Cleaner Song Cuts

To many ads? Support ODJT and see no ads!
oldschooldj said:
It is disrespectful, especially to children and women,
Click to expand...

Children sure... but the fact you felt the need to include women is just a little bit sexist don't you think? The idea that women are delicate flowers who need the protection of a man is antiquated and far more offensive than any profane word in the English language. Not only do women not need your protection nor should one act differently in female company I know plenty of women who would make a sailor blush with their command of the profane.

If you believe I have low morals, low education, or associate with "thugs" because I swear, so be it; However, surface stereotyping of that nature and an inability to see an individual for more than your own prejudices is also generally a sign of poor morals, low education, and a desire to appeal to ones prejudiced peer group.

I play for a lot of teens and Christian people and it would be nice if the industry left these words out of music.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said I don't envy you. Those types of engagements are not for me... obviously they're what you enjoy and that's awesome. I was simply making a general statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ_MJ and Jeff Romard
Nick,

It seems you swear for the same reason a large number of our population smokes. It was considered cool in your life group when you were growing up and now you can not grow out of it. You are lucky in some ways as unlike smoking, swearing probably won't cause your early death or a degraded life style and tremendous health issues when you age.

I spent 30 years with the Army, 27 active and I heard all the foul mouthed language one should ever hear in ones lifetime. I love music and would love for it to give me a break from foul language. You are very right, there is a lot of stress to try and lead a Christian or good life style and perform DJ services for those who want the same.

I will not drop my standards for cool points or to earn a dime, I will look for alternatives to get me there the right way. In no way am I better than others and I have made many mistakes in my life, I work hard to correct them and not make them again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ittigger, Valerie Hicks, Jeff Romard and 1 other person
If being polite around a women, by not using profanity or saying something to someone who is using it in their presence makes me a sexist, then I am your huckleberry. I also believe in calling all women out of HS mam. I open doors for them, let them go first in lines, especially if they have kids and general treat them with high regard.

If my comments offended, they were meant as generalizations and not pointed so much at you, maybe I could have worded them differently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ittigger, Valerie Hicks and Nick James
oldschooldj said:
Nick,

It seems you swear for the same reason a large number of our population smokes. It was considered cool in your life group when you were growing up and now you can not grow out of it. You are lucky in some ways as unlike smoking, swearing probably won't cause your early death or a degraded life style and tremendous health issues when you age.
Click to expand...

You're correct which is also the same reason I started smoking (8 months since I quit) these days however I also use swearing as a way to suss out people I know I won't get along with. I've found the most hard-line anti-profanity individuals often hold other opinions and ideologies that I disagree with and it's a good way to advertise it's simply not worth anyones time to engage.

It's interesting that profanity which is merely language can be so divisive. Especially considering the words only have weight because we give them weight. Something like "osti de pedale de merde" which is extremely profane in QC French is meaningless to you. The words themselves are not powerful, only context and personal opinion gives them power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ_MJ and Jeff Romard
I will also apologize for being so long winded and also opinionated on this subject and if I cause offense to anyone. Profanity is simply an area of interest to me. It is a subject on which I have read the scholarly works and follow the sociological and psychological research (which is rare for me because I generally don't enjoy sociology or psychology.) I have even waded in to the history of language related to profanity and studied ancient profanity simply out of general interest.

I also can't help but take offense when someone implies certain things about people who use profanity as someone who uses profanity myself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ_MJ, ittigger and Jeff Romard
Nick James said:
Which i would argue is deeply rooted in classism and racism as it implies demographics more likely to be socially conditioned to swearing are somehow inferior. Blue collar workers for example who are more likely to use profanity in place of other common interjections; It's definitely classist to imply they have a weaker grasp of the English language.

I swear quite a bit and I would consider my command of the English language to be perfectly acceptable having been raised by a mother with a PhD. in English and having both parents in academia and multilingual I was exposed to a very large vocabulary growing up; Criss de calice de tabarnac, I was raised bilingual and swear in two languages.

I swear because my peer group growing up swore and when I was younger my early jobs were in kitchens, bars, and nightclubs and the culture in those places included a lot of profanity. It becomes ingrained in you and I am not even aware of it most of the time unless I am in a setting where I know I need to control it.

