# The Grammys: What has happened to music??? (explicit)



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Just what the happened to music? Remember when it was enjoyable to relax and enjoy a song from an artist? Even Madonna was never this disgusting.

The nominees to receive the most prestigious awards in the music industry, the Grammy Awards, were just announced. Among the five nominees for Record of the Year is a song titled "F*** You," with the F-word, of course, spelled out, and pronounced.

Here are the song's opening lyrics:I see you driving 'round town
With the girl I love and I'm like,
F*** you!
Oo, oo, ooo
I guess the change in my pocket
Wasn't enough I'm like,
F*** you!
And F*** her too!​The next lyrics add the S-word:I said, if I was richer, I'd still be with ya
Ha, now ain't that some s**t? (ain't that some s**t?)
And although there's pain in my chest
I still wish you the best with a . . .
s**t you!
Oo, oo, ooo
​And shortly thereafter, the N-word:I picture the fool that falls in love with you
(oh s**t she's a gold digger)
Well
(just thought you should know *****)
Ooooooh​It is also worth noting that the video of this song includes children who appear to be under 12 years of age, and all the performers are black.

How does a song replete with expletives, whose very title is "F*** You," get nominated for a Grammy Award as Record of the Year?

There is no better explanation for "F*** You" being nominated as Record of the Year. It has little, if any, redeeming moral, social, or artistic (to the extent that this word retains its original meaning) value. The lyrics are as vapid as they are obscene; the video further degrades that part of black life that is already too lacking in elevation; and there is the participation of children in a profanity-filled video. For most of American history, a child who used such words was punished by his parents, and society instinctively knew how important it was not to expose children to obscenities. Today, adults in the music industry reward children for participating in videos laced with obscenities.

Nor is the nomination of "F*** You" as Song of the Year an aberration. Two of the other four nominees are rap "songs" whose lyrics are also vile.

Here are typical lyrics from Eminem's nominated "The Way You Lie":And I love it the more that I suffer
I suffocate
And right before I'm about to drown
She resuscitates me
She f***ing hates me
And I love it.
​And later on:
If she ever tries to f***ing leave again
I'ma tie her to the bed
And set the house on fire.
​The third nominee is an ode to New York City, "Empire State of Mind," performed by black rapper Jay-Z and Alicia Keys, and which also contains the N-word. It is worth recalling that when white radio-show host Laura Schlesinger used this word solely in order to condemn its use in inner-city black life, society's elite poured such wrath on her that it forced many of her sponsors to abandon her, and she decided to leave radio. But when Jay-Z uses it, he is rewarded with the nomination for the highest award in the music industry.

Two examples of the N-word use:

Say what's up to Ty-Ty, still sippin' mai tai's
sittin' courtside, Knicks & Nets give me high five
***** I be Spike'd out, I could trip a referee
Tell by my attitude that I'm most definitely from. . . .
You should know I bleed blue, but I ain't a Crip though
but I got a gang of ****** walkin' with my clique though . . .

This decay in the music industry is simply pathetic.


----------



## drded (Aug 23, 2006)

We tend to ignore history, but if we look back there are a lot of parallels to the fall of the Roman empire. Moral decadence being one of the main culture traits.

I have to agree with you, where is any sense of decency?

Dave


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

And before someone chimes in that this is no different from the times when we were so puritanical that we couldn't even mention the word "pregnant" on TV, permit me to say that this _*is *_different--very different. Times change; morals may change. However, this goes way beyond the bounds of human decency.

The word "*****" ("******") was grossly offensive in the 1950s and 1960s; it's equally offensive today. I don't see "F***" changing, either.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Lord Vader said:


> And before someone chimes in that this is no different from the times when we were so puritanical that we couldn't even mention the word "pregnant" on TV, permit me to say that this _*is *_different--very different. Times change; morals may change. However, this goes way beyond the bounds of human decency.
> 
> The word "[email protected]" ("n!XXer") was grossly offensive in the 1950s and 1960s; it's equally offensive today. I don't see "F***" changing, either.


While I enjoy songs with both (and other) words in them (sadly), it's in SPITE of them. I support the right of expression, but by the same token, I'm of the same mind as Will Smith's grandmother... which is that some people do not have the necessary intelligence necessary to come up with more polite substitutions.

That being said, I know a lot of people who use profanity quite profusely in their daily lives who simply don't think anything of it. While the "f" word isn't quite as prevalent, the "n" word is often USED quite excessively here in the South... 

I LOVE this song, but the version I love is Gwyneth Paltrow's version from "Glee" which uses lyrics from the "Clean" version. It's entitled "Forget You." 

~Alan


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Even the freedom of expression has limits.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

That's some f***ed up s**t


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Congratulations! You have just received a Grammy nomination with that posted reply!!!


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Lord Vader said:


> Even the freedom of expression has limits.


Yes, but is this it?!

Words are essentially just that... words.

The use of the "F" word is essentially no different than the term "whoopie" which was used in a song DECADES ago. It may sound more vulgar, but it's meaning is the same.

The "N" word is offensive... in that a group of people twisted another (less offensive) word into an offensive nickname implying a lack of intelligence on the part of the person being called it. I find it distasteful, but the word only has power when there is hatred behind it and given Cee-Lo's skin color, I seriously doubt he was implying any racial inferiority. Come to South Georgia and listen to ********, and the word will become FAR more offensive... I promise you.

~Alan


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I've spent plenty of time in the South, believe me. Regardless of who says the "N" word, it's offensive. 

Freedoms are not absolute, and the Grammys are not a governmental entity. I am quite the opposite of a puritanical, hypersensitive person; however, these "songs" are not deserving of an award, let alone a nomination.


----------



## TheRatPatrol (Oct 1, 2003)

I agree, what has happened to music? I don't listen to a lot of todays music, mostly because I can't keep up with them all and some of the artists sound closely alike to me. I'm one of the ones still stuck in the 70's and 80's.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

A *Grammy Music *Award is now an oxymoron.

The dumbing down of America continues.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

TheRatPatrol said:


> I agree, what has happened to music? I don't listen to a lot of todays music, mostly because I can't keep up with them all and some of the artists sound closely alike to me. I'm one of the ones still stuck in the 70's and 80's.


When I'm in my car, which is quite a lot during my baseball season, despite all the channels my XM receiver gets, I still find myself listening to the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s channels probably 90% of the time. I can't even *name *a song from even the 1990s.

Wait! La Vida Loca by Ricky Martin! :eek2::eek2:

!rolling


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Lord Vader said:


> I've spent plenty of time in the South, believe me. Regardless of who says the "N" word, it's offensive.


AGREED!

