|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 17, 2012 7:00:42 GMT -5
If you don't know this song, play it here!
Then rate the song by voting in the poll, but ALSO PLEASE WRITE YOUR THOUGHTS HERE, AND TELL US WHICH NUMBER YOU CHOSE AND WHAT YOU ACTUALLY THINK OF THE SONG!
Thanks!
"Woman Is The Nigger Of The World" -- John Lennon, SOME TIME IN NEW YORK CITY (1972)
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 17, 2012 7:04:12 GMT -5
4 -- I really dig this very strong commentary on the plight of women in the early 1970s. I think it's John finally sympathizing with their second-class status and it shows the maturing of Lennon. I feel anyone who objects to the use of the word "nigger" in this song is overreacting and just doesn't get it. I also like the horns.
|
|
|
Post by coachbk on May 17, 2012 8:43:39 GMT -5
2 I like the women's right message of the song. Too bad it is such a weak song musically. Just kind of plods along. I can't get excited about any of this from a music point of view.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 17, 2012 9:31:10 GMT -5
2.5 and John's singing is about as good as he ever sang.
I totally get what John and Yoko were trying to say but their use of "nigger" was more than naive but intellectually pretentious in my opinion.
White artists like John or Asian artists like Yoko are not allowed to be cute or clever with this hateful word which has been the rallying cry by racists during the murders of thousands of African Americans in the U.S. from about 1865 to 1965(or beyond).
It is a powerful song as performed but man is it socially quarantined today! Get on a soapbox and sing this on any major city street corner or campus and see where it gets you!
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on May 17, 2012 10:02:51 GMT -5
Get on a soapbox and sing this on any major city street corner or campus and see where it gets you! Probably run out of town by people who miss the point. The world seems to be full of people who miss the point these days.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 17, 2012 10:11:36 GMT -5
Up front I will say I am sorry if this offends anyone's sensibilites, but this song sets me off.
The feminist movement has contributed to the ruin of the modern American family. The message is that men are unevolved creatures who want to rape women and are not of sufficient character to deserve the respect of women. They believe women are wasting their lives if they are ONLY mothers and don't have a career outside the home. The role of motherhood is not valued over other considerations. They believe a woman does not need a man in her life and, in fact, it is often discouraged.
Its tragic because a woman's traditional role in society is so vital to its health and well-being. The result is a society that has lost its way emotionally and spiritually as it searches to fill the void with sex, drugs, money and power. You have an increasing number of children being brought up by otherwise occupied mothers (and fathers) who selfishly focus on their own needs at the expense of their children. Many children are growing up without a father--boys who don't have the proper role models, who cannot be disciplined effectively and who run wild and unsupervised and are more likely to end up in prison.
The most precious thing we can give children is our time and attention. That is the best way to show our love for them. A child who has not being given this consideration can often feel unloved and unwanted. No amount of money or gifts will change that.
So the lyrics are a disaster for me. As a song, it is mediocre. I really dislike the horns. The only bright spot is John's vocal. I give it a 1.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on May 17, 2012 10:48:07 GMT -5
2 plus.
I agree on the "pretentious" label. It was "okay" at the time because a few people at Ebony magazine said so?
Sometime in NYC contains great singing, writing and instrumentation, but damn is it dated lyrically.
The only ones today who can say it politically correct are the rappers. Yes I am being facetious.
And RTP, while I agree that family values have degraded greatly and I am somewhat conservative on family values...I do want to tell you that 1962 called and they want their attitude back.
I believe in equality in the workplace. The more the career mother focuses on career, the more the career father needs to step up and fill some of the void with children, or stay home himself. Barefoot and pregnant is an illusion to another time period.
