Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Glenn Frey 1948 - 2016

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #51
    Glenn Frey 1948 - 2016

    Eagles v. The Dan

    Comment


      #52
      Glenn Frey 1948 - 2016

      Green Calx wrote: Ah for fuck's sake, that thing is about 100 words long and it turns out to be the last NewYorker.com article I can read for the month. What a waste.
      Doesn't incognito mode work around that?

      Comment


        #53
        Glenn Frey 1948 - 2016

        Maybe you're right. Though I've found in the past that it only works a certain number of times for NYT articles before conking out.

        Hardly your fault in any case.

        Comment


          #54
          Glenn Frey 1948 - 2016

          Jah Womble wrote:
          Originally posted by Luke R
          If suspect behaviour was the criteria for ditching good art, I think we would have to re-assess many artistes. Including that other fellow who passed away recently.
          It depends upon how generous one is with the term 'suspect behaviour' perhaps
          I was thinking of Bowie's behaviour with young teenage girls in the early seventies. The sort of thing that has become increasingly unacceptable by society with the passing of time. Julie Burchill wrote an article last week (not the first one she wrote earlier in the week) which brought up the subject and the moral dilemma it possibly creates. It's the only one I've really seen though.

          It's sometimes hard to separate the art from the artist and any disagreeable behaviour they may have taken part in and other times it's easy. Something unquantifiable in the gut, personal taste, why we might as individuals judge two people who have behave badly in similar ways differently.

          I dunno, I'm probably on can of worms ground atm, a thread derailer. The subject has been done before on here before quite a bit if memory serves me correctly. There's understandably not really been an appetite to talk about it that much on here in the last week or so though.

          Comment


            #55
            Glenn Frey 1948 - 2016

            There's a world of difference between exploiting young girls or beating up women, at one end of the scale, and being a shagmonster to loads of adoring women at the other. David Bowie and Adam Ant being at the latter end of the scale; never heard any women complain about the whambam, and both men were gentle and courteous. No doubt, some underage girls got into Bowie's pants, but they weren't pre-pubescent, they were very, very willing, and they all had a good time. Suzi Ronson told me something about this that I probably shouldn't share, but it wasn't anything I had a problem with. I and most of my friends (female and male!) would probably have happily shagged him when we were underage.

            The law is there to protect against predators, not to stop sexed-up 15 year olds getting it on, is it?

            There are stories and allegations of very unpleasant behaviour towards women by many musicians, degrading them, beating them, forcing drugs on them.

            It's not that I would give Bowie or Adam* (say) a free pass for behaving badly (and as far as I've heard, they didn't) it's that there's a huge difference between being a sexed-up sexgod making free love, and taking advantage of your fame to piss on young girls, punch them or pass them around your crew.

            I'd rather hear that Bowie said "no young ladies to be allowed in the hotel without proof of being 18, please" but at the time we didn't know about the Saviles and Glitters, so it probably didn't occur to him that he'd be regarded in that light, or that it was anything other than beautiful wild sex with eager girls.

            These days we're more alert to the fact that, consensual or not, the age difference matters in terms of power imbalance.

            Comment

            Working...
            X