Has Led Zep and the Stones ever been charged with anything?

What's this nonsense.... if so-and-so has been charged, others should be too. What is ths, Monopoly new "get out of jail card " in play?

I'd think if you are a fan of Kelly's msuci you probaly have most if not all of discography. If radio pulls his records and you don't own any of Kelly's music, buy it. Problem solved.

TD3 said:

Has Led Zep and the Stones ever been charged with anything?

What's this nonsense.... if so-and-so has been charged, others should be too. What is ths, Monopoly new "get out of jail card " in play?

I'd think if you are a fan of Kelly's msuci you probaly have most if not all of discography. If radio pulls his records and you don't own any of Kelly's music, buy it. Problem solved.

Yeah, yet another case of extreme over-reaction in society... Let's ban everyone and everything!

purplethunder3121 said:

TD3 said:

Has Led Zep and the Stones ever been charged with anything?

What's this nonsense.... if so-and-so has been charged, others should be too. What is ths, Monopoly new "get out of jail card " in play?

I'd think if you are a fan of Kelly's msuci you probaly have most if not all of discography. If radio pulls his records and you don't own any of Kelly's music, buy it. Problem solved.

Yeah, yet another case of extreme over-reaction in society... Let's ban everyone and everything!

You really didn't read what I wrote, did you? Last time I checked you pruchase Kelly's music over at iTunes and Amazon. R. Kelly music is still up on SoundCloud, 8Tracks and most streaming stations are still streaming his music. Agian, if you are a fan and if you don't have his music, buy it. People have choices, contrary what's being reported and believed Nobody is stopping Kelly listeners doing whatever.

TD3 said:

purplethunder3121 said:

Yeah, yet another case of extreme over-reaction in society... Let's ban everyone and everything!

You really didn't read what I wrote, did you? Last time I checked you pruchase Kelly's music over at iTunes and Amazon. R. Kelly music is still up on SoundCloud, 8Tracks and most streaming stations are still streaming his music. Agian, if you are a fan and if you don't have his music, buy it. People have choices, contrary what's being reported and believed Nobody is stopping Kelly listeners doing whatever.

Actually, I was agreeing with your post. I think the suggestion of banning artists is ridiculous also. I think this is an extreme reaction to these cases in the media.

TD3 said:

Has Led Zep and the Stones ever been charged with anything?

What's this nonsense.... if so-and-so has been charged, others should be too. What is ths, Monopoly new "get out of jail card " in play?

I'd think if you are a fan of Kelly's msuci you probaly have most if not all of discography. If radio pulls his records and you don't own any of Kelly's music, buy it. Problem solved.

Ugh. It's not about charging the Stones or Zeppelin with anything. That's up to a court of law not music fans. It has to do with the public trials that seem to be happening. No one is disputing R Kelly is messed up, and Michael may have been too. It just seems like the public condemnation seems to be directed at the darker-shade-of-things if you dig what I'm saying……

EmmaMcG said:

DaveT said:

Really? I'm not actually that familiar with his output ... but then I've avoided it for years, and unlike MJ I never imagined I'm missing much.

Oh, you're not missing anything. He's fucking crap. I think he has one song that I like and that's about it. I'd imagine he was very overrated even by comparison to a lot of other shite that was out at the time.

Thought that would be the case. Never been a fan of "glam" rock anyway ... seemed like a bunch of ugly blokes old enough to know better dressing in platform boots and tin-foil playing sub-standard pub rock. Very naff.

drfunkentstein said:

Ugh. It's not about charging the Stones or Zeppelin with anything. That's up to a court of law not music fans. It has to do with the public trials that seem to be happening. No one is disputing R Kelly is messed up, and Michael may have been too. It just seems like the public condemnation seems to be directed at the darker-shade-of-things if you dig what I'm saying……

Probably true, generally speaking, but the career of the very pale Ryan Adams has recently taken a nosedive as well, thanks to the dirt that came out about him.

DaveT said:

maybe... I do not like the whutaboutissim except to show hypocrisy... (fact that there is simply NO comparison between LZ or the Stones and R K aside) I am not sure many acts would survive the "have they ever taken advantage of an underaged fan? And to me, there is little moral difference in waiting until they are legal or not...

I don't think anyone's art should be "banned" for any questionable behavior they may have partaken in. If we do that, we won't have anyone to listen to. I don't see how or why the Stones and Led Zep are being compared here though. Are there tapes of Mick Jagger or Robert Plant having sexual activity with 14 yr olds?? Have women that were teens in the 60's/70's come forward claiming sexual harrassment on any members of these bands?

