There’s a lot you can say about Ike Turner–like how he wrote and recorded what was ostensibly the first rock and roll song, how his influence on American music is immeasurable, and even how his relationship with Turner was tumultuous at best. As we all know, a lot of not very nice people end up doing awesome stuff and we all have to make our judgments as best we can about whether the work of a person can be enjoyed separate from the truth of who that person was.
And yes, he denied that he abused Turner, but at the same time, he said, “Sure, I’ve slapped Tina… There have been times when I punched her to the ground without thinking. But I never beat her.”
I’ve got no great analysis for what comes next, because it’s just vile.
“Sure, I’ve slapped Tina… There have been times when I punched her to the ground”–Ike Turner
“Ike ‘Beats’ Tina to Death”–NY Post
God damn.
Just god damn.
It’s not bad enough that the person who claimed to love you admits to slapping you and punching you, but thirty years later, to have that violence against you turned into a joke in a major newspaper?
What can you say to that?
(h/t Shakesville)
Tiny Cat Pants 
Well, I know what her official statement was, but I like to think that The Talented Ms. Anna Mae Bullock might be saying, as she relaxes out next to the infinity pool that looks over the Mediterranean at her house in Nice, “Yes, and he’s going to come back as a cockroach, because despite everything, the poor soul never reached enlightenment. But it’s not for me to step on him.”
And then she might ask her handsome fella to freshen her lemonade, since he’s already up and all, and she’s a little tired from Pilates.
(B, I quit being shocked at crass newspaper headlines long ago, especially the Post’s. However, I particularly like this blog’s headline on Mr. Turner’s demise. Truth! Who knew? And that interview with him and his wife in the Oxford American‘s 1999 Music Issue is just creepy.)
Jesus.
All this speculation about if she’ll go to his funeral is kind of grossing me out, too. She doesn’t owe him shit, especially not forgiveness. If she went and spit on his grave, that’s between her and him.
It’s one thing to want your fiction to give you forgiveness and redemption for the charismatic jackass, but it’s too much to ask of real life.
All this speculation about if she’ll go to his funeral is kind of grossing me out, too. She doesn’t owe him shit, especially not forgiveness. If she went and spit on his grave, that’s between her and him.
Here’s where my feminist granddaughter of a domestic-violence survivor raisin’ cuts in: WHO is speculating about her attendance at his funeral? Because THAT ticks me off much more than a tacky headline. Are these folks saying that she has some sort of obligation to go? Because … not so much. And I have to note that reactions like that, in my direct family-and-friends experience, have been frustratingly gender-specific; the males have said, “Aw, she got out and survived and thrived, and his life sucked, she oughta go to the funeral, it’s the classy thing to do,” and the females have said, “Aw HELL no.”
Dear World: Surviving someone’s repeated attempts to beat you to death does not obligate you in any way to go to said beater’s funeral, should you outlive him/her. Unless, of course, you feel obligated to go in and turn the casket over and set it afire and run off cackling. (Which I would recommend against, because desecration of a corpse is not a nice charge to face. But I understand the sentiment.)
“As we all know, a lot of not very nice people end up doing awesome stuff and we all have to make our judgments as best we can about whether the work of a person can be enjoyed separate from the truth of who that person was.”
Ugh, don’t I know it. The history of mathematics and physics is littered with criminals every bit as ugly. It’s a little wearing in my profession constantly to run across references to these “great men” when a more accurate phrase would be “vicious scum who did some great science/mathematics”.
Tacky.
This is where the concept of original sin comes in quite handy. If “bad” is the default, people won’t let you down as often. :)
The NY Post has never been known for their… tact. To put it mildly.
Then again. We are talking about them.
Lee, yeah, I know. But there’s tacky and there’s just vile. And it’s a tough line to walk, to know when to ignore something so that it will go away and when you have to say something so that no one mistakes what’s being said for being okay.
Slarti, I don’t think it’s a matter of being let down. I don’t think that’s the issue. The issue is just how big a split you believe there is between commendable actions of a person and vile actions of that same person and whether you can go only partway down a path with them.
