I knew it would be bad, but I was not prepared for that degree of ugliness.

I want my sweet memory back. ”

Even though i think Amanda was unwarranted in her attack on crikey, i agree 100% with her : human beings are flawed. Artists, particularly very successful artists, are coddled & made excuses for excessively, & so they can be monsters. I dont think it comes from the artistic impulse & creativity –i thik they can be spoiled fucks or just jerky human beings to start with (& get jerkier with priveledge & excess). To let it ruin your appreciation of the actual art though..that’s fucked up. the art becomes an entity to itself; i dont know how you cant separate the art from the artist.

He or she made a completely valid argument which just happens to disagree with yours. You’re responding to statements that were never actually made here. ”

I thought the same, too. That attack seemed to come out of nothing. Made me think that i missed some really subtle invisable text…but, No; it’s not there. Certainly not to that degree. That really was unwarranted.

I carried around happy memories of that concert for many years until I saw that certain movie with my girlfriend. There were scenes she could not watch and she would bury her face in my shoulder. I felt sick inside. It has tainted my memory of that concert ever since.

I knew it would be bad, but I was not prepared for that degree of ugliness.

I want my sweet memory back.

I don’t agree, and I’ll explain why.

Let’s go to the ultimate example: Leni Riefenstahl. She was the director of “The Triumph of the Will” and “Olympia.” She not only helped Hitler to power, she helped glorify him once he was there. Her actions helped bring about the deaths of 12 million people in concentration and death camps, half of them Jews.

Does this mean that “Triumph” is not a film that’s beautiful to look at, or that it’s bad art because of her terrible actions? No. Pieces of art take on a life of their own after their creation, and it stands outside of what she did. You have to look at both her actions and the art, not decide that one automatically trumps the other. You can recognize that she was a terrible person who also made great art.

The fact that Ike Turner was a horrible, abusive asshole doesn’t automatically negate the fact that he was a great and groundbreaking musician. It should be taken into account — and most people do, pointing out the barely concealed rage in the music — but it can’t absolutely negate that he was able to create something outside of himself.

He or she made a completely valid argument which just happens to disagree with yours. You’re responding to statements that were never actually made here.

Let’s play a “victims aren’t stupid” game. Just for shits and giggles. Let’s assume that Tina Turner didn’t just say, “I’m going to find me an obvious monster to abuse me so that I can….” What exactly?

Perhaps she found someone that charmed her. Perhaps it wasn’t simple. Perhaps there was beauty and joy in their lives and their entwined careers, and that brought her in and kept her in even as it became more and more obvious that he was was a wife beater and wasn’t going to stop. Perhaps Tina Turner isn’t as simple about this as Crikey and is able to separate the good of that part of her life from the bad. Perhaps she has to the point where she’s even kept her name from that period and even still performs songs that she did then.

Crikey, I recommend reading BFP’s post on this for some more practice in complex but realistic thinking about abuse.

If you actually refuse to listen to any music, read any books, watch any TV, etc. unless the artists pass a morality test, you’re either in deep denial or have very little art or beauty in your life. I’m guessing the latter with your assumption that art is such a minor part of life. It’s not to a lot of people, including musicians like Tina Turner you just insulted.