Billboard Hot 100: 9/9/2017

[jenglisbe]

Aug 29, 2017 12:40:48 GMT -5 Gary said:

Aug 29, 2017 12:34:34 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Personally I love Forever and like a few other of his songs. On one hand, the music is separate from the artist. But a lot of time, who is singing the songs adds context to them.

I guess it comes down to, how does one feel about 'rewarding' bad people even though they're talented? I mean, enough of history is dedicated to suppressing talented people because of who they are (gay, black, some other minority), so what's one violent asshole's failed career?

I don't see it as "rewarding bad people", if you like a song by a person that you or someone else feels is of questionable character, and you choose to stream it or buy it, you are rewarding yourself with the opportunity to listen to a good song.

Right; you don't see it that way, but since you are literally giving that artist your money when you buy or stream the music, it is at the very least 'compensating' a bad person. That is something some people don't want to do.

I mean, are you saying if Hitler had released a great single in the early 40s, you would have bought the record because his actions were separate from it? What if that song was about how much he hated Jewish people, yet was catchy?

Aug 29, 2017 14:21:55 GMT -5 chartPredictor said:

Aug 29, 2017 12:51:05 GMT -5 85la said:

This is the key. Taylor's team agreed that she approved of the "I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex" line, but not the "I made that bitch famous" line.

But is calling taylor a bitch really more humiliating than the sex line? Really feels like a cop-out imo. And she didn't say he had presented the sex line, she acted as if he hadn't asked her at all.

For a lot of people "bi*ch" is a very offensive term for women, along the lines of "f*g" and the n word, and this could see it worse having that word. I say that separate from this specific incident as I don't know enough about it.

[Au$tin]

There's a big difference between Chris Brown and Hitler. There's also a big difference between Hitler releasing a song about killing Jews and Chris Brown releasing a song with the same subject matter that most other songs cover. That is a ridiculous parallel and honestly is very insensitive towards a lot of people.

[Gary]

Aug 29, 2017 15:35:12 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Aug 29, 2017 12:22:11 GMT -5 Gary said:

In a "politically correct" society such as this, I guess there are people who will shun music because a certain artist did not pass a criminal background check.  In these cases, I think they are missing out.  If you like the song, that should be enough.

Others will listen to the music for the music without bothering to run a check on political/social/moral views.

To each his own I guess

Aug 29, 2017 12:28:06 GMT -5 .It'sGriffin said:

People, stop. The fact that CB is s**t doesn't mean that his music is (in this case it does, as it's abysmally, infuriatingly terrible). One's personality shouldn't affect your judgement of their products and professional work. Like, look. People shouldn't hate KB's music because he is a rapist, but because his music is total garbage.

It's obvious you two separate the art from the artist, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to do the same thing. I don't want my money to sustain the lifestyle of people who rape and abuse women. In the case of some of these artists (like R Kelly), their art is about their illegal habits and thus it ties the two things together even more. I think about the message that sends to young girls; as in, how can I as an educator tell encourage young girls to take control of their bodies and their lives in general (and vilify males who take advantage of them) if I am also giving my money to men who do the things I am preaching against.

And ultimately, to me this is no different than me not giving business to a place/company I know supports homophobic, racist, etc agendas. I know not everyone feels that way either, but it's a choice I've made. So, yes, to each his own.

Didn't say other people had to forgo or ignore background checks of artists before "consuming" music. That is what "to each his own" means

[jenglisbe]

Aug 29, 2017 15:49:26 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

There's a big difference between Chris Brown and Hitler. There's also a big difference between Hitler releasing a song about killing Jews and Chris Brown releasing a song with the same subject matter that most other songs cover. That is a ridiculous parallel and honestly is very insensitive towards a lot of people.

Agree to disagree. I put beating the sh*t out of women on the same level as killing people. I find your point insensitive to victims of abuse.

Regardless, it gets to Rose's point asking if there is a line; are you saying beating women is ok and let's still support their craft, and the line is when you order the killing of people? To me those two things are a lot closer (a blurred line) than, say, the line between using an illegal drug and abusing women.

[Gary]

Buying music for personal enjoyment simply because you like the song is not the same thing as support for Hitler' , rape or other things. That is absurd.

If people want to run criminal background checks on artists before deciding whether or not to enjoy a song they might otherwise like. That is their business. Others may choose to listen to music for personal enjoyment and nothing else

If we cleansed the music landscape for perfect moral values before deciding what song was on to listen to. There would be nothing left.

Paul McCartney had an illegal drug problem for example. So we toss out all Beatles and Beatles related songs because otherwise we are giving support to drug use?

[Glove Slap]

Aug 29, 2017 15:42:26 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Aug 29, 2017 12:40:48 GMT -5 Gary said:

I don't see it as "rewarding bad people", if you like a song by a person that you or someone else feels is of questionable character, and you choose to stream it or buy it, you are rewarding yourself with the opportunity to listen to a good song.

That's another way to look at it. FTR, I don't necessarily think either is 'right' or 'wrong' per se. It is a bit hypocritical for people to harp on Chris Brown due to his actions yet praise John Lennon or James Brown for their talents, both of whom supposedly have had a history of violence toward women too.

This pretty much. I've always found it weird when older generations went on about amorality and values, when you have people like John Lennon who treated their families like trash or Led Zeppelin and their mythological shark episode. 

I've always been able to separate product and maker very clearly, and I believe strongly in that separation, but I respect those who cannot, or choose not to. It's essentially all I can do. If someone disagrees with me on that subject, I don't care. If they think I'm contributing to a problem by not putting what entertainment I consume through a strict litmus test of the maker, I still don't care. I've had people confront me on this, and I've told them the same thing with no hesitation. And if someone wants to play the "well what if someone you know..." card, I do know people who have been abused and raped, it doesn't make me change my opinion on separating product and maker for myself. If you think that's problematic, I still don't care. If you think that makes me insensitive, you get the point, and so on. I can live with it just fine. Go try to convince someone else, you won't make major inroads on me. I respect your strong stance on the opposite, and encourage you to speak on it, but I'm just redirecting you to a receptive audience to save you time.

As far as I'm concerned, there's light years of difference between Hitler dropping Jagged Little Kristallnacht/Supposed Current Auschwitzian Junkie lyrics, and Chris Brown's 700th song about eating consensual pussy. If you see significant similarities...ok I guess. But I think trying to set strict guidelines on what should be consumed based on who made it (vs. what the actual work talks about, which is different imo) across everyone is significantly fascistic in nature and an extremely dangerous slope.

[ry4n]

Aug 29, 2017 15:55:05 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Aug 29, 2017 15:49:26 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

There's a big difference between Chris Brown and Hitler. There's also a big difference between Hitler releasing a song about killing Jews and Chris Brown releasing a song with the same subject matter that most other songs cover. That is a ridiculous parallel and honestly is very insensitive towards a lot of people.

Agree to disagree. I put beating the sh*t out of women on the same level as killing people. I find your point insensitive to victims of abuse.

Regardless, it gets to Rose's point asking if there is a line; are you saying beating women is ok and let's still support their craft, and the line is when you order the killing of people? To me those two things are a lot closer (a blurred line) than, say, the line between using an illegal drug and abusing women.

I think scale is important here. 60 million (approx) deaths including 6 million from genocide, and being the cause of the deadliest and most destructive conflict in human history doesn't quite compare imo. And that's not even getting into how the survivors and families of the dead were affected emotionally/psychologically or how WWII impacted the course of history.

Not to minimize what Chris Brown did, and I know celebrities are influential, but I don't think his actions have had anywhere near the same impact on society.

[Au$tin]

Aug 29, 2017 15:55:05 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Aug 29, 2017 15:49:26 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

There's a big difference between Chris Brown and Hitler. There's also a big difference between Hitler releasing a song about killing Jews and Chris Brown releasing a song with the same subject matter that most other songs cover. That is a ridiculous parallel and honestly is very insensitive towards a lot of people.

Agree to disagree. I put beating the sh*t out of women on the same level as killing people. I find your point insensitive to victims of abuse.

Regardless, it gets to Rose's point asking if there is a line; are you saying beating women is ok and let's still support their craft, and the line is when you order the killing of people? To me those two things are a lot closer (a blurred line) than, say, the line between using an illegal drug and abusing women.

No. I'm not going to agree to that. Hitler and Chris Brown are not one in the same. I'm not defending Chris Brown's actions either. The fact that you are implying that I am just baffles me. I am honestly hurt that you would think I am that horrible of a human being.

I think you're forgetting Hitler is responsible for an event that killed millions, incited prejudices on an entire group of people, and caused a massive altering shift in the course of history. I'm not saying what Chris Brown did is excusable, but to say they are in the same league is asinine and cannot be further from the truth. The parallel you are trying to make just isn't there and hurts whatever point you were trying to make to begin with.

Not to mention that in your ridiculous hypothetical, you had Hitler releasing a song about exterminating Jews. Since when has Chris Brown ever released a song that advocated beating women? Never.

And this is all completely forgetting that Hitler did indeed have art. He actually painted! And you know what? The general consensus is that his art actually isn't bad. They're not shown in public because Hitler literally is one of the evilest human beings to grace the Earth, but you can find images of them with generally positive critiques all over the place. They're not censored because of who painted them. Now if they had depicted the killing of people, they probably wouldn't be regarded as such, but they don't, so they aren't.

I agree that the context of an artist and their work does add to the experience of their art, like for example, if anyone else had released Kesha's latest album, it wouldn't be regarded as high quality as it is and it also wouldn't seem as real or raw. That being said, had she released an album identical to Animal, it wouldn't be the success story it is now because that connection wouldn't exist. Likewise, it works the other way. Had Chris Brown released a song about abusing women, the connection would be there and I truly believe hardly anyone could stomach it. But, he doesn't. Instead, his material covers the same topics most artists from his genre cover, so the connection to his history of abuse isn't there.

Finally, if we start to censor things like this, where exactly is the line drawn? What about the violent history of John Lennon? The molestation scandals of Michael Jackson? Literally any of the backwards political views of most artists before the 1960s? I'm sure Beethoven didn't have a fond view of blacks or Hispanics. Or what about Taylor Swift and Selena Gomez staying silent towards deep political issues that their peers have stood up for? R. Kelly? James Brown? Miley Cyrus and Iggy Azalea's cultural appropriation? There's just too many blurred lines here that it would get absolutely difficult and nearly impossible to check to make sure the history of all of your favorite musicians are squeaky clean.

If you want to stop supporting an artist because of their past, that's fine, and it's your prerogative. I'm not going to tell you that's not okay, because it literally doesn't harm anyone if you choose to do so. But don't act all high and mighty because of it, especially if you also support other artists for doing other immoral actions.

So excuse me for not agreeing to disagree with you. This is not a subject matter I'm willing to just brush off my shoulder like a privileged while straight male.

[Deleted]

I don't usually care about an artists life to influence me to what to listen to. I would be screwed if I decided to stop listening to anything Dr Luke has done for example

[Resident_Evil]

I feel bad for Mariah. So many iconic songs that could've tied her record but this crappy song ends up the one to do so.

[Gary]

Aug 29, 2017 17:45:03 GMT -5 Resident_Evil said:

I feel bad for Mariah. So many iconic songs that could've tied her record but this crappy song ends up the one to do so.

I wouldn't worry. Songs have long runs at #1 all the time now. Won't be too long before the next crappy song challenges this again.

[wavey.]

Despacito isn't as bad as y'all making it to be. So an upbeat Latin pop song ties with a Becky Ballad. It's okay.

[garrettlen]

Aug 29, 2017 16:01:12 GMT -5 Gary said:

Buying music for personal enjoyment simply because you like the song is not the same thing as support for Hitler' , rape or other things. That is absurd.

If people want to run criminal background checks on artists before deciding whether or not to enjoy a song they might otherwise like. That is their business. Others may choose to listen to music for personal enjoyment and nothing else

If we cleansed the music landscape for perfect moral values before deciding what song was on to listen to. There would be nothing left.

Paul McCartney had an illegal drug problem for example. So we toss out all Beatles and Beatles related songs because otherwise we are giving support to drug use?

Paul? LOL   Paul's pot habit was nothing compared to what George and John were taking back in the 60's; basically anything and everything.  ;)

[Deleted]

Aug 29, 2017 17:45:03 GMT -5 Resident_Evil said:

I feel bad for Mariah. So many iconic songs that could've tied her record but this crappy song ends up the one to do so.