My point is simply that all words require you to assign meaning to them. These words are essentially only vulgar because of our knowledge surrounding their meaning, particularly case of the "N" word... a word whose meaning started out in a MUCH less offensive manner until it was warped.

While I find them vulgar, and many times offensive, I am (often) more offended by HOW a person uses the words instead of the words themselves.



Lord Vader said:


> Freedoms are not absolute, and the Grammys are not a governmental entity. I am quite the opposite of a puritanical, hypersensitive person; however, these "songs" are not deserving of an award, let alone a nomination.


While I've stated that I am a fan of the "Clean" version (AKA, "Forget You") as sung by Gwyneth Paltrow on "Glee" and the "Glee" soundtrack (Volume 4), I am certainly not advocating it winning an award or even a nomination (particularly the nominated Cee-Lo "explicit version").

~Alan


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I often wonder if the great Rock-n-Roll singers who have long departed would be spinning in their graves over some of the schit today that passes as music entertainment.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Lord Vader said:


> I often wonder if the great Rock-n-Roll singers who have long departed would be spinning in their graves over some of the schit today that passes as music entertainment.


You actually have to wonder that?! 

~Alan


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

I get it...you don't like it, so it sucks? Old people said the same thing about your generation's music.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

No they didn't, because as I explained above, it's not the same thing. Different tastes is one thing; vulgarity, profanity, and degradation are another.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> No they didn't, because as I explained above, it's not the same thing. Different tastes is one thing; vulgarity, profanity, and degradation are another.


At one point in time, Elvis was considered to be vulgar as well. This is just the latest round in a generational cycle. Terminology, verbiage, vocal expression...always evolving, but not always in a way acceptable to many.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> No they didn't, because as I explained above, it's not the same thing. Different tastes is one thing; vulgarity, profanity, and degradation are another.


There was none of that before recent music?

Frank Zappa?
GG Allin?
Peter Wyngarde?
Slayer?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> At one point in time, Elvis was considered to be vulgar as well. This is just the latest round in a generational cycle. Terminology, verbiage, vocal expression...always evolving, but not always in a way acceptable to many.


Elvis's hip swiveling was considered unacceptable and risque, but it was nowhere near the absolute filth of what was referenced in my OP.



sigma1914 said:


> There was none of that before recent music?
> 
> Frank Zappa?
> GG Allin?
> ...


I never said there wasn't, but Zappa never got as disgusting as some of today's "singers."


----------



## Eddie501 (Nov 29, 2007)

Tricks with fruit is kinda cute. I'll bet you keep your ******* clean. Yeah, you're a Star****, Star*****, Star*****, Star. - The Rolling Stones - 1973.

Personally I'm much less offended by C-Lee's song containing a vulgarity than I am with the vapid, lazy, auto-tuned, cookie cutter music that litter the radio airwaves these days. That's much more degrading to music than a great song with an F word in it.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Use of the "F" word like Eminem and C-Lee is bad today; it was bad then. However, we're not going to find the use of these words and the intense filth back then as badly as we would today.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> ...
> 
> I never said there wasn't, but Zappa never got as disgusting as some of today's "singers."


Have you heard Joe's Garage?

Or Absolutely Free?


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I refuse to listen to that filth. :lol:


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> I refuse to listen to that filth. :lol:


Exactly...Zappa wrote some filth.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Neither he nor other singers of that generation were as consistently disgusting as many of today's. Different generation is one thing--and I have no qualms about that--but when it's almost an entire generation that acts like this, it's a different story.


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

I understand what you are saying, but you're looking at everything from only your current perspective. The music you mentioned in your first post is vulgar and whatnot compared to current standards...compared to current popular, but non-vulgar music. Elvis was considered to be just as disturbing in his early career, compared to standards of that time and popular music acts of the prior generation.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Hoosier205 said:


> The music you mentioned in your first post is vulgar and whatnot compared to current standards...compared to current popular, but non-vulgar music.


The music I mentioned is ultra-vulgar now; it was ultra-vulgar then. Elvis is not. When such "music" remains so profane over many decades, that's saying something. Elvis et. al. were a single generational dilemma; many of today's singers are quite different, quite worse. Therein lies the difference that you do not seem to comprehend.


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

sigma1914 said:


> There was none of that before recent music?
> 
> Frank Zappa?
> GG Allin?
> ...





sigma1914 said:


> Have you heard Joe's Garage?
> 
> Or Absolutely Free?





sigma1914 said:


> Exactly...Zappa wrote some filth.


The difference is that those artists (and many others) were "fringe" artists that were known for "filth". Other than Valley Girl, are there any Grammy's there? Today's filth is accepted and rewarded. That's a big difference.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

It's just music...big deal. It's like movies...we all have different tastes and none of us are the morality police. No one forces the music on you. 

It's simple generational differences. Heck, there's hip-hop fans my age (32) who are now old enough to not like today's generation of hip-hop. My fraternity (historically black) mentors kids (often black) & we often joke with them about today's artists. We feel old after those fun debates. :lol:


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> The difference is that those artists (and many others) were "fringe" artists that were known for "filth". Other than Valley Girl, are there any Grammy's there? Today's filth is accepted and rewarded. That's a big difference.


Slayer was nominated 5 times & won 2 Grammy's.

Zappa received the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 1997 & a Grammy. He had a song nominated, too.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

One man's filth is another man's entertainment.

If you don't like it don't listen to it...


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

You miss the point.

This goes beyond a matter of opinion or a matter of taste, for there are certain things innately vile and completely unacceptable to anyone. Period.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> You miss the point.
> 
> This goes beyond a matter of opinion or a matter of taste, for there are certain things innately vile and completely unacceptable to anyone. Period.


The F word & N word (used in slang form) are "innately vile and completely unacceptable to anyone?"


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Ahhhh, the days of Glenn Miller.........


