If it was found out that your all-time favourite artist was a pedophile would you still listen to their music?

If it was found out that your all-time favourite artist was a pedophile would you still listen to their music?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=p3RhUUQNKew
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I would enjoy his music even more

Do people even like Gary Glitter unironically?

he released a few good singles in the '70s, but he was kind of a meme even back then.

No, but he's very enjoyable on an ironic level
How can you not listen to I'm The Leader of the Gang (I Am) and not wanted to sing along with the COME ONs and DO YOU WANNA BE IN MY GANGs?

>Mark E. Smith was a Glitter fan. "I was really into Gary Glitter, and I used to get bad-mouthed for it. It was like 'You've got to be into David Bowie or Yes – Gary Glitter's just tripe'. And I was going 'It's fuckin' great. It's avant-garde... Well, two drummers and all that – it was really percussive. It was the only decent thing around", the Fall frontman said in 1993, speaking to NME.[34]

Mark E. Smith, Andrew Eldrtich, CeeLo Green, Joan Jett, Freddie Mercury, Oasis and the Who all did

all the David Bowie fans that still post here make it clear the general answer is yes

For his sonics, yeah. I mean, the guitar tone on Do You Wanna Touch Me leads directly to New Dawn Fades by Joy Division. He was confrontationally naff and pantomimic, and this appealed to British punks.

ROCK AND ROOOOOLL
ROCK!
ROCK AND ROLL

If everyone else did and carried on listening anyway, probably yes. If they didn't, probably not.

Beat me to my punchline. Basically, the artists who get condemned to oblivion are usually those who can be done without. I mean, Michael Jackson was a loathsome, despicable predator. This is absolutely proven, cast-iron and manifest. And the way it's been dealt with is to pretend that we didn't hear and didn't know. I always thought he was vanilla garbage, apart from the production on Billie Jean, which was nothing to do with him anyway, so it wasn't an issue for me - if anything he was more interesting as a kind of self-loathing black wino Phantom of the Opera, but he should be the same kind of historical non-person as Glitter, and he's not because he sold more records internationally.

>This is absolutely proven, cast-iron and manifest
Enlighten us as to how this is the case

Yes. Most artists are shitty people in one way or another. You have to learn to separate the artist from art if you want to allow yourself to enjoy anything. It's tempting to want to have some kind of moral high ground about what you consume, but that's impossible in most cases.

It's not like Gary Glitter was alone in liking underage girls. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin. Elvis Presley starting dating Priscilla when she was 14 and stopped having sex with her when she got too old. Johnny Thunders famously dated a 13 year for a while, and Iggy pop wrote a song about having sex with her before Thunders did. Jimmy Page and Ted Nugent both became the legal guardians of 13 year olds because they wanted to take them on tour and fuck them.

Some of his music is pretty decent glam-pop.

I think when it turned out that he had burned through his money mainly because he had to pay millions in hush money for every fuck he ever had, that should have been conclusive. Also, the kid who described the mottling on his junk accurately. The fact that he would get kids liquored up and then get into bed with them, and that this is a matter of record. The fact that his art collection was a catalog of the various artists who have made a living out of faux-naif "artistic" studies of kids for the market to which he belonged.

Let's be honest, finding out the full scale of it is why his daughter attempted suicide. He's a grim figure, it would be futile to deny it.

>Michael Jackson was a loathsome, despicable predator. This is absolutely proven,
Except he wasn't. Both of those cases were extortion. Everyone accepts that he was a pedophile because he was definitely a weirdo, but there's no proof he molested any kids.

Iggy Pop's interesting, he's made it very obvious that his sexual interest in mainly in underage girls. He even mocked himself for it when he included a girl of about five in the harem featured in his video for "Bang Bang", but he's yet to get any heat for it. The day he dies, Twitter will be covered in people talking about the sick truth about Iggy Pop. Sites will cover it as if it was news. Yet everyone who knows who he is has always known.

The thing is, while it's probably not right for blokes in their 20s to be shagging girls in their mid teens people just didn't seem to care, and if it happened in the past they still don't seem to care. What's different with Glitter is that he actually sexually abused prepubescent children which is and always has been frowned upon.

Why would anyone think he didn't molest them when he was capable of being extorted? Innocent people don't pay hush money.

These reactions illustrate my point - Jackson is surrounded by this forcefield of collective denial. Nobody who behaved as he behaved would be mistaken for anything but a child molester if he hadn't recorded Thriller.

*is mainly

I mean yeah but there's a pretty massive difference between Bowie and guys like Gary Glitter. Accidentally fucking one teenage girl that lied about her age amidst a sea of countless other legal women is really no big deal.

I still listen to lostprophets
I can separate the artist from the music

Problem is lostprophets sucked, even for a 2007 kerrang band.

He's pointing at God

yeah why not?

yes charles cohen remains my favorite artist. i view pedophilia with pity rather than evil. it must suck to be internally conflicted with physical urges verses, your moral conscious and societal rules. its different than being an asshole or racist or hurting people. theres a difference between being a molestor and abuser and simply being a pedophile. i never would support someone who deliberately hurts others

He always said that he settled the cases because he didn't want to deal with a trial and the inevitable media circus. Keep in mind that of the conditions of the settlement was that Jackson asserted his innocence. His lawyers admitted later that they gave him bad advice and they probably should have gone to trial anyway. And if you think Michael was sketchy, read up more on the families who were accusing him.

>Jackson is surrounded by this forcefield of collective denial
That's just bullshit. Even though he was never convicted of anything, everyone now just assumed he was a child molester. It's pretty much the default position. I assumed he was, too, until I actually did some research into both cases.

any other good musicians that are pedophiles? i've heard peter "sleazy" christopherson but its kind of just rumor and speculation although not at all surprising.

I don't think we need to be silly about this, Bowie fucked two or three fourteen year old girls during a period he later claimed to have no memory of when he was hanging out with Iggy Pop in LA, then they both relocated to West Berlin where fourteen-year-old prostitutes were then plentiful and legal. (And you thought there was some other reason they went there?)

In 1987, he recorded a song called Beat of Your Drum, which he summarized thus: "it’s a Lolita Number! Reflection on young girls…Christ, she’s only 14 years old, but jail’s worth it!"

He wasn't Glitter, but he wasn't simply the victim of a fluke deception.

In the early 70s there was this girl named Sable Starr who was the most famous of the so-called "baby groupies". She lost her virginity when she was 12 with Spirit's Randy California and in the next few years she fucked many famous rockstars of the era (Iggy, Bowie, Jagger, Bolan, Rod Stewart, Plant...).
She even had a younger sister who was involved with Iggy Pop when she was 11 (eleven).
At the time it was still considered wrong, but if the girl had already reached puberty it was not a big deal (like they said, if there's grass on the field...). It was a part of the rock and roll lifestyle, like doing drugs.

Innocent people pay "hush money" if it's substantially less than what they'll lose from loss in income from cancelled tours if it goes to trial, not to mention the damage it does to someone to be put through an extremely high profile trial like Michael's. Heck, even pictures of his genitals were to be a part of the evidence, would you have a room full of strangers, and most probably the country at large look at your meat and veg if you could pay a way out of it?

You're naive. Nobody in their right mind would ever settle in circumstances like that. If they did, they wouldn't set themselves up for the same thing to happen twice.

Yes, the families pimped the kids to him. So did all the ones he paid without going to court - the two that sued were the two who thought they could get more out of him than the agreed sum, clearly.

No, there are hundreds of people like you, and if we as a society thought through the situation, we couldn't stomach Jackson's records any more than Glitter's. But he sold better, so he's forgiven.

I know, this is my point, it's all out there about Iggy, but he can do a new album with Josh Homme and nobody says "hey Josh, I know you're a libertarian and all, but Jim fucked an eleven-year-old, you sure you want to be his buddy?" Nobody suggested boycotting that album, nor will they. When he dies, it'll be a furore, partly to make up for the fact that Bowie was too commercially successful to ruin that way. But right now, enough is known to make him persona non grata. And *nobody cares*.

No, innocent people never pay hush money, ever. It categorically doesn't happen. Just imagine being unjustly accused yourself and you'll see what a fantasy you're constructing.

Of course I'd rather people saw my genitals than be reviled and open to blackmail for life. Wouldn't you?

If Michael Jackson was not innocent why was the evidence that would have been put forward in the first trial and was put forward in the second trial not enough to get a conviction?

Do you have any proof that every person that has ever paid for allegations to go away committed the crime? Again, in this instance Jackson was someone who stood to lose a far more substantial amount of money from a trial alone as well as a massive media circus following him for months. On top of which Michael was an ungodly sensitive man - he cried at people swearing around him - he probably wouldn't have thought himself that he'd have lasted a trial

The Fake Sound of Progress is one of the best songs in that genre fuck you.

I mean, it doesn't stop marching bands playing Rock n Roll in every sporting event

Peak GGlitter was a duo, it was the producer who really makes those singles pop. this is heaven youtube.com/watch?v=p3RhUUQNKew

I'm kind of glad that Mike Leander died a year before Glitter got caught. It was good that he got his fair share for his work.

The same reason you don't think he was guilty - he was Michael Jackson and America loves its celebrities.

>tfw

No, this simply would not ever happen. You don't pay off someone calling you a pedophile if you love kids, want to hang out with kids, are admired and trusted by kids and want to stay that way. He would have fought tooth and nail to clear his name. The payoff was an admission of guilt, and was correctly seen as such.

