Steven Tyler, Axl Rose and ‘lots and lots of others’: Rock stars and the abuse hidden in plain sight
“There are so many stories,” says Sophie Cunningham, wearily. “So many I was just not able to tell, and that’s because of money and power – success and celebrity goes a hell of a long way to keeping people quiet.”
Cunningham is the director and producer of a new documentary confronting the music industry’s dark side, rock music in particular; harassment and abuse against women and “relationships” involving megastars and teenage girls, an issue that was hidden in plain sight for years.
Look Away features interviews with women who make allegations against Aerosmith’s Steven Tyler and Guns ‘N’ Roses frontman Axl Rose, as well as the late music producer and songwriter Kim Fowley, who managed all-female teen rock group The Runaways, co-founded by Joan Jett in the 1970s. But Cunningham says there could have been many more.
Axl Rose of Guns ‘N’ Roses performing in Chicago in 1988. Pic: Gene Ambo/MediaPunch/IPX/AP
Post #MeToo, Hollywood and the film industry has had the start of its reckoning after disgraced producer Harvey Weinstein was jailed for rape and sexual assault in 2020, although it seems sadly inevitable that there is more to come.
For the music industry, says Cunningham, who worked on Look Away for two years, we have only seen the tip of the iceberg. To clarify, the allegations made by other women she couldn’t feature in the documentary – she’s talking about “lots and lots of [stars] who are very, very popular”.
Look Away shines a light on how the music industry fostered a culture where relationships with underage girls – statutory rape – were normalised, and how many behind the scenes turned a blind eye to aggressive sexual behaviour.
“It seems like an area that hasn’t yet had its #MeToo moment and I think desperately requires it,” says Cunningham.
Julia Holcomb’s story is well documented, despite the fact she never wanted to share it – it was Tyler himself who first brought the story to light, writing about their relationship in his 2011 autobiography.
Holcomb met the Aerosmith frontman as a fan at a gig in Portland, Oregon, when she was just 16 and he was in his mid-20s in 1973.
Because the age of consent in the state was 18, she claims Tyler persuaded her mother to sign over guardianship to him, making her his ward, so she could travel with the star on tour. She also claims she became pregnant with his baby, and was forced into having an abortion.
Through the lens of 2021, laid out in black and white, it all seems pretty shocking. But perhaps more shocking is that for years, this kind of behaviour wasn’t at all shocking.
“I think a lot of the times the artists themselves have written about their escapades with their girlfriends or what they got up to during this era and you never really hear from the women,” says Cunningham.
“Musicians were these godlike creatures, especially at that time. There were power structures that enabled them; as long as they were selling records and as long as they were making money for the big record companies, I think there was a general understanding [they] could pretty much get away with anything and also it could all just be written up as an excess of the time.
“It’s very, very easy to think ‘It was different then, it was hedonistic, the world was a different place’. But I think it’s clear from the women who’ve spoken out that their experiences as [teenage] girls impacted them in the same way that they would if it happened to [teenagers] now. It’s not a different era, it’s just that we look at it differently.”
Sheila Kennedy is another woman featured in the documentary, speaking about an experience with Axl Rose in the late 1980s when she was 18. Kennedy was a Penthouse “Pet of the Year” and says she was invited back to a party at a hotel suite with the star. She accuses of him of physically abuse – grabbing her hair and dragging her – before they had sex.
(L-R): Joan Jett, Cherie Currie, Jackie Fox (Fuchs) and Lita Ford of The Runaways, pictured in 1976. Pic: Kipa/Shutterstock
Jackie Fuchs, bassist with The Runaways – who was known as Jackie Fox at the time – also shares her story, accusing Fowley, the band’s manager, of rape, and detailing how people ignored it at the time.
Speaking out like this is not necessarily about seeking justice in the legal sense, says Cunningham, but having a voice – and trying to instigate change.
“Although we are focusing on a certain era in this film, the music industry is still functioning in a very, very similar way,” she says. “I spoke to so many music industry insiders who made it quite clear that nothing has changed. [The documentary] looks at an era I think we all feel very fondly towards, but we need to look at it in a different way. You don’t want to take away from [the music] but you have to recognise that other things were at play.
“All of the women in the film are incredible women in the sense they’re forgiving and they aren’t ‘out to get’ these rock stars. It’s about setting the record straight. For many of them, it’s a personal reckoning. I don’t think it’s a case of wanting to get their own back or tearing anyone down… It’s actually not about the rock stars at all, it’s about these women and it’s about them being heard – so that people don’t just make the assumptions that I think a lot of people make about some of these women.”
Look Away director Sophie Cunningham says she hopes the documentary can play a part in starting to instigate change. Pic: Johnny Stafford
Post #MeToo, Cunningham says the world is hopefully finally ready to listen: “Culturally, we’re all thinking in a different way. I think that there hasn’t been an opportunity or a hunger until now to actually hear these stories in a way that challenges our ideas of what the rock scene was.
“So many people, when you tell them you’re making a film like this, they’re like ‘Oh, no, please don’t’ – and then they name their favourite rock star because they don’t want that musician or that music to be ruined for them. This music is so deeply embedded in our lives, I think sometimes people don’t want to [acknowledge] there can be a darker side.”
Cunningham says there were many men who worked behind the scenes who did not want to take part in the documentary. “I think that’s important thing to say,” she says. “That silence, I think, speaks volumes. So although we’re in a time that we’ve been ready for these women to speak and they feel like they have the power to speak, there are lots of men who don’t want to speak out in support of these women for fear of the repercussions in the industry.”
Representatives for Tyler and Rose did not respond to requests to comment or be featured in the documentary by the filmmakers, says Cunningham. Nor did they respond to requests for comment from Sky News.
Cunningham says she likes to think there might come a time when musicians, or any public faces, who behaved in a certain way when it was normalised years ago, want to acknowledge mistakes and help bring about change.
“Wouldn’t you want to speak out and support these women?” she says. “Yes, accusations are being made about you, but maybe speaking out can actually, not redeem you because obviously all of these things have happened, but wouldn’t it be incredible if a rock star came forward and said ‘I did some really bad things and I know I hurt people and I want to campaign for change in support of these women?’ I think that would be incredible.
“But I think silence is just an example of what many people have been doing for years. As I said, there were so many people I approached to be in this film who are prominent men within the music industry, offering them the opportunity to speak out in support of women, about a time that they were part of, and so many people didn’t want to do that. And I think that silence speaks volumes, doesn’t it?”
Look Away premieres on Sky Documentaries and NOW on Monday 13 September at 9pm
Entertainment
Why seven household names – including Prince Harry – are suing one of Britain’s biggest media groups
Prince Harry and six other household names are suing the publishers of the Daily Mail newspaper over alleged unlawful information gathering dating back 30 years.
The case has been ongoing since 2022 and is just one of several Harry has filed against media organisations since 2019 over alleged breaches of privacy, unlawful practices and false stories.
Associated Newspapers (ANL) – which also publishes The Mail on Sunday and MailOnline – strongly denies any wrongdoing.
A full trial is not expected to start at London’s High Court until January, but a pre-trial hearing, which helps manage the case and resolve any outstanding issues, is set to take place today.
Here is everything you need to know about the case.
What’s alleged?
The alleged unlawful acts are said to have taken place from 1993 to 2011, including the publisher hiring private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside cars and homes and paying police officials for inside information.
When bringing the lawsuit in 2022, lawyers for the claimants said they had become aware of “highly distressing” evidence revealing they had been victims of “abhorrent criminal activity” and “gross breaches of privacy” by Associated Newspapers.
Associated Newspapers denies the allegations, describing them as “preposterous smears”, and claims the legal action is “a fishing expedition by [the] claimants and their lawyers”.
The accusations include:
• The hiring of private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside people’s cars and homes;
• The commissioning of individuals to surreptitiously listen into and record people’s live, private telephone calls while they were taking place;
• The payment of police officials, with corrupt links to private investigators, for inside, sensitive information;
• The impersonation of individuals to obtain medical information from private hospitals, clinics, and treatment centres by deception;
• The accessing of bank accounts, credit histories and financial transactions through illicit means and manipulation.
Pic: iStock
Who else is involved?
While Prince Harry is one of the key players, as a group litigation, he is not the only claimant.
The others include:
• Actress Elizabeth Hurley
• Actress Sadie Frost
• Sir Elton John and his husband, filmmaker David Furnish
• Baroness Doreen Lawrence, mother of Stephen Lawrence
• Former Liberal Democrat politician Sir Simon Hughes
Sadie Frost. Pic: PA
Baroness Doreen Lawrence. Pic: AP
They all allege they have been victims of “abhorrent criminal activity” and “gross breaches of privacy” by ANL.