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Hmmm. I remember when all this decadence started. From Wikipedia, since I don't want to rely on my fading memory:


> [Elvis] Presley made the first of two appearances on NBC's Milton Berle Show on April 3 [1956]. His performance, on the deck of the USS Hancock in San Diego, prompted cheers and screams from an audience of sailors and their dates.... After a show in La Crosse, Wisconsin, an urgent message on the letterhead of the local Catholic diocese's newspaper was sent to FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. It warned that "Presley is a definite danger to the security of the United States. ... [His] actions and motions were such as to rouse the sexual passions of teenaged youth. ... After the show, more than 1,000 teenagers tried to gang into Presley's room at the auditorium. ... Indications of the harm Presley did just in La Crosse were the two high school girls ... whose abdomen and thigh had Presley's autograph."
> 
> The second Milton Berle Show appearance came on June 5 at NBC's Hollywood studio, amid another hectic tour. Berle persuaded the singer to leave his guitar backstage, advising, "Let 'em see you, son." During the performance, Presley abruptly halted an uptempo rendition of "Hound Dog" with a wave of his arm and launched into a slow, grinding version accentuated with energetic, exaggerated body movements. Presley's gyrations created a storm of controversy.Television critics were outraged: Jack Gould of The New York Times wrote, "Mr. Presley has no discernible singing ability. ... His phrasing, if it can be called that, consists of the stereotyped variations that go with a beginner's aria in a bathtub. ... His one specialty is an accented movement of the body ... primarily identified with the repertoire of the blond bombshells of the burlesque runway." Ben Gross of the New York Daily News opined that popular music "has reached its lowest depths in the 'grunt and groin' antics of one Elvis Presley. ... Elvis, who rotates his pelvis ... gave an exhibition that was suggestive and vulgar, tinged with the kind of animalism that should be confined to dives and bordellos". Ed Sullivan, whose own variety show was the nation's most popular, declared him "unfit for family viewing". To Presley's displeasure, he soon found himself being referred to as "Elvis the Pelvis", which he called "one of the most childish expressions I ever heard, comin' from an adult."


Yep, it all went downhill from there and by the mid-1960's wild sex crazed, unrespectful kids were tearing our nation down...until wise people in power with real American family values fearing the fall of our way of life arranged to shoot a few of them at Kent State University.:nono2:


----------



## redfiver (Nov 18, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> You miss the point.
> 
> This goes beyond a matter of opinion or a matter of taste, for there are certain things innately vile and completely unacceptable to anyone. Period.


I think you missed the point. I don't find the use of 'F*ck You' in Cee-Lo's same titled song to be at all vile or unacceptable. In fact, the use of any other word in the context of the song would be vile and unacceptable. it's a song of angst and unrequited love. And he's pissed. I get it. Sure, some folks might not like it when someone says 'F*ck You', but in this particular instance, nothing quite gets the point across as this does. It actually disgusted me a bit when the 'soft' version was released, replacing 'F*ck You' with 'Forget You'... it just doesn't have the same impact and was just softened up for the Wal-Mart folks. In my opinion, an artist complying with corporate and/or social group pressure is vile and unacceptable. You're an artist. We live in the USA. Express yourself how you want. It's the viewer/listener's responsibility to watch/listen or not.

Your argument is exactly the same as past generations. This same argument will happen again in 10/20/30/40 years. Sure, people said 'F*ck You' in the 50's, but it never would have shown up on TV or radio, because we were even more puritanical back then.

It's fine if you don't like it. I think it's great you don't like it. People liking different thinks is what makes the world great. And our country great for accepting many points of view. But it's not the end of society. There are several fundamentalist groups in other areas of the globe that think the USA has morally corrupted itself and is a reason to hate where we are headed. I choose to disagree. We are headed forward. It's hard for folks to change, but change is the only constant.

Please, continue to dislike the use of 'F*ck You' in songs and complain about how you think it's not good. I respect your right to do so. But please realize, this won't bring about the end of society. It's just a change in the vernacular that you might not be ready for... or may never be ready for. If you look at history, change has usually been met with much resistance... but it has a funny way of happening anyway.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> This goes beyond a matter of opinion or a matter of taste, for there are certain things innately vile and completely unacceptable to anyone. Period.


I'm sorry, for this quote to be true the word "anyone" needs to be replaced with "me."

Otherwise, these artists would not be selling and winning awards.

And they don't particularly want you to like their music, Lord Vader, just as Elvis didn't care much what the older generation thought of him in the 1950s, or the Beatles in the 1960s, or the Clash in the 70s...

I don't listen to much music at all, I never use these "vile" words myself, but I try to keep a sense of perspective. And I'm 52 years old.

"Rock 'n Roll: The most brutal, ugly, desperate, vicious form of expression it has been my misfortune to hear."--Frank Sinatra


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Time to note that the Grammy's are not about the best music, or even good music. They're about which record company paid the most and had the most influence over the judges. I put them on about the same par as the Better Business Bureau and Monster Cable.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

Every generation will scorn the next and it's music. 

What I find funny is that we live in a time where so many horrible things are taking place with war and rampant corruption but some pop songs are being hailed as a sign of the demise of civilization.

Get a grip people. You sound like a bunch of old geezers sitting on a street bench yelling at hippies to get a haircut.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Huh?? Whu'd you say there sonny??? Dagnabbed hearin' contraption's goin' on the fritz ag'in.


----------



## greatwhitenorth (Jul 18, 2005)

SayWhat? said:


> Time to note that the Grammy's are not about the best music, or even good music. They're about which record company paid the most and had the most influence over the judges. I put them on about the same par as the Better Business Bureau and Monster Cable.


Yes, record companies do have influence, but that's because the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS) are the voters. Who are the members? Record company employees, artists, songwriters, singers, promoters, namely all music insiders. As far as actual corruption, I've never heard of any scandal, however, you can usually guess the winners by looking at sales figures and headcounts of the major labels. Yeah, they're biased, but they ain't the BBB!:lol:

As far as "good" music goes, you're right, the Grammy's tend to reward popular music, as opposed to music that pushes the boundaries and advances the art. But that's always been the nature of all art, "popular" does not always equal "good".


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

You are a witness to history: the crumbling of the very foundations of civilized society.

As a fervent defender of the English language, I am deeply saddened that it has come to this. Profanity and gutter-language have always been around but mostly in smoke-filled back-rooms, or when in public, usually uttered with a modicum of discretion. But somewhere along the way between then and now, things changed.

Today, we live in a world where foul-mouthed thuggz and millionaire gangsta wannabees are revered and rewarded for their potty mouth. Seems the only things standing between us and total cultural oblivion are our mothers and the FCC.

Can decency long survive in a world where there are no limits to what God-awful, foul-mouth filth can be uttered in public?


> ...that's always been the nature of all art, "popular" does not always equal "good"


TV is a perfect example of that.


----------



## jdh8668 (Nov 7, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> Have you heard Joe's Garage?
> 
> Or Absolutely Free?


Why does it hurt when I pee???
It jumped right up, and grabbed my meat!

Zappa's "Dynamo Hum"
Dynamo Hum, Dynamo Hum, 30 bucks and I'll make you cum.

But let us not forget Zappa's "Billy the Mountain's" final chorus
Remember
A mountain is something you don't want to F**k with...

Yes those are lyrics you wouldn't want to sing around your mother, but back then, they never made top 40 radio either. Although I did slip Dynamo Hum on one night on a alternative radio station I was working at back in the late 70's. My brother had been grabbing some beer at a grocery store, and they had my station playing in the background. He called me from a pay phone, laughing hysterically. I guess other customers in the store were discussing among themselves "did I hear what I thought I just heard?"


