No one can condone the actions of Garry Glitter, Jimmy Saville, and possibly (probably) a number of other 70's celebrities. It is a fact of history that these people entertained a nation, and no amount of back-pedalling now can undo their contribution to entertainment (or their now uncovered crimes)
No one can condone the actions of Garry Glitter, Jimmy Saville, and possibly (probably) a number of other 70's celebrities. It is a fact of history that these people entertained a nation, and no amount of back-pedalling now can undo their contribution to entertainment (or their now uncovered crimes)
! agree. Whilst I don't like and am disgusted at paedophiles and hate what Paul Gadd did, I can disassociate him from Gary Glitter.
I do like Gary Glitters songs and I do still often listen to them. You can not change history..
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.
im not so sure that glam gave us bowie, he was (as i guess you know) going long before... as i see it, bowie used glam.
on the other hand i do think glam gave us roxy, im not sure we would have had roxy without glam.
yeah, what a miserable time the early 70's was IF (like me) you didnt fit into one of the four polarised camps. (sweet soul/philly, rock, glam, prog). non of those styles of fashions appealed to me, although some material from all those styles did. but i disliked prog, still do, whilst gg was on the right lines it wasnt until punk and new wave did i get back the style i liked (60's - esque guitar bands).
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.
A convicted paedophile versus someone never convicted of anything. Not relevant at all.
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.
You lot have made my day with your fallacious 'arguments' which seem designed to try to convince yourselves more than anything. Happily, most people are more intelligent and clear-thinking...
A convicted paedophile versus someone never convicted of anything. Not relevant at all.
Michael Jackson is always mentioned in threads about Gary Glitter and that's definitely unfair, in my opinion.
However, what happened to Michael Jackson's reputation even though he was never convicted - there are people right here on digitalspy who consistently say MJ was guilty, as though it is proven fact - illustrates why people have even less time for Gary Glitter and hence helps answer the OP's question... Gary Glitter is definitely guilty and his music isn't even all that good (in my opinion). Hence, his crimes always overshadow his output.
You lot have made my day with your fallacious 'arguments' which seem designed to try to convince yourselves more than anything. Happily, most people are more intelligent and clear-thinking...
I don't really know who you are having a dig at to be honest but you quoted me so I assume it's me.
Anyway, please explain why my argument is fallacious. I think it shows more intelligence and clear-thinking than anyone simply spouting "Michael Jackson is guilty" as though they themselves have proven it. And those people are all over digitalspy like a rash.
I don't see how people are somehow going to be more forgiving of Jackson if they think he's guilty of a crime that's somehow not as bad as Glitter's. People group paedophiles together, regardless of what their individual offences may be.
My point was that, surely, people should be more forgiving of Michael Jackson because he wasn't found guilty. Undeniably, a lot of people ARE NOT more forgiving, in spite of nobody being able to prove him guilty. And that, in turn, explains why people are possibly even less likely of overlooking the crimes committed by Glitter, because he was proven guilty.
It was such a shame on so many levels that he turned out the way he did. I used to love his music when I was a kid in the early 70s and me and my mates even saw him live later - it was a New Years Eve gig at Bournemouth [ Westworld were supporting, remember them? ] and it was live on the BBC...my right shoulder was on camera!
It was a great night out...a couple of classic songs.
It's well known he settled in the first court case. It's interesting that lots of people assume he's guilty because of that. But that's still their opinion and it has never been proven.
In the second court case, he was acquitted. And yet lots of people still believe he was guilty. I had an argument on here with someone who claimed it FACT he was guilty of child abuse. That's right, he claimed HE proved something the state of California wasn't ever able to. THAT's the state of misfeeling towards Jackson we are talking about.
All this does is reinforce the notion that reputations are ruined even when it hasn't been proven that a crime has even been committed. In Glitter's case, it WAS proven. The OP asked "why do people ignore his amazing contribution to the music industry?" and I think the answer is pretty obvious.
If you want to go deeper than that, the question is why isn't society able to disconnect a man's creative output from his crimes? And I suppose that would be easier if he was found guilty of stealing a Mars bar from Tesco. But child abuse is one of the most abhorrent crimes there is, it stands to reason that more people are going to have difficulty disconnecting the two.
believe me if 'glitter' had a spare 15 million bucks lying around like sicko jackson did he [glitter] would have never gone to prison...never.
sicko jackson apologists and defenders make me wanna vomit...he was a disgusting pedo just like glitter and savile.
never liked his 'one trick pony' music either..hugely overated and has dated very badly...timeless music [like the beatles catalogue] gets better with time and dosent sound cheesy and cheap like the 'thriller' album...utter garbage....makes the band 'queen' sound good its that bad!.
i think i would sooner listen to glitters work if i was forced to choose.
believe me if 'glitter' had a spare 15 million bucks lying around like sicko jackson did he [glitter] would have never gone to prison...never.
