Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: nutty
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:59 PM

Traditional is John's description of the song.

The basis of my argument is that this is not and never could be traditional ... It's a piece of 50/60's smut. The type that was all the rage when I was a teenager.

It doesn't have the artistry of Tom Lehrer or Paddy Roberts.

My local Rugby Club had annual song competitions to see who could write the most disgusting 'folk' song, which might have seemed funny after 6 or more pints but in the cold light of day was better forgotten.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Peace
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:56 PM

Shouldn't this be combined with the "left nut" thread? I don't know which MF we are talking about, but if he has trouble with his ball, then shouldn't this be combined with the "left nut" thread? Senseless duplication.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:54 PM

John is a perfectly legitimate researcher, specialising in bawdy songs and related material. His website is at http://www.immortalia.com/. Among the resources there are some rather hard-to-find 18th and 19th century texts which he has put a lot of time and effort into making available; together with other things of considerable use and interest to the general student of folksong.

I don't share his interest in the scatological and pornographic end of folksong, but the fact remains that it is a legitimate field of study, and one of the few aspects of tradition that shows no sign of fading away. Whether or not a particular song may be considered "traditional" in itself is beside the point in this context (they are usually parodies of other songs in any case); the genre, if you like, is the tradition.

I think we can mostly accept that folksong isn't necessarily pretty; it can be quite distasteful, especially when fuelled by morbidly high testosterone levels. Some of the IRA songs posted here are pretty unpleasant, for instance, with their swaggering, posturing, gleeful accounts of butchery. They, too, are legitimate subjects for study; though I wouldn't care to hear them sung any more than I'd enjoy the kind of thing John is interested in.

Calls for censorship on the grounds of personal taste are always worrying, but particularly so when they come from people who are otherwise quite sensible. Incidentally, I wonder how many of the people who are objecting to John's threads have in the past criticised early 20th century collectors like Sharp and Baring-Gould for "bowdlerising" songs? That bowdlerisation was made necessary by people much like those who are currently complaining. The principal is exactly the same.

The Mudcat (and the internet in general) is not a children's playground. Those who worry about what their children may stumble across should take responsibility and supervise their access.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: greg stephens
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:43 PM

I am totally appalled that any Mudcatter could object to what John Mehlberg posts here. I expect a bit of flak from some people, but to find Bill D on this thread having a go at John saddens me. Bill has a wonderful library of song books, and I love him to bits because of it. If we are here, surely we like research into traditional folksong? OK, we may not like the content of some traditional songs, but that is our own value judgement. Surely serious discussion of bawdy song should be welcome here. So, some songs contain the word "fuck". Is this really startling to anyone here?
   If we can put up with endless discussions of the war in Iraq, Spaw's farts, JOhn of Hull's humour and other digressions, surely we can accommodate actual discussion of actual traditional song?

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: nutty
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:36 PM

Sorry - false start ...... I'll start again

This kind of material also became popular in Britain in private sport and drinking establishments in the 60's and 70's. I own a double album of the 'Jock Strapp Emsemble' regaling us with these gems but I've never ever heard one sung in a folk club , if they had been the landlord would have closed the club down.

Also I can never consider any song that was written in my lifetime to be traditional.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: nutty
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:26 PM

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: PoppaGator
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:03 PM

There is no single musical "tradition" ~ there are lots of them, some less ancient than others, but all consisiting of songs (and stories, and dances, etc. etc) that are commonly known by most or all members of some community.

No matter how expert one may be regarding one or more of these traditions, he/she will not necessarily be familiar with every song in some other tradition.

I'm deeply involved in several different local musical traditions here in New Orleans about which I'm sure no one else among y'all Mudcatters knows or cares a thing. So what? John the bawdy-song guy is into a tradition well-known primarily to rugby players and hash-house harriers. In the same way that many trad-jazz junkies, hashers, and/or ruggers may be unfamiliar with sea chanties and Child ballads, it only stands to reason that relatively few mainstream folkies will be familiar with the dirty lyrics to "Darktown Strutters' Ball."

Also: those who are not familiar with a given genre may or may not be interested in learning something new about a field with which they are only slighly familiar. Different strokes for different folks, right? I only open about 1/3 to 1/2 of the discussions here, because I know I won't be interested in everything. The threads I do read are about equally divided between stuff concering my most passionate interests (e.g., blues, old and new) and other discussions of topics about which I know nothing, but which intrigue and/or amuse me (e.g., Morris dancing).

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:54 PM

I'm with Clinton on this one...as I said in the prtevious example, I would prefer to NOT have the full word in the thread title.

It's awkward...I know that research is research...but like El Gerco says, it's gratuitously taseless and crude, rather like most things done by "Hashers", who get together to drink and bellow obscene, stupid lyrics. I, myself, sing some quite bawdy songs, but I chooose those with some clever writing or story line.

I DO find myself wondering why the only songs John M. needs to 'research' here at Mudcat are the grossest ones...and I suspect that very little important historical 'data' needs to be discovered about this particular type of song.

I own most of the commercially available books on bawdy songs and limericks, but I don't splash them in places where the content is not welcome by all.

