Should Old Problematic Lyrics Be Changed?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- Nick Cave's blog post: www.theredhand...
===================================
Patreon: / theneedledrop
Follow your melon:
Twitter: / theneedledrop
Instagram: @afantano
FB: / theneedledrop
Yes, and Kidz Bop should be put in charge of all the changes.
I will change your life with my videos i am the man with multiple girlfriends i am extremely funny
Erik
Exactly - it would be George Lucas "enhancing "the "problematic" scenes in the original Star Wars trilogy, but Even better.
HAHAHAHA
e: [no change]
AxxL WHERE DO I SIGN UP?!
Tyler would be better off just deleting goblin if this was the case lmao
Earl too. Him and vince had some edgy tracks back in those early years.
And Bastard. And most of Wolf.
@Skrooge Lantay and tron cat lmao
@@Anna-gm8tt no, he shouldn't
@@Anna-gm8tt No he shouldn't hth 👍
at 2:54 he sounds like an oblivion npc
Have you heard of the high elves
NYAH! UGH! HNN! HYEA! OHH!
Lmaooo he does
i was thinking of vizzini from princess bride, cant even remember if he actually sounds like that tho
change the lyrics given its in a live setting, but dont erase it from existance. old racist disney cartoons shouldnt be broadcast or released in any official capacity, but having them available for documentation sake is important
This.
Ideally I'd like this, but since Disney has manipulated copyright law so much I'd rather just have them re release song of the south officially for its historical significance
Oh, I like this take.
fortnite4201 x
Damn, you should be a boxer with that kind of reach.
@fortnite4201 x Oh boy. Wait until you hear a song that references a specific year performed live with the year updated for modern times.
Move on, Anthony. She's with Elon now and they are happy together
Mega-baby on the way
That baby won't know what music theory is or what it feels like having a '93 civic as your first car
my dad is with Elon
teflon and grims happily tweeting along to the death of postmodernity.
AI hyper capitalism is the new socialism, didn’t you poors get the tweet?
Anthony: Science and art don't mix!
If we did this than Anthony would have to delete all his videos
Why, Just because he said the N word in some of them?
Legion Vision one of them*
@@nock3893 which one?
*then
Rexce the one where he talks about idubbzz (deleted video but you can still find it)
No. This basically a Huck Finn situation for music. And I see no reason for Huck Finn to be censored.
There is a reason that artist chose that word at that time, no matter how problematic the reason was. Maybe it is because of that problematic reason we should leave it in. You change words, you change intent
Funny thing is that Nick also has a re-imagined, modernized tale of that from the 80s called Saint Huck that also uses the slur predominant in the book. I actually thought that's what this was going to be about.
if you're literally not allowed to say the word then i don't see why it shouldn't be censored tbh
Ok but i dont want to listen to it then
@@andrewv2782 Cringe and very shallow take
@@andrewv2782 Who says you're not allowed to say it, though? It may be deeply offensive, but it's not as if people aren't allowed to be offensive
*Tyler, The Creator - Tron Cat (Remastered for 2020) Lyrics*
[Intro]
La, la, la, la, la, la, la
AAAAHHH!
*[instrumental]*
😂😂😂
Rape a pregnant bitch tell me friends I had a threesome
Swear a lot of people forget about that one
LMAO
oml
@Sean Tyler literally did lol
I remember a RUclips channel at once completely erased from history.. It was called thatistheplan..
R.I.P.
I see you too are cursed with knowledge
No we should not censor history or art, it’s down to the artists
The question was to the artist, asking if he felt the need tochange his own lyrics. So your answer, while correct, is to a different question.
the question in the title
Tom it was meant to answer the question in the title because art shouldn’t be changed unless the artist chooses to, it’s just my opinion but I think freedom of expression is the most important right be it problematic or not and the fact we can call people out on saying fucked up shit is an important part of it
Facts
camwad 123 I agree, but people should be ready to be responsible for what they put out. I do fear people loosing freedom of expression and getting black listed from sharing their own online. It’s probably started already.
god no. music is an art form. should we re-write novels like of mice and men because they contain the n-word? no, they're products of their time.
How many times did you listened to the original racial charged version of "Let's Do It, Let's Fall in Love"? How many nursery rhymes do you know the originals?
That's natural. That happens since ever.
@@MiloKuroshiro Art exists to disrupt and upset the status quo.
@@iyatemu there's a difference between being brave and different to change the world for the better than calling a gay guy a f*g
@@iyatemu Using the word f*g in the early 90s wasn't disrupting the staus quo, it was the status quo.
Nobody says “Eenie Meenie Minie Moe, Catch a n.....r by his toe.” They say tiger. You can change things that are offensive.
I think when he's referring to his songs as children, hes alluding to the fact that some people may want the original songs themselves to be changed. He's not literally trying to give his songs human characteristics, he's just using that to illustrate that people would like the songs themselves to be altered, rather than the artist shouldering the blame for the lyrics.
Thank you for explaining how personification works. The people who take everything literally will be grateful.
