Hot Take/ Musical Confession Thread!

Melt Face Molly Drop said:
steve blurkle

To answer your question though, artists have been putting out censored/clean versions of their music for decades now - I see no difference here. The desire to not offend to sell more copies.

Some artists have their convictions and will not budge, some see a benefit in exploring different kinds of growth.
Click to expand...
I guess the question is: Are those that choose to do so really “artists”?

We don’t consider the employees of McDonalds as “Chefs” or “Sous Chefs” or “Grill Chefs”, but they provide the same service/product as Masaharu Morimoto: Food prepared for you in exchange for money.

All of those you mention, they certainly write and record and sell music. But are they “Artists”?
Does generically hanging that moniker on makers of music who compromise for the sake of a “dirty ass dollar” lessen what it means to be an “artist” within the discipline they all practice?
 
Viking Dan said:
I guess the question is: Are those that choose to do so really “artists”?

We don’t consider the employees of McDonalds as “Chefs” or “Sous Chefs” or “Grill Chefs”, but they provide the same service/product: Food prepared for you in exchange for money.

All of those you mention, they certainly write and record and sell music. But are they “Artists”?
Does generically hanging that moniker on makers of music who compromise for the sake of a “dirty ass dollar”, lessen what it means to be an “artist” within the discipline they all practice?
Click to expand...
I don’t think changing a lyric that could be found offensive is compromise for the sake of a dirty ass dollar.

And the McDs employee vs Chef argument is not even in the realm of what you are talking about. Thats closer to Karaoke singer vs Artist than artist vs artist who changes a word in a song.
 
Viking Dan said:
“Beyoncé agreed to change the lyrics in “Heated,” which met with backlash for using an ableist slur. A representative for Beyoncé confirmed yesterday that the lyric would be removed from “Heated,” writing: “The word, not used intentionally in a harmful way, will be replaced.”

Did Picasso alter Les Demoiselles d’Avignon to appease?
Did Serrano remove the Piss Christ crucifix from the container of urine to mollify?
Did Manet change the context of setting or skin tone of the Olympia muse to gain acceptance?
Did Mapplethorpe blurkle his images to make them more commercially viable?

She responds there was no hurtful intent.
Yet, rather than defend and stand behind her creation and artistic choice, she alters it because it “offends”.

Would Bowie do this?
Or Prince?
Or John Lyndon?
Or Patti Smith?
Or Joni Mitchell?

In light of the above, should the term “artist” apply to Beyoncé anymore?



​

Click to expand...


Doesn’t Patti Smith look differently at a certain song. Rock and Roll N***
 
Viking Dan said:
“Beyoncé agreed to change the lyrics in “Heated,” which met with backlash for using an ableist slur. A representative for Beyoncé confirmed yesterday that the lyric would be removed from “Heated,” writing: “The word, not used intentionally in a harmful way, will be replaced.”

Did Picasso alter Les Demoiselles d’Avignon to appease?
Did Serrano remove the Piss Christ crucifix from the container of urine to mollify?
Did Manet change the context of setting or skin tone of the Olympia muse to gain acceptance?
Did Mapplethorpe blurkle his images to make them more commercially viable?

She responds there was no hurtful intent.
Yet, rather than defend and stand behind her creation and artistic choice, she alters it because it “offends”.

Would Bowie do this?
Or Prince?
Or John Lyndon?
Or Patti Smith?
Or Joni Mitchell?

In light of the above, should the term “artist” apply to Beyoncé anymore?



​

Click to expand...
TBH, I didn’t know Spaz was offensive until the stuff with Lizzie came out a few months back my assumption is that neither Lizzie nor Beyoncé knew the term to be derogatory either. I doubt the term is vital to their song lyrically.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
TBH, I didn’t know Spaz was offensive until the stuff with Lizzie came out a few months back my assumption is that neither Lizzie nor Beyoncé knew the term to be derogatory either. I doubt the term is vital to their song lyrically.
Click to expand...

I kinda did but mainly because I’d always thought of it as a very British insult in that it’s a contraction of spastic which is a pretty horrible term to begin with.

But I agree. I’m sure it was intended as an out of context general insult and changing it to something less offensive doesn’t represent an artistic climb down. In fact sticking to your guns on something like it would paint you in a pretty horrible light.
 
Viking Dan said:
I guess the question is: Are those that choose to do so really “artists”?

We don’t consider the employees of McDonalds as “Chefs” or “Sous Chefs” or “Grill Chefs”, but they provide the same service/product as Masaharu Morimoto: Food prepared for you in exchange for money.

