Restraining on stage

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: GUEST,thurg
Date: 25 Jun 06 - 09:10 PM

Malcolm - "Hope we meet in person some day" - Remember: be careful what you wish for! Anyway, I second that hope, and wish you good luck with your "situation". Let us know how it all turns out.

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: GUEST,Joe_F
Date: 25 Jun 06 - 10:26 PM

Don Firth: Calling Beethoven "Nazi music" is bizarre, but Wagner is a delicate case, because he actually was a vile antisemite, and it is pretty clear that if he was not a Nazi it was only because he did not live long enough. I have seen a quotation from him that could have come straight out of _Mein Kampf_. Understandably, for a long time it was impossible to perform his operas in Israel; but in recent years, I have read, it has happened.

--- Joe Fineman    [e-mail]

||: Mass entertainers have all the vices of politicians, and none of the excuses. :||

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: frogprince
Date: 25 Jun 06 - 10:57 PM

Mo, Alice, & Genie; please don't take this as a hostile argument with you. I consider it quite appropriate for Newton, as an anti-slavery campaigner looking back on his own days as a slaver, to have written "a wretch like me". But the second dictionary definition for "wretch" goes, "a person regarded as base, mean, despicable, or vile". Now try to put yourself in the mind of a developing child with severely low self esteem, who believes that he deserves a lot of emotional abuse that he has received. Now imagine how he, feeling despicable and vile, appreciates being saved despite that. Not the healthiest emotional, or spiritual situation.
                            Dean

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: Alice
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 12:20 AM

It wasn't my idea to change the word, so I don't take anything you've written personally, frogprince.

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: SharonA
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 01:28 AM

GregB sez: "If my name is Randolph, I can't walk up to a bird (oops, offensive, sorry, I meant 'woman') in an American bar and say 'Hello, I'm Randy.' And selling 'fanny packs' as a minor piece of luggage is right out."

Greg, I'm not sure what part of America you're referring to. Around here (Philadelphia PA area -- Mudcat HQ country!), there are plenty of guys named Randy. In fact, near my home there is the office of a man who runs a construction business under his own name: Randy Beaver. Politically incorrect, without doubt, but nonetheless true! (And local shops do sell "fanny packs"!)


Dean sez: "I consider it quite appropriate for Newton, as an anti-slavery campaigner looking back on his own days as a slaver, to have written 'a wretch like me'... Now imagine how he, feeling despicable and vile, appreciates being saved despite that. Not the healthiest emotional, or spiritual situation."

Especially since Newton continued to ply the slave trade even after his conversion in 1748! According to this site, in his post-conversion state, "he saw to it that the slaves under his care were treated humanely" and apparently gave up slaving only when a "serious illness" made him give up sailing altogether. How wretched, indeed, must he have been to think that there was anything "humane" about the slave trade. I'm afraid that I get so worked up about it, and about his song's self-absorption (he's come through dangers, toils and snares? What about the dangers, toils and snares he put all those slaves through? Seems like the wretch is still blind to that!!) that I cannot bring myself to sing "Amazing Grace" at all!


I tend to agree with the position expressed here that the historical significance of un-PC lyrics outweighs the offense they might give to people who wish to abolish them because times have changed. There are lyrics that I find too offensive to sing myself (the bawdy stuff, mostly), but I still think that they should not be censored out of existence, largely because they mark how times have changed.

That said, if I find myself playing a gig at which I feel that a particular song or type of song would not be appropriate, I will (sometimes regretfully) refrain from putting it on my set list. Recently I performed as part of a folk trio at a retirement center, and the three of us decided not to perform two of my original songs, each of which included an older-gentleman character who dies in the story. Likewise, I perform no songs with adult-only themes at gigs where kids are present. So I don't see a big difference between that sort of self-censorship and the sort where one would refrain from singing a chanty about "yella gals" at, say, an affirmative-action rally (save it for a sea-chanty festival where listeners tend to have a perspective that appreciates the historical background of the term).

Ah, but then there are the political songs... there, I find I have less sensitivity toward listeners who might be offended by the point of view I express! Yesterday I sang backup at a friend's gig, and during a set which included many of his songs about the Iraq war, he invited me to sing a song of mine entitled "Lullaby for the Night Before a War." As I was introducing it (and correcting myself from saying that "we" went to war to saying that Bush and his administration decided that our military would go), an older couple got up and left. I don't know if I offended them, but I figured that if I did, my friend's previous song about objecting to the bombings of children in Afghanistan must've offended them too, so why had they stayed and listened this long?? Incidentally, my friend has told me that at another gig, he sang his Afghanistan song and a young man came up to him during his next break and angrily questioned his patriotism.

