Rooster_Ties

Yes, let me echo that.

The LT covers don't bother me either (I actually like a number of them). I'm just not used to seeing a bunch of them all together at the same time in one place. Not sure what prepares one for that.

My god, I can't remember the last time I saw so many LT covers in one place.

No idea, but it was one of the 9 titles that didn't come out with their genuine 'Reid Miles' covers until the mid-80's, though that may be a red herring entirely. More on that discussion HERE, perhaps a clue to be found there (though none I can see). Alas, most of the hotlinked images don't work any more, so the thread doesn't make as much sense now (nor as enjoyable to read).

Well, it's the sharpest of the standardized options. Custom work will always develop something even more lethal.

I never thought the use in the song was ONLY literal (homo), but NOR did I ever think the use was ONLY metaphoric (sissy). It's always been open to question (and it could always be some of both). Which, as Jim said, has to do with the dual-nature of term. I mean, growing up, the way the word was tossed around, it's not like bullies cared which. Don't fit perfectly into their definition of "tough"? - you're a homo (a term I haven't thought of in years). Or actually attracted to other guys? - you're a homo. They didn't care, it works great either way!!. The perfect all-purpose slur. 'Faggot' was the sharpest of the various spears that could be thrown at non-"Alpha Male" boys/teens, from the 'sissy/homo/fag' arsenal. It's a pretty ugly word, frankly. It's surprising a song with it in the lyrics (not once, but THREE times! -- that's especially where I cry "bad poetry!!) ever was a big hit at all, let alone number #1. Catchy damn thing it is, though. We probably agree on this point. Keeping words off the radio isn't going to change anyone who needs changing. But I think there are generational implications, though, in terms of defining what society -"officially"- -"broadcasts"- as being acceptable. (Meant both of those words metaphorically there, but ironically, this is all about what 'officials' allow to be actually 'broadcast'.) In terms of real change in any particular CURRENT generation, you're 100% right Jim. Some kinds of progress only happens through generational change, and I think the overall notion of "policing the airwaves" is driven at that aim. The irony in all this, of course, is that really NONE of this matters any more -- cuz kids don't listen to shit on the radio any more (and never will again), and the horse done left the barn on any "broadcast media" having much influence on an entire generation -- so my arguments here are clearly rhetorical at best, in any real sense.

Reddit's great. Great as a lurker or a poster, and you ought to at least create a user-login, if for no other reason then you can subscribe to only the specific sub-reddits you want to. If you want the Reddit YOU see to only be stories about Economics, International Politics, and Antique Typewriters -- you can do that. You can also make it all and ONLY about Online Videogames, Slacker Recipes, and MILF Porn -- you can do that to. Or ONLY job hunting advice, cute pictures of animals, and Battlestar Galactica (just those three, and nothing else). Reddit is EXACTLY and ONLY the content and related discussion threads you want it to give you. It's a brilliant interface, whether you actually post or just lurk. But the real filtering power doesn't even present itself until you create a user-login (which takes only 3.8 seconds, and requires you to share absolutely NO personal information -- not even your e-mail address, if you don't want to.) Plus, the threaded commenting that dynamically sorts all comments based on voting by the entire community (one user, one vote), is amazing. It's good as a lurker, but great if you can tweak it to only the stuff you like.

Because , in the context of the original song, it is not clearly/specifically a slur against sexual orientation. Even then, the word, onlike other gay-specific slurs, had connotations of character that were not accustory of sexual orientation. Just like "act like a man" or "don't be a sissy" refer to quality of character, not sexual orientation, so does - and has - "faggot". It gets blurry with the latter, though, because it is also a word that does have orientation-specific slurdom attached to it. But given the context - a song about some blue-collar know-nothings who would, if given the chance, trade places with that "faggot" who got the airplane, the money, and the hot chicks (when was Prince NOT surrounded by hot chicks?, and besides how is a guy with hot chicks a faggot in the homosexual sense?), it's pretty clear to me that there's no "message of hate" in the song, and that the word is being used in an "artful" sense. And truthfully, I've always thought that the word in that song was used to mock those who were speaking it. I think I agree with almost every bit of that, Jim (and thank you for that). But I would give more credence to your own argument that the word does have an "orientatio-specific slurdom attached to it". That's really what I was trying to get at. Your expert argument about the meaning of the song (which, frankly, I never saw as anything more than a song about some guys bitching about fags on MTV), has probably walked me back from the precipice -- but please do consider that words do have meaning - often a meaning FAR removed from the context in which they're in (even while still in that very context). And that pertains specifically to this whole "broadcast the word, or not" question.

