“ 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,” a spokesperson told The LA Times.
Glitter’s share, however, is controlled by Universal Music Publishing. The song is a co-write with Mike Leander whose share is controlled by BMG. “ Gary Glitter does not get paid,” a UK spokesman for Snapper said, speaking to the LA Times on condition of anonymity. It acquired Glitter’s catalogue in 1997, mere months before his dark actions became public, making this perhaps the most poorly timed music purchase in history. It turns out the sound recording is owned by Snapper Music. In this report, the hyperbole was dialled up and the licensing specifics were dialled down.Ī follow-up report by the LA Times found that things were not quite that simple.
On hearing about the inclusion of the song in the film, UK tabloid The Sun claimed Glitter was set to “ rake in a fortune” of “hundreds of thousands of pounds” from the use of the music in the film. He was also convicted of committing sexual crimes on minors in Thailand in 2006.) (Gadd had previously served time in the UK for possession of pornographic images of children on his computer. US audiences may only know it in that context, but in Britain it has a powerfully dark and disturbing resonance as it was co-written and performed by Gary Glitter – real name Paul Gadd – a convicted paedophile who is currently serving a 16-year sentence in Wandsworth prison after being found guilty of multiple charges in 2015. In the US, it had a curious afterlife, used regularly at sports events to pump up audiences and where it became known colloquially as ‘The Hey! Song’ due to its chant. The music he is cavorting to is ‘Rock & Roll Part 2’, the near-instrumental B-side of ‘ Rock & Roll Part 1’, an enormous hit in the UK in 1972 at the dawning of glam rock. It has been hailed as a masterpiece by some critics (“ a study in how real monsters are made” said the Radio Times in its five-star review) and enormously problematic by others (“ a viewing experience of a rare, numbing emptiness” said The New Yorker).īut a short sequence in particular – where Phoenix as the Joker dances down some steps as he completes his ghoulish transformation – has raised new concerns and questions about the ethics of using certain pieces of music in a feature film. Which surprised… absolutely no one.ĭirected by Todd Phillips and starring Joaquin Phoenix, Joker is a brutal and unrelenting portrayal of what happens when someone falls through society’s cracks and turns to violence as both a form of release and of validation – and the violence in the film is unquestionably extreme. The most controversial film of the year became, on release, mired in yet more controversy.
0 kommentar(er)
