I lived through the 70's - I was a huuuge glam rock fan, for my sins. Slade, Sweet, Mud, Suzy Q, and yes, The Leader.

Now, I understand that this fella is a kiddie fiddler, but I've just watched a documentary on Glam Rock and it's as if he never existed. He got a one-line sarcastic mention about him jumping on the glam bandwagon.

So what's happening? I've noticed before that he seems to be being erased from the glam annals of history. But is that right? Surely it's a bad thing to be changing history to please the easily offended pc brigade - y'know, the ones who jumped on the Jonathan Ross bandwagon.

I don't like the thoughts of the dirty sod getting a share of the money if I buy a Glitter track online, but music is seperate from the man. And the Glitter Band and Mike Leander were more influental on the sound than Gary Glitter was - is it right that they're being erased from the history books as well?

Glitter can rot in a prison cell for all I care, but I like my history as it happened, thanks.

I agree, the glitter band created a sound!!! if you listen to bands after that era you can hear the glitter band sound, especially the drums!!!!

Yes Glitter can rot!! He was just a front man for a great band. Glitter existed and sould not be taken out of history!!! If this was the case then Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussen should be erased as well. The history books would be very thin of all the bad things were taken out!!!

It's an outrage!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/10/glitter_expelled/

Have they also removed Pete Townshend from The Who?

I have noticed no-one plays Jonathan King records anymore.

But that's more likely to be due to the fact that he was crap.

It's an outrage!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/10/glitter_expelled/


Well, he was (as he claimed) the man who put the bang in gang:gag:

Was a great Glitter fan, and even as an adult too, brought my neice up to appreciate his music and now when I hear it I feel sick.

Should he be erased from history? No. BUT, neither should he be able to make money from royalties etc. Nor should he be made a subject of teaching, he should be just another member of a band, and never brought to the forefront.

He lost all rights when he abused kids, he should rot in hell with all the other Uncle Festers!!

So it would appear that history CAN be changed! If theyve done it to Glitter then I wonder what other things have changed in history, what other people or events have been "Vanished" into the ether....

Should he be erased from history? No. BUT, neither should he be able to make money from royalties etc. Nor should he be made a subject of teaching, he should be just another member of a band, and never brought to the forefront.

He lost all rights when he abused kids, he should rot in hell with all the other Uncle Festers!!

I can connect with the sentiment, but life ain't like that. He did the crime, and did the time. Now he's on the sex offenders' register and hopefully, closely monitored.

His rights still remain intact though. If he wrote a song, as an artist, he is justifiably entitled to royalties from it, no matter how sickened people are by his acts. Where would it end? Take his house away from him because he doesn't deserve a a roof like normal people? Ban him from entering a shop to buy shoes because pedos should be forced to walk barefoot like the animals that they are? Nah. It would be never ending. Let him have his royalties.

As for being the subject of a lesson, why not? The music is worth a lesson, I say. Just so long as his misdeeds are well-covered in the lesson as well, for appropriate balance. Banning from the curriculum is ridiculous censorship that no organisation has the right to do.

So it would appear that history CAN be changed! If theyve done it to Glitter then I wonder what other things have changed in history, what other people or events have been "Vanished" into the ether....

My grandfather single handedly took back France for the Allies in the second world war. Did it get reported? Did it hell.

You see?

You shag just one sheep and look what happens.

I lived through the 70's - I was a huuuge glam rock fan, for my sins. Slade, Sweet, Mud, Suzy Q, and yes, The Leader.

Now, I understand that this fella is a kiddie fiddler, but I've just watched a documentary on Glam Rock and it's as if he never existed. He got a one-line sarcastic mention about him jumping on the glam bandwagon.

So what's happening? I've noticed before that he seems to be being erased from the glam annals of history. But is that right? Surely it's a bad thing to be changing history to please the easily offended pc brigade - y'know, the ones who jumped on the Jonathan Ross bandwagon.

I don't like the thoughts of the dirty sod getting on a share of the money if I buy a glitter track online, but music is seperate from the man. And the Glitter Band and Mike Leander were more influental on the sound than Paul Gadd was - is it right that they're being erased from the history books as well?

Glitter can rot in a prison cell for all I care, but I like my history as it happened, thanks.
Much of the media hysteria about paedophiles is driven by the very sections of the media which most commonly deride the 'pc brigade' the News of the World, Daily Mail and so forth. These are the same sections of the media which were in the vanguard of the recent Joss & Brand telephone call fuss.

