NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I was listening to some Big Band music yesterday. Yes I like big band music, they're awesome. Anyways, Cab Calloway - Minnie The Moocher came up and after hearing "Kicking the gong around" in the second phase. I looked it up, and apparently Minnie the Moocher has at least three drug references to it. The first two was:

she messed around with a bloke named Smokey
she loved him, though he was coke-y
he took her down to Chinatown
and he showed her how to kick the gong around

Coke-y is of course in refrence to Cocaine, and Kicking the Gong around is smoking opium.

The third drug reference is this.

she had a million dollars worth of nickels and dimes

Which is in references to nickel and dime bags.

So my question is. Why is it, that old songs like "Minnie the Moocher" is socially acceptable today, and yet Rap songs, that also have drug refrences in them are not acceptable? Also, wouldn't calling a woman a "moocher" be demeaning to women?

What is the difference between a song like "Minnie the Moocher" and rap songs of today?

I'm sure that Minnie the Moocher wasn't acceptable in a lot of places in its time. Blues was rich in metaphor that the authorities either didn't get or turned a blind eye to.

I don't know why (Maybe because I'm 55 years old) but I really don't like most rap. It's too in your face and I think a lot of it sends the wrong message in terms of velues. I've seen too many video clips of Gangsta pimps, gyrating ho's, drive-by shooters and fur-coated bling wearers to be able to identify with it on any level (musically or politically). Okay call me old and conservative if you like.
I'm still a Woodstock hippie at heart: "We can change the world, rearrange the world."

Gangsta rap just seems to be full of negativity and self importance. I'll be pleased when new musical waves eclipse it.

I'll be pleased when new musical waves eclipse it.

Oh trust me, it's just downhill from here. Why do you think I barely listen to anything that was made in the early 90s onwards?

So, I was listening to some Big Band music yesterday. Yes I like big band music, they're awesome. Anyways, Cab Calloway - Minnie The Moocher came up and after hearing "Kicking the gong around" in the second phase. I looked it up, and apparently Minnie the Moocher has at least three drug references to it. The first two was:



Coke-y is of course in refrence to Cocaine, and Kicking the Gong around is smoking opium.

The third drug reference is this.



Which is in references to nickel and dime bags.

So my question is. Why is it, that old songs like "Minnie the Moocher" is socially acceptable today, and yet Rap songs, that also have drug refrences in them are not acceptable? Also, wouldn't calling a woman a "moocher" be demeaning to women?

What is the difference between a song like "Minnie the Moocher" and rap songs of today?

The former tells. The latter tends to glorify.

Also, your OP is almost word-for-word from Wikipedia.

So my question is. Why is it, that old songs like "Minnie the Moocher" is socially acceptable today, and yet Rap songs, that also have drug refrences in them are not acceptable?
Big band music is not socially acceptable today, whatever the subject matter.

Big band music is not socially acceptable today, whatever the subject matter.

Speak for yourself.

The former tells. The latter tends to glorify.

Also, your OP is almost word-for-word from Wikipedia.

You have a camera in my apartment and parent's house don't you?

You have a camera in my apartment and parent's house don't you?

Nope. Just Googled the OP.

Nope. Just Googled the OP.

Good....then you didn't see what I did on Friday night.....

Big band music is not socially acceptable today, whatever the subject matter.

Is lounge still scene?

Good....then you didn't see what I did on Friday night.....

Nope. But I bet it was edgy.

Because they didn't sing about shooting ******s and snorting coke off of a ho in the big band era.

The best thing about Minnie the Moocher is that there's a Betty Boop cartoon featuring this song... and the animation is kinda trippy.


Also, we can't say ****? Seriously?! This certainly puts a damper on my idea of reclaiming the word/using it in casual speech.

Also, isn't it a shame you can't just randomly shout out "I LOVE SCAT!" anymore? I mean...cuz scat in music is great. But it just sounds so wrong now. So, so wrong.

LMFAO! Splendid imagery, as usual, my dear.

I wish I could say that I made it all up.

*nods*

Also, isn't it a shame you can't just randomly shout out "I LOVE SCAT!" anymore?

And why can't I? That may be my project tonight, to drive around Iraq loudly proclaiming my love for scat.

And why can't I? That may be my project tonight, to drive around Iraq loudly proclaiming my love for scat.

Why Iraq?

I'd go for Uzbekistan.

Why Iraq?

I'd go for Uzbekistan.

I'm kinda in Iraq already, so it eliminates needless travel expenses.

Public address systems, small Bedouin children and dance music are great entertainment for everyone involved.

Or perhaps driving through the military parking lot, hiding so they can't see who we are, and loudly professing a love of the scatly pleasures. That would be fun.

Also, isn't it a shame you can't just randomly shout out "I LOVE SCAT!" anymore? I mean...cuz scat in music is great. But it just sounds so wrong now. So, so wrong.
Well, I can't talk about how gay I am without people assuming I like chicks... even if I'm just in a good, happy mood.

Louis Armstrong did use a lot of laxatives, so maybe scat singing was an appropriate term in more ways than one.

Louis Armstrong did use a lot of laxatives, so maybe scat singing was an appropriate term in more ways than one.