Had a smudge on my screen and thought melon was rocking earrings now
I wish
hey hey hey Anthony fantano, everyone here.
And it's time for a copy-paste of the new theneedledrop meme, "I liked the review, but why did you do the Futsal Shuffle for 9 minutes straight?"
We think we're gonna leave it at that. Over our heads is another comment that you can check out, hit that up or the button to "like" the replies. Your fan-girls and guys... Nick Cave... FOREVER!
hey scott, all here
You're the review you're the review what should I next best?
Different medium entirely, but I think Warner Brothers has the right idea with how they present their old, highly stereotyped cartoons; that it's absolutely offensive but it happened and to pretend that it didn't would be even more offensive
I don't think we should, its history and it shows how far we've come.
eiedu
U mean how sensitive we’ve become
Chris Smith I agree that we have become really sensitive because for some reason context doesn’t matter anymore which is stupid as fuck
@@chrissmith635 I agree with the OPs first part, and then youre revision of his second part.
@@chrissmith635 Yep, and music should be as emotionally sensitive as possible! That's why people enjoy it. It's great that we've been able to break away from the bottled-up mindset of the past.
this is true. not to be a boomer, but the need for absolutely everything to be "politically correct" is a prominent one at this current timeline.
Okay, I think you're strawmanning a bit here, and you miss what I think are the 2 key points in doing so:
1) When Cave says "how could we have known...." he means that in 1991, the context of the line was understood to be an artistic endeavour, such as a line by a fictional character in a book or movie. This is why the "songs as innocent children" metaphor is employed and works....accepting controversy on artistic license for an (at the time) mildly bawdy fictional line, to the point that the songwriter could personally be considered as a bad actor....is revisionist 'concept creep'. Likewise, the concept of saying a word being an implicit violent endorsement of the most negative connotation of that word, and of any "critically" definable negative intent, is a very recent thing that is a totally useless context to see song lyrics from 30 years ago in (i.e the shift from "context matters" to "words matter")
2) At the time, having strong language in music like this was a hard-fought right, after the PMRC censorship battles - it was (and correctly so) seen as a moral virtue artistically to dare to say what you wanted, even in light of the possible commercial and legal penalties for doing so (i.e the Dead Kennedy's obscenity case, some major retailers not carrying records with the Parental Advisory sticker). The people who would be offended by such things were usually coming from the opposite side of the political spectrum. The concept of offense and taste tarring an artist's reputation based upon a sociopolitical ideology is just as invalid when coming from a liberal position as it was when coming from the PMRC or moral majority. I.e the kinds of people who find this language dangerous or offensive are the exact people who need to understand that it isn't
thenowhere thank you so many people fail to understand the context
Nailed it.
Seriously, thank you for this response. It would have behooved Fantano to relay this information (especially point #1) in the above video instead of intimating that Nick Cave was acting like some angry boomer.
Goddamn. An incredibly insightful take. That's poetry in and of itself my friend.
No. Just don't listen to it
ikr. Easy solution.
THIS
Hey a tribe called quest picture
Or better, listen to it and don't give a fuck because in 90% of cases it's not ill-intentioned, and that's what matters.
Guns N Roses lyrics should be changed from sexist songs to feminist songs. Axl should praise Vagina instead of hating it.
Mom said you need to start sharing the gamecube Anthony
Naughty boy Anthony! Your must must be immensely disappointed.
He still hasn't returned my copy of Sonice Adventure 2: Battle. I miss my Chao Anthony!
Anthony is not letting you play the gamecube until you find a better meme comment format
seems like a lot of people aren’t realizing that the person asking the question was specifically referring to live performances. it’s weird to me that nick is prescribing all of these human/living characteristic to his songs yet still thinks they should be frozen in time/pinned under glass. isn’t one of the defining characteristics of living things that they grow/evolve/learn over time?
shut the fuck up
Well said
I think you may have really misinterpreted what he meant when he said "punish the artist not the song." Of course he didn't mean people were pointing at the song and calling it naughty like that. That's stupid.
He means the song shouldn't be altered or censored. Just call the artist problematic, and move on. Changing your art to fit the sensibilities of others is always inherently wrong. Even if he needs to be criticized for making it, the song uncensored should still continue to exist in the wild.
If he sings it live, and decides to use it uncensored, that's on him. That's still better than singing it with a changed lyric, and if he doesn't want to deal with the backlash, he can just not sing it live.
People labeling things as problematic and correct are the problems and solely them. It's nu-religious panic borne of the same ideological tactics.
@@isaiahdaniels5643 I tend to agree, I was just attempting to correct what I though was Anthony misrepresenting the argument.
Brandon Burrows Nah, labeling something “problematic” or “correct” isn’t inherently an issue. It is merely an opinion that you are free to agree or disagree with. If you disagree with it, then explain why, and vice versa. It only becomes an issue if an artist is labeled “problematic” and the government steps in and punishes the artist because of it. And comparisons to religion, where people were actually killed for being blasphemous, is not analogous to this at all.
