I once pushed a burning school full of British children off a cliff. I don't regret it.
Please redact the identity of the commenter of 1.
I suppose if someone wanted to comment doublypsuedonymously on a GW comment, they could call themselves John Adams, and so forth.
I lied about the apple tree.
1: A whole school? That's badass! I mean, terrible.
why would we want to avoid being accused of sock-puppeting?
The tools, Teddy, were shoddy, but we almost finished the job.
for that matter, why would we want to avoid being accused of having thirty dicks?
I have an urge for some brown sugar. oh, how come you taste so good?
It's a spoonerism. Washington actually had dirty thicks.
man, I'm so glad I happened to get 9 up before bw posted 10. makes a much better joke that way.
and thanks for telling me about the rule against sock-puppeting. can't imagine why anyone would care around here, nor have I done it here, but who knows, i'll make sure not to in the future.
There is a song that reduces me to speechless confusion. Even in the late '60s or whenever Brown Sugar came out, a song about raping slaves was acceptable, or how did that work?
Becks' choice of name for "a wig for your wig" is a good one, since he was after all the greatest Merkin.
Great idea, great reference. I had a very specific example to add to the last thread that I really didn't want to share under my name, but would be worthless without specifics. And posting anonymously - even as an occasioanl commenter - seemed wrong.
So GW it is!
best spoonerisms I have heard of:
Dr. Spooner himself, addressing the Rural Agrarian Society of Farmers, began "Never before have I spoken to so many Tons of Soil..."
better than that, Leofranc Holford-Strevens, referring to his opponent in a debate at the Oxford Union: "...the honorable gentleman, who is indeed a shining wit, as Reverend Spooner would have said..."
I think the lyrics were supposed to horrify you, LizardBrain.
(I freed my slaves. Suck on that, Jefferson, you self-righteous bastard.)
Wait, Brown Sugar is about raping slaves?
14--
yeah, you know, i kind of liked that song at least as the Stones go, until a friend of mine, a black woman, was raped to the sound of it playing in the background. she didn't like it anymore, and i have never liked it much since.
I guess. The impression I always had of the song was that it was supposed to come off as sexy rather than horrifying.
Hey, I just explained Spoonerisms to Sally and Newt. They've been shouting "You, sir, have tasted the entire worm," at each other ever since.
Wait, Brown Sugar is about raping slaves?
Um, yeah.
Wait, Brown Sugar is about raping slaves?
Gold coast slave ship bound for cotton fields,
Sold in a market down in new orleans.
Scarred old slaver know hes doin alright.
Hear him whip the women just around midnight.
Ah brown sugar how come you taste so good
(a-ha) brown sugar, just like a young girl should
A-huh.
Noted in the past by baa.
Holy shit. Well, having crap hearing is good for something, I guess.
I always did hate the Stones. In fairness, though, is the song supposed to be ironic?
Hope there is one in your saddle too.
Hope there is one in your saddle too. Actually, make it 31.
from Apo's link, the line You shoulda heard him just around midnight was originally You shoulda heard him just around midnight
Hey, ogged, does "Sweet Scent of Service" sound less gay twee in Farsi?
from Apo's link, the line You shoulda heard him just around midnight was originally Hear him whip the women just around midnight
Hey, ogged, does "Sweet Scent of Service" sound less gay twee in Farsi?
I was wondering this myself. I need to find out what the original phrase is.
26: It's not so much the Stones, who may certainly have been being ironic -- it's just that it seems to get played as just another rock song, rather than a big scary freaky bitterly satirical whatever.
29, 31: That's at the end of the first stanza, Michael.
Wait, Brown Sugar is about raping slaves?
You would think in the almost 40 years since that song came out, I would have listened to the words. Those lyrics really are awful. One more reason to think the Stones are and always were overrated.
song factoids, for those interested:
Mick Jagger wrote the lyrics. They were inspired by Claudia Lennear, one of Ike Turner's backup singers (Ikettes) who he had an affair with. They met when The Stones toured with Turner in 1969.
According to the book Up And Down With The Rolling Stones by Tony Sanchez, all the slavery and whipping is a double meaning for the perils of being "mastered" by Brown Heroin, or Brown Sugar.
Originally, Jagger wrote this as "Black Pussy." He decided that was a little too direct and changed it to "Brown Sugar."
This was used in commercials for Kahlua and Pepsi. The Stones have made big bucks licensing their songs for ads.
Bob Dylan often performed this on his 2002 US tour.
and always were
This part is simply not true.
33: Plus, don't people adopt the language to try to compliment black women? Ewww.
In fairness, though, is the song supposed to be ironic?
Are you inquiring about the artist's intention?
I suspect the language predates Mick Jagger.
Originally, Jagger wrote this as "Black Pussy." He decided that was a little too direct
Good call there, Mick. Good call.
According to the book Up And Down With The Rolling Stones by Tony Sanchez, all the slavery and whipping is a double meaning for the perils of being "mastered" by Brown Heroin, or Brown Sugar.
Yeah, my ass.
a little too direct
I am speechless.
I don't think you can hold the Stones responsible for their fans -- god knows they would be an awful band if you could, and they are in point of fact pretty great, QED.
39: Just saying it might be a mitigating factor in judging the Stones, as opposed to the song.
40: Nonetheless, people quote the song.
25, 35: Yeah, I generally can't hear the lyrics to anything. God knows what other horrifying things I hum happily along to.
I almost never listen to lyrics. But is there a more horrifying well-known song out there? This is really shocking.
But then, musicians who are proud of their lyrical output tend to insist on a mix that allows the words to be heard. Billy Bragg, for instance.
I used to have a pretty strong pr0n addiction, but I'm coming out of it now.
Geez, I wasted my George Washington anonymity shoutout on that? I mean, doesn't that apply to, you know, everyone on the internets?
I am ashamed of my anonymity.
Not knowing the context, I'd always assumed it, if not ironic, then at least one whose narrator's given into his basest instincts (both of the racial and sexual variety), so I never found the song offensive.
Now this, on the other hand, is.
yeah, this is a pretty good example of why I have no sympathy at all for claims that such and such a depiction of brutality/racism/sexism etc. will really be enlightening and consciousness-raising because it's satirical/ironic/knowing/post-modern, etc.
most of the stupid jerks out there will hear it and think it's a straightforward celebration of what the post-modernist claims to be cleverly decrying.
worse than that, most of the non-stupid jerks who can rationally recognize the irony will still subconsciously register the straight part.
trivial example--there's a kids' film out now in which a bunch of forest animals eat junk food. A friend of mine told me about it--'oh yeah, it's got a really healthy message, it really shows kids that junk food is bad.'
I might have believed that, a bit, until I saw that in fact a bunch of firms paid to have their products placed in it, i.e. mentioned by name.
Pringles isn't stupid. They know that the effect of this film is going to be to increase kids' demand for their product, even if their crunchy parents are telling themselves it gives a "good message".
there are at least two channels into the human psyche. advertisers know which one matters. they know that if they had shown a very sexy blond reading all of the damning statistics about how smoking causes cancer, but doing it while she was puffing langorously on a cigarette, that people would have bought more cigarettes. they don't care what gets broadcast on the rational-analysis channel--that's not the channel that influences behavior.
