Riaan wrote
Either way, the dude seems very weird. I've read stories of him coming to the studio carrying a gun and then putting it on the mixing desk to show the band/artist who's the boss.
Wasn't it him who once fired a shot through the studio roof where John Lennon was recording, to which Lennon replied "If you wanna shoot me, go ahead but don't mess up my ears"?
From today's
Telegraph:
Nothing can excuse Spector’s worst excesses. Rolling Stone magazine notes that Spector is said to have discharged a firearm during the recording of John Lennon’s cover album “Rock ‘n’ Roll” and threatened Leonard Cohen with a crossbow or pistol during the sessions for “Death of a Ladies’ Man.” Spector forced Dee Dee Ramone to play bass guitar according to his specifications at gunpoint, Ramone said.
The Wall of Bricks may be more difficult to penetrate than the Wall of Sound!
Seriously, as I said this morning my view is it shouldn't affect the achievements, and thus the RRHoF induction. The tread running through most posts, which I fully agree with, is that it should only become an issue if it were somehow directly related to the music. So perhaps if he had shot Cohen with the crossbow in the studio, etc?
If one uses that principle as a guide, of course, it brings you full circle to the point Alan made last week re the Coldplay/Satriani case. If they are found by a competent court to have plagiarised Satch, that WOULD probably bring the Grammy into play. The 'offence' or contentious conduct would then be directly related to the award / bestowed honour.
What is left (for me) is pity to see him (rightly or wrongly) in this position. I suppose there's still a whole host of appeals to come. Like Bob I don't agree that creativity and deviant conduct are two sides of the same coin. I concede that it often apears that way, because of the numerous examples found in all kinds of art! But one must be careful to encourage the view that celebrity and/or pursuit of art is licence to act in any manner one wants. I just feel that persons who have made such incredibly innovative or quantum contributions to popular art should somehow live on in the folklore of the art for that reason and not the 'better to burn out than to fade away' scenario. Yet, at the same time, Keira is probably right that some artists' contribution to the pantheon were no doubt predicated on their personality peculiarities (be they caused naturally or through lifestyle choices). So that was basically my feeling this morning when I logged on to Google News: 'what a waste'. Tom Wolfe called him the "First Tycoon of Teen" back in '64 already!
But, the appeal prospects appear to be favourable. Remember that the first trial was ended by hung jury, so the merits are probably not overwhelmingly watertight.
