PDA

View Full Version : NFL ban's Gary Glitter's R&R Part 2?



Connie Jo
01-30-2010, 04:05 PM
I was doing some research related to music played at Arrowhead on game day, and came across this article dated in 2006. I didn't know Gary Glitter's song was controversial, nor that the NFL asked franchise's to stop playing it. I know it's still played at Arrowhead.

I don't care one way or another if it's played or no. I do feel sometimes political correctness is taken too far, and this may be one of those cases, in which Arrowhead power's agree, and why it's still being played at Arrowhead. Anyway, here's the related article below:

The National Football League has asked its teams to refrain from playing Gary Glitter's popular anthem "Rock and Roll Part 2" (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2006/06/14/buchwald_plans_vineyard_stay/) (aka, the "Hey" song) on game day. You will surely recognize it; it has to be one of the most regularly played songs during sporting events.

So why has Glitter's song moved onto the NFL's Do Not Play List? It's because he will be spending the next three years in a Vietnamese prison (http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-15-glitter-conviction-upheld_x.htm?POE=LIFISVA) for molesting two young girls, and the NFL doesn't want its games to be associated with a convicted child molester. The league also doesn't want Glitter to earn royalties from the playing of his song.

But let's play Devil's Advocate for a moment, and pretend that we are Gary Glitter fans who regularly attend NFL games, and who find his music to be an essential component of the game experience. What might we argue to keep his song playing? Here are five arguments:

1) Being guilty in Vietnam isn't the same thing as being guilty in the United States.
In fact, Vietnamese courts employ a lower standard of proof for criminal convictions, and feature fewer procedural protections (http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-14747.html) for criminal defendants. So perhaps Glitter might be a free man had those same charges been brought in the United States.

2) Glitter has long been suspected of being a child molestor.
I know what you are thinking: How is that a positive for Glitter? It isn't, but it invites the question of why the NFL would want to ban his song now. It isn't like Glitter's "problems" have been a secret. In fact, back in 1999, a British court convicted him of possession of child pornography, for which he served two months in jail, and he was classified as a sex offender. Maybe more revealing, the Cambodian Government--which somehow tolerates the genocidal Khmer Rouge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge)--couldn't tolerate Glitter. It expelled him in 2002 for alleged sexual misconduct with children, an act which prompted his move to Vietnam. So why should a conviction of this guy in a Vietnamese court suddently make all the difference to the NFL?

3) What About Marv (Albert)?
Marv Albert is the lead play-by-play voice of Westwood One's NFL coverage, calls Monday Night Football games and has called every Super Bowl since 2002. This is true even though, in 1997, he pled guilty to misdemeanor sexual assault charges (http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/marv/marvalbert.html) (after being charged with felony charges of forcible sodomy). Granted, his sexual crime was inflicted upon an adult, but Albert's role with the NFL is clearly larger than Glitter's, and Albert himself is far better known than Glitter. In fact, I had no idea who Glitter was before this story broke, and I never knew or bothered to learn who sung that song. It didn't matter.

4) Axl Rose and Ozzy Osbourne say Hey!
NFL teams routinely play songs by artists who have been in legal trouble. For instance, the song "Welcome to the Jungle (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://qfg.info/images/jungle.jpg&imgrefurl=http://qfg.info/gnr.html&a mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp ;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;h=309&w=245&sz=31&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=P56a-s7zitniTM:&amp ;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;a mp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;tbnh=112&tbnw=88&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwelcome%2Bto%2Bthe%2Bjungle%2Bguns%26 svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26safe%3 Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN)" by Guns N' Roses is often played during NFL games. It is sung by Axl Rose, who was once arrested for assaulting a neighbor with a bottle of wine and is widely suspected of using illegal drugs. Or take Ozzy Ozbourne songs, or R. Kelly songs--they too are played during games and are sung by artists who have encountered legal troubles (and Kelly was recently arrested for statutory rape). If we ban Gary Glitter songs, then shouldn't we ban those songs, too? In fact, to be consistent, perhaps only songs sung by "decent" artists, like John Tesh (http://www.tesh.com/) or Kenny G (http://www.kennyg.com/) or Amy Grant (http://www.amygrant.com/), should be played (and yes, I too would stop going to NFL games if that happened, but you see the point).

5) Does playing a song during an NFL game even celebrate the artist?
As mentioned above, I had no idea who sung "Rock and Roll Part 2," and didn't even know who Gary Glitter was. Maybe I'm in the minority on those fronts. But regardless, playing a song during a game seems more about celebrating the team or players who made great plays, and getting the crowd into the game, than about the artist who happened to have sung the song.

Taking off my Devil's Advocate cap, however, I actually don't have a problem with the NFL's request. The league doesn't want a convicted child molestor to receive royalties from the playing of songs during NFL games. Also, the league is not forcing teams to do anything; it is simply making a request.

AussieChiefsFan
01-30-2010, 08:19 PM
I think they should keep playing the song but try to forget the guy that wrote it. The song make the games that little but better IMO.

Connie Jo
01-30-2010, 08:48 PM
I think they should keep playing the song but try to forget the guy that wrote it. The song make the games that little but better IMO.

I agree! The author of the article made very valid points along those same lines.

It seems to me, that often America has went from one extreme to the other with what they consider 'politically correct'.

Shoot...if we banned all the music by controversial artists based on choices in their personal lives considered immoral, or whatever...we wouldn't have much music left to listen to!!!!

I felt it was totally radical when schools banned 'Tom Sawyer' from their libraries! Among other historic fictional novels.

~I need a smiley that has rolling eyes indicating I think something is ridiculous, haha~

AussieChiefsFan
01-30-2010, 09:15 PM
I agree! The author of the article made very valid points along those same lines.

It seems to me, that often America has went from one extreme to the other with what they consider 'politically correct'.

Shoot...if we banned all the music by controversial artists based on choices in their personal lives considered immoral, or whatever...we wouldn't have much music left to listen to!!!!

I felt it was totally radical when schools banned 'Tom Sawyer' from their libraries! Among other historic fictional novels.

~I need a smiley that has rolling eyes indicating I think something is ridiculous, haha~:lol:

Hayvern
01-31-2010, 03:11 AM
Well there is something about contributing to the financial well-being of someone who has done something horrible. Arrowhead has to pay a royalty everytime they play the song.

I don't know, I think it is a little over the top though. A song is a song.

Connie Jo
01-31-2010, 07:16 PM
I agree Hayvern, it's just that where does one draw the line...considering there are so many recording artists of which break the law in a variety of ways, including morally? As the author commented, in principle of theory only the music of gospel artists like Amy Grant then should be acceptable?

It's not limited to just recording artists either...there are literally thousands who are connected with large corporations, such as the NFL, in some manner of business...of which likely could be connected to crime and immorality.

Another issue I have is with the NFL being hypocritical not wanting to contribute to the income of such a person as Gary Glitter. The author of the article somewhat makes that point as well. Why allow some, but not others just as controversial?

Another example of hypocrisy: think of all the NFL and team franchise merchandise sold the NFL greatly profits from, that is being manufactured in foreign countries known to use child labor, and abuse as such. The NFL is paid royalities on every item manufactured & sold with their logo.

Many of those countries, such as China, are known for their human rights violations. Some are known for legal prostitution, it's a way of life within their country for children under the age of 18.

The sad reality is, that no matter where we look crime and immorality can be connected in some way to just about every aspect of life...if put under the microscope, that is.