I feel more bad that her remix with French Montana is doing nothing

[.It'sGriffin]

Aug 29, 2017 16:01:12 GMT -5 Gary said:

Buying music for personal enjoyment simply because you like the song is not the same thing as support for Hitler' , rape or other things. That is absurd.

If people want to run criminal background checks on artists before deciding whether or not to enjoy a song they might otherwise like. That is their business. Others may choose to listen to music for personal enjoyment and nothing else

If we cleansed the music landscape for perfect moral values before deciding what song was on to listen to. There would be nothing left.

Paul McCartney had an illegal drug problem for example. So we toss out all Beatles and Beatles related songs because otherwise we are giving support to drug use?

To inform y'all; weed =/= hard drugs. It's a natural psychoactive substance. Alcoholic beverages and smokes are way more dangerous. It's just that the congress is an agglomeration of fucking retards, that's why weed is illegal.

[Gary]

Aug 29, 2017 18:59:43 GMT -5 .It'sGriffin said:

Aug 29, 2017 16:01:12 GMT -5 Gary said:

Buying music for personal enjoyment simply because you like the song is not the same thing as support for Hitler' , rape or other things. That is absurd.

If people want to run criminal background checks on artists before deciding whether or not to enjoy a song they might otherwise like. That is their business. Others may choose to listen to music for personal enjoyment and nothing else

If we cleansed the music landscape for perfect moral values before deciding what song was on to listen to. There would be nothing left.

Paul McCartney had an illegal drug problem for example. So we toss out all Beatles and Beatles related songs because otherwise we are giving support to drug use?

To inform y'all; weed =/= hard drugs. It's a natural psychoactive substance. Alcoholic beverages and smokes are way more dangerous. It's just that the congress is an agglomeration of f**king retards, that's why weed is illegal.

Well...I wasn't saying "hard" drugs, I think I used the word illegal.  But yeah, not sure what songs promote cigarettes anymore but there are lots of drinking songs out there

[jenglisbe]

Aug 29, 2017 16:01:12 GMT -5 Gary said:

Paul McCartney had an illegal drug problem for example. So we toss out all Beatles and Beatles related songs because otherwise we are giving support to drug use?

I don't think anyone has said that have they? In fact, some of us have said the opposite. We've asked where the line is; I don't think anyone has put taking drugs on the same level as hurting/killing other people.

[Gary]

Aug 29, 2017 20:16:25 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Aug 29, 2017 16:01:12 GMT -5 Gary said:

Paul McCartney had an illegal drug problem for example. So we toss out all Beatles and Beatles related songs because otherwise we are giving support to drug use?

I don't think anyone has said that have they? In fact, some of us have said the opposite. We've asked where the line is; I don't think anyone has put taking drugs on the same level as hurting/killing other people.

No but what you are saying is essentially, we should not listen to music performed by artists whose moral values are questionable regardless of whether or not we might otherwise enjoy the music.    Btw- Drugs hurt and kill people too


So with many rock stars you listen to them you are supporting illegal drug use.
With some country singers you are supporting drinking (also hurts and kills people)


Songs do no hurt or kill people.  The people who choose to listen to them for enjoyment are likely not out to hurt or kill people.  I say "likely" because I am sure there are extreme circumstances but I am willing to bet the crime rate resulting from simple exposure to a Chris Brown song is substantially less than the crime rate resulting from drug and alcohol use



So back to my point, you throw out all artists who have a criminal record or have engaged in activities such as drugs or other questionable activities at least once in their past and we choose not to support their music because they have done something questionable in their past then there is not much left.

If you and others choose to boycott music that you might otherwise enjoy because they do not pass a criminal background check or have questionable moral character, that is fine,, your business and you and others are free to do that.

I think you miss out on music you might otherwise enjoy if you do that though.

[felipe]

If one feels like they don't want to "give money" to someone who has committed a crime or acted poorly in the past, does that mean they believe these people should not be allowed to work or make money anymore? Even if they have done the sentence assigned to them by the legal system? How does it work exactly when you say you can't believe people are "giving" money to Chris Brown? Do you believe he should never be able to earn another dollar in his lifetime?