This is rubbish. Glitter never had the opportunity to reach a settlement in his case, it was a criminal investigation from the get go and he was found guilty.
sicko jackson apologists and defenders make me wanna vomit...he was a disgusting pedo just like glitter and savile.
never liked his 'one trick pony' music either..hugely overated and has dated very badly...timeless music [like the beatles catalogue] gets better with time and dosent sound cheesy and cheap like the 'thriller' album...utter garbage....makes the band 'queen' sound good its that bad!.
i think i would sooner listen to glitters work if i was forced to choose.
I do hope you're not calling me a "sicko jackson apologist and defender". You do, however, illustrate my point quite well that his reputation was/is in tatters, irrespective of whether or not he actually committed a crime.
It remains the case there is no such dubiety with Glitter and, your personal opinion aside, it stands to reason that people are likely to be even less able/willing to disconnect the man from his creative output in Glitter's case.
Michael Jackson is always mentioned in threads about Gary Glitter and that's definitely unfair, in my opinion.
However, what happened to Michael Jackson's reputation even though he was never convicted - there are people right here on digitalspy who consistently say MJ was guilty, as though it is proven fact - illustrates why people have even less time for Gary Glitter and hence helps answer the OP's question... Gary Glitter is definitely guilty and his music isn't even all that good (in my opinion). Hence, his crimes always overshadow his output.
.... i think most people think that he 'got off' with it more then he was found not guilty. there is a huge grey area when that much money in concerned.
true, the court found him not guilty of sex offences. but. his behaviour towards minors is classic paedo and isnt considered 'appropriate'. that behaviour isnt in doubt, he did do that. (its the actual sex thing that wasnt proven)
believe me if 'glitter' had a spare 15 million bucks lying around like sicko jackson did he [glitter] would have never gone to prison...never.
sicko jackson apologists and defenders make me wanna vomit...he was a disgusting pedo just like glitter and savile.
never liked his 'one trick pony' music either..hugely overated and has dated very badly...timeless music [like the beatles catalogue] gets better with time and dosent sound cheesy and cheap like the 'thriller' album...utter garbage....makes the band 'queen' sound good its that bad!.
i think i would sooner listen to glitters work if i was forced to choose.
legally though... he was not.
they failed to prove that he had sexually molested anyone, therefore whilst many might think that he 'got off' he legally wasnt convicted of anything sexual.
believe me if 'glitter' had a spare 15 million bucks lying around like sicko jackson did he [glitter] would have never gone to prison...never.
sicko jackson apologists and defenders make me wanna vomit...he was a disgusting pedo just like glitter and savile.
never liked his 'one trick pony' music either..hugely overated and has dated very badly...timeless music [like the beatles catalogue] gets better with time and dosent sound cheesy and cheap like the 'thriller' album...utter garbage....makes the band 'queen' sound good its that bad!.
i think i would sooner listen to glitters work if i was forced to choose.
.... i think most people think that he 'got off' with it more then he was found not guilty. there is a huge grey area when that much money in concerned.
true, the court found him not guilty of sex offences. but. his behaviour towards minors is classic paedo and isnt considered 'appropriate'. that behaviour isnt in doubt, he did do that. (its the actual sex thing that wasnt proven)
Are you an expert in offences against children?
The fact that you used the word 'paedo' leaves me to believe you're not.
GG is a bad example as after R&R Pts 1&2 his output was pretty forgettable. But, the wider question is interesting. Should the personality be separated from the art? A classical example being Richard Wagner, a foul individual, especially once the Holocaust had happened, but a creator of great works of music. Should his music be proscribed because he was a massive anti-Semite? Or does the music acquire a life of its own once published? Even if it must include at least a partial amount of the essence of its creator? If the music does stand despite its creator, then why not more GG on the radio? Or any of the other deeply flawed or, often, criminal artists who have entertained us royally in the past?
Why do people ignore his amazing contribution to the music industry?
Because he got off on watching images of young children being raped?
Phil Collins is a much bigger figure in music worldwide but his reputation in the music business is nearly as bad as Glitter's these days and he's never even been to prison for anything.
How about a singer convicted of 'Lewd' behaviour and a several driving and drug convictions?
If you held illegal drug use against pop artists you'd be left with very little in the rock and roll business. Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger and Elton John, all known for having drugs backgrounds, have become knights of the realm FFS!
Phil Collins is a much bigger figure in music worldwide but his reputation in the music business is nearly as bad as Glitter's these days and he's never even been to prison for anything.
My point was that an incredibly successful performer can have their reputation absolutely gutted for any reason and that, in the scheme of things, contrary to what the original poster may think, Glitter hasn't had a raw deal in my opinion considering the gravity of his offences.
My point was that an incredibly successful performer can have their reputation absolutely gutted for any reason and that, in the scheme of things, contrary to what the original poster may think, Glitter hasn't had a raw deal in my opinion considering the gravity of his offences.
Nah...still don't get it. I'm no fan of Phil Collins, but I can't see why you think he has a 'reputation'?
Comments
! agree. Whilst I don't like and am disgusted at paedophiles and hate what Paul Gadd did, I can disassociate him from Gary Glitter.
