When will Mudcat clean up its act?

Subject: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: Sean Mc
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:07 PM

Threads about songs with offensive language need to have the title 'bleeped'. Besides, these songs have nothing to do with the folk tradition and have no place here. This is the second time I have been affronted whilst browsing Mudcat. I have not responded to the thread in question because it simply perpetuates it. I am not a prude - far from it, but, as it seems to be acceptable here and likely to happen again, I guess I will just have to exercise my option by not coming back. Anyone know of a folk website where decency is observed?

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:14 PM

Music websites tend to be somewhat confrontational 'cause folks have so mnay different opinions what is good and what ain't... Goes with the territory... I mean, I have been in bands where bandmates weren't exactly on the same page...

B~

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:16 PM

in my opinion, the majority of problems on this site are caused by guests.
I was recently slandered by a guest, an accusation was made which was a complete pack of lies,the person got away with it because they were anonymous, this could not have happened if the site was members only.
no,I am sorry I dont know of a website where decency is observed, but I think this site is no worse than any others when it comes to four letter words.

Please note that I removed the offending message as soon as Dick asked me to.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:16 PM

Hi Sean,

I am not offended by bad language and wouldn't make an issue of it's use. I don't use it my self most of the time because I know people who are offended by it. You are not likely to see it from me more than once or twice a year in the text of a post. I doubt you'll ever see it in a thread title from me.

But if you are so offened by the occasional F bomb that you will have to depart from these threads I'll say "So long" now. I think it will be too bad for me because you will not be here to offer an opinion or share some music. And it will be too bad for you because of all the great opinions, ideas, references, and art you will miss.

All because of one little word on a page of what must be thousands of other innocuous words.

Don

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: radriano
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:17 PM

Maintaining such a large website and database is not easy. How about a bit more understanding and less demanding.

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:19 PM

If you 'bleep' the words how will we know what they should be? I don't like gratuitous swearing myself but nor do I like Bowdlerisation. If that word is in the song then that's what should be shown. You could always look at another song.

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: greg stephens
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:20 PM

Well, it's all depends on what you mean by folk. Personally, I would have thought any workable definition of folk would have to include the vernacular, unpublished, word-of-mouth disseminated type of thing. And "unpublished", naturally, will always include "unpublishable".
Having said that, there is an argument for not using the more common playground insult words in the titles of threads, if they cause offense.But that argument is only on grounds of limiting potential readership. There can be no argument for completely excluding songs because they contain swear words: unless you want to designate Mudcat as an International Forum for the Discussion of Polite Folk Songs?

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: greg stephens
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:32 PM

Some people are just naturally bolshie, unfortunately. The original poster of this thread is notorious for swear-word personal attacks on other people, so it seems odd to come over all suddenly prudish. Perhaps this is just the usual trolling sort of thing?

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: maeve
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:33 PM

Sean Mc said, "Threads about songs with offensive language need to have the title 'bleeped'."

He is saying that he is offended by the language in some song titles, as posted in threads here. He has not asked that songs be changed. Rather, he suggests that unnecessary offense might be avoided by using *** or some such device, allowing those who choose to avoid offensive language may do so. Perhaps we can offer a useful discussion of this concern that honors his right to express his view.

Sean- Although I don't personally care for some language here, I find that the wealth of beauty of tune and lyric and the delights of intelligent discussion usually outweigh the dregs. I seek the first and avoid the latter. I trust you will pilot your course as is best for you.

Regards,

maeve

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:35 PM

Randolph-Legman's Roll Me in Your Arms", Cray's The Erotic Muse, and some Mudcat offerings bleeped? One hell of a lot of folk offerings might fit your request.
Who decides what is "offensive language ?."
May the heavens forbid!

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:38 PM

Who's going to volunteer for all that editing?

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:42 PM

And why should your particular sensitivities, exagerrated and possibly hypocritical as they are, have precedence over the simpler principle of reflecting the actual language as used by those who wrote the titles? OR over the right of people to decide for themselves whether they want the ground truth or a prudified, gussied-up and sanitized version of it? We are talking about folk-music, after all, not some adulterated white-washed extract.