We all have exclamations and the scientific literature would suggest they're important both for stress relief and even the alleviation of pain. I do not believe the person who exclaims "POOEY" when they stub their toe is somehow intellectually superior to the person who exclaims the word "SHIT."
Click to expand...

It's not racism or classism .. it's common courtesy for many.

It's also not classist to imply a lack of language comprehension when either such lack exists or is simply ignored.

I am not implying I do not swear .. I swear a lot in private .. I just try not to in mixed company or in public, as not everyone cottons to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ittigger, Valerie Hicks and Jeff Romard
The way in which the words are perceived has long been set in society and with the way they were used in gangster rap and by gang members through the past 20 years, only increased the way they are disliked by the average person.

Good luck on your smoking cession, you will thank yourself as you approach the best part of your life, post 50's with increased health and ability to do activities that might have been taken from you.

I will keep you in my prayers!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ittigger, Valerie Hicks and Jeff Romard
steve149 said:
I am not implying I do not swear .. I swear a lot in private .. I just try not to in mixed company or in public, as not everyone cottons to it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, and don't get me wrong I am perfectly aware that there are plenty of places swearing is not acceptable and my profane inclinations disappear in those situations. I spent years dealing with clients and I can assure you I never once swore when speaking to any of them; However, once I feel comfortable around and individual or the environment is not professional what I would consider to be my natural speaking patterns return and that include profanity.

My use of profanity is however less as an exclamation and more as an interjection. I use the f-word in much the same way Canadians are stereotyped to use the word "eh" or Americans the word "huh." They're simply asides and off-hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ_MJ, ittigger and Jeff Romard
Nick James said:
Fair enough, and don't get me wrong I am perfectly aware that there are plenty of places swearing is not acceptable and my profane inclinations disappear in those situations. I spent years dealing with clients and I can assure you I never once swore when speaking to any of them; However, once I feel comfortable around and individual or the environment is not professional what I would consider to be my natural speaking patterns return and that include profanity.

My use of profanity is however less as an exclamation and more as an interjection. I use the f-word in much the same way Canadians are stereotyped to use the word "eh" or Americans the word "huh." They're simply asides and off-hand.
Click to expand...

And there's the key .. once one is comfortable around others and knows what their limits are .. no issue.

That doesn't happen in a public setting playing music .. therefore the need to be a bit more cautious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ittigger
oldschooldj said:
The way in which the words are perceived has long been set in society and with the way they were used in gangster rap and by gang members through the past 20 years, only increased the way they are disliked by the average person.
Click to expand...

My real issue with censorship in music is that it's changing someone else's art to be more agreeable to ones own personal biases which goes against the spirit of art. If a lyricist included a profane word in their song they did it for a reason; It is part of not only the message but also the social context of the piece and is a component the artist felt was necessary. While the obvious comparison is the covering of genitals with fig leaves I would actually compare it to covering a random house in The Starry Night by Vincent van Gogh... it may seem inconsequential but you're still changing the work of an artist and implying that you can make their art "better." I've always had a problem with that.

(note however, I still told you how to do it in my original reply because while I may be an idealist on the subject I still get the fact you need to make a living playing to a specific audience that doesn't care that P. Diddy's art contains the word shit.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ittigger
Nick James said:
My real issue with censorship in music is that it's changing someone else's art to be more agreeable to ones own personal biases which goes against the spirit of art. If a lyricist included a profane word in their song they did it for a reason; It is part of not only the message but also the social context of the piece and is a component the artist felt was necessary. While the obvious comparison is the covering of genitals with fig leaves I would actually compare it to covering a random house in The Starry Night by Vincent van Gogh... it may seem inconsequential but you're still changing the work of an artist and implying that you can make their art "better." I've always had a problem with that.

(note however, I still told you how to do it in my original reply because while I may be an idealist on the subject I still get the fact you need to make a living playing to a specific audience that doesn't care that P. Diddy's art contains the word shit.)
Click to expand...

But what if you are actually making it better?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ittigger
steve149 said:
But what if you are actually making it better?
Click to expand...

