Gary Glitter Song Banned From Super Bowl

Disgraced pop legend Gary Glitter won't be profiting from America's Super Bowl this weekend.

logo
Ultimate Guitar
0

Disgraced pop legend Gary Glitter won't be profiting from America's Super Bowl this weekend (04-05 February 2012) after football bosses banned his track from the sporting event.

The controversial glam rock star usually gains royalties from the big match as his 1972 hit song "Rock And Roll Part II" is traditionally played during the game, while finalist team the New England Patriots usually play the tune, known as the "Hey Song" in the U.S., to celebrate each touchdown.

However, National Football League (NFL) chiefs have now banned the song from being played, reports Britain's Daily Mirror.

Representative Brian McCarthy says, "We will not be playing any version (of) it."

Glitter, real name Paul Gadd, relocated to Vietnam in 1999 after he was found guilty of child pornography possession in his native Britain, but he was later arrested and charged with committing obscene acts with children in 2005 and ordered to serve three years behind bars.

The Patriots will take on the New York Giants at the Super Bowl on Sunday (05 February 2012).

Thanks for the report to ContactMusic.com.

61 comments sorted by best / new / date

    Sammy Mantis
    Hmmm...The real question is why ban it now after so many years and not sooner? Undoubtedly this has some correlation with the Penn State scandal. The NFL is just looking out for their own image, not because they're actually concerned about child pornography and the sexual abuse of children.
    RetroGunslinger
    WhoAMEye wrote: CrackTheSkye wrote: shouldn't be putting money in the pockets of a disgusting twit like Gary Glitter. I belive the word is TWAT sir
    No because that would imply he is a vagina, he may be a disgusting paedophile but as his picture shows he is not a vagina
    WhoAMEye
    RetroGunslinger wrote: WhoAMEye wrote: CrackTheSkye wrote: shouldn't be putting money in the pockets of a disgusting twit like Gary Glitter. I belive the word is TWAT sir No because that would imply he is a vagina, he may be a disgusting paedophile but as his picture shows he is not a vagina
    So I cant call him a **** either?
    WhoAMEye
    rickyj wrote: i'm gonna get flamed for this, but this is pretty ridiculous. what is the reasoning?
    Because he propogated and participated in the sexual abuse of small girls. Anything to make him suffer is action well taken. Consider yourself flamed.
    CrackTheSkye
    rickyj wrote: i'm gonna get flamed for this, but this is pretty ridiculous. what is the reasoning?
    Because Gary Glitter is a pedophile and the NFL finally realized that they shouldn't be putting money in the pockets of a disgusting twit like Gary Glitter.
    WhoAMEye
    CrackTheSkye wrote: shouldn't be putting money in the pockets of a disgusting twit like Gary Glitter.
    I belive the word is TWAT sir
    captainperoxide
    I have no sympathy for the man, he's disgusting, but the song is pretty awesome. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I have no trouble separating someone's music from the person themselves (if I did, I doubt I could still listen to Guns and Roses). There's gotta be a way of removing his royalty rights, and giving the money to a charity for abused children instead.
    Korpi
    Leeizslayer wrote: Only THREE YEARS? So your telling me if i took photos of young children and DO things to young children THREE years is all I get for it? Screw the song this man should be put to death...
    no,he should be raped in jail forever. Thats fair punishment
    Leeizslayer
    Only THREE YEARS? So your telling me if i took photos of young children and DO things to young children THREE years is all I get for it? Screw the song this man should be put to death...
    upbeat_x_tech
    Dotsey wrote: Pete Townshend out of The Who performed a few years and he was caught with child porn also. Look at say Oscar Wilde who is a world reknowned writer who has recently been found to have liked young boys brought to him, does that mean the two statues in Dublin should be pulled up? What Glitter done and probably still does is wrong no doubt but to have played this song for 10 years after his crimes were known when in Ireland and Britain they have a widespread ban on his music in place since day 1 asks the bigger question about the Americans.
    Your argument about Pete Townshend is invalid. They never found anything and he was cleared of charges, just so you know.
    mop10893
    GaryBillington wrote: In the UK you pretty much never hear any of his songs - most of the radio & TV stations put a voluntary ban on his work when the news first broke. If only they'd do the same with Michael Jacksons music.