Unfortunately it is NOT 1962, and most households need 2 working parents to make ends meet and send the kids to college.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on May 17, 2012 11:09:53 GMT -5
Oh dear. This song does have a lot to answer for.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 17, 2012 11:10:11 GMT -5
Get on a soapbox and sing this on any major city street corner or campus and see where it gets you! Probably run out of town by people who miss the point. The world seems to be full of people who miss the point these days. I don't miss the point but John and Yoko co-opted a word that they should not have co-opted whether in 1968, 1972 or 2012. That word has such horrific historical connotations that African Americans greatly resent its use by even sympathetic white liberals making such a point who can never ever relate to the horrors that word conjures up. John and Yoko were going for shock value and they got it but not as they intended. They released a song that has been rejected by the majority of the very people it was meant to appeal to. The RTP's of the world(see his post above) were never going to embrace this song but it has not been embraced by its target audience.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on May 17, 2012 11:25:15 GMT -5
Probably run out of town by people who miss the point. The world seems to be full of people who miss the point these days. I don't miss the point but John and Yoko co-opted a word that they should not have co-opted whether in 1968, 1972 or 2012. That word has such horrific historical connotations that African Americans greatly resent its use by even sympathetic white liberals making such a point who can never ever relate to the horrors that word conjures up. John and Yoko were going for shock value and they got it but not as they intended. They released a song that has been rejected by the majority of the very people it was meant to appeal to. The RTP's of the world(see his post above) were never going to embrace this song but it has not been embraced by its target audience. Well when you really think about it- take that word out and what could John have substitued to get his point across? I'm actually coming up empty. He uses the word slave elsewhere in the song. Woman is the slave of the world? Hmmm. Drone? Tramp? Pauper? Not sure John would have just tucked the song away for another day.
|
|
andyb
Very Clean
Posts: 878
|
Post by andyb on May 17, 2012 11:39:38 GMT -5
Probably run out of town by people who miss the point. The world seems to be full of people who miss the point these days. I don't miss the point but John and Yoko co-opted a word that they should not have co-opted whether in 1968, 1972 or 2012. That word has such horrific historical connotations that African Americans greatly resent its use by even sympathetic white liberals making such a point who can never ever relate to the horrors that word conjures up. John and Yoko were going for shock value and they got it but not as they intended. They released a song that has been rejected by the majority of the very people it was meant to appeal to. The RTP's of the world(see his post above) were never going to embrace this song but it has not been embraced by its target audience. Didn't say you had missed the point. I said some people would. I think the song is pretty spot on personally. There my opinion ends as this could be a train wreck of thread.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 17, 2012 11:52:51 GMT -5
It is a powerful song as performed but man is it socially quarantined today! Get on a soapbox and sing this on any major city street corner or campus and see where it gets you! Unless, of course, you happen to be a black 'Gangsta cRapper'.... then it's perfectly okay to call your homies by the name.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 17, 2012 11:57:13 GMT -5
Sometime in NYC contains great singing, writing and instrumentation, but damn is it dated lyrically. But I think that's fine, because it was really the point of that album. To record an album of songs reflecting the News of The Day, just like a newspaper does. By tomorrow it's "yesterday's papers"! (I am now coming to think that after years of considering STINYC John's worst work, I am starting to feel it was a rather original and brilliant concept). And don't forget that the title itself was a statement made by Yoko originally. John went with it and wrote the song.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 17, 2012 11:58:28 GMT -5
I don't miss the point but John and Yoko co-opted a word that they should not have co-opted whether in 1968, 1972 or 2012. That word has such horrific historical connotations that African Americans greatly resent its use by even sympathetic white liberals making such a point who can never ever relate to the horrors that word conjures up. John and Yoko were going for shock value and they got it but not as they intended. They released a song that has been rejected by the majority of the very people it was meant to appeal to. The RTP's of the world(see his post above) were never going to embrace this song but it has not been embraced by its target audience. Didn't say you had missed the point. I said some people would. I think the song is pretty spot on personally. There my opinion ends as this could be a train wreck of thread. This song evokes differing opinions but that is good! I do really like the, "We make her paint her face and dance" part of the song. Very powerful. At the One-To-One concert, that was amazing, especially the night performance which I have on a boot called Teddy Boy. John really lets rip on "Dance, dance, dance."