@@KevinWidesouls I think his comparison to religious panic is quite valid. You might be thinking of stoning and lynchings and stake burnings, but I'm willing to bet he's talking about more modern religious moral panics. I don't think Christians killed any teenagers they caught playing D&D in the 80's, but no rational actor could deny that was a religiously driven moral panic.
The point here as that in America's current political climate, pear-clutching indignance has become the normal response to anything people even mildly dislike. People disliking art and choosing not to consume it is one thing, but there are genuine efforts by some to shout down artists until they retroactively censor or disown older works. Even without government intervention, I fear the court of public opinion alone has too much power over art right now
MrFluffyWolf If that’s what he meant, then I still think the comparison is a bit of a stretch. The Christian religious moral panics of the 80s and 90s were wayyy more powerful than anything some random Twitter mob could do today. The vast majority of the country was Christian back then, they wielded virtually all political power (including the presidency), and they had tons of money. If they panicked over a piece of art, they had the power to sway an entire nation’s opinion on the matter, and the resources to bring lawsuits and lobby for a change in law. I can’t deny that public opinion isn’t a powerful force, but Christianity itself was a serious driving force of public opinion in a way that modern twitter can’t really compare to. Besides, most of the big artists that are being shouted down today are seriously bad people like R Kelly and Chris Brown. I don’t see many people protesting Nick Cave; the question in this video was merely a question, not an attack or shout-down/cancellation.
It's like old confederate statues. Preserve them in a museum as historical documents but don't display them on the square. To artists: don't remake a PC edition of their album (unless you feel the need to, I guess) but maybe consider dodging problematic tracks on your next setlist.
also most of those confederate statues were built in the 1910s-1920s during a time of considerable political unrest, not the 1860s when the confederacy actually existed. Putting them in context in a museum would make them much more valuable historical artifacts than sticking them in a park or something.
MrGallade475 that’s also fair, to put it in the context of their time. Have they aged poorly or were they moronic in their own time?
@@benbauer7866 They were erected in response to protests. Taken from wikipedia "According to the AHA, memorials to the Confederacy erected during this period "were intended, in part, to obscure the terrorism required to overthrow Reconstruction, and to intimidate African Americans politically and isolate them from the mainstream of public life."
So, racist as hell, and erected with evil intentions.
“Songs are divinely constituted organisms”
Really... _all_ of them? Even the Hokey Pokey?
ESPECIALLY the hokey pokey
Whenever I listen to early Nick Cave songs, it’s obvious he’s playing a character. The problematic language is representative of the song, definitely not the artist.
Nah mate, Sufjan Stevens is actually John Wayne Gacy, Jr.
In the late 90s there was a German Hiphop group called "Westberlin Maskulin" consisting of Taktloss and Kool Savas. Taktloss is black, Savas is Turkish. On their albums (and even in solo work) both of them used the n-word. When they broke up in 2000, Savas stopped using the word in new songs and in live performances of his old songs. Now there are vinyl reissues of the old albums and every instance of Savas using the word is either muted or beeped. On one hand I get it. He obvisiously wasn't comfortable with there being new releases with him using the word on them. On the other hand everybody knows the songs and everybody knows about the controversy behind him using the word, so it is kind of weird to have the reissues altered. Also in live settings he altered a line where he called another rapper gay that he later befriended. So this is an interesting example of an artist that actually WANTED to change his own lyrics.
Damn bro, doing a censored vinyl reissue is pretty gay.
I think that you are looking a bit too much into Nick’s personification of his songs. To me this is just his writing style, many of his blog posts have a similar whimsical style. Really though i think the point he is making is these songs were created during a more naive point in his life. Perhaps he felt he was held back less by his status and less concerned about offending and misses that feeling. But these songs are just artifacts from that period which may not fit into the current political landscape.
You're being way too generous. He straight-up did the "people just don't have a sense of humor anymore smh" thing.
Fuck the current landscape. Freedom of speech exist, and say what you want.
@@totlyepic that's a valid argument as well tho
@@Ryan-hj8il That "people just don't have a sense of humor anymore"? No, it is not. At all.
@@totlyepic How come?
The idea that someone would go back into history and believe it their prerogative to "fix" songs to meet a modern era is something straight out of a dystopian novel. If someone wants to alter it to perform it themselves or to re-release the song, then fine, but the original is still the standard.
I'm glad someone gets it. Truly is dystopian, might seem like a small thing to some people, to me it's an absolute hellish nightmare.
This video is going to look pretty tonedeaf in 2037 when a whole generation of songs are on university campuses fighting for their right to vote after decades of oppression.
In 2037 Fantano will be raping our ears by telling us our favourite song is mid, and his punishment will be lethal injection.
That whole thing about giving human characteristics to songs was poetic license. Not meant to be taken literally lmao
No kidding. The point was he was using that license to dodge the issue.
@@johnh7018 i can get behind that but at the end the question was answered: "songs grow a life of their own and they should not be changed because it's part of their identity. If your offended, i have no trouble in getting the blame for that". It's also worth noting the fact Nick Cave answers almost all questions in a similar fashion so it's not a one time thing to avoid the blame.
