If Music Could Talk

Well in rock and roll terms it goes back to Elvis raping Priscilla with her family's consent and Jerry Lee and his 12 year old cousin/wife. I wonder about the generations before that, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra and that gang, they were probably just as bad.

That's true for the most part. I know loads of people younger than that that still get in. But restrictions are tighter now.


[/quote]

In the US you can't go anywhere without an ID, you can go to jail for not carrying identification

coffeepotman wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 10:40am

That's true for the most part. I know loads of people younger than that that still get in. But restrictions are tighter now.

In the US you can't go anywhere without an ID, you can go to jail for not carrying identification
[/quote]

Yeah sorry should made it clearer I meant here in the UK. I've been a door man of night clubs / strip clubs in the past and I've seen all sorts of shit going on.

Tried to write this post several ways but difficult to explain and get the point across (or st least be able to justify it).
There is a difference between 2 wrongs and my overriding comment relating to all points is not saying either is ok.
But surely sleeping with an underage groupie in 1970’s is not the same as abusing prepubescent children. Likewise a 1970’s TV star touching a woman’s bum at a Xmas party doesn’t make him Jimmy Saville.
I don’t know where the line is drawn and either side isn’t ok but there is a line somewhere?

If there's one thing The Clash taught me it's separating the artist from the art.

Or maybe it was Gottfried Benn.

101Walterton wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 5:07pm

Tried to write this post several ways but difficult to explain and get the point across (or st least be able to justify it).
There is a difference between 2 wrongs and my overriding comment relating to all points is not saying either is ok.
But surely sleeping with an underage groupie in 1970’s is not the same as abusing prepubescent children. Likewise a 1970’s TV star touching a woman’s bum at a Xmas party doesn’t make him Jimmy Saville.
I don’t know where the line is drawn and either side isn’t ok but there is a line somewhere?

It is indeed difficult to explain. I've put a lot of thought into it since the whole Ryan Adams affair was exposed earlier this week. It's hard to say where the line is drawn because I think the line isn't static - it's moved throughout the decades. Where it was in 1979 is different than where it is in 2019. There are some things that have never been okay - such as Glitter or Saville. There are other things that seem very not okay today - but that probably was "okay" in the context of the times in which they happened. It's really hard to put into words. A rock star sleeping with a 14-year-old groupie today is bad. It will get your locked up and your career will be down the toilet. Adams is in trouble for sexting with a 14-year-old. I don't think it's ever okay for a grown man to sleep with a 14-year-old...but it has happened a lot in rock history - and I think it has to be looked at within the context of when it happened. I don't know. It really truly is hard to put into words because I don't want to come across like I condone it - I don't - but I'm trying to understand why it was accepted at one time without judging too harshly - if that makes sense???

Look at teen movies. Used to be a standard scene with the guy groping the girl in the drive-in movie and she is physically trying to force him off. Used to be seen as funny but today is seen as sexual assault

101Walterton wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 7:21pm

Look at teen movies. Used to be a standard scene with the guy groping the girl in the drive-in movie and she is physically trying to force him off. Used to be seen as funny but today is seen as sexual assault

"Your lips say no, but your eyes say yes."

WestwayKid wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 7:04pm

... I don't know. It really truly is hard to put into words because I don't want to come across like I condone it - I don't - but I'm trying to understand why it was accepted at one time without judging too harshly - if that makes sense???

I think we have advanced ever so slightly as a society. An incremental change perhaps but hopefully a part of a bigger change where everyone can respect each other and treat everyone equally.

101Walterton wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 5:07pm

Tried to write this post several ways but difficult to explain and get the point across (or st least be able to justify it).
There is a difference between 2 wrongs and my overriding comment relating to all points is not saying either is ok.
But surely sleeping with an underage groupie in 1970’s is not the same as abusing prepubescent children. Likewise a 1970’s TV star touching a woman’s bum at a Xmas party doesn’t make him Jimmy Saville.
I don’t know where the line is drawn and either side isn’t ok but there is a line somewhere?