All of those you mention, they certainly write and record and sell music. But are they “Artists”?
Does generically hanging that moniker on makers of music who compromise for the sake of a “dirty ass dollar” lessen what it means to be an “artist” within the discipline they all practice?
Click to expand...
As a former Subway Sandwich Artist, I find this delineation to be insulting to me and my craft, creating a delicious foot long Cold Cut Combo on Wheat.
 
Hemotep said:
Yep. Yesterday I was talking to a friend who's five years younger about what I did on my week off. I mentioned the wife and I went and checked out a huge Hindu temple in Atlanta and got lunch one day and the rest of the week I did projects at home and listened to records. It was a nice relaxing week. In his week off he went to Seattle, took ecstasy at a rave in the Idaho desert, went camping in Oregon, climbed two mountains, and went through a breakup. I'm happy not needing to squeeze all that in a week and then go back to work exhausted on Monday. So I'm ok with being older, haha.
Click to expand...

I really hope the breakup was while they were on E.
 
Joe Mac said:
Absolutely. A lot of insults come from the horrible language they used as medical terminology for conditions that weren’t fully understood at the time.
Click to expand...
My little brother was severely disabled. When he started going to school, he went to a school run by the Scottish Spastics Society. This would have been the mid-80's. They changed their name to Capability Scotland not long after.
 
Viking Dan said:
“Beyoncé agreed to change the lyrics in “Heated,” which met with backlash for using an ableist slur. A representative for Beyoncé confirmed yesterday that the lyric would be removed from “Heated,” writing: “The word, not used intentionally in a harmful way, will be replaced.”

Did Picasso alter Les Demoiselles d’Avignon to appease?
Did Serrano remove the Piss Christ crucifix from the container of urine to mollify?
Did Manet change the context of setting or skin tone of the Olympia muse to gain acceptance?
Did Mapplethorpe blurkle his images to make them more commercially viable?

She responds there was no hurtful intent.
Yet, rather than defend and stand behind her creation and artistic choice, she alters it because it “offends”.

Would Bowie do this?
Or Prince?
Or John Lyndon?
Or Patti Smith?
Or Joni Mitchell?

In light of the above, should the term “artist” apply to Beyoncé anymore?

​

Click to expand...
This whole take reminds me of comedy fans getting up in arms about "wokeism" "invading" their space or the backlash that comes with punching down within one's act (ahem, Chapelle); the comparison immediately goes to Lenny Bruce and George Carlin, and the intimation is always that a "real artist" doesn't shape their act around the audience's sensibilities. All the while, eliding the facts that those artists were specifically battling a cultural context that legally forbade them from expressing themselves a certain way, as well as the fact that those comics were still trying to entertain people, and specifically writing their material to elicit laughter from a mixed audience. There's an arc of progress in the artistic form and how we consume it, and comparing removing the crucifix from the Piss Christ 40 years ago to swapping out an ableist slur from a digital stem in 2022 is completely lacking the context most free-speechers declare to be oh so important.

Beyonce, in altering her lyrics, is responding to an outdated mode of communication and saying the buck stops here. It's political correctness as I see Stewart Lee defining it: "It's an often clumsy negotiation towards a kind of formally inclusive language." She has the artistic control and technical ability to listen and respond. And if she's trying to make an expression that forges towards formal inclusion (especially in a time when doing so launches an avalanche of knee-jerk fox-news takes and counter-takes), how is that any less artistic than someone challenging censorship?
 
Bull Shannon said:
This whole take reminds me of comedy fans getting up in arms about "wokeism" "invading" their space or the backlash that comes with punching down within one's act (ahem, Chapelle); the comparison immediately goes to Lenny Bruce and George Carlin, and the intimation is always that a "real artist" doesn't shape their act around the audience's sensibilities. All the while, eliding the facts that those artists were specifically battling a cultural context that legally forbade them from expressing themselves a certain way, as well as the fact that those comics were still trying to entertain people, and specifically writing their material to elicit laughter from a mixed audience. There's an arc of progress in the artistic form and how we consume it, and comparing removing the crucifix from the Piss Christ 40 years ago to swapping out an ableist slur from a digital stem in 2022 is completely lacking the context most free-speechers declare to be oh so important.

Beyonce, in altering her lyrics, is responding to an outdated mode of communication and saying the buck stops here. It's political correctness as I see Stewart Lee defining it: "It's an often clumsy negotiation towards a kind of formally inclusive language." She has the artistic control and technical ability to listen and respond. And if she's trying to make an expression that forges towards formal inclusion (especially in a time when doing so launches an avalanche of knee-jerk fox-news takes and counter-takes), how is that any less artistic than someone challenging censorship?
Click to expand...

Yeah I would totally see an attempt to stand behind a lyric like that as free expression as the equivalent of unfunny old white men comics standing behind racist and misogynistic stereotype jokes under the same auspices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top