Gary Glitter

HayleyXDHayleyXD Posts: 1,221
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Why do people ignore his amazing contribution to the music industry?
«1345

Comments

  • degsyhufcdegsyhufc Posts: 59,251
    Forum Member
    Maybe they don't like that style of music
  • marcusgvmarcusgv Posts: 135
    Forum Member
    Probably because of his association with child pornography?

    Mike Leander produced and co-wrote much of Gary Glitter's best work. I have many of the early singles and they were great, a restatement of some rock n'roll essentials and sounding very tribal....but reputation is all.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,215
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    marcusgv wrote: »
    Probably because of his association with child pornography?

    Mike Leander produced and co-wrote much of Gary Glitter's best work. I have many of the early singles and they were great, a restatement of some rock n'roll essentials and sounding very tribal....but reputation is all.


    This


    I saw him in Brighton years ago, and must say he was great,
    but what a pig he turned out to be:mad:
  • misslibertinemisslibertine Posts: 14,306
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'd imagine people are put off by his personality/reputation. I'm sure that could take away from even the best musical output.
  • lovedoctor1978lovedoctor1978 Posts: 2,327
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'd imagine people are put off by his personality/reputation. I'm sure that could take away from even the best musical output.

    Two words: Michael Jackson.
  • BenllechBenllech Posts: 2,289
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cos he did naughty things.
  • lovedoctor1978lovedoctor1978 Posts: 2,327
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I said it before and I will say it a million times again. Gary Glitter is a character created by, and played by Paul Gadd.
    If the man who voiced Scooby Doo was commited of the same crimes, would everyone be calling Scooby Doo a peado, pervert etc? Of course not.
  • mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I said it before and I will say it a million times again. Gary Glitter is a character created by, and played by Paul Gadd.
    If the man who voiced Scooby Doo was commited of the same crimes, would everyone be calling Scooby Doo a peado, pervert etc? Of course not.

    cant you see the huge flaw in your reasoning here?
  • mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    HayleyXD wrote: »
    Why do people ignore his amazing contribution to the music industry?

    apart from the obvious, just what was his amazing contribution to the music industry?... a bloke on the edge on middle age, dressed like a silver clown, strutting around like a shocked chicken, singing distinctly average pop songs....

    glam rock was abit of a joke, maybe that was its appeal, but there were far bigger, better acts out of that genre then gary glitter. slade, sweet and t rex were by and large far superior.
  • Dave3622Dave3622 Posts: 1,819
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Two words: Michael Jackson.

    What Michael Jackson was 'ALLEGED' to have done, and cleared of in court, was nowhere near as bad as what Glitter did.
  • EatitLosersEatitLosers Posts: 97
    Forum Member
    Dave3622 wrote: »
    What Michael Jackson was 'ALLEGED' to have done, and cleared of in court, was nowhere near as bad as what Glitter did.

    Agreed.
  • gasheadgashead Posts: 13,806
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I said it before and I will say it a million times again. Gary Glitter is a character created by, and played by Paul Gadd.
    If the man who voiced Scooby Doo was commited of the same crimes, would everyone be calling Scooby Doo a peado, pervert etc? Of course not.
    Possibly the worst logical argument I've come across on DS, and that's saying something.
  • newplanetnewplanet Posts: 398
    Forum Member
    Dave3622 wrote: »
    What Michael Jackson was 'ALLEGED' to have done, and cleared of in court, was nowhere near as bad as what Glitter did.

    I am sure what you are trying to say is that Michael Jackson shouldn't be seen to be as bad as Gary Glitter because Jackson was cleared and Glitter was not? Because otherwise I don't think anyone will give Jackson any leeway for Glitter being found guilty of doing something worse than what Jackson was accused of.

    They should probably give Michael Jackson leeway for not being found guilty, however. And that is the crux of the issue, the reputation sticks regardless. And either Michael Jackson was guilty or he wasn't. And if he wasn't, there was a huge injustice (same goes if he was, of course).

    There is no such dubiety with Glitter and, to be honest, I am not sure he was even all that good. Hence, his notoriety will always overshadow any of his musical achievements.
  • Deep PurpleDeep Purple Posts: 63,255
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm not sure Glitter made an amazing contribution to music.

