Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Gary Glitter Released
after serving 8 of his 16 year sentence - do you think he could resurrect his music career? I still enjoy his records and would probably go to a gig if he did one locally. Or do you think he should be permanently outcast?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lankeela. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
AH, It isn’t a time thing. I can think of one convicted murderer who, after serving a ten year prison sentence, went on to enjoy great success in his subsequent television career. That could never happen to dirty old men who sexually abuse children because that is a crime that repulses every right thinking human being. Once their crimes are discovered they are finished - and so they should be.
just to refresh, a little girl...10, disgusting man, should have swung.
https:/
https:/
Roy - Every single post I have offered on this thread has referred to Gary Glitter and my enjoyment of his music, and that is what I have offered my views on.
My enjoyment of his music is entirely in isolation, a point I hoped I had made fleshly and repeatedly.
But in case there is any doubt, I conduct interviews with musicians for money, but there is no amount of money that would induce me to be in the same building as Mr Glitter, far less be within speaking distance, or even breathing the same air.
I trust this clarifies any confusion or misunderstanding about exactly where my moral parameters begin and end.
My enjoyment of his music is entirely in isolation, a point I hoped I had made fleshly and repeatedly.
But in case there is any doubt, I conduct interviews with musicians for money, but there is no amount of money that would induce me to be in the same building as Mr Glitter, far less be within speaking distance, or even breathing the same air.
I trust this clarifies any confusion or misunderstanding about exactly where my moral parameters begin and end.
Just to clarify Roy, by saying I 'have no lines', you imply that I have no morality.
What I actually said was, I have no line (singular) meaning I do not cease to enjoy a piece of art because of the behaviour of its creator.
That is not the same as 'having no lines', which I did not say, because it is not a truthful assessment of my moral code.
What I actually said was, I have no line (singular) meaning I do not cease to enjoy a piece of art because of the behaviour of its creator.
That is not the same as 'having no lines', which I did not say, because it is not a truthful assessment of my moral code.
ellipsis - // > My enjoyment of his music is entirely in isolation
As I said before, context is everything and the x factor is the undefinable "something" that makes for star quality. Without his star quality, Gary Glitter is not the same person at all. There is no isolation. //
I cannot agree.
There are many hugely successful musicians who have made decades-long careers with absolutely no 'X Factor' whatsoever, because for music to create a lasting impression, it needs only to sound good, the image of its creator(s) has nothing to do with it.
Look at Leonard Cohen, or Bob Dylan, or Neil Young, none of who, have an once of 'X Factor' but clearly appeal, not because of their 'style, or 'image', but because of the music they make.
When I play Gary Glitter songs, I don't imaging him on Top Of The Pops strutting up and down, I simply enjoy the sound of his singles, so his 'X Factor' is not a contributor to my experience of listening to him, or indeed any other musician(s) whose work I enjoy
As I said before, context is everything and the x factor is the undefinable "something" that makes for star quality. Without his star quality, Gary Glitter is not the same person at all. There is no isolation. //
I cannot agree.
There are many hugely successful musicians who have made decades-long careers with absolutely no 'X Factor' whatsoever, because for music to create a lasting impression, it needs only to sound good, the image of its creator(s) has nothing to do with it.
Look at Leonard Cohen, or Bob Dylan, or Neil Young, none of who, have an once of 'X Factor' but clearly appeal, not because of their 'style, or 'image', but because of the music they make.
When I play Gary Glitter songs, I don't imaging him on Top Of The Pops strutting up and down, I simply enjoy the sound of his singles, so his 'X Factor' is not a contributor to my experience of listening to him, or indeed any other musician(s) whose work I enjoy
For Andres. There is a big difference between not knowing what an artist did and knowing. Wondering is not the same as experiencing.
If Glitter's music is played in years to come there will be some who give more than a seconds thought to what he did.
You obviously have no idea how long sexual abuse lives with you. I was six and seven years old. My abuser looked like Wilfred Bramble in Steptoe. I could never watch it. If a clip came on with him in it I felt sick and that was years later.
One of the things my abuser did was to hold my six year old hands and make me 'pleasure' him onto a newspaper on the floor. Sixty five plus years later I still can't bear to see a newspaper lying on a floor.
Anyone who says he has served his sentence, who happily listens to his music....well if I said what I think of them I'd be banned from AB.
If Glitter's music is played in years to come there will be some who give more than a seconds thought to what he did.
You obviously have no idea how long sexual abuse lives with you. I was six and seven years old. My abuser looked like Wilfred Bramble in Steptoe. I could never watch it. If a clip came on with him in it I felt sick and that was years later.
One of the things my abuser did was to hold my six year old hands and make me 'pleasure' him onto a newspaper on the floor. Sixty five plus years later I still can't bear to see a newspaper lying on a floor.
Anyone who says he has served his sentence, who happily listens to his music....well if I said what I think of them I'd be banned from AB.
douglas to me at 15:23 - //Oh Andy, it's not 'personal', it's just a different point of view, something I thought you championed and revelled in.
Don't take on so, you sensitive wee scone. //
douglas to me at 20:51 - // Complete and utter self aggrandising rowlocks that needs addressing. //
So there you are everyone, in case there was any conclusion, douglas's assessment of my post as 'complete and utter self aggradising rowlocks' was just 'a different point of view'.
Just in case anyone mis-read it as another pointless off-thread offensive personal attack ...
Although having said that ...
Don't take on so, you sensitive wee scone. //
douglas to me at 20:51 - // Complete and utter self aggrandising rowlocks that needs addressing. //
So there you are everyone, in case there was any conclusion, douglas's assessment of my post as 'complete and utter self aggradising rowlocks' was just 'a different point of view'.
Just in case anyone mis-read it as another pointless off-thread offensive personal attack ...
Although having said that ...
Latest Posts
ChatterBank8 mins ago
News11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles35 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles38 mins ago
