.. is there a moral obligation to remove whatever material you have of theirs from your collection ?

obviously this question has been somewhat born out of the recent events, so i'm hoping that people can steer clear of the actual specifics of that case, aside from obviously mentioning the band Lostprophets.

obviously there are various artists who have been found guilty of various crimes over the years, so is there a degree of criminality that is, for want of a better phrase, "acceptable" for you to be able to still listen to their work with a clear conscience ?

is it possible to seperate the music from the performer to that extent ?

again, please try to steer clear of specifics regarding the current high profile case

I don't think anyone who bought a Lostprophets album should feel guilty for having one. It's not as if they sang songs about the vile stuff their singer did. I'm not a fan of the band anyway but I would imagine it would take a long time to be able to separate the music from the crime if ever

That said, there are a few Gary Glitter fan sites on the net that celebrate his music but make clear that they don't condone his crimes. I suppose it depends on how the music emotionally effected you in the first place. For instance if Lostprophets meant a great deal to you then I'd struggle to understand how you could listen to them again knowing what you do now.

I think it depends on the actual conviction, how many musicians have been charged with drug/alcohol offences over the years, I would very much doubt these artists sales have suffered, due to those convictions.

Personally if you have the music in your collection, and enjoy the music, then I don't see much of a problem, continue to enjoy the music.

Even though I do actually have some Lostprophets stuff in my collection, I wasn't actually asking for me personally. I was just curious about the idea of having the music as almost a seperate 'entity' from the person or persons who created it.

But then if the crime is particularly depraved or violent - say, for the sake of argument, the performer murders a number of people in a particularly brutal fashion, does it become harder to seperate the two ?

Would you get to a point where whenever you listened to a song by the artist in question, all you'd end up thinking about is the fact the performer has murdered X number of people?

Phil Spector is in jail for murder and I guarantee you will be hearing many of the Christmas songs he produced in the next month

I think the only moral obligation people have in this sort of situation is to not play the music as glorification of the singer. Continue to listen to LP, GG, JK (although that was always weird), MJ (yes, I know, but you know what I mean) etc if you can still enjoy the music for the music. It doesn't mean you condone or support them, just that you're adult and intelligent enough to still appreciate the music, however if someone parked outside a school - or anywhere, I guess - blasting out all of the above, one after the other, I would consider that deliberate baiting and not simply that person's taste in music.

i think you can seperate the crime from the material if you want to, if you like the material youll be inclined to overlook things.

theres abit of a difference between lost prophets (whos only convicted crim was the lead singer, the rest of the band are victims too by association) who appears to have been caught 'early' before too much more was done.... and gary glitter who was as good as a solo artist and who was an unrepentant repeat offender.

there are some jacko fans that would have stuck by him even IF he was convicted.

members of groups like the bay city rollers and the foundations have been convicted of child porn offences, are we boycotting those groups material? (well in the case of the bcr, yes, but thats because it was crap!) lol

nope. not in the slightest


you see what you just did there?

nope. it doesn't matter what someone does. some musicians have killed people, others rape, others kiddie fiddling, fraud, drugs, you name it. bands got up to all sorts in the 70s. if the music is good, or more importantly, if i like it, i'll listen to it.
remember it's not just music in which people commit crimes or do bad things, if you stopped doing everything because someone involved was a criminal or did bad things, you would need to avoid so many things life would become difficult. how many ex soldiers who killed people work in factories making stuff you eat or wear or use on a daily basis?
i don't listen to james blunts music because it's shit. not because he was in the army and was responsible for people getting killed.
i listen to michael jacksons music if i want to, and play it to punters, even though i and many punters are convinced he abused children.
i don't listen to the band you said not to mention, as they are shit too. did you hear them murdering a justin timberlake track a few years back? the whole band should have been imprisoned for musical crimes


yes. completely, and easily.
although when playing to punters, depending on the audience, i might avoid playing certain tracks. at an xmas party i might avoid rock and roll christmas, but would play shang a lang and billie jean, as the last 2 might go down well but the first not so well, depending on circumstances. i might play last christmas, even though george michael was caught cock handed in a toilet with an LA cop. boy george was done for drugs, so thats him out the picture if you went down that route. so was paul macartney, the stones, etc, so you would run out of music to listen to if you didn't do it because someone involved in making it broke the law

you might want to read, review and edit your original post, unless you were being ironic or taking the piss

I listen to Michael Jackson's music sometimes, but I don't actually own anything of his apart from one song. Never heard any Lostprophets or Gary Glitter songs and I don't think I'd be comfortable listening to them either.

I don't think I could keep any Lostprophet songs if I owned any. On the other hand I do own Michael Jackson songs, but I'm not entirely convinced he is guilty. If it were ever proved conclusively that he was guilty I'd probably feel differently and delete everything.

I used to like some of the music by the band in question though I was never a huge fan. I don't own any of their albums and have never attended their shows.

I can't bring myself to listen to their music now because of the frontman. He's a despicable human being and does not deserve to even be called human. I do however, feel for his band mates. Their names will forever be associated with him. Considering that they grew up together (I believe), I do feel that the whole situation is very hard for them along with the frontman's family. Above all, I can't imagine how the victims are feeling.

Great point.

One of the biggest pop producers of the '80s was Steve Jolley. who is a convicted child molester. The songs he produced aren't boycotted by radio either.

A different values system seems to be applied if the criminal was the actual frontman and voice, i.e. Glitter and Jonathan King.

Jackson is one of the biggest names in the history of rock 'n' roll. This is widely acknowledged. It would be quite difficult to try and write him out of history in a Glitter/Jonathan King style.

I will never give up my Lostprophets albums, i like the music, i don't think about the people that make the music much anyway. Knowing what he has done though i am sure it will play on my mind whenever i listen to their music which may put me off a bit. I feel sorry for the rest of the band, i bet even when they think of the band all they can think about is what Ian Watkins has done.

People are forgetting - he was convicted, not the band Lostprophets - i still listen to their songs because they were a GROUP and all of them shouldnt be punished because of one man's sickening behaviour. I get their music won't be played publicly anymore, that's fair enough, but privately and in your own collection/ whatever, i think you should be allowed to listen to their music.

I noticed their song Last Train Home was in the top 100 on itunes...what if one of their songs was to get into the top 40?

To take it away from Music for a second, Leslie Grantham was a convicted murderer, but people still loved him as Dirty Den, in fact the media even loved him at the time and that was after we all knew what he had done

He killed a German taxi driver. If he'd killed a child, I suspect it might have been a different story.

well thats a different kettle of fish altogether.
michael was found no guilty, and i personally believe he was not guilty.

ian watkins has admitted his crimes, theres no denying his guilt.

i feel so so sorry for his bandmates. all there work over the years has basically come to nothing.
there legacy has been tarnished beyond repair.

Interesting point. Obviously it would never be played, but I can't see why they couldn't simply say something like "And at number 25, Last Train Home by Lostprophets".

Skipping over it and jumping from, say, 26 to 24 would just be ludicrous.

Interesting responses to the thread though.

It was still quite naughty though

It was, and to be honest, Grantham personally gives me the slight creeps when I see him.

But people feel differently when it comes to sex crimes and especially crimes against children. There was a degree of separation from the crime in the Grantham case - it was a long time ago, it was abroad and it was against an adult.

[quote=Jon Ross;70020370]It was, and to be honest, Grantham personally gives me the slight creeps when I see him.

But people feel differently when it comes to sex crimes and especially crimes against children. There was a degree of separation from the crime in the Grantham case - it was a long time ago, it was abroad and it was against an adult.[/QUO

personally I found it strange the adulation and fame he received after I found out quite disturbing, but we aren't all the same

Sucking a bit of cock or taking drugs is victimless though, so I can see why a distinction could be made.

BIB honestly made me laugh

When George Michael drove into someone's shop when he was high on drugs, that wasn't a victimless crime. It cost the shop a fortune and someone could have been killed (thankfully they weren't).