I usually end up knowing the lyrics (or something approximating them), without really trying or meaning to, to any song I hear more than a few times
Which is why it's strange that I never knew that song mentioned slave ships and plantations and whipping. I thought the theme was just "you're a sexy black woman" or "What I'm really referring to is heroin" or something like that, i.e. dumb, but not completely awful.
"is there a more horrifying well-known song out there?"
how do you feel about Mick in ' stray cat blues' singing about getting off with a 15 year old?
51: Yes, godawful, but he is right about the "America, Fuck Yeah" song and that whole Team America movie.
Sweet Home Alabama is bad, but not raping a slave bad. Also, it's pretty well known for its lyrical content, right, because of the whole Neil Young feud thing? Although it's still creepy the way frat types love it, and the way the title was able to blithely shuck off its lyrical trappings and become the name of a syrupy romantic comedy.
54: How do you feel about Johnny Cash shooting a man in Reno just to watch him die? Or Albert Camus shooting an Arab?
At some point you have to separate the story from the storyteller.
I did not know the lyrics to Sweet Home Alabama. I kinda liked bouncing to the chorus, but obviously, I will not be doing so in the future. Oh, man.
57--
I didn't say "Mick getting off with",
I said "Mick *singing about* getting off with".
So how do I feel about Albert *writing about* shooting an Arab?
oh, not so bad, really.
55: You think so? That interview with Matt and Trey in Reason made me think otherwise. Libertarians don't usually espouse preemptive strikes.
56: C'mon, Sweet Home Alabama is effectively an indirect apologia for slave-raping.
57: I like Cash, but the tone of his stuff is completely different. He's not *celebrating* shooting a man in Reno in that song.
57: Sure, but the tone of the song is so celebratory. It sounds just like you are rocking out to some hot black chick. (Which is what I thought it was until just now. People had always said it was offensive, but I thought it was just offensive in the "ogling someone by their race" sort of way.)
There is no line about hanging your head and crying here, or even a sense of reverb heavy alienation.
54: Why didn't he take the Gary Puckett route?
Rough day for JM with the lyrics. Have mercy.
58--
oh come on, jm, don't you agree that the US would be a better place if we'd all elected George Wallace in '72? (or do they mean '68? only that would have prevented watergate).
anyhow--i imagine it's Trent Lott's favorite song.
Sweet Home Alabama is effectively an indirect apologia for slave-raping
Sweet Home Alabama is an apologia for segregation which, while a plenty bad thing, is quite distinct from slavery.
I always thought "Mexicali Blues" was pretty horrifying.
68: ? I mean, they're literally different things. Both evil, but different.
"Rough day for JM with the lyrics. Have mercy."
makes you wanna holler, throw up both your hands.
RE: SHA: The cumulative effect of generations of frat boys singing "Watergate doesn't bother me" can't be underestimated. I mean, it evidently didn't bother Cheney or Rumsfeld.
61: it was hardly a first offence for Cash; how about "early one morning while making the rounds, I took a shot of cocaine and I shot my woman down"?
They are literally different things, but they are certainly not "quite distinct." They are, in fact, intimately related. To the point where neither of them would exist in the form they existed without the other.
75: Country music is not about celebrating the effects of poverty and desperation. Nor is the blues. Employ critical faculties, people.
Also, Down by the River: what Neil Young does when he's not pissing off Lynyrd Skynyrd.
Just add me to the list of people who never knew the lyrics to "Brown Sugar." Like Rob in 62, I thought it was just about gettin' it on with a hot black chick.
Are there any more songs y'all can ruin for me?
76: Perhaps you'd like to split that hair a bit more finely, white sugar. I don't like Lynyrd Skynyrd, but they weren't calling for a return to slavery.
74, 74: Yeah, but that's a song about the awful things people do, not an upbeat, sexy, slave-raping-is-hott kind of thing. Lord Randall isn't a song celebrating feeding your fiance poisoned eels.
The specific song "Cocaine Blues" does not suggest that it's protagonist's main reason for murdering his wife has a lot to do with poverty or desperation; it's more about cocaine.
Employ critical faculties, people
This is good advice, but it comes with the corollary: don't overthink something to the point of ridiculousness.
78.--I think that one gets off on the "it's a blues ballad" exemption.
here's a song that was a big hit in the late '70's, that almost caused me to vomit when I first heard it. Not a joke, not a figure of speech.
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/foreigner/lovehastakenitstoll.html
it was a lot worse blaring out of thousands of car speakers.
75: Cash's murderous narrators always get their just deserts, whether it's prison or hanging.
thinking about it, most versions of "Stagolee" are in general about what jolly good fun it is to be a murdering pimp.
My Southern friend, they weren't calling for a return to slavery, no. But they were defending--as opposed to simply describing, ala Mexicali Blues or Down by the River--a state of affairs that was absolutely the inevitable outcome of slavery; indeed, there's a lot of convincing work that segregation was invented *in order to* make the kind of slavery that happened in the south possible. Given the disparity in numbers between southern slave-owning whites and southern enslaved blacks, and the extent to which the former were terrified of the latter (not without good reason), legally defined inequality was a pretty blunt and obvious way to try to protect the slave-owning minority.
Ain't I that's splitting hairs. I'm saying, it's all one hair.
Okay, there's a massive tradition in many folk musics, blues, country, etc. of singing about terrible crimes and doomed love affairs, often in the first person. Examples from this tradition don't count as awful or horrifying for the present discussion. Neil Young's "Down by the River" looks like a song in this tradition, as are the Johnny Cash songs. I'd argue that Brown Sugar isn't.
Cash songs about shooting people are almost always morality plays about evil getting its comeuppance. If you're looking for truly evil country music, Rodney Carrington is more your man. Though I don't think he qualifies as "well-known."
77: One thing to remember is that country music and the blues were what the Stones drew from in the late '60s/early '70s. Exile on Main Street is more country and blues than anything else -- well, it seems like something else, but that's just fortuitously bad mixing. Point being, when the Beatles and Beach Boys were becoming experimental, the Stones were moving to rock's roots. (Robert Johnson's covered on Exile, after all.)
Then there's the whole hullabaloo in the early '60s about Jagger's "Negroid" features. The Stones have always had a complicated relation to race. Now, if you want to talk about misogyny, well...
I think this song sends an extremely destructive message.
The Drive By Truckers album about Skynnyrd "Southern Rock Opera" has convinced me that there is more to Sweet Home Alabama than meets the eye. A lot depends on how you read two crucial points, the line "We all did what we can do" (For which side?) and the curious history of the song itself, recorded at Muscle Schoals Sound Studios, with the same backing band that supported Aretha Franklin & Wilson Pickett. Lest you think this is just a coincidence, the band gets a shout out in the song: "In muscle shoals they have the Swampers"
SAH should not be seen as a simple defense of the indefensible. It is more like a confused attempt to maintain a sense of dignity in the face of trenchant and justified attacks.
The other odd point is that Skynnyrd were from Jacksonville Florida.
87: Disagreed. I think that Cash's music (like most good blues and country stuff) is about how "just desserts" aren't just. Suffering, even the suffering of the damned, isn't justice.
90: there also a massive tradition about singing about committing what are objectively viewed, horrible crimes (particularly rapes and murders of women) in a celebratory way, about how great it is to be an "outlaw". they tend not to make it onto the compilation albums, but gangsta-gangsta didn't come from nowhere. A lot of those Parisian chansons are of similar flavour.
Okay, I don't understand the distinction we're drawing here between unacceptable and acceptable. Why is there an "it's a blues ballad" exception? I thought the point was just, per LB's 33, that people will happily bounce and/or air-guitar along to horrifying lyrics. I don't see where you can decide that Neil Young and Johnny Cash are being artistic but the Rolling Stones aren't.
Am I the really only one who knew the lyrics to all these songs, and likes them all anyway? They're good songs, despite the messages.
SAH should not be seen as a simple defense of the indefensible. It is more like a confused attempt to maintain a sense of dignity in the face of trenchant and justified attacks.
Absolutely, as is a lot of misplaced southern pride. Nonetheless, it's misplaced.
Their were a lot of weird pro-rape sentiments in late sixties/ early seventies culture that came at the same time as a huge spike in the reported rape rates.
Things like Clockwork Orange and midnight rambler(another rolling stones song). You don't see things like that in current mainstream culture. "Against our will" is good on this( not on the "conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" thing though)
thinking about it, most versions of "Stagolee" are in general about what jolly good fun it is to be a murdering pimp.
There's a long and rich tradition of American folk songs about murder and evil deeds. The more authentic the artist, and the closer he seems to the way of life depicted, the more likely we are to let it slide. Cash had just enough credibility for most of his songs, but the Stones, for example, don't--they're just punks behaving badly.
I'm hoping I've never danced to the song linked to in 86. That really is awful.
And who knew that David Bowie was a Vietnam hawk?
>It is more like a confused attempt to maintain a sense of dignity in the face of trenchant and justified attacks.
That is the best way to describe this.
97's a pretty major misreading. No one's saying that Skynard isn't artistic. I like that song a lot. And a lot of art expresses pretty heinous things. But tone matters in terms of whether it's the subject matter or the work itself that's morally heinous.
A thing can be morally heinous while still being aesthetically quite pleasureable.
93--
I don't know, I found the whole thing too indirect, allusive, and difficult to decipher. what exactly does she mean? I have a feeling that some of those lyrics may be prurient!
i did like the use of "diligently", though.
101: From my understanding, the Stones had that credibility in the '60s and '70s. Just because they've become, well, what they've become doesn't mean they weren't what they were.
95: Put "just deserts" in scare-quotes if you like. My point was that Cash's murderous narrators never get away with their crimes.
Has anyone heard Nick Cave's version of Stagger Lee? The way he sings it really draws out the link between blues and gangsta rap. Also, it is so over the top it is crazy.
You bunch of shrinking violets are just lucky you don't listen to salsa.
Things like Clockwork Orange and midnight rambler(another rolling stones song). You don't see things like that in current mainstream culture. "Against our will" is good on this( not on the "conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" thing though)
Even the Beatles had a couple pro-domestic-violence songs ("Run For Your Life").
This hasn't changed too much recently, though. Nowadays when the popular rock bands get angry it's generally in a self-pitying rather than lashing-out way, but there's some really horrible sentiments in a lot of popular rap songs.
102--
for one, you're too young to have danced to it back then.
for another, it was hopelessly undanceable, as most of foreigner. guys who listened to that crap didn't dance, anyhow.
97: I'm not sure that there's a principled line, but what I find disturbing about Brown Sugar is that, if I understand it correctly, it's singing about slave-raping as a compliment to the sexuality of black women. That is, the verse is in the third person, and is a narrative about slave-raping. The chorus is in the first person, and appears to be flattery directed toward a particular black woman -- you are sexy, just like your oh-so-rapeable slave ancestresses. That's fucked up.
The other songs we've been talking about, with the exception of SHA, fall more into the 'dramatic narrative about people doing bad stuff' tradition.
107: Bah. They were posturing white boys back then, too.
110 was me.
108: A Boy named Sue has a happy ending, I think.
Am I the only one who knew about Sweet Home Alabama but not Brown Sugar?
I would have thought a lot of people would be like me. The lyrics are simply easier to hear on Skynnyrd.
SHA is a great song. (Or was the first few hundred thousand times I heard it. Not so much anymore, but that's somewhat beside the point.)
But tone matters in terms of whether it's the subject matter or the work itself that's morally heinous.
...why? Discord between tone and subject matter seems like a perfectly fair way to make one's audience think about its attitude toward the subject matter and the medium.
shouldn't 110 have been posted by george washington?
110: Not going to spend the time deciphering those specific lyrics, but I'd say that in general I find the tone of sexist salsa kinda tongue-in-cheek in ways that Brown Sugar and most gangsta rap isn't.
oh yeah, and in 94 SAH s/b SHA, obviously.
I've always liked these lines from John Hurt's "Hop Joint":
I've got a brand-new razor, and a .44 gun
Gonna cut you if you stay here, gonna shoot you if you run.
Oh my baby, why don't you come home?
(Gee, I wonder.)
111--
beatles had a couple pro-domestic-violence songs
"getting better":
I used to be cruel to my woman, i beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved....
I don't think that was lennon practising prosopopoeia; I think that was fairly directly autobiographical.
Possible candidate for "well-known song with more horrifying lyrics than Brown Sugar": Warren Zevon's "Excitable Boy."
But those lyrics are intelligible even on casual listening, and the irony is perfectly clear.
116 - me too.
I've always been more bothered by the lyrics to this Skynyrd song, anyway. (note my conscientious link to a non-spywareful lyrics site)
118: Absolutely. And if I'm teaching something, I'll pretty much say that it doesn't matter if the work itself is objectionable, as long as we think interesting things about it. But that's much easier to do with a lot of historic distance, and in casual personal conversations, I'd say that even if I can come up with an interesting and nuanced reading of how SHA expresses x, y, and z complicated problem of southern racism, that I still find the song objectionable because I don't think that the song, itself, expresses awareness of those things--even if the audience can see it.
There's a book about Stagger Lee and rap, I think.
I was also under the impression that there's more subtlety to SHA than is visible on the surface.
I doubt it's tongue-in-cheek, myself. The song is basically a list of all the things that a woman can get socked in the eye for. It probably has more lyrics about housework than any song I know.
"distance, and" s/b "Distance. But . . ."
I was also under the impression that there's more subtlety to SHA than is visible on the surface.
See, this is a good point for argument. As opposed to "you're reading too much into it," which isn't.
(God, I'm being an ass.)
115: The narrator of "Boy Named Sue" isn't a murderer.
128: Happy to defer on that particular song; I was speaking more generally.
