Kate Bush removes Rolf Harris from the 2018 remaster of her album Aerial

Kate Bush has removed the vocal contribution of disgraced Australian entertainer Rolf Harris from the newly remastered edition of 2005 album Aerial.

Harris played the role of ‘the painter’ on the conceptual side two of Aerial, known as A Sky Of Honey and contributed a spoken word section on ‘An Architect’s Dream’ as well as actually singing on ‘The Painter’s Link’. On the 2018 remastered edition, these parts are replaced by what sounds very much like Kate’s son Bertie (Albert McIntosh), who indeed took this role when Kate performed A Sky Of Honey in its entirety, as part of 2014 live show Before The Dawn.

Rolf Harris also features on Kate’s 1982 album The Dreaming. He plays didgeridoo on the title track. That performance appears to be intact on the 2018 remaster.

There had been some debate on SDE as to whether Kate would make any changes to the recording and having heard the audio, we can confirm that it has definitely happened. It also means that the tracks in question will have been remixed, not just remastered and indeed Bertie sings much more on ‘The Painter’s Link’ than Rolf did, and the ending of that song now sounds very different as it segues into Sunset, with Kate’s vocals much more in the background than there were before.

Fans tend to not like artists messing with their albums, but one can argue that this was a special case. Has Kate done the right thing? In 2014 Harris was found guilty of 12 counts of indecent assault. SDE reached out to Kate’s representatives about these changes and received a simple ‘no comment’.

Kate’s remasters are released in two phases, starting next week on 16 November and then again on 30 November 2018.

Box Set Promotions

Compare prices and pre-order

Kate Bush

CD box # 1 - 7CD The Kick Inside to The Red Shoes


Compare prices and pre-order

Kate Bush

CD box # 2 - 11CD Aerial to Before The Dawn + rarities discs


Compare prices and pre-order

Kate Bush

Vinyl box 1 - a kick inside, never for ever, lionheart, The dreaming


Compare prices and pre-order

Kate Bush

Vinyl box 2 - Hounds of Love, The Sensual World, The Red Shoes


Compare prices and pre-order

Kate Bush

Vinyl box 3 - Aerial, 50 Words For Snow, Director's Cut


Compare prices and pre-order

Kate Bush

Vinyl box 4 - 12 inch mixes, The Other Side 1, The Other Side 2, In Others Words


Kate Bush Remastered Vinyl Box 1

The Kick Inside (1978)
Lionheart (1978)
Never For Ever (1980)
The Dreaming (1982)

Kate Bush Remastered Vinyl Box 2

Hounds of Love (1985)
The Sensual World (1989)
The Red Shoes (1993).

Kate Bush Remastered Vinyl Box 3

Aerial (2005)
Director’s Cut (2011)
50 Words For Snow (2011)

Kate Bush Remastered Vinyl Box 4

12″ Mixes
The Other Side 1 (B-sides)
The Other Side 2 (B-sides continued)
In Others’ Words (covers)

Kate Bush Remastered CD box 1

The Kick Inside (1978)
Lionheart (1978)
Never For Ever (1980)
The Dreaming (1982)
Hounds of Love (1985)
The Sensual World (1989)
The Red Shoes (1993).

Kate Bush Remastered: CD box 2

Aerial (2005)
Director’s Cut (2011)
50 Words For Snow (2011)
Before The Dawn (2016)
12″ Mixes
The Other Side 1 (B-sides)
The Other Side 2 (B-sides continued)
In Others’ Words (covers)

What’s in the rarities discs:


  1. Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God)
  2. The Big Sky (Meteorological Mix)
  3. Cloudbusting (The Orgonon Mix)
  4. Hounds Of Love (Alternative Mix)
  5. Experiment IV (Extended Mix)


  1. Walk Straight Down The Middle
  2. You Want Alchemy
  3. Be Kind To My Mistakes
  4. Lyra
  5. Under The Ivy
  6. Experiment IV
  7. Ne T’Enfuis Pas
  8. Un Baiser D’Enfant
  9. Burning Bridge
  10. Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God) 2012 Remix


  1. Home For Christmas
  2. One Last Look Around The House Before We Go
  3. I’m Still Waiting
  4. Warm And Soothing
  5. Show A Little Devotion
  6. Passing Through Air
  7. Humming
  8. Ran Tan Waltz
  9. December Will Be Magic Again
  10. Wuthering Heights (Remix / New Vocal from ‘The Whole Story’)


  1. Rocket Man
  2. Sexual Healing
  3. Mná na hÉireann
  4. My Lagan Love
  5. The Man I Love
  6. Brazil (Sam Lowry’s First Dream)
  7. The Handsome Cabin Boy
  8. Lord Of The Reedy River
  9. Candle In The Wind

149 responses to Kate Bush removes Rolf Harris from the 2018 remaster of her album Aerial

  1. John says:

    Just wondering what is wrong with John Peel and The Who?

  2. Phil Cohen says:

    Also, a segment with Rolf Harris was (at the last minute) replaced by alternate material shortly before Universal Music & Apple Corps released “The Beatles-On Air: Live at The BBC Vol.2”

  3. Tracy says:

    Paul are these remastered box sets limited editions in any way?

  4. vinyl listener says:

    this sort of nonsense is abhorrent but will push the price of originals up even more.


  5. Norman says:

    Although I have no love for a nonce like Harris, this sort of thing will now never end. The BBC not showing any TOTP hosted by Savile. Yet for decades they paid him and covered for him, and doing it now achieves nothing. U2’s ZOO TV Tour featured samples of Hitler Youth (before an anti-Nazi ‘Bullet The Blue Sky)’. Will that also now be banned or wiped? And let’s not even start on certain rock stars in very big bands who have had a thing about liking ’em young. Will it get to a point where Bill Wyman is erased from every Stones recording? Kate is entitled to do as she wishes with her own work, but maybe a precedent will be set? If one artist does it, others will do it. But surely the point of any art is that it’s of its time, good or bad?

    • Chris Squires says:

      The Irony is that I spent today watching “The Thick of it” Series 01 and Chris Langham was very funny indeed, just as he was on Not the Nine O’Clock news, I wonder how long that will last on Netflix if someone (The Reverend Mrs. Lovejoy maybe?) notices.

      It won’t be on the BBC any time soon I guess.

