|
||||||||
Who In The UK Would Buy This Album? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,258
|
I wouldn't buy it. Not for moral reasons. Just taste.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,490
|
Quote:
Indeed and what about the world of film; Roman Polanski's films haven't been banned as far as I know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: West London
Posts: 24,301
|
Quote:
I find that people defend Roman Polanski bizarre.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,572
|
Quote:
I find that people defend Roman Polanski bizarre. Whoopi Goldberg (I think) said it wasnt "rape" rape. It was statutory
I've pondered this question for a few years and, personally, I think that the art should stand apart from the artist. I think it's wrong to defend a repugnant human being just because they produce great art but I also think it's wrong to banish a great work of art because the person who created it is a piece of shit on humanity's shoe. In a way we have been lucky that most of the nonces that have been caught so far - Jonathan King, Rolf Harris, Jimmy Saville, Ian Watkins etc. - haven't really contributed any essential works to the human oeuvre. When it comes to someone like Polanski however - and to a different degree, Pete Townshend and Woody Allen - you're forced to think differently. On their own; Repulsion, Tommy, Annie Hall, Rosemary's Baby, Quadrophenia and What's Up, Tiger Lily (not a classic, but a personal favourite) are all great pieces of work. Should we deny ourselves those works just because the people who created them may or may not be vile people? If it turned out that Alexander Graham Bell was Jack The Ripper would we all stop using telephones? I've DJed (for want of a better term) my town's Christmas lights switch-on event for the last decade or so and, every year, the bulk of my set is made up of Phil Spector's classic 1963 Christmas album. My remit each year is to play a selection of fun, upbeat Christmas songs which, if you look at your Christmas albums, are quite thin on the ground. You do Slade, Wizzard and Shakin' Stevens but after that most of them are slow and pretty maudlin. So, two years ago, I decided that since I was already playing six or seven tracks by a convicted murderer and they were going down really well then I should also play one of the best Christmas party songs ever written... 'Another Rock n Roll Christmas' by Gary Glitter. I semi-chickened out the first time and played the version by Paul Di'Anno - a convicted benefit fraudster - but it went down well, so last year I played the Gary Glitter version. People seemed to enjoy it and there were no complaints. I'm not going to shed a tear if Mr Gadd dies a sad and broken old man behind bars but, as a music fan, I think it would be wrong if 'Rock n Roll Part 2' and 'Another Rock n Roll Christmas' were expunged from history. In purely musical terms, the crimes of Mumford and Sons far outweigh those of Gary Glitter. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,668
|
It's not really a 'moral obligation' not to listen. Some people just feel the music is tainted and they don't enjoy it anymore. If you don't feel that way then you are free to carry on listening. It's not as if it's banned.
Some of us feel unable to seperate the product from the human being who made it. I do usually feel that way if child abuse is involved, less so with other crimes. The financial factor doesn't really come into it for me, it's just a sense of revulsion. |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,106
|
Several albums are available on Amazon and iTunes so somebody must still be buying them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 868
|
Gary Glitter had some alright songs. I couldn't really give a toss about his crimes and it certainly wouldn't stop me listening to his music if I liked his music enough to listen to, which to be honest, I don't. Rock and Roll Christmas was OK and I like to listen to that during the festive season though as it reminds me of being 8 years old.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belfast
Posts: 7,274
|
Quote:
Roman Polanski is a horrible man who makes great films.
I've pondered this question for a few years and, personally, I think that the art should stand apart from the artist. I think it's wrong to defend a repugnant human being just because they produce great art but I also think it's wrong to banish a great work of art because the person who created it is a piece of shit on humanity's shoe. In a way we have been lucky that most of the nonces that have been caught so far - Jonathan King, Rolf Harris, Jimmy Saville, Ian Watkins etc. - haven't really contributed any essential works to the human oeuvre. When it comes to someone like Polanski however - and to a different degree, Pete Townshend and Woody Allen - you're forced to think differently. On their own; Repulsion, Tommy, Annie Hall, Rosemary's Baby, Quadrophenia and What's Up, Tiger Lily (not a classic, but a personal favourite) are all great pieces of work. Should we deny ourselves those works just because the people who created them may or may not be vile people? ...... I've DJed (for want of a better term) my town's Christmas lights switch-on event for the last decade or so and, every year, the bulk of my set is made up of Phil Spector's classic 1963 Christmas album. My remit each year is to play a selection of fun, upbeat Christmas songs which, if you look at your Christmas albums, are quite thin on the ground. You do Slade, Wizzard and Shakin' Stevens but after that most of them are slow and pretty maudlin. So, two years ago, I decided that since I was already playing six or seven tracks by a convicted murderer and they were going down really well then I should also play one of the best Christmas party songs ever written... 'Another Rock n Roll Christmas' by Gary Glitter. ... As for Jimmy Saville's other contributions to society, he did raise over £40 million for charity and contributed to popularising fun runs etc. Perhaps more importantly you mention DJing, Saville has some claim to, if not inventing the idea of the DJ, certainly popularising it. He claimed to be the first person to use dual turntables and a mic at popular events in the UK, he did this for the first time in 1947 and no one has been able to suggest anyone before that. |
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol
Posts: 9,435
|
Quote:
Gary Glitter had some alright songs. I couldn't really give a toss about his crimes and it certainly wouldn't stop me listening to his music if I liked his music enough to listen to, which to be honest, I don't. Rock and Roll Christmas was OK and I like to listen to that during the festive season though as it reminds me of being 8 years old.
I have no problem listening to his music, but I most definitely do give a toss about his crimes. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: York
Posts: 426
|
Quote:
I hope you don't mean that the way you wrote it. I'm assuming you mean that you see his crimes as separate to his music, otherwise you're saying you don't give a toss about child abuse.
I have no problem listening to his music, but I most definitely do give a toss about his crimes. |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,642
|
There are a heck of a lot more convicted sex offenders in the world of popular music (and film) than the few mentioned in this thread. I think that such things are more common than people would otherwise assume. Unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Somewhere extremely creepy
Posts: 3,088
|
Quote:
As for Jimmy Saville's other contributions to society, he did raise over £40 million for charity and contributed to popularising fun runs etc.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 08:45.



