Is he? I didn't know.not to mention a nonce to really drive it home
from The GuardianLori Mattix (sometimes known as Maddox) says she was just 14 when she lost her virginity to David Bowie. Her next lover was Jimmy Page. Now 59, she says she never thought of herself as a groupie, but tells me that the affair with Page was “the most beautiful pure love I thought I could ever feel. I’d only had sex once before in my whole life. I felt like I’d won the lottery.” She juxtaposes it with other experiences “where men have harassed me … it’s a different thing when you allow someone to be with you”. Mattix was under the age of consent, she says, when Page pursued her. Post-#MeToo, does she see the situation differently? “I think that’s what made me start seeing it from a different perspective because I did read a few [articles], and I thought: ‘Shit, maybe,’” she says. As for whether Page was in the wrong: “That’s an interesting question. I never thought there was anything wrong with it, but maybe there was. I used to get letters telling me he was a paedophile, but I’d never think of him like that. He never abused me, ever.” Still, Mattix sounds conflicted – rapturous reminiscences (“honestly, I had a great time”) are followed by cautionary notes. “I don’t think underage girls should sleep with guys,” she says. “I wouldn’t want this for anybody’s daughter. My perspective is changing as I get older and more cynical.”
You may think but the vast majority of people don't - especially the kinds of people who have platforms and who are seen as tastemakers - and basically this particular issue comes down to a crude numbers game. Or at least it comes down to the number of people who "matter" and they have come down hugely in favour of the verdict "Bowie good, Glitter bad".sorry but Rock N Roll Pt 2 is greater than anything Bowie came near to
You may think but the vast majority of people don't - especially the kinds of people who have platforms and who are seen as tastemakers - and basically this particular issue comes down to a crude numbers game. Or at least it comes down to the number of people who "matter" and they have come down hugely in favour of the verdict "Bowie good, Glitter bad".
At least for the moment. One thing I have learned is that these things can change even years after the event. There is a saying "Call no man happy until he is dead" which I have always understood to mean that right up to the end of one's life there can still be an event that is so bad or transformative that it can ultimately spoil the whole thing. I guess it makes sense as far as it goes but - at least in terms of reputation - I'd go considerably further and say that having died with your reputation intact is no guarantee that it will remain that way. Perhaps it should be updated to "Call no man happy until he is forgotten" - although the kind of people who care a lot about reputation aren't gonna welcome being forgotten even if it does guarantee safety (which I suppose is fine in that it is analogous to the way the happy man won't welcome the safety of death in the original formulation).
I was thinking more about Bowie being downgraded... but maybe there is a corollary to my above theorem - call no man's reputation UNhappy until he is forgotten either.Glitter's rehabilitation has already started, Jim Davidson is on the case.