free world? live and let live?... just like gadd has done to those children?

tbh i dont know why anybody would want to listen to that garbage, its over 35 years old now and theres been far better music since.

You are not helping him do anything he sold the rights to his music years ago

Mushymanrob, you really don't get it at all. Bill and Gary are cut from the same cloth.

And Smess83, Gary's music is actually more relevant than ever, seeing the preponderance of glam/pop and glam/electro tracks around these days using the archetypal "Rock'n'Roll" rhhythm. T.Rex may have been better but that glam beat's associated with Gary Glitter.

I wouldn't buy his music because I don't like it, simple.

However, I wouldn't assume that anyone who buys his music is a paedophile any more than I'd assume that anyone who bought Amy Winehouse's album was a drug addict or anyone who bought Chris Brown's music was a violent misogynist.

Sometimes we separate the artist themselves and their musical merits because often the artist is an entirely separate entity.

One of my favourite artists used to be Michael Jackson but that doesn't mean that I condone child molestation or intentionally bought his music with the intention of allowing him to indulge in paedophilic activities.

Music is music and people can buy and listen to whatever they want and shouldn't be made to feel guilty about liking an artist who has done terrible things. They don't condone the artist's actions, they just like their creative output.

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of broadcasting his music, Glitter's place in the record books remains with his million seller - I love you love me love in 1973.

Million selling singles are still very rare in the UK, and if IIRC Glitter's came after a gap of several years since the previous one, with pundits at the time suggested that there might never be another.

No, its not directly relevant. Its like saying folk music, that I discovered a couple of days a go, is relevant today because of Fleet Foxes, Florence and the Machine, Bat for Lashes and Lisa Hannigan.. but yet, when was the last time Steeleye Span were played on the Radio 2 breakfast show.. or any BBC Local for that matter.

I can't believe I got involved in this thread; Gary Glitter is a complete non entity, a past and very distant minor blip in the history of music who is no longer even particularly respected amongst the very very niche glam fan base.

If anyone wants to listen to him, fine.. stick his vinyl on and have done, but he and his music really, really do not warrant letters to Radio 2 producers, or passing comment on the discussion boards here...

Well that's a stupid point. You seem to associate being directly relevant with being played on the radio. You know there's a very good reason for Gary Glitter not being played on the radio/TV these days. I even saw a potted history of glam on the TV recently where they didn't mention him once, which was ridiculous.

Whether or not you like his music is irrelevant, as I think you'll find that, from a musicological point of view, he's been far more influential than you'd think.

So, his music doesn't warrant being commented upon on a forum...yet you are doing exactly that. Talk about noncesense!

Apart from "Gaudete" (1972) and "All Around My Hat" (1975, prod Mike Batt), Steeleye have never been played on "popular" radio - few folk groups are .....

Steeleye were championed by John Peel, who broadcast several SS sessions, the first in 1970 .....

What I'm saying is that stuff that is relevant gets knowledged.. sometimes an airing and/or some form of credit or recognition. But even with Fleet Foxes covering False Knight On The Road, I'll be the first to admit Steeleye Span aren't relevant any more despite current folksy influences on some of current big artists. Only when some people start actually crediting influences and this impacts on the publics awareness, will they become irrelevant again... a bit like Tony Christie following Peter Kays references.

The fact you saw a potted history of glam on the TV recently where they didn't mention him once, was more likely down to the fact he is irrelevant more than the fact hes a paedo. The fact he wasn't mentioned seems to wholly contradict your point that "from a musicological point of view, he's been far more influential than you'd think".

The fact is, if he was any good and influential, he'd still be included and at least mentioned, even if to say 'what an idiot'. If Jacko had have been guilty, do you think his work would have disappeared, because I can tell you it wouldn't. Yes, he'd have got less air play, stations may have ditched playing his songs for a while and people may not have been so keen to admit they were a fan, but his work would have lived on and he would still have got some degree of professional respect...

This thread needs the Paedofinder General.

Well could you explain how he'd always end up in these kinds of programmes up until him being imprisoned? Was there some kind of mammoth critical reassessment of him whilst he was inside? Of course not. If you mentioned glam to many people in Europe, his name would be and still is synonomous with it. Pretty much every track that's tipped its hat to glam over the past few years (whether it be Goldfrapp's "Oh La La", Katy Perry's "I Kissed A Girl" and countless others) has taken its cue from Glitter's "Rock'n'Roll". And you still maintain that his music is not relevant? Absolute crap.

