Bullets 'n' Babes

Am I alone in preferring the radio edit of this haunting rock ballad which replaces multiple uses of the word 'fucking' with 'very'? I've never understood the concept of swearing in music. I can't think of a single example where it's necessary or meaningful - this one is no exception. Thoughts...?

I don't like radio edits, and I don't have a problem with swearing in songs, I can handle it.

I said I didn't like swearing in records not that I couldn't 'handle' it.

Yeah I guess, it just kind of sounds like a granny thing to say if you know what I mean lol, it's not like Radiohead are a crude band or anything - listen to Limp Bizkit - 'Hot Dog' for that

It's no different to censorship in films in the case of Creep because that's a subjective song meant to be performed "in character". Oh and this complaint from the guy who started the "Nudity in Music Videos" thread a couple of weeks ago. No swearing please, but get a woman with her tits out in your video!

gasteropod wrote:Yeah I guess, it just kind of sounds like a granny thing to say if you know what I mean lol, it's not like Radiohead are a crude band or anything - listen to Limp Bizkit - 'Hot Dog' for that

I don't think it's 'a granny thing' to say. I just think it's pointless to have swearing in songs that otherwise would be suitable for ages. Does the repeated use of 'fucking' in Creep make it in any way a better song? No. So why do it? Songs aren't like film dialogue; they don't need to reflect the way people talk, and otherwise don't. It's entirely gratuitous (and pretentious) in my opinion. 'Ooh, they swear; this must be meaningful and emotive, and for adults too!' You know, the kind of people who would reevaluate The Spice Girls back catalogue if it Baby Spice yelled 'fuck you all' on track 3. It's sad that anyone who dares to share an opinion that doesn't jibe with the 'let it all hang out' brigade is dubbed 'a granny' or - to put it in 50s lingo - 'a square'. 'Standards' is the true profanity of today.

And I'd really rather not listen to Limp Biskit.

Shingster wrote:It's no different to censorship in films in the case of Creep because that's a subjective song meant to be performed "in character". Oh and this complaint from the guy who started the "Nudity in Music Videos" thread a couple of weeks ago. No swearing please, but get a woman with her tits out in your video!

Those are obviously completely different issues. All I said was that I don't like swearing on records not that I would ban it. How is that censorship? Please explain. I don't like pickled onion crisps either but I'm not saying they should be banned. My point about the use of 'fucking' in the song has been completely overshadowed by tired (and immature) finger pointing. When Radiohead produced a 'soft' version of Creep many idiots dubbed them 'sellouts' as if the band's integrity belonged in that one word. These are people who didn't care about the song - they cared about the swearing in the song and any anti-censorship point it could be used to make. It's not different to the studios who stick a 'fuck you' in most PG-13s so they can promote the 'one use of strong language' as a means of demonstrating street cred. I wonder if Creep - a song I very much like - would have garnered so much cred among the self-consciously hip types had the song always been 'soft'. The very same people laughed when James Blunt put a 'fuck' in his dirge Beautiful. It's not about artistic merit, as Shing suggests; it never was.

As for the nudity in music videos: Clearly that thread was a bit of fun and not meant to be taken as a serious argument for or against anything. I'm not for a second under any misapprehension that there's artistic merit in those videos. They're masturbatory in nature and nothing more.

As everyone probably already imagined my opinion to be on this subject: I really don't give a fuck about swearing in songs or anywhere else for that matter.

I HATE it when there's a song on MTV ("wait, there are songs on MTV!?!?!?") and all the s'wear words are 'muted' out ... It's just beyond pathetic.

I don't really care for them changing the words either. It's just ridiculous and unnecesary.

Markgway wrote:I just think it's pointless to have swearing in songs that otherwise would be suitable for ages. Does the repeated use of 'fucking' in Creep make it in any way a better song? No. So why do it?

Actually Mark, you're the one guilty of making a big deal about the swearing, Yorke probably just wrote the song with the words that felt more personal/natural to him, I highly doubt he was trying to make a bold statement with its usage. Having a word like "fuckin" in a song may or may not necessarily add anything to it, unless you judge the value of a song based on whether it can be played uncensored on daytime radio of course.

Songs aren't like film dialogue; they don't need to reflect the way people talk, and otherwise don't.

