Jump to content


Photo

Baby It's Cold Outside

And to All a Good Night

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#16 Sneakeater

Sneakeater

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65,544 posts

Posted 21 December 2018 - 06:29 PM

It wasn't an opinion piece, Wilf.  It was a "style" piece, reporting on a trend.

 

It didn't say, "they shouldn't play this song."  It said, "take a look at this:  this extremely popular seasonal song has become a flashpoint in the #metoo controversy."

 

Where I think Rich goes wrong is that the article didn't just assume the immense popularity of the song; as small h points out, it reported it.  So the fact that the song is still immensely popular doesn't require a correction to the article, as Rich seems to think, or somehow change the article's conclusion, or constitute news in itself.

 

Indeed, there wouldn't be any controversy about the song if it weren't very very popular.


Bar Loser

MF Old

#17 Rich

Rich

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,910 posts

Posted 21 December 2018 - 06:59 PM

Agree with the concept, totally disagree with the conclusion.

 

Still think if they took the time and and paper inches on the front page to "report" the controversy, then as any legitimate journalist would say, they have a duty to follow up the article with the "result" of said controversy (when it becomes known) as it applied to the "immense" popularity of this song. As my first-year journalism professor taught me,  following up on a story is more important than reporting it. Anyone can report the facts, good journalists insist on explaining the details of the outcome.

 

But at the end of the day, I'm not surprised. The NY Times hasn't adhered to accepted journalistic standards for some 25 years. Guess that's what happens when you believe your own headlines.



#18 Sneakeater

Sneakeater

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65,544 posts

Posted 21 December 2018 - 07:14 PM

That's not the "result" of the controversy.  The "result" of the controversy is that I haven't seen that song performed live in several years without either or both of an apology or some form of tweaking.


Bar Loser

MF Old

#19 Rich

Rich

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,910 posts

Posted 21 December 2018 - 08:06 PM

Apology by whom?

 

Most of the recent performances and recordings end with the male or female agreeing to another drink.

 

In any case, the purpose of starting the controversy was to get radio stations to stop playing the song and people to stop buying it. The fact that it had the opposite result is newsworthy - if the controversy was reported in the first place.



#20 Sneakeater

Sneakeater

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65,544 posts

Posted 21 December 2018 - 09:24 PM

Apology by the performers.

 

No, the purpose of starting the controversy was to raise issues.  The controversy remains, and will remain.  The issues will not stop being raised, and this song will remain controversial every year, as it has been for the last several years (this isn't new, as I indicated:  it's been going on for a few years) (I mean, the Times NEVER picks up on trends when they're actually new).  I doubt the song will be performed often in the future without the apologies or tweaks I've invariably seen over the last several years.  I wouldn't be surprised if eventually it does stop getting played (although I have to say that I personally like the song) (played a record of it at home myself a few nights ago).  Cuz the zeitgeist rolls on.


Bar Loser

MF Old

#21 Sneakeater

Sneakeater

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65,544 posts

Posted 21 December 2018 - 09:32 PM

You seem to think this is some new "movement" that somebody organized this year for the purpose of "stopping" the song from being performed.  That's not the case.

 

This is, rather, a set of misgivings that have been bubbling up, and finding expression, for years.  Several of the pieces that were written about it this year (in a lot more places that just the Times) (and most of them -- unsurprisingly -- before the Times got around to it) were to the effect of, "are people still talking about this?"
 


Bar Loser

MF Old

#22 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 87,284 posts

Posted 22 December 2018 - 01:15 AM

Style piece, sorry, I just meant it wasn’t reported news. The Times front isn’t exclusively for news. The idea that the news desk would even be pondering publishing Christmas music chart results because of some style piece is beyond contemplation.

Is this an analogy? Wells pans the new Four Seasons, taking aim at ethical issues, but if it’s heavily booked for the holidays, the news desk agonizes over whether that needs to be on the front page, because of the piece in the food section.

#23 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 87,284 posts

Posted 22 December 2018 - 01:17 AM

Zeitgeist remark is on point. I am a huge Al Jolson fan. What can I say?

#24 Sneakeater

Sneakeater

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65,544 posts

Posted 22 December 2018 - 04:34 AM

To me, the point is that if a significant constituency of the pop culture audience is offended by something you like, your response should be to try to figure out what offends them. Not to just decry them for trying to spoil your fun.

It may well be that you’ll end up thinking their misgivings are unfounded. But it might also be you’ll perceive problems you hadn’t already thought of.

Either way, your perceptions will be expanded.
Bar Loser

MF Old

#25 Sneakeater

Sneakeater

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65,544 posts

Posted 22 December 2018 - 04:39 AM

And vis-a-vis Wilf with Jolson or me with the 1960s Stones (or this song), you might come to grips with the fact that things you genuinely enjoy are still genuinely offensive.
Bar Loser

MF Old

#26 Anthony Bonner

Anthony Bonner

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 14,424 posts

Posted 22 December 2018 - 01:07 PM

I'm most bemused by the controversy surrounding the Pogues Christmas lyrics, where Kristy MacColl had actually stopped singing the offensive lyric before her death, and yet you can still find jackasses claiming "faggot" isn't the pejorative you think it is.

"This is a battle of who blinks first, and we've cut off our eyelids"


#27 Steve R.

Steve R.

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,119 posts

Posted 22 December 2018 - 03:48 PM

To me, the point is that if a significant constituency of the pop culture audience is offended by something you like, your response should be to try to figure out what offends them. Not to just decry them for trying to spoil your fun.
It may well be that you’ll end up thinking their misgivings are unfounded. But it might also be you’ll perceive problems you hadn’t already thought of.
Either way, your perceptions will be expanded.

  

And vis-a-vis Wilf with Jolson or me with the 1960s Stones (or this song), you might come to grips with the fact that things you genuinely enjoy are still genuinely offensive.


I agree 100%.

This is the 2nd time in 1 week that I’m in agreement with Sneak — very worrisome.

This space available… contact owner.


#28 Rich

Rich

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,910 posts

Posted 22 December 2018 - 08:31 PM

CTC



#29 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 87,284 posts

Posted 23 December 2018 - 02:07 AM

I was buying bottles for the holidays today and it came to me as a crushing blow that “Have Some Madeira, M’Dear” might be problematic. Along with “Brown Sugar,” of course.

#30 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 87,284 posts

Posted 23 December 2018 - 02:11 AM

I'm most bemused by the controversy surrounding the Pogues Christmas lyrics, where Kristy MacColl had actually stopped singing the offensive lyric before her death, and yet you can still find jackasses claiming "faggot" isn't the pejorative you think it is.


That’s an interesting one, because now I think about it, I have always assumed Shane and Kristy are effectively playing characters there, as in a musical, which creates some distance. The whole thing is theatrical.