This topic is a stretch....and clearly an agenda is attached. I have a serious question, why do some turn a blind eye on legitimate crimes (let's take OJ for example.....even those that were "happy" at his victory know he was guilty) and turn it into a platform for racial equality? There's no doubt there IS racial inequality in the justice system but why use the most OBVIOUSLY guilty motherfucker's like OJ, R. Kelly and Cosby to try to make some statement. It's kinda sick. There are so many other legitimate cases that could be "used" for this cause.

DaveT said:

EmmaMcG said:

DaveT said: Oh, you're not missing anything. He's fucking crap. I think he has one song that I like and that's about it. I'd imagine he was very overrated even by comparison to a lot of other shite that was out at the time.

Thought that would be the case. Never been a fan of "glam" rock anyway ... seemed like a bunch of ugly blokes old enough to know better dressing in platform boots and tin-foil playing sub-standard pub rock. Very naff.

I would never refer to early 70s Bowie as "sub-standard pub rock"! The same goes for the music of that era by Roxy Music, Queen and Marc Bolan. Everyone else though ...

sexton said:

DaveT said:

Thought that would be the case. Never been a fan of "glam" rock anyway ... seemed like a bunch of ugly blokes old enough to know better dressing in platform boots and tin-foil playing sub-standard pub rock. Very naff.

I would never refer to early 70s Bowie as "sub-standard pub rock"! The same goes for the music of that era by Roxy Music, Queen and Marc Bolan. Everyone else though ...

Oh, I'd never lump Bowie, Roxy or Queen in with that ... I guess I don't consider them glam acts as they embraced all kinds of genres with their music.

I was thinking of Wizzard, Slade, Jet, and the like. Though it should be said, they at least played their instruments and wrote their own songs (mostly) so I hold them up over a lot of the sh*t we have on the charts these days.

EmmaMcG said:

DaveT said:

Thought that would be the case. Never been a fan of "glam" rock anyway ... seemed like a bunch of ugly blokes old enough to know better dressing in platform boots and tin-foil playing sub-standard pub rock. Very naff.

Hahaha. That's the best description for glam rock I've ever seen. Very accurate. My mum was into all that glam rock stuff. Even though I think it may have even been just before her time, she loved all that Alvin Stardust bollocks.

Alvin Stardust ... Bowie should have sued him for stealing his Ziggy moniker.

Nothing wrong with Slade or the Sweet, both great bands. Maybe not life changing but worth listening to. Noddy Holder has an underrated soul voice and the Sweet are/were perfect wind-up your parents music. Amazing that it's almost 50 years later and people are still getting offended by how these bands dressed.

[Edited 3/15/19 4:07am]

This age is what I call the TaliBAN culture.

People who are WoKe and want to reach back to 1910 and condemn things as if it was 2019

Everything that was tradition or part of culture it seems there are people who just wish and want to scrap everthing and start over.

How people viewed sex sexuality and sexual social practices in the 60s is very different from in the 90s or 2000s of course.

There was a time in our not so distant history that marrying a 14/15 yr old girl was common practice. Cannot call that Ephebophilia.

Infantophilia was always seen as wrong.

RKelly did what he did in an age where it was clearly defined as wrong and criminal though.

OldFriends4Sale said:

This age is what I call the TaliBAN culture.

People who are WoKe and want to reach back to 1910 and condemn things as if it was 2019

Everything that was tradition or part of culture it seems there are people who just wish and want to scrap everthing and start over.

How people viewed sex sexuality and sexual social practices in the 60s is very different from in the 90s or 2000s of course.

There was a time in our not so distant history that marrying a 14/15 yr old girl was common practice. Cannot call that Ephebophilia.

Infantophilia was always seen as wrong.

RKelly did what he did in an age where it was clearly defined as wrong and criminal though.

Just because it was allowed at a certain time, does not mean it was right..... and I still would call it ephebophilia tho, since not everyone married 14/15 year olds.

Rape in marriages wasn't forbidden here in germany until the 90's, but that does not mean it was right. It just means that the laws were fucked up.

ThatWhiteDude said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

This age is what I call the TaliBAN culture.

People who are WoKe and want to reach back to 1910 and condemn things as if it was 2019

Everything that was tradition or part of culture it seems there are people who just wish and want to scrap everthing and start over.

How people viewed sex sexuality and sexual social practices in the 60s is very different from in the 90s or 2000s of course.

There was a time in our not so distant history that marrying a 14/15 yr old girl was common practice. Cannot call that Ephebophilia.

Infantophilia was always seen as wrong.

RKelly did what he did in an age where it was clearly defined as wrong and criminal though.

Just because it was allowed at a certain time, does not mean it was right..... and I still would call it ephebophilia tho, since not everyone married 14/15 year olds.

