Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Options

Fairytale of New York

245678

Comments

  • Options
    I am reminded of the Sex Pistols' 'Pretty Vacant'.

    Mr Rotten would use an excellent delivery style on (eg) 'Top of the Pops' to emphasise the fact that 'vacant' is a two-syllable word.

    It's time that we purged history of all such filth.  The only question that worries me:  What are we doing today that will be unacceptable in 20 years time?
  • Options
    Croydon said:
    cafc999 said:
    Croydon said:
    cafc999 said:
    Altering lyrics because listeners "may" find it offensive.
    no different to all explicit songs being censored on the radio currently.
    Generally explicit songs have words like fuck or shit in them and not a word that "may" mean something other than a large meatball 
    Except you know that isn't the meaning in this context.
    You mean it isn't a large meatball?
  • Options
    Rothko said:
    Don’t worry about 50k dead from COVID, worry about a word on a station where this song will sound weird enough already 
    You realise this is a forum where people discuss the fortunes of a third tier football team every single day, right?!
  • Options
    Really dislike censorship like this, you can always change stations, or go and make a cup of tea. I am against radio stations making decisions like this.
     The BBC has always looked rather stupid when it does things like this, even on Radio 3 with the  music of Stravinsky, and Radio 1 with Paul McCartney. If you are offended do not listen. Not listened to radio1 for over 15 years, so totally unaware of  what they play?
    I was hardly the average  'pop chart ' fan at any time.Do they ever play any Pink Floyd, Hendrix, or Frank Zappa, except the singles of Money and The wind cries Mary, rarely except on Paul Jones show, or 6 music?.  
  • Options
    The thing is, the radio edit of it isn't a new thing this year. I noticed Absolute were playing it last year, and they may have done before that too. The thing that's really making me laugh is that Oliver's Army is now trending on twitter because a load of people have only just noticed that that's got a radio edit too, and THAT's been played for donkey's years.
  • Options
    It IS culturally interesting that Radio 1 are playing the edited version, whereas Radio 2 will play the original. 
    Because the Radio 2 audience is generally aged 40+ and couldn't give a flying f*ck what people think about lyrics being "offensive". The word "fagot" is also in Money for Nothing by Dire Straits - is that the next song to be "altered". 
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    edited November 2020
    Stig said:
    stonemuse said:
    I read somewhere that Kirsty MacColl before she passed away when singing live changed the wording as she didnt like to say it either.

    Also Shane MacGowan apparently doesnt like the word and only used it because it fitted the narrative of 2 arseholes arguing.

    But as I said if The Pogues whose song it is don't care then why should it matter
    I’ve seen them live many times including with Kirsty ... she always sang the correct lyrics as did Shane 
    I saw them live once. No idea what they were singing about, I was having a row with the other half at the time. 
    You're a bum
    You're a punk
    You're an old slut on junk
    Lying there almost dead on a drip in that bed
    You scumbag, you maggot
    You cheap lousy faggot
    Happy Christmas your arse
    I pray God it's our last

     Not sure if that’s the song or your row.
  • Options
    It IS culturally interesting that Radio 1 are playing the edited version, whereas Radio 2 will play the original. 
    Because the Radio 2 audience is generally aged 40+ and couldn't give a flying f*ck what people think about lyrics being "offensive". The word "fagot" is also in Money for Nothing by Dire Straits - is that the next song to be "altered". 
    Already has been.
  • Options
    This isn't news is it? Firstly that radio edits exist, and secondly they're overzealous.

    I have a radio edit of Eminem's Guilty Conscious which has whole lines removed and other lines that make zero sense. I have a radio edit of Teenage Dirtbag where "Her boyfriend's a dick, he brings a gun to school" has both "dick" and "gun" bleeped out.

    The fact that Fairy Tale of New York has survived so long without radio editors butchering it if a miracle.
  • Options
    It IS culturally interesting that Radio 1 are playing the edited version, whereas Radio 2 will play the original. 
    Because the Radio 2 audience is generally aged 40+ and couldn't give a flying f*ck what people think about lyrics being "offensive". The word "fagot" is also in Money for Nothing by Dire Straits - is that the next song to be "altered". 
    I remember when it used to be the older generation that wanted the edited version - how times change.

    I heard a debate about this today on Radio 5 which was almost like a spoof. I'm unclear why the song should cause any more offence now than when it was released. 

    I'm curious as to who gets to police the words that can no longer be said on the radio even if they are in context. 


  • Options
    PaddyP17 said:
    It is ridiculous it's a news story. But I did see a Tweet earlier from a non-straight man that said [paraphrasing] "I'm not bothered by the word, or the song, but I am bothered by the likes of Fox and legion other straight people getting angry at their inability to listen to and sing a slur in a song".

    That sums it up. Storm in a teacup but if you're upset by this cEnSOrShIp, give your head a good old wobble.
    So what censorship are you okay with? Where should it start and end?

    Serious question as there are loads of offensive words and attitudes in art and literature and I'm curious how they are going to be policed in an objective manner?
  • Options
    Should have seen these geezers when Wet Ass Pussy got censored for radio play. Livid.
  • Sponsored links:


  • Options
    Does the radio not have watershed hours like on TV?

