Jokes4 mins ago
Gary Glitter Released
after serving 8 of his 16 year sentence - do you think he could resurrect his music career? I still enjoy his records and would probably go to a gig if he did one locally. Or do you think he should be permanently outcast?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lankeela. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Before I know Gary Glitter was a paedophile, I just thought of him as a singer. Not my cup of tea, but not too offensive.
Now, if I heard him (and I must say I never hear him anywhere these days) it would make me vomit. The same singer, the same song, that 40 years was OK, would now be repulsive to me.
I guess, for me, it's the whole context that's important ...
Now, if I heard him (and I must say I never hear him anywhere these days) it would make me vomit. The same singer, the same song, that 40 years was OK, would now be repulsive to me.
I guess, for me, it's the whole context that's important ...
andres - // Just now we are not separating Gary Glitter from his musical career. What he did was abhorrent and disgusting. However in years to come there will be people playing his records and not giving a seconds thought as to what he did. Just like now when you visit an art gallery ,read a book , watch a film etc...I don't think that many people wonder what kind of a person the artists ,authors ,actors were? There were probably hundreds of unsavoury characters amongst them . //
You make an excellent point.
Take Caravaggio as an example.
More than four hundred years after his death, he is rightly glorified as one of the greatest painters who ever put brush to canvas.
His works hang in museums, he is the subject of countless lectures on the craft of painting, he is lauded as a genius in his field.
But I doubt if anyone stops looking at, or discussing, or enjoying his art, because in his lifetime, he was in court at least eleven times for assault and waving swords around in public, and that he fled into exile to escape a murder a charge.
Because time lends distance, and currently, Glitter's actions are raw and horrible in the memory of the public, hence the majority view on here.
But as you correctly point out, in years to come, his personal actions will fade from memory far, far faster than the memory of the records he made.
You make an excellent point.
Take Caravaggio as an example.
More than four hundred years after his death, he is rightly glorified as one of the greatest painters who ever put brush to canvas.
His works hang in museums, he is the subject of countless lectures on the craft of painting, he is lauded as a genius in his field.
But I doubt if anyone stops looking at, or discussing, or enjoying his art, because in his lifetime, he was in court at least eleven times for assault and waving swords around in public, and that he fled into exile to escape a murder a charge.
Because time lends distance, and currently, Glitter's actions are raw and horrible in the memory of the public, hence the majority view on here.
But as you correctly point out, in years to come, his personal actions will fade from memory far, far faster than the memory of the records he made.
Ellipsis - // Before I know Gary Glitter was a paedophile, I just thought of him as a singer. Not my cup of tea, but not too offensive.
Now, if I heard him (and I must say I never hear him anywhere these days) it would make me vomit. The same singer, the same song, that 40 years was OK, would now be repulsive to me.
I guess, for me, it's the whole context that's important ... //
I think that's a pretty fair summary of the rational view of the situation - some people, as on here, have had a far more extreme reaction, including rampant hostility to someone like me who does not share their need to bracket the art with the individual.
But as I have said, my view is in the minority, and I think you accurately sum up the views of the man on the Clapham omnibus.
Now, if I heard him (and I must say I never hear him anywhere these days) it would make me vomit. The same singer, the same song, that 40 years was OK, would now be repulsive to me.
I guess, for me, it's the whole context that's important ... //
I think that's a pretty fair summary of the rational view of the situation - some people, as on here, have had a far more extreme reaction, including rampant hostility to someone like me who does not share their need to bracket the art with the individual.
But as I have said, my view is in the minority, and I think you accurately sum up the views of the man on the Clapham omnibus.
My personal view- is it depends a lot on on association. Historical figures, I seem to be less bothered by- because they are either well before my lifetime and now dead... or quite likely- I don't honestly know what they were personally like, so I am unaware. There are perhaps loads of current people just as bad- but I am just not aware.
When I am though- it does fully affect me- because, I think, like most people- I listen to music from an emotional point of view.
I did actually like the Lostprophets at one point... but ended up throwing their CDs out, when I realised that while i might listen to music that makes me sad even... I was never going to look for feeling disgusted, nauseous.... etc and that is now what I associate them with.
The music is irrelevant now- I am just never ever going to be able to play them- without feeling physically sick. Not a feeling I ever look for with "entertainment'.
When I am though- it does fully affect me- because, I think, like most people- I listen to music from an emotional point of view.
I did actually like the Lostprophets at one point... but ended up throwing their CDs out, when I realised that while i might listen to music that makes me sad even... I was never going to look for feeling disgusted, nauseous.... etc and that is now what I associate them with.
The music is irrelevant now- I am just never ever going to be able to play them- without feeling physically sick. Not a feeling I ever look for with "entertainment'.
Pixie - // My personal view- is it depends a lot on on association. Historical figures, I seem to be less bothered by- because they are either well before my lifetime and now dead... or quite likely- I don't honestly know what they were personally like, so I am unaware. There are perhaps loads of current people just as bad- but I am just not aware.
When I am though- it does fully affect me- because, I think, like most people- I listen to music from an emotional point of view.