The idea with art is that there is no "better," at least in my mind. Art is an expression of the artist and it is their message. It's perfect when it conveys the message the artist wants it to convey (to themselves, the audience doesn't even need to understand. Art is personal.) An example I like to use is The Black Square by Kazimir Malevich... I think it's stupid; It's just a black square on a white canvas... Malevich painted it for a reason though and if you research it there were political reasons for it. For one to say "that's not good enough" and change it in to something else is to say that Malevich's message isn't good enough or that he cannot express himself the way he felt was appropriate. I simply extend the same idea to music (idealistically.)

The irony being I use a lot of remixes which change someone's art in to someone else's art. No one said I wasn't a hypocrite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ittigger
ahoustondj said:
Some people do get the necessary Permissions and Licenses some don't!
Most Albums would clearly state that Unauthorized Duplication, Editing would fall under that action. If not, one can take pirated Music and edit it and claim the new edit as non pirated.
Click to expand...

So if you change the pitch do you need permission too? You would be changing the intended way it's listened to

I got to agree with Nick if it's too much stress for me to worry about if I should further clean the radio edit. I would estimate that at at least 60% of my dances I get asked for this one....And depending on the crowd I may or may not play the clean one

 
  • Like
Reactions: ittigger
Nick James said:
....surface stereotyping of that nature and an inability to see an individual for more than your own prejudices is also generally a sign of poor morals, low education, and a desire to appeal to ones prejudiced peer group.
Click to expand...

yet aren't you displaying the same surface stereotyping behavior when you say that

Nick James said:
I also use swearing as a way to suss out people I know I won't get along with. I've found the most hard-line anti-profanity individuals often hold other opinions and ideologies that I disagree with and it's a good way to advertise it's simply not worth anyones time to engage.
Click to expand...
:-/
 
  • Like
Reactions: ittigger
Nick James said:
The idea with art is that there is no "better," at least in my mind. Art is an expression of the artist and it is their message. It's perfect when it conveys the message the artist wants it to convey (to themselves, the audience doesn't even need to understand. Art is personal.) An example I like to use is The Black Square by Kazimir Malevich... I think it's stupid; It's just a black square on a white canvas... Malevich painted it for a reason though and if you research it there were political reasons for it. For one to say "that's not good enough" and change it in to something else is to say that Malevich's message isn't good enough or that he cannot express himself the way he felt was appropriate. I simply extend the same idea to music (idealistically.)

The irony being I use a lot of remixes which change someone's art in to someone else's art. No one said I wasn't a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

It's their expression .. true .. but not every artist is an artist.

And in today's market, it rarely is their vision alone that makes it out, but one of a dozen folks along the pipeline. Who's to say a DJs final touch isn't what the song needs? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ittigger and Nick James
Nick James said:
My real issue with censorship in music is that it's changing someone else's art to be more agreeable to ones own personal biases which goes against the spirit of art. While the obvious comparison is the covering of genitals with fig leaves I would actually compare it to covering a random house in The Starry Night by Vincent van Gogh... it may seem inconsequential but you're still changing the work of an artist and implying that you can make their art "better." I've always had a problem with that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the difference between painting and music is,
with a song...
you like the melody, the rhythym, the beat, you can relate to the meaning of the song,
the lyrics make you think, and can describe your feelings.
Removing or bleeping out a four letter word or two will not really affect all those pleasures you found in the song.
Because the musical part of the song is still in tact.
Your head KNOWS what word was there, so removing the word doesn't change the meaning of the lyric.
If you paint a fig leaf over something in a painting, it doesn't allow you to see or appreciate what the artist created.

And don't think anyone who edits a song feels they are "making it better".
They are only trying to make it fit their needs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ittigger and Valerie Hicks
Also, if musical works weren't meant to be edited/interpreted/modified .. we'd only have the original version .. period .. no covers, no remixes, no sampling.

I would guess 50+ % of current music has been changed by someone since the release of the original artistic work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ittigger and Ausumm
ahoustondj said:
Isn't it against the Copyright to tamper with the Music? Who gave permission to alter the original content?
Click to expand...

Our stations often have several versions of a song to choose from.
Each was edited BY US to suit a particular market, and the "moral standards" of the listeners in that market.
In the end, the artist gets paid each time we play it...so it's not a problem.
Permission is not an issue, because the alternative is to NOT play the song at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ittigger and Valerie Hicks
  • Like
Reactions: ittigger and Ausumm
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back