Objection to Bawdy Song Titles in Forum Menu

Subject: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: breezy
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:14 PM

I think someones taking the preverbial piss on the mudcat.

I havent read the Objection thread yet, so I could be wrong.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: breezy
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:18 PM

Yes he is

Clinton Hammond is he a moron?

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: robomatic
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:48 PM

I'm not against freedom of speech, including bawdy speech, but I personally am not familiar with (new?) poster John Mehlberger and all at once to have a lot of explicitly named songs cropping up with innocent sounding requests for information sounds like a weird sort of exhibitionism. And all the justification for it rather than a thread simply titled: "Bawdy Songs" makes me say to meself: "He doth protest too much."

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 04:55 PM

amen, robomatic...I just posted a long reply in the other thread.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: nutty
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:02 PM

As did I

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: breezy
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:06 PM

well done chaps, thanks for the endorsements.

standards and all that.

cant have them bosch types coming in on here and behaving like that now can we?

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:08 PM

John's been around quite some time. He's a scholar of bawdy material. Sometimes he gets posts of affirmation here.... and sometimes people act upset-- depends who's around that day. Visit his site and see for yourself. He's got quite a collection.

Hi John! Love your work!

~The Pastor's Wife

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Rasener
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:13 PM

I do not like his thread titles.

I don't give a toss what he puts in the message. I can give him as good as he can give back, but I choose not to. Whats the point.

I just don't want to be faced with crude thread titles each time I log on.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:30 PM

They are the titles of crude songs. See FAQ on Bawdy Lyrics Alert.

~S~

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: greg stephens
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:34 PM

John Mehlburger appears to be using an international folkmusic forum to research traditional folksongs, in a scholarly and non-controversial fashion. What is conceivably wrong with that?

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: nutty
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:40 PM

Come on Greg .... no self respecting folksinger would sing such utter rubbish.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:43 PM

Have you ever had Dick Greenhaus in your living room? Maybe not to John's level, but pretty earthy!

~S~

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Rasener
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:46 PM

Hope you don't Greg :-)

The Market Rasen Folk Club is starting up again, so I will be getting in touch with you soon as per our previous communication, if that still stands. Going to Moor and Coast tomorrow, so will get back to you when I am back next week.

Don't worry, I am not a prude. Lived in Amsterdam too long :-)

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: greg stephens
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 05:53 PM

I would not sing these songs in a folk club, sure. But I'm afraid the creation and performance of folk music has not confined itself to folk clubs, historically speaking. I might be tempted to go a litlle further, and suggest that no folk music has ever been created in a folk club. They are places for performance of certain kinds of folk material, but that is far as it goes.
    If drunken blokes, on their own, have tended in the past to sing songs of a certain crudity...well, this is another item in the Department of the Bleedin' Obvious. John Mehlberg collects them. Shock, horror.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Charley Noble
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 06:00 PM

John is a dedicated collector of bawdy songs.

If this is not your cup of tea, find something else to do with your life. Censorship is never appropriate in my opinion.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: nutty
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 06:02 PM

The fact that John collects these songs is not a problem ..... he has a web site of his own ..... he does not have to use Mudcat so blatently.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: greg stephens
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 06:07 PM

Nutty: if you dont like people who collect folksongs, are you sure that Mudcat is your ideal forum? I'm sure there must be others on the internet that will suit your taste, but the thing is, this is a dedicated folksong site.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 06:13 PM

He is simply using the internet's largest folksong resource, as we all do. He is a member of the more specialised Ballad-L discussion list, and doubtless other groups that I don't subscribe to. Why should he not also seek information here?

See also Objections to 'The Motherf---er's Ball'. Much the same points are being made there, though at greater length.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: nutty
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 06:14 PM

Greg ....you obviously know nothing about me.
So please don't make such comments until you have evidence to back them.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: nutty
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 06:27 PM

I just find it very interesting that you can get away with anything under the assertion that its 'research' and, sadly, people will believe and support you.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Lanfranc
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 07:07 PM

"... but please, call it research!" ("Lobochevsky" - Tom Lehrer)

I have no knowledge of this Mehlberger character, but, other than the fact that he is using "his" name, I don't see a lot of difference between him and the usual run of passing trolls.

May I suggest that we ignore him, thus denying him the oxygen of reaction, in the fervent hope that he might go away?

I guess that is asking too much.

Freedom - Responsibility = Anarchy

Alan

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Uke
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 07:29 PM

Excuse me, but doesn't anyone find the title of THIS thread a little offensive? (Calling Joe Offer)

Just because John is open and honest enough to use his own name on the site, should that be used against him in a form of ridicule?