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 06:03 AM

and during a set which included many of his songs about the Iraq war, he invited me to sing a song of mine entitled "Lullaby for the Night Before a War." As I was introducing it (and correcting myself from saying that "we" went to war to saying that Bush and his administration decided that our military would go), an older couple got up and left. I don't know if I offended them, but I figured that if I did, my friend's previous song about objecting to the bombings of children in Afghanistan must've offended them too, so why had they stayed and listened this long??
SharonA

Could it be that the couple who left didn't particularly agree with the point of view in the songs about Iraq, but were prepared to sit through one or two, but when it looked like turning into a whole night of them, they decided enough was enough.

I often find gigs with too many songs on the same theme rather wearisome, especially if it's unannounced. The only time it works for me is with very good acts indeed, and even then it's very hit and miss.

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: Alice
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 09:25 AM

Plenty of guys named Randy here, and people don't connect the name to anything sexual. Now, if your name was Horny, that would be different.

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: Scoville
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 10:15 AM

"The saying that "if God had not wanted the races to intermarry, he wouldn't have made their kids so gorgeous" has a lot more than a grain of truth to it. Hybrids are well known in agriculture and animal breeding for their viability and tendency to have desirable phenotypic traits."

Interracial people are not hybrids. Hybridization is between SPECIES--horse and donkey, dog and wolf, different species of corn, etc. There is only one species of human and unless there are some successful human-bonobo children running around somewhere that I didn't hear about, there are no anthropoid hybrids. Interracial people are simply interracial.





While I don't think terms that are not PC in modern settings should be forgotten, I generally don't think it's worth the offense they can cause to force them on my audience. I try to introduce anything I play or sing, but mostly I find that a lot of people--not all, but a lot--don't have the background to completely grasp the context of the song. If it's a *very* select audience that I know very well, I might play something a little more risky, but mostly I don't think it's worth the potential misunderstandings.

What, exactly, is accomplished by using the original "darkies" in place of "old folks" when singing "Kentucky"? The recordings and sheet music still exist. The original format is not extinct. However, some terms don't need to be propogated in common speech and I'm afraid I think that that is one of them. As a white girl in the Southern U.S., where this is still a very sensitive issue (because, unfortunately, there still are plenty of people who take their racial epithets and stereotypes seriously) I definitely don't want anyone to think I normally talk like that, think of people in those terms, or approve of (or, at least, turn a blind eye to) those references.

I have interracial friends whom I know would take issue with the word "yellow", and I really don't think it's my business to tell them what they should and should not be sensitive about. My best friend is black/white/Latina and tells me she gets very tired of being "not Latina enough", "not black enough", and being asked "what are you?". When people ask me that, they're just curious about my ancestry since I'm obviously white (except I'm named after Sojourner Truth--watching them try to reconcile face with name is pretty priceless) but when they ask her that, they're trying to pigeonhole her. I guarantee you she could live without the term "octoroon".

So, yeah--I do get sick of the PC stuff. I'm getting pretty tired of all the religious songs changing "father" to "mother" or whatever because it's supposed to make me feel more included, and I think being asked to change "wretch" in "Amazing Grace" is overkill (I wouldn't have done it). On the other hand, a lot of the racial stuff isn't critical to the story line of the song.

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: Greg B
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 12:13 PM

Yes, indeed, 'Randy' means something innocuous in America, and
that was just my point. If we're to lower ourselves to the lowest
internationally and interculturally neutral denominator, then we
must purge nicknames like 'Randy' from American parlance, lest
a Brit overhear and misunderstand, terms like 'spotted dick' from
British parlance lest a Yank misconstrue and so on.

We thus all get reduced to a common shade of graey.

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: Rusty Dobro
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 01:12 PM

I've found this a really thought-provoking thread, but other than a general rule of 'think about what you're going to sing, and if it's going to offend anyone, think again', I'm probably more confused than ever. My wife hates the first verse of a talking blues I do about our county town, and try as I might, I can't find anything other than a totally neutral mention of our (largely peaceful and thriving) multiculturalism. So far, I'm still singing it.

It's so easy and so misleading to impose present-day standards onto the past: my father is currently receiving the best of medical treatment in a London hospital whose staff represent nearly every nation on earth,and he is full of praise for the 'darkie' nurses - no insult, no condescension - it's just that he grew up in South London in the 1920's and that's the baggage he's left with. His own father described some of his neighbours as Yids, but his best friend was Mr Levy the tailor down the road. I'm embarrassed and uncomfortable with this, same as I was on a Bronx subway train when a group of teenagers routinely used the 'n word' about each other but then, I grew up in a country village.