As I said last time...I do NOT see why, since John has a website, a more discrete request could not be linked to the lyrics on HIS site, with a request for more information...then, those who know something could email Jonn directly.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:47 PM

Odd isn't it, that threads like this never seem to attract much attention from the ladies, isn't it?

Just coincidence, I suppose.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Cool Beans
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:41 PM

Kendall, you raise a most provocative issue, perhaps suited for a thread all its own: At what point does folk, a literary or musical work unattributable to any identified creator(s), become traditional? 60 years? 59? 40?
For instance, to choose something in questionable taste, take the song about Hitler having only big ball, to the tune of "The Col. Bogey March," which had to have been written in the 1940s. Unless we know its authorship, I'd call it folklore.
Are songs of unknown origin from World War II old enough now to be considered traditional? At some point that song was new: folklore but not traditional.
How do we define traditional? Anything that existed before the age of recording whose authorship is unknown?

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: kendall
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:11 PM

I'm not making a judgement, it's just that I've deeply involved in tradition music for 60 years but I have never heard this gem.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:18 PM

" Thread TITLES... should be inoffensive to all"

Nothing is inoffensive to everyone...

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:17 PM

" Thats all I ask for."

One the same page though, it's not MY web site, or yours... we can ask... but we also gotta accept that the answer is possibly gonna be 'no'

Myself, I don't really care enough one way or the other...   I think 'cleaner' thread titles reflects better on Mudcat... But if a song title has a 'bad' word in it, and one wants to discuss that song, I won't be diddled if you don't euphemize the title...

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: PoppaGator
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:16 PM

John is always very careful to include his standard "boilerplate" disclaimer in the intial message of every thread he starts.

His research is undeniably legitimate. I find it interesting and amusing, while others probably do not ~ of course, they don't have to look. Indeed, they're given plenty of warning; John really bends over backwards to preclude giving offense or prompting objections.

Thread TITLES, I will concede, should be inoffensive to all, since they're on display even to those who choose not to open a particular thread. However, they need to be clear enough to indicate what's in there, as a guide to those who wish to stay out as well as to those who might be interested.

In other words, the word "motherfucker" should not have been completely spelled out in the title, but I don't know what more John could possibly do than to omit a few letters [e.g., everything between the "f" and the "r" or "er"]. To bowdlerize the word any further than that would rob the title of any clarity or definition ~ how would the easly-offended know NOT to look in without some indication of the subject?

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Rasener
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:08 PM

>>For the record, I do happen to agree that we should probably keep 'bad' words out of thread titles... <<

Thats all I ask for.

What people say in the message is up to them

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: nutty
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:02 PM

I have to admit that this particular thread is not so objectionable as John's previous postings but unless someone objects where do we draw the line.

I am not advocating the return to Victorian morals merely an acceptance that such lyrics whether written or sung can be found offensive and that I for one would rather not be greeted by them every time I access Mudcat.

John has the lyrics on his site, he could very easily link to those in question and still have the discussion he craves.
Posting them here with an apology is, IMO, not good enough. Its like hitting someone on the nose but apologising for it before hand, then maintaining that the other person has no reason to get upset because you have apologised.

If you know , as John does, that people are going to be offended THEN DON'T DO IT.

By the way, I do find it interesting that all (I think) of the people defending John are male.
Could it have something to do with schoolboy lavatorial humour??

Last question ...... how can a song not known of before the 1960's be called traditional????

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: alanabit
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 03:02 PM

I have also contributed to John's site. I see him as a genuine folklorist. If you don't like it, you don't have to open the thread. I don't like my kids using a lot of swear words, but I can't get over excited about it. Mind you, if they used words like "nigger", "coon" or "wog" (which in reality, they would not dream of doing), then I really would hit the roof.
Most people copulate, defecate and possibly even fellate at some time in their lives. I can't get any more upset than Clinton Hammond does about people using rather more prosaic language to describe these activities.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:57 PM

Seriously though, I do find the title more offensive than the song. Just my background and culture.

As for the song itself, I find it tasteless, even though I use myself every single profanity in it - in context. No hypocrisy, CH is right in saying that words are just words and it is intent and context that gives them colour. Gratuitous profanity does little for me.

I would not sing it unless threatened by a very big guy with a machete at my throat.

In any case, the song is not traditional... Or a folk song (which folk club airs it?). Otherwise, I have a much better one to suggest - Peter Cooke and Dudley Moore's "Jump, you fucker, jump...". Now, THAT is funny!

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:55 PM

"I have young children"

Since when is this a 'child' site? This is an unmoderated (mostly) adult message board... I will propose that maybe your KIDS shouldn't be visiting the place...

or are you afraid they might see something over your shoulder while you're reading the site? They probably say/hear worse on the play ground... and if they don't yet, they will... probably very soon...

Be warned, -I'm- not about to change MY habits just because someone else is breeder... that's YOUR problem... not mine...

For the record, I do happen to agree that we should probably keep 'bad' words out of thread titles...

