Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Brad

How “Baby It’s Cold Outside” May Be Out in the Cold

188 posts in this topic

I think you have the power to delete it if you are the OP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott Dolan said:

I think you have the power to delete it if you are the OP. 

That would probably be an extreme step and earn me a few nasty grams :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, nastygrams aren’t as bad as you’d think. 

Trust me, I’m an expert in the field. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let's warp the mirror just a little - would it still be a problem/as big a problem if broadcasters only played instrumental versions of the song? Would "most people" even recognize it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JSngry said:

Well, let's warp the mirror just a little - would it still be a problem/as big a problem if broadcasters only played instrumental versions of the song? Would "most people" even recognize it?

 

Not easy, particularly if you did not listen closely at the very start, but not impossible ....

I'd sure like to hear this as a background soundtrack in a shop at this time of year ... They'd get more of MY money ... :lol:

Edited by Big Beat Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JSngry said:

Well, let's warp the mirror just a little - would it still be a problem/as big a problem if broadcasters only played instrumental versions of the song? Would "most people" even recognize it?

Or, for that matter, Jo Stafford's version which omits (accidentally or deliberately) the line everyone is freaking out over.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Teasing the Korean said:

... the line everyone is freaking out over.

 

Not everyone - just some ... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the main thing is that Stafford/Weston in effect switched the characters:  she's kicking *him (a choir???) out.  In most versions, he's conning her to stay... 

*[The Starlighters/Norman Luboff Choir -- musta been a party!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, Jo at least pretendingfending off a possible, uh...orgy, that's an even more provocative conceit.

At least by today's standards it is. Back then it was probably meant to be cute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a letter in WSJ:

The notion of a man wanting a little more time with his girlfriend wasn’t particular to this song. “Five Minutes More” and “We Just Couldn’t Say Goodbye” expressed the same sentiment. The woman in “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” would definitely have gone home. The only question was when. In those days, if a woman lived with her family or even a roommate and got caught spending the night away, it would have branded her a “bad girl.”

I am reminded of “You’ll Never Get Away,” a 1952 duet by Don Cornell and Teresa Brewer, which followed the theme of a man pursuing a woman. She sang: “I’ll become a train and choo-choo out of sight.” He sang: “Then I’ll become a red caboose and trail you day and night.”

Today, the man would surely be accused of stalking. We didn’t read things into song lyrics that were never meant to be there. The younger generation seems not to be able to grasp that back then, the general theme was love, not lust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, mjzee said:

Here's a letter in WSJ:

The notion of a man wanting a little more time with his girlfriend wasn’t particular to this song.

The concept is also in another holiday/winter song, "Let it Snow," although it is more implied than explicit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...all you women with sexual assault trauma need to take a music history class. That will make it all better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JSngry said:

So...all you women with sexual assault trauma need to take a music history class. That will make it all better.

But nothing, repeat nothing will "make it all better" for sexual assault victims.  Even banning this song and destroying every single recording of it ever made will not make them "better".

Do we have to aim for the lowest possible common denominator in art so that no one anywhere can ever possibly be offended or upset?  Must all songs now only be about ice cream and daisies and puppy dogs?  No wait --,hold on.  The lactose intolerant are demanding that all dairy product references be removed from songs.  And a mob of hay fever sufferers are up in arms that any inhuman pollen producing demon should be glorified in song.  And there is a little boy in Sioux City, Iowa who was once bitten by a puppy and is deathly afraid of them, so we can't risk upsetting him.

Therefore, all future songs will have no words at all -- not even titles!  No one can get upset by that.