I did actually like the Lostprophets at one point... but ended up throwing their CDs out, when I realised that while i might listen to music that makes me sad even... I was never going to look for feeling disgusted, nauseous.... etc and that is now what I associate them with.
The music is irrelevant now- I am just never ever going to be able to play them- without feeling physically sick. Not a feeling I ever look for with "entertainment'. //
As you say at the opening of your post, this is entirely a matter of personal choice, and again I absolutely respect your right to feel as you do, as I do for everyone who has posted.
Interestingly, another poster suggests that paedophilia places Glitter in a higher place on the revulsion scale than Caravaggio, who merely murdered someone, but as andres pointed out, it is not the difference in crimes that makes the difference, it is the timescale involved.
Glitter's crimes are utterly fresh in the minds of everyone, and resonate far more strongly for that reason.
But time alters perceptions, and I think andres is quite right, behaviour that is seen as inextricably linked to an artist in his or her lifetime, may well have less significance in terms of how their art is viewed when a large amount of time has passed.
We cannot know, obviously, but it seems a valid supposition in my view.
For now, those who are unable to separate art from the artist will opt to avoid the art in question, those who are not will continue to experience it.
And interestingly, although I have single-handedly fielded the flack for my viewpoint, lankeela, who raised the issue in the first place, has similarly advised an enjoyment of Glitter's music.
She has also gone further than I would, in confirming that she would attend a live show were one to be forthcoming.
Referring back to zac's nonsensical argument that enjoying music 'supports' the artist's career, which is ludicrous, I am happy to confirm that I would not pay to see Glitter perform, because that actually would be supporting his career, and is something I would not be willing to do.
I am not for a minute inviting the angry brigade to turn their guns on Lankeela, but it is interesting that her view, more 'supportive' than mine, has not attracted one single comment, hostile or otherwise.
Interesting ...
When I am though- it does fully affect me- because, I think, like most people- I listen to music from an emotional point of view.
I did actually like the Lostprophets at one point... but ended up throwing their CDs out, when I realised that while i might listen to music that makes me sad even... I was never going to look for feeling disgusted, nauseous.... etc and that is now what I associate them with.
The music is irrelevant now- I am just never ever going to be able to play them- without feeling physically sick. Not a feeling I ever look for with "entertainment'. //
As you say at the opening of your post, this is entirely a matter of personal choice, and again I absolutely respect your right to feel as you do, as I do for everyone who has posted.
Interestingly, another poster suggests that paedophilia places Glitter in a higher place on the revulsion scale than Caravaggio, who merely murdered someone, but as andres pointed out, it is not the difference in crimes that makes the difference, it is the timescale involved.
Glitter's crimes are utterly fresh in the minds of everyone, and resonate far more strongly for that reason.
But time alters perceptions, and I think andres is quite right, behaviour that is seen as inextricably linked to an artist in his or her lifetime, may well have less significance in terms of how their art is viewed when a large amount of time has passed.
We cannot know, obviously, but it seems a valid supposition in my view.
For now, those who are unable to separate art from the artist will opt to avoid the art in question, those who are not will continue to experience it.
And interestingly, although I have single-handedly fielded the flack for my viewpoint, lankeela, who raised the issue in the first place, has similarly advised an enjoyment of Glitter's music.
She has also gone further than I would, in confirming that she would attend a live show were one to be forthcoming.
Referring back to zac's nonsensical argument that enjoying music 'supports' the artist's career, which is ludicrous, I am happy to confirm that I would not pay to see Glitter perform, because that actually would be supporting his career, and is something I would not be willing to do.
I am not for a minute inviting the angry brigade to turn their guns on Lankeela, but it is interesting that her view, more 'supportive' than mine, has not attracted one single comment, hostile or otherwise.
Interesting ...
'Doing Alright With The Boys' is one of GG's that I still play. I don't think of him or of his vile past when I play it....I think of my much-loved brother who died young. He was a big fan of GG and the Glitter Band and listening to it takes me back to happy times with my much-loved and very much missed brother.
If that makes me a bad person, so be it.
If that makes me a bad person, so be it.
Canary - // Incidentally I regard Caravaggio as a far far greater giant in the History of Painting than Glitter in the History of Music. //
So do I, and I would expect anyone with more than a passing knowledge of either to do the same.
I chose Caravaggio purely as an arbitrary illustration of the way in which time erases the memories, or even the knowledge, of an artist's personal life, while the art they created lives on after them, in my view, entirely separate from them.
So do I, and I would expect anyone with more than a passing knowledge of either to do the same.
I chose Caravaggio purely as an arbitrary illustration of the way in which time erases the memories, or even the knowledge, of an artist's personal life, while the art they created lives on after them, in my view, entirely separate from them.
windywillow - //
'Doing Alright With The Boys' is one of GG's that I still play. I don't think of him or of his vile past when I play it....I think of my much-loved brother who died young. He was a big fan of GG and the Glitter Band and listening to it takes me back to happy times with my much-loved and very much missed brother.
If that makes me a bad person, so be it. //
In my view, clearly it doesn't, I would not presume to speak for the majority on this thread.