I'm sure anyone who is a fan of satirists like Randy Newman could tell you otherwise.

Those are obviously completely different issues. All I said was that I don't like swearing on records not that I would ban it. How is that censorship?

My analogy had nothing to do with your own personal view of the song, I merely likened the production of a "radio friendly" edit of a song to a "TV friendly" version of a film, oh and just to be clear: The practice in either context is perfectly fine by me, I just know which version I'm willing to spend my money on is all!

Shingster wrote:Actually Mark, you're the one guilty of making a big deal about the swearing

Guilty? That word implies that I've done something wrong simply by having an opinion different to the status quo (shocking as that may seem on Bullets). I have nothing to feel guilt over. I asked a question (does anyone else dislike swearing in songs?) and outlined my reasons... how does that translate into my being guilty of making a big deal about swearing? Am I not allowed to ask this question... to disagree? Should I only post threads that are anti-censorship? Maybe next time I'll post a thread praising swearing in music. I'll no doubt get a better reception. This sort of 'how very dare you?' attitude stems back to my remarks about Martyrs, which were twisted to the point that the casual reader would assume I was Mary Whitehouse reincarnated. Out of curiousity is there anything that it's 'OK' here not to like or approve of?

Yorke probably just wrote the song with the words that felt more personal/natural to him, I highly doubt he was trying to make a bold statement with its usage.

I guess I'm just more cynical than you because I don't believe that using the word 'fucking' three times equates to artistic integrity. Again, I'm not saying that he shouldn't be allowed to swear. He can say fuck 100 times and I wouldn't ban it. I'm only saying that I don't like it and am raising the question about it's necessity or desirability.

Having a word like "fuckin" in the song may or may not necessarily add anything to it, unless you judge the value of a song based on whether it can be played uncensored on daytime radio of course.

I can honestly say I've never heard a song that can't be played uncut on daytime radio that I've thought 'oh, that's so much better with the profanity and sex references intact'. Never happened. I don't listen to music the way I watch films and can't connect the two in my mind. My opinion is that songs don't need swearing and/or 'objectionable' content. I'm sure that view is old-fashioned and 'uncool' to the Parental Advisory generation but it's the way I feel.

I'm sure anyone who is a fan of satirists like Randy Newman could tell you otherwise.

Not familiar with.

My analogy had nothing to do with your own personal view of the song, I merely likened the production of a "radio friendly" edit of a song to a "TV friendly" version of a film, oh and just to be clear: The practice in either context is perfectly fine by me, I just know which version I'm willing to spend my money on is all!

And lest you think I'm being hypocritical I have no problem with the showing of censored movies - as long as the uncut version is also shown/available. But I wouldn't take the piss out of someone who, for instance, says they prefer Four Weddings and a Funeral without the 'comedy swearing' in the opening scene. If Thom Yorke came out and said 'acually I prefer the altered version of Creep' (unlikely, I know) would you still 'know which version to spend your money on'?

Listen to this dire cover by Eliza Doolittle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7tWW246-EI

A singer of chirpy pop ditties that are so insubstantial they're in danger of floating away comes out with a song that contains 'fucking' and - ah ha - guess what...?

"Oh. My. God. THE FUCK?! I thought Eliza Doolittle was a nice little happy go lucky london gal, a couple of twee-pop songs, no more! She's got one of the best voices in pop today!"

More sample comments...

"That was pretty fucking special!"

"I wish i was special, You're fucking special."

"so fuckin special"

"Well I think YOU'RE SO FUCKIN SPECIAL too Best cover of Creep I've heard so far!"

"YOU'RE SOOOO FUCKIN' SPECIAL!!!!! AND IM SOOOO DRUNK!!!!"

There's pages of this rubbish..........

My opinion is evolving slightly. I think it's less the swearing that bugs me than the song that contains the swearing and/or the artist that swears. Creep is a great song. It doesn't need the swearing. 'Fucking' is a lazy word to use. If the song was otherwise shit I wouldn't even think to mention it. It's vulgarity mars a really good, emotional song. I have a Green Day album which has numerous 'fucks' and it's never been an issue. Why? Because it's aggressively loud punk rock and swearing is in their DNA. Radiohead is better than that. I think we're getting to the root of my problem.

Actually I don't think we're getting anywhere at all now because you're taking VERY innocuous comments by myself and gastero and exaggerating them massively in your mind. When you feel like being reasonable and not playing the victim of BnB peer pressure then maybe there will be a debate here worth continuing.....

I'm fine with swearing in music. As I am with swearing in books, movies, poetry, graphic novels, documentary, theater, art etc. etc. why make an exception to music??

However to say swearing in songs is ok is not me saying I like to hear swearing in every song by every artist. Sometimes it works, sometimes it feels forced or immature. It's interesting you started the topic referencing Creep - probably a perfect example (dare I say it) of how 'it's ok to swear' in music. Creep is a brilliant haunting, meaningful song yet you say "I can't think of a single example where it's necessary or meaningful". Why does one contradict the other in the case of Creep? Obviously the album version is intended version of the song, the clean version is the Radio edit.

A good album hopefully is a complete piece of work, something to listen too and evaluate as a whole. A single is just a bite of the artists achievement and an altered single an even smaller one. Does the album spoil because of the swearing, or have you lost respect for Radiohead because of they crossed some kind of line? Also does swearing exclusively make a song of a more adult nature?

That's a really good cover - and not because she's swearing in it. She's practically singing acapella at the beginning and end of the song and its quite powerful and sensual.

luckystars wrote:I'm fine with swearing in music. As I am with swearing in books, movies, poetry, graphic novels, documentary, theater, art etc. etc. why make an exception to music?? However to say swearing in songs is ok is not me saying I like to hear swearing in every song by every artist.

I think it's what I would term gratuitous swearing that irritates me. Songs that are really good lyrically that throw in crude language with no purpose (with punk and metal it seems part of the furniture). The radio edit of Creep is no worse than the album version - so why have the swearing in the first place if not for artistic cred? As outlined previously swearing in and by itself is deemed to enhance artist credibility. That quoted reaction to Eliza Doolittle is a perfect example. When Radiohead produced the radio edit many decried them as 'sellouts'. Is that because they changed their song generally - or because they took out the element that impressed the critics most?

It's interesting you started the topic referencing Creep - probably a perfect example (dare I say it) of how 'it's ok to swear' in music.

That's interesting. Why do you think it's 'OK' to swear in Creep? And when is it not OK?

Creep is a brilliant haunting, meaningful song yet you say "I can't think of a single example where it's necessary or meaningful". Why does one contradict the other in the case of Creep?

There's no contradiction. Yes, Creep is a haunting, meaningful song - but the swearing isn't. You sub the word 'very' for 'fucking' and it doesn't alter the quality one iota.

Obviously the album version is intended version of the song, the clean version is the Radio edit.

Certainly.

A good album hopefully is a complete piece of work, something to listen too and evaluate as a whole. A single is just a bite of the artists achievement and an altered single an even smaller one.

Interesting point. I haven't listened to the album (Pablo Honey). I'm not a Radiohead fan per se. I just happen to really like Creep and wondered why Radiohead felt the need to inject what I feel is gratuitous swearing.

have you lost respect for Radiohead because of they crossed some kind of line? Also does swearing exclusively make a song of a more adult nature?

Excellent questions. I've not lost respect - that would be far too strong a reaction. I just question their choice and motive. I think the instant you put swearing into a song you're basically saying this is not for a general audience. It's "adult" and thus proper serious.

Shingster wrote:Actually I don't think we're getting anywhere at all now because you're taking VERY innocuous comments by myself and gastero and exaggerating them massively in your mind. When you feel like being reasonable and not playing the victim of BnB peer pressure then maybe there will be a debate here worth continuing.....

I do have a tendancy to get argumentative... but the crux of my point about a condescending attitude toward my viewpoint are spot on. Luckystars managed to disagree with me whilst stimulating the debate. Take note.

Markgway wrote:I think the instant you put swearing into a song you're basically saying this is not for a general audience. It's "adult" and thus proper serious.

Radiohead's music is not intended for children, swearing or no swearing.

gasteropod wrote:

Markgway wrote:I think the instant you put swearing into a song you're basically saying this is not for a general audience. It's "adult" and thus proper serious.

Radiohead's music is not intended for children, swearing or no swearing.

I never said it was for children.

gasteropod wrote:

Markgway wrote:I think the instant you put swearing into a song you're basically saying this is not for a general audience. It's "adult" and thus proper serious.

Radiohead's music is not intended for children, swearing or no swearing.

Music is for everyone, swearing or no swearing.

I can shorten the debate here - Swearing in music is not for you Mark.

And neither are funny YouTube videos.

Really there is no point continuing to argue with him, because he's getting up in a tizz and saying he's being condescended after simple accusations like "you're guilty of taking swearing seriously", really? I mean REALLY? For a scotsman you're a right delicate little flower!

If I was trying to be condescending I would point out that even a child could understand that Creep has a subjective narrative told by a narrator who has an intense crush on a woman which he feels frustrated by his inability to act on. This is not Shakespeare, but nor is it meant to be formal prose so the use of swearing is much more appropriate at expressing internal frustration than the more formal use of "very".

But all that is besides the point, there's absolutely no reason to justify the lyrics of Creep because this was not a song that was written with two different sets of lyrics and the band went with the more profane choice because they were trying to be hip or cool or edgy, it was written in the late 80s as the way it was. Yorke probably didn't even consider other words or terminologies at the time, only years later when it was put out on general release and the idea of publicising it on the radio became an issue.

luckystars wrote:I can shorten the debate here - Swearing in music is not for you Mark.

.

I hate it when every other word is a swear word (I do in general too) but the odd swear word can help sometimes. Lets face it, a good "fuck off" when you're pissed off, really has more power than "go away". The same goes for music.

I do find it dumb if an album gets an explicit lyrics sticker, if the album only has 1-2 swear words. Which is what happened with Alanis Morrisette's Jagged Little Pill.

gasteropod wrote:And neither are funny YouTube videos.

What has that got to do with this subject?

There's a pattern emerging and it seems that only I can see it:

I say I don't like swearing in music - that makes me 'a granny'
I say I don't like torture porn - that makes me Mary Whitehouse
I say I don't like cruel humour on YouTube - that means I have no sense of humour.
I say True Lies has a misogynist streak - that makes me oversensitive and humourless (again).

When is it OK to disagree with other posters without them resorting to childish labelling?

Why is it if I said I LOVED swearing in music I'd get at worst apathy but more likely 'yeah, cool' votes followed by a long list of songs with the bestest ever swearing in them.

Peer pressure didn't work on me when I was 16 so it's sure as hell not gonna work on me now. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me - see my response to Luckystars - but if anyone here really thinks that I'm going to back down because I'm 'a delicate flower getting in a tizz' doesn't know me at all. I'm not saying that this would've been a great thread but the tone of the response has been most disappointing. I guess that makes me 'guilty' of disappointment too?

Shingster - I'm well aware of the meaning of the lyrics for Creep and the first person performance - but thanks regardless for pointing out to me the bleedin' obvious. And you say there's nary a whiff of condescension? But I suppose I should appreciate your last post attempt to clarify your thoughts on the matter - as much as I disagree with them.

bradavon wrote:I hate it when every other word is a swear word (I do in general too) but the odd swear word can help sometimes.

Recent example Cee-Lo's 'Fuck You'. Yes, a grown man had the wisdom to call a song 'Fuck You' and repeat the phrase throughout (just in case you missed it). I don't think anyone will be surprised to learn how impressed critics were - delighted for sure. 'Forget You' (the radio title) is obviously just a pale imitation of genius at work. Just think how much better The Beatles would have been had they had the foresight to put out a few fucks in the back catalogue. Missed opportunities.

I do find it dumb if an album gets an explicit lyrics sticker, if the album only has 1-2 swear words. Which is what happened with Alanis Morrisette's Jagged Little Pill.

I think it was only once in the song You Oughta Know. The same critics who laughed at her early pop phase drooled over her newer 'edgy' persona. If she swears and talks about oral sex she must be 'keepin' it real'.

Markgway wrote:Recent example Cee-Lo's 'Fuck You'. Yes, a grown man had the wisdom to call a song 'Fuck You' and repeat the phrase throughout (just in case you missed it). I don't think anyone will be surprised to learn how impressed critics were - delighted for sure. 'Forget You' (the radio title) is obviously just a pale imitation of genius at work.

I agree with you here, that song makes me roll my eyes, Creep isn't comparable though.