129--
"See, this is a good point for argument. As opposed to "you're reading too much into it," which isn't.
(God, I'm being an ass.)"
not at all--you're being a good leader of an undergraduate discussion section.
(that's a different thing, isn't it?)
115, 108: Also Austin Prison. Although it's not clear what the raps in Idaho were.
But anyone who can listen to the various Cash / classic country songs and think that they are glorifying misbehavior baffles me.
When one isn't, actually, leading an undergrad discussion section, it's kind of assish to act as if one is.
134--
god, b, only if you were leading an undergraduate discussion section would you point that out to me.
Damn you people for making me download things. Verdict: Foreigner really sucks.
anyone who can listen to the various Cash / classic country songs and think that they are glorifying misbehavior baffles me.
I've never been sure what to think about the cheer that goes up in the Live at Folsom Prison album when he sings the line about shooting a man in Reno.
I'll keep in mind, though, that when I'm leading section, to do a good job, I just have to do those things that in other situations would be acting like an ass.
Um, "download" s/b "legally purchase music from a licensed retailer"
137--
jesus, leblanc, don't download something--they might get royalties. just check the link for lyrics.
and, yes, that is exactly what millions of teenage boys had ringing in their ears for months on end back in the late '70s.
136: See? I get in that mode when I think people are being silly about conflating moral and aesthetic judgment.
Anyway, I have Things to Accomplish today, so I'm going to take off and stop being pedantic.
129: no you are not being an ass. Most art is complicated because most people are complicated. You almost always get more out of a song by pushing deeper, rather than pulling back to the surface.
There really are three moments to listening to SHA. (1) this is fun (2) this is an apology for a vile racist and (3) this is just weird.
Wikipedia tells me that Patterson Hood of the Drive by Truckers is actually the son of one of the session players at Muscle Shoals studios. Interesting that he wrote a whole rock opera about his relationship to Skynyrd without mentioning this fact.
140--
oh--your clarification puts my mind at ease.
139--
yes, young w-lfs-n: you are learning all you need to know about how to become a tedious pedant, just by hanging out with me and b.
141: Yeah, but I have to hear them in context to decide whether there's anything redeeming about the song (like, say, with "Brown Sugar.")
But anyone who can listen to the various Cash / classic country songs and think that they are glorifying misbehavior baffles me.
Well, they're not condemning it, which certain busybodies (wrongly) think amounts to the same thing.
The narrator of "Boy Named Sue" isn't a murderer.
That's left to the listener's imagination. But the narrator does make it clear that he's a fast draw, which is not a skill that has many peaceful applications.
145--
ah, good--so now you can attest that the tune and beat are just as brutalizing and dehumanizing as the lyrics.
Huh. From the Wikipedia link, it appears that Sweet Home Alabama may have been intended as a more complicated message. This is starting to remind me of the delicate shades of nuance to George Allen's high school Confederate flag lapel pin.
Yeah, it seems to have been meant slightly more as a 'Fuck you for telling us we need to do something about segregation' and slightly less as an uncomplicated 'Yay, segregation!' I don't know that that's a huge moral difference, though.
140: Ben already has tedious pedantry mastered.
It occurred to me once I walked away that a better reaction to Neil Young than SHA would have been if a (preferably) black artist/group had recorded a song pointing out that not all southern men are white.
Ok, really outta here now.
To the question part of 98: No. I've also had variants of this conversation umpteen times. This is about when someone points out that there wasn't really a feud between Neil Young and Skynyrd.
146: But whether he is or is not a murderer isn't really the point of the song. Unlike, say, Murder was the Case. But I have an incredibly strong disinclination to complaining about the political/social content of songs (or movies) because I feel that art (well, songs, movies, and books) that have "acceptable" content is almost universally bad. E.g. Christian rock, or Rage Against The Machine.
114, 145: Two things about "brown sugar" that get in the way of dismissing it (if B. can act like she's in front of the class, I can be a good historicist):
First, Mick is on the record saying that the song is about heroin; second, he's also said it's about the perception that the Stones were appropriating the rhythm and soul (read: SEX!) of African-American music (which they were), which makes the song self-deprecating. "Yes, we're whitening rock and roll, but we can't help it! Brown sugar tastes so good!" Ironizing indignity is clever -- maybe even too clever for Mick, but he spent the rest of the '70s playing with race (the cover and lyrics of Some Girls, for example), so he was obviously aware of it. (Also, the aforementioned "Negroid" claims about Jagger and the Stones in the '60s is still apropos.)
(See, I should've written that first comment as George Washington, since despite hating to admit how much I like the Stones and I know I always will. Bah.)
147: Unless they are, however obliquely, about rocking, in which case the degree to which they rock is the point. It's a middle-finger to middle-class complainers.
Wow, one of the backing vocalists on SHA is Merry Clayton, who also sang on "Gimmie Shelter" and was one of the Ray-lets.
tone matters in terms of whether it's the subject matter or the work itself that's morally heinous. A thing can be morally heinous while still being aesthetically quite pleasureable....I think people are being silly about conflating moral and aesthetic judgment
I just don't think the fact that the lyrics are disturbing makes the work itself morally heinous, and I don't think the aesthetic pleasurability of the song is relevant.
Speaking of pop music with disturbing lyrics, what about stuff like Xiu Xiu's `Fabulous Muscles' ?
156: Is this a claim that no work of art can be considered immoral, because we don't know what distance the artist is maintaining from it? Because I don't think I can follow you there.
153: Yes but Little Richard claimed that "good golly miss molly" ("She sure likes to ball!") is about *dancing*.
In fact, didn't James Brown once try to claim that "Sex Machine" is about dancing?
I started as an altar boy, working at the church
Learning all my holy moves, doing some research
Which led me to a cash box, labeled "Children's Fund"
I'd leave the change, and tuck the bills inside my cummerbund
I got a part-time job at my father's carpet store
Laying tackless stripping, and housewives by the score
I loaded up their furniture, and took it to Spokane
And auctioned off every last naugahyde divan
I'm very well aquainted with the seven deadly sins
I keep a busy schedule trying to fit them in
I'm proud to be a glutton, and I don't have time for sloth
I'm greedy, and I'm angry, and I don't care who I cross
I'm Mr. Bad Example, intruder in the dirt
I like to have a good time, and I don't care who gets hurt
I'm Mr. Bad Example, take a look at me
I'll live to be a hundred, and go down in infamy
Of course I went to law school and took a law degree
And counseled all my clients to plead insanity
Then worked in hair replacement, swindling the bald
Where very few are chosen, and fewer still are called
Then on to Monte Carlo to play chemin de fer
I threw away the fortune I made transplanting hair
I put my last few francs down on a prostitute
Who took me up to her room to perform the flag salute
Whereupon I stole her passport and her wig
And headed for the airport and the midnight flight, you dig?