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Nick said:


> You are a witness to history: the crumbling of the very foundations of civilized society.
> 
> As a fervent defender of the English language, I am deeply saddened that it has come to this. Profanity and gutter-language have always been around but mostly in smoke-filled back-rooms, or when in public, usually uttered with a modicum of discretion. But somewhere along the way between then and now, things changed.
> 
> ...


I'm with you and Vader on this one Nick. But unfortunately it's falling on deaf ears.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Nick said:


> Seems the only things standing between us and total cultural oblivion are our mothers and the FCC.


The FCC can't even do much since the Supreme Court stripped a lot of their authority to regulate content.

Mothers? Ha! Remember that a lot of the foul mouthed girls today will be the mothers of tomorrow.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> You miss the point.
> 
> This goes beyond a matter of opinion or a matter of taste, for there are certain things innately vile and completely unacceptable to anyone. Period.


The F word is not "innately vile and completely unacceptable" to me.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I don't disagree with some of the sentiment...

But I have to ask...

Why was it worth mentioning that "all the performers were black"?

That sounds like you are not only trying to make a statement about vulgarity BUT also to imply that being black = vulgar.

It seems odd, given you are complaining about the "n" word being offensive and at the same time yourself are taking swipe at black people by automatically associating them with vulgarity. Some would argue that part of your post was in itself vulgar.

Meanwhile... on the topic of language itself.

Our language is constantly evolving. Words change meaning too... Words that were innocuous 30 years ago are sometimes vulgar today and vice-versa.

That "f" word that set you off so much? It has an older Anglo-Saxon meaning of "to hit"... which is arguably not vulgar at all. When did it change to a sexual reference? I don't know. Also, when used as a curse word, it often has nothing to do with sex at all.

Gay, in a previous generation, meant happy frolicking, but has a dual meaning in modern times. Similarly, you will still find many British people referring to a cigarette as a "***" and some still use it to mean "being tired out."

Context is everything in language.

In our PC world today, some black people find being called "black" offensive even... and prefer something else (African-American in some cases)... so you really can't start a rant about offensive language without being very careful on opening the door.

I remember a couple of Rolling Stones songs that had outright cursing in them, and another that had a very clear reference to something sexual and a dead person. That last one gets played on the radio still today without edit.

I'm not necessarily defending vulgar language... but I'm not outright condemning it either.

One might even argue that a family forum is not the place to be discussing vulgarity


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> The music I mentioned is ultra-vulgar now; it was ultra-vulgar then. Elvis is not. When such "music" remains so profane over many decades, that's saying something. Elvis et. al. were a single generational dilemma; many of today's singers are quite different, quite worse. Therein lies the difference that you do not seem to comprehend.


No, I think we all know what is really going on now. You aren't simply offering your opinion anymore.


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

Back in the "better more pure tvland fantasy days" Lucy and Desi slept in separate beds....today husbands and wives sleep in the same bed.....what a descent into hell tv and society has fallen.


----------



## trainman (Jan 9, 2008)

I definitely like "F*ck You" the best of the songs nominated for Song of the Year -- it has a sound similar to classic '70s R&B, a genre I enjoy.

But my tastes for current music tend to run toward indie/alternative, so I was happy to see Arcade Fire's "The Suburbs" get a nomination for Album of the Year. (Not to mention They Might Be Giants getting a Children's Album nomination for "Here Comes Science.")


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> In our PC world today, some black people find being called "black" offensive even... and prefer something else (African-American in some cases)...


Which I find a bit confusing since they're not all necessarily of African descent unless you want to go back thousands of years. And I'm not sure it would hold even then.



BubblePuppy said:


> Back in the "better more pure tvland fantasy days" Lucy and Desi slept in separate beds....today husbands and wives sleep in the same bed.....what a descent into hell tv and society has fallen.


And Rob & Laura. So, where DID little Rickie come from?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

trainman said:


> I definitely like "F*ck You" the best of the songs nominated for Song of the Year -- it has a sound similar to classic '70s R&B, a genre I enjoy.
> 
> ...


I love it's old school doo-*** style, too. Here's the censored version for those who don't want to hear the "innately vile and completely unacceptable" F word. :lol:


----------



## BubblePuppy (Nov 3, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> Which I find a bit confusing since they're not all necessarily of African descent unless you want to go back thousands of years. And I'm not sure it would hold even then.
> *]And Rob & Laura. So, where DID little Rickie come from?*


From the cabbage patch or the stork, of course. Sex was invented by those horrible hippies. :lol:


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

sigma1914 said:


> Here's the censored version for those who don't want to hear the "innately vile and completely unacceptable" F word.


Don't forget that The Doors weren't supposed to use the offensive word 'higher' in their performance on Ed Sullivan.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> Don't forget that The Doors weren't supposed to use the offensive word 'higher' in their performance on Ed Sullivan.


Yeah, but that dirty hippy Morrison did it anyway! That was "the crumbling of the very foundations of civilized society."


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

Ed Sullivan forced the Rolling Stones to sing "Let's Spend Some Time Together" instead of "Let's Spend the Ni**t Together." 

Rock and popular music has always pushed the envelope of acceptability. 

The target audience loves it and those outside of the target are often shocked. That's part of the intended effect.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> Which I find a bit confusing since they're not all necessarily of African descent unless you want to go back thousands of years. And I'm not sure it would hold even then.


It's less confusing if you just make it a practice to call people what they want to be called, regardless of how appropriate you think it might be.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

paulman182 said:


> It's less confusing if you just make it a practice to call people what they want to be called, regardless of how appropriate you think it might be.


But if you were about to address a group of darker skinned people you hadn't previously met and hadn't heard speak, how would you know they would prefer to be called African-American and not Haitian?


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> But if you were about to address a group of darker skinned people you hadn't previously met and hadn't heard speak, how would you know they would prefer to be called African-American and not Haitian?


If you must verbally categorize them, I suppose you are on your own. Does that really happen very often?

I don't think many Haitian-Americans would bristle at being called African-Americans, though.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> The F word is not "innately vile and completely unacceptable" to me.


Irrelevant.

Rape, murder are acceptable to some, yet they're still wrong. Period.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> Irrelevant.
> 
> Rape, murder are acceptable to some, yet they're still wrong. Period.


 Hmmm. That's an odd comparison. Someone uses a word in a song you need not listen to and their action is wrong, like commiting rape and murder? But after reading this, I can understand why you may think that.