Fantano has never seemed dumber to me than he did here. Maybe when he unironically reviewed a post malone album, I guess.
If a song offends you, don't listen to it. Changing old art to conform with modern standards is a slippery slope.
boom then listen to it until your ear drums bleed.
A slippery slope to what?
Noctiuagus bad stuff.
@@professorpancakes6545 like?
Noctiuagus use your imagination.
Almost all the comments seem to be addressing the idea of changing the recordings, but the question was about live performances. Those seem like two totally different issues. I mean, I don't think Huck Finn should be rewritten, but if you are a white person performing a reading of it, you're probably just calling his friend Jim.
Similarly, the original recording is always going to be the original recording, but I can see choosing to perform slightly different lyrics in a live set. In fact, given how many live performances wildly alter the originals to begin with, people getting hung up on the idea of such a relatively minor tweak doesn't really make much sense to me.
None of that is to say what any artist "should" or "shouldn't" do, incidentally. I just can't help noticing that the comment section is being dominated by reactions to a strawman.
I still say preserve the original content.
Would you censor a painting for public view because it depicts something we no longer accept as a society?
I believe art is art and can be changed, as long as the original content is readily available.
But this is just my opinion.
@@sulk1992 They didn't say anything counter to that. You didn't disagree with the original commenter, though you sound as though you are.
The idea of a live performance has always been that it can be reinterpretted. All sorts of alterations have been made to different Shakespearean plays, for example, usually to fit in with a certain style of the time. It isn't a new idea. Music should be even MORE fluid than that because it's music, not a play with a linear story (unless we are talking about Stan, or something), different melodies and ideas can be represented at minimal cost to the original work, and sometimes a BETTER product results. I know I like the Gary Jules version of "Mad World" much more than the original version that most people don't even know, for example.
@@SpencerfromEarth nice
@@sulk1992 I don't think the painting example really works for this. I agree that an original painting, like an original recording, feels like it should be preserved for a variety of reasons.
Again, though, this was a question about making changes in live performances. A painter does not typically go on tour, re-painting copies of their famous works in front of live audiences whose attitudes and expectations may have changed in the years since the originals were painted. For that reason, there's no clear equivalence I can see.
This kind of mentality halts artistic integrity, sometimes art is dark. It's a mentality like this which is why we cant have people like Richard Pryor anymore.
Yes because of pussy ass sjw snowflakes who thinks that the world revolves around them
I mean that dude was dark
Literally everything in our oral history changes with time to fit with the society. Every saying, fable, nursery. That's no different.
It just feels "weird" because we still have the original in the public conscience, but that's absolutely natural. That doesn't "change the past" or "censor the intent", thats preserved and reserved for the time. It just keeps relevancy and put the piece in a new context.
I mean, what's better? Changing the verse with racial slurs or making Cole Porter's "Let's Do It, Let's Fall in Love" be forgotten forever?
MrBowser Totally agree with you
@debaser as I said, that doesn't change the past or the context that it was made. It just make relevant and comercial again
No they shouldn't, but the word problematic should be changed.
The idea of what's problematic should be changed not the word. Now that would be problematic or whatever they change it to.
100% It's cringey
" I'm sorry there must be a mixed up
You want me to fix up my lyrics while our president gets his D sucked?
Fuck that get a sense of humour
Quit trying to censor music
This is for the kids's amusement"
Brandon Ayong The kids!!!
LETS ARGUE: 'problematic' is just a really pretentious way of saying 'offensive"'
I think Nick's response wasn't merely "flowery"; it was also deliberately ironic.
Exactly. He was silly to address an inherently silly assertion. Any artist, actual artist, would feel the same way. It's an affront. You can either laugh and be silly or embarrass yourself by getting as mad as you should.
A big hell no they should not. Art is meant to disturb, disrupt, comfort and provoke. Manson covering Patti Smith's Rock N Roll (CENSORED TO AVOID GETTING FLAGGED) in 2018 was interesting, and hopefully he can still play that song live without people bitching. But it's been happening since 1994 so meh.
Reminds me of how The Beastie Boys in their later career changed some of their lyrics to be less misogynist, so it went from ‘MCA’s in the back cause he’s skeezin with a whore’ to ‘MCA’s in the back with the mahjong board’ which i still think is a hilarious switch
Chance the Rapper censors "slap happy f****** slapper" when he performs Favorite Song live now. I think he made the right choice by doing that
That’s a good example of something that is homophobic that actually attacks gay people in an unfunny not joking way that should be changed
But why change it? Why even write it in the first place then?
@@mord3030 Because people, opinions and times change. It's like after something you try doesn't work out and someone says "Why did you even try in the first place?" when there's no way you could have known it to fail. We all surely said some dumb shit when we were younger or did stuff we aren't proud of in retrospect but that's how you learn from your mistakes and see how you have changed or grown as a person.
@@Teyserback that's fair, and I haven't heard the song but I don't understand what other context it could have been taken in.