And fourteen hours later I was down in Adelaide
Looking through the want ads sipping Fosters in the shade
I opened up an agency somewhere down the line
To hire aboriginals to work the opal mines
But I attached their wages and took a whopping cut
And whisked away their workman's comp and pauperized the lot
I'm Mr. Bad Example, intruder in the dirt
I like to have a good time, and I don't care who gets hurt
I'm Mr. Bad Example, take a look at me
I'll live to be a hundred and go down in infamy
I bought a first class ticket on Malaysian Air
And landed in Sri Lanka none the worse for wear
I'm thinking of retiring from all my dirty deals
I'll see you in the next life, wake me up for meals
Mr. Bad Example
Written By Warren Zevon & Jorge Calderon
c. 1991, Zevon Music,
administered by Warner-Tamerlane Publishing corp./Googolplex Music BMI
I've been listening to Lou Reed's Berlin a lot lately, having been reminded by his current limited-engagement performance of the album (which he never performed live before). Most of it is about getting really really fucked up and hitting the women he's fucking, their attempts at suicide, his indifference, etc. I find it deeply moving. I think it failed to get an audience when it came out because it's obviously about, you know, the "dark side" of rape and domestic violence.
What does it mean for a work of art to be immoral? I can believe that intent is immoral, and effect is immoral. Is it just that the work of art sits between the two, and so is included as immoral?
the "dark side" of rape and domestic violence.
Keep on the sunny side, always on the sunny side, keep on the sunny side of ... rape and domestic violence? Who wrote this?
163: This is a question that gets raised a lot (ahem) in the eighteenth century, and the answer seems to be that it depends on who is responding to the work of art. Something that may result in a deep ethical conviction in one person might totally corrupt another. Les liaisons dangereuses is a good case of this. It totally killed any desire I used to have for scandal, but all my students agree they wouldn't want their (hypothetical) 14-year-old sisters reading it.
159: How does the relative morality break down between holding beliefs, acting on beliefs, espousing beliefs (in song or otherwise), and evangelizing beliefs?
I think to detect a difference between someone singing songs that reflect their beliefs and those that have a "message", and don't want to assign moral value to the former.
I'd say a work of art is immoral where enjoying it necessarily implies approval of immoral acts. I don't think Brown Sugar or SHA are necessarily immoral, from what I've read here. But, based on a superficial reading of either song, one could certainly enjoy them both in an immoral way, and some people probably do. On an even more superficial level, one could enjoy them in non-culpable ways too.
164: Obviously, this was a moment when I thought what I was saying should be ridiculously obvious, but given the context of all of these songs about how awesome it is to rape and beat up women, it seemed weird to need the "dark side" bit.
Fair enough. Didn't we see you today at the reception?
also, "necessarily implies approval" s/b, "given a complete understanding of the work, necessarily implies approval."
a song with lyrics coming out in favor of baby eating would be immoral, even where most people don't understand those lyrics.
my definition may not make any sense.
For Festivus dinner, I am feeding a) a vegetarian; b) a woman who won't eat anything that flies; c) two people who won't eat dairy, sugar, meat, processed foods or anything that isn't organic, one of whom will have just had chemo; d) two people who will pretty much eat anything, one of whom will criticise every dish; e) an 8-year old who is an unknown quantity food-wise but for chocolate cake and f) myself, who was once toted out of an organic vegetarian restaurant by EMTs and treated for anaphylaxis and cannot even cook shellfish.
I'm thinking pizza.
a song with lyrics coming out in favor of baby eating would be immoral
Okay, but isn't this like the argument that the anti-Semitic bits of Borat are immoral? Or that the folk songs of Bob Roberts are immoral? Or that The Colbert Report is immoral?
I mean, intent's gotta matter at least inasmuch as the audience perceives that intent to matter. Right?
I knew a guy named Art who seemed kind of seedy, so we called him Immoral Art. True story.
no, no, no. I've been unclear. I mean a song in which the lyrics come out in favor of baby eating in a non-ironic way. To the extent that is possible. I'm not one of these "intention is irrelevant" people. It's not irrelevant, and neither is it the only thing.
for instance, reading about the Stones' intent behind Brown Sugar, to the extent the account is believable, allows me to formulate a more interesting, non-heinous interpretation of the lyrics.
I thought everyone agreed nowadays that there's no such thing as moral or immoral art, only good art and bad art? I thought that was one of two or maybe three universally accepted ideas.
172- I'd think long and hard about that pizza decision if you're feeding two people who won't eat dairy.
you should probably just feed them all some good dark chocolate, booze them up, and call it a day.
I find it strange to classify a work of art as "immoral," in and of itself. What might be immoral are various actions relating to the work of art: composing it, performing it, appreciating it, etc. And the immorality of one action relating to a work doesn't imply the immorality of another.
if you can't appreciate a work of art without committing some immoral act, how is it meaningful to distinguish the work itself as not having any moral quality? Isn't this like the other poet with the same name as Homer?
Man, did I need this post. I have a non-anonymous blog which my in-laws read so I obviously cannot post there to vent about how my MIL is driving me up the fucking wall. There's me, my husband, my in-laws, and my BIL and his family all together for about a week. This is so not happening again. It's enough to make a person cut off all 30 of his dicks.
This GW idea is great.
if you can't appreciate a work of art without committing some immoral act, how is it meaningful to distinguish the work itself as not having any moral quality?
But what does that mean? A song that can only heard when played on an infant's still beating heart?
Xiu Xiu is pretty strong stuff.
(I'd have gone with "Excitable Boy" for Zevon, though it is in the third person.)
This is a question that gets raised a lot (ahem) in the eighteenth century, and the answer seems to be that it depends on who is responding to the work of art.
AWB thinks the 18thC got everything right.
184: but alameida, you already have a pseudonymous blog.
173, 179, 182: yeah. So does anyone understand what Bitch's argument is?
what am I saying--there's no conceivable work such as I have described. Maybe the Book of the Dead from the Evil Dead series--that would be an immoral work of art.
My argument is that Brown Sugar and SHA, to take the examples at hand, are morally offensive (as distinct from "immoral," which I think is a silly word), but that SHA is nonetheless a good song, aesthetically. BS, not so much, but that's b/c the Stones suck.
Also, that declaring that aesthetics don't matter when talking about music is ridiculous.
186: No, but I would offer that most of our questions have, at least, been asked before us, and often by extremely smart people.
183: It's individual actions that are moral or immoral, not entire classes of actions.
And the poet with the same name as Homer is a metaphysical possibility.
I should probably just accept being pwned by SCMT.
187: Sorry, ben, this isn't alamedia. Everyone else is cool here, it's just the mil. Gotta go put on a smiley face now.
Do you mean aesthetics in the sense of reaction to elements like rhythm and melody, or aesthetics in the sense of distinguishing between "fine art" and "pop music"? I'm talking about the latter.
also, IANAP, but it seems to me that entire classes of action can be immoral. and the point of the "other poet by the same name" biz is that, where we have no other information, the distinction is meaningless.
Less snarky 198: the distinctions being offered in 195 are generally agreed to be meaningless ones, right?
195: the latter has no place in anything.
201/2: If I'm not mistaken, the implication of 195 is basically that SHA is "just" pop music, and therefore considerations like aesthetics and morals don't apply?