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Peace
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:55 PM

SSDD

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Cool Beans
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:52 PM

Words are words. Research is research.
When our girls were little my wife and I tried very hard to avoid "obscene" language around them. Our kids picked it up anyway, we never made a big deal of it. Censorship is a greater sin.
I have contributed to John's archive. It's legitimate folklore research.
Don't like it? Don't read it. Don't listen to it.
God bless America and the First Amendment.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: GUEST,OEDIPUS REX
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:50 PM

As someone who has been traumatised by practices such as this song alludes to, I am extremely offended

El Greko (oh, bugger, I forgot...)

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: GUEST,GI JOE
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:10 PM

If you were ever in the Army, any countries army, you would have heard much worse 24 hours a day 365 days a year

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Rasener
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:09 PM

I have young children and would prefer that the thread/subject heading did not include the swear words. I don't want to come into the Forum and see headings like already posted. You should appreciate that children are around.
Personally I don't have objection within the message.
If this starts happening then I don't think that I want to stay on this forum.
Don't get me wrong, I can use language as good or as bad as anybody if not worse, but please be careful.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:07 PM

Taboo my aunt fanny! everybody fucks... everybody shits... (O.k.. I'll give ya the incest thing...) Get over it... It's only 'taboo' because you want to MAKE it taboo... I for one am glad I don't live in such 'Victorian' uptight times...

Every thing CAN be talked about, sang about, or joked about...

Context is all...

Would I sing this song in a CHUCH?!?! Of course not...
Would I sing it in a pub fulla rugby players??? It might be too tame for them...

Mudcat IS the context for discussing folk music... and if this ain't folk music, I donno what is...

Yer offended by the song, or by the thread? Don't post to it, and it'll drop off the bottom of the page soon enough... While yer at it, close the web browser, turn off the computer, go out to the garage and try building yourself a time machine so you can join the rest of us here in the beginning of the 21st Century.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:05 PM

I teach my classes that there are no such things as rude words, just people who are ignorant and misuse the language. Connotations were put on the words primarily by the Victorians and there's no reason to shy away from any words so long as we recognise that the sensibilities of some members of society are likely to be offended, thus we must warn people before the use of swearing.
Please don't be offended by words, folks - most of them were perfectly 'acceptable' in Old English and the practices to which they refer are usually natural and everyday.
Let's just return to the question in hand and forget about the attempts to offend or the attempts to have anything 'objectionable' removed when it is apparently in context.
Dave

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 02:04 PM

Well, I have to say that I did receive one or two reasonable comblaints about the use of bawdy words in thread titles. Some people use computers at libraries or at work that are have filters that won't allow loading of pages with words like "fuck" on them. I think this is fairly rare, so I'm not prepared to worry about it unless I'm convinced otherwise.

I have a number of books by folklorists Vance Randolph and G. Legman and Ed Cray. You'll find some pretty ripe words amongst the titles of some of the songs in these books, and the cover art on one Ed Cray book is probably politically incorrectly sexist. Still, they're from the work of three of the most renowned American folklorists. Should we euphemize their work?

The worst of this euphemization is in the world of sea songs, where the collectors euphemized so heavily that it's well-nigh impossible to find chanteys in their original form.

I think John is following in the footsteps of Randolph and Legman and Cray. He is working hard to document a large collection of work that is truly folk music. I certainly don't want to get in his way.

What do others think?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: RichM
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 01:57 PM

I have no objection to the word "Motherfucker".

I'm one myself!

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Piers
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 01:41 PM

But the words represent taboo practices - fornication, incest, defecation, etc. - that's why they offend.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 01:34 PM

What I say to people with objections is "Fuck Em"!

"have offending words blanked"
How childish...

There are no offensive words... words are just words...

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: nutty
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 12:24 PM

I agree that songs of this type have been around for hundreds of years ... The only difference being that the majority were held in private collections ... they certainly were not on public display as you would like us to believe.

Even those on public display as found in the Bodleian Broadside collection would have offending words blanked.

You are deliberately trying to offend .... you could ask your questions without including the narratives in their entirity.

I consider that you have no place on this site ....you are a troll of the worst kind and you certainly have no interest in Folk Music ... traditional or otherwise.

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: John M.
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 12:20 PM

Here is a link to the original 'Motherf---er's Ball' thread so that those who wish to CONTRIBUTE know what has already been said.

Yes this song is traditional in the sense that people knew and sung this parody of the Darktown Strutter's Ball.  It may not be known by many people but it was known by *some* college students in the 1960s.
 

Subject: RE: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: kendall
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 12:15 PM

This is traditional?

Subject: Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'
From: John M.
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 12:07 PM

This is the thread where you can post objections to the thread about 'The Motherf----er's Ball'.

First off, you should know that I am not posting bawdy threads just to raise objections.   I am interesting to knowing more about the song and meeting and talking with people who sing these songs. If I were to dash "---" expurgate the objectionable words, then there is a good chance I will never get to talk with the people who know this song.

Second, this is a traditional song and should be part of MudCat as are other traditional songs.

Please post any objections or questions to me personally below.

Sincerely,

John Mehlberg