    Michael Jackson was found innocent in both cases just so you know.
    spiff-corgi
    sgwizard92 wrote: Who gives a crap what the author of the song did? The song has nothing to do with child molestation. This is just another shining example of how America's being turned into a shit country for a bunch of sensitive morons, all in the name of political-correctness. People need to get a grip.
    Bro, they're not banning the song because people might get offended that they're using a child molestor's music, they're banning it because they don't want to line his pockets and give him any more exposure for his upcoming "comeback" tour. Don't be a moron, pal.
    butlerc777
    Wow, I never knew that was one of his songs. As sad as it will be to hear it less, I think this is a good decision.
    Spekulus
    rickyj wrote: i'm gonna get flamed for this, but this is pretty ridiculous. what is the reasoning?
    Because He's a molester He's a CHIIIIILD molester!
    jrodgers
    Good call Sammy Mantis, that's exactly what I was thinking. I've heard that song played at probablly every sporting event I've ever been to, from high school up to the pros. Apparantely though it takes a few high profile division 1 coaches to get caught for us to finally give a **** about these crimes and their victims
    HH_Emo_666
    mop10893 wrote: GaryBillington wrote: In the UK you pretty much never hear any of his songs - most of the radio & TV stations put a voluntary ban on his work when the news first broke. If only they'd do the same with Michael Jacksons music. Michael Jackson was found innocent in both cases just so you know.
    I was thinking the same thing. What about R Kelly? People still use his music for stuff after he pisses on everybody .. literally ..
    spiff-corgi
    slaveskinJACKET wrote: Chuck Berry has been convicted of driving a minor across borders with sexual intentions, and for committing sex acts with minors. It's still hard to go a solid month without hearing Johnny B. Goode or No Particular Place To Go. They burned his records at the time, I believe, but I haven't heard of any sort of controversy dealing with him in my lifetime. I guess people just have double standards for everything.
    But that exactly proves the contrary point. You said at the time they burned his records, but over time we forgot. It's not like Gary Glitter committed crimes decades ago. Wasn't it in 2005/6 that the last fiasco happened? So the public is responding in actually a more low key manner this time. No one's burning any records. So what point were you trying to make?
    starlessband
    why? of course this guy is a piece of shit but give the devil his due he wrote an excellent stadium song. you don't celebrate a musician for their character you celebrate for the music they wrote. this guy can (and will) burn in hell But thats ridiculous its a classic sports song. He is a no name anyway
    nailsarecruel
    Sammy Mantis wrote: Hmmm...The real question is why ban it now after so many years and not sooner?
    THAT'S what I'd like to know.
    nnb
    Honestly it's been 10 years (?) and they never cared until now? What I don't get is if the US government "thinks" they can control the internet to protect "artists" why not pass a bill where convicted criminals forfeit the right to their royalties? Instead the money could go to the families or a charity.
    adamshakermaker
    sgwizard92 wrote: Who gives a crap what the author of the song did? The song has nothing to do with child molestation. This is just another shining example of how America's being turned into a shit country for a bunch of sensitive morons, all in the name of political-correctness. People need to get a grip.
    Political correctness??? Tell that to the children that lost their innocence to that monster!! You think lining his pockets is ok? Idiot.
    ollerom_mot
    I think it's a good move, the perverted b*****d doesn't deserve anything. Nevertheless, it's a great chant...
    Dotsey
    Pete Townshend out of The Who performed a few years and he was caught with child porn also. Look at say Oscar Wilde who is a world reknowned writer who has recently been found to have liked young boys brought to him, does that mean the two statues in Dublin should be pulled up? What Glitter done and probably still does is wrong no doubt but to have played this song for 10 years after his crimes were known when in Ireland and Britain they have a widespread ban on his music in place since day 1 asks the bigger question about the Americans.
    slaveskinJACKET
