Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Fury As Gary Glitter Hit sung by children in pantomine
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
excon |
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
It is one thing if an individual chooses to boycott something from a sex offender (I cant see the point myself) but it seems a bit sinister for an organisation to deliberately ban it.
Exactly so. I have always maintained that under those circumstances the critical/aesthetic faculties cannot have been functioning in the first place. Either the music is good/aesthetically satisfying and competently written, or it is not. In this context I find what is supposed to have happened to the cash versus aesthetic value of Graham Ovenden's paintings especially pertinent, for example.
Do I imagine that British organisations in receipt of public money might pursue a very particular (and very sinister) agenda?
Utterly.  |
|
andrew |
Are You Being Served was shown before Christmas BBC edited a joke about GG, same with Man About The House with the question being said what you think about Gary Glitter then ? |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
excon wrote:
Regardless of the precise nature of Glitter/Gadd's offences unless a sentence of the court included his being stripped of intellectual property rights - and I am not aware that it did - so long as he continues to be the owner of those rights (or, at the very least, entitled to a share of the royalties) he will get his PRS/MCPRS cheque come rain or shine.
The BBC had a "pop" about a year back about/on some chap convicted of abuse that had written a book on how to play the recorder that had - until then - been widely used in primary schools. The import of the "pop" was that the book(s) should not be used is such situations.
The thing is, though, the public has a straightforward choice to make if it desires to express disapproval by withholding royalties from the composer or artist. As no-one forces the public to buy a recording/sheet music, by far the simplest thing to do is to stop buying it in the first place if the don't like or disapprove of the artist/composer.
And that would be a shame.
It is one thing if an individual chooses to boycott something from a sex offender (I cant see the point myself) but it seems a bit sinister for an organisation to deliberately ban it. |
|
excon |
Regardless of the precise nature of Glitter/Gadd's offences unless a sentence of the court included his being stripped of intellectual property rights - and I am not aware that it did - so long as he continues to be the owner of those rights (or, at the very least, entitled to a share of the royalties) he will get his PRS/MCPRS cheque come rain or shine.
The BBC had a "pop" about a year back about/on some chap convicted of abuse that had written a book on how to play the recorder that had - until then - been widely used in primary schools. The import of the "pop" was that the book(s) should not be used is such situations.
The thing is, though, the public has a straightforward choice to make if it desires to express disapproval by withholding royalties from the composer or artist. As no-one forces the public to buy a recording/sheet music, by far the simplest thing to do is to stop buying it in the first place if the don't like or disapprove of the artist/composer.
And that would be a shame. |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
andrew wrote:
USA were very laid back on Glitter's music, they used Rock and Roll for years after he was arrested. His albums still sell on Amazon and they would of done in HMV etc, they sell Bill Wyman, Elvis, Jerry Lee Lewis and R Kelly.
Its not quite the same thing though, because Wyman, Elvis, and Jerry Lee Lewis's girlfriends although younger were not actually "children" and were not raped, as (apparently) in the Glitter case, and it was in different times when it was acceptable. |
|
|
|