I do like Gary Glitters songs and I do still often listen to them. You can not change history..
im not so sure that glam gave us bowie, he was (as i guess you know) going long before... as i see it, bowie used glam.
on the other hand i do think glam gave us roxy, im not sure we would have had roxy without glam.
yeah, what a miserable time the early 70's was IF (like me) you didnt fit into one of the four polarised camps. (sweet soul/philly, rock, glam, prog). non of those styles of fashions appealed to me, although some material from all those styles did. but i disliked prog, still do, whilst gg was on the right lines it wasnt until punk and new wave did i get back the style i liked (60's - esque guitar bands).
A convicted paedophile versus someone never convicted of anything. Not relevant at all.
A lot of his written work appears regularly in American entertainment though probably under his name of P Gadd and as such receives royalties.
Michael Jackson is always mentioned in threads about Gary Glitter and that's definitely unfair, in my opinion.
However, what happened to Michael Jackson's reputation even though he was never convicted - there are people right here on digitalspy who consistently say MJ was guilty, as though it is proven fact - illustrates why people have even less time for Gary Glitter and hence helps answer the OP's question... Gary Glitter is definitely guilty and his music isn't even all that good (in my opinion). Hence, his crimes always overshadow his output.
I don't really know who you are having a dig at to be honest but you quoted me so I assume it's me.
Anyway, please explain why my argument is fallacious. I think it shows more intelligence and clear-thinking than anyone simply spouting "Michael Jackson is guilty" as though they themselves have proven it. And those people are all over digitalspy like a rash.
I don't see how people are somehow going to be more forgiving of Jackson if they think he's guilty of a crime that's somehow not as bad as Glitter's. People group paedophiles together, regardless of what their individual offences may be.
My point was that, surely, people should be more forgiving of Michael Jackson because he wasn't found guilty. Undeniably, a lot of people ARE NOT more forgiving, in spite of nobody being able to prove him guilty. And that, in turn, explains why people are possibly even less likely of overlooking the crimes committed by Glitter, because he was proven guilty.
It was a great night out...a couple of classic songs.
It's well known he settled in the first court case. It's interesting that lots of people assume he's guilty because of that. But that's still their opinion and it has never been proven.
In the second court case, he was acquitted. And yet lots of people still believe he was guilty. I had an argument on here with someone who claimed it FACT he was guilty of child abuse. That's right, he claimed HE proved something the state of California wasn't ever able to. THAT's the state of misfeeling towards Jackson we are talking about.
All this does is reinforce the notion that reputations are ruined even when it hasn't been proven that a crime has even been committed. In Glitter's case, it WAS proven. The OP asked "why do people ignore his amazing contribution to the music industry?" and I think the answer is pretty obvious.
If you want to go deeper than that, the question is why isn't society able to disconnect a man's creative output from his crimes? And I suppose that would be easier if he was found guilty of stealing a Mars bar from Tesco. But child abuse is one of the most abhorrent crimes there is, it stands to reason that more people are going to have difficulty disconnecting the two.
How about a singer convicted of 'Lewd' behaviour and a several driving and drug convictions?
sicko jackson apologists and defenders make me wanna vomit...he was a disgusting pedo just like glitter and savile.
never liked his 'one trick pony' music either..hugely overated and has dated very badly...timeless music [like the beatles catalogue] gets better with time and dosent sound cheesy and cheap like the 'thriller' album...utter garbage....makes the band 'queen' sound good its that bad!.
i think i would sooner listen to glitters work if i was forced to choose.
I don't know, what about him?
This is rubbish. Glitter never had the opportunity to reach a settlement in his case, it was a criminal investigation from the get go and he was found guilty.
I do hope you're not calling me a "sicko jackson apologist and defender". You do, however, illustrate my point quite well that his reputation was/is in tatters, irrespective of whether or not he actually committed a crime.
It remains the case there is no such dubiety with Glitter and, your personal opinion aside, it stands to reason that people are likely to be even less able/willing to disconnect the man from his creative output in Glitter's case.
.... i think most people think that he 'got off' with it more then he was found not guilty. there is a huge grey area when that much money in concerned.
true, the court found him not guilty of sex offences. but. his behaviour towards minors is classic paedo and isnt considered 'appropriate'. that behaviour isnt in doubt, he did do that. (its the actual sex thing that wasnt proven)
legally though... he was not.
they failed to prove that he had sexually molested anyone, therefore whilst many might think that he 'got off' he legally wasnt convicted of anything sexual.
Deleted
Are you an expert in offences against children?
The fact that you used the word 'paedo' leaves me to believe you're not.
Because he got off on watching images of young children being raped?
Phil Collins is a much bigger figure in music worldwide but his reputation in the music business is nearly as bad as Glitter's these days and he's never even been to prison for anything.
If you held illegal drug use against pop artists you'd be left with very little in the rock and roll business. Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger and Elton John, all known for having drugs backgrounds, have become knights of the realm FFS!
Have I missed something here?
My point was that an incredibly successful performer can have their reputation absolutely gutted for any reason and that, in the scheme of things, contrary to what the original poster may think, Glitter hasn't had a raw deal in my opinion considering the gravity of his offences.
Nah...still don't get it. I'm no fan of Phil Collins, but I can't see why you think he has a 'reputation'?