Mah-na, Mah-na.  Da-dee-duh-dee-dee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, that song is not "art". It's a functional pop song. Better than some, not nearly as good as others that really are (see Loesser's own work and compare)

Second of all, of course nothing makes it better. But among things that also don't make it better is scolding those who have the pain, scolding them for not "getting" the song in it's original context, like they're stupid for calling out that hey, this song is kinda creepy now, never mind context, our discomfort is of now, can you at least shut up and let US have a voice for a minute? I mean jeez, let it play out, let people speak, acknowledge that there's been more than one Bill Cosby in the world and that there will be more and that most of them will not be caught, much less held accountable. and then let's have the discussion, a real discussion about things like, ok, if the original intent was love, not lust, what has become of love, how has it all gotten so fucked up? Let's look around (and inward) and figure THAT out. But no, STASTFUB is SO much easier, noble, and historically accurate. We don't need a discussion, we just need more dogma that ignores what we have become in favor of what we THINK we used to be. Tell our wives, sisters, aunts, coworkers, and all these other mouthy bitches to back off, grow  up, and let us have our Christmas back, that's a GREAT idea, right?

And finally, in conclusion:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mjzee said:

I am reminded of “You’ll Never Get Away,” a 1952 duet by Don Cornell and Teresa Brewer, which followed the theme of a man pursuing a woman. She sang: “I’ll become a train and choo-choo out of sight.” He sang: “Then I’ll become a red caboose and trail you day and night.”

 

Not as bad as Sting singing Every Breath You Take.  BTW Changing the subject:  anyone remember  Teach Me Tonight?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mjzee said:

The younger generation seems not to be able to grasp that back then, the general theme was love, not lust.

You [and I realize it's the letter writer and not you mjzee, but you appear to be in agreement with the letter] don't get to say "they're misunderstanding the context" on this. In a college class? Yes. In a historical discussion? Sure. But not in the wider context addressed here. The question is not historical, but social: does this song, today, cause many to experience very unpleasant feelings, and (more serious, to my mind) does it condone pressuring your date into staying a little longer and doing a little more than they might want? If so, there is good reason to at least consider not playing it.

And if you're still not getting it, why don't we try this out again on minstrelsy, shall we? "Gosh, those young people today, they just don't get how we are enjoying the jolly capers of those jolly black folk!"

WTF. Seriously, W. T. F.

Edited by lipi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, duaneiac said:

But nothing, repeat nothing will "make it all better" for sexual assault victims.  Even banning this song and destroying every single recording of it ever made will not make them "better".

Do we have to aim for the lowest possible common denominator in art so that no one anywhere can ever possibly be offended or upset?  Must all songs now only be about ice cream and daisies and puppy dogs?  No wait --,hold on.  The lactose intolerant are demanding that all dairy product references be removed from songs.  And a mob of hay fever sufferers are up in arms that any inhuman pollen producing demon should be glorified in song.  And there is a little boy in Sioux City, Iowa who was once bitten by a puppy and is deathly afraid of them, so we can't risk upsetting him.

Therefore, all future songs will have no words at all -- not even titles!  No one can get upset by that.

Mah-na, Mah-na.  Da-dee-duh-dee-dee

Oy. Slippery slope AND appeal to extremes. Are we turning this thread into a teaching exercise for every single logical fallacy? What you appear to imply is that considering not playing one song means we soon won't be playing any songs. That's ludicrous to the extent that it's not even a helpful rhetorical device.

But since we're dealing in extremes, I'll ask: how would you feel about a song celebrating slavery? What about one celebrating pedophiles? One calling for genocide? There's a difference of opinion on where to draw the line, but there *is* a line.

(Agree completely on the first paragraph, though. Normalizing coercion and date rape is a serious problem, and songs like this—innocent as they may be or may have been intended to be—further that problem. It's not so much saving sexual assault victims pain, it's about saving sexual assault victims from being assaulted in the first place.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about "one" song that "ought" not to be played because some might feel "offended" won't change a thing about the underlying problem of people not being able to restrain themselves into decent behavior and is arbitrary for no good reason at all and wont accomplish anything except to serve as token action.


If you want to purge song lyrics from "offensive" content re-relations betwen the sexes then go ahead and, to start with, purge ALL doubtful rap lyrics (note this is an example, no doubt there are other segments of music where textual atrocities lurk once you look closer). This is music of today made today by today's musicians in today's context and therefore is much more relevant to today's problems. A zillion miles away from what was made in, say, 1944 or whenever in the past and really ought to be seen in the context of those times, particularly since there ARE more ways than just one to interpret the lyrics' meaning.


I short, anybody out there who feels offended about this song's lyrics ought to ask themselves why he/she does not feel offended in the same way about current/contemporary lyrics such as they do exist in rap and take action accordingly. If you want to wipe out the underlying problem (and I'd absolutely concede that there is a problem in some areas), go the WHOLE way and start at the HEART of the problem. Which is not in some 70+ years old ditty. .

If it was about "offensive" lyrics then I cannot see at all why certain rap lyrics, for example, ought to get a free pass by THESE yardsticks and why any purge ought to focus on such examples that in the OVERALL picture are comparatively irrelevant, Unless, of course and for example, someone out there has a very special agenda that, for example (I wouldn't find it hard to imagine other agendas, BTW), goes along the lines of "hey we want to show everyone how aware and sensitive we are so we ban this song because it is a no no, but please understand, you all - but don't force us to admit it in public, please - that we cannot deal with mass-market music like rap in the same manner because this is where the money in the music industry is and we all need to make money, so please be content with our token action about all this ..." (note this is regardless of what music actually gets huge radio airplay, there are enough other outlets that might be targeted if anyone really wanted to clean this up ...)

IMO, BTW, I cannot really see it as a sign of "growth" in society (to use a term used earlier in this debate) if this very same society STILL needs to take such selective token action because people just are not mature enough to act decently, correctly and with due restraint EVEN WHEN exposed to lyrics that just MIGHT be seen as condoning somewhat too insistent advances towards the opposite sex. Members of society who need to be protected from their own lust in that way certainly haven' "grown"  and are not mature. I know I'd certainly not be spurred into action by listening to the lyrics of the featured song on (Chicago-based) COOL 101 ;), for example, so by comparison "It's Cold outside" would be even less of an issue. Whoever else thinks he would feel tempted needs to ask himself serious questions, not least of all because those who'd really cause problems will certainly not need such an old song heard occasionally to get them up and into "action". There would be more than enough other and more serious examples in music IMO that promote a role model we really ought to be able to do without (see above).

Edited by Big Beat Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right women, don't expect to be listened to. It's your job to listen to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 0:29 PM, mjzee said:

Reread "1984."  This is all about dropping history down the memory hole.

Oh, it seems to me like it would be about the marketplace working as intended - a business hears the same thing from enough of their consumers that they respond. And then they hear from some of their other customers. They'll figure it out.

1984 is about statist mindfucks. This "controversy" is merely about the marketplace functioning in a fluid, and more importantly, responsive, manner. Statism is nowhere in the picture, not even lurking in the imaginary shadows. Ultimately this is all market-driven. Whatever nut-clinching "agendas" are feared here, it's still the marketplace responding to consumer demand. If it plays out that it costs more than it's worth, don't worry, they'll put it back. and if it doesn't play out like that, oh well, people spoke and the marketplace listened.

Why is it that free market capitalism is good until it's not? Is it only supposed to work for some people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JSngry said:

First of all, that song is not "art". It's a functional pop song. Better than some, not nearly as good as others that really are (see Loesser's own work and compare)

The song is brilliant lyrically, two songs in one, each functioning on its own and rhyming with itself as was the standard, and then rhyming with the other song at key points.  Not many lyricists could pull this off.   If "Baby It's Cold Outside" is not art, then I would argue that the Great American Songbook in general is not art. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a marketplace element here but I would direct Jim to my post of the Funny or Die video, where the actress breaks character at the end  ".... to remind you that this song is completely inappropriate."

That is mind-fucking. That's a clear as day statement that you can't enjoy this tune and, as I am sure Lipi would say, be on the right side of history.  Just because the bitch can't enforce her standards doesn't mean its not royally fucked up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Teasing the Korean said:

 If "Baby It's Cold Outside" is not art, then I would argue that the Great American Songbook in general is not art. 

In general, I would accept that argument. Craft alone is not art, although it is something to be respected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JSngry said:

In general, I would accept that argument. Craft alone is not art, although it is something to be respected.

Well, there is a grey area between craft and art.  If we agree that jazz is art - and I assume that most of us here do - then many, many artists over the years have found enough in that body of "craft" to continually interpret and explore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.