[Suono]

Hey, at least it won't BREAK her record. She still has it, she just need to share it. And she'll have always managed it first, well before it was "easy"

[Gary]

Aug 29, 2017 20:59:04 GMT -5 Suono said:

Hey, at least it won't BREAK her record. She still has it, she just need to share it. And she'll have always managed it first, well before it was "easy"

Even before Despacito came along, she was sharing the record.  She had help with 16 by an artist who managed 13-14 weeks TWICE, well before that became easy 

[#LisaRinna]

Aug 29, 2017 21:05:35 GMT -5 Gary said:

Aug 29, 2017 20:59:04 GMT -5 Suono said:

Hey, at least it won't BREAK her record. She still has it, she just need to share it. And she'll have always managed it first, well before it was "easy"

Even before Despacito came along, she was sharing the record.  She had help with 16 by an artist who managed 13-14 weeks TWICE, well before that became easy 

As if she had never hit #1 for multiple weeks before "One Sweet Day" on her own. Mariah's chart stats were astounding before and after Boyz II Men collaborated with her.

Let me remind you that the Daydream singles alone spent half a year at #1 in 1995-96. Twenty-six weeks.

[catboy2017]

Aug 29, 2017 17:49:27 GMT -5 Gary said:

Aug 29, 2017 17:45:03 GMT -5 Resident_Evil said:

I feel bad for Mariah. So many iconic songs that could've tied her record but this crappy song ends up the one to do so.

I wouldn't worry. Songs have long runs at #1 all the time now. Won't be too long before the next crappy song challenges this again.

And many, many songs before Mariah deserved to be more than 16 weeks on top but they couldn't due different Billboard policies back in the day.

[Gary]

Aug 29, 2017 21:20:58 GMT -5 #LisaRinna said:

Aug 29, 2017 21:05:35 GMT -5 Gary said:

Even before Despacito came along, she was sharing the record.  She had help with 16 by an artist who managed 13-14 weeks TWICE, well before that became easy 

As if she had never hit #1 for multiple weeks before "One Sweet Day" on her own. Mariah's chart stats were astounding before and after Boyz II Men collaborated with her.

Let me remind you that the Daydream singles alone spent half a year at #1 in 1995-96. Twenty-six weeks.

Not the point.  The point was Mariah never had the record all to herself.  She had always shared it.

When Mariah & Boyz II Men got 16, they broke the record of 14 shared by Boyz II Men and Whitney Houston

When Whitney Houston broke the record, the previous record was 13 set by Boyz II Men

[Christopher]

Aug 29, 2017 6:48:24 GMT -5 KeepDeanWeird said:

Aug 29, 2017 6:16:45 GMT -5 MilesW1998 said:

^Because he's a douchebag who beat Rihanna up, and continues to make the most disgusting, and awful songs, talking about stealing your girl, and other generic lame bragging that any sane person wouldn't want to associate with.

Didn't stop Kells from getting the ladies to keep supporting his records. As I recall, RiRi did a remix with him and released it on her birthday, so there's that.

Kells?

[jenglisbe]

Aug 29, 2017 20:33:36 GMT -5 Gary said:

Songs do no hurt or kill people.  The people who choose to listen to them for enjoyment are likely not out to hurt or kill people.  I say "likely" because I am sure there are extreme circumstances but I am willing to bet the crime rate resulting from simple exposure to a Chris Brown song is substantially less than the crime rate resulting from drug and alcohol use

See my questions below.

No but what you are saying is essentially, we should not listen to music performed by artists whose moral values are questionable regardless of whether or not we might otherwise enjoy the music.    Btw- Drugs hurt and kill people too

I'd like to think abuse and sexual assault are well beyond being questionable morally. As in, it shouldn't even be a question that they are wrong.

I think you miss out on music you might otherwise enjoy if you do that though.

That is worth it for me if it prevents young girls from being raped/abused.

Aug 29, 2017 20:55:10 GMT -5 felipe said:

If one feels like they don't want to "give money" to someone who has committed a crime or acted poorly in the past, does that mean they believe these people should not be allowed to work or make money anymore? Even if they have done the sentence assigned to them by the legal system? How does it work exactly when you say you can't believe people are "giving" money to Chris Brown? Do you believe he should never be able to earn another dollar in his lifetime?

