What The Who?

[Dakota]

Kick the Who off the Super Bowl, say child-abuse protesters
Child-protection groups are pushing for the band's halftime show to be dropped after guitarist Pete Townshend's 2003 arrest for accessing child pornography online

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/jan/04/the-who-super-bowl

Pete Townshend, guitarist and songwriter for "The Who", was charged in 2003 in England after he used his credit card in 1999 to access a child pornography website. He pleaded guilty, but said he had been doing research an anti-child pornography article that he put on his website on 2002 and for his autobiography (he claims to be a victim of childhood sexual abuse).

After seizing and investigating 14 computers, NO images were found by searchers. Townshend did admit to accessing the child pornography site and admitted it was a violation of the law, so he pleaded guilty. He received a "caution" and had to register, as per British law.

"Inviting Townsend to play is a blatant disregard to the values of American families and a slap in the face to victims of child sexual abuse," wrote Daly. The same sentiment was expressed in a letter by another US group, Protect Our Children, which wrote to the US department of immigration and Florida's attorney general, asking them to reject Townshend's visa. "We acknowledge he was not convicted, but he was on [the UK] sex offenders' list," wrote Protect Our Children president Kevin Gillick. "In the United States, you're on a sex offenders' list for life."

They lost me with that last line. I know for an absolute fact that not all RSOs are on the list for life. If a child abuse advocacy group does not know this, just about anything else they say is suspect also.

In a Dec 17 letter to Mr Daly, Joe Browne, the NFL's executive vice president of communications and public affairs, said the league was aware of Townshend's arrest. He also noted Townshend's charity work.

Brian McCarthy, an NFL spokesman, told The Associated Press on Friday that Townshend and The Who will perform in the halftime show at LandShark Stadium in Miami.

"UK police cleared him since he was doing research for a project on child abuse," Mr McCarthy said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-cancel-The-Who-at-Super-Bowl-group-says.html

I have no clue if he is a pedo. I have no clue if most rock stars are pedos.

Should The Who be removed for the lineup for this? Is this an example of "celebrity privilege"? Is Protect Our Children going too far?

 

[backlash]

Personally, I think the Who sucks, so I would want them off the show anyway. They should book some other cheesy soul-less band like Color Me Badd. Now that would be worth watching.

 

[TheMorningStar]

Families still watch the half time show? I thought they were all scarred for life by Janet Jackson's nipple.

 

[DogMom]

It's the only part I watch.

 

[Pazuzu]

Personally, I think the Who sucks, so I would want them off the show anyway. They should book some other cheesy soul-less band like Color Me Badd. Now that would be worth watching.

I freaking love the Who. Well......I love the 2 dead ones anyway.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCzdXuAb79U"]YouTube- The Who Boris the Spider Cleveland 1975[/ame]


Wait...was I supposed to be commenting on child pornography?

 

[Nell]

I believe him. And I think they should let them play. He isn't likely to flash child porn on stage or anything.

You know what pedo rocker creeps me out? Gary Glitter. He has been caught twice, served time and still "vacations" in Thailand. Has a fondness for little boys. And they still play that horrid "Rock and Roll part 2" song at all games. What's up with that?

 

[penelopejo]

ugh!


I don't mind seeing The Who....a lot better than what they have been showing.

 

[Pazuzu]

It's called Rock and Roll Part 2

 

[Nell]

Yes. That's it. It is early here.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xd44PWZGzg"]YouTube- Gary Glitter - Rock'n Roll Part 2 1972[/ame]

 

[Athena]

"We acknowledge he was not convicted, but..."

There is no "but", in my opinion. These people are clearly being ridiculous, and their overzealousness leeches credibility from the anti-child porn movement in general.

I am curious as to how they select the half-time show entertainment, though. Do they target a demographic? They must. I just have no idea what that demographic is, since I find 90% of half-time shows to be suckage.

Just to clarify, I don't think The Who suck, but I wouldn't pick them for the half-time show.

 

[DogMom]

I think they're choosing the older acts because they're still stinging from Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction.

But I thought I read somewhere that they choose based on *who* is on tour (or going to be on tour) around the area during that time (plus popularity).

