In chatting with my childhood best friend Tricia about what song her and the other attendants should be introduced to at my recent wedding, we Googled for lists of entrance songs. One of the first songs listed on The Knot (that horrible, soul crushing website) for “ideal entrance songs” was Chris Brown’s Forever.

“Oh, absolutely not,” immediately commented Tricia.

I nodded in agreement. “Chris Brown ruined it for himself.” I began reading off the other options, and we ended up settling on my original choice.

Later that evening, I was thinking about our immediate dismissal of Forever. It has a home in my iPod, after a friend’s wedding played it mere weeks after it was released and I thought it was an ideal wedding reception song. Brown, however, became caught up in his domestic abuse scandal with fellow pop star Rhianna months later, and the song went from Fred The iPod’s “Most Played” list to the “Hey, You Remember You Paid 99 Cents For These Songs, Right?” list.

But my immediate dismissal of the song on Friday pained me. It’s such a fun song, even if it was originally written for a gum commercial. It has such a good sentiment. The artist, however, no longer has that good sentiment. Brown is a musical pariahs, admitting that he handled his issues with his girlfriend horribly and being the inspiration for one of my least favorite songs of the last ten years, Rhianna’s Russian Roulette.

Has Forever thus become the new Rock and Roll Part 2 – a song with a very good purpose, that can be used very well for the best of circumstances, but unplayable because of the artist’s behavior? Forever‘s purpose is for celebratory and romantic circumstances, like a wedding, but no one dares to play it because of Brown’s behavior. Gary Glitter’s Rock and Roll Part 2 is probably one of the most iconic sports songs ever, with such a distinct cadence for goal, touchdown or point scoring celebrations, but no one dares to play it because Glitter allegedly molested children in Vietnam.

And are we all fooling each other by not playing these songs? Is my strong resistance to Forever, and are arena management’s strong resistance to Rock and Roll Part 2, a statement of our own personal dislike for the artist’s behavior, or because we are more concerned with the reactions of others if we played it? Are we appalled at the artist’s actions, or worried that others will be appalled at us for playing the song by an awful acting artist?

Will someone need to come along and lightly remake Forever – like they have for Rock and Roll Part 2, with a version that sounds exactly the same as the original by studio musicians – in order for us to be able to listen to it without feeling self-conscious? Or if the remake is too close, do you just remove that song from your catalog because it will elicit the same negative reaction?

The larger question might always exist – can you separate the art from the artist? Can you separate the athletic performance from the athlete? Can you admire the performance while removing the artist’s or athlete’s non-performance related negative acts? (And given the recent unpleasantness surrounding two-time Super Bowl winning quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, this is a pertinent subject. Can Steelers fans still be grateful for those Super Bowl performances, or are they tarnished?)