The song is actually a work of satire rather than a work of comedy. The song was inspired by the government of the City of Boston deciding to use strychnine-laced corn in its public parks to reduce the pigeon population in the 1950s. This was clearly, dangerous, abusive to animals as you've stated, and ultimately futile. This context has been lost over time, which means that the sarcastic element can be missed by individuals such as yourself. The priority of satire however, is to be subversive first, whilst being funny is typically an afterthought in satirical works. Most urban people may find pigeons to by mildly annoying, along with many other elements of city dwelling life, but most would recognise the actions described in the song as shocking, extremely alarming and psychopath. Without the original context, the song can be considered funny, due to the contrasting elements of the sweet jolly melody and opening lyrics versus the violent nature of the rest of the song. A further comedic contrast is the fact that many young people are unaware of the long history of satirical works in our culture, and are surprised to find a song like this written in the post war 1950s, an era often retrospectively idealised as a time when things where 'good' and people where 'upright' despite rampant sexism, racism and poverty and other forms of social injustice. For me the song is funny, as it almost feels like a parody of 1950s music, despite being a genuine song from that era. It's a reminder not to take things as face value. The main character of the song is quite clearly mad, as was the policy of the Boston government to poison the pigeons in the park.
I do not understand how a song about animal abuse can be considered funny.
The song is actually a work of satire rather than a work of comedy. The song was inspired by the government of the City of Boston deciding to use strychnine-laced corn in its public parks to reduce the pigeon population in the 1950s. This was clearly, dangerous, abusive to animals as you've stated, and ultimately futile. This context has been lost over time, which means that the sarcastic element can be missed by individuals such as yourself. The priority of satire however, is to be subversive first, whilst being funny is typically an afterthought in satirical works.
Most urban people may find pigeons to by mildly annoying, along with many other elements of city dwelling life, but most would recognise the actions described in the song as shocking, extremely alarming and psychopath. Without the original context, the song can be considered funny, due to the contrasting elements of the sweet jolly melody and opening lyrics versus the violent nature of the rest of the song. A further comedic contrast is the fact that many young people are unaware of the long history of satirical works in our culture, and are surprised to find a song like this written in the post war 1950s, an era often retrospectively idealised as a time when things where 'good' and people where 'upright' despite rampant sexism, racism and poverty and other forms of social injustice.
For me the song is funny, as it almost feels like a parody of 1950s music, despite being a genuine song from that era. It's a reminder not to take things as face value. The main character of the song is quite clearly mad, as was the policy of the Boston government to poison the pigeons in the park.