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 17, 2012 12:08:26 GMT -5
Up front I will say I am sorry if this offends anyone's sensibilites, but this song sets me off. The feminist movement has contributed to the ruin of the modern American family. The message is that men are unevolved creatures who want to rape women and are not of sufficient character to deserve the respect of women. They believe women are wasting their lives if they are ONLY mothers and don't have a career outside the home. The role of motherhood is not valued over other considerations. They believe a woman does not need a man in her life and, in fact, it is often discouraged. Its tragic because a woman's traditional role in society is so vital to its health and well-being. The result is a society that has lost its way emotionally and spiritually as it searches for things to fill the void with sex, drugs, money and power. You have an increasing number of children being brought up by otherwise occupied mothers (and fathers) who selfishly focus on their own needs at the expense of their children. Many children are growing up without a father--boys who don't have the proper role models, who cannot be disciplined effectively and who run wild and unsupervised and are more likely to end up in prison. The most precious thing we can give children is our time and attention. That is the best way to show our love for them. A child who has not being given this consideration can often feel unloved and unwanted. No amount of money or gifts will change that. So the lyrics are a disaster for me. As a song, it is mediocre. I really dislike the horns. The only bright spot is John's vocal. I give it a 1. RTP -- I do understand where you're coming from politically here and I agree with you to some extent. Especially the part where it's a shame that these days people think there's something wrong with the traditional role of the woman staying home to take care of the kids. I don't understand this whole business today of mom and dad both working and the children being left over at some childcare center and having a stranger raise them. (However, at the same time I do appreciate the financial need to have both parents working.) But then it must be understood that their kids are not getting the type of care they really need. It's a Catch-22. rHowever, I don't think the song itself promotes what you're against. To me the words just sound like "don't abuse women", period. The only line where I think it makes your point may be: "We tell her home is the only place she should be". It's okay for the woman to do her household responsibilities, but there are levels to doing it and there's a difference to being a man's complete "servant".
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 17, 2012 12:12:38 GMT -5
John and Yoko were going for shock value and they got it but not as they intended. They released a song that has been rejected by the majority of the very people it was meant to appeal to. That's a pretty stupid way to sell records, by "going for shock value", right? What I mean is, if John and Yoko really wanted to sell a lot of records and become very big (rather than becoming infamous) they would have done better by not using that word. As it turned out, I applaud them for having the nerve to put their point across and make a powerful statement, and to hell with approval and record sales.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 17, 2012 12:14:23 GMT -5
It is a powerful song as performed but man is it socially quarantined today! Get on a soapbox and sing this on any major city street corner or campus and see where it gets you! Unless, of course, you happen to be a black 'Gangsta cRapper'.... then it's perfectly okay to call your homies by the name. That is sad and perhaps misplaced showing of bravado but I'll never stand in their shoes so...... Their elders strongly dislike that as we have seen from public pronouncements from African American leaders. I guess I am lamenting the reality that this song is rejected by both Sides of the political spectrum but it does have some of John's best singing ever. As you noted Joe, John's vocals on the whole STINYC album are amazing and I thought that he never sang that good again on his subsequent albums, none of them.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 17, 2012 12:18:58 GMT -5
Unless, of course, you happen to be a black 'Gangsta cRapper'.... then it's perfectly okay to call your homies by the name. That is sad and perhaps misplaced showing of bravado but I'll never stand in their shoes so...... In whose shoes? The modern day younger black youthes who weren't even alive in the '60s and '70s (let alone 200 years ago)? I'm not sure though what you're going by in 2012. It's generally an unknown and forgotten Lennon song these days except by those of us "in the know".
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 17, 2012 12:21:17 GMT -5
2 plus. I agree on the "pretentious" label. It was "okay" at the time because a few people at Ebony magazine said so? Sometime in NYC contains great singing, writing and instrumentation, but damn is it dated lyrically. The only ones today who can say it politically correct are the rappers. Yes I am being facetious. And RTP, while I agree that family values have degraded greatly and I am somewhat conservative on family values...I do want to tell you that 1962 called and they want their attitude back. I believe in equality in the workplace. The more the career mother focuses on career, the more the career father needs to step up and fill some of the void with children, or stay home himself. Barefoot and pregnant is an illusion to another time period. Unfortunately it is NOT 1962, and most households need 2 working parents to make ends meet and send the kids to college. I don't know if women can ever be paid at the same level as men because women demand more flexibiltiy in the workplace. They desire a schedule that allows them pegnancy leave or time off when they must care for an ailing parent or child. An employer may allow these concessions, but they come with a price. I am not saying a woman should