[ 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]

...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."