'Money For Nothing' banned from Canadian radio
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 21 Next
xerxes @ Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:41 am
What I'm wondering now is the CSBC going to censor every rap and R&B song that demeans women? 'Cause that would be 99% of them.
ShepherdsDog @ Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:46 am
'Earl's gotta die' promotes misandry. It is offensive to inbred wife beaters.
xerxes @ Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:51 am
And Johnny Cash shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
Zipperfish @ Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:06 am
From today's Montreal Gazette
$1:
...let's help the CBSC with this BS. Round up the usual suspects.
For space purposes, we'd leave aside the global library of songs with foul language -including Who Are You, Working Class Hero (F-word), Pink Floyd's Money (b. s.) - and concentrate on those that violate the CBSC code.
Line up Dylan's Hurricane, who "to the black folks was just a crazy nigger" and Walk on the Wild Side's "coloured girls." Add the Rolling Stones in Miss You, grading the ladies by ethnicity. In Every Picture Tells a Story, Rod Stewart is taken with his "slit eyed lady." Born in the USA - the "yellow man," that could cause problems. Michael Jackson? "Jew me, sue me / Kick me, kike me." Oliver's Army mentions the n-word. Woman is the Nigger of the World would be self-explanatory, Mr. Lennon, as would the Stones' Bitch, in their very titles. As is Lennon's Crippled Inside, of issue to the handicapped, and Aqualung, for its ageist portrait, and 19th Nervous Breakdown and Brain Damage, for mocking mental instability. And we'll leave aside Short People.
But no, let's be "fag"-specific here. The Stones' are reliably back again with When the Whip Comes Down and the "fag in L.A.", The Who's Helpless Dancer calls out "the lesbians and queers." There was once a rumour that the Beatles sang "baby you're a rich fag Jew" ... but we digress. Green Day's Holiday may be a little obscure, but the Tom Robbins anthem Glad to Be Gay mentions "queer." And Merry Christmas: Fairytale of New York runs "You scumbag, you maggot / You cheap lousy faggot / Happy Christmas your arse I pray god it's our last."
You can add American Triangle and its "God hates fags where we come from." That was written by Elton John in the wake of Matthew Shepard's murder in Wyoming.
For space purposes, we'd leave aside the global library of songs with foul language -including Who Are You, Working Class Hero (F-word), Pink Floyd's Money (b. s.) - and concentrate on those that violate the CBSC code.
Line up Dylan's Hurricane, who "to the black folks was just a crazy nigger" and Walk on the Wild Side's "coloured girls." Add the Rolling Stones in Miss You, grading the ladies by ethnicity. In Every Picture Tells a Story, Rod Stewart is taken with his "slit eyed lady." Born in the USA - the "yellow man," that could cause problems. Michael Jackson? "Jew me, sue me / Kick me, kike me." Oliver's Army mentions the n-word. Woman is the Nigger of the World would be self-explanatory, Mr. Lennon, as would the Stones' Bitch, in their very titles. As is Lennon's Crippled Inside, of issue to the handicapped, and Aqualung, for its ageist portrait, and 19th Nervous Breakdown and Brain Damage, for mocking mental instability. And we'll leave aside Short People.
But no, let's be "fag"-specific here. The Stones' are reliably back again with When the Whip Comes Down and the "fag in L.A.", The Who's Helpless Dancer calls out "the lesbians and queers." There was once a rumour that the Beatles sang "baby you're a rich fag Jew" ... but we digress. Green Day's Holiday may be a little obscure, but the Tom Robbins anthem Glad to Be Gay mentions "queer." And Merry Christmas: Fairytale of New York runs "You scumbag, you maggot / You cheap lousy faggot / Happy Christmas your arse I pray god it's our last."
You can add American Triangle and its "God hates fags where we come from." That was written by Elton John in the wake of Matthew Shepard's murder in Wyoming.
EyeBrock @ Fri Jan 14, 2011 6:48 am
Yep, they certainly are looking silly. Lots of English language news sites across the globe are carrying this story.
I think some self-awareness of the role of the CBSC is required by the plonkers who made this decision, after ONE complaint.
Silly, silly, silly.
Thanos @ Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:11 am
xerxes xerxes:
What I'm wondering now is the CSBC going to censor every rap and R&B song that demeans women? 'Cause that would be 99% of them.