Nah, still confused.

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: Kaleea
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 01:32 PM

There are a great many songs which have terminology which implies or openly references that which would not be proper for many audiences these days, or could be interpreted as such. This is because I have a great love of old songs, songs of history, and yes, even songs by Stephen Foster. Shall we banish all Bluegrass because mayhem is a popular subject?   Should all policically incorrect lyrics be tossed aside? Or, is it possible that we can perform some of these songs and use them to help our audiences to understand our history? There are certainly venues such as senior centers where I will honor requests for some of these songs, as the songs can bring moments of happiness-not because of the specific word in question, but the memories of the happy times in their lives around the period in their lives when these songs were popular. Yet, I will refrain from performing some of those same songs for children & some adult audiences. There are times when I can help my audience to understand the songs from a historical perspective, and how today things are different. I believe that the difference is, as Azizi has helped us to understand, that when we realize the meanings of certain terms & phrases, & why they are considered disrespectful, we can learn to use restraint when needed, and, perhaps, help others to also understand.
While there will always be some people who will always find an argument, no matter what we sing or do not sing, we can learn to be respectful of the people in our audiences, and those of whom we sing.

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: stallion
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 02:09 PM

We have around sixty songs we can do well enough to perform on stage, we were once asked to sing no "miserable" songs and no "Bawdy" songs, that cut us down to , about, three. Seriously, we did leave out some some songs in the US cos we were not sure how they would go down. One was "Dogger Bank" which has a line in the chorus " She's a proper Jooby Joo", which I gather is a term for a boat that doesn't sail in a straight line, or maybe not as quick as it might, the other was "Stormy Weather" having re-assembled it to it's former glory it was thought too bawdy and might cause offence1

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: SharonA
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 03:14 PM

Bunnahabhain sez: "I often find gigs with too many songs on the same theme rather wearisome, especially if it's unannounced. The only time it works for me is with very good acts indeed, and even then it's very hit and miss."
I totally agree with you! If I'd been an audience member at my friend's gig, I might have walked away too because of the tedium factor (but, as his employee on stage for the evening, I was kinda stuck there!). I don't like his idea of turning his 2 sets into mini-shows on 2 themes (usually Set 1 is romance and Set 2 is sections of the newspaper), but I'm afraid there's no convincing him to stray from it. He's even recorded a CD of songs all from the first theme and is planning a CD about the second theme. Excruciating. I wonder how many more times he can get even his loyal fans to come out to hear the same songs (and the same patter about them) in much the same order, over and over again.

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: Genie
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 03:19 PM

Scoville, the term "hybrid" applies within species as well. Just ask Gregor Mendel.

(But those "human-animal hybrids" our dear President has expressed concern about, hey, we really do gotta watch out for them. ;-D

=====
SharonA, Actually, I think Randy Beaver and Peter Horney are pretty well known around town and know each other well too.   (Just becareful about singing about them at church functions.)
===
Sharon, I was under the impression that Newton did not writer Amazing Grace until very late in his life, many years after his conversion.   Am I wrong?

I still think the whole sense of the lyrics to Amazing Grace is lost if it's not sung from the perspective of one who has felt the need for salvation from a "wretched" (unhappy, unfortunate, or miserable) condition by "Grace." If you're going to throw out "wretch," why not throw out "I once was lost ... was blind" too?    The whole idea of God loving and saving people by Grace flies against the interpretation of "wretch" as meaning "worthless."
I can understand why some people may not like the lyrics or the beliefs they express, but I'd rather people not sing it -- or just play the melody -- than try to turn it into a secular humanist song.
(As for the song being about Newton's own salvation and not about the ordeals of those he abused, I don't think any song needs to be all-encompassing in its theme.)

===
On Wagner's anti-Semitism, I can understand why Israel only recently has gotten beyond banning his music. But should Christians refrain from singing Fairest Lord Jesus because it was the hymn sung by the Crusaders as they slaughtered "infidels?"   After a few generations have passed by, I hope that artistic works can be appreciated on their own merits and not be censored because of the character flaws of those who created them.

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: SharonA
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 05:05 PM

Hi, Genie! No, you're not wrong; Newton did indeed write "AG" late in life (1773). And I agree with you that a song does not need to be all-encompassing in its theme; better a bunch of short songs on various aspects of the theme than one excruciatingly long uberballad. I guess what I was trying to say is that I don't see the same kind of connection between "AG" and Newton's own conversion that Dean was trying to make (and that I find the two so mutually exclusive as to be very disturbing to me).