'Sticks and stones', yes I know, but...

In the 'other' thread, and making another point, Malcolm Douglas says the Mudcat is not a childrens playground. Well, I'm afraid the anonymity of internet 'user names' does seem to mean people can act in childish ways here at times - ways that frankly undermine their moralistic comments.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Leadfingers
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 07:56 PM

There is NO WAY that as a Professional musician/singer I would use any material that has any 'obscene' language in it ! HOWEVER as an ex regular Serviceman I HAVE sung a lot of these songs in various NAAFI bars round the world ! I would agree that the use of some of the words used as Thread Titles would be better '-----' Dashed out !
After all there is nothing to stop any Catters family logging in to the Cat , regardless of age , sex , or sensitivity !

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: masato sakurai
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 08:56 PM

"It is safe to say that no folk community in the world is without them [i.e., obscene or erotic songs]." (Kenneth S. Goldstein)

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Ferrara
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 09:20 PM

I have felt, reading a few of the less raunchy threads, that John is indeed doing research and trying to collect information about these songs. I'm all for letting him use Mudcat to do that.

That said, I'm agin' letting him keep using explicit thread titles. Once would have been Okay, maybe. But seeing explicit titles on thread after thread is too much. And it's unnecessary. All he has to do is start the title with "Bawdy:" or even "Very Bawdy:" and use dashes in the critical words. By now everyone gets the point.

What The Villan said: I just don't want to be faced with crude thread titles each time I log on.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Bob the Postman
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 09:22 PM

Like Greg Stephens, I too think Mr. Mehlberger is doing good work. This controversy seemed to start with the "Eat Bite" thread--a nasty and unclever little song which could, if done properly, make me bust a gut. Eat Bite and its cohorts might not be traditional in themselves but they are part of a performance traditon which dates back, if not to Aristophanes, then at least to those less-talented contemporaries of the Big A whose names are justly forgotten. Gross disgusting songs are fun, and tracing their histories is interesting, useful work. But if certain words in the thread title offend some folks, why not sprinkle a few asterisks over them? Er, I mean *terisks.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 09:30 PM

The ideal solution, I guess, would be to have some software patch that would allow sensitive souls to block any posting with a "Bawdy" tag. But we don't have such.
The alternatives seem to be:

a) don't address bawdy material. This is, IMO, too silly an alternative to consider seriously.

b) Revert to the Victorian approach of using f**k, c**t, n***r, F******g, A******k atc. Not quite as, but almost as silly. I can just hear the kids: "Mommy, what does C********r mean?" It was a dumb practice in Victorian days, and it hasn't improved with age.

c) Not include the name of the song in the posting. Well, I guess one could get responses from the first "LYRICS REQUEST: BAWDY", but subsequent requests for other songs would become incomprehensible. Or at least indistinguishable.

d)Keep on the way we are. Which doesn't seem like too bad an idea to me. Sure, it offends some folks. But, I've found, the only way to avoid offending anyone is to do nothing.

There is a wide spectrum of bawdy song, ranging from the one in question to the clever, witty ones. But they're all part of folk music. Folk NEVER has been a value judgment. And, since we can't find any agreement on the meaning of "Traditional", I would submit that the song in question fits the bill better than one like, f'rinstance, Waist Deep in Big Muddy (which I happen to prefer).

And, by the way WISIWYG, what did I sing in your living room?

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Ferrara
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 09:34 PM

London Derriere, maybe, Dick? Or Farouk?

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: jimmyt
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 10:06 PM

Oh, come on! If this person is in fact a researcher who has any thoughts about getting cooperation from the masses of mudcat, wouldn't it be easier for him to post a thread title like "Need Bawdy Lyrics" rather than what stuff he or she has used for titles of threads" It seems that just a little sensitivity would provide the researcher with what he wants while keeping the titles within normal limits for us nonresearchers? Just a suggestion.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 10:10 PM

jimmyt-
Problem with that is how is one to tell just which bawdy lyrics he's looking for? And, who has set the "normal limits"?

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 10:32 PM

The title offends me, but I support John's right to use Mudcat afor his research and have the explicit words in the title.

It would be good to have a BS-like category that we could filter out if we don't want to see such titles.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Apr 05 - 11:13 PM

Dick, all I recall is laughing my ass off, and that ought to be enough to recommend the genre. You know the pressures my husband and I face in a life of ministry-- and a little relief is ALWAYS welcome. I have spent time at John M's site letting all the world fade away. I'd be sorry to see the work he does muzzled in any way. Still, I realize the situation for people whose work access will block a site with explicitness.