David Sherborne is the lawyer representing all the claimants.
Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish (below). Pic: AP
Pic: AP
What happened in 2023?
During a preliminary hearing in March 2023, Judge Matthew Nicklin was tasked with ruling whether the case can proceed to trial.
ANL had asked for the case to be struck out entirely, arguing the legal challenges against it were brought “far too late”, but David Sherborne called for the publisher’s application to be dismissed.
Lawyers for the publishers said the claims fell outside the statute of limitations – a law indicating that privacy claims should be brought with six years – and the claimants should have known, or could have found out, they had a potential case before October 2016.
Prince Harry at the High Court in 2023
They also argued some aspects of the cases should be thrown out as they breach orders made by Lord Justice Leveson as part of his 2011 inquiry into media standards.
During the hearing, a number of the claimants attended the High Court, including Prince Harry, to the surprise of the British media.
Witness statements from all seven claimants were also released. The duke’s statement said he is bringing the claim “because I love my country” and remains “deeply concerned” by the “unchecked power, influence and criminality” of the publisher.
“If the most influential newspaper company can successfully evade justice, then in my opinion the whole country is doomed,” he said.
On 10 November 2023, Mr Justice Nicklin gave the go-ahead for the case to go to trial, saying ANL had “not been able to deliver a ‘knockout blow’ to the claims of any of these claimants”.
What’s happened since?
Earlier this year, lawyers for the claimants sought to amend their case to add a swathe of new allegations for the trial.
They argued that they should be allowed to rely on evidence that they said showed the Mail was involved in targeting Kate, the Princess of Wales.
However, Mr Justice Nicklin ruled this allegation was brought too late before trial.
In a further development in November, the High Court heard that a key witness in the case, private investigator Gavin Burrows, claimed his signature on a statement confirming alleged hacking had taken place, was forged.
Lawyer David Sherborne is representing all the claimants
In the statement from 2021, Mr Burrows allegedly claimed to have hacked voicemails, tapped landlines, and accessed financial and medical information at the request of a journalist at the Mail On Sunday.
The statement was important, as five of the seven claimants involved in the case told the court they embarked on legal action against ANL based on evidence apparently obtained by Mr Burrows.
Mr Burrows previously retracted his statement in 2023, but the court heard he reiterated the denial to ANL’s lawyers in September this year.
It is now up to the claimant’s lawyer Mr Sherborne to decide if he still wants to call Mr Burrows as a witness for the trial.
Mr Justice Nicklin previously said if Mr Burrows gave evidence that was inconsistent with the evidence they had obtained, then he could apply to treat him as “hostile”.
Could the case end before going to trial?
In short, yes.
During pre-trial reviews, cases can either be settled or dismissed from court in both civil and criminal cases, meaning no trial will take place.
This happened in Harry’s case against News Group Newspapers (NGN), which publishes The Sun. The duke made similar accusations about NGN, which involved unlawful information gathering by journalists and private investigators.
Before an up-to 10-week trial began earlier this year, it was announced both sides had “reached an agreement” and that NGN had offered an apology to Harry and would pay “substantial damages”.
The settlement was reported to be worth more than £10m, mostly in legal fees.
Another of Harry’s legal cases, this time against Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN) over accusations of historical phone hacking, did go to trial.
The trial saw Harry take to the witness box, making him the first senior royal to give evidence in a courtroom since the 19th century.
In December 2023, the Honourable Mr Justice Fancourt concluded that the duke’s phone had been hacked “to a modest extent” between 2003 and 2009, and 15 of 33 articles he complained about were the product of unlawful techniques.
He was awarded £140,600 in damages. During a further hearing in February 2024 a settlement was reached between Harry and MGN over the remaining parts of his claim.
If the ANL trial does go ahead early next year, it is unknown if Harry will travel to London to attend.
Reports of a “board-level orchestrated coup” at the BBC are “complete nonsense”, non-executive director Sir Robbie Gibb has told MPs.
Sir Robbie, whose position on the BBC board has been challenged by critics in recent weeks, was among senior leaders, including the broadcaster’s chair, Samir Shah, to face questions from the Culture, Media and Sport committee about the current crisis.
The hearing took place in the wake of the fallout over the edit of a speech by US President Donald Trump, which prompted the resignation of the corporation’s director-general and the chief executive of BBC News, and the threat of a lawsuit from the US president.
Former BBC editorial adviser Michael Prescott wrote the memo that was leaked. Pic: PA
Former editorial adviser Michael Prescott, whose leaked memo sparked the recent chain of events, also answered questions from MPs – telling the hearing he felt he kept seeing “incipient problems” that were not being tackled.
He also said Mr Trump’s reputation had “probably not” been tarnished by the Panorama edit.
During his own questioning, Sir Robbie addressed concerns of potential political bias – he left BBC News in 2017 to become then prime minister Theresa May’s director of communications, a post he held until 2019, and was appointed to the BBC board in 2021 by Boris Johnson.
BBC board member Sir Robbie Gibb appearing before the Culture, Media and Sport committee. Pic: PA
“I know it’s hard to marry the fact that I spent two years as director of communications for the government… and my genuine passion for impartiality,” he said.
“I want to hear the full range of views… I don’t want the BBC to be partisan or favour any particular way.”
Asked about reports and speculation that there has been a “board-level orchestrated coup”, Sir Robbie responded: “It’s up there as one of the most ridiculous charges… People had to find some angle.
“It’s complete nonsense. It’s also deeply offensive to fellow board members… people of great standing in different fields.”
He said his political work has been “weaponised” – and that it was hard as a non-executive member of the BBC to respond to criticism.
‘We should have made the decision earlier’
BBC chair Samir Shah also answered questions. Pic: PA
Mr Shah admitted the BBC was too slow in responding to the issue of the Panorama edit of Mr Trump, which had been flagged long before the leaked memo.
“Looking back, I think we should have made the decision earlier,” he said. “I think in May, as it happens.
“I think there is an issue about how quickly we respond, the speed of our response. Why do we not do it quickly enough? Why do we take so much time? And this was another illustration of that.”
Following reports of the leaked memo, it took nearly a week for the BBC to issue an apology.
Mr Shah told the committee he did not think Mr Davie needed to resign over the issue and that he “spent a great deal of time” trying to stop him from doing so.
Is director-general role too big for one person?
Tim Davie is stepping down as BBC director-general
Asked about his own position, Mr Shah said his job now is to “steady the ship”, and that he is not someone “who walks away from a problem”.
A job advert for the BBC director-general role has since gone live on the corporation’s careers website.
Mr Shah told the hearing his view is that the role is “too big” for one person and that he is “inclined” to restructure roles at the top.
He says he believes there should also be a deputy director-general who is “laser-focused on journalism”, which is “the most important thing and our greatest vulnerability”.
Earlier in the hearing, Mr Prescott gave evidence alongside another former BBC editorial adviser, Caroline Daniel.
He told the CMS committee that there are “issues of denial” at the BBC and said “the management did not accept there was a problem” with the Panorama episode.
Mr Prescott’s memo highlighted concerns about the way clips of Mr Trump’s speech on January 6 2021 were spliced together so it appeared he had told supporters he was going to walk to the US Capitol with them to “fight like hell”.
‘I can’t think of anything I agree with Trump on’
Mr Trump has said he is going to pursue a lawsuit of between $1bn and $5bn against the broadcaster, despite receiving an official public apology.
Asked if the documentary had harmed Mr Trump’s image, Mr Prescott responded: “I should probably restrain myself a little bit, given that there is a potential legal action.
“All I could say is, I can’t think of anything I agree with Donald Trump on.”
He was later pushed on the subject, and asked again if he agreed that the programme tarnished the president’s reputation, to which he then replied: “Probably not.”
Read more:
Experts on why Trump might struggle to win lawsuit
Why are people calling for Sir Robbie Gibb to go?
Mr Prescott, a former journalist, also told the committee he did not know how his memo was leaked to the Daily Telegraph.
“At the most fundamental level, I wrote that memo, let me be clear, because I am a strong supporter of the BBC.
“The BBC employs talented professionals across all of its factual and non-factual programmes, and most people in this country, certainly myself included, might go as far as to say that they love the BBC.
He said he “never envisaged” the fallout that would occur. “I was hoping the concerns I had could, and would, be addressed privately in the first instance.”
Asked if he thinks the BBC is institutionally biased, he said: “No, I don’t.”
He said that “tonnes” of the BBC’s work is “world class” – but added that there is “real work that needs to be done” to deal with problems.
Mr Davie, he said, did a “first-rate job” as director-general but had a “blind spot” toward editorial failings.
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024