I’d like to believe that, with art, it’s easy enough to say that we can enjoy, say, Ike Turner’s music without endorsing his views on women (though, I don’t know). I mean, I don’t think listening to Gary Glitter is going to turn anyone else into a child molester.
And I don’t think using formulas and mathematical theories worked out by abusers is going to turn you into an abuser.
But when you start talking about philosophers and theologians…. there I don’t know. Can you draw a clear and bright line between Heidegger and his thoughts about the acceptable ways to treat his Jewish colleagues and his thoughts about being? I’m just not sure.
And it’s a problem I have no answer to.
The NY Post is (perhaps) an extreme example of what is common in corporate media. If you would like to do something about it (albeit something small), you can go here.
‘Cept the Post was majoring in infalmmatory headlines while they were still locally owned.
So far as whether one can evaluate the art and the life separately, surely it depends on whether the work itself is part of (or is created in order to further) something vile about the life. That’s why someone like Heidegger is a tough call where someone like Ike Turner isn’t (for most people — not that everyone makes the same call about Turner, but few people need to think hard about which call they make). But with someone whose work is a meditation on being and thought, how to separate the thought from the guy’s nasty actions? And with someone who experienced career advancement because of nastiness, it gets even more complicated.
Further, for me a lot depends on what I knew about the person first. If I had seen “What’s Love Got To Do With It” before I heard “Rocket 88” I might well have had a hard time getting into “Rocket 88.” Since I didn’t, I didn’t.
And in other cosmic justice/”science greats who are also harmful bigots” news, it turns out (at least according to the BBC) that James Watson has a significant percentage of African DNA — probably a great-grandparent of African origins. I wonder if that will prompt any further self-reflection.
ROFL about the James Watson info. That’s fantastic. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3022190.ece
The “great men” lies disgust me because they are just that — lies. “Great contributor to Field X” would at least not be egregiously dishonest. Since I’m talking about science and mathematics, where precision of terminology is critical, there is no excuse for this, especially when names like Edith Clarke magically get left out of textbooks.
Anybody seen any Roman Polanski movies?
I’m so pissed off about that headline.
Why didn’t I think of it first?
Ex has a good point. Polanski has made some damn good movies, “Rosemary’s Baby” is the first that comes to mind. But knowing that the man got a 14 year old drunk so he could sleep with her, would you sign up to do “The Pianist” and would you honor it with Academy Awards?
Then there is that whole creepy thing with with Woody Allen.
Both examples, randomly enough I just realized, have Mia Farrow in common.
(As a completely [but not totally off topic] aside, because I’m finding contradictory info on this, did Gertrude Stein really nominate Adolph Hitler for the Nobel Peace Prize back in the thirties? I’m seeing some sources as yes, I’m seeing others that this was a bit of irony on her part. I figure you’d be more up on this than I am.)
And back on the headline. You’re right that it is fine line between ignore the rudeness so it goes away so that you don’t reward those who push buttons simply to call attention to themselves, calling out those who need to be called out.
Don’t know where this one stands. But it is a vast field of gray to deal with.
Lee, it turns out I know a little something about Gertrude Stein, a very little something, but something enough to feel confident answering your question.
She didn’t formally nominate Hitler for a Nobel. She told the NYTimes he should be nominated for one. I believe, though, that it’s obvious that she’s trying to make a point about how “peace” is a pretty crappy thing to aspire to by itself–in other words, if all we want is “peace” then we should nominate Hitler for a Nobel Peace Prize because he’s done more to make Germany peaceful again by removing the Jews and other scapegoats–and I’m sure she thought her audience would have seen that for what it was.
Folks don’t like Stein for a whole lot of reasons and I feel like efforts to call into question her behavior during the rise of Hitler and World War II, are, in part, designed to give people a reason to dismiss her.
Not that Stein needs that kind of help. Who can read her?
Lee,
I think you may be letting Roman off a little lightly, at least according to Wikipedia:
In 1977, Polanski, 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Geimer (then known as Samantha Gailey). It ultimately led to Polanski’s guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[7]
According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer’s mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, “Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him.” She added, “It didn’t feel right, and I didn’t want to go back to the second shoot.”