----------



## Santana (May 12, 2010)

I find it hard to listen to the radio these days, but for me it is an overall lack of quality with "popular" music these days. An F-word, or N-word is not going to offend me; what offends me is "artists" with little to no talent flooding the airwaves. I remember when rap used to be about more than fornicating and bling. Public Enemy used a lot more Fs and Ns in their lyrics, but they had something important to say.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

paulman182 said:


> If you must verbally categorize them, I suppose you are on your own. Does that really happen very often?
> 
> I don't think many Haitian-Americans would bristle at being called African-Americans, though.





SayWhat? said:


> But if you were about to address a group of darker skinned people you hadn't previously met and hadn't heard speak, how would you know they would prefer to be called African-American and not Haitian?


Andy Rooney once said "I am sick of 'Political Correctness'. I know a lot of black people, and not a single one of them was born in Africa, so how can they be African-Americans? Besides, Africa is a continent. I don't go around saying I'm a European-American because my great great great great great great grandfather was from Europe. I am proud to be from America nowhere else. And if you don't like my point of view, tough"......The man's got a point.


----------



## Maruuk (Dec 5, 2007)

This is Black culture language designed to shock and outrage, it creates an instant "us" vs "them" culture war between the "cool" people and the "uptight" White folks. It's designed to exclude, not include. The 4-letter words are quite intentional. They are literally trying to p*** off older Whites, that's the point. They are selling an angry, macho attitude to young White boys, aka "********". Insecure poser playah wannabees. They make the majority of their money off that group.

At a certain point, our society either has to say "enough", or just all start dressing like pimps and ho's and going to Tyler Perry movies.

The Grammys truly do represent a window into the soul of a deeply troubled and morally ambivalent society in the process of collapse. Enjoy the ride, it's all downhill from here.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

You people can sugar coat it all you want but what Lord Vader said in his opening post is true. What the Grammys are now calling music is a aberration. Plain and simple. A decaying of our moral fabric. Honestly, do you think this garbage will withstand the test of time as with the music of previous generations? Do you really envision a "oldies revival" for this stuff twenty, thirty years from now? And for those who have stated that the old generation always protests the music of the new generation this is true. But until now there was a common denominator. Regardless of their ethnic backgrounds the generations all sang of being in love and being happy. The only difference was the beat and tempo used. For those of you who still try to pass this crap off as music there's a old saying. "Don't pi$$ down my back and tell me it's raining"!


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

I can't argue. Today's 'music' is pure garbage. It's either gangbanger trash or pre-processed and mechanized, sort of like Velveeta cheese. Even what passes for Country today is nonsense.

There is no artistry any more. The company tells the performer what to play, how to play it and what to wear. The days of the true musicians and artists may be gone forever. I'm talking about people like Oscar Peterson, Herbie Hancock, John Lennon, Neil Young, Jimi Hendrix and so so many others. The Taylor Swifts of today may sell tracks, but they will never compare to Johnny Cash or Chet Atkins or Patsy Cline.

I don't even discuss the gang trash that some call 'music'. It's an insult to civilization.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

And then there's Justin Bieber.

:eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:

:barf:


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Don't go there.



Thing is, our parents griped about The Stones, Black Sabbath, Mettalica, Steppenwolf and The Who to name just a few. Yeah, they were loud, raucus and raunchy, but they had talent. THEY created their own music and sound. You could see that they were actually playing the music in live performances and not just strumming in time with a recorded playback. Listen to some old Stevie Nicks or Janis Joplin; you can hear it in their voices. You know it's live -- there is no doubt. Then look at Spears and try to compare. You won't be able to.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

Just because you don't like something does not make it garbage. Many considered the Beatles to be garbage but that's obviously not the case.

Not everything can be as brilliant as "Louie Louie" and "Splish Splash I was Taking a Bath".


----------



## jdh8668 (Nov 7, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> If you must verbally categorize them, I suppose you are on your own. Does that really happen very often?
> 
> I don't think many Haitian-Americans would bristle at being called African-Americans, though.


But yet many African Americans belong to an organization called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Go figure


----------



## greatwhitenorth (Jul 18, 2005)

SayWhat? said:


> I can't argue. Today's 'music' is pure garbage. It's either gangbanger trash or pre-processed and mechanized, sort of like Velveeta cheese. Even what passes for Country today is nonsense.
> 
> There is no artistry any more. The company tells the performer what to play, how to play it and what to wear. The days of the true musicians and artists may be gone forever. I'm talking about people like Oscar Peterson, Herbie Hancock, John Lennon, Neil Young, Jimi Hendrix and so so many others. The Taylor Swifts of today may sell tracks, but they will never compare to Johnny Cash or Chet Atkins or Patsy Cline.
> 
> I don't even discuss the gang trash that some call 'music'. It's an insult to civilization.


:beatdeadhorse: Yeah, this conversation has never happened in the past....

I spent 12 years as a Top 40 disc jockey, and have followed music all my life. Here's what I've learned: 80% of everything on the radio, no matter what the genre is garbage that will be forgotten in a couple years. 20% will stand the test of time and be remebered. Comparing Taylor Swift to Patsy Cline is a bit unfair, but if you compare Jennifer Nettles to Patsy Cline, then the comparison becomes a bit easier (okay, Patsy still comes out on top).

But the bigger picture here is words. We are talking about words. Words by themselves don't hurt, it's the intent behind them. Words don't injure people, actions do. As far as the end of civilization goes, I think it's going to take more than an "F-bomb" or two to take us down. Just a little perspective here.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> a Top 40 disc jockey,


That format, along with the proliferation of Morning Morons are among the main reasons I stopped listening to radio so many years ago. A handful of songs played 80 times a day does not make good radio.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Maruuk said:


> ...They are selling an angry, macho attitude to young White boys, aka "********". Insecure poser playah wannabees. They make the majority of their money off that group.
> 
> At a certain point, our society either has to say "enough", or just all start dressing like pimps and ho's and going to Tyler Perry movies.
> 
> ...


First, you're so out of touch with reality of this & very racist. The "********" are not the ones buying it up. It's middle & upper class white boys AND girls. Take a trip through a white suburban high school parking lot. Those kids are playing this music. They aren't dressed as pimps & hoes...they're in Hollister, A&F, Ralph Lauren, etc. Go to any predominantly white college bar or frat party & you'll see & hear the same.

Second, I think you're clueless about Tyler Perry movies & his relationship to black culture. Many in the black community feel he portrays blacks very stereotypically & as a modern day "blackface."


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Back to language, it looks like Richard Pryor won a couple of Grammys, but I don't know if it was for routines containing his more infamous words or not.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

sigma1914 said:


> ...I think you're clueless about Tyler Perry movies & his relationship to black culture. Many in the black community feel he portrays blacks very stereotypically & as a modern day "blackface."