Hmm I never heard this. Do you know why he used alot of laxatives?

Hmm I never heard this. Do you know why he used alot of laxatives?

Weight control. Did a bunch of ads for Pluto Water back in the day.

Weight control. Did a bunch of ads for Pluto Water back in the day.

Ahh, I guess dieting and exercising never crossed his mind.

Ahh, I guess dieting and exercising never crossed his mind.

I guess it's still better than doing coke or speed. He was pretty cleaned out I imagine.

I guess it's still better than doing coke or speed. He was pretty cleaned out I imagine.

Ha, with all of that Spring Cleaning, you could litterly store food in his anus and it'd still be eatible.

Ahh, I guess dieting and exercising never crossed his mind.

Didn't cross a lot of peoples' minds back then. Being fat was actually a badge of honor, as it meant you had success enough to have excess around the house. That, and Satchmo was a big fan of Cajun cooking, and too much of that without significant exercise will fatten you up, but quick.

And why can't I? That may be my project tonight, to drive around Iraq loudly proclaiming my love for scat.

I see a Chapter 5 discharge in your future...:p

I think that perhaps its in the presentation. And perhaps if you look at it this way, back in its day Big Band Music was like Hair Metal in the 70's and 80's and Gangsta Rap today. It was taboo then, and Rap is taboo to some people now.

I think that perhaps its in the presentation. And perhaps if you look at it this way, back in its day Big Band Music was like Hair Metal in the 70's and 80's and Gangsta Rap today. It was taboo then, and Rap is taboo to some people now.

I always figured the fact that it required a, well, big band usually meant it was pretty mainstream.

I like how music sounds when you're walking through the open fields in the dream of a man with Alzheimer's, with the bags of ten orphaned children at the side of the conductor's radio chest. Airplanes are capable of higher speeds if they're properly cleaned, especially considering how much gross tonnage the U.S. freight train system ships on a daily basis. Also, we must consider the good times and bad times, and even the times when the good was mixed with the bad, and the bad was intertwined with the good, and the rednecks were all having fun with the goths and the mods, and the booze was good and plentiful.

Music is a fact of life, but only if you choose to live that life, unless you die before you live it, in which case you'd have to live it in some way none of us could ever know; perhaps we'd have to die to find out.

I think that perhaps its in the presentation. And perhaps if you look at it this way, back in its day Big Band Music was like Hair Metal in the 70's and 80's and Gangsta Rap today. It was taboo then, and Rap is taboo to some people now.

Absolutely. Big Bands were America's popular music from about 1925-1950 or so. Then, as now, there were the "white" versions of it (Benny Goodman, Glen Miller) and the "racier" versions of it (Calloway, Basie). The former were made to appeal to polite (Caucasian) society and sensible dancing. The latter were meant to appeal to a more raucous (non-Caucasian) crowd who danced with wild, licentious abandon. I mean, look how squeaky clean Nat King Cole had to get to be popular (his earlier trio work was a lot more fun), and how ridiculously dressed Latinos/Latinas had to be to be "allowed" to entertain whites (Xavier Cugat, Carmen Miranda).

I always figured the fact that it required a, well, big band usually meant it was pretty mainstream.

Far from it. Playing in a big band was one of the few ways a Black person could make money in that era. They started in bands that were catering to Black audiences and tried to work their way up into bands that catered to white audiences (more money...not much more, but more). Some white bandleaders understood how talented Black musicians were and hired them (Benny Goodman hired Lionel Hampton because he was the best vibraphone player on Earth, and Benny wanted the best). Others did not, and much depended on who you were playing for, and where.

What is the difference between a song like "Minnie the Moocher" and rap songs of today?
one word: Talent.

I like how music sounds when you're walking through the open fields in the dream of a man with Alzheimer's, with the bags of ten orphaned children at the side of the conductor's radio chest. Airplanes are capable of higher speeds if they're properly cleaned, especially considering how much gross tonnage the U.S. freight train system ships on a daily basis. Also, we must consider the good times and bad times, and even the times when the good was mixed with the bad, and the bad was intertwined with the good, and the rednecks were all having fun with the goths and the mods, and the booze was good and plentiful.

Music is a fact of life, but only if you choose to live that life, unless you die before you live it, in which case you'd have to live it in some way none of us could ever know; perhaps we'd have to die to find out.

Whatever you took, can you get me some?

Ha, with all of that Spring Cleaning, you could litterly store food in his anus and it'd still be eatible.
You're thinking of eating food from a black man's ass, and we're really meant to think you're not gay?
Just come out. It's okay, you're among friends.

btw, it's edible not eatable.

You're thinking of eating food from a black man's ass, and we're really meant to think you're not gay?
Just come out. It's okay, you're among friends.

A dead black man's ass. This will be important later.

remember that crappy D12 song purple hills? or should i say purple pills? haha why did they have to censor that

Speak for yourself.
Ditto.

Big band music is not socially acceptable today, whatever the subject matter.

Speak for yourself. I like Big Band.

I think that perhaps its in the presentation. And perhaps if you look at it this way, back in its day Big Band Music was like Hair Metal in the 70's and 80's and Gangsta Rap today. It was taboo then, and Rap is taboo to some people now.