      • Paul Taylor says:

        Chris, the DVD of the second series of People Like Us was also indefinitely delayed after Chris Langham’s conviction. It did eventually come out once he’d served his sentence and why not; those programmes were hilarious and had early performances from the likes of Robert Webb and Emma Kennedy. You can’t deny these programmes were made and there was more than one actor working on them. Rolf Harris also made an appearance in a later episode of Goodnight Sweetheart but I’m not sure if the sale of those DVDs have been subsequently pulled from sale. Nicholas Lyndhurst sung Two Little Boys in another episode so if they need to erase Harris from those they’ll have a lot of work on their hands

    • Phil Cohen says:

      Speaking of disgraced D.J. Jimmy Savile, “Ferry Cross The Mersey”, the movie by the 1960’s Liverpool beat group “Gerry & The Pacemakers” will never be screened again, nor will it be released on DVD or Blu-ray because Jimmy Savile appears prominently in the movie. That is the decision of the estate of Neil Aspinal (former Beatles “Roadie” and Apple Corps executive) which owns the film.

  6. Shane says:

    Up next we will artists changing their mudic because they dont like some parts anymore or they are in a different place now. While they have a right to, its opening up the door for other questionable choices. Revisionism should not be permitted. That said, i could not care less about this album and anyway i have it on cd and vinyl

    • J T says:

      “Revisionism should not be permitted” from an artist?!

      Most of the history of music, art and drama has been about making changes major and minor to works major and minor by the original artist and subsequent composers, arrangers, adaptors and/or artists down across years, decades and centuries, because “they don’t like some parts anymore or they are in a different place.” That’s what art and music IS.

      How exactly do you propose we as a society go about “not permitting” artists their free expression? Shall we codify this into law and send the feds, or should we just make them live in fear of public retribution so we’re all the authoritarians?

      Bar the door on “questionable choices” in art and entertainment. Oh-kay. But only after the horse has left the barn, huh?

      Nothing Kate Bush is doing here impacts the countless thousands of copies of her album that have long since been sold into the marketplace and continue to circulate. We’re not talking about giving the Mona Lisa a boob job and lipstick, we’re not talking about lopping erections off totems and we’re not talking about blowing up Buddha statues, we’re talking about a re-release of a latter-day Kate Bush album with one minor guest vocalist replaced.

      Every other month I hear someone complaining about when is Twitter going to allow the editing of Tweets—which WOULD equate to revisionist history—and yet every time an artist re-releases a revised edition of their work all hell breaks loose. People have a strange idea about intellectual property and free speech.

      And “i could not care less about this album and anyway i have it on cd and vinyl,” at once taking credit for past success and denying participation in future, an odd sort of cudgel wielded against her: To what end? Certainly some artists risk losing their platform when they stray too far from what fans will support. I smile every time I read here of a reissue that fan reaction has made more complete. Many artists see their work as being not just collaborations with other musicians, and producers (and executives), but with fans’ likes and wants. Yet gratuitous comments like this seem to want to have the effect of taking the joyful purchase out of being an artist.

      At least as many people here coming out against the innocent woman as against the guilty man, wanting to force her album to carry the scarlet letter of his vocals in perpetuity. “Just a little bit of history repeating.” Oh, but not that we really care.

  7. Michael says:

    Paul – as you have had a chance to listen to the remasters can I just ask re. Bertie’s vocals on Aerial. Is this the same as Before the Dawn i.e. where Bertie says “P**s off” (twice). Or are the vocals at least faithful to the 2005 Aerial and remain the same? I’m not against swearing usually but just felt these BtD additions were not needed and spoilt the Painters link somewhat

    • Paul Sinclair says:

      There’s no ‘piss off’ but Bertie doesn’t say the same thing as Rolf did on An Architect’s Dream. He goes on about blues and browns. His voice is VERY high in the mix. I hate to say it but it does sound a bit hammy. He speaks very fast which isn’t really in keeping with an artist humming and hawing over his work. With Rolf it did a least sound fairly convincing that it was an artist at work. I say all this as someone who thought Bertie was fine in the show. I’m not a BB (Bertie Basher).

      • Chris2 says:

        Exactly my feelings, Paul. I even go a little bit further: I like his performance on the BTD Album. It was alright, it was live, there you go. But on Aerial it is just horrible. Kitsch and full of fake emotion. Like a bad musical singer. I really question Kates quality control here. I have nothing against changing a singer on a record, especially with this backround. But this performance in my opinion is just bad. And it troubles me for things to come that Kate obviously aimed for this because he can do better as BTD proves.

  8. Cormac says:

    It has been removed because he would get a percentage, she would have been generous at the time (as quoted by Mick Karn), The Dreaming would have been a one off payment from EMI do his performance remains. People have quoted that Page and other rock stars have dated children but tge difference in this case is that Harris was charged, either way I’m glad he’s gone.

  9. Rob says:

    I’m assuming preview links were sent out early for reviewers. How do the remasters sound Paul? Are they very different?

    • Paul Sinclair says:

      Only really had time to randomly sample a few things. December Will Be Magic Again is the standard version, for example. Humming is pretty interesting. Everything sounds good that I’ve heard, with the proviso that it’s on online stream, so very hard to reach conclusions

  10. X says:

    I find it really interesting to notice how people can get their feathers ruffled about something so mundane. “Oh, it’s HER work, so she can do whatever she wants to do eith it!” vs. “Oh, it’s not as if she could do this without warning us buyers!”… well, let me tell you, EVERYBODY is right. The people who think she’s God and is allowed to do whatever she wants just because she exista and also the ones who demand respect for the fans and consumers. Fact is, while you waste your precious time discussing this, it’s already been done, and I’m sure she couldn’t care less about our opinions. As annoying as people who write “She can do whatever she wants, you’re not allowed to complain” (newsflash: everybody IS allowed to complain about anything that bothers them) or those who write “She should’ve asked for our permission” (newsflash: NO, she shouldn’t), it actually amounts to nothing. So, enjoy the music in whatever form that pleases you most, choose a different soundtrack for this particular moment, elect to remain in silence, complain about whatever annoys you, or not… endless possibilities – Ms. Bush certainly doesn’t care.

    • Kevin from Edinburgh says:

      “And now on Radio 4, it’s time for this week’s edition of ‘The Moral Maze’, which has been extended from 45 minutes to 3 hours in a reflection of the gravity of the morality under discussion. Note that the usual running time will resume next week when the panel asks ‘Can war ever be justified?’”

  11. Kevin says:

    Crivvens, some of the comments here are hilarious. KB has made a personal decision about her own work. I find it an understandable one. For someone so protective about her art, I can see that having the voice of a convicted sex abuser in the middle of it might jar. It certainly jarred for me, listening to it.

    YMMV, of course. However, the idea that an artist chosing to remove the vocal of a convicted sex abuser from their work is somehow “political correctness gone mad!” isn’t really a credible one. It’s a personal artistic decision. Anyone is free to make their own artistic choice by insisting on only listening to the old version.

