|
Post by Colin Anderton on Jan 24, 2022 17:48:03 GMT
As the moderators don't like the discussion in the main forums about the BBC making cuts to old radio programmes, can we discuss it here instead? This "socially aware" madness is affecting nearly every aspect of people's lives today, and it needs to be challenged. Personally, I think editing these wonderful old shows to suit the sensitive little snowflakes of today is disgusting!
If the moderators think this subject does not belong here in this group - a group whose members are, after all, dedicated to the preservation of TV and radio of the past - then I don't know where it does belong. Do you really believe that the original recordings will survive long-term? Or will these new "doctored" versions become the norm, so as not to upset our new-generation little sensitive darlings, who burst into tears if you call them a nasty name? Aww, diddums, then....
|
|
Kev Hunter
Member
The only difference between a rut and a groove is the depth
Posts: 608
|
Post by Kev Hunter on Jan 24, 2022 18:39:47 GMT
Why does it need to be discussed yet again anyway? Move on!
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,863
|
Post by RWels on Jan 24, 2022 19:05:03 GMT
By all means, if it MUST happen on this board, then let it please be in a special section, just like there is an off topic DW section. How about calling it "the balcony"? It was my own suggestion - although I do not make the decisions around here.
But some (like me) will avoid it, and others will only agree - it's no skin off my back, but it would become just an echo chamber without a clear purpose.
So when it comes to that, I am a bit skeptical of the idea that it's just the millennials who can't handle different opinions. I've had a few less than rational (or polite) replies when I dared to disagree on some examples.
|
|
|
Post by rebeccajansen on Jan 24, 2022 19:18:14 GMT
I'm somewhere in the middle and see 'snowflakes' on all sides. I'm still catching up somewhat on what people mean by 'socially aware' anyway. I have no problem with discussion, however, name-calling and bullying is objectively not a discussion no matter who is being mocked.
That said, here they are running disclaimers before showing old '70s game shows... is there no way to do that before these 'dated' radio shows? The game shows have some commonplace sexism and racsim, nothing serious in my opinion having been around then, and besides which some of the celebrities even challenge things (including white males challenging possible bias), so seems unlikely to damage someone watching today to me, but the disclaimer takes up a half minute and if it means I can enjoy uncut the junk I loved... as a white female.
I can understand if people don't want to hear or see Jimmy Saville or whoever else along those lines, but isn't that more about ratings? It just wouldn't be popular. The Beatles had a song I've always found one-note threatening violence against a woman (Run For Your Life) which while it should stay on the albums as it was I can similarly see few enjoying on the radio, and it never was anything near a hit. If somebody went out of their way to play it in with other music of the times with no commentary on it I could find that misogynistic in intent. it still might not be a big deal and would hopefully speak for itself, and the songwriter later grew up and disavowed his own song, but there are a few things like that out there taken as macho or funny at one time that are just bad art. People don't have the right not to be offended however, but they do have the right to express genuine offense when it does occur... with civility! So offended by the easily offended? fair enough, but mocking them and labelling them... gets nobody anywhere, sorry.
I haven't commented on this before, this might be all I have to say.
|
|
|
Post by Colin Anderton on Jan 24, 2022 20:46:00 GMT
Why does it need to be discussed yet again anyway? Move on! The alternative to discussing it, is to let these cultural vandals get away with damaging our history. Regarding the song "Run For Your Life", it was the closing track on yet another hugely successful Beatles album (Rubber Soul). Hardly "not a hit". My reaction? It's just a song! I think people who would get upset about the words of any song have some kind of problem. Just take a deep breath and enjoy life. Save your worries for things that matter.
|
|
|
Post by rebeccajansen on Jan 24, 2022 21:02:29 GMT
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your opinion but labelling people vandals while calling things reputedly thus 'vandalized' or censored as 'just a' or not mattering is confusing. There used to be songs mocking various ethnic groups not by members of the those groups... they did have an effect upon society and are not played or performed anywhere for a reason. So... you want a discussion? Don't want a discussion? I can discuss, no problem, but suddenly you don't want one... or just from me?
If people want to claim the musical part of Run For Your Life is well done that's fine, but like an old song in black dialect by a white singer, or any other racial dialect, it's words are entirely abusive, but based on the target's gender rather than race. Check the full words to it out sometime. The lyrics are one-note, contemporary (as in not 'folk'), make a point explicitly about not joking or meant in any way humourously but being borderline psychopathic, are demeaning and threatening of a woman's life that doesn't behave as desired, shows no self awareness or intention to cast the sentiments as abnormal or only part of something more (see There She Goes by Lou Reed and The Velvet Underground which has a shock to it that would hopefully cause reflection).
