I’m completely torn. On the one hand, I click through various The Who video’s and listen to their albums and am generally blown away – not only by the band in general, but by Pete’s commitment and style.

On the other hand, well.. we all know his internet history record.

Now, I read a statement by him a few years ago, which at the time went a long way towards my forgiving of him. He’s an eloquent (and convincing) guy, and clearly very complex. Anyway, I largely forget what he said, but it seemed to do the trick at the time.
Fast forward a few years and my memory fades and I subconsciously begin to link him to the negative headlines again.
He received a Police apology. Where does the collective mind stand on this subject?
Wrongly accused/forgiven genius, or heavily flawed genius?

Nope, but then I’m not a fan of the Who either.

I know I could just not click on the thread, but I find it really weird the way people feel the need to do this. The whole concept of ‘heroes’ or ‘national treasures’ is just fundamentally stupid. Some people do great things or heroic things but they’re just people.

And at the risk of a ‘slippery slope’ fallacy – it’s this kind of lumping people into categories rather than just accepting that everyone is human and flawed that leads to things like Jimmy Saville.

Great musical artist.

The complicated rest doesn’t have much of a bearing on that. In fact, some of our greatest artists across various media, have had very ‘interesting’ lives. It doesn’t diminish their genius.

Besides, whatever goes on in Townsend’s mind, there has never been any suggestion that he is or was some kind of predatory creep.

He visited a normal pron site according to Wikipedia.

Rough Mix – his album with Ronnie Lane – is on my favourites list. But a bit meh otherwise. Not the level of ongoing influence that some others had.

This is not going to end well..

The whole concept of ‘heroes’ or ‘national treasures’ is just fundamentally stupid

I genuinely understand what you mean grum – but sometimes a category just helps the conversation to flow.
I personally have few living people that I admire to the point of personal cultural heroes – of those I do, several would be from the music industry just because it’s a very important genre to me.

So if I were to impart a sense of British pride into my ‘hero’ listing – Pete would be one person that i’d like to advocate.. hence my dilemma.
If it sounds less trite, lets call it a ‘person I hugely admire and makes me proud to be British’ list.

Talented yes with song writing and musical abilities.
I like his work.

I guess the wider question – to which you allude – is as to whether someones sins/crimes can be offset by the work they do in artistic sense. I like Wagner for example, but he was a pretty dislikable character – in fact I’m still ambivalent. Same – almost worse in many ways was Carl Orff.

Other performers that have committed unpleasant crimes, and been convicted – and subsequently released. Assimilated or shunned?

where’s the book Pete?

He visited a normal pron site according to Wikipedia.

Smoke without fire and all that – I suppose what im getting at is, has he been by and large exonerated of any creepy charges by the general public – or do ‘we’ still put him in the flawed list?

Just a genuine question as im interested what the public consensus is.

Other performers that have committed unpleasant crimes, and been convicted – and subsequently released. Assimilated or shunned?

Largely shunned – there arent many public figures I can think of that come back from a stretch at her majesties pleasure and enjoy the same cult/popular status they did prior to being banged up.
Depends on the crime I suppose.

I guess the wider question – to which you allude – is as to whether someones sins/crimes can be offset by the work they do in artistic sense.

Partly, yes. But more to the point – has the general public accepted his reasons for his internet faux pas and kept his record unblemished – or is he forever tarnished?

No

No. An expensive lawyer kept him out if jail.

care to elaborate?

interested to know if you just dont like his music, or dont like him as a person for reasons stated.

An expensive lawyer kept him out if jail.

So OJ Simpson in your eyes?

Still waiting for the book.

Whatever. You clearly have a different view of the man than I do.

I know I could just not click on the thread, but I find it really weird the way people feel the need to do this. The whole concept of ‘heroes’ or ‘national treasures’ is just fundamentally stupid

Wise words Grumster !

It also applies to the rather silly role model concept imo.

As per Nessa…..”where’s the book?”