    • Woodsey Niles says:

      I agree. KB’s personal decision is correct. Removing the vocal of a convicted sex abuser from one’s work is actually the opposite of political correctness as defined by today’s wacky moral standards. Contemporary political correctness would defend the sex abuser as the true victim because he must have had a difficult childhood… or something.

      • Paul Sinclair says:

        Might close comments on this post soon, because I feel everyone has had their say and it’s going around in circles a bit. I’m also slightly uncomfortable with all the ‘let’s compare sex offenders’ commentary that has been going on, even though I can understand why that’s been happening.

  12. Paul Smart says:

    I’m the opposite of most. I wasn’t going to buy it as I have the original on vinyl but now I know it is different I’m ordering it!

  13. Dave says:

    dear o dear ! Stop The world i wanna get off !

  14. Foxee says:

    Kate Bush can do whatever she pleases with her own work, and the public can react in whichever way they want – that is the whole ethos of an artist’s relationship, through their work, to society – end of.

    Having said that, let’s just be bloody thankful that a new studio version of ‘Tawny Moon’ hasn’t been added in……. (SHUDDER!!!!!!!!!)

  15. DJ Salinger says:

    A can’t win situation for Kate, really. Imagine the brickbats if Harris was left on the track. And now read the outrage at her temerity for tinkering with the recording.

    Removing his contribution now doesn’t erase him from history (like the Beeb has been at pains to do with Jimmy Savile for instance) but it does represent a moral stance and the artist’s right to do what they choose with their own creation. Either way we live in a world where both versions of ‘Aerial’ exist. Which one we choose to listen to from now on is personal choice.

    But I’m inclined to agree with you Paul, a bit more information upfront would’ve been the better way to go with this campaign.

    Now: who’s going to propose erasing Elton John’s contribution from ‘Snowed In At Wheeler Street’ on account of him sounding like a pub singer gatecrashing the session? Anyone?

  16. Michael says:

    Just want to state that anyone (like myself) who preordered the remastered Aerial would probably have appreciated a heads up on this long before now. It seems a bit 11th hour to be announcing this! I do appreciate why Kate has done it but as I say any fans making preorders for this would have been expecting RH’s contribution to still be there – it was your (and my) choice to order this in full knowledge – personally I just enjoy the music. Having said that what RH did was awful of course and he has been punished for doing so.

    Getting back to the music, I really don’t think I want Bertie on my remaster as, like others have expressed, I did not enjoy his contributions on Before the Dawn at all. I wish Kate had firstly given us plenty of notice about this and secondly chosen someone other than Bertie for the replacement vocals.

    You may think I’m silly but I’m seriously thinking about cancelling my pre-order as it is not the original Aerial recording. I’ll stick to my CD.

    • Paul Sinclair says:

      Much as I love Kate Bush, this is the kind of thing that winds me up. She announced these reissues with about one sentence and that’s it. If she’s changed Aerial, FINE (her prerogative etc.) but what’s wrong with telling people about it. There’s not doing interviews and keeping out of the limelight and then there’s just neglecting basic marketing and communication.

      • Chris Squires says:

        It’s just confirmed my decision to only buy box set numbers I and IV. And I say that as someone who used to be a completist who wouldn’t think twice about buying Bulgarian issues and Bootleg live albums just to have them.

  17. James Pigg says:

    You must have been born the week after me Paul. I had Archie and Sugar Sugar as my number one single!

    On Kate Bush, she has absolutely every right to do what she wants. Personally I never felt comfortable listening to his voice on the track so I am pleased it’s been replaced.

  18. dch says:

    I think it’s a good decision. I wasn’t going to buy the new vinyl of this because I find it annoying to listen to him: too distracting. I hoped she’d do this, she did, I’ve ordered. I’m sure I’m not alone in that view.

  19. Julian Hancock says:

    I am still wiping away the tears of laughter that people will pay £200 for a vinyl copy of something that was essentially recorded digitally for a CD.

    • Paul Sinclair says:

      It’s the rarity value that means it commands £200.

      • poptones says:

        I agree with that. The market dictates the value of the item. After all, a vinyl LP is also a piece of art. If it’s rare and many people want the item, price will go up. I bought the album on vinyl for €15 at a Paris store a few months after its release back in 2005. It was on sale. At the time, the market for vinyl was not a big as it is today. Few quantities available but still lots of vinyl LPs were on sale. I remember albo buying U2’s How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb for only €9 at the Virgin Megastpre in Paris at the same time. There was like 15 copies available and even after 3 days they were still available. Today, they wouldn’t last a day if they were available at that price on sale.

        No reason to laugh at people who didn’t have the chance to buy those LPs when they were released originally and will have to pay £200 in order to acquire a vinyl copy of the album. These people may laugh harder if the price goes up and commands £400 on the market in a few years.

  20. Stuart says:

    It’s her work, she can do as she pleases

    If you don’t like it, then don’t buy it

  21. Drbryant says:

    Kate Bush will make the creative decisions she wants to make. The artist has that right, inherently. Now, if Kate no longer had the rights, and decisions were being made by a record company without consulting her, that would be a very different issue.

  22. memoryboy says:

    I guess I could really care less about all this, I’m just so happy she’s releasing these albums remastered, and the bonus extra stuff.

    Hopefully it sounds good. I didn’t read anything about the sound quality of this remaster (but then again it is a remastered album from 2005) so I’m curious to know what the older albums sound like.

    But as far as the creepy guy being removed from the recordings from that album… I don’t really care. I also have the original release. So…. now I will have both copies.

    Love you Kate!

  23. Guy says:

    I’m gobsmacked at the number of people here complaining about Kate’s decision! In angry response I offer the following:

    a) Comparing it to buying / listening to work of musician X, Y or Z who may have committed a crime against women/girls is irrelevant. Notice how all these musicians are men? And that most of you complaining about the change (according to the names you have chosen to post with) are men? Maybe Kate, as a woman, is showing empathy with the women who were Harris’ victims? Perhaps she feels empowered enough to do this following the fantastic #metoo campaign?

    b) To remove Harris’ voice from Aerial is absolutely NOT ‘political correctness gone mad’. That is a way overused phrase wheeled out every time someone is confronted by something that challenges their comfortable yet narrow-minded world view (typically that of white, middle class, heterosexual males who will often follow ‘it’s PC gone mad’ with a roll of the eyeballs and ‘what next….?’

    c) If you want to knowingly consume art and put money in the pocket of sex offenders in doing so, that’s up to you, it’s on your conscience. I personally avoid doing so.

    d) Some are commenting on how they are happy their original vinyl of Aerial might retain or even increase in value. I hope you are comfortable with yourselves at the prospect of making profit from perversion.

    e) It’s Kate’s work, she can do what she damn well wants with it. Some things are more important than art. Get over it.

