Should they play or should they go?

[robertson]

Do you think music by Gary Glitter should be played on the radio & TV? If not, how do you feel about that of other convicted artists such as Chuck Berry, James Brown and Jonathan King getting airplay?

[ugly_bob]

don't see why they shouldn't.

Except I don't like Gary Glitter's music

Could extend that list to Michael Jackson and the Who, even though there were no convictions

[Goodsoulette]

Were they all child sex offenders? I hate to think of them making money when there are so many other artists that could be used instead.

I dont think Gary Glitters should be played, I dont want to hear it. Not just because its utter sh1te either.

[Booldawg]

Music and how people live who create music are two totally different platforms and really shouldnt affect each other. Listening to Gary Glitter music wouldnt encourage anyone to be like him.

[ugly_bob]

not forgetting R Kelly!!!

his music is turd too

[Whickerman]

Fair point - hadn't thought of it before.

Ugly_bob - fair enough re the Who, but Michael Jackson was found not guilty. (No, not a fan)

[andy-hughes]

This point has been raised and debated several times before, and it comes down to a simple question -

Should the artist be separate from their art?

I am inclined to think that they should. I'm not an opera fan, but I notice that Wagner's flagrent anti-Semitisim doesn't prevent his work being performed around thw world - with the exception of isreal, who still will not countenance his music being performed.

I adore Gary Glitter as an artist, but loathe and despise Paul Gadd as a man, so I don;t have a problem hearing his records, or that he continues to make money from them.

I cannot think of any other profession where people would contemplate someone being tried by jury, convicted, sentenced, and freed, only to find people advocating the removal of their livelyhood - it simply doesn't happen - if it did, Lord Archer's books would be burning as we speak.

Enjoying someone's art does not ever involve embracing their lifestyle choices, unless the recipient chooses so to do - it's not a pre-requisite of enjoying the art in the first place.

Public taste should judge if these artists should have their music played or not - b ut that should not be based on their lives and actions, merely on the music they produce.

[robbo82]

And Bill Wyman of the Rolling Stones met Mandy Smith when she was 14. Come to think of it, it seems most major artists have some link to paedophilia!

[andy-hughes]

Actually Ward-Minter, your comparison is somewhat flawed -

Elvis courted Priscilla with her parents' permission, and she had already developed a consensual relationship with him before she stayed in his home under the guardianship of his father and a number of female family and staff members.

That hardly equates to Gary Glitter convicted of possession of child prnography, moving to countries of the world where child abuse by foreigners is known and largely accepted, abusing children, and then paying off their families to drop legal proceedings, and then telling anyone who will listen - including the BBC, that he 'thought they were over the age of consent'.

Elvis' relationship with Priscilla may well raise questions, but within the context of the culture in which he was raised, relationships with girls of that age was a cultural norm. The same cannot be said for Gary Glitter.

So, it is actually not 'no worse than Gary Glitter really' - it is a damned sight worse, and i think, if you think about it you will agree.

[andy-hughes]

Well argued W-M - I concede your point.

[THAIBUS]

I think Gary Glitter's music from the 70's should still be played, Some of his songs were great and The Glitter band still tour. It is up to the public if he ever has a future in the Music world. I would like to see Artists who promote drugs through there music and lifestyle to stop getting airplay.