I don't think he's guilty because he's Michael Jackson, I think he wasn't guilty because the actual publicly available evidence presented at trial is, in my opinion at least, extremely lacking. I honestly couldn't give a shit if he was a pedo or not, it has no effect on how I see his music, which I consider mainly the work of Quincy Jones anyway, and he was obviously a mentally disturbed man anyway. I still enjoy Glitter in spite of the fact he's a repeated child rapist, I still enjoy Spector and Burzum and Bobby Beausoleil and Leadybelly in spite of the fact they are murderers.

yes, the same behaviour now could destroy your career and put you in jail for several years.
the biggest difference between him and Glitter is that the crimes of the latter are rather recent, while in Iggy's and Bowie's case it's old stuff.

>all those 70's rockstars who fucked hundreds of (pre)teens without paying the price
Watkins literally born in the wrong generation

>I don't think he's guilty because he's Michael Jackson

Thanks for the Freudian slip.

Glitter was interested in much younger kids, seemingly. It's also about coolness.

No, I think an actual baby would have caused at least some raised eyebrows even then.

Again, you have no evidence of that. I also want to point out that while you state that he would want to clear his name on the allegation where he did clear his name you do not believe the outcome; do you not think that this possibility ran through both the heads of Jackson as well as his assorted promoters, managers, A&R men, label representatives and other business partners (who would have absolutely have played a part in the decision, at the very least by putting pressure on Jackson), and that they might have concluded that while a pay off would have looked bad, he looked bad anyway, a trial (even one not resulting in a conviction) would have made him look bad and would have been spun by the media to make him look worse, and ultimately the cost to pay off would have been better for all involved (though one assumes the main benefits of this passed to his advisors) than a trial? Jackson's image was hardly shining before the allegations anyway. "Wacko Jacko" was not a post-allegations phenomenom, it existed before then, that he might look bad probably played a more minor role than you'd think being as he didn't exactly have a great public image anyway.

OK, but the point still stands
I don't think he's guilty but I don't think he's not guilty because he's Michael Jackson
Is that better?

>Glitter was interested in much younger kids,
Not really. As far as I know, the youngest he was ever charged with were 10 and 11 year olds. There's not much of a difference between that and the 12 and 13 year old that plenty of well-regarded rock stars had sex with.

No, this is all fantasy, in no situation will paying off your accuser ever be the best route - unless the situation is that you're really guilty, which he was.

His first arrest was for pictures on his computer which including younger kids, I believe.

EFF
PEE
BEE
PEE

The point doesn't stand, you declared that you don't give a shit whether your favorite musicians have murdered people, let alone raped them, so the conversation has become moot.

That's a false assumption though. Just because it's not the best course of action does not mean that a person can wrongly think it's the best course of action, especially if taking it to court has a major monetary effect on a substantial number of very powerful people who will themselves be putting a lot of pressure on said person to pay the accusers off, which Jackson, his lawyers, and indeed many such people themselves has stated was the case at the time. Just because a pay off doesn't make sense to you or I does not mean that in that situation Jackson wasn't made to believe that it was.

*included

You are a delusional stan who probably got a Google Alert about this thread and has no business being here, stop typing.

Yes because they are that great to me

luckily the only pedos are shite musicians like lost prophets and gary glitter

lol

Hasn't changed a thing.

>tfw still got my Rolf stylophone

How long is everyone going to ignore all his "dreamgirls" are underage

>I wanted to write a song about sexuality in the classroom. I'd done teaching practice at secondary schools and been through the business of having 15-year-old girls fancying me – and me really fancying them! How I kept my hands off them I don't know...
How long until he's caught in a "police" "sting"

Who is that?

Jizz Mancum

Guy from Of Montreal

Probably a long time, because the quote has him saying that he never did anything, and nobody's ever come forward to allege anything to the contrary.

There is no different user. Don't lie to yourself.

Oh, if it's him, the way that people manage to get so deeply into that album while overlooking the creepiness has always puzzled me.

Also...

Why does he look like a real life anime villain?

He basically was
Any recs for animes with pedophilic Rock & Roll revivalists?

His early albums/singles had great guitar and drum work, mostly thanks to the Glitter Band. Glitter himself was a good showman, bad singer but he had charm and charisma sold out UK stadiums up until the mid 90s when the shit hit the fan.

the Glitter Band didn't play on the studio recordings, it was all Glitter/Leander

Turn 90 degrees and walk away

>great guitar and drum work, mostly thanks to the Glitter Band.

I may never understand why so many boys have this combination of wanting to pontificate and not having given themselves a basic education in what they want to pontificate about.