It was taboo in a lot of places. Hitler thought it was decadent and the SS hunted down kids who played it and danced to it. I know Wiki isn't the best thought of source here, but it's pretty accurate in this context.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_Kids

What is the difference between a song like "Minnie the Moocher" and rap songs of today?

Or indeed other songs that have covert mention of drugs, such as Puff the Magic Dragon. I think the difference is the amount of time that has elapsed; it has been around for decades those songs, while rap has not been around for long.

Of course, Big Band has better musical quality than Crap.

Of course, Big Band has better musical quality than Crap.

You can't spell crap without rap!

You think Minnie the Moocher is racy, wait until you discover Reefer Man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44pyeEvhcQ).

All 'big band' music is not cut from the same cloth. Just because we accept it now does not mean that it had the same reverence during its time. Loius Jordan and Cab Calloway, among others, were doing Jive Five music, essentially the dirty rock music of their time, and it is often argued that rock music came out of Jive Five bands (the term is a little loose, like 'classical,' Jive Five actually refers to a specific five piece band that best personifies the style. These bands weren't the same size as an Ellington or Basie band, nor as small as a Goodman swing combo, and played what at the time might have been referred to as 'hot' music.) The lyrics were racy and the behavior was racy and like rap they were considered a social menace.

Moocher, as a side note, wasn't a gender specific thing, she just happened to be a moocher. A dude can be a mooch, and Smokey Joe, the man Minnie eventually marries in Minnie's Wedding Day and the guy who teaches her to kick the gong around, is a bit of a mooch himself.

I see a Chapter 5 discharge in your future...:p

I have to keep myself entertained somehow. Last night we mooned a UAV while on a security mission. Not sure if it saw us, but I can only hope.

What is the difference between a song like "Minnie the Moocher" and rap songs of today?

Minnie the moocher is a better song. Plus unlike the songs of today as Intangelon said today they say how good it is to take drugs rather than telling a story like Minnie the Moocher.

Speak for yourself.
Speak for yourself. I like Big Band.
While it is true that I don't like big band music, that wasn't really my point. So, let me restate:
The reason big band music isn't controversial is because it is largely unpopular, thus most people will never encounter Minnie the Mooch, much less pay enough attention to it to catch the drug references. On the other hand, rap is ubiquitous, especially in urban areas, and uses current terminology (rather than the outdated slang of big band).

While it is true that I don't like big band music, that wasn't really my point. So, let me restate:
The reason big band music isn't controversial is because it is largely unpopular, thus most people will never encounter Minnie the Mooch, much less pay enough attention to it to catch the drug references. On the other hand, rap is ubiquitous, especially in urban areas, and uses current terminology (rather than the outdated slang of big band).

You don't like The Blues Brothers?

Or indeed other songs that have covert mention of drugs, such as Puff the Magic Dragon. I think the difference is the amount of time that has elapsed; it has been around for decades those songs, while rap has not been around for long.

Of course, Big Band has better musical quality than Crap.

No, no, no, and just plain no.

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/puff.asp

Please check your assumptions before spreading them. Spreading bullshit fertilizes falsity.

You can't spell crap without rap!

:rolleyes: Yeah, 'cause a whole genre can suck. Come on, surely we're smarter than that?

You think Minnie the Moocher is racy, wait until you discover Reefer Man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44pyeEvhcQ).

All 'big band' music is not cut from the same cloth. Just because we accept it now does not mean that it had the same reverence during its time. Loius Jordan and Cab Calloway, among others, were doing Jive Five music, essentially the dirty rock music of their time, and it is often argued that rock music came out of Jive Five bands (the term is a little loose, like 'classical,' Jive Five actually refers to a specific five piece band that best personifies the style. These bands weren't the same size as an Ellington or Basie band, nor as small as a Goodman swing combo, and played what at the time might have been referred to as 'hot' music.) The lyrics were racy and the behavior was racy and like rap they were considered a social menace.

Moocher, as a side note, wasn't a gender specific thing, she just happened to be a moocher. A dude can be a mooch, and Smokey Joe, the man Minnie eventually marries in Minnie's Wedding Day and the guy who teaches her to kick the gong around, is a bit of a mooch himself.

Nat King Cole was a jive musician before he was scrubbed for White consumption. Any popular music has its "dirty" side. Even the dances of the Baroque era had their courtly side and their ribald side.

While it is true that I don't like big band music, that wasn't really my point. So, let me restate:
The reason big band music isn't controversial is because it is largely unpopular, thus most people will never encounter Minnie the Mooch, much less pay enough attention to it to catch the drug references. On the other hand, rap is ubiquitous, especially in urban areas, and uses current terminology (rather than the outdated slang of big band).

Not popular? Is that why just about every high school in the country has a big band as part of its band program? Look, I know what you're trying to say, but your experience is not everyone's. I know a whole slew of middle school kids who know more jazz than rap. It's all a matter of who you associate with. Of course rap and the sadly-now-watered-down R&B are everywhere now, but that's a matter of advertisers and record labels making sure of that. I still hear big band music on TV (Family Guy themes, as one of many examples) all the time.

Part of the reason big band music has ceased to be controversial is that A) it's used in schools, and B) the references are mild, or veiled, or subtle as opposed to utterly blatant in the case of MUCH, but not ALL rap.

You don't like The Blues Brothers?

"I once knew a hooker named Minnie Mizzola..."

I looked it up, and apparently Minnie the Moocher has at least three drug references to it. The first two was:


Coke-y is of course in refrence to Cocaine, and Kicking the Gong around is smoking opium.

The third drug reference is this.


Which is in references to nickel and dime bags.
...or it can be interpreted to not mean any of those things.

...or it can be interpreted to not mean any of those things.

It certainly can. However, it's true that the original lyrical intent is to tell a fictional story about someone living that life. I mean really, who has dreams about the King of Sweden except to make a rhyme?

:rolleyes: Yeah, 'cause a whole genre can suck. Come on, surely we're smarter than that?

It's called a joke, you know.

Or indeed other songs that have covert mention of drugs, such as Puff the Magic Dragon.

Puff the Magic Dragon has nothing to do with drugs. Sometimes a children's song is just a children's song.

No, no, no, and just plain no.

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/puff.asp

Please check your assumptions before spreading them. Spreading bullshit fertilizes falsity.

I have read that article, and it is based on the assumption that Peter, Paul and Mary were telling the truth. Of course, they came out in denial in the 1980s, a full two decades after Puff the Magic Dragon came out - to admit that Puff the Magic Dragon had drug references in it would completely destroy its viability as a children's song, and so they have a vested interest to lie (royalties, and the like).

It is too much that all the references to drugs in that song were merely coincidental, especially given the drugs culture of the 1960s.

Puff the Magic Dragon has nothing to do with drugs. Sometimes a children's song is just a children's song.

That is the only children's song that I am aware of that has been accused of having drug references. Most of the time, a children's song is just a children's song, but you have to have a healthy suspicion of anything that came from the 1960s. Anyways, if it was really not about drugs, then why does the Singaporean Government still ban it on that basis?

I'm sure that Minnie the Moocher wasn't acceptable in a lot of places in its time. Blues was rich in metaphor that the authorities either didn't get or turned a blind eye to.

I don't know why (Maybe because I'm 55 years old) but I really don't like most rap. It's too in your face and I think a lot of it sends the wrong message in terms of velues. I've seen too many video clips of Gangsta pimps, gyrating ho's, drive-by shooters and fur-coated bling wearers to be able to identify with it on any level (musically or politically). Okay call me old and conservative if you like.
I'm still a Woodstock hippie at heart: "We can change the world, rearrange the world."

Gangsta rap just seems to be full of negativity and self importance. I'll be pleased when new musical waves eclipse it.


You'd hate slipknot and dope...which I happen to love. But rap is really not as deep as emo and metal, so I don't really like rap.

Not popular? Is that why just about every high school in the country has a big band as part of its band program?
Since when was the school band chief bearer of the standard of popularity?
Look, I know what you're trying to say, but your experience is not everyone's. I know a whole slew of middle school kids who know more jazz than rap. It's all a matter of who you associate with.
Loads of things are unpopular but still have a following. I like Celtic music (which could be said to glorify spousal abuse, revenge killings and alcoholism), and know a number of people who also like it, but that doesn't make it popular.
Of course rap and the sadly-now-watered-down R&B are everywhere now, but that's a matter of advertisers and record labels making sure of that.
And that's also what makes it a huge target. If a prominent moralizer were to announce, "We must scour the scourge known as Big Band from our schools and streets!" Concerned parents everywhere would respond, "What's that again?" before changing the channel.
Everyone knows who 50 Cent and Jay-Z are, though.
Part of the reason big band music has ceased to be controversial is that A) it's used in schools and B) the references are mild, or veiled, or subtle as opposed to utterly blatant in the case of MUCH, but not ALL rap.
Was "kicking the gong around" really that mild or obscure a reference at the time? What about having a million dollars worth of marijuana? Language changes, so what is obscure or veiled now might not have been so in the past.
100 years from now, someone is going to say, "Cock, it appears, was a reference to male genitalia."
And someone will reply, "How scandalous! I wonder that they didn't complain more about it at the time. You know how prudish our 21st century ancestors were."

You think Minnie the Moocher is racy, wait until you discover Reefer Man (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D44pyeEvhcQ).
Can't say I've heard this particular song before - but I really like it. Thanks for sharing and broadening my horizon a little further. ;)


And the music? Well, just take a look how older generations reacted to beat music and rock'n'roll. I believe it really depends on when you grew up, and with what you grew up. Or didn't. And, of course, it's a matter of taste also. Or getting used to.

Anyway, I got reminded of these two clips upon reading the thread:

"You don't like Creedence?"
"This is like having a pine cone shoved in my ass." (http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=fvgcX4q5WRc)

"I guess you guys aren't ready for that yet. But your kids are gonna love it." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbM2HeEIXxU)

What is the difference between a song like "Minnie the Moocher" and rap songs of today?

Plenty of songs over fifty years old mention and endorse drugs and sex. The first difference is that (I think) the old songs are simply better music; the second difference is that old songs generally do not glorify pimps physically assulting their female canines, nor do they recommend shooting policemen.

I have read that article, and it is based on the assumption that Peter, Paul and Mary were telling the truth. Of course, they came out in denial in the 1980s, a full two decades after Puff the Magic Dragon came out - to admit that Puff the Magic Dragon had drug references in it would completely destroy its viability as a children's song, and so they have a vested interest to lie (royalties, and the like).

It is too much that all the references to drugs in that song were merely coincidental, especially given the drugs culture of the 1960s.



That is the only children's song that I am aware of that has been accused of having drug references. Most of the time, a children's song is just a children's song, but you have to have a healthy suspicion of anything that came from the 1960s. Anyways, if it was really not about drugs, then why does the Singaporean Government still ban it on that basis?

Yeah, why trust the man who actually wrote the song over the brilliant lyrical analysis "lol, it says puff, like, um, a puff of marijuana smoke, and everybody in the 60s was totally high all the time, I saw it on TV." You know what else is generally depicted as puffing fire and smoke? DRAGONS.

But please, show me a rational literary analysis of the song that makes it about drugs instead of about growing up. I am eager to hear this. :rolleyes:

Yeah, why trust the man who actually wrote the song over the brilliant lyrical analysis "lol, it says puff, like, um, a puff of marijuana smoke, and everybody in the 60s was totally high all the time, I saw it on TV." You know what else is generally depicted as puffing fire and smoke? DRAGONS.

But please, show me a rational literary analysis of the song that makes it about drugs instead of about growing up. I am eager to hear this. :rolleyes:

Poliwanacraca, I thought you would have read the analysis that had been presented - essentially, my view is that most of the items mentioned are accurate, however for the sake of everyone, I will dissect it and repeat what has been said

First of all, little Jackie Paper, who loved that rascal Puff. Why the surname Paper? Why have it in the same sentence as the word Puff? The first thing I think of when I hear the words puff and paper mentioned is roll your owns, so clearly, it is mentioning about some sort of "cigarette"

On that same track, you have Puff no longer playing along the Cherry Lane. An ember of a joint is referred to as a Cherry. Coincidence? I think not.

Then you have the comments about Honah Lee (Hanalei) and the Autumn Mist - obviously when you smoke anything, the room becomes a little misty; especially if everyone in the room is smoking. Coincidence? I think not.

Add to that, the fact that Peter, Paul and Mary have a vested interest in keeping the public's perception of the song positive, and the environment of the 1960s, and I am of the view that it was a song about drugs and that Peter, Paul and Mary, when the accusations came out, vehemently denied it so that they did not lose play time, and thus not lose publicity, or the important thing - $$$$$$$$$


The rational analysis was done decades ago, and repeated here. Who would you rather believe; someone with a vested interest in keeping a positive perception of a song, or someone that sees the messages inside a song. I am not one of those people who believe everything I see; I don't think that there is a backwards message in Stairway to Heaven, for instance; but I am of the view that in this case, Puff the Magic Dragon has a drug message in it.

Hey Alex Ptol, is "Jake the Peg" about a man with an exceptionally large penis?

It's called a joke, you know.

No, not really. Not the way you meant it and the context you used it in. I've heard it far too often to ever think of it as a joke again. Nice try, though.

I have read that article, and it is based on the assumption that Peter, Paul and Mary were telling the truth. Of course, they came out in denial in the 1980s, a full two decades after Puff the Magic Dragon came out - to admit that Puff the Magic Dragon had drug references in it would completely destroy its viability as a children's song, and so they have a vested interest to lie (royalties, and the like).

It is too much that all the references to drugs in that song were merely coincidental, especially given the drugs culture of the 1960s.

That is the only children's song that I am aware of that has been accused of having drug references. Most of the time, a children's song is just a children's song, but you have to have a healthy suspicion of anything that came from the 1960s. Anyways, if it was really not about drugs, then why does the Singaporean Government still ban it on that basis?

Because the government of Singapore is notoriously suspicious of all things foreign and suffers from raging paranoia and anal retentiveness to boot?

Poliwanacraca, I thought you would have read the analysis that had been presented - essentially, my view is that most of the items mentioned are accurate, however for the sake of everyone, I will dissect it and repeat what has been said

First of all, little Jackie Paper, who loved that rascal Puff. Why the surname Paper? Why have it in the same sentence as the word Puff? The first thing I think of when I hear the words puff and paper mentioned is roll your owns, so clearly, it is mentioning about some sort of "cigarette".

Clearly? To you, perhaps. I'm sorry that the first thing YOU think of is smoking. It never occurred to me when I was "young and impressionable", and it seems ridiculous now.

On that same track, you have Puff no longer playing along the Cherry Lane. An ember of a joint is referred to as a Cherry. Coincidence? I think not.

"Yes, Your Honor, and if you play the tape backwards, you see us help Rodney King up and send him on his way." You're seeing what you want to, as I've NEVER heard the ember of a joint called a "cherry", and I've smoked my share. Let's just leave your analysis at "I think not", or at least not very well.

Then you have the comments about Honah Lee (Hanalei) and the Autumn Mist - obviously when you smoke anything, the room becomes a little misty; especially if everyone in the room is smoking. Coincidence? I think not.

See? You're still "not thinking". That's a pretty serious stretch, there. Pretty soon you'll be telling us that "dragons live forever / but not so little boys" is a line about some longevity myth in connection with opium.

