Gary Glitter ..

[apelike]

you cant stop somebody earning what is rightfully theres from what they have created. and like i said its not right on the others in the band either.

 

You may not stop it but it is possible to reduce it. I doubt the Glitter Band are missing out on much as Glitter wrote most of the stuff and would take the majority of the royalties anyway. The Glitter Band was basically his backing band and thats it, and I think most of their other material was written after they split in 1973.

[carosio]

thats it, muddy the waters by trying to sneak together (yet again) being gay and peadophillia

 

You're too quick to jump to conclusions!

 

My point was that he is a famous example of someone who invented something without which we would not be using this forum, yet he was sentenced as a criminal.

The fact that he was gay does not concern me in the slightest and I fully support the pardon he was granted.

[Olive]

Today's Pick of the Pops with Paul Gambachini just skipped over Gary Glitter. I was listening to an episode a while back that had to omit him and Jonathan King.

 

I'm a touch uncomfortable with the airbrushing of stuff like it never existed. A song's a song, people liked them and bought the records. What would happen if someone like John Lennon was found to have committed some heinous crime? Would we have to stop listening to the Beatles?

 

Michael Jackson's dubious activities don't stop his songs being played. Admittedly, he was never actually convicted of anything.

 

But Phil Spector's a convicted murderer and we all merrily listen to his (tremendous) tunes. Chuck Berry was no angel and he was lauded as a great and his songs played during his lifetime.

 

I think probably we'd be better off separating the music from the artist and leaving it at that, otherwise we get into all sorts of double standard tangles.

[hackey lad]

Today's Pick of the Pops with Paul Gambachini just skipped over Gary Glitter. I was listening to an episode a while back that had to omit him and Jonathan King.

 

I'm a touch uncomfortable with the airbrushing of stuff like it never existed. A song's a song, people liked them and bought the records. What would happen if someone like John Lennon was found to have committed some heinous crime? Would we have to stop listening to the Beatles?

 

Michael Jackson's dubious activities don't stop his songs being played. Admittedly, he was never actually convicted of anything.

 

But Phil Spector's a convicted murderer and we all merrily listen to his (tremendous) tunes. Chuck Berry was no angel and he was lauded as a great and his songs played during his lifetime.

 

I think probably we'd be better off separating the music from the artist and leaving it at that, otherwise we get into all sorts of double standard tangles.

 

I agree with all of that . Its history in one way or another and even though evil things happen ,is it right that it should airbrushed out of history?

[lectrolove]

 

I'm a touch uncomfortable with the airbrushing of stuff like it never existed.

 

 

Yes, it's all a bit Ministry of Truth.

[I1L2T3]

Today's Pick of the Pops with Paul Gambachini just skipped over Gary Glitter. I was listening to an episode a while back that had to omit him and Jonathan King.

 

I'm a touch uncomfortable with the airbrushing of stuff like it never existed. A song's a song, people liked them and bought the records. What would happen if someone like John Lennon was found to have committed some heinous crime? Would we have to stop listening to the Beatles?

 

Michael Jackson's dubious activities don't stop his songs being played. Admittedly, he was never actually convicted of anything.

 

But Phil Spector's a convicted murderer and we all merrily listen to his (tremendous) tunes. Chuck Berry was no angel and he was lauded as a great and his songs played during his lifetime.

 

I think probably we'd be better off separating the music from the artist and leaving it at that, otherwise we get into all sorts of double standard tangles.

 

The problem is that King, Glitter potentially had numerous victims many of whom are still going to be alive.

 

Plus, it surely doesn't have to be stated that their crimes are (correctly) viewed by society as the worst that can be committed.

 

We're not really talking about double standards here are we, but different levels of tolerance and forgiveness by society.

[choogling]

it would be a very brave d.j who would play his records at a wedding reception,just remembered sheffields pete gill ex motorhead/saxon once played drums for his band.

Edited August 5, 2017 by choogling

[Guest]

it would be a very brave d.j who would play his records at a wedding reception,just remembered sheffields pete gill ex motorhead/saxon once played drums for his band.

 

Do you know where in Sheffield he's from? I'm not asking for house number, just general area. Thanks.

[Olive]

The problem is that King, Glitter potentially had numerous victims many of whom are still going to be alive.

 

Plus, it surely doesn't have to be stated that their crimes are (correctly) viewed by society as the worst that can be committed.

 

We're not really talking about double standards here are we, but different levels of tolerance and forgiveness by society.

 

It's a good point about being sensitive to potential victims, I agree with you there.

Not sure about the double standards though. Murder has the highest sentencing tariff, but nobody bats an eyelid at playing Phil Spector, that doesn't make much sense to me. Or is it that we are generally prepared to overlook the worst of crimes if someone is deemed a true genius?

Edited August 5, 2017 by Olive

[Love2print]

I agree with all of that . Its history in one way or another and even though evil things happen ,is it right that it should airbrushed out of history?

 

I think the problem with showing him on TV is that his victims might see it.

 

Listening/watching in your home is one thing, searching on the internet too - these are personal times you are watching, listening or reading.

 

But TV is broadcast into everyone's homes. I'd imagine it must be hard for victims if they just happen to channel flick and then come across him. Same with Radio too, getting in the car and having one of his song's come on. And it's not like it is showing him in a fair light.

 

When we show programmes about historical criminals like Hitler we show it in a fair way as possible, we don't show him as nice, warm guy (might have been to his friends) we show the evils he committed. It could be said that his victims might be watching (I don't think they will be that many left now) but I think the difference is he wasn't the one actually committing the atrocities himself, he got others to do that.

 

The victims of a crime will remember the perpetrator more vividly then the person who ordered the crime.

 

Also I think the type of crime does effect people's opinion. Rape of a child or adult is very personal crime.

 

If you were raped and had to see your rapist singing a song on TV, being applauded and liked knowing what he had done how would it make you feel?

 

I don't think his music should be erased but I think quite rightly broadcasters are using their discretion about what to show.