@@mord3030 I personally haven't heard the song either, I was just making a general argument as to how it could happen that people might revisit lyrics. In this Chance lyrics I assume he just grew older and realized that he didn't want to associate with the word anymore.
No
No art should be retrospectively altered unless it’s to create a new piece of art.
Art doesn’t have to be friendly and inclusive either. It can be ugly, vulgar, repulsive and make us angry.
It’s created to make us feel. Whatever that feeling may be.
Frej A. “That’s just your opinion”. Yeah, no shit. Just as you’ve voiced your opinion. Lovely that we can have differing ones isn’t it?
Only, I don”t like how you’re implying my tone as “screaming” - that’s getting a bit silly. You’re also placing words in my mouth which is annoying. I never suggested anything was necessarily “better in the first place”.
_In a live performance,_ depending on your audience or yourself, perhaps, yes.
Never change the official lyrics though.
POV: you get punched by Anthony who just got possessed by Cal Chuchesta 2:54
Anthony, stop trying to erase your old MBDTF review from our memories
seen the new one? he doesn't care lollll
I could care less if an artist wants to rewrite or re-record songs to better reflect their present values- that’s their prerogative. Where this kind of thing bothers me is only when it crosses over into dishonest historical revisionism, trying to erase or distort the past; but that’s completely different from what is being discussed here.
For instance, think about the quote on the wall of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. They quote the very famous First They Came... poem- and that’s great. It’s a very good, relevant, historically important poem. But in their quote, they changed the words without giving any indication that they did so.
The quote on the wall starts:
“First they came for the socialists. . .”
The actual poem, written by the author, read:
“First they came for the communists. . .”
It’s not hard to figure out why they changed it. The US has had several periods of extreme anti-communist fervor. The 1st Red Scare, the Palmer Raids and actual deportation/exile of communist workers & anti-WWI activists, the 2nd Red Scare, McCarthyism, COINTELPRO, the violent overthrow & sabotage of pretty much every leftist government in the world, often justified by claiming they were communists or in league with communists when they were only even socialists, social-democrats, etc.)... So there was still a lot of extreme anti-communist Cold War/McCarthyist sentiment in the US at the time of the museum’s establishment- Hell, we’re only somewhat getting over it now, though it hasn’t been an issue with so few communists in the world lately.
But there’s a reason it was written as it was, an intention behind the word-choice... I mean, “First they came for the communists.” That is what actually happened when the Nazis rose to power. Given our own political establishment’s hatred of communism and the atrocities we’ve committed in the name of anti-communism, it isn’t surprising that they might be reluctant to admit it, but fascism (& Nazism specifically) we’re always animated in significant part by anti-communism & anti-Marxism, alongside anti-Semitism, racism, ultranationalism, other forms of xenophobia... That’s something the American elite shared with the fascists/Nazis, & is one reason so many elites on Wall Street and in Washington supported the rise of fascism and Nazism (hell, some Wall Street financiers even plotted a literal fascist coup to overthrow FDR & institute a far-right military dictatorship). Fascism is simply quite profitable for major corporations. It uses the full force of state violence to crush labor & the left- anyone who would challenge the rule of traditional ruling classes... So they are very much able to co-operate, & billionaires would always prefer fascism over socialism or communism (Wall Street was thrilled when Bolsonaro took the place of the Worker’s Party in Brazil, promising to privatize the Amazon).
So, for many, it’s far more convenient to present a history where regular working class communist labor organizers weren’t some of the first victims of the Nazis, weren’t brutally purged from the entire country and thrown in concentration camps, to later be joined by the Jews- exactly as the poem says. They may not *like* socialists, but it’s less of a bitter pill for them to swallow, & our own history of repression isn’t quite as severe with more moderate socialists.
Should be a 1 second video saying "no"
Censoring art of any form is dangerous business.
not even a little. Art should be able to be made in its uncensored raw form, and should not change because other people tell the artist that is what they "should" do. Art in itself used to be made for controversy, and the fact that this is unacceptable to people goes against all of art throughout history. Artists need to be able to create whatever they want as long as it does not cause Physical harm to non consenting people.
I saw Lil Wayne perform a few years ago. He completely changed the part of the verse that uses the f word in A Milli, and I think it was a very wise choice.
King Kebo can I say what’s up slime to a black guy I only met once ?? I know slime isn’t a race thing like nigga but still.
It’ll never not be funny how people rant and rave about sensitivity when in the past you could be literally hung for having a wrong opinion that went against the popular thought. What’s the equivalent now? Getting ratioed on twitter?
I think a lot of this increased sensitivity is really just people being more aware of one another
Nick writes like a high schooler with a thesaurus.
xBulmir UwU or like TI, which i guess is kinda the same thing
I don't really care one way or the other about criticizing old art as offensive, but it definitely shouldn't be changed. Let art live as it is, judge it as it is, in context out of context honestly whatever. Changing it changes history a bit, and is pointless.
