- This topic has 18 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
ok
come on
i’m no prude but rape is a fairly touchy subject to joke about if it was only the once say in (my family tree) where uncle subastian rapes a dutchess ok it’s funny, but along with the farmyard animals of (Bantam Cock) showing a little grattitude for being molested. The statue in (the statues) having bright eyes after being raped by Sir Robert Walpole (despite Jake and his uncle’s best attempts to stop him) the joke can seem to be a bit on the slimy side.
I find some songs are a little ruined by the seemingly obligitory overt sexual references. The slapping bottoms on the war monument the lovely bottom of old Sophie the Salvation Army girl’s champing teeth. I find sometimes these images spoil an otherwise brilliant song. As for an innocent song about a horse going trot trot suddenly has a girl with lovely bottomin it !! In some instances the no nonsense Yorkshire un pc ness is refreshing in this pc age but is it also a remnant of an older woman deriding humour ?Dannio
I think the obvious answer is no, but when these songs are performed at Jakefests a lot of the singers change raped to shagged or something similar.
I am certain that other members will have views on this and will expand further on this subject.
why would people change the words of the songs if they did not feel there was something questionable in the way the song was being expressed?
Critically speaking is it a failing as well as perhaps (dare i say) morally?Dannio
As one who changes words on occasion, yes I feel uncomfortable with some words. I don’t regard this as a critical or moral failing on Jake’s part: he wrote songs in his time and which were of their time but – in some respects – are not of ours. He is also the man who wrote The Hair of the Widow of Bridlington.
I am no more concerned to give it large about Jake’s morality than I am about Chaucer’s morality or the morality of the eponymous narrator of Njall’s saga, and changing raped a duchess to shagged a duchess doesn’t undermine the narrative structure of Family Tree. I do it because I can’t be bothered getting into arguments which use of ‘rape’ inevitably brings.
One can argue quite reasonably, I think, that the wit lies in the fact that the narrator’s only brush with nobility was an act of physical violence commited on somebody and that act of violence might have been anything else: ‘punched a duchess’ would scan for example as would’ kicked a viscount’. Conceivably one could construct a verse which says ‘Except Aunty Euphemia who castrated a Viscount" – which covers much the same territory – is that any more or less ‘acceptable’?
The uncomfortable aspect of raping the Duchess is partly that the act of violence is sexual in it’s nature and because we are, rightly I think, concerned to recognise that rape is an act of physical domination and physical violence which must not be treated as a trivial subject for humour. Mostly, though, it is uncomfortable because the line still gets a laugh (when Great Great Uncle Sam and his green wheelbarrow generally doesn’t). This is partly because the wheelbarrow verse is a clunker of course but are the audience laughing at ‘rape’ or just the fact that violence is the only connection with aristocracy?
Finally, with who’s perceptions of morality are we concerned? Roy ‘Chubby’ Brown and Jim Davidson currently draw huge audiences for their humour which is, in my opinion several orders of magnitude grosser than Jake’s use of rape (and rapist in earlier versions of The Bantam Cock – he later switched to ‘Demon’) but which is massively popular.
Ian.
ps, no, Jake does not ‘glorify’ rape
Post edited by: aliasmacalias, at: 2006/01/31 18:34
Good Grief!!
If you ask the question – you’ve missed the point.
For goodness sake, Jake’s bawdiness was of the seaside postcard variety – "The Kiss" and "The Lodger" being good examples. Several of his other songs shared a common theme of authority figures getting their come uppance. Do you think he seriously relished the thought of a Judge getting rogered by a Gorilla? – or would take pleasure in learning that a policeman’s wife had been ravished by a gypsy? (oops sorry, a travelling person).
At the time he wrote it, the mention of raping a Duchess was no more than an outrageous remark designed to shock us into laughter – and it did. In fact it still does make me laugh because I hear it now as I did back then.None of us thinks rape is funny. None of us would consider for a moment that Jake did either. And furthermore, if you cant hear the love for all of us in Jake’s songs – you’ve got the wrong bloke.
Go and buy yourself some Val Doonican records – he never mentions anything remotely sexual.
Having said that – the cruel bastard feeds dynamite to donkeys…….
Hobbers
Hobbers wrote:
Good Grief!!
If you ask the question – you’ve missed the point.
For goodness sake, Jake’s bawdiness was of the seaside postcard variety – "The Kiss" and "The Lodger" being good examples. Several of his other songs shared a common theme of authority figures getting their come uppance. Do you think he seriously relished the thought of a Judge getting rogered by a Gorilla? – or would take pleasure in learning that a policeman’s wife had been ravished by a gypsy? (oops sorry, a travelling person).
At the time he wrote it, the mention of raping a Duchess was no more than an outrageous remark designed to shock us into laughter – and it did. In fact it still does make me laugh because I hear it now as I did back then.None of us thinks rape is funny. None of us would consider for a moment that Jake did either. And furthermore, if you cant hear the love for all of us in Jake’s songs – you’ve got the wrong bloke.
Go and buy yourself some Val Doonican records – he never mentions anything remotely sexual.
Having said that – the cruel bastard feeds dynamite to donkeys…….
Hobbers
Calm down lad I think you need to take a chill pill.
Lad? – Chill Pill?
I’m too old for either – but I have a real passion for Jake’s work, and I hate to witness his memory being tainted. You cant judge what he wrote 30 years ago by today’s much more enlightened standards. Thirty years ago, I held opinions that today I would cringe to be reminded of. I’m sure Jake did too. Fortunately for me, I didn’t publish them. I dont have a problem listening to Jake’s songs in context – and there is no racism, sexism, or anything else ism in me enjoying them now.
As another contributor eloquently pointed out – Chaucer was no saint either by today’s standards.
And if you insist on being PC – dont call me "lad" or recommend that I partake of recreational drugs!
(That last was said with humour by the way, I didn;t really take any offence).Jake was one of a kind. Timeless, old fashioned, shocking, charming – and he never said a word without a twinkle in his eye. He said what he said at the time. You cant go back and make judgements from now – the poor bugger’s dead – and surely the whole point of this site is to celebrate what he did in his time.
Hobbers
HI
i obviously put my foot in a hornets nest there.
Several points
1 are we so afraid of being considered pc that we cannot criticise something for being morally suspect without being considered a val doonican fan?
2 the songs can be judged by today’s standards and that is partly what i have done. There are many things which do stand the test of time and it is clear that some of the ways these songs have been expressed have not. Also JT was writing in our time – come on he only died 3 years ago!! And the same criticism would not necessarily be levelled at many artists of his generation.
3 i think there are instances where the mysoginist is funny and cheeky but then there are places where it is just a bit ugly and embarassing. The widow of brid could be seen as flatterring, a woman being liberated and the blackbird imagry is beautiful but coming back smelling of a differrent fish each day is being a slut not being liberated. It would be good to get a female perspective. any femenists out there who dare take on the mighty Jake come on up (or is femenism another dirty word?) Jermaine Greer where are you when we need you?.
4 I am rather surprised that by stating what i can see as an obviously difficult and contentious aspect of JT has envoked only replies rushing to his defence. It is, is it not possible to love someone and still be aware of their faults and still love them warts and all without feeling you are somehow defaming their memory. That is partly what discussion means surely?by the way who wrote take a chill pill? it wasn’t me
but i loved the fireworks and donkey expression i’ll have to add it to my list
Yours contentiously
Dannio (age 32) youfogeys are probably old enough to be my fathers you should know better.Dannio, if I were your father I would have been fourteen when you were born: biologically possible of course but in my case not so. I suppose I should be flattered to have achieved the status of old fogey but there we are. However one thing which my advanced years have taught me, particularly having been on line since before the days of the internet as we know it, is that discussions of this kind on-line rarely turn out for the best, and the language which you choose to use with regard to the Widow of Brid looks to me a whole lot like that which we old farts used to call trolling.
‘scuse me while I reach for my zimmer and fetch an ovaltine
Ian
Post edited by: aliasmacalias, at: 2006/02/02 21:54
I don’t really want to enter into this nonsensical debate, because Jake was a close personal friend. However, it needs to be said that, whilst it was three years since he died, it is 40 years since he wrote his songs. The prevailing ethos of the 1960s was very, very different from today, and there is absolutely no way that the accusations being laid at his door now are within miles of the facts.
Ian WOne of the problems with the internet is that people’s emotions are not properly conveyed as I suspect in this case, I think Dannio (9 years my younger) has asked a fair question, and there have been some good answers. We should try to not slip into the abyss of name calling – all too easy to do in this medium.
It is obvious to me that asking such a question on a Jake ‘fan-site’ is going to encourage replies of support for the man, and suggestions to the contrary, unless backed up and objective and without name calling could be considered to be ‘flaming’.
I had the pleasure of seeing Jake perform his songs on several ocassions at local intimate folk clubs and each time made sure I had a good chat with him in the interval or at the end. Although there are others (e.g. Scartam) with a much greater knowledge of him than I, it was easy and very quick to learn that Jake was always falling over himself not to upset anyone and would have been mortified to have heard this accusation. There are some live recordings with extensive banter which could back-up this impression of him. I suspect that Jake was influenced by the march of time and the evidence of this came with latter renditions of Bantam Cock with the rapist/demon change, and also the introduction to On Again! On Again! where he tried to explain his non-upsetting intentions at length. Just two examples.
So I guess what I’m saying is my answer is ‘no’. Others may disagree and I will defend their right to say it (if in a polite manner!).
Hope I haven’t upset anyone!
Any female perspectives out there?
Best Wishes
Phil :kiss:As someone with only a second-hand appreciation of the physics, isn’t a promiscuous widow from Brid only likely to return with the smell of a different fish if she’s been in the company of different people smelling of fish ? I come home from folk-clubs each time smelling of a different cigar or fag and yet I am a non-smoker, does that make me an anti-social pipe-smoker ? No. Please try harder and see me after.
philreckless wrote:
Any female perspectives out there?
Best Wishes
Phil :kiss:I’m here, but I’m not sure I’ve much to contribute. I am apt to find political correctness in speech a tiresome and unnecessary constraint in many circumstances, which often creates confusion by circumlocution. I generally prefer to rely on my own morality and judgement as to how things should be expressed, while keeping a careful concern for the feelings of others.
My love for the works of Jake, with which I only became familiar recently, is based on his skilful use of language, his humour and his humanity. I hear the words but judge them more for the way they rhyme and fit in to the whole, and convey the overall message of the song, rather than for social and cultural significance. I have never reacted unfavourably to any of them, but I admit that I don’t think deeply about them. I get one of my best laughs from On Again! On Again!
Jake accepted humanity with all its weaknesses, but still loved it, and it seems to me that in Family Tree his intention is to acknowledge with humility the imperfections of his own origins, not to glorify them.
IMHO, the views have been well aired and people will make up their own mind. An interesting topic – thanks to Dannio for bringing it up. Anyway, good news that we’ll get some ‘new’ songs on the forthcoming box-set to discuss! š
CheersIt’s good to have debate, but no he doesn’t!
I don’t want to sound too right on, but language and equalities are a journey. Only by going through the likes of the film Blazing Saddles or the TV series Not the nine o’clock news can we get where we are today.
For us that want to keep Jake’s music alive, I think we need to show some sensitivity. I don’t use the term rape in Jakes songs, however for me On again on again is surely untouchable …. but I pick my audience.
Lets not let PC stuff dismiss the often complex altruistic messages within Jakes songs. (how’s that for bull … the bigger the bull)
Fondest regards,
Alistair
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.