    • RJS says:

      You sound like a parody of a Guardian reader!

    • David says:

      on your point c.

      So you’ve never watched a Roman Polanski film or listened to a John Peel session? Do you switch off if a Who track comes on or a Chuck Berry song? ETC ETC

      And let’s not forget those convicted already are the tip of the iceberg so you’re definitely going to be in for a shock as more ‘artists’ get uncovered for the sick weirdos that they are.

      • J T says:

        @David “Do you switch off if a Who track comes on or a Chuck Berry song? ETC ETC”

        You do know people switch off when something they don’t like comes on the radio, don’t you? Now add to your awareness of this everyday occurrence that maybe some of these won’t-be listeners dislike those artists as people, or whatever it is you know about the Who that I don’t.

        Gangsta rap kind of turned the whole thing on its head, but that used to be the default setting for mainstream society.

        Your last point about the tip of the iceberg just seems misanthropic. “Sick” and “weirdo” can be subjective—entertainers’ careers used to hinge on staying in the closet, avoiding divorce, or keeping a pregnancy out of wedlock a secret—but habitually victimizing young children, as I take it to be the case here, is another thing.

        “You’re definitely going to be in for a shock” when other artists’ depravity comes to light is gleefully perverse, as your actual point seems to be that people who do find this repugnant should inure themselves to the horror of child sex crimes because passively listening to the radio is cooler than having a moral compass and a second station preset.

        Some people are going to switch off Adele. Others are going to switch off a felon. May it ever be thus.

    • Nemo says:

      “If you want to knowingly consume art and put money in the pocket of sex offenders in doing so, that’s up to you, it’s on your conscience”

      if you are a real KB fan just like me who bought the old copy you already did it. don’t be ridiculous. nobody will buy the old copies. it’s misplaced morality. nobody did know RH acts especially KB. don’t put your own psychological self non confidence on everyone there. it is very offensive.

      nevertheless we may very well not agree with the fact that a work of art could be modify. for my own if the author want to to do it I have no problems with that but I understand that some people don’t like it and prefer the work keeps its integrity.

    • Chris Squires says:

      Judgmental much?
      I would love to go into detail about why I think you are soooo wrong but I do get Paul’s stance at leaving politics at the door.

      I will just say one thing, Kate is not and never has been “that kind of” feminist or she has never uttered as much in any interview. If she classes herself as one I would suggest it is the kind of feminism that was good until single issue politics hijacked it for it’s own means. I make that call from having read just about every interview Kate has ever done. Kate has gone on record many times times to say how she celebrates men and their role in the world and she can see the world from their point of view. Modern feminism, such that you suggest with #metoo, has been reduced to “Men-Bad, Women-Good” with political point scoring and virtue signalling being more important than actually helping people who have suffered and going around complaining to sports arenas for playing Gary Glitter or not buying records with certain people playing on them is as useless as a chocolate teapot. Once feminism goes fundamentalist (and it is going that way) all hope is lost. I don’t think for a second that Kate would ever subscribe to that “with us or against us” nonsense. I will leave others to pick apart the other points.

      You have also done what I thought was impossible. You have made me nod in agreement with a post by RJS, that’s some effort.

      • Stupidactingsmart says:

        He’s right about the political correctness thing though. Whether or not you agree with Bush’s decision, and whther she felt it was an artistic or a moral one, the incident has zero to do with the concept of political correctness.

        There’s always the chance it was purely artistic anyway, given he’s still on another track playing didgeredoo, and she’s revised her work before.

  24. gwynogue says:

    Just in time for Christmas…when the shops will all be playing Bing Crosby…

    Does he make her ‘feel nice’ now?

    Will she be removing his name-check from “December Will Be Magic Again”?

  25. Disney Mike says:

    This is art by a living artist. She is free to make whatever changes she wants, for whatever reasons she wants. I know nothing about this guy or his crimes, but I applaud her for making this decision. This is the version of the album she wants to put out now.

    If people want to be fragile little snowflakes and whine about revisionism and history, then PLEASE feel free not to ever rethink anything from your own past. Let her do the same.

  26. Garax says:

    Reading through these comments it’s clear that this is not just a difficult subject to find agreement on – but more or less impossible.

    My view is that I can’t imagine this was an easy choice for Kate – she seems so precise in how she puts things together.

    I know I’ve tended to skip the Rolf tracks. In the main because I find he derails my ability to listen to the music without being pulled out of it by my response to him as a person.

    I think for people going ‘why not the dreaming’ – for me it’s simple – it’s not his voice – it’s not Rolf as Rolf guest starring all over a bunch of tracks.

    Now – all that said – equally I think Kate has a fairly horrible track record when it comes to tinkering – correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think she’s improved or even equalled a single thing when she’s gone back. I have a soft spot for Deeper Understanding but that’s a flawed song in the first place so it can take some remoulding.

    For anyone who attended BTD or listened to the live album I suspect there is also an inward sigh at the idea of Bertie being let near anything. He’s not going to reach his mothers status within the rock fermament put it that way. Although the first track on 50 Words for Snow is magnificently beautiful and the already mentioned DU I personally like for its sonic pileup – so it’s not an absolute guarantee of cringe – but I rather fear we shall be served up considerable amounts of ham.

  27. FM says:

    Kate’s decision makes total sense to me; I don’t see what the big deal is. But predictably enough, the anti-PC brigade are out in full force, insisting that Kate making her own choices about her own work is somehow some kind of attack on civilization.

  28. Jon says:

    I just don’t get fans who think they have every single right to tell an artist what they can or cannot do with their back catalog. It’s ridiculous. Kate doesn’t owe us anything.

  29. Andy Haines says:

    Lots of views for both sides of the “argument”. I doubt I’m going to be able to add anything new on this, but there are many pieces of music out there that have been produced, written, composed, performed, covered, contributed on, duetted on by people who are no longer deemed fit to be called a human being by society regardless of whether they have been found guilty or not. Whilst Rolf Harris may have been convicted of his actions we can’t forget he exists. We have a copy of Two Little Boys. It’s not going to get thrown away as it holds memories that we associate within our family. Good memories. The recent debacle of accusations against Roy Harper were thankfully overturned, but the hatred by some was appalling! Guilty until proven innocent! What KB has done is what she thought best. Whether it’s right or wrong is debatable as we can read here in the comments. For me it’s not the album that was originally released and that may be a deciding factor on repurchase. Should we all be forced to return our original copies for them to be destroyed and replaced by the new version? I’m sure some of you would willingly do so, but others may change their mind!

