But the Angry Black Woman blogs:
I am tired of people using the “But he was a great artist” line whenever someone who is, otherwise, a despicable human being, writes a song or a book or a poem that they like. I hate to break Godwin’s Law here, but even Hitler wrote some nice poetry and drew some pretty pictures (and he was nice to animals).
> Hitler wrote some nice poetry and drew some pretty pictures
… and just as this does not make me think that he is a good person, it does not
make me think that the paintings are bad.
I had an ex-girlfriend who insisted that I throw away my Wagner CDs. One of
my friends destroyed his Judas Priest collection when Halford finally admitted
he was homosexual, and then nearly took a swing at me when I told him so were
members of Accept (as if anyone could listen to the lyrics and not guess) One of
my coworkers donated her “Fire and Ice” books when JRR went completely off
the deep end about Bush’s reelection.
To me, these actions are [insert PC term suggesting irrational thinking].
A work of art or a damn bridge does not magically become less precious because
of the convictions of its creator. It is A-OK to boycott someone whose actions
displease you, and I can see how they can affect your enjoyment of his work.
But attacking the quality of the product makes about as much sense as to stop
liking your favorite painting because the artist commits suicide, or because the
model ends up addicted to cocaine… both of which unfortunately happened for
the painting in my living room (local Laguna Beach people, no one famous)
Peter, did you read the post?
because as far as I can tell, ABW isn’t saying that Ike wasn’t a good musician. She’s saying that the issue of “how we think about and talk about Ike” includes a lot of shitty stuff he did, and the fach that he was a good musician is only one aspect of it, not an overriding trump card.
See:
If you’re a good musician/artist/engineer and you want to have people focus on your music/art/engineering feats… well, then, you should avoid being such an asshole to everyone that they seem less important. But less IMPORTANT is not the same as less GOOD.
I was answering what was quoted on AmpToons, not the whole article. Had I
wanted to comment on the article, I would have done it on the original author
site. Once again, I will answer what you quoted on this site:
> One thing I keep hearing is that, though Ike was a great musician and
> pioneer, all people can talk about is his abusive nature and drug habit. What
> a shame that is, these voices say.
And yes, it is a shame, when every discussion about his musical
accomplishments inevitably gets derailed into a condemnation of the way he
was or was not treating his wife. By the way, I am not a fan of his music, and
all I knew about him came from ‘that movie’. But both at work and on the
forum I police, people throw ‘disgusting human being’ into discussions of his
music. I believe that doing so is wrong. On our forum, I split the thread, and
asked that one is kept for music only. It’s still chugging along, with someone
trying to prove he influenced “Machine Head” (?!) … the other degenerated into
name calling by non-metalheads who just signed on… so I closed it.
Now, I see nothing wrong with saying that his self-admitted abuse of Tina
Turner is more important than his music. But it is still not right to bring it
up in a discussion which has nothing to do with that.
“And yes, it is a shame, when every discussion about his musical
accomplishments inevitably gets derailed into a condemnation of the way he
was or was not treating his wife.”
Yes, such a shame that he beat his wife and he and others like to deny that.
Who is denying it? Not I. Not him, either. He has admitted it in writing, and has
shown no shame. The question is whether any discussion about his music should
be drowned in “HE BEATZ H1S W1FE!!!11!!!eleVEN”
But is clear that some people think the answer is ‘yes’. I have as much respect for
them as I have for those who grace Judas Priest, Accept, etc… threads with gems
like “Only faggots listen to faggots.”