Talk:Another Rock and Roll Christmas

Current status of song (1)
The track was one of the most played Christmas songs in the UK for many years and is still played today, though not as heavily, following Glitter's conviction for possessing child pornography.

I'm not sure about "still played today", if this refers to public performance of the song. Record companies began removing the song from Christmas compilation albums very soon after Glitter was accused (let alone convicted) of downloading child pornography, and radio stations made a point of excising it from their Christmas playlists.

Put it this way, I doubt that the song will be played at many Christmas parties this year... (which is a shame, as I like it). AdorableRuffian 22:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The song is still played in some night clubs and is still available on Glitter albums and a few years after his conviction was (briefly) included on a BBC commercial (the song was later taken off the commercial after complaints). However as it is still available to buy (both on Glitter albums and still on some compilations) and is played in clubs it is "still played though not as heavily". 152.163.101.7 16:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Furthermore it is played at almost every Christmas party I go too (especially if I host it) as I insist (it's a great Christmas tune) and most people seem happy enough to dance and sing-a-long anyway. Besides with the Internet here these days we can see what is being played by the public. The song is available to play (for free or to buy) from many MP3 websites and the video on YouTube shows that it has been watched/played several thousands times this year on that site alone. Public broadcasting (legal or otherwise) is no longer just in the hands of major Radio and TV companies 152.163.101.7 16:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with AdorableRuffian. There's a difference between people seeking out a song on iTunes or YouTube, or playing it at a party, and that song being used in television and radio. It may be subjective, but I've never heard the song since Christmas 1996, and I've certainly never heard it in a club. After his 1997 arrest, the song died. What isn't subjective is that BBC were killed for briefly using it on an advert. The song is no longer played on radio or on MTV (and clones), meaning that it is no longer ingrained in the public consciousness. I was a fan of Glitter like everyone else, but pretending that this song has endured beyond Christmas 1996 is silly. 90.201.91.232 (talk) 13:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Current status of song (2)
Another editor is persistently trying to describe the song as "an obsolete Christmas song", with the explanation: "THIS ARTICLE ASSERTS NOT THAT THE SUBJECT IS AN OBSOLETE SONG, BUT AN OBSOLETE *CHRISTMAS* SONG. AS PER WIKIPEDIA CONSENSUS, A CHRISTMAS SONG IS ONE WHICH IS "HEARD AROUND THE CHRISTMAS SEASON." THE SUBJECT HAS NOT BEEN WIDELY HEARD SINCE CHRISTMAS 1996." And yet the same editor is deleting the much clearer and less confusing explanation that the song "is now rarely heard publicly following the singer's convictions on child pornography and abuse charges." The point is that the term "obsolete Christmas song" is open to misinterpretation - it could mean either that the song is in itself in some way "obsolete" (which is meaningless), or (what the editor appears to intend) that its use as a widely played Christmas song is obsolete. That latter statement is in any case debatable and unreferenced. The fuller explanatory wording is clearer and unambiguous, without the need for any hidden message, so I'll revert to it again. Views welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I might add that I heard this song last week, playing on a Christmas compilation album in my local pub. That is hardly verifiable as a reliable source; however the wording "is now rarely heard publicly...." is more accurate than "obsolete".


 * Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and unambiguous as to its meaning. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This all rather begs a few questions: how many pop songs, of any era, are now "heard publicly"? How many pubs even have jukeboxes any more? There are at least ten uploaded versions of the song by Glitter on YouTube, the most popular of which has garnered over 336,000 views. Judging the popularity of any pop song by how often is "heard in public" is living in the pre-internet stone age, I would suggest. So how can this song be fairly described as "obsolete" on this basis? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In my view, "obsolete" is the wrong descriptor altogether, in this context. Tube TVs became obsolete when flat screens became affordable. Ditto for video tapes and DVDs.  But a song?  I've never heard a piece of music described that way, nor could I find any examples during a quick web search.  "Now rarely heard publicly" is a lot more accurate, and appropriate, IMHO.  As for how many pop songs are now heard publicly -- more than ever, due to almost universal availability, via the cloud.  This is particularly true during the holiday season, when lots of holiday songs are subjected to ad nauseum repetitions in shopping malls, supermarkets, professional offices, and over what is left of the airwaves, and are seldom if ever heard, either publicly or privately, at any other time of year.  In short, I agree with those above -- the use of "obsolete" in this context is a misuse of the word, and it should be replaced with "now rarely heard publicly".  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  19:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed and removed. Art (laugh if you will) can't become obsolete. The cave paintings in France are not obsolete art, they are primitive and trailblazing. Medieval chamber music is also not obsolete as it is is still performed and still studied, it just isn't popular. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wholly agree. Furthermore the existing claims in the article: "Another Rock n' Roll Christmas" was rarely heard after Christmas 1996 due to Glitter's arrest for possessing child pornography the following year.." and "A subsequent 2006 conviction of child sexual abuse effectively ruled out any further Christmas airplay." both require some kind of support from a WP:RS, in the form of actual data or, at the very least, comment from a reputable and qualified media source. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There is also a more general point to be made here, I would suggest. If (and only if) it can be established, with WP:RS sources, that Glitter's convictions for possessing child pornography and child sexual abuse affected the public playing of his records, this is a point that should be made at the main article for Gary Glitter, and not one to be repeatedly trotted out in the articles for each of his singles, unless it can be shown clearly that some singles were affected more than others. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There are WP:BLP issues involved as well. Here is a sentence from the main article: "These two convictions effectively ended his long career and turned the once-beloved entertainer into a prominent hate figure." Neither of the cited sources says that, though one implies it -- and it really shouldn't be in there, especially since the preceding paragraph says essentially the same thing in a more objective and less "peacocky" manner. I suppose I should be making this point on the main talk page, but the discussion is here.  DoctorJoeE   talk to me!  01:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Royalties
So how are the royalties attributed on this track? In short, if anyone plays it, are they putting money into Paul Gadd's pocket? Nuttyskin (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you play the song at home, no, he doesn't gain any money. But if it gets played on TV or the radio, that would certainly send funds his way.  I'm not positive how YouTube handles this, but given that they have algorithms to identify songs when you load them, they probably do flag all uploads of his songs as being his, so playing his tunes on YouTube probably also adds to his funds.  Not that he's going to have a way to spend them for at least another decade! Robman94 (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)