[ SECRET POST #1680 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1680 ⌋


Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________

02. [repeat]

__________________________________________________

03.


__________________________________________________

04.


__________________________________________________

05.


__________________________________________________

06.


__________________________________________________

07.


__________________________________________________

08.


__________________________________________________

09.


__________________________________________________

10.


__________________________________________________

11.


__________________________________________________

12.


__________________________________________________

13.


__________________________________________________

14.


__________________________________________________

15.


__________________________________________________

16.


__________________________________________________

17.


__________________________________________________

18.


__________________________________________________

19.


__________________________________________________

20.


__________________________________________________

21.


__________________________________________________

22.


__________________________________________________

23.


__________________________________________________

24.


__________________________________________________

25.


__________________________________________________

26.


__________________________________________________

27.


__________________________________________________

28.


__________________________________________________

29.


__________________________________________________

30.


__________________________________________________

31.


__________________________________________________

32.


__________________________________________________

33.



Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 05 pages, 102 secrets from Secret Submission Post #240.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - hit/ship/spiration ], [ 0 - omgiknowthem ], [ 0 - take it to comments ], [ 0 - repeats ]
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments and concerns should go here.

Comments

[ninety6tears.livejournal.com]

I was going to bring this up, the way people will change the pronouns in cover songs...It annoys me a lot, because you get used to hearing it one way and somebody has to change it just so that it applies to their sexuality, like it even matters.

[spam-27.livejournal.com]

somebody has to change it just so that it applies to their sexuality, like it even matters.

It does to them?

[ninety6tears.livejournal.com]

I have a really hard time believing that a fucking pronoun can ruin the ability to creatively identify with the music, sorry.

[spam-27.livejournal.com]

Then what is OP arguing about?

[(Anonymous)]

If the original song was so off that they had to change the lyrics, why did they choose it to cover in the first place?

[childings.livejournal.com]

If it bothers someone enough that they need to alter the lyrics of the song, clearly they shouldn't have covered it in the first place.

Also, sometimes it's awesome when the pronouns don't change and the gender of the person singing does, like Cat Power's cover of "(Can't Get No) Satisfaction", since it's interesting to hear the line "he can't be a man cause he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me" coming from a woman.

[hikari87.livejournal.com]

...sayyyy for example, a gay person changes the lyrics to match their sexuality. Would you say that they should be forced to sing the song like a straight person because it doesn't matter, or is it just straight singers who're stupid for wanting to sing about falling for someone they'd actually be attracted to? Personally I don't care one way or the other, I've heard songs sung both with original pronouns and changed pronouns by singers of varying genders, and I don't care from a listeners pov, but I think that if someone wants to change the pronoun to reflect their own preferences, that's their affair and they don't deserve to get sneered at for it.

[(Anonymous)]

Funny thing is there are plenty of gay people who have no problem covering romantic songs about the opposite gender, but whenever it's a straight person covering a song about the same gender the freak out and MUST CHANGE ALL THE PRONOUNS!!!!!

[hikari87.livejournal.com]

Not addressing anything I actually said, I see. Come now. Are you actually saying that people are stupid to want to sing about being attracted to someone of the gender they prefer, or are you not saying so? Whether some people are fine with singing about being attracted to a person from the gender they are not attracted to is beside the point, since the topic at hand is whether people who are not fine with it deserve to be put down for their preference. As a bi girl, I don't care either way, when I sing, nor do I particularly care from a listener's standpoint who is singing to or about whom, but I think that it is the singer's choice which pronoun to use, and it is none of anyone else's business to castigate them for it.

[ninety6tears.livejournal.com]

LOL, I'm not suggesting we "force" anybody to do anything, I just think it indicates our over-gendered way of looking at things if somebody feels the need to change anything. Unless it's like a super-explicit song about sex, why should sexual organs get in the way of relating to romantic emotions? Why would we define so much about it by the sex or gender of the subject?

When Chan Marshall covered the Rolling Stones, she changed "girl" to "boy," but didn't feel the need to change the lyrics about the detergent commercial or anything else she hadn't literally experienced herself, but hey, she can relate to the theme of the song, right? How would that be different from being relative about sex?

It's not a crime that anybody changes the lyrics, it's just...a lost opportunity to not do that.

[hikari87.livejournal.com]

Why should anyone do that who doesn't want to? How is it a lost opportunity to choose not to do something you don't want to, or choose to do something you want to? Also, I feel that I should probably point out that English is one of the very, very few languages that doesn't assign an immutable gender to every single noun, so calling it "over-gendered" to make it understood whether the subject of a song is male or female seems a tad hyperbolic. As for relativity to sex, you are aware that it's one of the most personal things out there, yes? Seems to me that this means that some people prefer to sing about being attracted to people of the gender they prefer to take to bed, because they can't relate to the idea of, well, taking someone they don't want to sex up to bed, and they don't want to sex up someone of the gender they aren't attracted to. I really don't understand why this is so hard to grasp =/

[ninety6tears.livejournal.com]

Gee, thanks for the linguistics lesson, but the French don't literally think that mustaches are female, and so on, so I don't really know what the hell you're trying to say. Excuse my ass for caring that sometimes words carry ideas that affect social norms and that sometimes the way we use language should maybe be changed when it's reasonably possible to do so, as it happens to be in the English language in this very specific case. Such as when people feel the need to assign arbitrary distinctions to emotions that are universal. If you insist that a heterosexual man can't understand the emotions implicit in wanting to bed another person simply because the subject is male, that's an insistence that heterosexual and homosexual desires aren't experienced in the same way. It doesn't necessarily make someone homophobic, it just makes them a bit too affected by the whole schema.

I mean for gods sake, I'm only talking about cover songs. I wouldn't dream of getting up on an artist's case just because they've never switched up their pronouns in their original work or anything. I'm not even really getting on the cases of any artists who change lyrics, I'm just saying their inclination to do it is an annoying reminder of the way that shit is.

[(Anonymous)]

"Also, I feel that I should probably point out that English is one of the very, very few languages that doesn't assign an immutable gender to every single noun, so calling it "over-gendered" to make it understood whether the subject of a song is male or female seems a tad hyperbolic."
Hahaha, what? You know, I don't actually see tables as male just because in my language the grammar has a masculine pronoun for them. Oh hey, chairs are male in my language, too. I should totally ship it, greatest gay love ever!

Okay, to the actual point of your comment: when people cover songs, for me that means they're telling, or rather performing, a story that is from somebody elses point of view (e.g. original song-writer). And if they can't do that convincingly just because some gender pronoun doesn't fit them or their preference I think they should find a better song. Or not cover songs at all.

[mutantjules.livejournal.com]

OMG YES THIS (late yaaay)

Like when Joss Stone covered Fell in Love with a Girl, by the White Stripes, and just had to change it to "boy" even though it threw a whole bunch of the rhymes off. ????!!! it annoys me so much I actually feel ridiculous. Conversely, when someone covers a song by some opposite-gendered person and doesn't switch the pronouns my heart sings.

[ninety6tears.livejournal.com]

YES, that is probably the most annoying example, but I couldn't think of it off the top of my head. And yeah, it's not so much that I'm like I HATE THIS ARTIST when they make the changes, but when they don't, it practically makes my day.