Removing a paedophile from a song is WORSE than being one
Nov 9, 2018 11:27:07 GMT
Post by respiratoryproblems on Nov 9, 2018 11:27:07 GMT
Jesus fucking Christ, this is a new low. Kate Bush takes the opportunity to remove Rolf Harris - a man who used his fame to prey on very young girls - from the latest reissue of Aerial (which as far as I can tell is not very good anyway). No more royalties for Rolf, no more cringing at having to endure a convicted child molester ruin a song/suite/whatever. But apparently the real criminal here is Kate Bush. Line up, please, the usual suspects:
Oobu Jubu
Bobby Moron (surprise!)
Dave Thompson
Mr. Datsun
(because yup, a sticker saying 'WARNING: THIS RECORD CONTAINS A PAEDO" is a huge selling point)
Jarleboy
Presumably the presence of a man convicted of interfering with kids is a good reason? If not, exactly what the fuck constitutes a good reason?
Terrapin Station
Newton John, clearly a sensitive dude:
mclwod
I guess you'd have a strong case with Trading Standards if you complained that you were duped into buying the version without the prederast
Celebrated Summer
Who then manages to get a fucking Beatard reference in
Fuck off Carl Swanson. When someone comes for you at gunpoint, it won't be for your shitty CDs
Kingsley Fats
Sunspot42 provides rational thought
But no, Celebrated Summer has the strongest of arguments
What a prick.
Bostonscoots sees it as a step towards Stalinism
Moople72
Fuck offfffff.
Oobu Jubu
Do they have the right to? Absolutely.
Should they? Much more difficult to answer. I fully intend to buy the new Aerial on vinyl when it's out, but I don't know yet whether I'm happy if Rolf has gone.
Should they? Much more difficult to answer. I fully intend to buy the new Aerial on vinyl when it's out, but I don't know yet whether I'm happy if Rolf has gone.
As for ‘disgraced musicians’, personally it’s not something I dwell upon. I grew up with Gary Glitter all over the charts, and while I don’t condone his later actions, I still love those records and can ‘switch off’ from his private life.
As long as they don't try to physically round up and destroy all existing copies of the original, they can do what they like. So yes, they have "the right" to do it, just like they have the right to rerecord any (or all) other element in a performance.
But it still feels wrong.
But it still feels wrong.
I would leave him in as a reminder but add a warning sticker.
Jarleboy
I think they do have the right, yes. But I don´t think they should do it unless they have very good reasons why.
Terrapin Station
Do they have a right to change their previous work? Of course. There would be no reasonable way to argue that they don't have a right to change their previous work.
But I'd rather they didn't change earlier stuff. Well, or I'd rather the earlier versions be just as easily available.
It would particularly irk me that the artist is changing earlier stuff for some non-artistic reason--like a moral objection to someone who played on it (as in the Kate Bush example)
But I'd rather they didn't change earlier stuff. Well, or I'd rather the earlier versions be just as easily available.
It would particularly irk me that the artist is changing earlier stuff for some non-artistic reason--like a moral objection to someone who played on it (as in the Kate Bush example)
Newton John, clearly a sensitive dude:
Nevertheless, I have mixed feelings on the issue. On the one hand, I feel revolted by what Harris and the other guy I mentioned, apparently, did to minors. Yet at the same time, I feel uncomfortable about censorship and pretending that they never existed.
Whichever way Kate goes on this one, she’s open to criticism. As far as I am concerned, it’s a matter for her own conscience. I hope she didn’t act out of fear of being condemned on Twitter.
Whichever way Kate goes on this one, she’s open to criticism. As far as I am concerned, it’s a matter for her own conscience. I hope she didn’t act out of fear of being condemned on Twitter.
If they do, the new reissue should clearly state that it's "revisited" or "remixed" version because it surely isn't the same album.
Celebrated Summer
Removing performers and songs for political reasons is like trying to rewrite history. Kate Bush and Guns 'N Roses can try to cover their tracks, but all they did was draw attention to what they're trying to cover up
Who then manages to get a fucking Beatard reference in
Dateline 2019: As the Abbey Road remix is being prepared, someone convinces Paul McCartney that in reality, the love you make rarely equals the love you take, so he removes the line for reasons of integrity. Then we sit back and watch the entire musical world descend into chaos and disorder!
Fuck off Carl Swanson. When someone comes for you at gunpoint, it won't be for your shitty CDs
As long as they don't come and confiscate my old copy at gunpoint, I couldn't care less.
Kingsley Fats
Does this mean that Alice Cooper need to remove Sun Arise from the Love it To Death album ?
Sunspot42 provides rational thought
Removing a pedophile from your record is "political" and "trying to rewrite history"??
More like, "I'm removing this pedo from my record because I can't listen to it anymore without throwing up."
More like, "I'm removing this pedo from my record because I can't listen to it anymore without throwing up."
But no, Celebrated Summer has the strongest of arguments
Murder is worse. So Phil Spector records and anything Jim Gordon played on should be "disappeared" by this standard. Then there's domestic violence. Here is a list of musicians guilty of it.
Removing records (or performances) from public view is a political act because it's a form of retroactive censorship. And, yes, it's rewriting history. Bush hired Harris. Removing him from her record won't change that -- try as she might.
Removing records (or performances) from public view is a political act because it's a form of retroactive censorship. And, yes, it's rewriting history. Bush hired Harris. Removing him from her record won't change that -- try as she might.
Bostonscoots sees it as a step towards Stalinism
I'm with the "They have the right, but is it right?" argument.
With regards to Rolf Harris or another other disgraced figure, guilty as they may be, do we need to go down the Stalinist path of declaring someone a "nonperson"?
With regards to Rolf Harris or another other disgraced figure, guilty as they may be, do we need to go down the Stalinist path of declaring someone a "nonperson"?
It's always a mistake.
Fuck offfffff.