"Many" or "some"? Just how "many" do you speak for? Like it's never been done before. It's called entertainment, and take a guess who's watching.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Nick said:


> "Many" or "some"? Just how "many" do you speak for? Like that's never been done before. It's called entertainment, and take a guess who's watching.


And music is entertainment, but a few of you think it's ruining society. 

Many I know don't like Perry's work. Sorry Mr. Semantics.


----------



## olguy (Jan 9, 2006)

And my parents couldn't understand my musical taste in the early 50s. I heard my first jazz at a stage show at North Texas State Teachers College. That would be University of North Texas to you youngsters :lol: Every Saturday night several of we 9th graders would pony up our quarter for the stage show. Anyway, The Aces were a jazz trio out of the One O'clock Lab Band. Hooked me for life.

I do listen to some blues, rock and country (when my lil wife of 52 years is in the car) but I prefer jazz, big band and classical. One of the reasons, if not the main reason is that I prefer instrumentals. Vocals can intrude on my thoughts. And I like me and enjoy listening to my thoughts :lol: And I have my Modern Jazz Quartet station playing on Pandora as I make my morning visit to all the forums and blogs I frequent.

My sons all have varied musical tastes also. But in music as anything else I say whatever blows your skirt up.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> Irrelevant.
> 
> Rape, murder are acceptable to some, yet they're still wrong. Period.


No, it's not irrelevant. You made the generalization that the F word was "innately vile and completely unacceptable" for everyone. That's not the case.

It's only a word! Relax!


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

Santana said:


> I find it hard to listen to the radio these days, but for me it is an overall lack of quality with "popular" music these days. An F-word, or N-word is not going to offend me; what offends me is "artists" with little to no talent flooding the airwaves. I remember when rap used to be about more than fornicating and bling. Public Enemy used a lot more Fs and Ns in their lyrics, but they had something important to say.


Fight the power!


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> What the Grammys are now calling music is a aberration.


I'm sure someone said that exact same thing in 1950...


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

RunnerFL said:


> I'm sure someone said that exact same thing in 1950...


If you talked that way in 1950 a bar of soap went in your mouth.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> If you talked that way in 1950 a bar of soap went in your mouth.


You completely missed the point...


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

RunnerFL said:


> You completely missed the point...


No I didn't. In post #66 I stated the old generation protests the music of the new generation.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

olguy said:


> And my parents couldn't understand my musical taste in the early 50s.* I heard my first jazz at a stage show at North Texas State Teachers College. That would be University of North Texas to you youngsters *:lol: Every Saturday night several of we 9th graders would pony up our quarter for the stage show. Anyway, The Aces were a jazz trio out of the One O'clock Lab Band. Hooked me for life.
> 
> ...


:eek2: UNT Alum here! Go Mean Green! It was & is one of the best music schools in the nation, especially for jazz.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> No, it's not irrelevant. You made the generalization that the F word was "innately vile and completely unacceptable" for everyone. That's not the case.
> 
> It's only a word! Relax!


Exactly.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

It seems that some of us are music lovers and embrace the past as well as the present. For us, Music is more than just lyrics. It's the combination things that make songs great. A strong set of lyrics that convey an artists moods, thoughts and emotions accompanied by a great music track is what I dig. While I like some pop songs and take them at face value in that they are catchy but I really enjoy the originality and skill shown by certain artists. I love Metallica, Slayer, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Lil Wayne, Kanye West, The Bee Gees, The Black Eyed Peas and a host of other artists.

And just because a song was created electronically does not mean that it's inferior. If it was easy to write hit songs everyone would be doing it.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

SPACEMAKER said:


> It seems that some of us are music lovers and embrace the past as well as the present. For us, Music is more than just lyrics. It's the combination things that make songs great. A strong set of lyrics that convey an artists moods, thoughts and emotions accompanied by a great music track is what I dig. While I like some pop songs and take them at face value in that they are catchy but I really enjoy the originality and skill shown by certain artists. I love Metallica, Slayer, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Lil Wayne, Kanye West, The Bee Gees, The Black Eyed Peas and a host of other artists.
> 
> And just because a song was created electronically does not mean that it's inferior. If it was easy to write hit songs everyone would be doing it.


If I could stand up out of my wheelchair & applaud this post, then I would do so here.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Just because you don't like something doesn't make it garbage... As the saying goes, one man's trash is another man's treasure.

I like music of most eras from most genres... and if I'm honest about it, I can find good songs from most eras that are of equal quality given what they are trying to be.

What makes a classic a classic? You will find many classics that weren't even thought of highly in their day. I'll use movies instead of music, because I have easier examples. Neither "It's a Wonderful Life" nor "Wizard of Oz" were gangbusters when they were initially released. "Oz" caught on sooner than "Life" but both were panned in their initial release.

Only time and replay garnered them the classic status they earned...

So, to say that today's music will not be looked back upon fondly in 20 years is something you simply cannot say! 20 years from now, what you think of as "garbage" then will be so different that you will look back to now and long for the days of today's music.

That's just how things are.

_And now... a friendly moderator note...

I'm very uncomfortable with some of the undertones insinuated in the OP and a few posts since then... some of the tones that are not about music being good or bad or the use of language being good or bad... but rather an insinuation that certain ethic groups use certain language and thus are bad. The racial insinuations and undertones need to stop or risk this thread getting closed._


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Just because you don't like something doesn't make it garbage... As the saying goes, one man's trash is another man's treasure.
> 
> I like music of most eras from most genres... and if I'm honest about it, I can find good songs from most eras that are of equal quality given what they are trying to be.
> 
> ...


So what you are saying is what was once socially unacceptable for one generation can become the norm for a future generation. Understandable. But does that make it good or better? Would you want a future generation to embrace pediphilia and endorse it with their music? It could very well happen. Our country was once revered and respected by friend and foe alike. The main reason was because we had the highest standards of morals, values and ethics.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> So what you are saying is what was once socially unacceptable for one generation can become the norm for a future generation. Understandable. But does that make it good or better? Would you want a future generation to embrace pediphilia and endorse it with their music? It could very well happen. Our country was once revered and respected by friend and foe alike. The main reason was because we had the highest standards of morals, values and ethics.


Pedophilia? Really? Come on MM, you can't be serious? If anything, society has advanced from a time when relations with underage girls was kind of ok...especially in southern states....to in not acceptable anywhere.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

sigma1914 said:


> Pedophilia? Really? Come on MM, you can't be serious? If anything, society has advance from a time when relations with underage girls was the norm...especially in southern states....to in not acceptable anywhere.