It is pointless to rewrite history of any type based on the crimes or wrongdoing the subject of that history has carried out.

i can seperate very easily and with a clear concious the difference between bill wymans 1 discrepancy against a consulting post pubescent teenager and gadds thousands of downloaded images of naked children and his RAPE and abuse of little pre-pubescent kiddies.
ive read the accounts, i saw the tv prog, the blokes foul and i cannot listen to his music without remembering his crimes. if you can, fair do's...


you place him in much higher esteem then he warrants. he has NOT been influencial, he was a pouting, posing, clown singing pretty basic nonsense pop. the REAL inovators of the time, the ones who really influenced todays pop/electro were david bowie and roxy music. t rex, sweet, slade were also bit part players as their brand of music had a degree of respectability about it. glitters did not, he was a joke, mocked as the clown he was. and THATS why he wasnt mentioned, he was irrelevant.

nonsense.. goldfrapp/perry do not cite glitter as their influences, glam? maybe but glitter was the embarrassing old man of glam, not the leader of a youth culture.

I bet no one will start a campaign this christmas to get
" Another Rock and Roll Christmas" to No1.

crazy chris did.... or wanted one.

that, i remember.

Are you mad? Listen to the tracks I've mentioned. I'm not talking about the influences they've proclaimed. Jesus, use your ears.

You have no understanding of music so no wonder you can't hear an influence. Bowie was a musical chameleon with no fixed music style - Bowie's influence is more to do with the notion of adopting a different image for each album, which could be seen in the 80s with the likes of Madonna/Prince - this pretty much set the marketing template re the big stars (think Beyonce, Rihanna). That's the most influential thing he ever did.

You just don't seem to get it. Poor you.

I was only young when I was listening to gary Glitter back in the early seventies. I used to dance to his music at the discos. He was featured in many of the music papers and magazines at the time.He lived quite a lavish lifestyle. A big fancy house with its own swimming pool. He threw big parties with no shortage of beautuful women. Many many pictures of some of these women on his arm.
I know he was married at the time and had a young daughter. I remember reading about a pal of hers 8yrs old at the time who had slept over and Gary Glitter coming into the room and interfearing with her pal.
Then Gary going brankrupt and then turning his attentions to young girls in poor countries.
Its difficult when you grew up listening to his records and he was one of your favourites back then along with David Bowie and T rex.
I always find it difficult when had a bebo and added chirstmas stuff from the past and had to leave him out as I just couldn't bring myself to upload any of his Christmas videos.
Also didn't help reading about him before Christmas that he was going to look at staying in a mansion and the mansion was looking towards the Yorkshire moors exactly where some of the Moors murders hid their victims.

THATS IT! thats the first occassion id read about him having an interest in little kids... 8 years old ffs... thank you for posting that.

lol... stoop to personal insults if you want, i dont need to

just what influence do you think there is there?... do you REALLY think glitter is more influencial then bowie? lol... you hear what you want to hear, being a fan, youll credit your convicted paedophile hero with what you want.

i hear NO glitter in any of todays music, since when did glitter use synth? goldfrapp owes more to roxy music (brian eno), and the many synth based bands of the early 80's then anything. find me a goldfrapp quotation where she cites glitters music as influencial... of find any referance from a pop 'expert' that links them...please...

you say bowie was a musical chameleon with no fixed style... well that is his strength! the fact that he isnt grounded in one sound, the fact that like the beatles, stevie wonder, madonna, prince, etc etc etc they can EVOLVE. whether you like it or not, bowie IS one of our most inovative, influencial musicians ever. a long long way in front of gadd, even before he had any paedo convictions.

glitter was a caberet act, a one trick pony, the embarrassing old uncle trying to get down with 'da kidz'... im 52, i was 15 when he first hit the charts. i had already a sizeable collection of 60's material, THE decade for great music. i was his target audience, but the only ones who liked him were the girls and younger people who had only just discovered music. NONE of my m8s liked him, they liked better music, prog rock, folk, 60's, rock.. glitter was a cheesy, joke of a showman, a 60's failure because he couldnt cut it in an age of innovation. hence when pop took the p out of itself (glam) he got his very brief chance.

to credit him with influencing todays infinately more talented acts (goldfrapp in particular) is laughable.

Can you extrapalate information properly? I've mentioned specific tracks, not claimed that Goldfrapp and Katy Perry are wholly influenced by Glitter. And I've detailed what influenced the tracks I mention. Trying reading my words one more time.

Bowie is NOT innovative at all musically.

One artist is not a genre, and while glam may just may have been an influence, I dont see any evidence of Gary Glitter himself being the influence. Mika influenced by Freddie Mercury I get, Katy Perry influenced by Gary Glitter I certainly don't.

Believe what you want, read into things what you will and enjoy the music you like, but don't try to convince us Gary Glitter was anything other than a novelty glam showman who had his 15 minutes of fame, earned a decent living for a while, screwed up and was then discovered to have a massive personality flaw.

Hes no longer on the radar, few people rate him or his music, get over it.

Strangely,Build Me Up Buttercup by The Foundations and Bay City Rollers records still get played,both groups have members that have been convicted of child pornography in one form or another....

with the greatest respect, that is the most idiotic thing ive ever seen posted on the internet.

and you claim that I know nothing about music

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bowie

weve covered that.