not be given the same compensation as a man for the same work. The question is what is the form of that compensation? What considerations is an employer asked to give a female employee that will not apply to a male employee? These are factors that come into play that people who demand legislative reforms don't consider. Obama passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in January, 2009. Yet it was revealed recently that even the White House staff pay is in violation of the law. Forced legislative solutions are not always the answer. Finally, what is wrong with the values of 1962 (excluding racial attitudes). At least then we didn't have the crime, divorce and drug use we have today. They hadn't taken the separation of church and state to such an extreme. You could say the pledge of alegence in school without someone filing suit. I am not blaming it all on the feminist movement, but it has been a contributing factor.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 17, 2012 12:34:52 GMT -5
Up front I will say I am sorry if this offends anyone's sensibilites, but this song sets me off. The feminist movement has contributed to the ruin of the modern American family. The message is that men are unevolved creatures who want to rape women and are not of sufficient character to deserve the respect of women. They believe women are wasting their lives if they are ONLY mothers and don't have a career outside the home. The role of motherhood is not valued over other considerations. They believe a woman does not need a man in her life and, in fact, it is often discouraged. Its tragic because a woman's traditional role in society is so vital to its health and well-being. The result is a society that has lost its way emotionally and spiritually as it searches for things to fill the void with sex, drugs, money and power. You have an increasing number of children being brought up by otherwise occupied mothers (and fathers) who selfishly focus on their own needs at the expense of their children. Many children are growing up without a father--boys who don't have the proper role models, who cannot be disciplined effectively and who run wild and unsupervised and are more likely to end up in prison. The most precious thing we can give children is our time and attention. That is the best way to show our love for them. A child who has not being given this consideration can often feel unloved and unwanted. No amount of money or gifts will change that. So the lyrics are a disaster for me. As a song, it is mediocre. I really dislike the horns. The only bright spot is John's vocal. I give it a 1. RTP -- I do understand where you're coming from politically here and I agree with you to some extent. Especially the part where it's a shame that these days people think there's something wrong with the traditional role of the woman staying home to take care of the kids. I don't understand this whole business today of mom and dad both working and the children being left over at some childcare center and having a stranger raise them. (However, at the same time I do appreciate the financial need to have both parents working.) But then it must be understood that their kids are not getting the type of care they really need. It's a Catch-22. rHowever, I don't think the song itself promotes what you're against. To me the words just sound like "don't abuse women", period. The only line where I think it makes your point may be: "We tell her home is the only place she should be". It's okay for the woman to do her household responsibilities, but there are levels to doing it and there's a difference to being a man's complete "servant". Good point, Joe. The song really says respect women and don't abuse them and don't treat them like slaves or maids. I kind of went off on a tirade with my post. The song itself is not as radical as one might think except for the "n" word which doesn't bother me because drives home the point. That word would bother others obvioiusly. Your point made me look at the song in a different light. I still wish it had a different arrangement. What if the Beatles had done it? I don't know if I would have wanted them to, but it would have lifted it above the grade I gave it. As for the financial excuse, that doesn't hold much water for me. Yes there are families that must have every able bodied member working to stay ahead of everything. I concede that. But how many families would be better off with a smaller home, cheaper cars, without the latest eletronic gagets and 55" TVs and Disney vacations and instead have one parent (it doesn't have to be the mother) at home. I am perfectly willing to concede that if the mother can make more money and the dad can stay home, that would work too. I think dads should have more of a role in child rearing. That is one thing I would change from 1962 values. Dads should have more of a nurturing role. We need at least one parent to give clear attention to raising the children into the teen years.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on May 17, 2012 12:41:12 GMT -5
I don't miss the point but John and Yoko co-opted a word that they should not have co-opted whether in 1968, 1972 or 2012. That word has such horrific historical connotations that African Americans greatly resent its use by even sympathetic white liberals making such a point who can never ever relate to the horrors that word conjures up. John and Yoko were going for shock value and they got it but not as they intended. They released a song that has been rejected by the majority of the very people it was meant to appeal to. The RTP's of the world(see his post above) were never going to embrace this song but it has not been embraced by its target audience. Well when you really think about it- take that word out and what could John have substitued to get his point across? I'm actually coming up empty. He uses the word slave elsewhere in the song. Woman is the slave of the world? Hmmm. Drone? Tramp? Pauper? Not sure John would have just tucked the song away for another day. He could have used the more polite: Woman is the Negress of the world or Woman is the Negro of the world.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on May 17, 2012 12:46:51 GMT -5