However, subsequent to the first photo shoot, she agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977, in the Mulholland area of Los Angeles, near Jack Nicholson’s estate. “We did photos with me drinking champagne,” Geimer says. “Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn’t quite know how to get myself out of there.” Geimer alleged that Polanski sexually assaulted her after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes. In the 2003 interview, Geimer says she resisted. “I said no several times, and then, well, gave up on that,” she says.
Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor, but these charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
Ugh. The only Polanski film I saw was Macbeth, which I was forcefed as a college freshmen. While I could see and appreciate some bits about the presentation, the whole thing left me with a pervasive feeling of ICK, the same sort of ICK I get on hearing some man has raped a 13-year-old.
I got into an argument with the professors who taught that course — my position was that if their goal was to increase the literacy level of the incoming freshmen, that goal was not well served by boring them to tears. I didn’t know how, then, to tell them that ordering teenage girls to honor the “greatness” of an artist’s work because they, the professors, say so, while not even allowing dialog about a number of girls in the class having their instincts scream that there is something really wrong here, adds to the dynamics that feed into rape being endemic on college campuses.
or freshman even. I need caffeine.
I heard Tina Turner make this statement in Memphis in the 80’s on the Private Dancer tour and they’ve stuck with me ever since. “Ike is dead, but the bitch is back.” Her confidence and complete assurance in herself really struck me at that point and inspired me. Whatever he did to her only made her stronger in the end and I think in the long run she wins and his actions have completely overshadowed his early talents and contributions to rock and roll.
Also from that Wikipedia article:
In his autobiography, Roman by Polanski, Polanski alleged that Geimer’s mother had set up the daughter as part of a casting couch and blackmail scheme against him…
In a 2003 interview, Samantha Geimer said, “Straight up, what he did to me was wrong. But I wish he would return to America so the whole ordeal can be put to rest for both of us.” Furthermore, “I’m sure if he could go back, he wouldn’t do it again. He made a terrible mistake but he’s paid for it”.
Creative brilliance doesn’t necessarily equal moral superiority. I think that’s difficult for people to deal with. I think of this every time I see a Picasso. He was a womanizing ass, but a brilliant artist.
We tend to laud brilliance in the arts or in sports or in the sciences, and want to think that the folks that have these superior talents also are superior humans. It’s difficult for us to accept that their “work” isn’t always reflection of their humanity. Michael Vick anyone?
That’s what I thought it probably was on Stein, but you couldn’t really be for certain. A lot of literary figures had a lot of really dumb political views back in the 30’s: Ezra Pound on Moussilini, Bernard Shaw a Stalin apologist long after most edged away from his “socialist paradise.”
“It’s not my fault! Her mother set me up by allowing me access to this nubile young thing!”
Yeah, right, Roman. Good story. That’s why you needed the qualudes. Scumbag.
I hear what you’re saying, Editor, and you’re right. It’s a common practice.
his actions have completely overshadowed his early talents and contributions to rock and roll.
Which is just as wrong as if his treatment of Tina was being ignored. Because without him, no one reading this would be listening to the same music today. He was a monster and a genius. Oh well.
“his actions have completely overshadowed his early talents and contributions to rock and roll.” – sara clark
my sentiments exactly. When most people think of Ike Turner, they think wife beater, not architect of rock n’ roll.
However, I wouldn’t blame Tina for pissing on his grave. Yet, me thinks she’s too busy living her fabulous life in the South of France to do so . And as it is said, living well is the BEST revenge.
“…his actions have completely overshadowed his early talents and contributions to rock and roll.” – sara clark
That’s what gets me: Ilove the music of Ike and Tina, whereas Tina’s solo career doesn’t always float my boat. And Ike Turner (from a musician’s and guitar player’s perspective) was ahead of his time and was great to listen to. The whole story is so sad for so many reasons.
Or think of his pre-Tina work. Roy Kasten (who’s more forgiving than I am) has a short tribute up at Living in Stereo.
No matter how great their contributions were, the world would be a better place if these criminals never existed.
“But we wouldn’t have x, y, or z, so the world would somehow be emptier” generally falls down on two counts. In many fields, the presumption that X would never have been invented/discovered without that one person is often proven false by the historical record. More importantly, it fails to account for the massive creative loss these criminals leave in their wake, because their amount of squashing the brainpower, time, and energy of others far outweighs anything they themselves contributed.