A

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:43 PM

Furthermore, I am offended by the contentious, over-generalized, unappreciative tone you take concerning the free services of the site, of which you seem more than willing to take advantage.


A

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:44 PM

I was delighted by a recent quote from the author Philip Pullman (the 'Golden Compass' man).

Someone claimed to be offended by his latest book, and he said to them: "You have no right to go through your life not being offended."

Quite right too!

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:45 PM

I have said many times...and I KEEP saying, as I did in *that* thread... that having unexpurgated lyrics available does not bother me. All I wish is that we could avoid having casual browsers who are just glancing at a list of threads being surprised by the language...and this means kids....

*IF* someone wants to find the unexpurgated parts, it is perfectly easy, both in Mudcat search or Google search..(if one sets their preferences to 'no filtering')

I think that words widely considered objectionable should be 'edited' IN THREAD TITLES. Then, the full text is easily found by looking.

(Heck-- we have the full text of "Eskimo Nell" in the database! I heard it sung in its entirety once, and was not 'offended')

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:46 PM

The old Harvest Home forum had an automatic expletive generator which would turn Scunthorpe into S****horpe even as you typed it! All a bit high-tech for mudcat methinks...

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: greg stephens
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:46 PM

Maeve: read the original post. He is not just just asking for the titles to be cleaned up, he is asking for the songs that he disapproves of to be totally excluded. They "have no place here" is what he says.

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:47 PM

"Mary had a little plane,
And in it she did frisk.
But when she flew it upside down,
Her little *..."

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:49 PM

".. he is asking for the songs that he disapproves of to be totally excluded. "

Right...and THAT is the extreme view, and we mostly agree that 'most' of those ARE folk songs.

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: greg stephens
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:51 PM

Actually, I disapprove of this whole thread. The title contains inaccurate punctuation. I cannot believe the clones have permitted this.

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:53 PM

Besides, Mudcat isn't capable of doing any cleaning - *someone* has to clean up Mudcat.

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: maeve
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:55 PM

Hello, Greg. I did read the OP. I see this line expressing an opinion, "Besides, these songs have nothing to do with the folk tradition and have no place here." but nothing stating a demand for removal.

I love this site with its riches and its warts and its fascinating people of all descriptions. I would not support deletion of lyrics or songs based on such opinions, but I do think we are capable of talking about the subject (again) without feeling we or the mighty Mudcat are threatened.

In short: What Bill D. said Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:45 PM .

Respectfully,

maeve who fears no word yet prefers to use them, as any tool, in the right place for the right job.

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 12:56 PM

Besides, these songs have nothing to do with the folk tradition and have no place here.

It would help if he could give an example of a song which has NOTHING to do with the folk tradition, and explain which folk tradition he means.

Singing, singing, buttercups and bloody daisies?

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 01:01 PM

I notice one solution tendered is to not have "guest" contributors.

I prefer doing the guest thing. When I joined, some people kept rattling on pushing their views through private posts. At least as a guest I don't have that to contend with.

I also resent the inference that guests don't watch their language. I reckon it is 50/50. or in other words, nothing to do with having guest status, (or lack of if you prefer....)

If you feel offended then please find a sanitised forum, I am sure they exist. But traditional songs such as Bonny Black Hare may not be on the lyric archives, so not much use as a folk forum then.

Also, on the BS section, you can find words such as Th*tcher. Now that spills my coffee too.....

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 01:14 PM

"prudified," Amos Would you like to refudiate that?

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up it's act?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 01:20 PM

So, where is Sean Mc in reply?

D

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 02:03 PM

Well, I'm going to remove the offending apostrophe from my post here; because if I don't want it in my post, I don't have to have it. For that matter, I'm going to remove the apostrophe from the thread title - Mudcatters have control of their own posts, but Mudcat retains rights over thread titles.