  30. Kevin says:

    Since I rarely listened to the 2nd disc, I have no opinion one way or the other.

  31. Ian mcjannet says:

    I’m sick to death of political correctness and I’m totally against re writing history…
    Changing records…taking down statues it’s all wrong.
    History is part of life …get over it and stop butchering original music !!!!!

  32. Chris Lancaster says:

    I’ve got no real view one way or another, but how far does one take this sort of thing? For instance, do you never watch any Miramax film again (such as Pulp Fiction, Shakespeare in Love or The Crying Game) because they were made by Harvey Weinstein’s company (or in some instances produced by Weinstein)? Take back any clothes you ever bought from Top Shop because of Philip Green? Refuse to watch The Thick of It because it starred Chris Langham? Stop listening to The Who? The list is endless.

  33. alan hansen says:

    it seems to me that the question at hand isn’t whether Kate CAN do this bit of revision, but rather SHOULD she have done it. adding more fodder to the conversation: Roman Polanski gets standing ovations in Hollywood and abroad, though statutory rapist he be. and I’m confident that “Rosemary’s Baby” got plenty of views prior to the Halloween holiday. I’ll keep my original cd and likely give the new version its fair day in court.

  34. Gus Campbell says:

    Rolf Harris’ turn as “The Painter” sullies an otherwise beautiful recording. I think of this move as like cleaning a dirty painting – removing the stains of time.

  35. Willy says:

    Remove Rolf, fine. But maybe she should also think about removing The Infant Kiss from Never For Ever. Would anyone else get away with releasing that song?

  36. Nemo says:

    just few words >>> it’s ridiculous

  37. RJS says:

    A lot of talk about royalties but I doubt very much that Harris ever received any. Like a session musician or singer, he most likely received a one off fee or, given that he was a friend of Bush, he probably did it as a favour.

    • Mike Ellis says:

      It’s more that he would receive recognition, he would still be listed in the credits

  38. Dogfacedboy says:

    Heading off the Daily Mail at the pass isn’t it really? Funnily enough myself and a pal were discussing whether this would happen just last week.

    If he was cooler or cred then Rolf would get a pass (it was the 70s etc) but replacing him with nasal Bush Jr – hmmmm. Then again I have an original vinyl press and I think its pretty dull and lifeless so will be interesting to hear what the ‘de-Rolfed’ shellac sounds like

  39. David says:

    It’s Kate’s album she can she whatever she wants. She doesn’t come round to your house when your planning on rearranging your garden and tell you, you can’t change it.

  40. jason says:

    Jerry Lee Lewis still makes records…

    I own an original copy of Aerial, and while I don’t think I’ll be parting with it, suggesting that the value jumps because an artist who has participated in criminal acts is part of the project does not do much to enhance the value. It would be like owning racist books just because they might be hard to find and who wants to profit off of someone’s suffering? I think what she has done is fine and just makes me want to own it again since it’s different and it’s not like she changed all the musical parts or anything.

    Body Count removed Cop Killer from all pressings of that album after it was deemed to incendiary and that was back in 1992. Now Ice-T plays a cop on TV…

    • Stupidactingsmart says:

      I read the comment about value to mean it would jump due to the original recording being less widely available on an official release, having been altered for the new issue. Not due to Harris’ notoriety.

    • Kevin says:

      Body Count removed Cop Killer from its album because of the political pressure being applied to Warner Bros. (their label) by the US government and law enforcement organizations. Ice-T figured it wasn’t worth all the hassle. Not the same thing.

  41. Peter Anderson says:

    Always hated Bill Wyman’s drumming But his bass playing wasn’t bad! Funnily enough Lionheart is my favourite Kate album but I won’t mind if she has decided to revisit it as have the original vinyl. :)

  42. daveid76 says:

    This is ridiculous though fairly predictable. It’s largely motivated by fear of not doing it and general group-think conformity. Its clearly not enough that he’s done his sentence for the wrongs he committed. There must be no evidence left of any good he did. The guy was a national treasure and hugely popular but now we feel guilty that we liked him and are trying to assuage this guilt by erasing him from the public memory and painting him as a pure villain. Meanwhile Jimmy Saveloy’s laughing his head off in Hell.

  43. Kate Kate Kate says:

    Kate will do anything from keeping the DVD we were promise from being released. All the shows she did please no camcorders or cell phones during my shows. We will have a film crew and make a DVD… Kate goes home sees the DVD ugh I’m so large I’m not releasing this ever. Thanks Kate I been waiting 4 years to see this and I get a multi track recording of the show. Where you really need to see everything.

  44. Alex22 says:

    Rolfs artwork now sells at a much greater price than when he was a free man.
    Although being on the secondary market. He doesn’t benefit, but you can lay money on original vinyl copies of Aerial increasing in price and desirability.

  45. Stan Butler says:

    Well my sealed 2005 copy of Ariel should now keep its value with this news, so I”m ok with it.

    • Michael McA says:

      Obviously a music fan

      • Stan Butler says:

        Mais oui. I also have a opened vinyl copy and two cd copies. Vinyl copies cost £20 in HMV in 2005. Listened to it many many times, pre Rolf’s conviction and after. Made no difference to the enjoyment. No offence to the lad but I think I’d rather have Rolf on it than Bertie.

        • Michael McAlister says:

          Glad to hear it! (and apologies for the sarcasm)
          I must say I’ve always liked the sound of RH’s voice.

  46. Carl says:

    Is she removing him from Dreamtime as well ?,i think i am right in saying he played Didgeridoo on it.
    He is despicable but does revisionism work? its a strange one , Hitlers on the telly all the time mind.

  47. David B says:

    just wondering though . .what next? Will Alice Cooper remove his cover of Rolf’s “Sun Arise” from his “Love it to death”LP, or Joan Jett disown her cover of Gary’s “Do you want to touch me” or Tommy James his cover of “I love you love me love” ??? Actually er no they haven’t ..indeed Joan’s cover was included on her recent film soundtrack .. and don’t forget Oasis pay Gary each time a copy of “Morning Glory”album is sold (check out the credits for their “Hello” ..includes part of Gary’s “Hello hello i’m back again”) .. difficult for Kate though but did anyone remove Jim Gordon (famous session drummer-who killed his 72 year old mother) from their tracks (er Derek & The Dominoes, Nilsson, the Byrds, the Beach Boys “Pet Sounds” no less ..) again the answer is no .. no-one did .. interesting that …

  48. Aidan says:

    It is the artist’s choice what they release and it’s our choice as to whether we buy it.