But your post does illustrate a vital point about art.
It is enjoyed on millions of levels by millions of individuals, and we each approach our enjoyment according to how we see and hear the art we enjoy, and the artists who create it, and whether or not we perceive unbreakable links between the two, or not.
'Doing Alright With The Boys' is one of GG's that I still play. I don't think of him or of his vile past when I play it....I think of my much-loved brother who died young. He was a big fan of GG and the Glitter Band and listening to it takes me back to happy times with my much-loved and very much missed brother.
If that makes me a bad person, so be it. //
In my view, clearly it doesn't, I would not presume to speak for the majority on this thread.
But your post does illustrate a vital point about art.
It is enjoyed on millions of levels by millions of individuals, and we each approach our enjoyment according to how we see and hear the art we enjoy, and the artists who create it, and whether or not we perceive unbreakable links between the two, or not.
The "X Factor" refers to the undefinable "something" that makes for star quality. That's why the TV program was called.
There are innumerable examples. Two very famous ones: Elvis Presley or Beyonce Knowles. It's the whole package.
There are many more innumerable examples that did not have the X Factor.
Gary Glitter would also showed X Factor, originally, for some. But not now! Something that takes the star quality??? God, no.
Let's put it this way ... if Gary Glitter was a known paedophile before he started his music career, would he have gone as successful, popular or admired ...
There are innumerable examples. Two very famous ones: Elvis Presley or Beyonce Knowles. It's the whole package.
There are many more innumerable examples that did not have the X Factor.
Gary Glitter would also showed X Factor, originally, for some. But not now! Something that takes the star quality??? God, no.
Let's put it this way ... if Gary Glitter was a known paedophile before he started his music career, would he have gone as successful, popular or admired ...
Ellipsis - // Gary Glitter would also showed X Factor, originally, for some. But not now! Something that takes the star quality??? God, no. //
Gary Glitter was of his time, as was Glam Rock.
Would it fly as a musical style now, of course not, but neither would the majority of the transient fads that made and make pop music so enjoyable - and that's their appeal. They are for the moment, and when their time is up, they drop out, and remain as fond memories for some, and oblivion for others.
// Let's put it this way ... if Gary Glitter was a known paedophile before he started his music career, would he have gone as successful, popular or admired ... //
I think we know the answer to that without giving it too much thought!
Gary Glitter was of his time, as was Glam Rock.
Would it fly as a musical style now, of course not, but neither would the majority of the transient fads that made and make pop music so enjoyable - and that's their appeal. They are for the moment, and when their time is up, they drop out, and remain as fond memories for some, and oblivion for others.
// Let's put it this way ... if Gary Glitter was a known paedophile before he started his music career, would he have gone as successful, popular or admired ... //
I think we know the answer to that without giving it too much thought!
Where do you draw the line, though, if you draw one at all? Brief mention has already been made of Bill Wyman, but what about the serial adulterer and bigamist Jerry Lee Lewis, who married his first cousin when she was only 13? She bore her first child at just the age of 14, later filing for divorce on grounds of adultery and spousal abuse?
Great Balls of Fire, anybody?
Great Balls of Fire, anybody?
JimF - // Where do you draw the line, though, if you draw one at all? Brief mention has already been made of Bill Wyman, but what about the serial adulterer and bigamist Jerry Lee Lewis, who married his first cousin when she was only 13? She bore her first child at just the age of 14, later filing for divorce on grounds of adultery and spousal abuse?
Great Balls of Fire, anybody? //
An interesting point.
Obviously it's not a problem for me, because I have no line to draw, since the actions of the artist don't, in my view, affect enjoyment of the art.
But it will be interesting to see what the majority who have posted otherwise feel.
Is Elvis as bad for sleeping with a fourteeen-year-old, with the tacit approval of her parents?
Is, as you say, The Killer as bad for acting in a way that was perfectly acceptable in the time and place where he lived, but caused outrage here, although, significantly, did nothing to harm either his record sales or touring opportunities in later years?
Not a moral dilemma I have to wrestle with, so I await with interest the responses of those who do.
Great Balls of Fire, anybody? //
An interesting point.
Obviously it's not a problem for me, because I have no line to draw, since the actions of the artist don't, in my view, affect enjoyment of the art.
But it will be interesting to see what the majority who have posted otherwise feel.
Is Elvis as bad for sleeping with a fourteeen-year-old, with the tacit approval of her parents?
Is, as you say, The Killer as bad for acting in a way that was perfectly acceptable in the time and place where he lived, but caused outrage here, although, significantly, did nothing to harm either his record sales or touring opportunities in later years?
Not a moral dilemma I have to wrestle with, so I await with interest the responses of those who do.
16:12, that was actually my point... the association- which is stronger the more recent, or definite (Michael Jackson?) it is.
Out of interest, Andy, because in a different way, there can be a similar effect at my work.... But, because you professionally review music... is that how you separate between a personal liking and a technical music ability?
Out of interest, Andy, because in a different way, there can be a similar effect at my work.... But, because you professionally review music... is that how you separate between a personal liking and a technical music ability?