Add to that, the fact that Peter, Paul and Mary have a vested interest in keeping the public's perception of the song positive, and the environment of the 1960s, and I am of the view that it was a song about drugs and that Peter, Paul and Mary, when the accusations came out, vehemently denied it so that they did not lose play time, and thus not lose publicity, or the important thing - $$$$$$$$$

You are of the view, and that's all we need to know.

The rational analysis was done decades ago, and repeated here. Who would you rather believe; someone with a vested interest in keeping a positive perception of a song, or someone that sees the messages inside a song. I am not one of those people who believe everything I see; I don't think that there is a backwards message in Stairway to Heaven, for instance; but I am of the view that in this case, Puff the Magic Dragon has a drug message in it.

I'd rather believe the composer and lyricist. End of story.

Since when was the school band chief bearer of the standard of popularity?

Loads of things are unpopular but still have a following. I like Celtic music (which could be said to glorify spousal abuse, revenge killings and alcoholism), and know a number of people who also like it, but that doesn't make it popular.

And that's also what makes it a huge target. If a prominent moralizer were to announce, "We must scour the scourge known as Big Band from our schools and streets!" Concerned parents everywhere would respond, "What's that again?" before changing the channel.
Everyone knows who 50 Cent and Jay-Z are, though.

Was "kicking the gong around" really that mild or obscure a reference at the time? What about having a million dollars worth of marijuana? Language changes, so what is obscure or veiled now might not have been so in the past.
100 years from now, someone is going to say, "Cock, it appears, was a reference to male genitalia."
And someone will reply, "How scandalous! I wonder that they didn't complain more about it at the time. You know how prudish our 21st century ancestors were."

Believe what you like. When I can go to events like the Lionel Hampton Jazz Festival at the University of Idaho, and many others like it across the nation where tens of thousands of high school and college musicians perform and compete playing and singing jazz, I have a hard time believing it isn't popular. Now you're talking airplay, and on that point you are certainly correct. But when a town the size of Bismarck, North Dakota has no less than four music stores in it, all selling instruments to kids trying out for their school's jazz bands (among other ensembles), and the local high school's jazz choir gets invited to international conventions every year, I have to think that popularity has something to do with it.

As for the slang, I can guarantee you that Mr. and Mrs. America (and all the ships at see, Mr. Winchell) probably had no clue as to what "kicking the gong around" meant. And the worst of it was at least not nearly as blatant as "it's getting hot in here / let's take off all our clothes" and the like.

Hey Alex Ptol, is "Jake the Peg" about a man with an exceptionally large penis?

No, like I said, I don't automatically assume that all songs have a hidden message, but in a few cases, they do, and Puff the Magic Dragon is one of them.

No, like I said, I don't automatically assume that all songs have a hidden message, but in a few cases, they do, and Puff the Magic Dragon is one of them.

No it isn't.

No, not really. Not the way you meant it and the context you used it in. I've heard it far too often to ever think of it as a joke again. Nice try, though.


I know you're a music professor, but can you seriously defend rap as a genre? It's essentially bad poetry with a beat set to it. It's not music.

No, like I said, I don't automatically assume that all songs have a hidden message, but in a few cases, they do, and Puff the Magic Dragon is one of them.

Dude, hush with your conspiracy theories.

Kyronea and Intangelon, aside from believing the writers of Puff the Magic Dragon, what other reasons do you pose that it isn't a drug song, and therefore that the drug references are merely coincidental?

Kyronea and Intangelon, aside from believing the writers of Puff the Magic Dragon, what other reasons do you pose that it isn't a drug song, and therefore that the drug references are merely coincidental?

http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/puff.asp

Also, coincidences are just that: coincidences. They're not secret conspiracies or hidden angels or roosters or whatever else one might think. They're just coincidences.

I find it far more likely that Puff the Magic Dragon represents exactly what it's said to be, and find it highly unlikely that it promotes drug use of any sort.

So, I was listening to some Big Band music yesterday. Yes I like big band music, they're awesome. Anyways, Cab Calloway - Minnie The Moocher came up and after hearing "Kicking the gong around" in the second phase. I looked it up, and apparently Minnie the Moocher has at least three drug references to it. The first two was:



Coke-y is of course in refrence to Cocaine, and Kicking the Gong around is smoking opium.

The third drug reference is this.



Which is in references to nickel and dime bags.

So my question is. Why is it, that old songs like "Minnie the Moocher" is socially acceptable today, and yet Rap songs, that also have drug refrences in them are not acceptable? Also, wouldn't calling a woman a "moocher" be demeaning to women?

What is the difference between a song like "Minnie the Moocher" and rap songs of today?

I'm not sure that such lyrics in moddern rap are not socialy aceptable.

You can't spell crap without rap!

This is a fun game, let me have a go.

You can't spell Crock of shite without rock....

I know you're a music professor, but can you seriously defend rap as a genre? It's essentially bad poetry with a beat set to it. It's not music.

This is where you misstep. It may be bad music, but it is still music. Your characterisation of it may apply to some parts but generally only a verse would be like that, a chorus is more broadly musical. Though, even without actual singing, rap is still tonal in a way similar to sprechgesang, which would be called music by most as it was developed by classical composers.