Sixty years ago intergration and homosexuality were not exceptable. Especially in southern states. Back then if someone were to say the previously mentioned will become acceptable their reaction would be the same as yours is now my friend. Never say never.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> Sixty years ago intergration and homosexuality were not exceptable. Especially in southern states. Back then if someone were to say the previously mentioned will become acceptable their reaction would be the same as yours is now my friend. Never say never.


Fair enough. I just can't even fathom the idea.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

sigma1914 said:


> Fair enough. I just can't even fathom the idea.


Neither can I. When I was in junior high school one of my science teachers told us the day is coming when we will be paying for our TV reception. We all thought he was nuts and asked to him why would Americans start paying for TV reception that they have been getting free for years? Yet here we are decades later paying for cable, satellite and the like!


----------



## greatwhitenorth (Jul 18, 2005)

"MysteryMan" said:


> So what you are saying is what was once socially unacceptable for one generation can become the norm for a future generation. Understandable. But does that make it good or better? Would you want a future generation to embrace pediphilia and endorse it with their music? It could very well happen. Our country was once revered and respected by friend and foe alike. The main reason was because we had the highest standards of morals, values and ethics.


Right, that could happen, remember the wave of pedophilia after the publication of "Lolita", considered a classic of 20th century literature? No you don't, because it didn't happen. I don't think our international reputation depends on whether or not Eminem dropped a dirty word in his latest album...


----------



## n3ntj (Dec 18, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> That's some f***ed up s**t


:lol:


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

RunnerFL said:


> ...the F word was "innately vile and completely unacceptable" for everyone. That's not the case.


As I said, rape and murder are not completely unacceptable, then, to everyone.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Lord Vader said:


> As I said, rape and murder are not completely unacceptable, then, to everyone.


I'm pretty sure more people are opposed to rape & murder than those opposing the F word. It's a word, seriously.


----------



## drded (Aug 23, 2006)

It may only be a word, but one of the marks of civility is one's choice of words used and not used.

A civil person chooses their words and they become a reflection of that person's refinement. Or said another way, you are what you speak!

Some of us care about civility, others seem to feel no need. Pity!

Dave


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

drded said:


> It may only be a word, but one of the marks of civility is one's choice of words used and not used.
> 
> A civil person chooses their words and they become a reflection of that person's refinement. Or said another way, you are what you speak!
> 
> ...


The F word makes someone uncivil?


----------



## drded (Aug 23, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> The F word makes someone uncivil?


If you don't recognize that, there is nothing else I can add.

Dave


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

Interesting perspective. I use "uncivil" language a lot but with respect for context of my audience.

I would argue it is not the words themselves rather the intent and manner in which used which becomes "uncivil".

I feel its acceptable to state "I'm an {effing} idiot today" around some people but never to state "you are an {effing} idiot" around anyone. Context and audience play a role.

Obviously with you it is more black and white and around you I would respect that rule of conversation.

But bear in mind that I view being lectured to or called a lesser being because I was "uncivil" as an uncivil act in itself. But that is just me. I see in peoples reactions what is appropriate and work at their level out of respect. Best if that works all ways however.

You are who you are based on actions, speech is merely a method of communication.

Don "I'll shut my pie hole now" Bolton



drded said:


> It may only be a word, but one of the marks of civility is one's choice of words used and not used.
> 
> A civil person chooses their words and they become a reflection of that person's refinement. Or said another way, you are what you speak!
> 
> ...


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

drded said:


> If you don't recognize that, there is nothing else I can add.
> 
> Dave


Oh please, off the high horse. I guess you can't watch R rated movies. You don't want exposure to a uncivil experience of a F word.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

MysteryMan said:


> So what you are saying is what was once socially unacceptable for one generation can become the norm for a future generation. Understandable. But does that make it good or better? Would you want a future generation to embrace pediphilia and endorse it with their music? It could very well happen. Our country was once revered and respected by friend and foe alike. The main reason was because we had the highest standards of morals, values and ethics.


Socially unacceptable things become acceptable all the time... also things that are acceptable suddenly become unacceptable too! Language, behavior, even manner of dress are constantly cycling. Things that are taboo are so because they are rare... then people get attracted to taboo things to a point where more and more people are partaking... then it becomes almost the norm... and then "normal" behavior becomes taboo... and the cycle begins anew.

I hope that pedophilia doesn't become the norm or acceptable or a staple of music... and I wouldn't think that it would... but it is something that has probably been around for as long as there have been people. And... incidentally... I find the topic of pedophilia to be much more offensive than someone using the "F" word in a song. Pedophilia isn't even considered a curse or vulgar word... just the act itself is considered distasteful... Isn't that interesting? One of the more commonly agreed upon distasteful things people can do can be talked about using words more accepted than those evil vulgar curse words that some think will ruin us!

Personally... I think poor actions will ruin us faster than poor language.

As for other countries admiring us for our high morals and ethics... Really?

I was born in 1970... I just barely missed the Civil Rights movement... We are barely 100 years removed from slavery AND lack of women's rights... so I kind of doubt that other countries used to admire us for our morals and ethics.

And it is probably worth mentioning that the "F" word and others that seem so vile... you know those weren't invented by the current generation don't you? It was our ancestors... way back when they had those better morals and ethics!


----------



## frederic1943 (Dec 2, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> And it is probably worth mentioning that the "F" word and others that seem so vile... you know those weren't invented by the current generation don't you? It was our ancestors... way back when they had those better morals and ethics!


The "F" word used to be the polite word in the 17th century. The nasty word was "Jape" which has changed its meaning to now mean "A Joke":lol:


----------



## Hoosier205 (Sep 3, 2007)

I cannot believe this discussion is still going on. I thought it was clear early on that this is a generational boomerang.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

It is not, for certain things go beyond a generation and remain constant regardless of the times.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

Lord Vader said:


> It is not, for certain things go beyond a generation and remain constant regardless of the times.


You are exactly correct that self righteousness and intolerance remain constant regardless of the times.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Socially unacceptable things become acceptable all the time... also things that are acceptable suddenly become unacceptable too! Language, behavior, even manner of dress are constantly cycling. Things that are taboo are so because they are rare... then people get attracted to taboo things to a point where more and more people are partaking... then it becomes almost the norm... and then "normal" behavior becomes taboo... and the cycle begins anew.
> 
> I hope that pedophilia doesn't become the norm or acceptable or a staple of music... and I wouldn't think that it would... but it is something that has probably been around for as long as there have been people. And... incidentally... I find the topic of pedophilia to be much more offensive than someone using the "F" word in a song. Pedophilia isn't even considered a curse or vulgar word... just the act itself is considered distasteful... Isn't that interesting? One of the more commonly agreed upon distasteful things people can do can be talked about using words more accepted than those evil vulgar curse words that some think will ruin us!
> 
> ...