I'm not proposing a ban on anything, no book, no song. Market place of ideas, baby! I *am* in favor of the Canadian FCC banning the use of that word (on the radio), which is essentially what they've done -- which allows the song to be played if the offending word is fuzzled out (or dropped, if the multi-tracks are still available), or play the single edit (lots of solutions there, take your pick). Now, without really tying to, I have also explored what I do think about the song, more than I had ever intended or expected (and frankly I wasn't sure what I thought going into this). Now those explorations have taken some interesting turns here, haven't they. Those HAVEN'T been to suggest that ANYTHING be banned or rewritten.

Probably not, though as a theoretical point, I think it's a useful idea to think about. I get that 'faggot' doesn't have the same sting (or history) as 'nigger' -- but I don't accept that there aren't people for whom 'faggot' is also VERY offensive, and that it's also just not acceptable in normal societal parlance (as a slur, which the term IS used a slur in the song, how is that not relevant?) I think to say otherwise, is to suggest that 'those people' who are worried about it, just need to "man up". Attitudes like that, after all, are the source of the problem in the first place. Seriously, the term is used AS A SLUR in the original song (by the character in that verse). How does this get a pass (in terms of broadcasting the term), and similar uses of other slurs are different (deemed not acceptable). I do not see the difference. Plus "faggot" has been banned in SEVERAL other instances cited in the original ruling, so why shouldn't it apply here?

I get that, and agree. Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, and Chris Rock have also said the similar things about not all African Americans being... ...but it's impossible to have public broadcast standards that pay any attention to any of this in any meaningful way. The term 'gay' has been successfully re-appropriated, as the concept of homosexuality has become more acceptable in general society. I don't see 'faggot' ever going the same route. It's got too much spite in it. It seems to me to be too much like nigger, or cunt, or the very 'ethnicity-specific' ones of which there are dozens. If somebody re-records the song today with nigger in place of faggot, should radio stations across the country be able to play it?? Truth be told, 10-15 years ago with the content of MTV then, it's TOTALLY plausible that somebody could have re-recorded "Money For Nothing" with those EXACT lyrics. (Well, maybe not "politically" plausible, but I think you see my point). There's people all across this land who felt that was EXACTLY what MTV was 10-15 years ago. Many of them were those same characters in the song.

Serious question. Should this be allowed to air on public radio today? Yes, or no.

I get that. What I'm saying is, where's the (supposedly) mitigating part of the plot that makes the broadcast of that term acceptable here?? -- where it's CLEARLY not acceptable in numerous other settled cases (as cited in the ruling). On album, I'm fine with it. It's a good song, but with bad poetry as far as I'm concerned (and I mean that). I hear (and have heard) the argument that it's not in the singer's own voice (so nobody's really accusing Mark Knopfler, and neither am I). I've not criticized Knopfler or the song itself particularly (as a song). My bringing up the lyrics before only was to ask where the justification was in allowing the slur to stand for broadcast. The song itself is decent, catchy, I like the descant Sting sings at the beginning and especially over the end on top of the chorus (anytime I can get some decent counter-melody from a pop tune, I'm there! - you dig?) But it's a pretty flimsy argument if all it takes to make the use of a gay slur acceptable (for broadcast), is that the slur isn't in the 'voice' of the singer, but rather one of the characters in the song. If that were the case, then why don't we hear N----R every day on Rap Radio today?.

'Faggot' isn't any different than any of a dozen racial slurs, except it isn't race-based. One effective way to deal with racism is to ensure that certain words aren't demonstrated by the 'norms' of society as being "acceptable". It's NOT an end-all solution to the problem, but it does help force that shit into the shadows. That doesn't change much either, not immediately. But over a generation, it becomes something that the NEXT generation hears less of from "their elders" (who weren't so "elder" when they had to go underground with their hate -- and make no mistake, this IS hate we're talking about -- in some cases, deep seated hate). By not also drawing a line in the sand with the term 'faggot', we give the impression that gay slurs aren't "as bad" as racial slurs. No it makes no difference now, but it matters for the future. How this one song slipped through the cracks, is both puzzling and annoying. If it had happened within the first few months of it's release, nobody would have bat an eyelash at a similar ruling. I'm a free-speech guy 99%, and other than maybe Fred Phelps and specifically his vile funeral picketing, I'm probably in line with 99% of what the ACLU stands for. KKK wants to demonstrate, go for it. The public square is the public square. More speech is better, in almost every instance. But on the issue of helping purge derogatory slurs from "polite conversation", concepts like "broadcast standards" related to the use of specific terminology are helpful. As to words vs. meaning, I don't think there is a way to limit "meaning" a whole lot, nor should there be. People infer racist stuff on broadcast radio all the time (Rush's "Puff The Magic Negro", and hundreds or more other examples). It isn't the job of "broadcast standards" to deal with that, only more speech can help there.