44: . . . ?????//// . . . . !!!!!!????!
I think there's some confusion here of "aesthetics" and "taste."
I'm still hung up on the "it's a blues ballad" thing from 84 and "authenticity" in 101. Disturbing songs are OK for Johnny Cash and not OK for the Stones? What kind of distinction is that?
206: I'm not the one who brought up the authenticity thing. That said, I think people usually use that word to indicate a kind of attitude of the speaker (as distinct from "author's intent," mind you) towards what's being said. E.g., it is okay for Snoop to use the word "nigga," but if I do so and claim that it's okay because he does it, I'm being a complete ass.
Not to mention the things I've already said, in this very thread, about tone.
Does my 113 make any sense -- that the disturbing bits of BS aren't all part of a narrative?
197: Well, sure there are classes of action that are immoral, if by that we mean that each member of the class is immoral. And if you accept any moral theory whatsoever, you accept that the division of actions into moral and immoral actions, and so can specify "the class of all immoral actions" using that theory.
I'm just trying to express doubt, a la 189, that all possible acts of listening to such-and-such song, or reading such and such a book, are immoral -- regardless of the morality of the action of composing the work in question.
And re: the other poet named Homer, the distinction is not meaningless. Pace Russell, "Homer" does not just mean "the person who wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey."
209: 113 totally makes sense.
Also, there's a lot to be said about whether or not the first-person type narrative is unreliable, ironic, etc. In BS, it doesn't seem to be (which is why one falls back on things like "what did Mick Jagger *say* he meant by the song?). In the Zevon song Rah quotes in 161, it does.
"179
I thought everyone agreed nowadays that there's no such thing as moral or immoral art, only good art and bad art? I thought that was one of two or maybe three universally accepted ideas."
yeah, this. I mean, i knew there was some "social construction is super powerful" type PC stuff, but i thought it was just something conservatives made up for the most part.
180: You put cheese on pizza?
207: The difference between you and Snoop Dogg is a lot more obvious to me than the difference between Johnny Cash and Mick Jagger.
Is the difference in the beat of the song, or in the narrative/non-narrative style? I think I understand what LB's saying in 113, but I read the first-person part as Mick, as a white man, wondering about the power dynamic that makes black women appealing.
zadfrack, I'll just agree with you, and admit to having been foolish upthread--except for the Homer bit. I've not read Russell on Homer, but do we really know anything about Homer, such that replacing him with a different poet named Homer would be meaningful? Maybe if the other Homer weren't blind, that would be something.
I wouldn't say that moving from third person to first person necessarily belies irony. But I'm not sure about the song itself. I'd rather go with the charitable interpretation, and think that Mick just didn't quite pull it off as he intended.
And yes, just being able to interpret the song in a way that isn't morally offensive to me doesn't mean much. But y'all, B and LB, seem to object primarily to the style of the song, and I really don't get it.
In fact you could easily have a narrative, and there are in fact narratives, that switch from third to first person, if by narrative we mean a single story. And there's no telling that the first person of the chorus is Mick le auteur and not, say, the slaver or whoever.
I don't really think the Stones were coming out in favor of raping black women. The song is probably best viewed as a kind of failure, or at least the lyrics are a failure to achieve what Mick intended to achieve.
L.,
J Cash is usually referrenced as a "storyteller". Many of his most famous works, for instance, are not his own invention. So the "I" of his songs isn't usually understood to be him. "I shot a man in Reno" - that's not JC talking. Also, in a lot of blues stuff, there's an assumption that, somewhere down the line, it really is an actual story. Some guy somewhere did something like shooting another guy just for fun. Let's talk about how that worked out for him.
How does this relate to BS? Well, Mick isn't engaged in the same type of storytelling, the kind that most (but by no means all) of us feel is free from condemnation.
(I don't have much of a problem with the song, myself. The Stones are a fairly harmless group of people, if not exactly role models. For one thing, I doubt they'd still be playing it if it were that offensive. For another, the "let's put shocking lyrics to a party-rock song and have some double entendres in there" sounds like a perfectly plausible reason for the existence of BS, more plausible than "we're secretly racists!".)
215: This requires me to tell one of those analytic philosophy hypotheticals so despised by Emerson.
Suppose that the Iliad was written by Homer Smith, but Homer Jones plagiarized his work and passed them off as his own. This deception was never discovered. Over the years, the full name "Homer Jones" was forgotten, and now only the name "Homer" is remembered.
If this were the case, it would be true to say that the Iliad was not written by Homer (i.e. Jones), but by another poet of the same name (i.e. Smith).
You may all now proceed to rant about how silly analytic philosophy is.
But is there a more horrifying well-known song out there?
It's not that well known, but The A to Z Blues is the most explicitly violent blues I've ever heard. Blind Willie McTell recorded it a few times. It's an oldie and, surprisingly, it's by a woman.
Not knowing what Martha Washington is allergic to, still a lot of Thanksgivingy side dishes seem possibly suitable, if you shop at the organic market: butternut squash soup, roasted root vegetables, green salad or wilted greens of some sort with a vinaigrette, a grain pilaf, roasted green beans with olive oil and shallots. Maybe flank steak for the people who eat meat but not flying things?
On the Lynyrd Skynyrd album that a friend has, in their liner notes to the CD release, they try to rehabilitate SHA, by saying, in essence 'But we booooed the governor! boo, boo, boo!'
I don't know whether art can be moral or immoral, but I also don't see the difference between morally offensive and immoral. A philosophy of art guy I know has been arguing that art can be immoral by glorifying horrific subjects, with the result that we react to the beauty of the composition rather than the subject matter.
cala, that was in the wiki article, I'll excerpt for the people who didn't check it out:
Fans deny the song expresses support for Wallace's politics, interpreting the lyrics as saying that the band did all they could do to keep Wallace out of office. They argue that a jeer "Boo, boo, boo!" can be heard after the line "In Birmingham, they love the governor" and they interpret this as an attack on Wallace. In 1975, Van Zant said: "The lyrics about the governor of Alabama were misunderstood. The general public didn't notice the words 'Boo! Boo! Boo!' after that particular line, and the media picked up only on the reference to the people loving the governor" (Ballinger 2002:78). Footage of concerts where they performed the song also confirms the presence of this line. Various band members have denied that the song endorses segregation, and in a recent radio interview surviving members stated the last line "Montgomery got the answer" was a reference to the Selma to Montgomery civil rights march led by Martin Luther King.
Here is a 1974 article:
Plus, includes the line:
"We hate to fly," Rossington says, "and we have more fun on the bus anyway."
225: Oh, the boo, boo, boo, is there. I'm just not sure it was originally booing the governor instead of Neil Young or everyone else in general.
The Oxygen Network is playing the movie Brown Sugar right now.
221.--Wow. Both of the songs on that page are really something. (The second one reminds me of the Pirate Jenny song in Threepenny Opera, which, um, I find myself singing a lot.)
