[ 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

[(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.