So I'm not totally familiar if Nick's stuff so I can't speak for him, but I do have kinda an issue with they "irony and jokes are no longer ok" line. It's a common excuse for saying some questions things but I've heard a lot of lines from back then, and there was some real, genuine bigotry in some older lyrics, maybe not in Nick's, (as I said, I'm not totally familiar with his work), but definitely in other artists. It feels like a cheap and easy out for some serious concerns
And look if you said some hateful shit because it was a different time but grew as a person and changed then I don't think we should make a big deal about it.
But i think it's fair that if you have published works that said some questionable things for people to ask "do you still believe that?"
Should they change the lyrics if they don't stand by them anymore? I think it's a personal thing. Some artists might rewrite a song to reflect who they are now, others might want to leave it as is, as an important time capsule to show how their work as evolved
how do we remember and learn from our mistakes if we pretend they never happened?
Melon how can you be so “woke” and then immediately say the n-word 10 times at the end of the video. Kind of contradictory if you ask me.
As for the argument you made about Judas Priest:
The “hating” generation was the previous ones, as in creators at the time knew “the rules”, and chose to break them.
Artists like the ones in the video are receiving hate from new generations (20+ years after the songs creation), they couldn’t have possibly known “the rules”. It’s not comparable
What do they say... "Anti progressive" is the new Counter culture? I think Fantano is a little too self aware of the PC/progressive reputation he has to uphold. Twitter expects nothing less. The fact Nick Cave wrote this outside of Twitter, should tell Fantano something.
If MF DOOM changed the lyrics to Batty Boyz I would lose all respect for the super villain
Jerma uwu As homophobic as the lyrics are and the overall theme of the song is, I genuinely love the track. It’s beat is so fitting for a comic-esque track and DOOM does so well to change his flow to match the instrumental.
If they want to change it in live performances or rereleases they can, if they don't (whether they stand by the sentiment, they never stood by it but were using it to portray a character or troll people, or they once did and now don't but want the comment not erased from history) they can refrain. It's up to the artist to make that statement, and it has the same pressures behind it as not changing a musical element they no longer like (some fans will want to hear the original). Changing something for a disingenuous reason is worthless tho
"We can have a stalemate". That's a very insightful thought. People on both sides of the argument tend to demand one way or the other. As long as we have free speech, we can just sit on opposing sides and not bother each other.
I think it depends on the intentions of the songwriter; as an example, Haley Williams has expressed that she does not want Misery Business to be performed live anymore, due to it's slut shaming lyrics, but has recently gone further to say that she doesn't want it on playlists either--which is basically expressing a desire for the song to be forgotten/not played anymore in any capacity.
While I understand that position, and thinking that the lyrical content doesn't necessarily reflect how she feels in general, I feel like the best solution is simply to rewrite the song's lyrics for a more contemporary time period & rerecord it. I also don't see an issue with this--especially if we're considering a simple rewriting of a handful of lines.
If she were to replace the song on music streaming platforms with a rerecorded version that reflect the position that she currently has, I think that would be a great thing. Especially with a song like Misery Business, which fans want to hear live, and most likely want to enjoy in other contexts, in a way that doesn't feel uncomfortable or shameful. Lyrics are important to a songs identity, but Misery Business is still a bop on a musical level, and I'd wanna keep listening to it normally.
Art is problematic by nature.
Cool, can you explain?
@@job3950 No, they can't, It's just one of those pseudointellectual phrases people use to avoid having to actually think about things.
I hate how the left became so pro-censorship. That's why I'm not left-wing anymore, I'm now a centrist liberal and free speech absolutist.
We are not pro-censorship, what are you on about? Why would anti-Government leftists be pro-government censorship? It’s the right wing that’s actually doing actual censorship, like banning “Maus”Criticizing art isn’t censorship.
Fantano, Can you judge my first Song?
bet
Short Answer: No
Long Answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
My Music gon blow soon 🚫🧢
I listen to a lot of Tech N9ne right. Hes got a song called "Who Do I Catch Now" on the mp3/CD version he has a line that says "I even caught gays before they all went and caught aids." But on the music video version he changed it to " I even caught Sinead before her head went and caught blades." Something along on lines.
I think censoring music because it’s “problematic” is an absolutely ridiculous concept and sets a scary precedent for media at large. If art is making people uncomfortable, great, it’s doing its job
Autumn remember when conservatives wanted to censor and control peoples rights, I miss those times at least being liberal or left actually meant freedom
Eenie meenie minie moe, catch a ni-
All of this retroactive censoring is pretty scary for almost any creative person
I think pretty much everyone here, including Fantano, agree that music released in the past should not be altered. If not for the integrity of the original piece, then for the preservation of music in general. I also think this old music should be readily available for anyone interested to listen to. This is also related to something Fantano previously discussed, albums getting "patches." I'm inclined to believe that this practice is kind of unhealthy because the redux replaces the original, its completely fine to remaster an album, but the original should be accessible at all times.