    I see no difference in the use of words in a song than of those in a film. Say BBC1 showed a Quentin Tarantino movie at 11pm, why can’t the radio have unedited songs at the same time?
  • Options
    PaddyP17 said:
    It is ridiculous it's a news story. But I did see a Tweet earlier from a non-straight man that said [paraphrasing] "I'm not bothered by the word, or the song, but I am bothered by the likes of Fox and legion other straight people getting angry at their inability to listen to and sing a slur in a song".

    That sums it up. Storm in a teacup but if you're upset by this cEnSOrShIp, give your head a good old wobble.
    So what censorship are you okay with? Where should it start a7nd end?

    Serious question as there are loads of offensive words and attitudes in art and literature and I'm curious how they are going to be policed in an objective manner?
    But watershed on broadcast tv/radio isn't really censorship is it? If a rap song with explicit epithets was aired on daytime radio uncensored there would be uproar. We have these rules to prevent children from being exposed to content they aren't necessarily equipped to process yet. That's why we accept these conditions, surely? Consenting adults are able to buy and listen to versions with the uncensored lyrics. So I can't really see how there is an issue of censorship. 
  • Options
    Does the radio not have watershed hours like on TV?

    I see no difference in the use of words in a song than of those in a film. Say BBC1 showed a Quentin Tarantino movie at 11pm, why can’t the radio have unedited songs at the same time?
    I tend to agree. Radio not having a watershed is crazy, listening to the radio at 11pm and hearing the most benign words edited out is depressing.
  • Options
    aliwibble said:
    The thing is, the radio edit of it isn't a new thing this year. I noticed Absolute were playing it last year, and they may have done before that too. The thing that's really making me laugh is that Oliver's Army is now trending on twitter because a load of people have only just noticed that that's got a radio edit too, and THAT's been played for donkey's years.
    Right wingers desperately seek something to get angry about.
    Sadly I feel this is true for people on both sides of the political spectrum
    Far more angry left wingers on Twitter than right wingers

    Indeed if Twitter was representative of the UK, Corbyn would easily have won the last election
  • Options
    PaddyP17 said:
    It is ridiculous it's a news story. But I did see a Tweet earlier from a non-straight man that said [paraphrasing] "I'm not bothered by the word, or the song, but I am bothered by the likes of Fox and legion other straight people getting angry at their inability to listen to and sing a slur in a song".

    That sums it up. Storm in a teacup but if you're upset by this cEnSOrShIp, give your head a good old wobble.
    So what censorship are you okay with? Where should it start and end?

    Serious question as there are loads of offensive words and attitudes in art and literature and I'm curious how they are going to be policed in an objective manner?
    You'll have to excuse me as I'm likely to lay out some stuff I'm misremembering here. And this is going to be a long-winded answer.

    Well, I generally subscribe to Popper's paradox of tolerance. Basically, if society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually compromised by intolerant views and thoughts. So you can't tolerate the intolerant.

    This is fairly well rebutted by John Rawls in A Theory Of Justice wherein he lays out that a tolerant society should tolerate the intolerant - otherwise, society itself is intolerant. But, he qualified this by saying if the liberties of the "intolerant" are sufficiently oppressing/stifling the liberties of those who are "tolerant", then it's okay to limit those liberties.

    In this instance I think it plausible that people are sufficiently upset by use of the word "f*ggot" in Fairytale of New York that it impacts on their wellbeing. Use of what is generally a pejorative term, also, is also not what I'd consider something someone is at liberty to do.

    So it's a bit of a case by case basis, really. And I'm applying some very broad-brush thinking to this particular issue. And it depends on how you might define liberty; tolerance; freedom of expression; and similar.

    And what I've said is probably better summed up by saying "don't be a dick". This doesn't even take into account that the word is censored only on Radio 1, and not by the BBC as a whole/the government/society as a whole. But, yeah, there are my thoughts on censorship, broadly speaking.
  • Options
    PaddyP17 said:
    It is ridiculous it's a news story. But I did see a Tweet earlier from a non-straight man that said [paraphrasing] "I'm not bothered by the word, or the song, but I am bothered by the likes of Fox and legion other straight people getting angry at their inability to listen to and sing a slur in a song".

    That sums it up. Storm in a teacup but if you're upset by this cEnSOrShIp, give your head a good old wobble.
    So what censorship are you okay with? Where should it start a7nd end?

    Serious question as there are loads of offensive words and attitudes in art and literature and I'm curious how they are going to be policed in an objective manner?
    But watershed on broadcast tv/radio isn't really censorship is it? If a rap song with explicit epithets was aired on daytime radio uncensored there would be uproar. We have these rules to prevent children from being exposed to content they aren't necessarily equipped to process yet. That's why we accept these conditions, surely? Consenting adults are able to buy and listen to versions with the uncensored lyrics. So I can't really see how there is an issue of censorship. 
    Kids listen to explicit lyrics in songs all the times and watch porn on their phones so changing the words to a Pogues song to protect them seems a bit futile. 

    If they are going to ban anything it should be Radio 1 for being shite.
    It's true, but doesn't mean we should broadcast porn on daytime tv.

    I'm actually from a fairly liberal position that it's fine for kids to be exposed to mature content in music, literature and film/tv so long as they have the context to understand it.

    But I recognise a lot of people don't want that for their kids so I can accept a clunky broad brush limitation on public broadcast.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!