I am betting Mr. Mehlberg can find a workable and creative approach, and that the rudeness of some of the ways people have offered their input will kinda roll off his back. Mudcat has a meanness about it these days-- everyone is so defensive, it feels like every little puff of wind instantly becomes a divisive factor that cuts deep. I myself have often been accused of not having a sense of humor when it comes to certain things I've found offensive. Who is lacking a sense of humor now, eh?

~Susan

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 12:42 AM

Or --- another simple solution

Keep and reap Johnny's "Rugby Songs" in Monkey-Boy's Rugby-Thread.

No different than YSWYG legitamatly suggesting BaaBaa being linked to NEGRO SPIRITUALS! (what planet you been livin on girl?)

Mr. Mahlberg is doing "original field research" - data, is data, is data - and every bit adds to the community.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Rasener
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 12:58 AM

Why doesn't John Mehlberger ask Joe for a Perma Thread and head it up as "Research by John Mehlberger on very bawdy songs - Enter at your own peril" or something like that.

I am definately not against John researching his subject - in fact I fully support his efforts. However, would it be possible to tone the thread title down please.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger - none
From: Barbara
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:31 AM

Objection to JohnMehlberger.
I have none. He is researching the topic, and I find his songs and searches interesting. I had no idea there were so many dirty songs I'd never heard of at all; and I like to see who does recognize them, what part of the country, what community, what era produced what. It tells what our culture is and how we change (or not).
Taboos are a crucial defining tool for any group, and who knows how they will change in the future?
Think how most of us react to songs that were bowlderized when they were collected in the last couple centuries.
Most of John's songs I would never sing, but hey, most of everything posted here I wouldn't sing. A song has to strike me a certain way before I'll learn it.
Perhaps if John posts his songs by the part of the title that doesn't have the offensive word in it (if possible) it would ease some people's pain. But my ears won't fall off if I hear the f word (nor my eyeballs fall out).

Blessings,
Barbara

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: John O'L
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:32 AM

I think it's a little bizarre that he's started a thread with 'motherfucker' in the title, and then a thread in which people can object to 'motherf----er'.

Seems to me he should have done it the other way around.
But then if he had, he wouldn't have needed the second thread, would he?

Being a serious researcher and collector doesn't preclude him from being a shit stirrer as well.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: RobbieWilson
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 01:41 AM

I have a problem with thread titles like the Eat.......   thread, in that I log in to mudcat at work where the system has a profanity filter. So it is not a case of "don't enter this thread if you are going to be offended" I cannot get into the forun at all while such titles are in the list.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 02:17 AM

Seems to me if your kids are smart enough to get to Mudcat and recognize the word 'fuck' they're smart enough o click on a thread title with the word 'f--k' in it.

After all, do you try to censor their foul-mouthed little friends on the playground? How successful do you think it'd be?

I'm repelled by all the songs in the Mofo Ball thread - all I read, anyway - but freedom of speech isn't just for stuff I like.

clint

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 04:27 AM

Freedom of speech, fine.

Incitement to (for example) racial violence - probably not fine.

Incitement to (for example) socially unacceptable other practices - where does one draw the line?

I think JM does his research in probably the only effective way, so unless we are to deny the research (which must itself be valid) we must accept the way it is done. It's not the same as actually doing harm to the non-consenting (smoking beagles in the name of tobacco research, etc)

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 07:05 AM

Surely the offensiveness of a word is the product of how and where it is used, it is not intrinsically offensive in itself. Asking for information about the Motherfuckers Ball for resaerch purposes, on a folk music forum, is surely a completely different kettle of fish from going up to someone in a bar and saying "Out of the way, motherfucker". The latter is rude, and will get you your nose broken. The former, as far as I am concerned, isnt.
    B ut I do recognise that some people have deep seated taboos,(and I include "me" in "some people"). So maybe John should consider writing "M....f....." or something similar, in the thread titles. Quite why one is less offensive than the other is beyond me, but if it will please people, and not reduce the information content of the post in any way, perhaps it would be a good compromise. If a tad hypocritical....but then you have to be, sometimes.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 07:13 AM

I'm with breezy.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 07:39 AM

I am as disgusted as breezy is, but I differ in that I don't want to open the doors to censorship on the basis of mere disgust. Clint Keller's statement is very important for me: "freedom of speech isn't just for stuff I like".

It is too important a principle to compromise. Some principles have to be preserved in black and white, because once the grey seeps in, no matter how well intentioned, you can no longer defend the principle and you are on the path to dictatorship.

I don't believe a court of law would find John's use of the words punishable. I cannot then "punish" him, reprimand him or censor him outside the law. If I don't like the law, I strive to change it; until then, I obey it.