I know you're a music professor, but can you seriously defend rap as a genre? It's essentially bad poetry with a beat set to it. It's not music.

Value judgments do not enter into the classification of a piece of work. "I don't like it, therefore it is not music," is not a recognized criteria.

The argument over what is and is not music is far more esoteric than your assessment, and deep enough to make the very question laughable. When there is scholarly discussion over whether or not certain works by John Cage and his lot are music (for popular instance 4'33" or the piece where he hung a microphone outside of his apartment in New York), works that contain tempo and yes, even melody, clearly qualify as music. There is a far more developed and considered discussion going on about what constitutes music that these assertions are nothing more than a flag. You don't like the music, that doesn't disqualify the genre simply on that basis anymore than I can disown bubblegum pop.

This is where you misstep. It may be bad music, but it is still music. Your characterisation of it may apply to some parts but generally only a verse would be like that, a chorus is more broadly musical. Though, even without actual singing, rap is still tonal in a way similar to sprechgesang, which would be called music by most as it was developed by classical composers.

Value judgments do not enter into the classification of a piece of work. "I don't like it, therefore it is not music," is not a recognized criteria.

The argument over what is and is not music is far more esoteric than your assessment, and deep enough to make the very question laughable. When there is scholarly discussion over whether or not certain works by John Cage and his lot are music (for popular instance 4'33" or the piece where he hung a microphone outside of his apartment in New York), works that contain tempo and yes, even melody, clearly qualify as music. There is a far more developed and considered discussion going on about what constitutes music that these assertions are nothing more than a flag. You don't like the music, that doesn't disqualify the genre simply on that basis anymore than I can disown bubblegum pop.

I see.

I should stop talking about things I know nothing about.

I'm sure that Minnie the Moocher wasn't acceptable in a lot of places in its time. Blues was rich in metaphor that the authorities either didn't get or turned a blind eye to.

I don't know why (Maybe because I'm 55 years old) but I really don't like most rap. It's too in your face and I think a lot of it sends the wrong message in terms of velues. I've seen too many video clips of Gangsta pimps, gyrating ho's, drive-by shooters and fur-coated bling wearers to be able to identify with it on any level (musically or politically). Okay call me old and conservative if you like.
I'm still a Woodstock hippie at heart: "We can change the world, rearrange the world."

Gangsta rap just seems to be full of negativity and self importance. I'll be pleased when new musical waves eclipse it.

I think the self-importance thing comes and goes in music

I see.

I should stop talking about things I know nothing about.

Nah, asking questions is always fine. :)

Like they said, though, rap may often be really lousy music, but it's still music.

I am listening to Leonard Cohen right now...

I know you're a music professor, but can you seriously defend rap as a genre? It's essentially bad poetry with a beat set to it. It's not music.

Actually, some of it is really quite good poetry, with a beat set to it. I'm not really a big fan of the genre, but I can certainly find some stuff in there that I like (some of Eminem's stuff, for example. Love him or hate him, when he's hot he's hot - quite the poet when the mood takes him).

Yeah, why trust the man who actually wrote the song over the brilliant lyrical analysis "lol, it says puff, like, um, a puff of marijuana smoke, and everybody in the 60s was totally high all the time, I saw it on TV." You know what else is generally depicted as puffing fire and smoke? DRAGONS.

But please, show me a rational literary analysis of the song that makes it about drugs instead of about growing up. I am eager to hear this. :rolleyes:

This reminds me of an online debate I was reading about whether "The Last Unicorn" (book, although the film would be implicated, by association) was a piece of 'gay' literature, because (apparently) unicorns are a gay icon. Or something.

The argument continued for sometime, even after one of the debaters revealed himself as Peter Beagle's agent - and pointed out that Peter Beagle himself has said that the unicorn in the story is just a unicorn, not a subversive image for anything.

This reminds me of an online debate I was reading about whether "The Last Unicorn" (book, although the film would be implicated, by association) was a piece of 'gay' literature, because (apparently) unicorns are a gay icon. Or something.

The argument continued for sometime, even after one of the debaters revealed himself as Peter Beagle's agent - and pointed out that Peter Beagle himself has said that the unicorn in the story is just a unicorn, not a subversive image for anything.

I wouldn't even mind contradicting the authors on these things as much if there was some actual justification that made sense. When the sum total reasoning is "it contains a couple of words which some people might associate loosely with X, but no remotely coherent message, meaning, or sense to accompany them," it is utterly insane to claim to know better than the people involved. Puff the Magic Dragon makes complete coherent sense as a song about growing up. It makes no discernible sense at all as a song about drugs, unless you really really REALLY stretch things beyond all belief. ("The pirate ships represent, um, drug dealers, and lowering their flags is how they signal that they have drugs to sell, and, and, um, painted wings are, like, things that you hallucinate when you're high, and Puff is sad at the end because Jackie, who represents his supply of rolling papers, has gone away, which represents a global paper shortage, so he gives up marijuana and goes to his 'cave,' by which we mean 'opium den'! Yeah!" :rolleyes: )

This reminds me of an online debate I was reading about whether "The Last Unicorn" (book, although the film would be implicated, by association) was a piece of 'gay' literature, because (apparently) unicorns are a gay icon. Or something.

