[ 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

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

Uh, but most characters aren't genderless. It would be virtually impossible to tell a story without indicating the character's gender (most of the time).

It's not only not impossible to do that in a song, it's fucking EASY.

[insanenoodlyguy.livejournal.com]

Easy? Sure. But not necessarily what the artists decide to write. Which is all that matters. Your inclusive/buisness philosophy isn't all that proven, plenty of gender-specific pronoun using songs have done quite well.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not only not impossible to do that in a song, it's fucking EASY.
Agreed.

It's hilarious to me that it's totally fine and indeed expected to call out any other creative form (books, movies, etc.) for sexism or homophobia or whatever even though they're much more restricted in how they can tell a story, but all these oh-so-special musicians - especially considering many singers don't even write their own songs and so they aren't limited to a particular performer - are apparently the only ones who can hide behind the "reason" of creative expression and personal meaning. Sorry, folks, the majority of songs out there, especially the ones that are more likely to have a randomly and unnecessarily inserted girl/boy or two (or dozen) are not art any more than any other piece of mass-produced pop culture.

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

This, basically, thank you.

Most songs you hear right now are not actually one person's deeply person musical expression of how they felt when their marriage of 20 years fell apart. It's more like HOT SEXORS/TWU LOVE WHOOO *dancing with chairs in the music video*

[(Anonymous)]

And see, this attitude completely blows my mind. How is using gender specific pronouns in any way sexist or homophobic? A singer covering a song originally done by the opposite sex and switching the gender pronouns, yes, I agree on that, but that's not what the secret is about. But, say, a man singing a song about being in love with a woman? How on earth is that sexist or homophobic?

And please cite me some facts and data to prove that the "majority of songs out there" are not art. Who decides that, exactly? You?

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

But, say, a man singing a song about being in love with a woman? How on earth is that sexist or homophobic?

It's not. But why add in mention of her gender when the song is otherwise doing fine without it?

PRIME EXAMPLE that just rolled up on my iPod: Michael Buble's version of "Fever."

Seriously, was that "chicks" line necessary? I'm going to say HELL NO.

[(Anonymous)]

Because the song is about a woman that he's in love with? I truly don't know why this needs any other answer. It's not about you. It's not about who you're in love with. It's not about who any other listener is in love with. It's about who the songwriter is in love with. (I'm speaking about the vague "man writes a song about a woman" hypothetical here, not Michael Buble. I haven't heard that song and don't know anything about it)

[(Anonymous)]

It's about who the songwriter is in love with.
The hell it is. Do you really think all songwriters write solely about their own personal experiences? I, for one, highly doubt it. In fic, I'm able to write two gay men falling in love, even though I'm a straight woman. I've written poetry about things I've never personally dealt with or seen. I've drawn pictures of things that have no emotional meaning to me. It seems songwriters must be incredibly limited and talentless if they can only write about things they personally know or feel.

Nothing's stopping anyone from writing a song about anyone or anything - what drives songwriting choices in many cases, like anything else, is what the people involved think they can make money off of. And more often than not, that would be straight-friendly songs that don't offend radio advertisers and appeal to the broadest audience possible. If making a song straight-friendly requires throwing an entirely pointless "girl" into an otherwise neutral song lyric, so be it.

Different Anon

[(Anonymous)]

Using your rules, in that song he shouldn't say "When you put your arms around me" because there are people who love one armed people and that excludes them from the song. It would be more inclusive if there was no mention of any body parts.
Any time a song mentions arms, lips, eyes, sex, beauty, intelligence, or any other damn physical or mental attribute someone is excluded. If you think a song inserts in characteristics poorly, don't give money to that artist.

[(Anonymous)]

This is the idea that was raised in discussion of this secret - that forcing gender specific pronouns into lyrics that don't require them may be considered some sort of "Whoa! Nothing gay here, folks!" paranoia on behalf of the singer or songwriter. That is homophobic. As is the fact that many now-out singers have sung songs about supposedly being in love with women, which was clearly driven by commercial and publicity concerns (I'm thinking of several U.S. boy band members). Is this the case for all songs, songwriters, or singers? Of course not. But there is more to songs - the writing of them and which ones actually get produced or played or whatever - than an individual's personal expression (which by the way is ALSO influenced by the person's social environment, career concerns, etc.). That seems to be beyond the comprehension of most of the commenters in this thread.

I didn't say songs aren't art. I said they aren't art, as implied by the supposed need to protect and defend the "artist's" right to creative expression (which of course is pure and beautiful and not sullied by anything so crass as money or cultural biases). And if you think the hundreds of examples of songs out there with lyrics like "Yeah, girl, I want you" or "Oh, boy, you're so fine" or something similar is the truest expression of art put to music, then I pity you. Me, I'm willing to consider most pop songs disposable.

[(Anonymous)]

I didn't say songs aren't art. I said they aren't art

...What?

This is the idea that was raised in discussion of this secret - that forcing gender specific pronouns into lyrics that don't require them may be considered some sort of "Whoa! Nothing gay here, folks!" paranoia on behalf of the singer or songwriter. That is homophobic.

And that is you (and possibly the OP, though as someone else downthread pointed out, the OP didn't mention homophobia in the secret) creating your own paranoia and attaching fabricated reasons to people choose to write what they do. I mean, I just can't even further parse your comment, because you're speaking about songs as if they're not the creation of their writers, as if they're, IDK, public property for which we all vote and add our input into how they should go. There is no such thing as "forcing gender specific pronouns into lyrics that don't require them" because the songwriter and the singer decide what is required of the lyrics, not you. Again, to make a book comparison - you may love Harry Potter and think Harry/Luna is the greatest idea ever and the best pairing and that JK Rowling should write it into the last book. But it's not your book and you don't get to make that decision. You can be upset about it and you can make the decision not to buy the book, but you don't decide what is best for the book.