John and Yoko were going for shock value and they got it but not as they intended. They released a song that has been rejected by the majority of the very people it was meant to appeal to. That's a pretty stupid way to sell records, by "going for shock value", right? What I mean is, if John and Yoko really wanted to sell a lot of records and become very big (rather than becoming infamous) they would have done better by not using that word. As it turned out, I applaud them for having the nerve to put their point across and make a powerful statement, and to hell with approval and record sales. I wasn't talking record sales but I stand by my statement that Yoko in 1968 then John and Yoko when they co-wrote the song in 1972(or at least recorded it that year) were going for shock value by using the word "nigger." They were going to make their point in a way that would shock certain folks but it backfired because very few people supported the song, even the folks John and Yoko were banking on. Not only did it not sell records, the song title did not become a cultural catch-phrase like "Give Peace A Chance" or even "Power To The People." LOL, Yoko could be at the podium at a political rally and yell, "Woman is the nigger of the world!" and the otherwise like-minded folks on the stage behind her would flee, knocking their chairs over to get out of their before the Press noted their presence!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 17, 2012 12:47:27 GMT -5
He could have used the more polite: Woman is the Negress of the world or Woman is the Negro of the world. The word "nigger" is not just exclusively for black people. John reads a very poignant article on the DICK CAVETT SHOW -- which happened to be written by a black man -- who virtually said that.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 17, 2012 12:50:38 GMT -5
I am perfectly willing to concede that if the mother can make more money and the dad can stay home, that would work too. Yes, but then Paul McCartney would have to step in and make a new song: "Husbands Are The N-Word's Of The World"...! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 17, 2012 14:39:33 GMT -5
I wasn't talking record sales but I stand by my statement that Yoko in 1968 then John and Yoko when they co-wrote the song in 1972(or at least recorded it that year) were going for shock value by using the word "nigger." Okay, but then... so what? It raised eyebrows, it caused talk, it turned heads... but I do believe J&Y stood by it and believed the message as well. They could not honestly have expected the record to get airplay. Oh, how could it? You may believe J&Y expected everyone to go running around adopting the song title as a new saying or a way of life, but I don't think that's how they saw it. It hardly matters to me; I think the fact that it's relatively obscure and today might be even more offensive than it was then by PC people, actually increases its power and mystique.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on May 17, 2012 15:02:00 GMT -5
Here's the moment of the Dick Cavett interview where John talks about this song, including the end of the clip where he reads the quote from a black leader on the "N Word" :
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on May 17, 2012 16:53:50 GMT -5
1.) Lennon was such a genius with his own personal relationships, no wonder he feels obliged to lecture the rest of us with his keen insights on male/female relationships.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on May 17, 2012 18:15:23 GMT -5
I don't have any problems with the sentiments/message, or the use of the word nigger to make his point. What I do have, and what I have always had with John (and Paul, on those occasions when he's done it) is a strong aversion to finger wagging lectures in their songs. The Beatles didn't do it (except in Piggies, but I cut that a break because it's so bloody funny, and Revolution, which is terminally wonderful), but John, Paul and George have all tended to tell us what we're doing wrong from time to time.
Which wouldn't matter too much if he was doing it from something musically entertaining like Crippled Inside or Gimme Some Truth. But, dear me, WITNOTW is lyrically and musically ugly, with a horrible arrangement, and well deserves its place as the opening number on John's most horrible album.
1
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on May 17, 2012 18:16:18 GMT -5
I don't have any problems with the sentiments/message, or the use of the word nigger to make his point. What I do have, and what I have always had with John (and Paul, on those occasions when he's done it) is a strong aversion to finger wagging lectures in their songs. The Beatles didn't do it (except in Piggies, but I cut that a break because it's so bloody funny, and Revolution, which is terminally wonderful), but John, Paul and George have all tended to tell us what we're doing wrong from time to time in their solo work. Which wouldn't matter too much if he was doing it from something musically entertaining like Crippled Inside or Gimme Some Truth. But, dear me, WITNOTW is lyrically and musically ugly, with a horrible arrangement, and well deserves its place as the opening number on John's most horrible album. 1
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on May 17, 2012 18:21:18 GMT -5
I don't agree with the sentiment to begin with, I never saw women as something lesser than men and never saw their role as raising kids worth less than the man that brings home the pay.
It's much ado about nothing. The N word here is for shock value so I agree with JSD on that point. I find it embarassing that John being famous for his lyrics would stoop to this and for that I blame Yoko. Typical radical BS from someone who has never worked a day in her life and just leeched of anyone else around her.
This is the equivalent of a comedian stooping to fart jokes to get a laugh.
Horrible arrangement as well.
Like mikv said, John sings this with alot of passion and that's it's saving grace.
1.0
|
|