![]() It has been used for decades in the US at sporting events to invigorate the crowd its use in the Joker film during a particular scene is probably to evoke that kind of reaction (albeit ironically).ĥ. Glitter was never a star in the US they don't really know much about him (or his crimes) so I doubt its inclusion in the film is to cause "controversy".Ĥ. It was co-written by Mike Leander - should he be punished because of Glitter's crimes?ģ. 2 is (mostly) instrumental so you won't be affronted by Glitter's vocals, if that's what you're worried about.Ģ. It won't change the past, but it might help the victims now and in the future if a significant chunk of Gadd's royalty payments went to his victims that's if of course they'd be happy to receive such payments through the courts.ġ. ![]() None of that will fix the damage done to the victims. Some of it he has been caught, convicted and sentenced for. Does that count as her supporting domestic violence? How about all the music produced by Phil Spectre or Joe Meek? Once we start throwing these stones then we find there are an awful lot of glasshouses around.īy all accounts Gadd has done some horrible things. Just how far do we go? Do we ban all of Tina Turner's music from before she went solo? After all, for years she stuck by Ike even though he beat the crap out of her. Going down this road of boycotts and bans is very dangerous. There are other people, ordinary working people with mortgages and food to buy and bills to pay, who also benefit from the income generated by the royalties. As I understand it, the artist is one beneficiary in quite a long chain. They'll throw a big number up and leave the readers to imagine that significant sums are hitting the disgraced rock star's bank account. The newspapers and media conveniently skate over this. I'm not sure though how boycotting films and TV shows and events that use his music benefits anyone though.įor a start, Gadd isn't the sole beneficiary of any royalty payments. I can understand the anger at Gary Glitter (Paul Gadd) the man. Removing things from history be it books music or people or anything is far more worrying then someone earning money (which he would have been doing so anyway). Michael Jackson has never been found guilty of anything, big difference It it’s ok for Michael Jackson to still be played, or Roman Polanski films to be aired, or Jerry Lee Lewis because he married an underage girl?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |