Jacqueline Smith: Of showbiz and its issues

Item 1: There's nothing better than a singalongalone to get your heart racing - jump on the couch with the remote as a microphone, throw your head back and bring down the house.

I suppose that's why it's not just the 11-year-olds who still hold Singstar parties. And TV3's new show, Glee, which premiered on Friday night, seems to have further indulged that desire to sing-like-no-one's-listening in people across New Zealand. If Twitter feeds are anything to go by I wasn't the only one who decided to stall going out until I'd sung my heart out to Journey's Don't Stop Believin'.

On Monday the Guardian reported that Glee's covers of big hits from big stars like Bon Jovi, Journey and Usher had taken over iTunes.

By the time the eighth episode had aired in the United States, the show had racked up more than 2.5 million downloads. Last week it released a Glee compilation album for the fans who prefer not to access music via the internet.

What's interesting about Glee - a high school drama/comedy musical - is that it has such wide appeal. Again, it's not just the 11-year-olds who love it. I caught a C4 interview with some of the Glee stars who suggested the show heralded a new television phenomenon, a chance for viewers everywhere to celebrate their inner theatre geek.

I agree: it's a chance to muster up those memories of playing rooster-number-three in the school production ... and for those who suppressed the urge to join the school theatre group in favour of saving face, it's a chance to imagine what it would have been like.

So thanks Ryan Murphy - the creator of Glee who also came up with Nip/Tuck - for that blast of fresh, wholesome, perhaps nostalgic entertainment. Finally, after enduring years of concrete-shattering performances by Idol contestants, we have a show that's making wannabes cool - not putting them up to even more public pillaging than they got at high school.

Item 2: This is more sobering: the name suppression granted to a well-known entertainer who sexually traumatised a young lady in Wellington.

I think New Zealand needs a better explanation as to why he (assuming it's a he, from reported comments) should be vindicated. Other big-name entertainers - the likes of R Kelly, Chris Brown and Michael Jackson for example - didn't get to hide under that cosy blanket when their misconduct made it through to the courts of law.

They tell us that in this case it would be detrimental to his career. But is that such a tragedy? It's not like there is a dearth of wonderful, hard-working performers in this country - many of whom are lovely, respectable types highly worthy of every cent they pocket from ticket and album sales. Or so they seem.

Perhaps we should treat labelling "guilty of sexual misconduct" as we do "MSG" - it's about consumer choice.

Personally I like to know a little bit about who I am supporting when I buy their stuff.

Item 3: Meanwhile, I have no issue with Mikey Havoc DJing in the University of Auckland's quad to pay off his $20,000 parking fines. It is a productive pursuit because students need music.

And besides, those parking fines are what's wrong with Auckland, not Havoc. If I could DJ to pay off the $200 fine a parking warden left on my car while it was parked in a residential street awaiting a warrant, then I would be able to put my hard-earned cash towards worthy causes like downloading Glee songs and supporting local, wholesome acts. If only I could be sure which ones they were.