smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | DanAbnrml9@aol.com |
| Subject | Re: outkast |
| Date | Fri, 7 May 2004 15:17:22 EDT |
[Part 1 text/plain US-ASCII (1.7 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
In a message dated 5/7/2004 1:03:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
audities-owner@smoe.org writes:
This kind of surprised me and then on another level doesn't.
I work in a music store where we can't play anything with profanity (though
frankly that refers mostly to songs with a certain word beginning with the
sixth letter of the alphabet and anything with overt sexual context) and we've had
this debate many times. It seems that when anything is "bleeped" it not only
draws extra attention to the lyrics of the song, but it also makes the mind
wonder what was missed. I think that the "dirty" versions are quite often less
offensive, especially given the tendency to bleep fairly inoffensive words
(like any drug reference) in the clean edits.
For example, I often play FOW's "Welcome Interstate Managers", but "Bright
Future In Sales" not only contains s-bombs, it contains them prominently in the
chorus. Generally, we'll just play through them--this isn't the worst of
bad-word sins, frankly--but sometimes we'll tailor the content for the customers in
the store. One Sunday morning there were some kids inside, so we decided to
"edit" the song ourselves--ie, shut off the speakers for a half-second each
time the s-bomb is dropped. it's a trick we use often for songs that are good but
only have a bad word or two. The end result, however, seemed far MORE
offensive--especially in its choppiness, and it was never worth doing again. Now I
just skip the track if I'm worried about it.
Strangely I was in Best Buy once and they played a Streets track with f-bombs
intact on their in-house radio. We'd never get away with that. --Jason
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.