I've distracted from my central point. "Money for Nothing" is not Sly Stone, nor Curtis Mayfield (who also used the term effectively SEVERAL times -- and god love him for it, cuz I sure do). I doubt more than 10% of the people who know the song "Money For Nothing" can accurately tell you one damn thing about the meaning or "plot" of the song. These are the lyrics... Now look at them yo-yos That’s the way you do it You play the guitar on the MTV That ain’t workin’ That’s the way you do it Money for nothin’ and your chicks for free Now that ain’t workin’ That’s the way you do it Let me tell ya, them guys ain’t dumb Maybe get a blister on your little finger Maybe get a blister on your thumb We got to install microwave ovens Custom kitchen deliveries We got to move these refrigerators We got to move these colour TVs The little faggot with the earring and the make-up Yeah, buddy, that’s his own hair That little faggot’s got his own jet airplane That little faggot, he’s a millionaire It's just meaningless words to most people as they listen to the radio (and NOT meaning, my friend). Without a memory of the video, I'm having a tough time remembering exactly how use of 'faggot' is somehow mitigated (supposedly, as the argument I keep reading) by the "full context and meaning of the song". I know I didn't quote the entire song, but I sure can't see a whole lot more in the whole thing (HERE). I confess there may be more there (and probably is), but it sure as hell ain't no "Don't Call Me Nigger, Whitey".

So, a "nice" song that happens to use the word N----R is OK? Serious question, Jim. The issue is one of terms, not of meaning. Here's the actual CBSC ruling itself, including the original complaint, which was specifically about the term itself, and not the song per se. It's long, and I don't expect anyone to read it in full. My read is that there have been numerous other rulings where 'fag' and 'faggot' were determined to be unacceptable in less than "dramatic" contexts. They say a whole lot more, but that's basically the kicker. My personal take is this song became a huge #1 hit, and happened to contain language (in the album version) that wasn't complained about at the time because the term 'faggot' didn't carry quite the same weight then, as RACIALLY motivated epithets did (which likely WOULD have gotten complaints then). For instance, does anybody think this would have aired back then if the word used was "kike", or "gook", or any of a dozen other examples I could include -- instead of "faggot"? The inappropriateness of homophobic derogatory terms is more recent than Racially derogatory terms. 40 and 50 years ago, in many parts, you could probably hear N----R in sidebar conversations in offices or workplaces (from some white people), but such is essentially NOT the case today. I imagine the use of the term "faggot" has undergone an equally reduced occurrence, though it lags that of the term N----R by at least 30 years. In short, the term "faggot" is societally MORE offensive now than it was 25 years ago, and somebody only just complained about it. And frankly, I'm glad they did.

We had a quarterback here for the Kansas City Chiefs a few years back, named Elvis Grbac. I used to think someone should do a fundraiser or something, and try to get that poor man some more vowels for his last name. (I think it's Croatian, if I remember.) Who just takes extra vowels like that? (hint, their last name is van der Vaart), when clearly there aren't enough to go around??

As far as participation, only three: The Big O, the Steve Hoffman Forum (for actual music discussion only - I avoid ALL discussions "audiophile" related -- which I know, is HALF the content), and for only about the last 6 months, Reddit (some of which is like Fark, and much of which (if you tweak your user settings right) is just like the best of our miscellaneous discussions right here -- only if this place had 10,000+ users). I read TPM frequently enough that I try not to miss anything there. I also read Salon and Slate a fair bit, though not as often. That's about it.

It's not the lyrics or the song that are offensive, it's the word itself. Most entities that function like the FCC don't like to provide context-sensitive rulings on content (though there certainly have been exceptions to the contrary -- I recall some rare use of four-letter-words on M*A*S*H for instance, and there have also been some acceptable cases off nudity -- I think some movie-of-the-week 20 years ago about breast cancer where a topless shot of a women getting a mammogram was allowed). In both those examples, a nobler cause was cited as reason for an exception. My point is that agencies like this HATE to have to rule on stuff on a case by case basis. It's time consuming, and then people just work harder and harder to game the system, trying to figure out what they can get away with, and constantly push the boundary. Hell, they do that enough as it is anyway, WITHOUT context-based rules and rulings. I'm sure the Canadian broadcast oversight board just formalized (or else clarified?) that the term 'faggot' was not acceptable for airplay -- a simple declarative statement. The song had probably been informally 'grandfathered in' all this time (or else just plain overlooked??), though why this wasn't a problem at the time, I'm really not sure. (And I'm REALLY scratching my head on that one too. I think I actually remember wondering to myself, years ago -- "what the fuck was THAT I just heard; how did THAT get through?".) Would any of us want that term used freely, in ANY context on the Radio? I don't pretend that all of us agree on that, but I suspect the general notion of "community standards" as they apply to public broadcast material, are MORE acceptable than, say, the "I know obscenity when I see it!" hammer that came down on Larry Flynt (but that's censorship, and we're talkin' broadcast standards -- two TOTALLY different animals). In any case, it's far simpler to ban the term across the board (not much different than banning N----R, or "fuck" or any other expletive), than to rule on it on a case by case basis. Nobody's banning the song, just blocking the word from being ON THE RADIO. Just fuzz it out, or play the edit -- problem solved. This happens with THOUSANDS of different songs every year. Turn on Rap Radio, and 99% of the songs have blanked-out-words. Why the hell is it even remotely important to defend the use of 'faggot' in this one instance?? That said, I was totally in the bag for Frank Zappa's anti-PMRC campaign back in the day, but even FRANK never lobbied for radio to play obscenities (on the public airwaves) -- at least not that I know of. I have a HUGE problem actual censorship, but FCC-type limitations on broadcast content is not censorship from what I can tell.

