"Baby, It's Cold Outside": A Citizen Sociolinguistics Perspective on Historicizing and Adapting Deviance
In my work both as a student and scholar of literature
and film, I have been repeatedly confronted with a concern of history and
ethics: How do we responsibly study and address difficult issues embedded in
cultural artifacts, especially those that still wield sociocultural influence
today? In light of this week’s topics, I would like to use a present-day (and,
for me, personal) example to illustrate this.
I’ve always been a fan of the pop song “Baby, It’s
Cold Outside” (1944). My family owned different renditions of the song (almost
always as part of a Christmas album), so I associate it with the holiday
season. I’ve also watched the film that made the song popular, Neptune’s
Daughter (1949), and I’ve always been delighted to see it adapted and
performed. The song is essentially a dialogue between two people, one of whom
is trying to convince the other to stay longer, citing the cold weather.
Here are just a few of many versions:
A YouTube video to the song
as performed in Neptune’s Daughter (1949): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MFJ7ie_yGU
The song performed by Lady
Gaga and Joseph Gordon Levitt in Lady Gaga and the Muppets Holiday
Spectacular (2013):
The song performed by Tony
Bennett and Lady Gaga for a Barnes & Noble commercial (released in 2015):
(Totally Unrelated Note: How
romantic is this?! A meet cute in a bookstore when there’s snow?! #couplegoals #bookwormcouple #imissmywife)
And my favorite version, the
song performed by Idina Menzel and Michael Bublé (2014):
(Another TUN: Watch the music
video; it’s the loveliest and cutest thing!!!)
In recent years, however, the song has been singled
out for its potential connotations of deviance. The persuasion in the song has
been interpreted as coercion, and in particular, the lyric “Say, what’s in this
drink?” has been read as alluding to a date-rape drug. The song has been the
subject of fierce debates and has been “cancelled” in different places.
In light of this, a new version of the song has just
been released. (And I do mean just, it was released on November 7,
2019). The lyrics have been reworked by John Legend (Penn alum!) and Kelly
Clarkson to be more “appropriate” for our current culture. In this version,
there is actually this lyric: “It’s your body and your choice”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I776VyXJab4
See for yourself! I’m attaching here an image
comparing the lyrics of the two versions:
How has the citizenry responded? A quick dive into
related news coverage and online comments gleans responses that appear to range
from lukewarm at best to utterly disgusted at worst.
I’m fascinated by how this came to be, and I have
strong opinions about this issue, but in the interest of space and the hopes of
opening up space for discussion, I will hold off for now and simply ask three
interrelated questions:
1.
After watching and listening to different versions of
the song, what are some of your general thoughts? Do you see the song as
presupposing a predator and victim binary opposition? What do you think about
the 2019 version versus other versions? Why has it sparked controversy?
2.
Are there other cultural works (music, television,
films, etc.) that you personally love but might be interpreted as problematic?
How do you reconcile your enjoyment with the potential perversity/deviance that
the works portray or imply?
3.
As citizen sociolinguists, how can we engage with
(re)interpretation and adaptation of cultural artefacts and historical figures,
through language in particular? How do we balance historicization with
reevaluation through our soon-to-be “2020 hindsight” (ahahahaha, that’s a good
one, if I do say so myself!)? (Additional question: One way might be to
“cancel” some works; another might be to “adapt” the work like in this case.
How do these approaches manifest and operate in our culture today?)
See you all in class! Stay warm; It's cold outside! ☺
--Andrew
November 10, 2019
Thanks for your post, Andrew!! I often feel like social media has exacerbated an ideological dichotomy when things become problematized and your discussion certainly brings nuance to this topic. My own experience with the song is very very limited, and indeed, what I know of it is really just that one problematic line after I was bystander to a conversation about the song between former roommates. My general opinion about this is that one can and should be critical of the content they enjoy. That said, I do feel very uncomfortable with that particular line, not because it creates a predator/victim binary (I’m not sure if I agree that it does?) but because it romanticizes predatory behavior that is ultimately misogynistic. I think changing the lyrics as John Legend and Kelly Clarkson did is a worthwhile reaction when it comes to appreciating but staying critical about media that have brought people joy.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to things like music or movies, I tend to be kind of selective with what I listen to or watch anyway, so I can’t immediately come up with an example where something I have deep attachment for, like you with “Baby, It’s Cold Outside”, became heavily criticized and made me feel conflicted…But I do want to share a similar example and how the songwriter herself reacted once her problematic lyrics were called out.
Paramore’s “Misery Business” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCyGvGEtOwc) was the band’s breakout song back in 2007. It’s a fantastic song that I’ve loved for years, but sure enough, it contains misogynistic, slut-shaming lyrics, specifically: “Once a wh*re, you’re nothing more / I’m sorry, that will never change” After justified criticism in recent years, the lead singer/songwriter Hayley Williams responded by explaining her mindset when she initially wrote her lyrics and acknowledging that the lyrics are problematic (https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7882241/paramore-hayley-williams-controversial-misery-business-lyric; https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/paramore-hayley-williams-live-shows-misery-business-perform-a8529931.html). The band has expressed that they currently have no future plans to perform this song as a result. This gets to what I believe is crucial when these situations arise – we are responsible for the media/content we create and also consume. If we make a mistake, own up to it and do better moving forward.
Addressing your third question about historicization vs. hindsight, I think it’s important to remember the notion that “people didn’t know any better back then” in regards to social life is ultimately a false one. Just as Cameron in her blog post has pointed out that women have always sworn throughout history, there were surely feminists or otherwise like-minded individuals who were attuned to the misogynistic implications of the song lyrics.
The approaches that you mention – cancel and adapt – should be, in my mind, situationally implemented. “Cancel culture” as we discussed last week in class and what you hint at now, is actually a gentrified practice these days, and subsequently isn’t very efficient in effecting reflection and change. Perhaps I lean more towards the adaptation approach, but at the same time, when media production is so entrenched within capitalist systems of oppression, it doesn’t sit well to remove the significant financial consequence that came with canceling in its original sense.
I'm so glad you brought this example to our Blog, Andrew! Fascinating and important conversation here. Also, I started thinking--this scene is almost a culturally generic standard: Someone-trying-to-convince-someone-who-they-have-special-feelings-for to stay. ("Special feelings" of course could mean many different things). Within that genre, I LOVE this scene from Rocky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qm3UCjd9Vk. I think its touching and romantic and just the right amount of corny. But it's also right on the verge of being creepy. But that may the essence of this moment--and why it gets depicted artistically in songs and movies. It is really a moment of vulnerability. In the ROCKY version, he even admits that he feels vulnerable too. Collecting, comparing and discussing these scenes of the "I Really Must Go" genre could lead to some great conversations about human relationships... Does anybody have any other "I really can't stay" examples?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry there is something wrong with my form, so I deleted the original comment ;) Here is my revised version:
ReplyDeleteThank you for your inspiring post, Andrew. Frankly speaking, this is probably the very first time I hear about this song. I chose to listen to your favorite version of this song at first. I have to admit that the video is really lovely. And other videos also seem romantic and sweet for me at the first glimpse. All the interactions, actions are depicted in a very artistic and romantic way. However, after I watch the adapted version and the comparison of lyrics, I feel the old version is indeed problematic. In particular, in the video clip extracted from Neptune’s Daughter (1949), I can see a woman who is very determined to leave and a man who denies the woman’s request and constantly persuades her to stay. What makes me uncomfortable is the song implies that woman cannot make any decisions and choices, and she needs to obey what is said by the other one. Moreover, it seems that the prey ( in some cases) the woman is vulnerable and innocent. While the adapted version is better as it depicts the relationship between females and males in a more equal and respected way. This song is similar to other products of popular culture. People often consume it before carefully observe it. But we also need to admit that sometimes the negative or deviant connotation is build up by people with like minds’ interpretations rather than out of the creator’s initial purpose.
As a manic animation fan, I often encountered the contradiction between the underlying ideologies of objectifying females and my enjoyment of reading the comics. It is very prevalent and common in Japanese animation and comics that female characters are objectified by the authors or illustrators. Female characters are often depicted as sexy, adorable, and attractive. Admittedly, this depiction of females is problematic. And sometimes, there is also violence, allusions of sex involved in comics and animation. I know that there are strict regulations and laws in Japan to sort animation and comics into different levels. However, there is no clear definition and law in China to do so. When a new animation or comics introduced from Japan, the people who censor them will straightforwardly delete all the plot and scenes that break Chinese censorship regulations. However, if it is only allusion or connotations showing up in the comics, then it will not be influenced or edited at all. Many parents worry about this problem, and sometimes they prohibit their kids to read or watch any Japanese animation and comics unless it is Doraemon and other animation for children.
I started to watch Japanese animation and comics from high school. And at that time, my parents often criticized for watching them, as they believe that Japanese animation will introduce pessimistic ideas and they are unhealthy for my mental development. So I had a hard time to deal with this dilemma. One the one hand, I clearly understand there are some problematics ideologies and connotations in Japanese animation. But on the other hand, I enjoy the plot and the fantasy created by talented creators. There are many tensions inside me when I am watching animation or reading comics. Adaptation might indeed be a better approach to cope with this problem in our society. By contrast, simply canceling or deleting some content might harm the original works, and set limitations to artists’ creation. However, even there are more drawbacks in using deletion and canceling, it is the approach that dominantly manifests and operates, simply due to its easiness and fastness.
I like your point here, Chloe, about "canceling" as the easiest and fastest approach to something we get offended by. It's so much harder to address the complicated layers involved in these controversies than to just say "no" to them. And you add another layer to the dilemma--what about those art forms that are controversial, and yet somehow compelling anyway! It seems a shame to jettison them completely--or, it seems in the case of this John Legend lyric, create new watered-down (worse) versions of them! But, we can talk ABOUT them and that may build new subjectivities, etc--but only if they aren't "cancelled"!
DeleteThank you Andrew for this excellent post! I think this discussion (through an analysis of language) highlights very interesting ideas about the roles of men and women in society and comparing the two versions could possibly give insights into how these roles may or may not have changed from 1949 to 2019. Women have always been regarded as the gatekeepers of human morality and are subject to a unique set of moral standards (enforced by both men and other women) and women are ever-aware of this positioning. My interpretation of the 1949 version is based on these assumptions. The woman is aware of the situation, of how it could be interpreted by the man present, as well as, the wider society. Even if she is interested in staying and having another drink, in spending the night, what will the very man asking her to stay think of her? What would the neighbors say? What would her parents say? Most importantly, what would she think of herself? This female moral panic is still very much present in the 2019 version, even if she does stay in the end. The gossipy neighbor and suspicious sister are still the woman’s main preoccupations.
ReplyDeleteThis song reminded me of so many scenes in Mad Men, a show I absolutely love, but which has many elements and storylines that could be interpreted as problematic. I specifically use the term “could be interpreted as problematic” because I don’t find it very productive to limit discussions to the simple labelling of something as problematic or not.
Why is it considered problematic? For whom?
Is Mad Men simply glorifying the golden age of Madison Avenue boys clubs or is it highlighting the stories of intelligent women who navigated the social organization of their time, to the best of their ability and for their own interests?
What happens to women who try to escape the Madonna-Whore dichotomy and claim their own sexual freedom, but end up pregnant (as was the case for more than one of the characters in the show)?
What happens to the ornamental wives locked in their perfect houses in suburbia, while their husbands run amok in Manhattan? Do they lose their minds? Take revenge?
What does that say about the way marriage was viewed in the 50s & 60s? How is that different from today?
These are all interesting questions that could yield interesting discussions, but would never happen if the show were “cancelled”. The human race is a tribalistic, status seeking species that has not yet learned how to navigate its own heterogeneity. If Citizen Sociolinguistics can teach us anything, it should be how to productively engage with each other.
Well said, Sarah-Lee!
DeleteEvery year, whenever B101 (the local Philly Christmas music station) plays this song, inevitably my family gets into a hot debate. I appreciate you posting the alternative lyrics so I can now add more amo into our citizen sociolinguistic annual flame:)
ReplyDeleteAs a kid, I greatly enjoyed reading Babar the Elephant. The story and illustrations were nostalgic and endearing to me so when one of my GSE professors asked us to look through the book before class, I happily obliged. However, using the framework that the class provided, as I was thumbing through the familiar pages of this story, I felt a pit grow in my stomach.
SPOILER ALERT: STOP READING IF YOU'VE NEVER READ THE STORY OF BABAR.
What began to unfold before my very eyes was the story of colonialism/capitalism. An elephant whose left orphaned thanks to a white colonizer, he runs away and a kind white savior takes pity on him and "rescues him". A desire to assimilate and wear clothing to become "civilized" and when his cousins arrive, he feels this desire to "civilize" them as well. Yadayadayada. More happens in the story, but the point is that once I saw this, I wish I could turn the theoretical lens off because that's all that I could see.
Now would I ever read the story again? This is where I answer your second question.
The opportunity to think about this came last year when one of my nieces (four-years-old at the time) asked if I could read Babar to her. Here I had to make a decision: censor the story without explanation, with an explanation that maybe she couldn't understand, or read the book and ask questions throughout.
I chose option three. As we read the story together we rejoiced in the illustrations, felt grief for the passing of Babar's mother and quickly discussed the consequences of our actions and how it can adversely affect others; how giving can sometimes be good, but questioning if Babar was truly helpless or if he could take more control of his destiny (with an idea for Jean de Brunoff for a spin-off where Babar sells lemonade), etc.
I'm sure that there were others ways to handle it and admittedly, we didn't get through the whole book because she lost interest thanks to our side conversations, but I'm glad that we were able to read what we could together and have a little discussion about it.
So to recap and to fully answer your question, I think it's worth revisiting the problematic (although it depends on how problematic it is) and having discussions about it. Something that frustrates me is that some are quick to censor the problematic without having a discussion as to why. By shutting down and avoiding these conversations, we are not critically thinking about them which can lead us to more problems in the future.
Hi Andrew!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post.
There’s a reggaeton song called “Mayores” by Becky G and Bad Bunny (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMFewiplIbw) that was released in 2017. The words in the song are very descriptive of what “Becky likes”:
I like it when they treat me like a lady
Although I forget that when we are in bed
I like it when they tell me poems in the ear
at night when we do “grocerÃas” (not sure how to translate that … bad words/things?) to me
I like a gentleman
who’s interesting
and a good friend
But I like a good lover better
Who cares if he’s a few years older?
I like them older
those that are called ‘Sir’
those that open the door for you
and send you flowers
I like them bigger
the kind [of kisses?] that doesn’t fit in your mouth
The kisses he wants to give me
And makes me go crazy
…and I guess I decided to talk about this song, not necessarily because I love it, though I have danced to it many times, but because it’s been censored in a few places. I find it ironic that people feel uncomfortable when she says “I like them bigger, the kind that doesn’t fit in your mouth” but accept similar “descriptive language” when it comes from a male singer, whether they sing the same genre or not. For example, one of the most successful ballad Latin American singers, Ricardo Arjona, known as the “nocturnal animal” back in 1993 was singing “First Time” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvdnEHrGzMA)
Slowly, I begin in your mouth
Slowly, without taking your clothes off
My bed doesn’t deserve your body
Virgin like The Amazon
Too much for a hunting wolf
Ideal for love
Slowly, I go down around your heart
Slowly, and a button stops me
Meanwhile you say stop, but [continue to] help me
It is a war in your womb
Between “go on” and “stop”
…
How do I know of this song? Well, it is still played in the radio, and people LOOOVE this singer and his music. So, I find it ironic as I said earlier that Becky G’s song has been censored but not Ricardo’s. In a way, I feel like it resembles what Cameron talk’s about in her blog in terms of women swearing and the views that society has about it. Traditionally, women have been considered vulgar if swearing, but not men necessarily. And so, I see a lot of similarities between that them and what’s going with the songs I chose: men can sing and talk about sex, and even describe their “first time,” but the moment women do it they are criticized and even censored. But why are they been censored? Is it because the are engaging in deviant behavior? Is it because they might offend “masculine sensitivities”? … probably the latter… but I don’t know. What I do know is that instead of censoring music, or any form of art, we should check why what’s being said/represented is eliciting that response, and possibly that’ll help us look at how we might be reproducing or contesting societal hierarchies, normative practices, and inequalities.
Hi Andrew, thank you so much for this excellent post!
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the version in 1949 does sound problematic. The interactions between the man and the woman reminded me of the concept - Rape Culture.
According to Ann Burnett(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture), the concept of Rape Culture explains how society perceives and behaves towards rape victims and rape perpetrators. For example, a number of rape myths that are held are "no means yes", women can resist rape if they really wanted to, women who are raped are promiscuous therefore "asking to be raped" and many women falsely report rape to protect their own reputations or because they are angry at the "perpetrator" and want to create a type of backlash. A theory for why rape myths are so common in society is because they are perpetuated by norms already present in society. Researchers claim that communication and language is created by the dominant patriarchy. In positions of power, men control how women are portrayed in the media, women's censorship of body and voice, etc. which forces women to submit to the gender stereotypes formed by the dominant culture. The dominance of the male language in society creates the concept of a "slutty woman" and forces women to begin to monitor their behavior in fear of how they will be perceived within the rape culture
That being said, I understand that why the song was not problematic in 1949 but it is today. Over the past 70 years, a lot of changes have happened to the world as well as people’s beliefs, values, and attitudes toward many things.
Andrew, you just demonstrated a great way for us to grapple with those controversial topics. You display everything here without showing a stance, so everyone of us is able to make the comparison, see the change, discuss about it and talk to each other.
As Sarah-Lee said in the previous post, these are all interesting questions that could yield interesting discussions, but would never happen if the show were “cancelled”.
Hi Andrew! Thank you for your post. Your post and Chloe's comment inspire me to think that some music I've listened to are "disappeared" from music apps in China. In the app- QQ music, the sound of sensitive words (e.g. F-word, N-word) are silenced. Or some swearing words are transcribed to be "***" on the lyrics page.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, LadyGaga's song "Dope" completely disappeared in QQ music (not grayed out or not be heard without membership, but disappeared). But why don't other people's "dope" disappear? In my opinion, although these are not very positive words, aren't juveniles and children in contact with the words in their lives besides listening to the music? How much is the effect of eliminating a few songs? There is not reasonable to blame these songs. And most of these songs just express emotions, but they are not anti-social. Is it not allowed to have dirty words in a civilized and harmonious society? A lot of things are censored inexplicably on radio and television every year. Are these things really the source of the children’s negative thoughts? We still have to look at our education rather than banning these reasonably existing songs.
Personally, the solution to many things is not to block and ban, but to guide. It would be a bit funny to ban the song using "dope" as a metaphor hoping to be forgiven by a friend.
I honestly feel weird about the new version (and I love how people commenting on it on Youtube, saying things like “he can’t seem to get rid of her fast enough”), and the idea of anachronically transforming pieces of art, but I think that this is very much my French subjectivity speaking, and I wouldn’t be surprised if I change my mind in a few years… or months.
ReplyDeleteThese debates are interesting for me coming from a country where there is no censorship on the tv or radio (http://www.non-stop-zapping.com/actu/tv/quotidien-pink-ravie-de-pouvoir-dire-des-gros-mots-la-television-francaise-video-66855 as illustration, you can watch Pink say“fuck, it’s my favorite word” on French tv but notice how reluctant she was to say it). Songs are played in their integrity, the way the artist intended it.
When I first came to the US about 10 years ago, I was outraged that media were altering the songs, sometimes making them ridiculous (“sexy bitch” becomes “sexy chick”) or unintelligible (some songs make it sound like the artist is stuttering, maybe influencing the new trap trend in hip hop).
But now, my ear has grown so much accustomed to it, that when I go back to France once a year and hear explicit lyrics of American songs, it makes me tick, sometimes I even feel uncomfortable realizing how offensive or misogynistic some pieces are.
This shows how our subjectivity is really shaped by our habitus.
My not yet 2 yo daughter has started saying the f-word and we find it hysterical, especially because she says it in a contextually relevant way, but we also know we need to fix this before we get in trouble at her school.
Comment from Gabrielle sent to me via Canvas (Thanks!):
ReplyDeleteHi Andrew!
This “classic” song I have heard hundreds of times, however, I actually have never had any affinity of the song personally. I definitely see where people would think it is questionable, alluding to something more deviant. Therefore, I also understand why people choose not to play it for those reasons. I don’t play it because I just am not a fan of the tune, not so much because of the lyrics. Yet, to re-do the original song just seems to overstep a little too far for me. This just opens up a whole new category for things that offend people.
If people are offended at that specific song enough for them to rewrite it, then they need to start rewriting a lot more songs. I wonder what the original artist would have felt and thought about this? There are many songs out there that could potentially be problematic or taken the wrong way for example Cardi B’s songs and lyrics.
Yet, the reasons these songs were created were because of artistic expression and that is how it should be treated and categorized. Sometimes art offends people, but should we edit paintings that are offensive? This is especially happening in comedy as well where comedians are being kicked out of arenas because of the jokes they are making. Comedians make jokes, not to be taken too seriously, but people are becoming very hyper-sensitive about many topics in our present climate.
This song could potentially be on the Filthy Fifteen list as it was “banned” from many airways as well. It amuses me that there were only 15 items on that list! However, for this particular song, it was not in the “offensive” category back in the 80s.
Today everyone in the world has access to all music, movies, anything they want to look for via google, YouTube, Spotify, and the internet in general. There is not much use of censorship anymore regarding music with there being no more sales of CDs or Tapes. The radio might be the last one holding the bar on censorship. It is now up to parents to be informed and monitor their child’s listening habits to censor in their own ways instead of warning labels that were done for them by the PRMC.
What do we want to be exposed to? Do we have the right to change the structure of everything we see if it offends us?