The 1748 conversion, from the summaries I've read (I have not yet read Newton's own 1764 account, but he was a minister by then so I'm guessing I'd have to read between the lines of some ministerial rhetoric), was made during a long storm at sea when he feared his slave ship would sink and he would die, and he cried out, "Lord have mercy upon us." He attributed his and the ship's survival to God's mercy rather than happenstance or his own skill, hence the conversion. So it sounds to me like he was trying to save his skin in that fearful moment, that isolated circumstance, but was not reflecting on his miserable past or his wretched condition or his reprehensible lifestyle or wanting to change any of that. The song, too, seems to be all about him and what God did for him and will do for him. I don't hear anything about what the saved soul is supposed to give back in terms of dedication or attempting to live righteously, and I would feel less angst if he had included something -- anything -- about that in the song to balance it out. In light of Newton's continued involvement in the slave trade post-conversion, the song seems to be about getting a free no-obligation pass to heaven. (Even the part about singing God's praise, which would at least be some form of giving back, was not written by Newton but by Harriet Beecher Stowe in Uncle Tom's Cabin.)

So, to me, the song does more than display the author's character flaw; to me it exhorts Christians to feel the same way about God's grace and ignore the "grace without works is dead" part. (Yes, I know Newton eventually got around to the "works" part, when it was no longer convenient for him to be a slaver.) I guess I don't see as much inherent "merit" in the song as most people do.

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: Greg B
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 07:30 PM

I recall a priest friend of mine digging his heels in with
theological outrage when it was suggested that we sing
'Oh Holy Night' at Christmas mass.

It seems that 'long lay the world in sin and error
pining' is borderline heretical (in fact, vaguely
Gnostic) along with being a bit anti-semitic (validity
of first covenant and all that).

Then again, Catholicism has embraced 'Away in A Manger,'
allegedly penned by their nemesis, Marty Luther, just
because it's such a friendly singable little ditty.

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: Vixen
Date: 26 Jun 06 - 08:17 PM

The most notable restraint we practiced was when Reynaud and I were playing a gig which the local merchants' association had arranged for the occasion of a tourist train that came to town. We were set up at the train station, playing for the arrival and departure of said train (and 300+ tourists!). Reynaud had the banjo out, and started the intro for Wreck of Ol' '97. Needless to say, I managed to catch his eye and discourage him...We still laugh about it!

V

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Jun 06 - 07:12 PM

"If we start removing from the English language, even in the
context of old songs, every phrase which in some splinter of
English-speaking culture is questionable, we slide down a
slippery slope toward making everything a neutral gray (or
grey). "

Billy Connoly says his father taught him "Fight the Beige!"

Subject: RE: Restraining on stage
From: Genie
Date: 28 Jun 06 - 01:20 AM

Sharon, I guess the theological and biographical implications of Newton and Amazing Grace are beyond the scope of this thread topic, but let me say this in passing.

It may be that it took Newton several decades to "see the light" fully (or as fully as he could manage for his time and circumstance). While I understand your discomfort, I can separate a song from the shortcomings of its author, especially if that author has been dead quite a while.

I think it's obvious that Newton reached out to God in the storm initially to save his own skin. I had thought that he gave up the slave ship business when he got back to port. Is that just one of those historical myths?

As for the song being about what God did for him, I just see it as a personal reflection on the New Testament teaching that you are saved by God's grace, not by your works. (Although you are also admonished to do good works, the Christian teaching is that it is not those works that bring about your salvation.)

FWIW, Newton's poem had a whole lot of verses (not including the "10,000 years" verse), and I don't recall whether any of the other verses said anything about repentance or atonement for his past sins.

"The song seems to be about getting a free no-obligation pass to heaven." Well, yeah, I guess you could interpret the NT that way, but salvation is supposed to involve repentance. I think it's understood that a person who truly accepts God's grace will not continue in the old ways as if nothing had happened.

"I guess I don't see as much inherent "merit" in the song as most people do." The question I would ask is, would you find the song acceptable if you knew nothing about the life of its author?   

To give a more recent example, I think the song "Tomorrow Belongs To Me" (at least the verses I've heard) is beautiful. I won't sing it, especially around Jewish people, because it was the theme song for the Hitler Youth. But, hypothetically, if I were asked to sing it by someone who had just heard it and thought it was a pretty song, and if there were no one around who knew of its history, I would have no problem singing it. (For the record, I don't foresee that situation occurring.)