PETE TOWNSEND: WHO ARE YOU?
©2003. SCOTT JORGENSEN
As I type, Pete Townshend is sitting in a southwest London police station after being arrested on suspicion of possessing child porn.
Townshend admitted he has used an Internet website advertising child pornography, but is not a pedophile. Visiting the site was research for his autobiography, part of which deals with his own suspected childhood sexual abuse.
While being a big fan of Pete’s music, my initial response was to put quotes around "research". On the other hand, we’ve all typed in a word on a search engine and ended up on the wrong side of the worldwide web.
This article isn’t to argue whether he’s guilty or not. That’s a job for the media to decide.
Rather, I got to thinking about celebrities and our relationships with them: If Townshend is found guilty, should I toss out all my Who albums?
At what point does our outrage rise high enough to wash away all the things we enjoy about musicians, actors and authors? If we to toss out everything even vaguely associated with any form of human imperfection, we’d be left next to nothing. At the very least, we can’t cast the first Rolling Stone.
Who do we forgive and whom do we crucify? There’s a weird and shape-shifting hierarchy that evolves. And I have more questions than answers.
If a celebrity is just mean or crabby or anti-social, that’s fine. I’m a huge Van Morrison fan and he’s legendary for fits of prick-dom. Cool with me, since I don’t have to hang with him. I can just listen to the music.
Suppose a ballplayer was to ever get arrested for possessing marijuana? I know that’s a hypothetical question, but does that mean we shouldn’t watch the entire team? Can I still get a jersey, but just not that player’s? Hate the playa, but not the game?
Winona Ryder is forgiven for her shoplifting spree. But only if she starts returning my phone calls.
What about a DWI when nobody was hurt? I know a number of people who’ve been arrested for one and know that they’re good people—despite possessing momentary bad judgement.
How about strange, but legal, sexual practices? I know I’ll never watch ‘Hogan’s Heroes’ quite the same way again. Marv Albert is back behind the mic—in or out of women’s panties-- and I’m a huge hoops fan. Does this mean I shouldn’t watch the games he’s announcing? What if I turn the sound off?
Michael Jackson is certainly freaky, but that, in itself isn’t a crime. We expect a certain amount of freakiness from our celebrities. Jackson keeps finding innovative ways to push the term though and, in my opinion, he’s moonwalking on shaky moral and legal ground on a number of issues. But, damn, that Thriller is a sweet album. I still listen to it from time to time. The artist isn’t making any more money from a CD I bought years ago. Is it okay to listen to work created before a crime is committed or is the entire back catalog contaminated?
Clearly, any crime should be punished to the full extent of the law. But still I ask that question: Where do we separate the product from the producer?
I can’t really answer that, but would be interested in everyone’s personal take on the issue, which is where I think it really rests. If the acting, singing writing or athleticism can’t overcome the reputation, we’ll drift away. There’s always something new to fill the void and, in the end, it’s not like they’re people we really knew personally.
Townshend knows for sure why he visited that site and he has been a constant supporter of children’s welfare charities. Unfortunately, he also wrote a song called ‘Touch Me, See Me, Hear Me, Feel Me’. (If I could get a nickel for every time that will be trotted out over the next few weeks.)
We’ll see how this is played out soon enough. Until then, I may be listening to my Who albums a little more frequently. Just in case.