    In this case if it was me I would have made the same decisions as Kate Bush to replace RH’s vocal.

    What I think is criminal is to replace it with Bertie’s vocal! … I’m half joking – I found his contribution at the Before The Dawn concert really jarring.

  49. Rik Skyline says:

    Hi Glen, I’ll tell you how I deal with a favourite artist who is convicted of disgusting behaviour – I wouldn’t watch ‘Rolf’s Cartoon Club’ ever again.

  50. Sam says:

    Has there been an official announcement as to whether or not the vinyl box sets will come with free high quality downloads?

  51. Bart says:

    Good job Kate!

  52. Simon says:

    Meanwhile no one bats an eyelid at buying Who albums

  53. Steve W says:

    I’m torn here. Whilst I think she probably has done the right things I do get tired of an artist (or someone for them) remastering old material. Listening to Aerial recently I was taken out of the music by RH speaking which alone would justify it I suppose.

    I haven’t heard Bertie’s take on BtD so can’t speak for it but it seems to me it needs an older man (ideally a painter) for it to make it work. Still, her material, her choice.

  54. Mark says:

    A pertinent issue and all perspectives have been covered here. I work in the industry and I would guess that Harris was probably paid a flat session fee, so probably would have not received extra income from sales of the new edition of ‘Ariel’ (he was a friend before the convictions so it seems unlikely that he brought a lawyer in on a self release project to secure points on what was, after all just a few lines worth of recording). ‘The Dreaming’ was released by a major label so aside from multitrack access, legal ramifications most likely would have proved prohibitive.

  55. Gisabun says:

    Right thing to do. Portion was considered a minor role.
    Compare that to when Steven Wilson replaced the drums on one of the Porcupine Tree albums for a re-issue or when an orchestra was added to Freddie Mercury’s Barcelona album, and then this is very minor.
    In the end the album is remastered and remixed.

  56. Andrew r says:

    Rewriting history where does it end ? The Americans won in Vietnam . Hiroshima wasn’t as bad as you were told . Once you start down this path … he had a career it is know in ruins if you remove all mention of him as an artist do his crimes un do themselves . She should have included a note with the new press explaining her use of him his status (once) in british tv / radio and ket later generations make their own judgement . Censorship for good or bad is still censorship.

  57. tom says:

    I can understand why she did it( his crimes are despicable) but why are there such double standards around? It’s ok for Chuck Berry to be a sex offender and still be lauded before and since his death. It seems if you are “cool” or a musical genius you get a free pass.

    • Stupidactingsmart says:

      Ditto when it comes to Anthony Keidis, Jimmy Page, and yes, even, David Bowie (with Lori Maddix). Some people just get a pass. I’m no fan of Harris (I did love his cartoon programmes as a kid) but don’t know what the answer is. There’s still plenty of doubt about Michael Jackson, but I don’t know if I could stuff myself from loving I Want You Back or Human Nature if definitive proof of his guilt were established.

      • deadair says:

        i get where you are… i DO draw the line with lostprophets though, that’s a little too much for me

  58. poptones says:

    I understand but don’t approve this director’s cut. If Kate wanted to distantiate herself from M. Harris, she could have added a mention in the credits of the album stating all the wrong things he’s done and she could simply ask the record company not to distribute any royalties money to Rolf Harris and give it instead to charity, a child abuse prevention association, etc.

    I know it’s obviously different but Kate said Theresa May is ‘wonderful’ and ‘the best thing that’s happened to us’. I don’t think Peter Gabriel agrees with that. Would Peter Gabriel do the same thing to Games without frontiers or Don’t give up? I doubt it and would hate it. Whatever Kate Bush says or does (even if she mollested or abused a child), I wouldn’t condone tampering with the master tapes to eliminate all the vocals she did with other artists. Not to mention Rolf Harris’ contribution to two songs of Kate Bush is marginal and largely ignored by the public. There was no need to rewrite History.

    • Mark says:

      Basically, it’s just uncomfortable listening to Rolf Harris on such a beautiful record, so she has done the right erasing him. There was nothing historic about his performance in the first place, in my opinion. Bertie already took over these parts during the 2014 live performances.

    • David M says:


    • J T says:

      Yegads, you’re comparing molesting children with expressing political support for Theresa May?

      I know next to nothing about Kate Bush personally, but the last thing someone would want to do is even more explicitly associate her work with a sex criminal by adding a whole diatribe against him to the album’s liner notes.

      “Rewriting history” would be to suggest something had not happened, or to fundamentally and methodically misrepresent what happened, especially in a way that prevents understanding of a relevant truth and/or paves the way for harmful history to repeat.

      There are any number of examples of this in today’s world for us to get legitimately and productively exercised over.

      This is not rewriting history, it is harmlessly and with good intent righting her own present and future, by allowing her to remove his minor contribution from future iterations of this work of hers, which is her right. Ms. Bush is choosing not to celebrate or profit off of the work of someone who has since become a convicted criminal whom she (like I’m sure most other people who know of him) has come to find repellant.

      I don’t think I’ve ever heard more than three Kate Bush songs in my life (and beyond this article and its responses I don’t know who Rolf Harris is), but to “marginal” and “largely ignored by the public,” what the general public is aware of isn’t the point.

      The point is that there should be no forced fidelity to the intellectual concept of original intent when it would have the effect of rendering the thing itself something completely other than what was originally intended or would be presently beneficial. If this were a corporate decision, that would open up a whole ball of wax over artist’s intent. If it were a government decision it would be censorship. If it were torch-weilding mobs throwing all original copies onto bonfires, well, let’s hope we get legitimately and productively exercised over today’s world before things revert to that. But as it is Ms. Bush’s decision, it is an exercise of her artistic license that frees not only other listeners but she, herself, to enjoy this work as originally intended, while still allowing people to have the original for whatever reasons they may have to want to do so.

  59. Si says:

    It doesn’t bother me too much from a musical point of view because I’m not a huge fan of Kate Bush.

    She is the artist and it’s her record, so she has the right to decide.

    Personally, I would have no problem if Rolf continued to receive royalties or other payments for this. His art and music is not criminal (ok, moot point) and he has as much right to earn a living from the fruits of his labour as everyone else. He’s already being punished by law for what he was found guilty of, and that should be the end of the matter.

  60. ArtKiller1960@ instagram says:

    Good job Kate Bush.

  61. Kauwgompie says:

    For crying out loud, OF COURSE this is the right thing to do, whether he benefits financially or not. As an artist I would not want a child molester perform on my records so when I have the chance to correct that, I always would. The man has ruined lives. Nothing can ever make up for that. So glad Kate did this. I’m glad to know where she stands. I’m much more inclined to get her box sets now. Especially part 2.