It's logical for decent minded people to say the crimes against innocent defenseless children is the worst of these crimes because they are and they sicken us to the pits of our stomachs. This is not to lessen other crimes in any way after all a crime is a crime. People should be held accountable for their actions. Because something happens during more promiscuous times the 60s/70s does not lessen the crime. If it were a priest abusing an alter boy back in the 70s or a rock star having sex with a minor neither will ever be acceptable just because of that's the the way things were back then. That simply doesn't cut it as there can be no excuses.

revbob wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 8:12pm

WestwayKid wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 7:04pm

... I don't know. It really truly is hard to put into words because I don't want to come across like I condone it - I don't - but I'm trying to understand why it was accepted at one time without judging too harshly - if that makes sense???

I think we have advanced ever so slightly as a society. An incremental change perhaps but hopefully a part of a bigger change where everyone can respect each other and treat everyone equally.

Then again, MRAs, gamers, incels, and anyone who mouthbreaths about PC culture and SJWs. But, yes, there is some incremental improvement inasmuch as more men are conscious of these historic power imbalances and how they play out.

Marky Dread wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 8:46pm

101Walterton wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 5:07pm

Tried to write this post several ways but difficult to explain and get the point across (or st least be able to justify it).
There is a difference between 2 wrongs and my overriding comment relating to all points is not saying either is ok.
But surely sleeping with an underage groupie in 1970’s is not the same as abusing prepubescent children. Likewise a 1970’s TV star touching a woman’s bum at a Xmas party doesn’t make him Jimmy Saville.
I don’t know where the line is drawn and either side isn’t ok but there is a line somewhere?

It's logical for decent minded people to say the crimes against innocent defenseless children is the worst of these crimes because they are and they sicken us to the pits of our stomachs. This is not to lessen other crimes in any way after all a crime is a crime. People should be held accountable for their actions. Because something happens during more promiscuous times the 60s/70s does not lessen the crime. If it were a priest abusing an alter boy back in the 70s or a rock star having sex with a minor neither will ever be acceptable just because of that's the the way things were back then. That simply doesn't cut it as there can be no excuses.

I would still say a priest abusing an altar boy is different to a rock star having sex with a minor but agree with what you say a crime is a crime.

101Walterton wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 10:40pm

Marky Dread wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 8:46pm

101Walterton wrote: ↑

16 Feb 2019, 5:07pm

Tried to write this post several ways but difficult to explain and get the point across (or st least be able to justify it).
There is a difference between 2 wrongs and my overriding comment relating to all points is not saying either is ok.
But surely sleeping with an underage groupie in 1970’s is not the same as abusing prepubescent children. Likewise a 1970’s TV star touching a woman’s bum at a Xmas party doesn’t make him Jimmy Saville.
I don’t know where the line is drawn and either side isn’t ok but there is a line somewhere?

It's logical for decent minded people to say the crimes against innocent defenseless children is the worst of these crimes because they are and they sicken us to the pits of our stomachs. This is not to lessen other crimes in any way after all a crime is a crime. People should be held accountable for their actions. Because something happens during more promiscuous times the 60s/70s does not lessen the crime. If it were a priest abusing an alter boy back in the 70s or a rock star having sex with a minor neither will ever be acceptable just because of that's the the way things were back then. That simply doesn't cut it as there can be no excuses.

I would still say a priest abusing an altar boy is different to a rock star having sex with a minor but agree with what you say a crime is a crime.

To clarify my point above I am not talking about a ‘rock star’ grooming a minor on the internet etc. I was relating it to the underage groupie scenario.

This is such a charged topic, even conversation about it with my wife is difficult. A crime is a crime but what are crimes now were not seen as crimes then and that is wrong.

I guess our views are formed by our own moral compass and reading through this thread it seems we are all pretty much in agreement which is understandable. Whether you agree it is wrong to listen to GG or a sample in an Oasis track or not is a minor (pun intended) side issue.