They won't just because it's rap. It's the same BS MuchMusic pulled about twenty years ago when they banned Van Halen's 'Poundcake' and Motley Crue's 'Girls, Girls, Girls' for being too sexist but kept on playing NWA and Ice-T rap songs about shooting cops and beating up ho's. Eminem might not be on the trendy popular list right now but if he still was there'd be no way any of his stuff would get pulled. Hip-hop gets some kind of pass on these issues because these sorts of dunderheads have given it some kind of two-faced special 'cultural' exemption.
I'd like to see a federal Minister step in and put an end to this petite fascism but as the CBSC appears to be at very arms length from the government there's probably nothing any of them can do about it, even if they were inclined to do so.
Gunnair @ Fri Jan 14, 2011 8:26 am
$1:
Comment: Censors in dire need of context
By Mike Doherty
2011 is beginning to feel like 1991 all over again, as political correctness and censorship are once again front-page news. Last week, we learned that in Alabama, the NewSouth edition of Mark Twain’s 1884 novel Huckleberry Finn will replace the word “nigger” with the word “slave.” On Wednesday, the Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council moved to censure St. John’s radio station CHOZ-FM for playing Dire Straits’ 1985 song Money for Nothing because of its use of the word “faggot.”
Both works have a vexed and controversial history, complicated by the fact that they’re both written in the first person. The n-word and the f-word are used, respectively, by Twain’s hero Huck (a boy who escapes his abusive father and meets the escaped slave he calls “Nigger Jim”) and by the character from whose point of view Knopfler sings – a grumpy appliance-store delivery man who covets the life of an earring-wearing MTV star, whom he slurs as a “little faggot.”
In neither work is there a narrator who tells us that these characters are doing something wrong, so it requires more work on the part of the reader, or the listener, to make this decision – but it’s not impossible. Crucial to both works is the issue of context, and it’s one that both the Huckleberry Finn editors and the CBSC panelists have chosen to ignore.
First, there’s the historical context: Twain, an abolitionist and emancipationist, was writing from the point of view of an uneducated boy in the American South in a time of slavery and rampant racism. Knopfler, meanwhile, was apparently reporting on what he heard a “great big macho” delivery worker say in the back of a New York kitchen appliance store – certainly the language is appropriate to the time and place he’s depicting.
Next, the narrative context: even though Huckleberry Finn’s eponymous hero has inherited the casual racism of his time and place, he gradually comes to see the parallels between his situation and that of Jim, and he develops a new appreciation of the former slave as a human being with free will. The narrative throws into question the assumptions behind the use of the n-word. This in itself would seem to provide a good pedagogical opportunity, but the NewSouth editors have told Publishers Weekly that “in the new classroom, it’s really not acceptable” to teach a book where a “single word” forms a “barrier” for students – in other words, rather than deal with a controversial issue, it’s better to pretend it doesn’t exist.
In the case of Money for Nothing, the CBSC panel acknowledges the importance of context in literary works, but finds that “in the case of a song … the exposition of a context is less likely to be present.” They declare that they’re not closing “the door to that possibility but it does not consider that ‘Money for Nothing’ is such a song.” Their decision is patronizing – to songwriters in general (imagine grudgingly telling Bob Dylan that there may just be such thing as context in songs), and to Dire Straits in particular.
In Money for Nothing the delivery guy may not change his opinion, as Huck does in Twain’s novel, but he isn’t entirely disparaging of the “faggot with an earring in his ear” whose video he’s watching – “That’s the way you do it,” he says. “You play the guitar on the MTV.” His discrimination is undermined by his desire to be like the person he’s slagging off.
Also, Knopfler sets the delivery guy’s words to MTV-friendly music (the song’s computer-animated video became an instant classic) that equally ironizes his point of view. No longer can he keep his self-proclaimed – not to mention racist – distance from what he disdainfully calls “Hawaiian noises” and “Bangin’ on the bongos like a chimpanzee.”
Dire Straits are in a sense poking fun at themselves as the musicians who are getting their “money for nothing,” but also clearly at what Knopfler has called the “hard-hat mentality” of the delivery guy. If you pay attention, it’s practically impossible to conflate the identity of the character in the song with that of the singer. The panel seems to be suffering from a severe irony deficiency.