Rape in marriages wasn't forbidden here in germany until the 90's, but that does not mean it was right. It just means that the laws were fucked up.

My meaning is you cannot 'judge' something of a diferent time as wrong based on our current ideals. We are still animals. And this brings up a lot of varient discussions. For people believe we came from apes, to people who believe in god(s) what is morally right/wrong and how we view life.
.
In earlier times of humanities existence, people didn't have careers and goals, outside of propogating and surviving. Naturally once a male/female is of age to procreate, they did. Just like in the animal kingdom.
.
Yes I agree, some things were still wrong, but the consciousness of things were different. But we still cannot 'condemn' people of different times based on laws that did not exist, in the same way we can when their is a law.
.

But you cannot call it 'ephebophilia' because that wasn't even a term then. ephebophilia was only in connection to attraction/sexual activity with people between the ages of 14-18. And those case are judged as they should be much different from pedophilia.
There are also terms for younger people attracted to older people. But those people don't get judged as criminals. Not to mention young males in that 14-18 age range who are sexual with female adults are still not judged that same as young women/older men or same sex situations which are condemned harsher.

.
Many people drank and drove in the 70s and before, I cannot reach back into the 70s and issue a ticket to people who did based on our current laws.

OldFriends4Sale said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

Just because it was allowed at a certain time, does not mean it was right..... and I still would call it ephebophilia tho, since not everyone married 14/15 year olds.

Rape in marriages wasn't forbidden here in germany until the 90's, but that does not mean it was right. It just means that the laws were fucked up.

My meaning is you cannot 'judge' something of a diferent time as wrong based on our current ideals. We are still animals. And this brings up a lot of varient discussions. For people believe we came from apes, to people who believe in god(s) what is morally right/wrong and how we view life.
.
In earlier times of humanities existence, people didn't have careers and goals, outside of propogating and surviving. Naturally once a male/female is of age to procreate, they did. Just like in the animal kingdom.
.
Yes I agree, some things were still wrong, but the consciousness of things were different. But we still cannot 'condemn' people of different times based on laws that did not exist, in the same way we can when their is a law.
.

But you cannot call it 'ephebophilia' because that wasn't even a term then. ephebophilia was only in connection to attraction/sexual activity with people between the ages of 14-18. And those case are judged as they should be much different from pedophilia.
There are also terms for younger people attracted to older people. But those people don't get judged as criminals. Not to mention young males in that 14-18 age range who are sexual with female adults are still not judged that same as young women/older men or same sex situations which are condemned harsher.

.
Many people drank and drove in the 70s and before, I cannot reach back into the 70s and issue a ticket to people who did based on our current laws.

I agree that we can't judge them by our laws, but I still say that I'd call it ephebophilia. Just because there wasn't a word for it, doesn't mean it's something different of course it was handled differently, but people who were or are attracted to 14/15 year old and marry/married them were and still are ephebophil the only difference is that we now have a word for it. For examples, autism wasn't called autism until the early 20th century, but some people were autistic before that we just didn't have a name for it.

ThatWhiteDude said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

My meaning is you cannot 'judge' something of a diferent time as wrong based on our current ideals. We are still animals. And this brings up a lot of varient discussions. For people believe we came from apes, to people who believe in god(s) what is morally right/wrong and how we view life.
.
In earlier times of humanities existence, people didn't have careers and goals, outside of propogating and surviving. Naturally once a male/female is of age to procreate, they did. Just like in the animal kingdom.
.
Yes I agree, some things were still wrong, but the consciousness of things were different. But we still cannot 'condemn' people of different times based on laws that did not exist, in the same way we can when their is a law.
.

But you cannot call it 'ephebophilia' because that wasn't even a term then. ephebophilia was only in connection to attraction/sexual activity with people between the ages of 14-18. And those case are judged as they should be much different from pedophilia.
There are also terms for younger people attracted to older people. But those people don't get judged as criminals. Not to mention young males in that 14-18 age range who are sexual with female adults are still not judged that same as young women/older men or same sex situations which are condemned harsher.

.
Many people drank and drove in the 70s and before, I cannot reach back into the 70s and issue a ticket to people who did based on our current laws.

I agree that we can't judge them by our laws, but I still say that I'd call it ephebophilia. Just because there wasn't a word for it, doesn't mean it's something different of course it was handled differently, but people who were or are attracted to 14/15 year old and marry/married them were and still are ephebophil the only difference is that we now have a word for it. For examples, autism wasn't called autism until the early 20th century, but some people were autistic before that we just didn't have a name for it.

Yes I understand, but these terms and labels still carry a stigma etc I some ways they should in others they shouldn't
.
Looking at ephebophilia in the 1700s for example brings a 'condition' or crime to it. But it wasn't.
If you believe we were 'cave men' and once a female was of breeding age she was married off to someone from age 18-28 can we call that ephebophilia? I don't think we can

.