The difference for me is the kind of work he and others do (i.e. in the public eye). I firmly believe the actions someone in the public eye take and then the way society reacts has an impact on society/culture. So, the difference is we all know R Kelly commits statutory rape, and young girls can see whether or not that is criticized by 'society.' If a local banker does that, it's likely his customers wouldn't know.

Let me ask you all these questions:
1. Do you think the actions of celebrities and the way society reacts affects our culture, or no?
2. Why do you think the victims of Bill Cosby's sexual assaults didn't come forward?

[chartPredictor]

Aug 29, 2017 23:23:36 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Aug 29, 2017 20:33:36 GMT -5 Gary said:

Songs do no hurt or kill people.  The people who choose to listen to them for enjoyment are likely not out to hurt or kill people.  I say "likely" because I am sure there are extreme circumstances but I am willing to bet the crime rate resulting from simple exposure to a Chris Brown song is substantially less than the crime rate resulting from drug and alcohol use

See my questions below.

No but what you are saying is essentially, we should not listen to music performed by artists whose moral values are questionable regardless of whether or not we might otherwise enjoy the music.    Btw- Drugs hurt and kill people too

I'd like to think abuse and sexual assault are well beyond being questionable morally. As in, it shouldn't even be a question that they are wrong.

I think you miss out on music you might otherwise enjoy if you do that though.

That is worth it for me if it prevents young girls from being raped/abused.

Aug 29, 2017 20:55:10 GMT -5 felipe said:

If one feels like they don't want to "give money" to someone who has committed a crime or acted poorly in the past, does that mean they believe these people should not be allowed to work or make money anymore? Even if they have done the sentence assigned to them by the legal system? How does it work exactly when you say you can't believe people are "giving" money to Chris Brown? Do you believe he should never be able to earn another dollar in his lifetime?

The difference for me is the kind of work he and others do (i.e. in the public eye). I firmly believe the actions someone in the public eye take and then the way society reacts has an impact on society/culture. So, the difference is we all know R Kelly commits statutory rape, and young girls can see whether or not that is criticized by 'society.' If a local banker does that, it's likely his customers wouldn't know.

Let me ask you all these questions:
1. Do you think the actions of celebrities and the way society reacts affects our culture, or no?
2. Why do you think the victims of Bill Cosby's sexual assaults didn't come forward?

Y'all need to remember that streaming music barely gives anything to the artist. The label takes most of the dough, with the streaming service taxing most of the rest for various purposes.
Ik I'm gonna get shit for this, but I'm also of the mindset that one person cannot make a difference. That is why I do not vote.

[#LisaRinna]

Aug 29, 2017 21:37:20 GMT -5 Gary said:

Aug 29, 2017 21:20:58 GMT -5 #LisaRinna said:

As if she had never hit #1 for multiple weeks before "One Sweet Day" on her own. Mariah's chart stats were astounding before and after Boyz II Men collaborated with her.

Let me remind you that the Daydream singles alone spent half a year at #1 in 1995-96. Twenty-six weeks.

Not the point.  The point was Mariah never had the record all to herself.  She had always shared it.

When Mariah & Boyz II Men got 16, they broke the record of 14 shared by Boyz II Men and Whitney Houston

When Whitney Houston broke the record, the previous record was 13 set by Boyz II Men

The point is you said she had "help." As if.

[Gary]

Aug 30, 2017 6:01:14 GMT -5 #LisaRinna said:

Aug 29, 2017 21:37:20 GMT -5 Gary said:

Not the point.  The point was Mariah never had the record all to herself.  She had always shared it.

When Mariah & Boyz II Men got 16, they broke the record of 14 shared by Boyz II Men and Whitney Houston

When Whitney Houston broke the record, the previous record was 13 set by Boyz II Men

The point is you said she had "help." As if.

She did. Boys II Men was on the song too.

A Mariah solo may still get to #1 but not 16 weeks. The collaboration of the two biggest acts of the day was part of the appeal

[Enigma.]

Aug 29, 2017 22:59:03 GMT -5 Christopher said:

Aug 29, 2017 6:48:24 GMT -5 KeepDeanWeird said:

Didn't stop Kells from getting the ladies to keep supporting his records. As I recall, RiRi did a remix with him and released it on her birthday, so there's that.

Kells?

R. Kelly