222: I was just venting as I sat down to compose my shopping list. Menu so far:
Ham w/pineapple & clove
Salmon [wild, not farmed] w/organic herbs
Mashed potatoes [organic; done w/o milk/butter]
Ditto, done with milk/butter
Cauliflower [organic]
Asparagus [organic]
Creamed onions [not organic, given that they have cream/butter]
Various raw veg for pre-meal snacking [organic]
Cheese/crackers for same
Buche de Noel or Marzipan cake; haven't decided
Apples poached in organic juice w/ organic cinnamon, served on organic-flour oven-crisped tortillas for the no-sugar/no-dairy people.
I'd have done cherries, but fucking George cut down the damned tree.
Was there a rationale behind the "no flying things" rule, or is this someone who just doesn't like the taste of chicken?
217: Eh, maybe I'm misinterpreting it. But it's a party song -- the style isn't thoughtful or regretful, it's a sexy rock song. No one's going to mix Brown Sugar up with Strange Fruit. In the context of that musical style, the 'raping slaves' narrative seems to make most sense as an illustration of how sexy the slaves were, without any acknowledgement of the fact that raping them was an atrocity rather than sexy/naughty. But I've already said this, and it didn't convince you, so we're probably just deadended here.
Oh, and your guests are totally lucky. I would've made whatever I damn well pleased and then provided a big bowl of organic millet without seasonings for the whiners.
Re: the racial attitudes of "Brown Sugar", doesn't Mick Jagger's obvious affection for (and co-option of) African-American popular music come into play? It's not like it's 19th century minstrel show number; making mumbling noises about authorial intent is always tricksy, but I don't think Mick Jagger on his worst day thought slavery was a good thing (unless that's what they teach at the LSE).
You people aren't trying hard enough for offensive songs.
Apo, you're watching the Oxygen Network? Is Labs snuggled up next to you, you big homo?
I got something to say
I killed your baby today
And it doesnt matter much to me
As long as its dead
Well I got something to say
I raped your mother today
And it doesnt matter much to me
As long as she spread
Actually, since Labs would be the outside spoon, it should be "are you snuggled up to Labs", since I think we can all agree that it's the inside spoon that snuggles up to the outside spoon.
yoyo, that song should be typed in all caps, because it ROCKS like that.
Is Labs snuggled up next to you, you big homo?
OK, we had an entire profoundly irritating thread on how best to belittle men without calling them "gay". Don't tell me it was all for nothing.
241 Maybe you're just weird and abnormal
243. Missed that thread. (Most likely on purpose.) But I didn't mean to belittle Labs OR Apo. I meant to call them homosexual.
232: I have no idea whether there's a rationale for
"no flying things". After all, I seldom offer my guests deep-fried butterfly wings or swarming African termites ['Tastes just like a Brazil nut, but with wings' - Lauren Hutton]. Or Bat Bourguignonne. The vegetarian is a veterinarian who didn't like what he saw on cattle/chicken farms, so he's making a political/personal statement. [We offered him the bumper sticker "I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals; I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants", but he declined.] The chemo'd guest is on a strict diet because of that and her recent breast cancer, and her best friend is joining her.
Fortunately, I like to cook and problem-solve, so playing around with people's restrictions is actually going to be fun.
Oh, yes, And I'm hoping to make that no-knead bread. I keep forgetting to start it.
(i want to iterate that 246 is sincere, since I so often am not.)
the style isn't thoughtful or regretful, it's a sexy rock song
I don't know about songs being immoral or whatever, but Brown Sugar is offensive and not particularly good music for the very reasons you seem to want to give it a pass. It's the happy, fun rape young black slave girls song.
When Johnny Cash sings a song about a murderer, it is clear that the murder knows what and who he is, and he might be sympathetic or an interesting rogue or whatever, but we all know he is a bad person. Brown Sugar, both because of its lyrics and how its presented, fails to make that distinction. I have no strong feelings about this, it's just bad art in my view, even by the standards of pop music--no soul, no happy feet, mostly yuck.
Apo, you're watching the Oxygen Network?
No, just looking at the listings. In fact, Keegan and I are watching Tennessee play Oklahoma State while waiting for Monday Night Football to start.
I agree with everything you just said -- while you quoted me, you were disagreeing with L., right?
I meant to call them homosexual.
I see the distinction, but I'm beginning to suspect there isn't much difference in how it's applied. In a Sausagely mood I'd call it "the good-buttsex-way dodge".
I agree with everything you just said -- while you quoted me, you were disagreeing with L., right?
I thought I was disagreeing with you because I thought the comment I was quoting was saying that it's no big deal, it's just a pop song. I guess I misunderstood you. Sorry. So I guess I do not know who I am disagreeing with, if anyone. I'm an idiot, I guess, but 249 is my view on the matter.
I must admit to retaining a fondness for "Ben w-lfs-n is so gay" jokes.
I would offer that most of our questions have, at least, been asked before us, and often by extremely smart people.
For example, should I rape this slave?
(I'm thinking yes.)
Dammit, Jefferson, you're making me look bad.
253: I was probably unclear. But I agree with your reading of the song completely.
--My husband just requested, for chanukah/christmas, "loud CDs that don't contain curses or the word 'n**ger'" for him to play at his office...I said I thought the odd curse would be less of a problem, but apparently there's some song that just repeats the lyrics "fuck you all! fuck you all!" over and over, and he had sort of zoned out and realized three minutes in that some of the other professors might take it the wrong way.
--Sure, I think art can be immoral. The old chestnut example would be Triumph of the Will...various medieval plays about the Jews killing Jesus....I'd argue the Left Behind books too.
Unless people saying that it's the act of creating art that's immoral but the painting/sculpture/whatever itself isn't--but when you start talking about books and movies as opposed to more abstract things that distinction starts to lose its meaning for me. If the act of creating art is immoral not because you're employing child laborers or cruelty to animals or what not, but because of the message you intend to convey and actually DO successfully convey through the art, then isn't the work itself immoral?
That doesn't mean that:
--reading it or viewing it, or even enjoying it, is immoral
--that anything that depicts something awful is immoral
--that art that has you sympathizing with characters who do bad things is immoral
--that any of it should be banned
etc. etc. etc. And I'm having trouble coming up with specific examples of art that I actually think is immoral beyond the opposite. But is it possible? Sure.
I'm sorry, I just have to bask in the sheer brilliance of a Wig for a Wig.
/basks
I have to admit that I would never feel comfortable playing any music out loud (i.e. not on headphones) at the (campus) office, fuck you all or nay.
I read a book for pre-teen girls that was so stupid, shallow, and anti-feminist that I would come very close to describing it as immoral. I wouldn't advocate banning it, I wouldn't tell my daughter she couldn't read it, but I would be ashamed of myself if I'd written it.
Also, the great Disney lemming massacre that Katherine linked to is quite a story.
Michael, you are really wrong about the inside spoon "snuggling up" to the outside spoon. Unless your version of "snuggling up" is lying there while someone nudges your butt with their crotch, in which case, whatever.
leblanc, you mean nudges your crotch with their butt?
