You wouldn't want to censor a song because you thought it wasn't good, would you? I think you meant to say "I wouldn't LISTEN to it for that reason". Regardless of his personal life Phil Spector, like the Beatles, is considered to be a music genus. And like the Beatles his songs deserve to be heard, even if they're not all classics.
No, I said what I meant and I meant what I said. Just because someone is a musical genius doesn't mean every single thing they touched are masterpieces. Spector turned out hundreds of songs, most were extremely good, a few were turkeys. Same goes for the Beatles, Gershwin, Back, Tchaikovsky, Irving Berlin, Mozart, and Bruce Springsteen. Not every painting that Rembrandt made was a masterpiece. Not every one of Rodin's sculptures was a timeless classic for the ages.
As for "deserving" to be heard, if someone wants to look up a song on Youtube so that they can hear it, more power to them. While I disagree with the industry suits who draw the cutoff line for what songs to play on the air far too conservatively, that disagreement is with them drawing it too tightly. There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone who is empowered to decide what to play on the air and what not to play using their good judgement, that still assumes that the person got the job because they have good judgement.
Earlier, the old adage "90% of everything is crap" came up. I agree with that in principle, though there's room to quibble over the exact percentage. The suits running radio today insist that they should only play ½ of 1% of what's out there. I'm more inclined to think that the best 2% to 5% is more like it. But songs ranked down in the lower 10%, even if produced by a "genius", shouldn't be played on the radio. So I would absolutely "censor" a crappy song in a New York minute, and I wouldn't lose a minute of sleep over it.