And if you think the hundreds of examples of songs out there with lyrics like "Yeah, girl, I want you" or "Oh, boy, you're so fine" or something similar is the truest expression of art put to music, then I pity you. Me, I'm willing to consider most pop songs disposable.

Yes, because those "hundreds" of songs are the only type out there, and certainly the only type that use gender specific pronouns! You can paint as much music as you like as "disposable" but again, I ask, who decides what is and isn't "art" and what is and which songwriters' creativity is worthy of defense and protection and which isn't?

[(Anonymous)]

...What?
There's a level of sarcasm here that clearly is going over your head. The whole point is that musicians are not super special snowflakes compared to other types of so-called artists and therefore are not exempt from internal awareness or external criticism of how their products - YES, PRODUCTS TO BE PURCHASED BY CONSUMERS, NOT SOLELY AND ONLY "ART" - is influenced by cultural and personal ideas and biases or may be offensive to the people that are keeping them in the business. I'm sick to death of people saying criticism of musicians is invalid because songwriting is creative personal expression. It is (or it can be), just like any other creative form, but that's hardly the main concern of the music industry. You can say all you want that the public has no say in what gets made, but that's total BS. What we buy determines what gets made, and what gets made determines what's available to us to buy. And if you think that a songwriter doesn't take into account what has the best chance of selling when they're "deciding what's required of the lyrics," then you're fooling yourself.

only type out there, and certainly the only type that use gender specific pronouns
No, but pop songs like this are ones that are much more likely - and anyone with an ounce of observational skills can recognize this simply by listening to the radio or watching skin-filled music videos, so stop being obtuse - to sell based on sex (excuse me, "love") AND to throw in interjected references to a particular gender.

[(Anonymous)]

First of all, easy? I just literally don't even know how to answer this. As if writing music is easy at all and to just change words in a song put together in a specific way is a simple as doing a find and replace.

Second of all, okay, lets assume it is that easy. So the fuck what? Point is, it's still just as much that songwriter's song as it is an author's story, so why should someone change a fundamental part of it just because it would be simple to do?

Third of all, you seem to be assuming that figures depicted in songs are genderless. Maybe they are to you until you're proven wrong, but they're not to the person writing the song.

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

...Just....what....how many thousands upon thousands of songs survived on "you" and "they"?

I'm sure those were SO much harder to write, anon.

[(Anonymous)]

One thing has nothing to do with another. I never said that writing "you" or "they" is hard in itself, but that forcing someone to change the lyrics to a song, like from "him" to "they" is not as simple as just replacing all of the "him"s with "they"s. A writer sitting down to write a song can decide to write in any number of ways, but declaring that they should force themselves to write in the specific way that you want is ridiculous, and no more easy than telling an author to remove all trace of gender from their story.

Have you ever written any music? I'm honestly asking, because I just don't even know how to continue this discussion with you when you speak as if writing music is as simple as plugging words into Mad Libs.

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

Music, no. Poetry, yes. And "it's my personal expression!" doesn't fly in poetry written for an audience, either.

[herongale]

What kind of crap music do you listen to where gender-specificity is just some pasted-on thing?

Of course, there are many wonderful songs which make excellent use of gender neutral language, even when the song is dedicated to a specific person. Example: George Michael's "Jesus to a Child," which is a song dedicated to his dead lover, Anselmo Feleppa. (Listen here.)

But then there are the amazing songs where the gender specificity is crucial. Example: "Michelle," by The Beatles. It's not just about women, it's about a woman. Or songs like "Thunder Road" by Bruce Springsteen, with the lyric "well now I'm no hero, that's understood, all the redemption I can offer, girl, is beneath this dirty hood," which is a song he is clearly singing to one particular person.

There are plenty of classic and modern songs which I couldn't imagine without the gender specificity.

Or do you think "Short Skirt, Long Jacket" by CAKE should have been, idk, NOT about "a girl with fingernails that shine like justice, and a voice that is dark like tinted glass?"

Get some culture! GENDER SPECIFICITY IN MUSIC IS A PART OF THE ARTISTRY OF GOOD STORYTELLING, WHICH IS IN TURN A PART OF ALL THE GREATEST SONGS.

[angathol.livejournal.com]

/likes this

Also, dumb obvious comment: how the fuck are you going to write any lyrics referring to anyone in the third person without using gendered language? If everything is just direct references with "you" or "they," it'd be BORING.

[megalomaniageek.livejournal.com]

I see you driving 'round town with the person I love and I'm like, Fuck You!

[beandelphiki.livejournal.com]

I normally really like your comments, but I basically addressed your criticism here in my FIRST comment, so what could I possibly say in response to this? Again: gender specificity is organic to some songs. I'm not complaining about those ones.

The OP originally mentioned songs in which a gender is SUDDENLY mentioned toward the end. Clearly, the song was functioning fine without it. That's the kind of thing that bugs me, and which I'm talking about.

I refer you to my example above: Michael Buble's version of "Fever." The original lyrics did NOT include the line, "Chicks were born to give you fever," (which is an...interesting line for other reasons), nor all the Romeo/Juliet stuff, which was added in cover versions of the song. (But not everyone does the "cover" version, because I heard multiple versions of "Fever" without ever stumbling across the "chicks" line until I heard Michael's version). I really don't think those lyrics add anything to a song that originally did very well with only "I/you."