It would not only be a more peaceful world without them, it would be a more creative one as well.
I have to say, if Geimer is saying what I think she’s saying, I kind of love her attitude. It sounds like she’s saying that he needs to come back and serve his time so that they both can put it behind them, in other words, she wants to move on; he wants to move on; but until he fulfills his obligation, they’re both stuck.
I hear what you’re saying, Helen, it’s just hard for me to accept that. I mean, I come from a line of folks capable of monstrosities and I have to believe that it was worth it for them to be here, as shitty as they were, if only because it led to us.
B., I know what you mean, since the same is true for me. It doesn’t change the fact that if my mother were walking around now, of reproductive age, I would be screaming, “DO. NOT. LET. THAT. THING. BREED. Or at least take the poor things away from her after she does.”
Letting psychos abuse the crap out of children just doesn’t sit with me, even if years of childhood trauma do produce some interesting twists on creativity. And if it’s not ok to do to children, it’s not ok to do to women, or to men either.
I have more faith in the massive creative power of humanity in total than to think we need to let the psychos loose on the innocent just because sometimes the results are interesting.
Helen, I don’t mean “oooh, let’s forgive what Ike Turner (or anyone else) did because of the art/science/whatever.” I am saying that the art/science/whatever must not be condemned just because the life was vile. And in Turner’s case, his influence on American popular music (rock category) isn’t a hypothetical — it’s right out there for everyone to hear. It’s a shame that he was such an evil guy. And he was. He undid his own legacy; all those headlines ought to be about Central Figure of Rock and Roll Dies, and they aren’t because of his own actions. But his work (not his life) deserved those R&R headlines. That’s not an excuse or an attempt to minimize what a bastard he was; it’s pointing out that a bastard wasn’t all he was.
nm, I’m sorry if it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth; I think your meaning was clear, though clarifying never hurts. I just dumped out what I was thinking, perhaps not clearly differentiating enough from what you were saying.
OK, Helen, cool. I’m very influenced in how I think about this by my father’s memorial service, which I think I’ve mentioned in discussions here before. My father was, let’s say, not a nice man. No one in his family could mourn for him sincerely by the time he died, and I couldn’t mourn for him at all. But the service was full of former colleagues and students of his who had come from all over the country and abroad to pay their last respects to his memory, and I have to say that I was glad for his sake that he’d done at least that one thing right. Yeah, his life was an object lesson in “do not be this person,” and since I knew him through his life that was it for me. But his work was separate.
Rambling off in a different direction again: I think that’s what makes some of these issues so hard to deal with — the worst people have done good things, and the best have done bad things. My mother was an RN, and I’ve seen patients cling to her in gratitude. She was still a walking nightmare.
But our cultural mythology and popular entertainment are full of people who are “good” or “bad” but not both. Once in a while we get the “bad” person who turns “good”. But somehow it’s very hard to believe that someone we know good things of could be capable of horrors. It’s easier if we can compartmentalize them and think of the bits separately. Is that a good coping mechanism, or a harmful one? Or both? I guess both.
Read this transcript from Samantha’s grand jury testimony:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib1.html
First of all, she admitted to having sex twice prior to the rape by Polanski. She had also admitted to taking Quaaludes and drinking prior to that. So here’s a 13-year-old who was not that innocent and her mother lets her take off with a 44-year old man….
Hmmmm…something is fishy here. I mean, what he did was wrong, by all means, but also saying he robbed this 13-year-old girl of her innocence is also wrong.
Danna, I don’t buy that men are ever so beholden to the wishes of their penises that they can’t refrain from having sex with children, no matter how much drinking or drug use the child has been involved in. I’m not even sure how the drinking or drug use by the child affects the man’s ability to control what he does at all.
Danna, I don’t buy that men are ever so beholden to the wishes of their penises that they can’t refrain from having sex with children, no matter how much drinking or drug use the child has been involved in. I’m not even sure how the drinking or drug use by the child affects the man’s ability to control what he does at all.
Hear, hear.
.