I first came across the track in the early '80s and found the words genuinely shocking, especially from the group behind Sgt. Pepper's and Magical Mystery Tour which were practically children's albums. There was an answer cover by Nancy Sinatra at the time and it's just as bizarre from a female singer with 'little boy' in place of 'little girl' being threatened with death. At least that might have made people reflect on the excessive violent sentiments of the original, but the original, to play today at random with no commentary, not part of a set of 'look at these screwed up songs' would I think be meant to offend. Supposedly the song grew out of a small bit of '50s staple Come Back Baby (I Wanna Play House), the lone "I'd rather see you dead" line in a context of other emotions absent from The Beatles number. I grew up around a lot of '50s rock music via my father's record collection and nostalgia revivals (Sha-na-na and Happy Days on '70s tv), so it's not like I was shocked by something that was along the lines of "one of these days Alice" Honeymooners banter. As I say, bad art lyrically, and something it's writer later criticized himself on.
My offense as one of the group subject to intimidation in that song is not something you get to tell me to save my breath for or not worry over. Anymore than I will tell you the same about what you are obviously offended about. Give and take, equality. You call names, you diminish other viewpoints, you say you want discussion then seek to silence one who responds. Maybe it's you who need to find things that matter more?
|
|
|
Post by Richard Marple on Jan 24, 2022 21:45:02 GMT
As the moderators don't like the discussion in the main forums about the BBC making cuts to old radio programmes, can we discuss it here instead? This "socially aware" madness is affecting nearly every aspect of people's lives today, and it needs to be challenged. Personally, I think editing these wonderful old shows to suit the sensitive little snowflakes of today is disgusting! If the moderators think this subject does not belong here in this group - a group whose members are, after all, dedicated to the preservation of TV and radio of the past - then I don't know where it does belong. Do you really believe that the original recordings will survive long-term? Or will these new "doctored" versions become the norm, so as not to upset our new-generation little sensitive darlings, who burst into tears if you call them a nasty name? Aww, diddums, then.... Funny how the Gammons seem to get even more offended when a mixed race or same sex couple appear in a advert these days. It's ironic that the billionaire tax dodgers are causing far more cultural damage, but they don't want their short of thinking voting fodder to know that!
|
|
|
Post by Ronnie McDevitt on Jan 24, 2022 21:55:38 GMT
I'm not entirely unsympathetic to your opinion but labelling people vandals while calling things reputedly thus 'vandalized' or censored as 'just a' or not mattering is confusing. There used to be songs mocking various ethnic groups not by members of the those groups... they did have an effect upon society and are not played or performed anywhere for a reason. So... you want a discussion? Don't want a discussion? I can discuss, no problem, but suddenly you don't want one... or just from me? If people want to claim the musical part of Run For Your Life is well done that's fine, but like an old song in black dialect by a white singer, or any other racial dialect, it's words are entirely abusive, but based on the target's gender rather than race. Check the full words to it out sometime. The lyrics are one-note, contemporary (as in not 'folk'), make a point explicitly about not joking or meant in any way humourously but being borderline psychopathic, are demeaning and threatening of a woman's life that doesn't behave as desired, shows no self awareness or intention to cast the sentiments as abnormal or only part of something more (see There She Goes by Lou Reed and The Velvet Underground which has a shock to it that would hopefully cause reflection). I first came across the track in the early '80s and found the words genuinely shocking, especially from the group behind Sgt. Pepper's and Magical Mystery Tour which were practically children's albums. Er... the same childrens album which contains the lyric - `I used to be cruel to my woman and beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved....' ?
|
|
|
Post by rebeccajansen on Jan 24, 2022 22:31:29 GMT
Er... the same childrens album which contains the lyric - `I used to be cruel to my woman and beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved....' ? That's at least someone reflecting upon something they 'used to' do. I don't have a problem with that sentiment. The man grew up. The packaging of Sgt. Pepper's is very accessible and colourful in a way almost opposite to Revolver, the trappings, the sales pitch, doesn't mean it couldn't have depth. Many great enduring children's stories have darkness and depth to them. It's false to claim nobody paid attention to, or doesn't pay attention now as the above shows, to lyrics of Beatles songs. Whatever part of our culture that song represented and still represents I should very much not like to inherit nor keep alive. John Lennon was an artist who contributed many positives and claimed he wanted people to think more, and I've always thought, and he himself thought as well, that it was a not a good piece of writing. He connected it to his own real life violence, so could it not possibly play some part in that for others? He grew up and away from it, but if it's people today's favorite or they see nothing shameful about it isn't Run For Your Life legitimately saying something negative about them to others? It's a good example of something specific we can examine, discuss, and potentially understand why continuing to play it unquestioned, unframed, would be just as problematic as an old 'coon' song mocking black dialect and supposed racial character. It's should remain as part of the historical album it was on, and could be played with a framing of it as something historical, but otherwise it is offensive to many and why would one choose a single bad song (again according to it's author) over actual human beings. We wouldn't want our sons or daughters getting something that backwards in entertainment that has no element of reflection in it, or perhaps you would like them to read sheer half-truth or utter lie propaganda in the name of true freedom? Anything goes no regulation pure liberty, aka anarchy, always goes in a direction against civilization, against all minorities, who have always been the canaries in the coal mine in how they are treated for judging the health of any society. A lot from 'just a song', but I do honestly think this and not thoughtless dismissal is what John Lennon would have wanted. People from outside London (or Toronto, or New York etc.) were dismissed as not having worth in his day and he proved that quite wrong. There are things which we do find to be mostly worth losing, like an embarrassing or bad song, though still there to be found as a historical fact, but it's another extreme to ban or throw out an entire catalog, so I am as absolutely against that as I am for addressing real offenses when they do occur and are made known without derogatory bullying hyperbole. People before things. Some of us are very aware, socially aware even, of how many spousal abuse and assault centers there are in our world. No flag, no song or cartoon, is worth defnding over actual lives and bodies. A narrow path perhaps but findable; what else are we doing here?
|
|
RWels
Member
Posts: 2,863
|
Post by RWels on Jan 24, 2022 22:42:17 GMT
Regarding the song "Run For Your Life", it was the closing track on yet another hugely successful Beatles album (Rubber Soul). Hardly "not a hit". My reaction? It's just a song! I think people who would get upset about the words of any song have some kind of problem. Just take a deep breath and enjoy life. Save your worries for things that matter. It's just that that's my attitude towards cuts.
|
|
|
Post by Colin Anderton on Jan 24, 2022 22:58:26 GMT
My dear Rebecca, I'm not attempting to silence anyone. I just think you're taking life far too seriously. I followed the Beatles from very near the start of their recording career (early 1963), so I was there when these discs were released. People weren't so touchy over things then. I always liked the song "Run For Your Life", but I never gave much thought to the lyrics. John Lennon later said it was what he called a throwaway song, just written to complete the album. My message is simply: Don't take things so seriously. Oh, and in case you're wondering, I believed in women's equality long before it became fashionable around 1970. But that is something "real", and affects people's lives. A song is just a song.
|
|
|
Post by garygraham on Jan 24, 2022 22:59:01 GMT
I'm disappointed that this subject has apparently now been "banned" in this group. It makes me feel that I don't to post at all anymore. As I said in the other thread when this comes up the tactic is always to close down the topic one way or another, including deliberately stoking it up into a flame war.
Why is it relevant to missing episodes? Because the original tapes may get junked or become unplayable, with only the censored versions surviving. Far fetched? I don't think so. Companies are about making a profit and storage and transfers are a cost. They may decide to keep just one current usable version. The more versions there are of a programme the more likely there will be a mix up. Look at Granada's Lift Off for an example of how easily a mix up and loss can happen. How many programmes don't have any surviving paperwork?
The history of film is full of only cut down or altered versions of films surviving for many reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Colin Anderton on Jan 24, 2022 23:02:45 GMT
I'm disappointed that this subject has apparently now been "banned" in this group. It makes me feel that I don't to post at all anymore. As I said in the other thread when this comes up the tactic is always to close down the topic one way or another, including deliberately stoking it up into a flame war. Why is it relevant to missing episodes? Because the original tapes may get junked or become unplayable, with only the censored versions surviving. Far fetched? I don't think so. Companies are about making a profit and storage and transfers are a cost. They may decide to keep just one current usable version. The more versions there are of a programme the more likely there will be a mix up. Look at Granada's Lift Off for an example of how easily a mix up and loss can happen. How many programmes don't have any surviving paperwork? The history of film is full of only cut down or altered versions of films surviving for many reasons. I couldn't agree more, Graham. If the moderators decide to close this subject, then so be it. But personally, I believe it is vitally important - and is definitely the business of this group.
|
|
|
Post by John Green on Jan 24, 2022 23:51:04 GMT
My dear Rebecca, I'm not attempting to silence anyone. I just think you're taking life far too seriously. I followed the Beatles from very near the start of their recording career (early 1963), so I was there when these discs were released. People weren't so touchy over things then. I always liked the song "Run For Your Life", but I never gave much thought to the lyrics. John Lennon later said it was what he called a throwaway song, just written to complete the album. My message is simply: Don't take things so seriously. Oh, and in case you're wondering, I believed in women's equality long before it became fashionable around 1970. But that is something "real", and affects people's lives. A song is just a song. This Land is My Land. The Red Flag. The Horst Wessel song. The Times They Are A'Changin'. Yes We Have No Bananas. I have a feeling that while the West is fine-tuning its sensitivity towards intersectionality, governments in other parts of the globe are planning to impose on us eventually, those brutal systems which already make their own peoples' lives ones of misery. This doesn't seem to be a great concern to many. Perhaps the great epoch of slavery is yet to come, lying ahead rather than behind us?
|
|
|
Post by rebeccajansen on Jan 25, 2022 0:54:58 GMT
I am as against seeing the artistic 'works' of a Valerie Solanas on "cutting up men" generally just put out there. That's what a mature society does; restrict the mentally deranged and works advocating such from itself, or at least it used to. The BBC banned many songs in the '60s for purportedly promoting substance abuse, and often getting it wrong, keeping an Itchycoo Park and keeping out Eight Miles High, but both are classics and of major artistic merit as far as pop music is concerned. They were listening to lyrics then. I wish they'd listened instead for something far less nuanced and solely about intimidating a woman. LSD 'overdoses' have never been on the scale of spousal assault as a real societal problem, and there are still people debating if Syd, Peter Green or others were even damaged by acid overdose.
|
|