I suppose I cringe a bit when I see the word "Fuck" on the Forum Menu - but I think it ought to be there if we are talking about a song with "fuck" in the song title. Similarly, I was offended by those who insisted on removing the word "Nigger" from threads discussing the well-known song, "Run Nigger Run." Still, I breathe a sigh of relief when nobody has posted to the thread for 24 hours and it drops off the Forum Menu.

I am far more offended myself when I see prudish euphemisms like F***
and N****
I also have to say that I really hate the "PG13" tag that has been added to some thread titles, even though I'm the one who suggested adding the PG13 to appease complaints.
I also don't like abbreviations that are not immediately understandable, like "OP."

The Original Poster says that "these songs have nothing to do with the folk tradition." By that, I think he means that the songs are not very old. But age is not the only thing that determines whether a song is a folk song; and sometimes songs enter the folk process at a very early age. I contend that bawdy songs are almost the only true, living folk songs that are alive and healthy today - they come from the people, and are changed by the people as time and conditions move along. In addition, such songs are able to escape the process of commercialization that has almost completely destroyed the folk process. I think it's highly unlikely that anyone is going to try to slap a copyright on "Fuck You Jane Fonda" or "Eat, Bite, Fuck, Suck."

Oh, I suppose people could also complain about our allowing threads like Barney and the many Chinaman song threads to continue - but these threads have gone on for years and have dozens of song variations posted to them. Distasteful or not, these songs are excellent examples of the folk process.

Most people who know me are aware that I go to church three to five times a week and that "fuck" is not an ordinary part of my vocabulary - but I refuse to replace the word with euphemisms when I need to use it. "Naughty words" do make me cringe a bit, but I am far more offended by euphemisms.

So, when you complain about the offensiveness of this or that, remember that other people are just as vehemently opposed to euphemisms. The solution? Feel free to control your own use of language, and give other people the freedom to control theirs.

Somebody above made a good point: if you euphemize the titles of songs, how are people going to be able to search for them? Do we need to have some sort of standardization of euphemisms, and then a key to understanding the Official Mudcat Euphemization Code?

If you don't like bawdy lyrics, I think you'll find that most of the lyrics are clean at:

• http://ingeb.org/
• http://contemplator.com/
• http://mysongbook.de/
• http://www.kididdles.com/.

If you really think that Mudcat needs to censor out bad language, I suggest you discuss the matter with Mudcat's owner, Max Spiegel, [e-mail]

Free, unrestricted, uncensored posting of lyrics has been our policy since Mudcat began on October 1, 1996, and it is one of our basic operating principles. It has also been the policy of the Digital Tradition Folk Song Database since it was established in 1988. Only Max Spiegel can change this policy for Mudcat, and only Dick Greenhaus can change the Digital Tradition policy.

-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-
[e-mail]

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: DonMeixner
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 02:11 PM

Hear Hear

Don

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 02:11 PM

Certainly, Ebbie. I submit "Grundied and Comstocked" in its place.

I see no reason to use crude abusive language when a more ornate form will serve.

A

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 02:28 PM

Joe ~ Could you please explain PG13, which I have not come across before in a year on the site.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 02:28 PM

The old Harvest Home forum had an automatic expletive generator which would turn Scunthorpe into S****horpe even as you typed it! All a bit high-tech for mudcat methinks...

Chortle! Reminds me of a photo I once saw of an event held at Scunthorpe which had "Scunthorpe" in large letters at the back of the stage. Unfortunately, only part of the word was visible above the performer in the photo...

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 02:35 PM

PG 13 is a movie classification in North America. It means Parental Guidance required (or suggested) for children 13 or under. Today that means you can kill fifty people in the first ten minutes, yell lots and say stuff like shit, etc. The censors worry mostly about nudity--or so it seems to me.

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 02:40 PM

Well fucking hell Joe, I hope when you go to church, they wash your mouth out.

You have said more offensive swear words in your last post than I dare say in my family, and I don't go to church.

I fucking agree with Sean MC. You shouldn't allow fucking titles to have such offensive words in.

There are children who come on this site. Have you no f****** concern for them.