    But since when does it matter what the artists do? It's the music that matters. I'm not saying his brain isn't in there crooked, but his music didn't molest children. He did. It's a common [inaccurate] belief that King Henry VIII composed Greensleeves, and he was known for killing his wives, more or less, just because he got sick of them. I've never heard of anyone trying to ban that song. Even though it wasn't actually written by him, I've seen many songbooks that attribute it to him, and that would be enough for most people that would have a concern with it. Chuck Berry has been convicted of driving a minor across borders with sexual intentions, and for committing sex acts with minors. It's still hard to go a solid month without hearing Johnny B. Goode or No Particular Place To Go. They burned his records at the time, I believe, but I haven't heard of any sort of controversy dealing with him in my lifetime. I guess people just have double standards for everything.
    PAsistem
    It's just music I don't see what the big deal is of who recorded it. No one would even think twice about such a thing if we weren't giving him such publicity. I've never even heard of this dude until UG kept making headlines about him
    JHall91
    lol I didn't know what song it was talking about either until it said "known as 'the Hey song' in the US" Americans are funny. That's really what we know it as
    xSheogorathx
    He's not even that good of a composer. I wonder how he tell people who he is in other countries? "I was a famous rockstar back in America!" "Really? What songs did you play??" "Do you know that one song that's like "hey"?" "..."
    swave75
    Sammy Mantis wrote: Hmmm...The real question is why ban it now after so many years and not sooner? Undoubtedly this has some correlation with the Penn State scandal. The NFL is just looking out for their own image, not because they're actually concerned about child pornography and the sexual abuse of children.
    This is a good. You would have that this happened a long time already.
    BaptizedinFire
    I agree that he shouldn't recieve any royalties from this song anymore, but all you people who just want the song itself to be thrown away are just being ridiculous. If there is demand for the song, then use it, take the royalties from Glitter and use them for good! Germany hasn't torn up the Autobahn just because it was built by Nazis...
    Kueller917
    slaveskinJACKET wrote: But since when does it matter what the artists do? It's the music that matters. I'm not saying his brain isn't in there crooked, but his music didn't molest children. He did. It's a common [inaccurate] belief that King Henry VIII composed Greensleeves, and he was known for killing his wives, more or less, just because he got sick of them. I've never heard of anyone trying to ban that song. Even though it wasn't actually written by him, I've seen many songbooks that attribute it to him, and that would be enough for most people that would have a concern with it. Chuck Berry has been convicted of driving a minor across borders with sexual intentions, and for committing sex acts with minors. It's still hard to go a solid month without hearing Johnny B. Goode or No Particular Place To Go. They burned his records at the time, I believe, but I haven't heard of any sort of controversy dealing with him in my lifetime. I guess people just have double standards for everything.
    In time I guess the song might come back as people stop giving Glitter attention. I'll still listen to the song regardless of the writer. I see some people immediately hate it just because of what Glitter did. I can dislike the composer and like the music.
    rickyj
    i'm gonna get flamed for this, but this is pretty ridiculous. what is the reasoning?
    GaryBillington
    In the UK you pretty much never hear any of his songs - most of the radio & TV stations put a voluntary ban on his work when the news first broke. If only they'd do the same with Michael Jacksons music.
    Niiko
    Love the double standard moral high horse of some people here.
    deadlydictator
    CrackTheSkye wrote: rickyj wrote: i'm gonna get flamed for this, but this is pretty ridiculous. what is the reasoning? Because Gary Glitter is a pedophile and the NFL finally realized that they shouldn't be putting money in the pockets of a disgusting twit like Gary Glitter.
    I love your name. MASTODON FTW
    zeek7pc
    yeah, he's the only douchebag in the music business. Sounds like people are saving face due to an upcoming political election. Song gets played all the time, they have to pay royalties and have been. The writer needs to be shot, twice, I agree. But the Super Bowl brings in millions of revenue, can't **** with that!