Born in 1970 huh...that explains it. With all respect Stewart your a puppy compaired to me. I was born and raised when there were only 48 stars on the flag and I assure you things were different. Yes profanity has been with us through the ages. There's no denying it. But when I grew up there was a time and place for it. Boys were taught that such language was not used in puplic and especially in the presence of women and children. And the example was practiced and not preached. Sadly the same can't be said in today's world. Do you use the language you and others are defending at the work place, in front of your mother or children? Would you approve of your children being exposed to and using such language? I doubt it. Hell, I'm far from being nieve nor do I have virgin ears. I spent 25 years in the Army. I've said, seen and done things that would cause your pucker factor to be your sole source of concentration. And I can ****ING cuss and swear with the best of them! eek2: Holy **** Batman did you see what MysteryMan just typed? :eek2 But like I said, there's a time and place for it. And while I'm at it you can take this "Politically Correct" **** and stick it up a fat woman's ass!......Oh, if this post is altered, edited or removed because of it's content then what you and others who share your opinion are posturing has been a farce!


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

MysteryMan said:


> Born in 1970 huh...that explains it. With all respect Stewart your a puppy compaired to me. I was born and raised when there were only 48 stars on the flag and I assure you things were different. Yes profanity has been with us through the ages. There's no denying it. But when I grew up there was a time and place for it. Boys were taught that such language was not used in puplic and especially in the presence of women and children. And the example was practiced and not preached. Sadly the same can't be said in today's world. Do you use the language you and others are defending at the work place, in front of your mother or children? Would you approve of your children being exposed to and using such language? I doubt it. Hell, I'm far from being nieve nor do I have virgin ears. I spent 25 years in the Army. I've said, seen and done things that would cause your pucker factor to be your sole source of concentration. And I can ****ING cuss and swear with the best of them! eek2: Holy **** Batman did you see what MysteryMan just typed? :eek2 But like I said, there's a time and place for it. And while I'm at it you can take this "Politically Correct" **** and stick it up a fat woman's ass!......Oh, if this post is altered, edited or removed because of it's content then what you and others who share your opinion are posturing has been a farce!


Altered and edited...Need I say more?


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> Born in 1970 huh...that explains it. With all respect Stewart your a puppy compaired to me. I was born and raised when there were only 48 stars on the flag and I assure you things were different. Yes profanity has been with us through the ages. There's no denying it. But when I grew up there was a time and place for it. Boys were taught that such language was not used in puplic and especially in the presence of women and children. And the example was practiced and not preached. Sadly the same can't be said in today's world. Do you use the language you and others are defending at the work place, in front of your mother or children? Would you approve of your children being exposed to and using such language? I doubt it. Hell, I'm far from being nieve nor do I have virgin ears. I spent 25 years in the Army. I've said, seen and done things that would cause your pucker factor to be your sole source of concentration. And I can ****ING cuss and swear with the best of them! eek2: Holy **** Batman did you see what MysteryMan just typed? :eek2 But like I said, there's a time and place for it. And while I'm at it you can take this "Politically Correct" **** and stick it up a fat woman's ass!......Oh, if this post is altered, edited or removed because of it's content then what you and others who share your opinion are posturing has been a farce!


"Profanity", as some like to call it, is just words... I use the same words all the time in front of everyone regardless of who they are. Again, they are just words and if you're offended by them it's because you've decided the words are offensive, not because I've intentionally tried to offend you.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

RunnerFL said:


> "Profanity", as some like to call it, is just words... I use the same words all the time in front of everyone regardless of who they are. Again, they are just words and if you're offended by them it's because you've decided the words are offensive, not because I've intentionally tried to offend you.


As my mother would say "look with your eyes". Three words in my post were altered and edited and not by me. Obviously they were considered offensive. You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

MysteryMan said:


> As my mother would say "look with your eyes". Three words in my post were altered and edited and not by me. Obviously they were considered offensive. You can't have it both ways.


I think the automatic filter probably did most of that...

BUT..

In a thread where some are complaining about profanity... why would you use profanity? That seems a bit ironic don't you think?

Did you need to use those words to make your point? Or did you just want to?

Should people not read your post because of the profanity? Or should people be intelligent enough to read further and get the meaning of your words?

I'm just saying... very ironic. MAYBE the people writing and performing those songs are using profanity in the same way that you just attempted to use it? Think about that for a few minutes.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

MysteryMan said:


> Born in 1970 huh...that explains it. With all respect Stewart your a puppy compaired to me. I was born and raised when there were only 48 stars on the flag and I assure you things were different. Yes profanity has been with us through the ages. There's no denying it. But when I grew up there was a time and place for it. Boys were taught that such language was not used in puplic and especially in the presence of women and children. And the example was practiced and not preached.


You must be kidding. I have a father born in 1942 who would disagree with you. If they had not passed away, I would have had grandparents born long before that who would similarly disagree.

Those who long for "the good old days" don't have good memories... because you can always find people who remember things better than they were.

Racial slurs and cursing used against minorities in public go back a long ways... so much for those respectful elders. Women didn't always get better consideration either. The "swear jar" isn't a modern invention!

And some are forgetting the evolving nature of language that has been brought up a couple of times already. Many modern curse words were not considered bad years ago... and many words we use today were very insulting years ago. The language keeps changing.

And on top of all that... if the music offends someone, then they didn't have to watch the Grammys did they? I mean, that same night there was probably lots of cursing on HBO, SHO, and some nudity on Playboy... and there wasn't any railing against that... because you didn't have to watch it if it offends you.

Don't listen to music that bothers you or isn't entertaining. That's what I do. There's a lot of music that doesn't entertain me... and I don't buy or listen to it. That's pretty much the end of my thought on the matter. A song comes on, I don't like it, I switch the song. It's absurdly easy to do


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I think the automatic filter probably did most of that...
> 
> BUT..
> 
> ...


Why the need for a "automatic filter"?...reread my post...I stated I can cuss and swear with the best of them. I also stated there's a time and place for it. If there's nothing wrong with the language in question why did you refer to it as profanity? I'll correct myself in saying I should have said "where" and not just when I grew up in my previous post. If this language is as acceptable as you and others are claiming why is there a five second delay with live television broadcasts? Would this language be acceptable in a house of worship? Or in a court of law? Or inside a public school in front of children?......think about that for a few minutes Stewart.


----------



## SPACEMAKER (Dec 11, 2007)

There are only 2 things in this thread that are certain:

1) Not everyone will agree on this subject.

2) There is nothing anyone can say that is going to cause someone to change their mind.


So why not just drop it?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

SPACEMAKER said:


> So why not just drop it?


Good idea.

CLOSED.


----------