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: GUEST,Cool Beans at a foreign computer
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 02:41 PM

Well put, Joe Offer!

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: Sorcha
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 02:51 PM

LOLOLOL! I wanna be offended about something too! Whatever shall I choose? Such a lot of choices.....Burkas, Jews, Hamas, sexuality, politics...













Oh hell, I can't be bothered. Being offended takes energy.

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: topical tom
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 02:52 PM

Discourage the use of euphemisms and encourage the use of the true words, be they offensive to some or not. You made a very good argument, Joe.

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 02:53 PM

OED allows refutal. What's wrong with refudiate? The language is reft if word coinage is subject to stintage.

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 02:54 PM

Hmmmm. Michael, you present a challenge. You can put PG13 in the Filter and set the age back to get our "PG13" threads, but I'm not sure I can make a link for you. Try this:

Search for "PG13" threads

Like I say, the PG13 tag makes me cringe, but it does serve a purpose. If you are viewing Mudcat from your employer's computer, and your employer's computer won't let you go to sites with naughty words, and it's a day when a naughty word is active on the Forum Menu, there IS a way to set the Mudcat Forum Menu to filter out all threads with the "PG13" tag.
But I forget how to do it. You can filter out anything once you get to the Forum Menu, but how you get to the Forum Menu to filter out naughty words in the first place if there's a naughty word showing and the boss's computer won't let you at it? Not much help, am I?

Oh...."PG13" is the U.S. designator for movies that are not suitable for children under the age of 13, so those films require Parental Guidance. It was the best tag we could come up with at the time, although I know it isn't readily understood outside the US.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: Brian May
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 03:06 PM

Bye then Sean.

Exercise your democratic right to leave.

I find it quite refreshing that people can actually speak their mind without the PC thought police interfering.

There are limits, but there are far worse things in this life than a few swearwords. Then we get the sanctimonious 'What about kids visiting the site'?

What about them? They say and hear far worse at school . . .

So bye bye Sean, have fun - and when you find this Shangri La, just pop back and leave us the URL. xxx (they're kisses, not swearwords :o)

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: theleveller
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 03:12 PM

What a totally fucking stupid thread.

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: Rafflesbear
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 03:12 PM

I wonder if there is an Atlantic divide on this. I write from east of the pond and PERSONALLY would prefer that all subject titles were 'clean'

for some reason I find it more distracting in the context of Mudcat than I do when watching a film such as Die Hard which I enjoy

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: Sean Mc
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 03:13 PM

What a bunch of morons

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: Brian May
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 03:16 PM

Just another quick thought . . .

Is it the WORDS we don't like, or the meaning??

I suggest you get a good dictionary and look up what 'NICE' actually means (original meaning), then look up 'SOPHISTICATED'.

Still want to complain?

At least these 'bad' words are honest and up-front.

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 03:20 PM

BS: 'I'm forever blowing bubbles...'

I was SHOCKED to see the above as a thread title. ABsoLUTELY SHOCKED!

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 03:22 PM

So, Sean, is "What a bunch of morons" all you have to say in response? How do you respond to my contention that bawdy songs are some of the few surviving pure examples of the folk process?
I realize that most of the early collectors censored out the bawdiness in songs they collected (most notably in sea songs), but do you truly think that was a good thing?
-Joe-

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 03:24 PM

``Anyone know of a folk website where decency is observed?``

Yeah, but you`ve been so fuckin` rude I ain`t gonna tell ya. Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah.

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 03:37 PM

"OP" is bog standard internetwebspeak. If people can't speak web, they should log out and watch TV.

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: GUEST,999
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 03:40 PM

Wot`s a TV.

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 04:25 PM

A TV is a guy who wears dresses and.....never mind

Subject: RE: When will Mudcat clean up its act?
From: Steve Gardham
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 04:29 PM

Come on! This has got to be a send up!

---

I love you people!
OP, fuck off! And that's from a saintly English teacher. (Retired I should add). Some of my ex-pupils are on here.