I don't know about banning the song, but I find the term 'faggot' offensive. Rare is the context in which that term is used, where it isn't used in a derisive way. (And don't anybody say there's actually people who still refer to cigarettes that way, and don't be whining about bassoon players who can't spell either.) Yes, some gay people call each other 'faggot' all the time. Well, various people call each other N----R all the time too (as some sort of term of endearment, or whatever), but that doesn't make THAT term any less offensive either, either to me, or in general. No matter how you look at it, 'faggot' and N----R are slurs, unless and until either term is as successfully 're-appropriated' as 'Gay' has been (which I understand began as nearly as bad a slur in this context, as 'faggot' -- though it's hard to separate the negative connotations of the words, from what were then the negative connotations of what they referred to). Here are interesting Wiki articles on both terms: Faggot and Gay, that are well worth reading. I would imagine quite a number of us were called queer, fag, faggot, you name it -- growing up (I know I was), whether we happened to be gay, or not. That's what teenage boys do (notice: I didn't say that's JUST what teenage boys do). When we discover that suicide rates for GLBT youth are appreciably higher than for their straight counterparts, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. So yes, I do find that term offensive. Nobody's talking about banning the song outright, just banning the uncensored album-version of it from airplay on a particular broadcast system. Play the clean single edit, or surely they've got a easy way to scramble the word, god knows they do that all the time with thousands of other songs, and nobody says shit (that's both metaphoric, and I now realize, literal in meaning). People don't listen to the radio any more anyway, so why get all bent out of shape about it. Nobody's calling for historical revisionism. When I started this post, I really wasn't sure what I thought about this supposed "issue". But a scant 3 minutes later, I'm all for it. "Money For Nothing" isn't "Huckleberry Finn". Nothing is lost by scrambling the word, or playing the edit. False controversy over nothing, far as I'm concerned. I'm a strong ACLU/free-speech guy all the way, but it's not like the federal government is coming in and stopping some other (non-governmental) entity FROM PLAYING THE ENTIRE SONG. If they did that, THAT would be censorship. Broadcast standards change, and there are a thousand times more methods of "broadcast" now than 40 or even 20 years ago. Bunch of whining over nothing, if you ask me.

Almost the ONLY place I've encountered any of the CA place-names listed in the article, is from listening to Zappa.

Bringing up an OLD thread with a NEW question... Does anyone here know if ANYTHING unreleased with Tyrone Washington (leader or sideman) circulates?? Is "The Trainwreck" in circulation yet? (I know it's out there, but I think only just barely -- I'm guessing only a handful of people have it, perhaps even less than that.) I've had my hopes up that someday a live Horace Silver date might emerge, with Woody Shaw. Or Tyrone was in the Jazz Messengers (with Woody) for about 15 minutes in 1969, perhaps as few as 4 or 5 gigs (source, then search on "Tyrone"). One of the JM dates w/ Tyrone was at the Fillmore East, so I've had some vague hope it would turn up on Wolfgang's Vault, but nothing yet that I've seen. There IS a JM date from '69 that a couple people have hipped me to, which people have claimed to be Tyrone, but it simply does NOT sound like him AT ALL. I think Spontooneous and I figured out it was probably Carlos Garnett, from one of a few '69 JM dates that circulate (see above source for details on that too). Anything?? I've been curious about this for ages, and haven't seen his name even once on anybody's trade lists (though I haven't seen any updated lists in well over 6 years).

I think we could elaborate on the definitions of "right" and "wrong" a bit.

Just discovered this elsewhere, and was about to post a thread on it. Stunning work.

He mentions it's a Bowie song at the end sparky, you were close! Yes, I did have to listen to it to make sure.. http://www.myspace.com/nirvana/music/albums/unplugged-in-new-york-6261 Yeah, but an entire generation only knows it from radio play (who am I kidding, half of them only know it from illegal downloads) -- where the stage announcements are cut (radio), or are surely cut (downloads).