GLEN MATLOCK - And Libel Issues

One of the more time consuming and often pointless exercises that non-fiction editors like me need to turn their attention to is whether or not their authors have libeled anyone in their books. Being as how I deal with books about rock and roll stars in which the protagonists are often badly behaved, this issue often rears its ugly head but sometimes the outcome is quite amusing.
Many years ago I published the original edition of Glen Matlock’s book I Was A Teenage Sex Pistol. Glen was not one to mince words. He lashed out at all and sundry – Malcolm McLaren, Richard Branson, the other Pistols, other rock stars – and I thought it wise to have the book read for libel.
This necessitated a meeting with a libel lawyer who was female, rather prim and of an age and disposition that tended to discourage informality and bad language. She expressed some concern about a tale concerning ‘the wife of a famous rock star’ who accompanied the Pistols on a trip to Brighton and, according to Glen, allowed herself to be pleasured by all four of them in the back of the van on the return journey. It was eventually left in but any clues as to her identity were excised.
Funnier still was Glen’s throwaway remark about Rod Stewart. “A bit of a cunt,” was his choice of phrase.
“What do you mean by this?” asked the lawyer in all seriousness.
“Well, he a tightwad,” replied Glen. “He’s vain. He’s a bit of a prat, really.”
“He’s bit full of himself,” I volunteered. “He’s big-headed.”
“Yes, and he’s always unfaithful to his girlfriends and treats them badly,” added Glen. “Definite male chauvinist.”
“Mmmm,” said the lawyer, as if considering the evidence. “Fair comment then, I suppose.”

Then there was the time I found myself in a friendly dispute with our libel lawyer in a matter concerning the meaning of the term ‘looking after’ in regard to a record company’s responsibilities to an artist. He is an expert on libel law, albeit like all of his ilk rather too cautious in my opinion, but is sometimes ignorant of the ways in which the music industry operates, especially in areas that might be considered questionable by those in more respectable, ie straighter, professions.
The discussion arose because a book he read for me contained an allegation that an executive was fired for overstepping the boundary in respect of expenses incurred in the course of ‘looking after’ artists. What does this mean exactly, asked my lawyer, who assumed this meant arranging matters in connection with the artist’s career and nothing else. Surely, he said, such expenses would be legitimate and not cause for a dismissal. Well, I said, that’s not strictly true. And I went on…
The term ‘looking after’ in the music industry, at least from a record company’s point of view (as opposed to a bodyguard’s), is a euphemism for all sorts of things but the customary meaning is attending to an artist’s comfort and entertainment needs, it being generally accepted that an uncomfortable and discontented artist is an unproductive and uncooperative one. When I was at RCA Records (3 years, 1979-81) we had an ‘artist liaison’ department which specialised in this field and our biggest (and arguably only) star was David Bowie, upon whom attendance was danced along the red carpet every which way. For reasons of discretion I hesitate to mention what was provided by RCA’s artist liaison department to amuse Bowie, legal or otherwise, but there was a grey area with regard to who would foot the bill for such diversions. Artists with strong management and plenty of clout, such as Bowie, would invariably manipulate the situation so that the bill was picked up by the record company; artists with weaker management and less clout would find themselves paying, often through subsequent deductions from royalties. A good deal of tact and diplomacy was needed to maintain good relationships and ensure an even balance in these matters but, generally speaking, the bigger the star the less likely they were to have to pay, and the cleverest managers of all had this skill – making sure the record company paid and they heard no more about it – off to a fine art.
It is all too easy for an inexperienced record company executive to be come tripped up by this, I explained, especially one brought in from outside the music industry for their business and accountancy skills who might become seduced by the glamour of rubbing shoulders with rock stars. In such cases the managers and/or artists are in a perfect position to run rings round them with regard to picking up tabs for limousines, meals at fancy restaurants, even plane fares (first-class of course), not to mention providing ‘services’ that might attract the attention of the criminal justice system should anyone involved be insufficiently discrete in the execution of same. 
The penny dropped. My lawyer now understands what ‘looking after’ means and I took a quiet satisfaction in being able to enlighten him. 


Ian Gordon Craig said...

The dialogue with the lawyer about Rod Stewart cracked me up.

Anonymous said...

I remember the Glen Matlock rock star wife story but I think it was only him that got pleasured, also I'm not sure it was a wife or girlfriend. Either way I never worked out who it was but had my suspicions.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Publishers and writers have to be wary of libel. Usually, the writers, editors, and publishers are sued, and it won't be a pretty sight. Getting things looked at before it is published either in print or online, goes a long way in preventing a potential lawsuit. Thanks for sharing this process with us!

Hubert Singleton @ RDF Attorney