Michael practices Arkansas Spooning, people. How about a little tolerance up in here?
it was mentioned above, but i'd like to heartily recommend the drive by truckers. their music's often written in first person from the perspective of people who are either bad and / or in terrible situations (incest, blood feuds, murder, &c.) . and much of it deals with trying to reconcile pride in self and family with the horrible history of the south.
their album southern rock opera is based around neil young & ronnie van zandt, but i like decoration day and the dirty south much better. if you like rock music, of course.
in keeping w/ the "what the band means" distinction - i've noticed that while their lyrics are often complicated, the fans at their live shows seem to have grown increasingly frattish and intolerable over the last few years. which is a shame, b/c they are the best live rock band i've ever seen (i've seen a lot) - $15 is a small price to pay for 3 hours of facemelting rock.
264 makes me think Michael maybe understands who snuggles and who doesn't snuggle, but doesn't understand the terms "inside" and "outside".
264 s/b 265, sorry. 264 is exactly right.
Are you people unclear on spooning? This is spooning. The one on the left gets into comfortable TV-watching positing, and then the one on the right comes in and snuggles up next to the one on the left.
That is spooning, except that your description of how you get there doesn't make any sense. The one on the left is sort of draped over the one on the right, you'll notice, suggesting that she got there second. The one on the left is the one on the outside is the one who is spooning the other.
lying there while someone nudges your butt with their crotch
This is how I am describing all acts of fucking from this point forth. There's just something too perfect and scary in the phrasing's complete apathy toward said butt-nudging.
239:
Well I've fucked a sheep
And I've fucked a goat
I've had my cock right down its throat
So what, so what
So what, so what you boring little cunt
Well who cares, who cares what you do
Who cares, who cares about you
You, you, you, you
Well I've drunk that
And I've drunk this
And I've spewed up on a pint of piss
So what, so what
And I've had scag
I've had speed
I've jacked up until I bleed
So what, so what
So what, so what you boring little cunt
Well who cares, who cares what you do
Who cares, who cares about you
You, you, you, you
Well I've had crabs
And I've had lice
And I've had the pox and that ain't nice
So what, so what
Well I've fucked this
And I've fucked that
And I've even fucked a schoolgirl's crack
So what, so what
So what, so what you boring little cunt
Who cares, who cares about you
Who cares, who cares about you
You, you, you, you....
redfox, see how squished against the couch the one on the left is? I maintain it was there first.
I usually spoon from behind and have been spooned from behind. I rarely have the chutzpah to crawl up in front of someone.
Spooning is okay, except that it's only comfortable until someone's arm falls asleep.
"arm falls asleep" s/b "husband comes home unexpectedly"
You know what? I don't need anonymity. I have 30 goddamn dicks, goddamnit, and I don't care who knows.
Spooning is okay, except that it's only comfortable until someone starts the anal sex.
275. What about on a couch? You can't crawl up from behind on the couch.
280: I have spent very little time on couches, but I have perfected the art of moving from a sitting-upright position to a sneaking-behind-and-spooning position. Trying to squeeze in front of someone would make me feel like I was blocking his view of the television.
You sort of come in from the top and your body forms a wedge gently pushing the other person away from the back of the couch to make room for you, much as in the picture.
Also, who's to say the person first on the couch was pressed up against the back, if she was lying down? I usually have ample room to fit between my s.o. and the back of the couch, without the need to displace her too much.
Trying to squeeze in front of someone would make me feel like I was blocking his view of the television.
Makes it harder for him to start the anal sex, though, with you around back like that.
no soul, no happy feet
Huh?
I mean aside from the lyrics, it's a pretty rockin' song.
284: Who said I'm the bottom?
And isn't it genuinely sock-puppeting to use the GW to make sassy attacks?
sassy attacks
Band name! Band name! Alert Stanley!
Maybe Gorge is your s.o., but doesn't want to be too direct about his dissatisfaction?
289: What about if he gabbed to all his friends about it?
All of his friends already know. I'm actually really okay with being the subject of sexual gossip.
I'm actually really okay with being the subject of sexual gossip.
That's not what Gorge told me!
Unless people saying that it's the act of creating art that's immoral but the painting/sculpture/whatever itself isn't--but when you start talking about books and movies as opposed to more abstract things that distinction starts to lose its meaning for me.
I want to insist, with only the barest of argument, that this can't be right. Basically my argument is that just as commands, for instance, aren't truth-apt, nothing but sentient beings or their actions are morality-apt. And (total digression) I'm not even totally comfortable with saying that sentient beings are morality-apt, but that's more of a problem with knowing when it's correct to describe a person as good or bad then thinking that there aren't actually good or bad people.
But it seems we're just needlessly complicating our moral picture when we describe the existence of Triumph of the Will as immoral, because what could this mean other than "Leni Riefenstahl did something immoral when she made Triumph of the Will.
Just to be conversational, I'll assert that as a layman, I have no idea what "morality-apt" means, but that, y'know, the Nazis killed millions of people, so I don't fucking care.
It's probably not a good use of hyphenation when a lay person doesn't know what it means, though, I suggest.
Of course, it's just as possible that I'm being stupid. No matter that I know what "morality" and "apt" usually means, and even what a hyphen usually means.
But my first reading is that this is some sort of specialty reading, and so my initial reaction is to question it.
"Truth-apt"?
This is something some academic wrote, but in English?
Truth-apt is a technical term, but it all it means is that the kind of thing discussed can be either true or false.
Say I yell at my roommate who just came in, "Shut the door!" My statement was not truth-apt, as "shut the door" can be neither true nor false. But if I yell, "I am saying very intelligent things on the internet," my statement is truth-apt, there are conditions under which it is either true or false. In this case, it is false.
I was just taking the idea of something being truth-apt and expanding it to morality, which I'm sure has been done by someone, but I've never looked at it.
No, wd, "moral apt" is the opposite of "den of iniquity".
You have to put down two month's rent for an iniquity deposit on a moral apt.
299. Because doing laundry by hand builds moral fiber?
I just want to say that because of you motherfuckers, I've had "Brown Sugar" stuck in my head for 12 hours.
159: I'm struggling to see how any cultural product could be considered immoral except through incitement. You need three components for that: a defined target group; a direct and public incitement; and intent on the part of the perpetrator. In essence, a collaboration between the propagandist and the mob.
And for whatever it's worth, Lynyrd Skynyrd did write and record probably the most anti-handgun song ("Saturday Night Special") and the most anti-drug song ("That Smell") in mainstream rock.
On intent: some years ago I adapted and directed The Bacchae (after Euripides); a week or so after the premiere, I faced the sickening horror of opening the local paper and reading my production praised in a letter to the editor as a searing indictment of the practice of legal abortion.
My own conscience is clear, as far as intention goes; other than the bare fact of a character dying at the hands of his mother, there's really nothing the writer could reasonably hang an anti-abortion message on. The intention of whoever edited the letters to the editor column has been the subject of much fuming on my part...
302: I never heard the Stones song. I had Brown Sugar by D'Angelo stuck in my head while I read the thread.
