Rolf's Removal

[Minnie the Minx]

For those of you that don't know, Kate Bush's remastered Aerial has removed the vocals that were provided by Rolf Harris on the original album (it's been remixed then hasn't it?) and added vocals by her son, Bertie. Edit: Rolf Harris was convicted of sexual offences and went to prison a few years ago- an important point!

I got the remasters on vinyl for my birthday and I don't know what to think of all this. The result is a very different album. It still sounds amazing, and I would have been happy if these new vocals had appeared on the original and I didn't know any better, but they didn't, and I do. Rolf's vocals sounded sublime. The whole original album has a really special place in my life.

Of course, it's Kate's album and she can do whatever the fuck she likes with it. Has she also removed his didgeridoo from The Dreaming? If not why, not? Is it only his voice that is considered out of bounds now? What's with all this removal of history shit? Where does it end? Where should it start?

What do you think?

[GoogaMooga]

My stance is I always try to separate the art from the artist. Otherwise, you'd have to write out a lot of great music. Phil Spector is doing life in Los Angeles now. Should I get rid of all that music. I've got one Rolf Harris CD, the pop crossover where he does Stairway to Heaven, and I wil keep it. It is possible to condemn the offending artist and still appreciate the music they once created.

[yomptepi]

I suspect she was trying to remove the mental connection to Rolf and his crimes which might be made every time one played the record. I can see her point. I would not want people thinking about that stuff whilst listening to my grand opus. The problem is if she had left him on, then it is probably all people would talk about.

Did she remove the credit for Rolf's didgeridoo playing? That would make more sense than removing the music I think.

[Minnie the Minx]

I suspect she was trying to remove the mental connection to Rolf and his crimes which might be made every time one played the record. I can see her point. I would not want people thinking about that stuff whilst listening to my grand opus.

Yes, I can see that. And as the artist, she can do what she wants.
I suppose I feel differently about her removing it as say, radio stations refusing to play it or whatnot.

[C]

They'll be airbrushing out Trotsky next!

What about Gary Glitter records - will they become instrumentals?

Or all the albums Jonathan king produced - will they be taken off the shelves....?





.

[Count Machuki]

There might also be a financial consideration. He'd get paid on sales of the record, right, depending on his contract? Can't blame her for not wanting to give that dude a penny.

Can we talk about R. Kelly here, too, or should I start a thread?

[never/ever]

I fully understand Kate's predicament and for me it makes sense to disassociate herself from Harris.

Harris legacy nosedived here down under quite dramatically too, especially the pricing on his paintings which initially ran into the thousands of dollars now are virtually worthless- that is, if any are still up for sale.

Sadly enough, we still see good sales for wifebeaters like Chris Brown. Guess there's an imaginary line where criminals in various degrees still are allowed to prosper.

[Ranking Ted]

It’s generally accepted that Gary Glitter records are beyond any sort of pale. Yet Michael Jackson remains a mainstream phenomenon. There’s obviously a huge quality differential there as well but novelty acts like Glitter, King and Harris are much easier to expunge than canon acts - and I’m sure there will be more ghastly revelations as we go. On wife beaters, do we distinguish John Martyn from Chris Brown? Horrible topic but double standards endure.

[yomptepi]

I fully understand Kate's predicament and for me it makes sense to disassociate herself from Harris.

Harris legacy nosedived here down under quite dramatically too, especially the pricing on his paintings which initially ran into the thousands of dollars now are virtually worthless- that is, if any are still up for sale.

Sadly enough, we still see good sales for wifebeaters like Chris Brown. Guess there's an imaginary line where criminals in various degrees still are allowed to prosper.

He had a house in Beaconsfield, and there was an art shop in the town that specialised in his paintings, which were routinely priced around £5K. The shop is long gone, and I suspect the paintings went on the fire.

[Jimbly]

It’s generally accepted that Gary Glitter records are beyond any sort of pale. Yet Michael Jackson remains a mainstream phenomenon. There’s obviously a huge quality differential there as well but novelty acts like Glitter, King and Harris are much easier to expunge than canon acts - and I’m sure there will be more ghastly revelations as we go. On wife beaters, do we distinguish John Martyn from Chris Brown? Horrible topic but double standards endure.

Glitter was convicted of offences against children, Jackson was found innocent. During the Christmas holidays I was in the local shopping centre with the little girl we have at the moment. She was very excited about Christmas as it was the first one she really understood what was going on. Christmas songs were playing over the pa, one of which was Glitters Christmas hit. I complained and the song was removed from the playlist.

Should I really be bothered about Glitters crimes, given what I do, yes I should.

KB did the right thing.

[Minnie the Minx]

It’s generally accepted that Gary Glitter records are beyond any sort of pale. Yet Michael Jackson remains a mainstream phenomenon. There’s obviously a huge quality differential there as well but novelty acts like Glitter, King and Harris are much easier to expunge than canon acts - and I’m sure there will be more ghastly revelations as we go. On wife beaters, do we distinguish John Martyn from Chris Brown? Horrible topic but double standards endure.

Glitter was convicted of offences against children, Jackson was found innocent.

Do you think it matters if someone is convicted as opposed to say, a verdict of innocence or someone who just has allegations against them?

[Jimbly]

It’s generally accepted that Gary Glitter records are beyond any sort of pale. Yet Michael Jackson remains a mainstream phenomenon. There’s obviously a huge quality differential there as well but novelty acts like Glitter, King and Harris are much easier to expunge than canon acts - and I’m sure there will be more ghastly revelations as we go. On wife beaters, do we distinguish John Martyn from Chris Brown? Horrible topic but double standards endure.