    A few hit singles, from a character made for the time, is hardly the stuff of legend.
  • mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    newplanet wrote: »
    I am sure what you are trying to say is that Michael Jackson shouldn't be seen to be as bad as Gary Glitter because Jackson was cleared and Glitter was not? Because otherwise I don't think anyone will give Jackson any leeway for Glitter being found guilty of doing something worse than what Jackson was accused of.

    They should probably give Michael Jackson leeway for not being found guilty, however. And that is the crux of the issue, the reputation sticks regardless. And either Michael Jackson was guilty or he wasn't. And if he wasn't, there was a huge injustice (same goes if he was, of course).

    There is no such dubiety with Glitter and, to be honest, I am not sure he was even all that good. Hence, his notoriety will always overshadow any of his musical achievements.

    indeed, its easy to ignore a pop act like glitter if you dont regard his material as being important enough to overlook his crimes. glitter does have fans, they can overlook/seperate the man from the crime. most of the rest of us cant be arsed because his material to us simply isnt worth it. i wonder how things would have developed if jacko was found guilty?..
  • mushymanrobmushymanrob Posts: 17,992
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm not sure Glitter made an amazing contribution to music.

    A few hit singles, from a character made for the time, is hardly the stuff of legend.

    its a fact that he did! :p:D;)
  • Aidan11Aidan11 Posts: 539
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    When I was a lad, young girls had pictures of him on their bedroom wall.

    Now it's the other way round.
  • walterwhitewalterwhite Posts: 56,541
    Forum Member
    Two words: Michael Jackson.

    How is that relevant exactly?
  • newplanetnewplanet Posts: 398
    Forum Member
    How is that relevant exactly?

    In the context of this thread, it's fairly relevant. I assume that lovedoctor1978 mentioned it because Jackson is a prime example of notoriety overshadowing musical output. The allegations against Jackson STILL cast a shadow, even though nobody was ever able to prove him guilty of it. In Glitter's case you could argue his musical output was of less quality than Jackson's (it's all subjective of course) and his crimes are absolutely 100% certain - so of course Glitter's musical output is overshadowed by his crimes.
  • bryemycazbryemycaz Posts: 11,735
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    One of the biggets problems with Glitters songs is the titles.

    You wanna be in my Gang, er no. Do you wanna Touch me. No Thanks.

    Rock N Roll Part 2 is still played in parts of the world as whilsty sung by him you dont immediatly link it to the disgusting things he did.
  • marcusgvmarcusgv Posts: 135
    Forum Member
    apart from the obvious, just what was his amazing contribution to the music industry?... a bloke on the edge on middle age, dressed like a silver clown, strutting around like a shocked chicken, singing distinctly average pop songs....

    glam rock was abit of a joke, maybe that was its appeal, but there were far bigger, better acts out of that genre then gary glitter. slade, sweet and t rex were by and large far superior.

    Glam rock wasn't the greatest form of rock music but it did give us Bolan, Bowie and Roxy.

    Yes, Gary Glitter did not make 'an amazing contribution' but his early records in their stripped down form were a great contrast to the pompous complexity of the prog rock of the time.
  • imarshimarsh Posts: 275
    Forum Member
    newplanet wrote: »
    I am sure what you are trying to say is that Michael Jackson shouldn't be seen to be as bad as Gary Glitter because Jackson was cleared and Glitter was not? Because otherwise I don't think anyone will give Jackson any leeway for Glitter being found guilty of doing something worse than what Jackson was accused of.

    They should probably give Michael Jackson leeway for not being found guilty, however. And that is the crux of the issue, the reputation sticks regardless. And either Michael Jackson was guilty or he wasn't. And if he wasn't, there was a huge injustice (same goes if he was, of course).

    There is no such dubiety with Glitter and, to be honest, I am not sure he was even all that good. Hence, his notoriety will always overshadow any of his musical achievements.

    Didn't Jackson settle out of court?
  • gold2040gold2040 Posts: 3,049
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    imarsh wrote: »
    Didn't Jackson settle out of court?
    He did to the amount of $15,331,250

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/michael-jacksons-15-million-payoff?page=5
  • soransoran Posts: 1,644
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If you like the music, but hate the man, then don't forget that the Glitter Band are still going strong:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3-dGfIsfVY
  • Gill PGill P Posts: 21,568
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    My dubious claim to fame is that I lived round the corner from him in Banbury!
Sign In or Register to comment.