No, he’s just a very naughty boy!

wonders if anyone actually reads the posts

Noah very few performers are living national treasures, admittedly a lot more get the bump up to that level for a few days after they die to sell a few more papers, but he won’t get that treatment – his obituary on the news when it comes will always be tainted by that court case.

Anyway – National Treasures tend to be some middle of the road type like Phillip Schofield, or Dec and Ant, bar of course your true heavyweights like David Jason and David Attenborough- few musician get called that, and the ones that do are generally the front man, not ‘the band’.

grum+1

He creeped me out long before the whole ‘special internet research’ thang.
Good musician but I was never a big fan of the Who and I didn’t like his Peel Lecture.

“A quick one while he’s away” says a lot, especially when he introduces it on Live At Leeds. Brilliant musician but clearly a troubled character too…

I expect many would be ready to chuck their Who records in the bin but they just might hang on to their original Gauguin’s

And +1 to those who find the term national treasure nauseating.

Great musician, but got caught paying to access child pron.

His PC was suspiciously clean at the time of his arrest and a good lawyer kept him out of gaol (an English gaol as opposed to an American jail).

There were protests at subsequent gigs in the US, but he seems to have been forgiven in the UK, quite why I don’t know. I was surprised to seem him performing at the olympic cerenomy as in my mind he’s a paedophile, plain and simple regardless of any pathetic excuses put up at the time (yeh, where’s the book Pete?)

Just because Hitler was a vegetarian doesn’t mean to say that he should be forgiven, so just because Townshend is a great musician doesn’t mean to say that he should be forgiven either.

Is Pete Townshend a national treasure?

He better be buried six feet under to be treasure.

The term national treasure means the person is going to die soon.

Ya, they better die if they are labeled national treasure.

National Treasure…urgh

Presumably everyone asking for the book missed the release of his autobiography in 2012.
Amazon link

FFS.. it was a rhetorical question, i’ve already apologised for the term. Get over it, thanks.

THREAD TITLE ASIDE, is he revered, or reviled? It would appear most have not forgotten nor forgiven.

Have those posting against him actually read his statement? Genuine question.
*disclaimer* I am not defending him – just gauging opinion.

Philip Schofield is not a national treasure. Actually, yeah, its a horrid statement isn’t it. David Jason included.

National treasure = Jimmy Savile if the person is still alive.

The person better be dead.

slimjim78 – Member
FFS.. it was a rhetorical question, i’ve already apologised for the term. Get over it, thanks.

Ohh no you don’t! 😆

That is a disgusting description = National treasure.

Coz every time I hear it I nearly puke! Pui! 😮

Quite funny last year – of the two main Glastonbury headliners, one was a bit of a egotistic plonker and one had spent 5 years on the sex offender’s register on child pr0n charges. And guess who had the petition against them saying they weren’t in the spirit of Glastonbury?

funny old world…

by and large tho, i’m of the ‘separate the art’ mindset.

Miles Davis, James Brown, Nina Simone, Led Zeppelin – you’d rapidly lose a lot of great art if you stopped listening to everything that was done by a git…

is he revered, or reviled?

I hope he is neither, I hope nobody ever thinks of him.

No. You need to be at least Alan Bennett to be considered a national treasure.

As much of a national treasure as John Peel

You’ve got to separate the art from the artist. Artists might not even appreciate the significance and interpretation of their work by other people who might see it as part of the zeitgeist. There are loads of arguably odious artists: Sickert, Dali, Bacon, Mingus, LF Celine, Caravaggio, M Houlbec (sp?), D Thomas, Larkin, B Wyman, P Townsend. Good art though.
NB not G Glitter.

great musician, brilliant band, love to listen to his stuff. Never met him so cannot comment on him like many have on this thread. There is many a great musician who happens to be c..k, bit like the rest of society and those on this forum including me.

As much of a national treasure as John Peel

No no. John Peel IS up there with Alan Bennett.