At one time men who had sex with men were not called homosexual(even though in our current language it just means same sex attraction) but there is also a different level of criminology to that term as well. Can we call people from Roman or Egyptian civilizations homosexual heterosexual bisexual in the same way we use it today?

.

Autistic carries a judgement with it too. Which is why so many parents don't want their children labelled that way.

Tuls101 said:

This topic is a stretch....and clearly an agenda is attached. I have a serious question,

Oh really? It's a stretch huh?

You'e such a genius and mindreader that you know I wrote it with an agenda, huh? What agenda? Getting people to think for themselves mabybe?

Thank God, you can dismiss my question and you, the great one, can can ask a "SERIOUS" question?!

You're such a genius!

OldFriends4Sale said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

I agree that we can't judge them by our laws, but I still say that I'd call it ephebophilia. Just because there wasn't a word for it, doesn't mean it's something different of course it was handled differently, but people who were or are attracted to 14/15 year old and marry/married them were and still are ephebophil the only difference is that we now have a word for it. For examples, autism wasn't called autism until the early 20th century, but some people were autistic before that we just didn't have a name for it.

Yes I understand, but these terms and labels still carry a stigma etc I some ways they should in others they shouldn't
.
Looking at ephebophilia in the 1700s for example brings a 'condition' or crime to it. But it wasn't.
If you believe we were 'cave men' and once a female was of breeding age she was married off to someone from age 18-28 can we call that ephebophilia? I don't think we can

.

At one time men who had sex with men were not called homosexual(even though in our current language it just means same sex attraction) but there is also a different level of criminology to that term as well. Can we call people from Roman or Egyptian civilizations homosexual heterosexual bisexual in the same way we use it today?

.

Autistic carries a judgement with it too. Which is why so many parents don't want their children labelled that way.

I'm autistic myself and I wouldn't know any other to say it. It's better than: "I have autism." As if it's some sort of illness you can cure.

They're not black. That's the difference. That's why they don't get banned.

cindymay said:

EmmaMcG said:

cindymay said:

They're not black. That's the difference. That's why they don't get banned.

Bullshit. As has already been pointed out, singers who have committed similar crimes have been subjected to the same treatment from the wider media, whether they be black, white or anything else. The guys from Led Zeppelin or The Rolling Stones may have been with underage girls, but there is nothing to say it wasn't consensual. That's a completely different crime to what Michael Jackson and R Kelly have been accused of. But white singers who have been accused of those crimes have been banned from radio and TV, such as Gary Glitter. And it doesn't stop with musicians either. Kevin Spacey, Harvey Weinstein and Bryan Singer have all been blacklisted by Hollywood after their crimes came to light. The world, and specifically America, has a major problem with racism. Nobody is going to deny that. But the constant race baiting comments like yours do not help matters. [Edited 3/16/19 10:12am]

Agree with Emma.

Ryan Adams is also in trouble and last I checked he is white.

EmmaMcG said:

cindymay said:

They're not black. That's the difference. That's why they don't get banned.

The guys from Led Zeppelin or The Rolling Stones may have been with underage girls, but there is nothing to say it wasn't consensual.

Let that sink in, internet. I know you think that you didn't just read that, but you did.

PliablyPurple said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Yes I understand, but these terms and labels still carry a stigma etc I some ways they should in others they shouldn't
.
Looking at ephebophilia in the 1700s for example brings a 'condition' or crime to it. But it wasn't.
If you believe we were 'cave men' and once a female was of breeding age she was married off to someone from age 18-28 can we call that ephebophilia? I don't think we can

.

At one time men who had sex with men were not called homosexual(even though in our current language it just means same sex attraction) but there is also a different level of criminology to that term as well. Can we call people from Roman or Egyptian civilizations homosexual heterosexual bisexual in the same way we use it today?

.

Autistic carries a judgement with it too. Which is why so many parents don't want their children labelled that way.

I'm autistic myself and I wouldn't know any other to say it. It's better than: "I have autism." As if it's some sort of illness you can cure.

Yes, I know, I'm just saying, it still carries some kind of stigma. It will take time for it to be a general term. I mean when you think of how a lot of autistic kids and adults are still treated in society, in classrooms etc

luv4u said:

RJOrion said:

luv4u said:

You migh as well ban every musical artist, musicians, studio execs the whole lot.

And then add actors and actress, tv personalities, tv stations, newpapers etc.

exactly...the whole entertainment/mass media industry is filled with deviants, weirdos, and backstabbing opportunistic snakes...

That can be ANY industry!

ChocolateBox3121 said: