Do You Wanna Touch Me?

I am old enough to remember the song “Do You Wanna Touch Me?” when it was in the charts. Oh, God, don’t I feel old? Anyway it’s received a boost having been used in the programme Glee. Not a programme I watch, so the controversy had passed me by. However, as the song was co-written by Garry Glitter, there is now some righteous indignation doing the rounds. The questions being raised are; is it appropriate to use a song that was once a hit for a convicted paedophile? And should he profit from the royalties?

The inclusion is, apparently, causing some embarrassment for the producers of Glee and the owners of the network that hosts it. Well, maybe they do feel embarrassed and maybe not. I can’t say that it bothers me one way or the other. As for whether they should include the song in the show – the word predictably used is “appropriate” –  is a decision for them. It wasn’t exactly a great song the first time around and I doubt it has matured like a vintage wine during the interim decades. It was pop pap then, it is pop pap now. Who wrote it and originally performed it is inconsequential, unless you choose to make it otherwise. Its inclusion doesn’t send any messages beyond the obviously sexual overtones present in many pop songs both past and present. The provenance of the author does not necessarily reflect on the quality of the work –  although in this case, it isn’t exactly a high point in the craft, which pretty much covers the rest of Glitter’s pop career.

As to whether Glitter should receive royalties, that’s a much more straightforward matter. Yes, of course he should. He wrote it, it is his intellectual property and the law says, quite properly, that he is entitled to any earnings from its use. Unless Claude Knights (director of Kidscape) wants to retrospectively rewrite copyright law and the principles by which all songwriters receive remuneration based upon her opinions? If people don’t want him to profit from his back catalogue, then don’t use it or buy it. If people do, then he gets his share of the profits. That’s how it works. That’s how it is supposed to work. That he has served time for a criminal offence is neither here nor there, as is the outrage of Claude Knights and her ilk.