A recurring theme in my work is censorship and art for art's sake. Indeed, I have recently added the 10cc tune of that name to my iPod playlist because I like the tune, and I like the fuck-you tone to it. I like lots of stuff, but my nearest and dearest, and hopefully my ever-growing readership, know that I have a great love of 70s Glam Rock. I have Facebook friends who play in glam cover bands, and have been abused for playing Gary Glitter songs. They often put it out there about how they should approach this in future gigs. My advice, which I believe to be enormously sensible, is a sign at the venue saying they will be playing the Gary Glitter songs because they were an integral part of the Glam movement, and that they are celebrating the music and the zeitgeist, not abhorrent crimes. It is also my suggestion that they put up an undertaking to donate a small percentage of the door takings to a charity that works with abused children. I think this should keep everyone happy.
But it happens every time someone posts a Gary Glitter number on the Glam Rock page. Someone loses their shit and accuses us all of supporting a filthy paedo. Of course those crimes for which Paul Gadd was convicted are hideous. But since when did supporting a style of music become synonymous with supporting ugly acts? I enjoy listening to the Ronettes, the Crystals and Ike and Tina Turner. Like many, I enjoy the Phil Spector Wall of Sound. The man was a whiz in the recording studio. The man is also serving a sentence of nineteen years to life for second degree murder. Does liking the brilliant music he brought us automatically implicate me in the senseless taking of a human life? I listen to the Rolling Stones, and Bill Wyman behaved very questionably in the past, didn't he? Shall I no longer listen to one of my all-time favourite bands? Of course I don't listen to Bill Wyman's solo projects because they are execrable, but 'Sticky Fingers' is my favourite album of all time, and I'm damned if I'm not going to rock out to 'Can't You Hear Me Knocking' because someone wants to take the high moral ground. Particularly since those raunchy hot riffs make my ears want to smoke a cigarette.
Being a member of these glam FB groups has led to me making new friends, some of whom have associations with The Glitter Band. Remember 'The Tears I've Cried For You'? Sure you do. The Glitter Band, who had a career as an entity separate to their former front man, still perform (as far as I am aware). Should they suffer because of the acts of a former associate? Let me metaphorically paint a picture: when not writing, I work as a carer for the aged and disabled. Let's just say one of my team members thumped an old man, and used menacing tactics to coerce him into changing his will in her favour. Let's just say she forged his signature and bled his bank account dry. This so-called carer would be out on her rotten arse, and possibly facing criminal charges. And rightfully so. But should I, along with my other team mates, be made to suffer for her actions because, when all's said and done, we worked with her? Of course not. I believe that analogy is appropriate, and the same principle should be applied to The Glitter Band's gigs.
I cannot say this often enough: if you are going to take the high moral ground, and refuse to listen to anything associated with anybody who has done anything questionable, objectionable, illegal, offensive, or downright stupid, then you're going to have a very limited playing list. And as talented as they are, the Osmonds are going to get boring after a while.
I know this is contentious stuff, but I just want people to remember not to taint other band members. Remember to separate the art from the artist.
You know what? I commented on a thread last night and received a private message from someone following the thread telling me writing on my blog would do no good. The message sent was not threatening to myself, the FB-friend, nor anybody commenting on this thread. However, I do take umbrage at someone sending a badly punctuated and unpleasant message, and then blocking me so I have no right of reply. In my dictionary, this kind of falls under the definition of 'Chickenshit'.
No comments:
Post a Comment