Yeah, could be some sort of demographics. Considering the past few performances, the acts are definately aimed at the Senior population.

 

[eracsurfer]

These groups need to take a step back and think about what the hell they are saying/doing.

I agree with Nell, it isn't like they are inviting Glitter to do the show!

As far as Pete Townshend is concerned, I'd say that since he had no images on his computer and came clean as to his actions, I think that he should be commended by these groups for trying to draw attention to this pedo crap. I would have a totally different comment toward him if he had been found to do it again, but it has been over 6 years and nothing, so I'd say he was being honest.

Now to the half time show...I swear that the officials have a weekend of beer pong and the winner gets to choose... While they are drunk.

 

[Satanica]

The contentious inclusion of a song by convicted pedophile Gary Glitter in “Joker” has sparked a wave of criticism from moviegoers, with many concerned the disgraced former glam rock singer will be entitled to lucrative music royalties.

The R-rated comic book movie smashed box office records over the weekend, with Warner Bros. hauling in $93.5 million in the U.S. alone. That marked the highest debut for a film released in October in cinematic history.


“Joker” also garnered $140.5 million internationally, bringing the film’s total ticket sales to $234 million, Warner Bros. said Sunday.

But, despite the film’s opening weekend success, the makers of the movie have stoked controversy for featuring Glitter’s 1972 hit “Rock and Roll Part 2” in a lengthy scene.

The song plays for approximately two minutes as Joaquin Phoenix, who has received rave reviews for his portrayal of the eponymous villain, dances down a long flight of steps outside his Gotham City apartment.

Glitter, whose real name is Paul Gadd, is reportedly expected to receive a lump sum for allowing the recording to be used in “Joker.” He is also thought to be in line for music royalties depending on the success of movie theater ticket sales, DVD sales and film soundtrack sales.
[....]
Warner Bros. was not immediately available to comment when contacted by CNBC Monday morning.

Directed by Todd Phillips, “Joker” received critical acclaim following its debut at the Venice Film Festival in August.

However, while some have praised Todd Phillips’ story and direction, and Joaquin Phoenix’s portrayal, many have questioned whether the film, which depicts mass murder, could unintentionally be portraying “Joker” as a heroic or inspirational figure.

Convicted pedophile Gary Glitter set to earn big royalties from 'Joker' movie

The contentious inclusion of a song by convicted pedophile Gary Glitter in "Joker" has sparked a wave of criticism from moviegoers.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Satanica]

Convicted paedophile Gary Glitter won’t earn any royalties from his song being used in the new Joker movie, despite previous reports to the contrary.
[....]
Viewers were outraged to hear the song and were even more incensed when it was reported that Glitter was set to earn hundreds of thousands of pounds in royalties.

However, the record label which owns the master recordings to Glitter’s music says he won’t receive a penny.

Snapper, a London-based label, purchased the rights to the paedophile’s back catalogue in January 1997 before he was sent to prison for abusing three young girls.

Addressing the royalties controversy, Snapper told the Los Angeles Times: ‘Gary Glitter does not get paid. We’ve had no contact with him.

People generally come to us. We don’t promote it at all.’ It’s not the first time Rock and Roll Part 2, released in 1972, has featured in Hollywood TV shows and movies. Over the years, it has also appeared in Meet The Fockers, South Park, The Office and Boyhood.

Snapper does not sell physical copies of Glitter’s songs and they are only available as digital streams and downloads. In the US, the rights to Rock and Roll Part 2 belong to Universal Music Publishing Group and BMG. A rep for Universal said: ‘Gary Glitter’s publishing interest in the copyright of his songs is owned by UMPG and other parties, therefore UMPG does not pay him any royalties or other considerations.’

Their response comes after The Sun reported that experts said Glitter would receive a lump sum for allowing the song to be used, while royalties are expected to be paid based on the film’s performance in cinemas, DVD sales and sales of the soundtrack. In 2013, it was claimed that Glitter had earned an estimated £1 million in royalties after Oasis sampled lyrics from his song Hello, Hello, I’m Back on their 1995 track Hello.
[....]

Gary Glitter won’t earn a penny from Joker movie after backlash

The convicted paedophile’s song Rock and Roll Part 2 features in the film.

metro.co.uk