Egg Boy Exactly. We should encourage the preservation of the original in its original, unaltered form. At the same time, we should encourage dialogue about the original work, and make it known to the artist that he or she has the freedom to do whatever he or she wants with it afterwards (i.e. it’s up to the artist to decide whether he or she wants to release an altered version later on, decide not to perform it live, etc). Also, we shouldn’t fault a service like Spotify if they decide to take the original off their curated playlists, or decide to minimize its exposure on their service. The point is, we shouldn’t erase the original work, yet we shouldn’t be upset if people don’t want to promote it (or the actual artist wants to distance himself from it) either.
The word “problematic” is just a word people put on something they don’t like
Words are more than buzzwords ffs they actually come from somewhere. Judy Garland in black face is problematic, it's not some magical nothing word, it has a place.
but yes people absolutely do use it to just to smear things that they don't like and it's dumb asf
They wouldn't like to hear that's rascists though. And frankly not everything is as a racist as segregation.
Nope i think it’s a word that characterizes words or actions that inflict material harm on protected and minority groups, or that espouse regressive politics. The word problematic is probably overused, but it still carries meaning
I'll say this much... I just read an article about SNL removing a cold open from one of its older episodes on Netflix (or wherever) because it is 'sketchy' by today's standards and I don't think that's right. We can't sanitize history, should we remove the trans-atlantic slave trade from history books too because that's offensive? We have to be able to see where we were in the past so that we can understand how far we've come.
As for music... I can see the case for changing a song when performed live, if you (as the artist) are no longer as comfortable saying, let's say, f-word (the gay one), as you were in the 90s and 2000s, I get why you'd change it, or not perform the song at all. But say that in 20-30 years society turns and not even black folks are comfortable using the n-word any more, do we only play the radio edits of decades of hip-hop?
I think changing the lyrics of a product of its time to match that of current sensibilities is, whether conscious or not, rewriting history. Not only is the original meaning of the product altered, the content itself is scrubbed, which is de facto censorship. For example, if a singer, during a live performance, changes the lyrics of one of his edgier songs to be more sensitive to the socio-political climate, it would give an impression to newer audiences that there is something to be feared about the original content, plus any older fan who knows the original song well will just get pissed off by the censorship and placation. And this isn't even considering concepts such as "artistic integrity" or "unintentional gas-lighting".
Example of striking a balance, Daryl of Glassjaw will often flip lyrics from old songs live, in such a way that it spins the song. A ton of his later lyrics and adlibs sound like a direct self-callout of his older lyrics.
Just a random anecdote.
The narrator in «Papa Won’t Leave You, Henry» is not Nick Cave. There are bigoted, homophobic people in the world, and there’s no need to erase such characters from storytelling. Cave’s song is not a moral parable. It’s a story of emotions, without inherent value judgment. Why would an audience member be offended? The word doesn’t appear in an autobiographical, confessional song of Cave’s.
Just like Canada changing the national anthem. Now it’s “in all of us command” instead of “in all thy sons command.” I don’t mind, just forget sometimes when I’m signing the lyrics haha.
because of the folks complaining about "muh gender neutral pronouns"
Imagine actually changing your national anthem over pc bullshit lmao white people
Another point for Canada in the cuck bucket
Wooow how wildly unnecessary
honestly it's such a small change who even cares
I think the lyrics should be shown as a product of the time and should never be changed
Imho, no. Masterpieces such as Eminems 'Fack' must be preserved for generations to come.
I would've agreed with you if it wasn't a pile of horse shit. The only thing "problematic" about it is how bad it is (even if intentionally so)
@@franklingoodwin agreed, it's just gross not 'problematic' but had to take the opportunity to mention it on a melons vid 😃
-Should Old Problematic Lyrics Be Changed?
-No.
-Thank you for the debate.
Anthony! My mom got mad because you didn't clean up your dishes last time you were at my house. We almost got ants!
This shouldn't even be a conversation, of course it shouldn't be changed
No.
this is an important question I think; Im not sure if I have a good answer. preserving art is good history. on the other hand my favorite albums often have uncomfortable and angering for a moment in an otherwise great experience. it creates a bitter sweet feeling.
Old lyrics should not be changed. However attitude shifts and criticisms are fair game.
Where’s the Johnny rebel album review?
"But what if it was okay for me to say f****t?" - Nick Cave
No, that's a part of the history and the culture. This is becoming an issue in Black Metal culture because American's are coming in and are upset about the lyrics.
Ultimately I don't believe they should, since offensive is subjective. If I would perhaps use the ultimate example, Immortal Technique's "Dance With The Devil" is something surely many people would find offensive, yet the song would lose all impact if it was cleaned up at all. I'm sure he still gets questioned over the "punchline" of the song but I wouldn't wish for the world to take that away from us at all. It's brutally brilliant and as others have said "if you don't like it, don't listen".
Did nick really say all that as a roundabout way of saying "lol get triggered snowflakes".
I get it lmao but I expected Nick Cave of all people to go beyond "hey times were different"
No.
And as a liberal.
I believe that music, games, and comedy is definitely not as offensive as it should be.
We want Eminem to get offensive like the slim shady days but when he does we get upset.