What’s more, the panel mentions, confusingly, that “like other racially driven [sic] words in the English language, ‘faggot’ is one that, even if entirely or marginally acceptable in earlier days, is no longer so.” But again, this distinction misses the point that Knopfler was singing it in character and ridiculing the kind of person who would use the word “faggot” to designate something other than a bundle of wood.
In the song, Knopfler’s delivery guy also envies the MTV musicians for getting their “chicks for free” – but the panel hasn’t moved to censor the word “chicks,” presumably because it considers the word acceptable. Even by its own dubious standards, the panel falls short.
It’s not as if the CBSC, or the NewSouth editors, don’t have people’s best interests at heart: in neither case are they trying to censor the entire works in question; they’re just trying to make them acceptable for everyone to appreciate. Even Mark Knopfler has quasi-censored his own song – there’s a version of Money for Nothing with “mother” substituted for the offending word.
And yet, both decisions smack of a paternalistic disregard for creators’ and audiences’ abilities to deal with challenges, with ambiguities, with layers of context and irony. Works of art can invite us to wrestle with prejudice when they set it in context, offering a perspective that we can apply in our daily lives. In sanitizing our culture, we risk dumbing it down.
National Post
Read more: http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/01/13 ... z1B1X65IfF
By Mike Doherty
2011 is beginning to feel like 1991 all over again, as political correctness and censorship are once again front-page news. Last week, we learned that in Alabama, the NewSouth edition of Mark Twain’s 1884 novel Huckleberry Finn will replace the word “nigger” with the word “slave.” On Wednesday, the Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council moved to censure St. John’s radio station CHOZ-FM for playing Dire Straits’ 1985 song Money for Nothing because of its use of the word “faggot.”
Both works have a vexed and controversial history, complicated by the fact that they’re both written in the first person. The n-word and the f-word are used, respectively, by Twain’s hero Huck (a boy who escapes his abusive father and meets the escaped slave he calls “Nigger Jim”) and by the character from whose point of view Knopfler sings – a grumpy appliance-store delivery man who covets the life of an earring-wearing MTV star, whom he slurs as a “little faggot.”
In neither work is there a narrator who tells us that these characters are doing something wrong, so it requires more work on the part of the reader, or the listener, to make this decision – but it’s not impossible. Crucial to both works is the issue of context, and it’s one that both the Huckleberry Finn editors and the CBSC panelists have chosen to ignore.
First, there’s the historical context: Twain, an abolitionist and emancipationist, was writing from the point of view of an uneducated boy in the American South in a time of slavery and rampant racism. Knopfler, meanwhile, was apparently reporting on what he heard a “great big macho” delivery worker say in the back of a New York kitchen appliance store – certainly the language is appropriate to the time and place he’s depicting.
Next, the narrative context: even though Huckleberry Finn’s eponymous hero has inherited the casual racism of his time and place, he gradually comes to see the parallels between his situation and that of Jim, and he develops a new appreciation of the former slave as a human being with free will. The narrative throws into question the assumptions behind the use of the n-word. This in itself would seem to provide a good pedagogical opportunity, but the NewSouth editors have told Publishers Weekly that “in the new classroom, it’s really not acceptable” to teach a book where a “single word” forms a “barrier” for students – in other words, rather than deal with a controversial issue, it’s better to pretend it doesn’t exist.
In the case of Money for Nothing, the CBSC panel acknowledges the importance of context in literary works, but finds that “in the case of a song … the exposition of a context is less likely to be present.” They declare that they’re not closing “the door to that possibility but it does not consider that ‘Money for Nothing’ is such a song.” Their decision is patronizing – to songwriters in general (imagine grudgingly telling Bob Dylan that there may just be such thing as context in songs), and to Dire Straits in particular.
In Money for Nothing the delivery guy may not change his opinion, as Huck does in Twain’s novel, but he isn’t entirely disparaging of the “faggot with an earring in his ear” whose video he’s watching – “That’s the way you do it,” he says. “You play the guitar on the MTV.” His discrimination is undermined by his desire to be like the person he’s slagging off.
Also, Knopfler sets the delivery guy’s words to MTV-friendly music (the song’s computer-animated video became an instant classic) that equally ironizes his point of view. No longer can he keep his self-proclaimed – not to mention racist – distance from what he disdainfully calls “Hawaiian noises” and “Bangin’ on the bongos like a chimpanzee.”
Dire Straits are in a sense poking fun at themselves as the musicians who are getting their “money for nothing,” but also clearly at what Knopfler has called the “hard-hat mentality” of the delivery guy. If you pay attention, it’s practically impossible to conflate the identity of the character in the song with that of the singer. The panel seems to be suffering from a severe irony deficiency.
What’s more, the panel mentions, confusingly, that “like other racially driven [sic] words in the English language, ‘faggot’ is one that, even if entirely or marginally acceptable in earlier days, is no longer so.” But again, this distinction misses the point that Knopfler was singing it in character and ridiculing the kind of person who would use the word “faggot” to designate something other than a bundle of wood.
In the song, Knopfler’s delivery guy also envies the MTV musicians for getting their “chicks for free” – but the panel hasn’t moved to censor the word “chicks,” presumably because it considers the word acceptable. Even by its own dubious standards, the panel falls short.
It’s not as if the CBSC, or the NewSouth editors, don’t have people’s best interests at heart: in neither case are they trying to censor the entire works in question; they’re just trying to make them acceptable for everyone to appreciate. Even Mark Knopfler has quasi-censored his own song – there’s a version of Money for Nothing with “mother” substituted for the offending word.
And yet, both decisions smack of a paternalistic disregard for creators’ and audiences’ abilities to deal with challenges, with ambiguities, with layers of context and irony. Works of art can invite us to wrestle with prejudice when they set it in context, offering a perspective that we can apply in our daily lives. In sanitizing our culture, we risk dumbing it down.
National Post
Read more: http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/01/13 ... z1B1X65IfF
andyt @ Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:10 am
$1:
Halifax, Edmonton stations to play unedited version of 'Money for Nothing'
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/halifax-rock-station-plans-marathon-unedited-version-money-20110114-061612-786.html
$1:
Rock stations in Halifax and Edmonton plan to play an unedited version of "Money for Nothing" on repeat for a full hour Friday after the song was deemed unfit for Canadian radio because of a gay slur in its lyrics....
Members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community were expected be on hand for its marathon between 9 and 10 p.m., Douglas said.
"We believe that this decision may trivialize the meaningful work done to further the cause of the LGBT community and could actually work against them by creating a sense of excessive political correctness at the cost of the fundamental freedom of speech," Douglas said in a statement.
Members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community were expected be on hand for its marathon between 9 and 10 p.m., Douglas said.
"We believe that this decision may trivialize the meaningful work done to further the cause of the LGBT community and could actually work against them by creating a sense of excessive political correctness at the cost of the fundamental freedom of speech," Douglas said in a statement.
raydan @ Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:59 am
When The Beatles, "I am the walrus", came out, they censored the song on British radio, removing the words, "pornographic priestess" and "...you let your knickers down". 
Now for your musical information...
Lennon made the lyrics nonsensical when he learned that some Universities offered courses on analizing Beatles song. When they finished putting the track down, Lennon said, "Let those buggers try to figure that one out".
SprCForr @ Fri Jan 14, 2011 11:54 am
My email to Ron Cohen at the CBSC:
"Sir,
I disagree with this decision 100%. The song “Money for Nothing” is a statement about the attitudes towards artists in music videos from 1985. As such, the song has been played in the original format worldwide for 25 yrs. The complainant, in my opinion, has failed to realize the context of the song and reacted in a thin skinned, knee jerk fashion. The decision the Regional Panel thus rendered, has merely contributed to the poisonous culture of politically correct censorship so rampant today. Using current so-called “standards” to render a judgment on the past is intellectually shallow to say the least.
Reverse the decision, restore the song to the playlist and make a statement that the CBSC isn’t in the business of being a tool to mete out “justice” on the behalf of perpetually outraged grievance mongers.
Step up for crying out loud and stop the nonsense.