  62. mark turrell says:

    Mixed feelings.
    when the 2CD reissue of Genesis first album came out i contacted the record company and they confirmed that Jonathan King would still get money as he owns that album in perpetuity under his Jonjo company.
    What you can do in this case i think is respect the artists decision, and buy an old one (if you don’t already have it).

  63. Mazzy says:

    Hate revisionism in any way. I can still enjoy the Naked Gun movies even though OJ is in them.

    Wrong decision imho. But it’s her choice

    • George glazener says:

      LOL, speaking of OJ, I used to have a sports card business in the mid 90s, and when the whole OJ trial happened, everyone asked if I had any OJ football cards, rookie cards autographs, anything…! No one had ever wanted his stuff before, but now they wanted a piece of him for whatever reason. I never had any to sell, so I couldn’t oblige them. But it just felt odd for many reasons to see the hype during a time of personal tragedy.

      • Paul Sinclair says:

        I bought some random film memorabilia from an auction house (press packs from the 1970s and the like) and in amongst the stuff (unbeknown to me) was an Oscars programme from 1975 signed by OJ Simpson and a few other people…

        • George glazener says:

          Well I wish I’d known you then Paul, I might have made you an offer on it and resold it to my demanding customers here…LOL

  64. AdamW says:

    I know that every time I hear “Rock And Roll Part 2” played in a sports stadium, I attempt to contact the stadium personnel and let them know that a convicted child sex offender gets paid every time they play it, and until Mr. Gadd is dead and buried, I will continue to do so. I also won’t stream it from a streaming service for the same reason. I still like the song, but I own a copy from a long time ago, and I can play it without Mr. Gadd getting paid. That’s the big difference.

    I assume that either Mr. Harris gets paid for his contribution to Aerial whenever new copies are sold, or Ms. Bush could not bear to listen to it with him on it. Either way, I support the decision. You can always buy a used copy if you really want one, and you can be certain that Mr. Harris will not get paid when you do that.

    • bob says:

      Oh please, get of your high horse ..

    • BKS1 says:

      Do you feel the same about music written/ produced by Phil Spector?

      • AdamW says:

        Well, I can’t remember the last time I heard a Phil Spector production in a sports stadium, but yes, I’d mention it as long as he’s still alive and could possibly get out of jail. The issue with “Rock And Roll Part 2” is that it’s darn near ubiquitous.

        As for a “high horse,” it’s truly not a very high horse at all. Preventing people who used their wealth and influence to prey on children or try to get away with murder from getting paid by my actions, while they’re still capable of using that money, is the least anyone can do. I can still enjoy and appreciate the art of theirs I’ve already purchased, and once they’re dead I may or may not go back to buying their stuff, but there’s no reason to give them any more while they’re still alive.

      • Alessandro says:

        You took the words outof my mouth.

    • RJS says:

      “I know that every time I hear “Rock And Roll Part 2” played in a sports stadium, I attempt to contact the stadium”

      I hope you’re on an unlimited minutes phone contract… Seriously, I must have heard that song about zero times at a sports stadium in the past 20 years.

      • AdamW says:

        I heard it earlier this year being played in TD Garden during a Boston Celtics telecast. It has slowly been eliminated from most stadium playlists, but it does show up here and there.

  65. Anthony says:

    I will stick with my original vinyl as its all about the music and nothing else.

  66. jsd says:

    I think it’s the right thing to do. How anyone could possibly listen to it now and not be offended given the magnitude of Harris’ crimes is beyond me. Either cut the song entirely or rework it. Given that this particular work is all one complete piece, reworking it seems most sensible.

  67. Mike the Fish says:

    Brilliant news! I might try and get the vinyl.

  68. Auntie Sabrina says:

    I wonder why Rolf’s contribution(s) on The Dreaming are unchanged then? I do hope Lionheart has not been tampered with as I believe it is Kate’s least favourite album.

  69. Caroline says:

    Absolutely a special case. She would surely want an untainted version of the recording, as much for herself as for her audience.

    Leaving him on “The Dreaming” may be a matter of the availability of the multitracks but it may also be that an instrumental contribution doesn’t conjure up the same images as a vocal one. After all, Phil Spector murdered a woman in cold blood, how many of you still pull out his Christmas album?…

    • Stephanie says:

      I completely agree. Who would keep the voice of a child molester on his own recorded work if he/she had the chance to remove it? I doubt money/royalties did play a big role in Kate’s decision.

      • hamicle says:

        Have to agree with you both, Caroline and Stephanie, plus if as others have suggested upthread that Kate and Rolf had a friendship then there’s the additional personal angle to removing his vocal contributions in light of the convictions, not simply professional revisionism.

        Kate’s record, Kat’s prerogative to make changes to it when the opportunity arises. The original is still out there.

  70. colinthebruce says:

    …and the Aerial original vinyls share price index (!) goes rocketing back up!

  71. Dennis Yardley says:

    I’m a bit torn here – I cut Rolf out of my version a while ago (marginally successful) but I didn’t like Bertie on the Before the Dawn version – no idea what the best option is though as RH appalls me.

  72. Chris Squires says:

    Oh dear. It’s her music and she can do what the heck she likes with it. Having said that I would have preferred the album to have remained as it was. If I hear Rock and Roll or “I’m the leader of the Gang” do I still stomp my feet and sing along, you bet I do.

    Art is Art.

    My personal feeling was that if Bertie wasn’t Bertie she might have left it, but as Bertie did Before the Dawn it does make some sense, even if you might have thought Bertie was the weakest thing about BtD….. I couldn’t possibly comment.

    On the slightest aside…it does mean that my original copies of Aerial will retain more of their value.

  73. Paul Fraser says:

    She likes a tinker, does our Kate; from the new vocal on Wuthering Heights on The Whole Story to Director’s Cut. I personally think she shouldn’t have done it here. This brushing people out of history is rather Stalinist, even if it is done for upstanding moral reasons. But it means Aerial is now Aerial 2.0. It is not the original album being remastered. It is a director’s cut of Aerial. It’s not a clean and polish, it’s a retouching.

    Would Harris get any more money for it if she left him on? Can someone who knows about music industry finances answer this for us?

    • Colin Harper says:

      Yes, Harris gets PPL money for any commercial recording he is involved with (assuming he is a PPL member).