We want Lil Wayne to be back on his hard on thots motto wave but again when he does get upset at him.
We want Dave Chappelle to be as thought provoking and socially conscious and boundary pushing as he was on the Chappelle show and older stand up but get upset when he does.
We have entire droves of musicians and comedians especially rappers apologizing for the art they made now and even up to 30 years ago.
Misogyny, Homophobia, Racism, and anything else offensive should be and has to be allowed into art not to be in support of it but often times to be a critic of it.
Would shows like the office or parks and req even be allowed to air today? Or would it be watered down to all oblivion or forced on to a streaming platform where pretty average down to earth humor is painted as "edgy" or "risque"? I wonder.
Exactly. The character "The Todd" in Scrubs would be a "problematic" character today and Ross in Friends is seen by Gen Z as problematic because of his 90's attitudes to lesbianism
@@franklingoodwin or the Seinfeld episode that handles homosexuality. Which painted the characters as ignorant and wrong for being homophobic and in the grand scheme of things normalized homosexuality. Today it would never air. Why? Because some would get offended?
I need someone to remind me when Liberals decided to develop puritan ideas again. Because I certainly missed the memo.
Organized Opinions homophobia, racism etc. In art can lead to the deaths of those people it affects. What are your thoughts on that?
@@godofnothing428 it doesn't. More often than not things like the offices or Seinfelds "Homophobia" leads to conversations around homosexuality, helping to normalize it and become far more accepted in society.
We saw this with Malcom in the middle, the office, Eminem, and Seinfeld. We know it works. Jokes humanize people.
We can also allow homophobic art to exist and criticize it. When we censor it and tell people it's not allowed all it does is make it more attractive.
When we say something is a product of its time, it doesn’t mean it should be okay now because it was considered okay back then- it means we should look back on it in the context of when it was written. Changing the song as written would basically be trying to whitewash an ugly reflection of the past- though I agree that it probably would be good to avoid the lyric when performing live.
I am... very disappointed that Nick is getting on this misplaced anti-SJW victim-complex nonsense, though. I liked his work.
+miles
By the same token, “U triggered bruh” is not a valid response to criticism of one’s lyrics.
@@Dreigonix White twitter liberals are living in a bubble, which is why Bernie lost the black vote, and the nomination. They're a subculture who thinks they're the vanguard. We see this episode with new genration. I call it youth narcississm: The belief that you are inventing the future, when you're just in a moment that will pass.
No.
If you want to destroy your copy, or boycott the artist, that's your business, but the original version should be available.
Can you imagine someone demanding a change in a scene in a movie? Like, there's a "problematic" scene and people get "offended". Who would re-film a scene to change it? Nobody. So why would the musicians rewrite a song lyrics after someone point out that there's something wrong with them? Come on
I completely agree with Nick. I was not aware of the censorship that was also present back in his young days, but the excesses of social justice and identity politics are getting out of control. There is one thing called IRONY and CONTEXT (especially in art and comedy). So if the artist's lyrics were not meant to be offensive, one shouldn't change anything. How can we be sure if it is a case of irony, sarcasm, nuanced, etc. or not? In most cases, we cannot! Let's censor and change everything then? Of course not. One thing is to fight for the minorities rights, another thing is to make them weak, fragile, resentful, too sensitive and unable to bear the uncertainty of a putative old discriminatory lyric, that may contribute to perpetuate the discrimination: that is counter-productive (it will have the opposite effect), and is part of the excesses that are destroying the humanities, now mere domains of the useful, where the activists project their collectivist agendas on texts and works of art...
Most of the censorship I see currently is coming from the right-wing(like it always has) not us lefties. Because a book about Nazis and mice apparently hits a little too close to home.
Pretty much agree with all points here, Best Teeth. I will add that the flowery language in this is frustrating, because it’s clear that Mr Cave is less worried about answering the question and more about persuading readers to agree with him. There’s no problem with that in some contexts, but here it’s like he’s self-propagandizing.
Artists and performers can change lyrics if they want. But they definitely don't have to if they choose not to. If you're alright with any possible alienation, feel free to keep it. If you want to change it, you're allowed to. No reason to force artists into something they don't feel anymore.
kidz bops been fixing up lyrics for years anthony, get with the times old man
Whats problematic or not is a subjective opinion.
For every problematic song they fix i will make new problematic song
Roadhouse
family guy was never funny.
@@dedg0st wtf it's the president of funny here taking time out her very busy schedule to to tell me what is funny well madam president i would very much like thank you
Roadhouse
@saturnicCockatoo any time
Roadhouse
Should be up to the artists themselves, not the audience.
I agree with him, but what the hell is that analogy?
I mean.... no... historical context and looking back on how things USED to be is important to move forward.
You can keep the song as it were written, and just adjust the live version.
@@thisfishiscoolashell this seems to be the best solution all around. Also, if they rerelease songs, change it there too. Besides that, keep it the same
@@tmmdofficial or George Lucas it like a "remaster" with the new lyrics and an "original" version with the old.
So Lucas but the option for both