Sincerely,
SprCForr"
andyt @ Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:19 pm
SprCForr SprCForr:
My email to Ron Cohen at the CBSC:
"Sir,
I disagree with this decision 100%. The song “Money for Nothing” is a statement about the attitudes towards artists in music videos from 1985. As such, the song has been played in the original... format worldwide for 25 yrs. The complainant, in my opinion, has failed to realize the context of the song and reacted in a thin skinned, knee jerk fashion. The decision the Regional Panel thus rendered, has merely contributed to the poisonous culture of politically correct censorship so rampant today. Using current so-called “standards” to render a judgment on the past is intellectually shallow to say the least.
Reverse the decision, restore the song to the playlist and make a statement that the CBSC isn’t in the business of being a tool to mete out “justice” on the behalf of perpetually outraged grievance mongers.
Step up for crying out loud and stop the nonsense.
Sincerely,
SprCForr"
"Sir,
I disagree with this decision 100%. The song “Money for Nothing” is a statement about the attitudes towards artists in music videos from 1985. As such, the song has been played in the original... format worldwide for 25 yrs. The complainant, in my opinion, has failed to realize the context of the song and reacted in a thin skinned, knee jerk fashion. The decision the Regional Panel thus rendered, has merely contributed to the poisonous culture of politically correct censorship so rampant today. Using current so-called “standards” to render a judgment on the past is intellectually shallow to say the least.
Reverse the decision, restore the song to the playlist and make a statement that the CBSC isn’t in the business of being a tool to mete out “justice” on the behalf of perpetually outraged grievance mongers.
Step up for crying out loud and stop the nonsense.
Sincerely,
SprCForr"
Nice one
Lemmy @ Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:27 pm
x 2
EyeBrock @ Fri Jan 14, 2011 12:43 pm
SprCForr SprCForr:
My email to Ron Cohen at the CBSC:
"Sir,
I disagree with this decision 100%. The song “Money for Nothing” is a statement about the attitudes towards artists in music videos from 1985. As such, the song has been played in the original... format worldwide for 25 yrs. The complainant, in my opinion, has failed to realize the context of the song and reacted in a thin skinned, knee jerk fashion. The decision the Regional Panel thus rendered, has merely contributed to the poisonous culture of politically correct censorship so rampant today. Using current so-called “standards” to render a judgment on the past is intellectually shallow to say the least.
Reverse the decision, restore the song to the playlist and make a statement that the CBSC isn’t in the business of being a tool to mete out “justice” on the behalf of perpetually outraged grievance mongers.
Step up for crying out loud and stop the nonsense.
Sincerely,
SprCForr"
"Sir,
I disagree with this decision 100%. The song “Money for Nothing” is a statement about the attitudes towards artists in music videos from 1985. As such, the song has been played in the original... format worldwide for 25 yrs. The complainant, in my opinion, has failed to realize the context of the song and reacted in a thin skinned, knee jerk fashion. The decision the Regional Panel thus rendered, has merely contributed to the poisonous culture of politically correct censorship so rampant today. Using current so-called “standards” to render a judgment on the past is intellectually shallow to say the least.
Reverse the decision, restore the song to the playlist and make a statement that the CBSC isn’t in the business of being a tool to mete out “justice” on the behalf of perpetually outraged grievance mongers.
Step up for crying out loud and stop the nonsense.
Sincerely,
SprCForr"
Too fuckin' right mate!
2Cdo @ Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:14 pm
Why do we feel like it is our right to never be offended? When did we as a nation start producing such utter whiners who need the government or other agency to cleanse society of everything that doesn't conform to their narrow sense of what is correct?
If this is how things are I am going to contact these fuckwits at CBSC daily to cleanse the CBC of anything other than HNIC because it offends me. 
The first thing to go will be The National! 
andyt @ Fri Jan 14, 2011 1:36 pm
2Cdo 2Cdo:
Why do we feel like it is our right to never be offended? When did we as a nation start producing such utter whiners who need the government or other agency to cleanse society of everything that doesn't conform to their narrow sense of what is correct?
If this is how things are I am going to contact these fuckwits at CBSC daily to cleanse the CBC of anything other than HNIC because it offends me.
The first thing to go will be The National!
If this is how things are I am going to contact these fuckwits at CBSC daily to cleanse the CBC of anything other than HNIC because it offends me.
The first thing to go will be The National!
Are you a white male? Then you don't count. Well, unless you're gay.
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 21 Next