Not All That Glitters Makes Gold

At long last, it seems there might be a final severance between American televised sports and Gary Glitter's glam hit "Rock And Roll (Part 2)." (Even if you're not familiar with the title, you certainly know the song. Check out the video below for a reminder as well as some ridiculous hair and outfits.)

For decades, Glitter's song was associated with American football. Finally, after the singer's 2006 conviction of child molestation, the National Football League advised teams against using "Rock and Roll (Part 2)" during games. This did not stop the use of cover versions of the song. But, from a music industry standpoint, this was a distinction without a difference: Glitter (whose real name is Paul Francis Gadd) wrote the song, and is entitled to songwriter's royalty money no matter what version is used. Hence the controversy. Well, sort of: an NFL spokesman has declared that "no version of that song has been played at the Super Bowl since 2006. We are not playing the song on Sunday and never intended to."

This brings up a larger question though, which is whether the art can ever ultimately be separated from the artist. Many musicians and songwriters have led difficult, even reprehensible lives. Should their art be allowed to stand on its own? With respect to Glitter, the 2006 conviction wasn't his only trouble with respect to underage children. There's no way to excuse such behavior, but at the same time there's no way to deny the appeal of his biggest hit. Many people continue to enjoy the work of people who murdered, took drugs, or beat their wives. I can only assume that "Rock And Roll (Part 2)" will reappear in the cultural consciousness after Glitter can no longer profit from his work, some years after his death.