On what grounds do you specifically blame the 'pc brigade' for largely excising Glitter from the history of glam?

Well, he was (as he claimed) the man who put the bang in gang:gag:

Was a great Glitter fan, and even as an adult too, brought my neice up to appreciate his music and now when I hear it I feel sick.

Should he be erased from history? No. BUT, neither should he be able to make money from royalties etc. Nor should he be made a subject of teaching, he should be just another member of a band, and never brought to the forefront.

He lost all rights when he abused kids, he should rot in hell with all the other Uncle Festers!!
Wagner was a rabid anti-semite does that mean we should omit him from the syllabus of music courses and pretend he was 'just another composer'? Acts which which would have the effect of re-writing history.

Glitter obviously was at the forefront of Glam (atleast in the UK) and should be acknowledged as such, the fact that he's also an unrepentant raper of children doesn't change that.

its a tricky one:(

if you take aside what he got convicted for he was good at what he did saying that playing gary glitter songs has to be a guilty pleasure with the sound down so nobody hears

but if we ban songs films or books because some one has a conviction for various offences or well known for weird things then we wont have much to play watch or read:)

Do we also then try to erase any mention of Michael Jackson? Hugely influential on music and popular culture as well.

Do we also then try to erase any mention of Michael Jackson? Hugely influential on music and popular culture as well.

thats another tricky one

its a tricky one:(

if you take aside what he got convicted for he was good at what he did saying that playing gary glitter songs has to be a guilty pleasure with the sound down so nobody hears
I certainly wouldn't play any Glitter at any of my nights, the negative connotations of his crimes for me at least more than cancels out any enjoyment that might come from his music.

I just think that in any books or documentaries on the subject of glam he should be given his proper place.

Enjoyment of music is a subjective experience which can be altered by your opinion of the performer. In contrast Glitter's place in glam history is an objective fact that people shouldn't attempt to rewrite simply because he's such a disgusting human being.

I certainly wouldn't play any Glitter at any of my nights, the negative connotations of his crimes for me at least more than cancels out any enjoyment that might come from his music.

I just think that in any books or documentaries on the subject of glam he should be given his proper place.

Enjoyment of music is a subjective experience which can be altered by your opinion of the performer. In contrast Glitter's place in glam history is an objective fact that people shouldn't attempt to rewrite simply because he's such a disgusting human being.

totaly agree with everything you say there:thumbsup:

Well, I was speaking personally, not generally. I knew I would get shot down in flames so to speak LOL but it's what I would like to see happen, even though I know that it would never happen <sigh>

I can connect with the sentiment, but life ain't like that. He did the crime, and did the time. Now he's on the sex offenders' register and hopefully, closely monitored.

His rights still remain intact though. If he wrote a song, as an artist, he is justifiably entitled to royalties from it, no matter how sickened people are by his acts. Where would it end? Take his house away from him because he doesn't deserve a a roof like normal people? Ban him from entering a shop to buy shoes because pedos should be forced to walk barefoot like the animals that they are? Nah. It would be never ending. Let him have his royalties.

As for being the subject of a lesson, why not? The music is worth a lesson, I say. Just so long as his misdeeds are well-covered in the lesson as well, for appropriate balance. Banning from the curriculum is ridiculous censorship that no organisation has the right to do.
indeed
im not or have been a glam rock fan tbh i find it highly cheesey, although i do have a couple of slade albums on vinyl and one or two trex songs but i think thats prolly about it.
but they are partly HIS royalties for songs he wrote completely seperate to any wrong doing so he does deserve them.
aslong as its something hes not benefitting from his crime.

I certainly wouldn't play any Glitter at any of my nights, the negative connotations of his crimes for me at least more than cancels out any enjoyment that might come from his music.


What a wierd attitude! Why would the singer's sexual preferences stop you from playing his music?

If he wrote a song, as an artist, he is justifiably entitled to royalties from it, no matter how sickened people are by his acts.

This reminds me of the "Lotto Rapist" that was in the news a while back.

Man rapes woman years ago, goes to prison.
On day release a couple of years ago he buys a Lotto scratchcard or lucky dip, and wins thousands.
Raped woman is outraged and takes him to court for money - and wins.

What a wierd attitude! Why would the singer's sexual preferences stop you from playing his music?
Did you even read the text you quoted? I wouldn't play Gary Glitter because "the negative connotations of his crimes for me at least more than cancels out any enjoyment that might come from his music" perhaps?

Also I don't want anybody to come over and yell at me for playing songs by a paedophile.