truly objectionable if all parties involved benefit from it, if everyone involved is given proper respect? I believe there was an emotional response by the members of the Cranberries. An honest one I am sure. But I think an objective examination of Bad Wolves actions indicate they were coming from a genuine position of respect and admiration. I don't believe they meant any disrespect or solely to benefit from the circumstances.

 This is a weird scenario. Sometimes what we perceive as poor morals can later be determined to have been the right thing. But does that suddenly make the actions moral? Is retroactive morality a thing? Can it go in the opposite? Could it be that a questionable moral decision remains as such, despite the outcome? Or could it be that morality is defined in far to finite a way?

 If it comes to light that the family was somehow deeply hurt by this, or that they had asked to have it postponed or left unreleased, I will reevaluate my position on the matter.

 I can't tell you what to believe about the situation. What I hope is that you will at least consider that there are different perspectives. Remember that you can't know someones motives. hopefully we can all remember that few things in life are truly black and white. Hopefully we all remember to look at everything and everyone involved, the results of actions, and truly ask ourselves if there is an issue at all before we start labeling someone or something in any given light.