![]() And furthermore, that way lies censorship, which I honestly believe is anathema to the whole nature of pop music.Īs an art form, rock & roll has always been outlaw country, and if we acknowledge that then we have to accept that it's a place where people can say the unsayable, and mad, bad motherfuckers can do their worst. ![]() Likewise, my ex-girlfriend could never watch Vic Reeves on telly because he once told her to fuck off at a party.īut personal aversion to someone is different from suggesting that someone's off-stage crimes make their music somehow less fit for human consumption. And it's often a personal thing, even if the 'crime' is insignificant by Glitter's standards – I dare say I might have been less inclined to listen to Transformer if I'd been on the receiving end of one of Lou Reed's more gratuitously awful interviews. There's no getting away from the fact that knowing unsavoury things about someone's character can taint your enjoyment of their art. I can understand why people sometimes find it difficult to listen to music if they can't detach it from their views of the people that made it. When we play Beggar's Banquet, how can we not at least press 'skip' on the CD player when 'Stray Cat Blues' comes on? Or do we think having sex with 15-year-olds is OK, and a suitable topic for a rock & roll song, and that Bill Wyman did nothing untoward with Mandy Smith? Meanwhile, should we even be allowed to listen to Snoop Dogg's 'Ain't No Fun (If The Homies Can't Have None)' if we agree that it's not just full of misogyny, but is basically endorsing gang rape? How can we still venerate John Lennon if we believe Cynthia's claims that he was a wife-beater? Aren't we basically adding insult to any domestic violence victim's injuries every time we put Plastic Ono Band on?Īnd surely it's worse when the records actively glorify appalling behaviour. Once you start doing that, you could quite easily deny the significance of pop music's biggest figures. And it seems to validate the notion that we should actively avoid listening to the music of anyone whose off-stage behaviour we disapprove of. Because it suggests that we should judge music's validity according to some sort of 'fit and proper person' test on the individuals who made it. I find that disappointing, and something of a dangerous precedent to set. Instead they have included The Glitter Band's 'Angel Face', which Easlea argues is "on a par with any of their on-stage leader's work." No disrespect to the Glitter Band, who have not had an easy time of it (as John Robb recounted here), but I think he'll be in a very small minority taking that view.Įlsewhere, The Human League's cover of 'Rock & Roll' manages to get Glitter's music in there by the back door, but the man himself remains conspicuously absent. ![]() It was an inspired choice to include the Burundi drummers in the box set, so you'd have thought it would make sense to include, for instance, 'Rock & Roll (Parts 1&2)' as a seminal example of the double drummer stomp that was a trademark characteristic of the glam sound, which was so clearly present in post-punk pop like Adam & The Ants. And even if the tabloids decided to stick their oar in and stir things up, the label could have presented the same argument as the BBC did when they showed an episode of Top Of The Pops featuring Glitter: We can't be expected to rewrite history.īut in omitting Glitter from this compilation, that's effectively what they've done. For one thing, no single act is included more than once among the 91 tracks, so he'd hardly stick out like a spangly sore thumb. Daryl Easlea, who compiled the track listing for Universal, argued: "If we'd included Glitter, it would have overshadowed everybody's contributions and music". Because we all know why Glitter isn't on there. With any compilation or list, there are going to be complaints about certain acts not making the cut, but this is different.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |