The USA loves their idols/celebrities and with MJ they really don't get bigger, at the end of the day he was never going to be found guilty. It happened with OJ (with regards to murder at least) he probably would have got off with the robbery as well if it hadn't already been for highly publicised murder trial, even not so big celebrities tend to get off lightly....Lindsay Lohan anyone.

As you say Chaplin, Polanski as well, two big celebrities, though I do wonder if they had been US Citizens, the US may have treated them more favourably.

Yes, Chaplin acting the 'bashful' boyfriend could be interpreted as hypocritical yet some of Chaplin's work is probably comic genius.

Tchaikovsky was rumoured to have young lovers ( probably aged 15 or 16 where the age of consent/marriage in 19th and 20th century Russia was 14). Yet some of his music is quite brilliant.

Gary Glitter had a few quite decent, original hit singles co-written with Mike Leander that are still worth a listen.

In each case you simply have to judge their art on its merits.

"Guilty" means that someone has been convicted of an offence. It may be be that Jackson committed offences but we only know he's guilty if he is actually convicted.

Also, I do understand the argument that Glitter was essentially the front man for a producer in the same way that Jackson was, and that their music is really the work of talented songwriters and musicians and therefore shouldn't be discarded because of the singer's unpleasant behaviour. But Jackson was actually a very talented singer, something that can't be said of Gary Glitter.

Jackson a talented singer? You are joking? He was an awful singer with his songs filled with those incredibly annoying whoops and yelps.

I agree with this 100% Sadly, Mike Leander is no longer with us but I do sincerely hope that his family continue to benefit from his efforts by means of the Gary Glitter royalties. Why shouldn't they?

Mike Leander also played nearly all the instruments on the Glitter recordings, too. The only one's he couldn't play were the brass. The Glitter Band played the songs live at gigs but didn't play a single note on the recordings.

Mike Leander must have been one incredibly talented musician and producer.

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

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

He actually had a 4 octave range, confirmed by his vocal coach

He was a decent singer, agreed, but post 'Bad' was simply a caricature of himself - as james_mason1 points out, all whoops and yelps. The 'Eee-eee, shamone' piss take was not undeserved. He and his producers simply got lazy.

Gary Glitter wouldn't win any awards for his vocal talents, but was competent and a decent showman live. I saw him at Status Quo's 'last' (pfft) gig at MK Bowl in 1983, and he was a good performer. Apart from when he tried to climb the lighting rig, got about 8 feet off the ground, looked down and shat himself in fear. If the audience had known then what we all know now, he could have been stoned to death while he was stuck on the gantry with 2 litre Tetley bottles full of p*ss...

Thought this thread was about convicted peado gary glitter not anyone else!

Can't disagree with that, but Off The Wall and Thriller are major events in the history of pop music.

It is but then it should be open to other artists that are convicted of the same crime and even those artists that sleep with children as well.

no it doesn't. I suggest you have a look at a dictionary


wrong. first see above regarding your incorrect understanding of the word "guilty". secondly, if for example a videotape of someone identifiable appeared with MJ clearly committing illegal acts, then regardless of the fact MJ couldn't stand trial now he is dead, you would know he was guilty.

in fact, it's almost impossible to ever prove without a shadow of a doubt that he was innocent, it's only really possible to prove his guilt if such evidence came to light. and with such a person, who knows what tapes could be lurking

Case of same old same old then, Great!!!

that works both ways though.... you bemoan those that dislike alot of the bs associated with jacko but does nothing to distance yourself from the more unsavoury aspects of his life whilst still moaning at those of us who do.

in fact i cannot remember any fan saying 'i love his music but think his actions towards kids was wrong'.

makes me wonder why.

erm

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/guilty

note line 'b' ... inkblot was right.

Sorry I missed your post, but you the answered the point I was trying to raise, hence why I derailed the thread and brought MJ's name into it.

The thread in eyes was started to question why fans continue to buy Glitter's music, to start arguments against those fans who like his music, and how can you still buy his music after what he did, his music should be banned type of thing.

If you feel that way about Glitter's music, then anyone convicted of the same should also get the same treatment and those artists should also be name checked.

Yes I know MJ was never found guilty of anything, but we do know he slept with children, people seem to turn a blind eye to this though when it comes to MJ, and seem to think it is acceptable, sorry I don't and never will...what he did was wrong plain and simple and is not justifiable in any circumstance. To be honest with you, even if MJ had been found guilty, there would be those fans that still would plead his innocence and defend him (as they do now for sleeping with children, make excuses for him, oh he's child like, he's naive etc), something I don't see from Glitter's fans.

MJ continues to have his music played and his fans buy it without any question, but if you buy Glitter's music you get condemned. Your a fan of MJ's music but you find his actions questionable, so you don't agree what he did as a person, and that is the right view, my point was the same with Glitter, his actions should be condemned without hesitation, but people should still be able to enjoy the music he made without any stigma attached to it...to be able to separate the art from the person.

guilty 1 responsible for an offence or misdeed 2 Law having committed an offence or adjudged to have done so 3 of, showing, or characterised by guilt

We know that Jackson is not guilty within the second dictionary definition of the term. We can speculate that he may have been guilty within the other definitions but we cannot know it. If there were incontrovertible proof of his guilt then of course we would know he was guilty but in the absence of proof we don't know it. Sorry to be argumentative but you can't just "know" something without that something being a verifiable fact at the time that you say you know it.

Lets put the record straight from my view on jackson, then everyone can use it for future reference from me.

Jackson was a talented artist and was the biggest thing in music since the beatles, elvis and the other huge acts before him. He for me is the king of pop..period. So many great songs.

Now this whole "kids thing"

Yes sleeping with kids is not the norm and i would not allow my child to do so. Was he wrong to sleep with kids? Probably not the best judgment he made even if his intentions were honest.
Was he guilty of molesting kids? Judge ruled not guilty, i'm a big believer of innocent until proven guilty.

Jackson for me will be remembered for his music, videos and dancing and his influence on many many artists but will always be tagged for those scandals latter on in his career.

Gary glitter is a convicted peado and should not be put in the same sentence as jackson.

Jackson had the power and money to buy a not guilty verdict, same as OJ. Any normal person would have been found guilty.

wrong again. do you not understand how a dictionary works?

http://www.wikihow.com/Use-a-Dictionary

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

"In a general dictionary, each word may have multiple meanings. Some dictionaries include each separate meaning in the order of most common usage while others list definitions in historical order, with the oldest usage first" - from wikipedia


he wasn't found guilty in a court of law for any offences


wrong. as I mentioned before, evidence can come to light to prove this definitively so we could know it


just as I mentioned before


there is no current proof out in the open, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or it will come out in time


what are you referring to here? something that hasn't been said? you can't really argue with something that hasn't been said and succeed

I'm referring to the post which I originally replied to, which said "we all know Jackson is guilty".

I am simply saying that we do not know it because we do not have either a guilty verdict, or incontrovertible evidence of Jackson's guilt. Evidence may well exist, but until we have the evidence we can't say that we know he is guilty.

To get back to the original post...

There ain't gonna be a Gary Glitter comeback.

That is all.

OIC. well that's true. people can firmly believe one thing or another. but without proof they don't really know. people often incorrect say they know something when the reality is simply that's what their intuition tells them.

however in his case I would say that him being on tv admitting that he slept with children and thought it was perfectly fine is an admission of guilt but no charges were brought against him for that. as far as I'm concerned he abused his power by sleeping with under age children (which he admitted on video), which I consider to be child abuse. abuse comes in a number of different ways, it's not always violence

but at the end of the day, he's got away with whatever he did as he can no longer be found guilty in a court of law and face the consequences. unlike gary glitter

but at the same time, it's fine to separate the art and work from an individuals private life. you can still listen to either artist if you want, regardless of what they did, and the same goes with anyone else, such as roman Polanski. there's probably loads more people who did awful things they've never been convicted of to which you enjoy their work. why should knowing about something unrelated they did affect that? some people may be affected, others won't. it's individual choice as to whether you want it to affect you or not

not during his lifetime at least. I'm surprised he lasted so long with his 80s live xmas shows

bib.... but thats a retrospective view. at the time he was big (referring to his 'purple patch' - 79 - 84) but was only 1 of many artists or trends going on at the time. he never dominated like the beatles or elvis did.

from my experience music fans were watching trends, following the latest sounds in any given genre rather then having this type of convo about one artists. it was only the teenyboppers who bought 'smash hits' who idolised any one artist.


in what way am i mistaken?

inkblot said " guilty means someone has committed an offence"

you said "no it doesnt i suggest you have a look at a dictionary"

in the dictionary it says ". Law Found to have violated a criminal law by a jury or judge."

now unless you are going to nit pick to the minutest detail like someone with a 'syndrome' of some kind... what inkblot posted was absolutely correct.

it doesnt matter that there are several definitions that fit different scenarios, there is one that fits, therefore they were not wrong.

Even in the nineties he was presenting TOTP once a year.