But I can say that I find his use of the full word disgusting.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 07:53 AM

El Grecko, one can use the filter box to filter out any thread titles which may contain offensive words. Just tick the little box which says "FILTER OUT" then enter whatever words which might twist the knickers, then hit GO!:-)

I agree with Ferrara.

kat

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: greg stephens
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 08:01 AM

katlaughing: you dont seem to be agrreing with Ferrara at all. She is advocating some censorship of profanity from Mehlberg's posts, you are pointing out there is an existing filter system you can use if you want, so the censorship isnt needed. You seem pretty much opposed to Ferrara as far as I can see.
    Personally, I think no censorship should be imposed, but that John M might consider a little self-imposed toning down in his thread titles, if that's what it takes to please some shockable people. But he should definitely continue is work, and continue using Mudcat as one of his avenues of exploration.

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 08:09 AM

I think the real root of the problem here is in whether Mother Fucker is indeed two words or just one and does Motherfucker imply something different when written as one word. A collateral issue that's germane to this would also be whether or not the word(s) should be capitalized.

.....ferchrissakes.............

Spaw

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 08:58 AM

"Being a serious researcher and collector doesn't preclude him from being a shit stirrer as well."

Just as posting with a username doesn't preclude people being shit stirrers too.

One would think it is a no brainer to identify one who is devoted exclusively to the research of such marginal, largely offensive songs, to having some serious shit stirring proclivities, no? Especially when they get all up in the face of those whom they know to be easily offended?

The words don't bother me. I hate the sexist and often abusive content of the lyrics in question. I hate even more that no one else has drawn attention to that aspect of these songs except a handful of people. But what I hate most is the impulse to censor here.

I also think it is pretty hilarious that people still think of this website as a legitmate research resource for serious scholars.

Barbara made this excellent point when she said:

"Taboos are a crucial defining tool for any group, and who knows how they will change in the future?"

It is true that we can learn about a culture by studying the subject matters that culture has defined as taboo. But this sort of research isn't all that revealing because, as others have noted elsewhere, these sorts of sexist, machismo songs are universal. All it tells us is what we already know--that the planet has been dominated by patriarch societies that allow men to "blow off steam" legitimately by singing these sorts of offensive songs, especially in traditionally all male settings like the military.

There are probably thousands of these songs that are much more offensive to our contemporary ears being sung by the soldiers in Iraq right now. Does anyone know if the singing of those songs are negatively impacting female soldiers, including the high incidence of female soldiers reportedly being raped by their male comrades there? If the singing of racist machismo songs had anything to do with creating a climate where the abuse at Abu Ghraib occurred?

I guess nobody wants to think about the truly serious aspects of legitimate research into these kinds of songs like that, do they?

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Cool Beans
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 09:26 AM

You know what offends me? All this ranting from those who aren't bright enough to get the man's name right. As WYSIWYG and Greg Stephens have noted, it's Mehlberg, not Mehlberger. If you're going to complain about someone or something, at least identify it correctly. Sheesh, some of you are like the folks who protest a movie without having seen it.
C.B.
Former copy editor (and lousy typist)

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 10:10 AM

you all will notice that those thread titles have NOT been censored yet! Joe and others who have the ability to do so have tried to thoroughly explore the issue and not go off half---ummmmm....

What many of us who have stated 'some' reservations to explicit thread titles are trying to do is request voluntary adherence to language in titles which would avoid the issue of 'censorship'. Several suggestions have been made ...any of which would work. I simply can't see why anyone would insist on having the most extreme title possible, when a less controversial one would do.

If John had used a toned down title, and then noted the precise words in the body, you wouldn't be demanding the more explict title, would you?

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 10:18 AM

John is looking for a reaction to posting dirty little ditties. He has gotten it. If his desire to research them was genuine, we wouldn't even be having this conversation, because a legitimate researcher wouldn't engage in this sort of shit stirring.

I object to the same lame old double standard of what Joe censors and what he doesn't more than anything. But it doesn't really matter in the end, because Joe will do what Joe damn well pleases, members be damned.

---

Joe doesn't have a double standard. You just don't understand his standard. On a music forum, songs are protected - even if they ARE dirty ditties.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Objection to JohnMehlberger
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 29 Apr 05 - 11:05 AM

GUEST, you clearly have an axe to grind, you admitted so yourself earlier in saying that you have been censored in the past. And so accuse Joe of double standard.

You may be right in your grudge - I don't know. If you care to post detils of the case where you were unfairly censored (not here, but in the "Censorship in Mudcat" thread), then we may be able to judge.

Until then, and as long as you post anonymously, your grudge is moot and by necessity ignored.