  74. Rob says:

    While I understand her move, I cannot agree with it. While despicable behavior should not and cannot be tolerated, there is a history rewritten aspect that begs discussion. Axl Rose famously removed the song “One In A Million” from the current pressings of “G N’ R Lies” and, when the deluxe box set came out it was noticeably conspicuous in its absence. The acts and words of may people are hurtful and terrible. But is not better to release as such originally with a note and explanation? It seems that tampering with the memory fans have of such things is rather insensitive. I do not support what Rolf did (just as I cannot agree with the sentiments Axl Rose put forth) but history is history and to pretend it did not happen seems wrong.

    • Caroline says:

      I don’t agree re: G’n’R. Their acknowledgement that the song was fundamentally a dreadful misfire and does not belong on the market in 2018 has a certain power, a heft. It takes guts to admit you were wrong and G’n’R, bless ’em, had those guts.

      Let’s not nominate them for sainthood tho’ – after all, they left the violent misogyny of “Used To Love Her” intact…

  75. Marcel Rijs says:

    I’m curious what other changed may lay ahead for us in these box sets…. After the ‘tinkering’ with The Red Shoes in 2011 it seems likely that Kate has done more on all of her albums…

    • Paul Sinclair says:

      I have all the audio now, so will be having a listen…

      • jsd says:

        Are you under embargo? I’m dying to know how these things sound!! Especially The Sensual World which to my ears has the most distance between what it could be and what it has been to date.

  76. Glen Buchanan says:

    My take. If Rolf would benefit financially from not being removed from the recording then it was the right thing for Kate to do. You don’t want to see him profiting further. Something similar touched me personally years ago. I’m a huge fan of Marc Bolan and Glam Rock in general. When Gary Glitter’s despicable behaviour came to light, should I continue to enjoy the music of someone who was such an important part of Glam? I certainly didn’t want to put any more money into Glitter’s pocket. My solution: buy used, then not one cent makes it into Gary’s prison cell. I love to hear from others about how they deal with a favourite artist who is convicted of disgusting behaviour.

    • Dan says:

      I haven’t listened to a single LostProphets song ever since it came to light what lead singer Ian Watkins had done / was planning. I adored the music of that, they were one of my favourite bands, but I can’t listen to a single second their music anymore out of pure disgust for what the singer had done.

    • kook says:

      I can understand why Kate Bush – or any other artist – would want to dissociate herself from someone who’s been convicted of something as heinous as child abuse, especially when she has an opportunity to reissue an album with that person’s previous contribution neatly removed.

      That said, I don’t doubt that some of my favourite musicians probably indulged in all kinds of dubious groupie-related exploits in their youth (the ’60s and ’70s hardly being renowned as a time of purity and virtue). Where does the decadent rock star end, and the deviant pervert begin?

      I suppose one has to separate the art from the artist, although that may be easier said than done if you’re a Lostprophets fan… Maybe it just comes down to how much you like someone’s music, and how much of a blind eye you’re therefore willing to turn to less savoury aspects of their past.

  77. Tony O says:

    my original copy of Aerial just jumped another 20%

  78. Colin Harper says:

    I wouldn’t criticise her at all for it: it’s her music and no doubt Rolf’s crimes made that suite of music seem repugnant or diminished for her. Entirely her call to deal with the problem as she sees fit.

    Rolf toured with the Graham Bond Quartet (and Duffy Power, Marty Wilde, Mark Wynter and others) on a pop package tour in April 1963. When I was working on my John McLaughlin biography in 2013-14 (John having been in the GBQ) I opted not to contact Rolf for any recollections of the tour. My choice.

  79. Dave says:

    Great move, Kate!!

    I like that!

  80. I’ve got no problem with these changes whatsoever. A Sky of Honey is a beautiful cycle of music that for me was spoiled after what we found out about Rolf Harris. Now it can be wonderful all over again.

  81. Martin Stacey says:

    As you say Paul, this is a special case. If it was my music I would seriously consider doing the same.

  82. Bruce says:

    She’s done the right thing …

  83. JonK says:

    Absolutely the wrong thing to do. It means Aerial is no longer Aerial, but a remixed Directors Cut- style re-recording. The ‘real’ vinyl version will be as highly sought after as ever.

    • Tom Richardson says:

      JonK I see your point about it not being the original recording anymore but this is Kate’s work to do with as she pleases and absolutely the right thing in her eyes. And I tend to agree. After all would YOU want anything to do with a convicted paedophile?

      • David B says:

        yes . .but we can still buy (and hear on the radio) Joe Meek or Phil Spector productions even though they’re both murderers .. my view well it takes all sorts in music and there were so many musicians in the 60s / 70s so there are bound to be some bad. But does this lesson their musical contributions .. you pay the money so you choose .. me I just enjoy music ..

    • Guy says:

      She has absolutely done the right thing. Whether it means Aerial is a director’s cut-style remix as you claim or not matters not one tiny bit compared to what happened to Harris’ victims. Perspective is important here. If some people are prepared to pay OTT for the original vinyl or not is up to them. I suspect the market wouldn’t be as strong anyway, after all, who would proudly boast ‘I’ve just spent £100 (or whatever) on the the original, you know, the one with Rolf Harris on!’. I’m sure Kate would have re-recorded his bit on The Dreaming as well if she could. Despicable creature.

      • JonK says:

        So can I assume that you find it equally repulsive to listen to Rolling Stones tracks featuring the drumming of Bill Wyman? (If you’re in any doubt about what he did, read Mandy Smith’s book.)

        • Simon F says:

          Since when did Bill Wyman ever play drums in the Rolling Stones? If you gonna start chucking accusations around make sure you get your facts right to begin with.
          Oh and if you are still wondering, the drummer in the Rolling Stones is and always will be Charlie Watts. Wyman played bass.

          • JonK says:

            Fair point. Don’t know why I put drumming. But the point about his contribution to many hundreds of Rolling Stones songs stands.

      • Stan Butler says:

        Cheapest mint copies on Discogs at the moment are around £200. So there’s a market. And that’s four years after Rolf’s conviction. Personally, it doesn’t bother me, hearing him on Aerial. I wouldn’t buy his Greatest Hits mind you.

        • Chris Squires says:

          Ah, his greatest hits is a fabulous album, the blue one with the Kangaroo, we had it when I was a kid and I purposely sought it out about four years ago as it brought back great memories. Nick Teen and Al K Hall, Sun Arise, Court of King Caractacus plus the rather tear jerking Two Little Boys. Even for an album I hadn’t heard in 40 years the words came flooding back.

          • Paul Sinclair says:

            “Two Little Boys” was number one on the day I was born. Random fact. December 1969… I was hoping for some Beatles or Stones!

          • Stan Butler says:

            Used to play the “Two Little Boys” single a lot as a kid in the 70s. The b-side “I love my love” was a great tune too.