Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

Gary Glitter


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 24-01-2013, 21:44
HayleyXD
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bexleyheath
Posts: 1,128

Why do people ignore his amazing contribution to the music industry?
HayleyXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 24-01-2013, 21:46
degsyhufc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 49,394
Maybe they don't like that style of music
degsyhufc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 21:59
marcusgv
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Belfast
Posts: 134
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.
marcusgv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 22:56
gertrude
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,208
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
gertrude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 23:14
misslibertine
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Strawberry Fields
Posts: 13,596
I'd imagine people are put off by his personality/reputation. I'm sure that could take away from even the best musical output.
misslibertine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-01-2013, 23:36
lovedoctor1978
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Huddersfield
Posts: 1,592
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.
lovedoctor1978 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 03:12
Benllech
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Anglesey
Posts: 1,808
Cos he did naughty things.
Benllech is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 04:04
lovedoctor1978
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Huddersfield
Posts: 1,592
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.
lovedoctor1978 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 08:59
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 10,215
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?
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 09:03
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 10,215
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.
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 09:22
Dave3622
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,501
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.
Dave3622 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 09:49
EatitLosers
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 96
What Michael Jackson was 'ALLEGED' to have done, and cleared of in court, was nowhere near as bad as what Glitter did.
Agreed.
EatitLosers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 09:58
gashead
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 7,018
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.
gashead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 12:47
newplanet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 358
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.
newplanet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 13:34
Deep Purple
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Deep Within The Chain Of Evil
Posts: 42,652
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.
Deep Purple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 13:44
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 10,215
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?..
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 13:45
mushymanrob
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: derby
Posts: 10,215
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!
mushymanrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 14:59
Aidan11
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 336
When I was a lad, young girls had pictures of him on their bedroom wall.

Now it's the other way round.
Aidan11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 15:16
walterwhite
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 10,618
Two words: Michael Jackson.
How is that relevant exactly?
walterwhite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 17:23
newplanet
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 358
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.
newplanet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 17:54
bryemycaz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,630
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.
bryemycaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 21:52
marcusgv
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Belfast
Posts: 134
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.
marcusgv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 22:07
imarsh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 273
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?
imarsh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 22:11
gold2040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,692
Didn't Jackson settle out of court?
He did to the amount of $15,331,250

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/mi...-payoff?page=5
gold2040 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-01-2013, 22:38
soran
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,525
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
soran is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:22.