Glitter was convicted of offences against children, Jackson was found innocent.

Do you think it matters if someone is convicted as opposed to say, a verdict of innocence or someone who just has allegations against them?

I was giving a reason to Ted's point about why one is reviled and one isn't. I think there is a difference between allegations and conviction. You can have an opinion as to whether you think someone is guilty of the allegations made though.

[Ranking Ted]

It’s a good distinction, probably critical. And you can’t try a dead man so we’ll never find out what difference that would make in that instance (appreciating that Jackson did stand trial over a specific allegation and settled out of court on another).

[Muskrat]

Off with their heads!
Feel better, now?

[`]

Another interesting example is that of Pete Townshend.

When pulled in for downloading (and storing?) kiddy porn images on his computer, Townshend argued he needed the images as research for a campaign about banks' colluding in child abuse.

While he didn't quite get off scot-free (he wound up on the sex offenders' register for five years), he has been able to continue his career pretty much as before.

Quite why anyone would need to access images of child abuse for such a campaign is something Townshend has never really attempted to justify (it gets about a page - maybe less - in his autobiography.)

Strangely, the campaign he was working on when arrested never seems to have appeared.

When comedian/actor/scriptwriter, Chris Langham, tried the same "research" defence not long afterwards, he ended up getting several months inside and has barely worked since.

[`]

Glitter was convicted of offences against children, Jackson was found innocent.

Do you think it matters if someone is convicted as opposed to say, a verdict of innocence or someone who just has allegations against them?

I was giving a reason to Ted's point about why one is reviled and one isn't. I think there is a difference between allegations and conviction. You can have an opinion as to whether you think someone is guilty of the allegations made though.

Classic example here would be OJ Simpson - so famously found not guilty* of the murders of his estranged (ex?) wife Nicole Simpson and her friend/lover, Ron Brown.

Aside from a few dodgy reality shows and publishing cash ins, most entertainment industry heavyweights have demonstrated their feelings about his getting off by never working with him again.


* one hesitates to say innocent

[Jimbly]

Do you think it matters if someone is convicted as opposed to say, a verdict of innocence or someone who just has allegations against them?

I was giving a reason to Ted's point about why one is reviled and one isn't. I think there is a difference between allegations and conviction. You can have an opinion as to whether you think someone is guilty of the allegations made though.

Classic example here would be OJ Simpson - so famously found not guilty* of the murders of his estranged (ex?) wife Nicole Simpson and her friend/lover, Ron Brown.

Aside from a few dodgy reality shows and publishing cash ins, most entertainment industry heavyweights have demonstrated their feelings about his getting off by never working with him again.


* one hesitates to say innocent

I never claimed that the law was perfect. Townsend changed his story lately to that he was showing the compliance of major banks in the distribution of money to sites that host such material. Not that he then did much with it if it was his aim.

[`]

I was giving a reason to Ted's point about why one is reviled and one isn't. I think there is a difference between allegations and conviction. You can have an opinion as to whether you think someone is guilty of the allegations made though.

Classic example here would be OJ Simpson - so famously found not guilty* of the murders of his estranged (ex?) wife Nicole Simpson and her friend/lover, Ron Brown.

Aside from a few dodgy reality shows and publishing cash ins, most entertainment industry heavyweights have demonstrated their feelings about his getting off by never working with him again.


* one hesitates to say innocent

I never claimed that the law was perfect. Townsend changed his story lately to that he was showing the compliance of major banks in the distribution of money to sites that host such material. Not that he then did much with it if it was his aim.

Not having a go at you, J.

Just adding my two cents to the discussion by raising other relevant cases other posters had yet to comment on.

[LMG]

More Kategate.

The remasters have created endless debate because of various tweaks and revisitings:

- On the new Hounds of Love a different mix of 'The Big Sky' was substituted for the original album version
- On the new The Sensual World in the CD version of the remastered collections, the last track of the original CD release has been deleted
- The version of the of The Red Shoes album is another remastering of the album contemporary with this entire project, and not the remastering done as part of the Director's Cut project
- On the new Aerial, one section of 'A Sky of Honey' replaces the original studio recording with a live version from Before The Dawn
- The version of Before The Dawn is the same mastering as the 2016 version.

There are other issues - the four 'mop-up' albums included in the remastering project hardly mop up everything, despite short running times, and do not even include everything from the last Kate Bush boxed set This Woman's Work. There are (I think minor) concerns about the tapes used in the project.

The point is, all the internet debate about the reasons behind the decisions made is just conjecture. Unlike many other artists, Kate Bush did not embark on a huge pre-Christmas publicity campaign of interviews and live appearances to promote and explain her work (unless I missed it in the Christmas rush).

So lots of fans and observers have imposed their own interpretations on the end result. But we don't know. A discussion on the Hoffman site which I was enjoying reading and engaging in was closed down after over 200 pages because it descended into argument over the very issue of this thread title here.

So is the new Aerial the result of anti-Rolf Harris feeling or pro-Bertie sentiment on the artist's behalf? Maybe she just liked the live version better and thought importing the original vocals onto the live version was a bad idea. Very unlikely, but who knows?

Well, she does, of course. And Kate's not telling.

[GoogaMooga]

One more catalog to add to the list of superior unremastered. I am keeping the old ones.