A Controversial Anthem of Unadulterated Energy: Alvin Stardust’s “Rock and Roll (Part 2)”
Alvin Stardust’s “Rock and Roll (Part 2),” released in 1973, is a song that remains etched in the annals of music history, not just for its infectious, stomping rhythm, but also for the controversy that has surrounded it in later years. While it soared to number 2 on the UK Singles Chart and enjoyed success internationally, its legacy is now complex, viewed through a different lens than when it was first released. It’s a track that embodies the raw, primal energy of glam rock, a celebration of rhythm and movement, but one that is now inextricably linked to the actions of its composer, Gary Glitter (who performed as Alvin Stardust under a different stage persona). This song, though a hit in its time, now serves as a reminder of the complexities of separating art from the artist.
The story of “Rock and Roll (Part 2)” is one of simple musicality and immediate impact. Composed by Gary Glitter and Mike Leander, the song is built around a repetitive, chant-like vocal hook and a driving, four-on-the-floor beat. It’s a song designed to get people moving, a pure expression of rhythm and energy. There are no complex lyrics or intricate melodies; its power lies in its sheer, unadulterated drive. It was a staple of sporting events and discos, a song that transcended language and culture through its infectious groove. However, the subsequent exposure of Gary Glitter’s crimes has cast a long shadow over the song, making it difficult for many to separate the music from the man.
For those of us who remember the 70s, “Rock and Roll (Part 2)” evokes a mix of memories. It takes us back to a time when glam rock was in full swing, a time of outrageous fashion, platform boots, and a sense of carefree abandon. It was a time when music was often about pure, unadulterated fun, and this song certainly fit that bill. It was a ubiquitous presence on the radio and at parties, a song that could get anyone up and dancing. However, the knowledge of Gary Glitter’s actions now taints those memories for many, creating a sense of unease and a recognition of the problematic nature of enjoying art created by someone who has caused such harm.
The song’s meaning, on its surface, is simply about the joy of rock and roll. It’s a celebration of rhythm, movement, and the feeling of being swept away by the music. The repetitive vocal hook, the driving beat, and the simple structure all contribute to this sense of primal energy. However, in the context of Gary Glitter’s crimes, the song’s seemingly innocent message takes on a darker hue. The chant-like vocal, which once seemed like an invitation to dance, can now be interpreted as something more sinister, a reflection of the predatory nature of the artist himself. It’s a reminder that even the most seemingly innocuous art can be complicated by the actions of its creator.
Looking back, “Rock and Roll (Part 2)” represents a complex and challenging case study in the relationship between art and artist. While it was undoubtedly a successful and influential song in its time, its legacy is now forever intertwined with the crimes of Gary Glitter. It serves as a reminder that we must be critical consumers of art, that we must be willing to confront the uncomfortable truths about the people behind the music we enjoy. For those of us who lived through that era, it evokes a mixture of nostalgia and unease, a recognition of the complexities of memory and the challenges of separating art from the artist. It is a song that can no longer be enjoyed without acknowledging the darkness that surrounds it, a stark reminder of the importance of holding artists accountable for their actions, regardless of the popularity or cultural impact of their work.
Video: