I have just
read a review of a new book about The Who bassist, John Entwistle. Whilst
recognising the quality of his playing, the reviewer spends more time casting
moralistic judgements about the deceased’s behaviour than analysing his impact
on modern music. He finishes with a lapidary ‘If
Entwistle was the last of the great rock stars, then good riddance.’
Then there is the case of Woody Allen. He
has been accused of child abuse. That may or may not be true – we, as the
ignorant general public, cannot know. Yet there are those who have judged and
sentenced him without trial. If he really committed those crimes, and there is
evidence to prove it, then he must be made to face the consequences, naturally.
But even if that did occur, does that mean that Annie Hall is now not worthy of
praise?
Roman Polanski is allegedly another
suspicious character. Does that reflect back on his art? Can we only accept the
works of those who are morally beyond doubt? If we discover that The Voice had
links to the mafia, can we no longer enjoy My Way? And as times change, and our
social values with them, must we all readjust, reassess, pass judgement?
No artist
is perfect as a person. Possibly their private lives are a mess, full of
contradictions and inherited vices. But their art can transcend their frail
humanity. Are we able to accept that, or are we all members of the Moral Police?