The argument continued for sometime, even after one of the debaters revealed himself as Peter Beagle's agent - and pointed out that Peter Beagle himself has said that the unicorn in the story is just a unicorn, not a subversive image for anything.

Different scenario though; if it came out that "The Last Unicorn" was a piece of gay literature, then there would be no heavy loss to Peter Beagle; gays would start buying it en-masse and make it a book of their own - there would be no loss of money to Peter Beagle

On the other hand, if Peter, Paul and Mary admitted that Puff the Magic Dragon was a song about drugs (and the more I think about it, the more links I manage to consider), then it would completely lose its viability - parents would no longer allow their children to listen to the song, meaning album sales go down, and guess what happens there; they lose money!

Beagle has no vested interest to lie; Peter, Paul and Mary do have a vested interest to lie.

Also, Kyronea, the Snopes article makes the assumption that Peter, Paul and Mary were telling the truth. They have a very good reason to lie about the truth behind Puff the Magic Dragon.

Different scenario though; if it came out that "The Last Unicorn" was a piece of gay literature, then there would be no heavy loss to Peter Beagle; gays would start buying it en-masse and make it a book of their own - there would be no loss of money to Peter Beagle

On the other hand, if Peter, Paul and Mary admitted that Puff the Magic Dragon was a song about drugs (and the more I think about it, the more links I manage to consider), then it would completely lose its viability - parents would no longer allow their children to listen to the song, meaning album sales go down, and guess what happens there; they lose money!

Beagle has no vested interest to lie; Peter, Paul and Mary do have a vested interest to lie.

Also, Kyronea, the Snopes article makes the assumption that Peter, Paul and Mary were telling the truth. They have a very good reason to lie about the truth behind Puff the Magic Dragon.

I don't see it. Peter Beagle's book is largely marketed as a 'children's book'. The movie was an animated feature largely aimed at an audience of children. It is true that Peter Beagle has written a book that appeals across the ages, but then - aren't all these things similarly true of the song in question?

Would a 'gay' audience be any more likely to run out lionising "The Last Unicorn" than a similar hypothetical 'stoner' audience might with "Puff"?

It seems to me that the motivation is about the same either way... and I'm not convinved either party would really be all that keen to lie to protect the market integrity...

It's especially funny given the fact that PP&M have written and performed a huge number of extremely controversial songs. They've received death threats over the years for their very open espousal of often unpopular political opinions, and they've donated vast amounts of money to charity, but somehow they're going to be really scared of people buying slightly fewer copies of ONE of their songs? Suuuuuure....

I know you're a music professor, but can you seriously defend rap as a genre? It's essentially bad poetry with a beat set to it. It's not music.

You've already been spanked for the "not music bit", so I won't pile on. I'll just mention that until you've heard it all, you can't make that judgment. You can certainly say that everything you've heard is unappealing to you. Might I suggest Us3 (especially the album they released on legendary jazz label Blue Note, called Hand On the Torch), Digable Planets, Arrested Development, Nappy Roots or at least looking deeper into the genre if you're truly interested in looking for stuff that doesn't suck? It is rare in my experience, but it is out there.

Kyronea and Intangelon, aside from believing the writers of Puff the Magic Dragon, what other reasons do you pose that it isn't a drug song, and therefore that the drug references are merely coincidental?

What more do I need? Nice [bolded] disingenuous wording, by the way. When did you stop beating your wife? There are no drug references. Unless you can make them in more than a couple of very thin places, or make better ones. I don't know why you're on this particular jag, but I hope it all works out for you.

Different scenario though; if it came out that "The Last Unicorn" was a piece of gay literature, then there would be no heavy loss to Peter Beagle; gays would start buying it en-masse and make it a book of their own - there would be no loss of money to Peter Beagle

On the other hand, if Peter, Paul and Mary admitted that Puff the Magic Dragon was a song about drugs (and the more I think about it, the more links I manage to consider), then it would completely lose its viability - parents would no longer allow their children to listen to the song, meaning album sales go down, and guess what happens there; they lose money!

Beagle has no vested interest to lie; Peter, Paul and Mary do have a vested interest to lie.

Also, Kyronea, the Snopes article makes the assumption that Peter, Paul and Mary were telling the truth. They have a very good reason to lie about the truth behind Puff the Magic Dragon.

So just because you think that the composers have a reason to lie, they're automatically lying? What kind of Nixonesque hellhole did you grow up in?

I love listening to people claim that songs, stories, movies are representative of something or others, even when the people who made the thing says it isn't it is just what it syas with no hidden meaning. I was reading in some journal, can't remember what it was called Gay and Lesbian Journal of America or something, trying to claim that the movie Rope has a hidden meaning behind it and is homophobic please. The discussion on here is just as bad, trying to pull stuff together and fit it into the song in order to prove a point.

Why can't people just enjoy it for what it is, it was the same at high school where we had to pull hidden meanings out of books which I always suspected the author never had in mind. Why couldn't just enjoy Lord of the Flies for the story without having to find some meaning that piggy losing his glasses meant that the boys had lost his vision blah blah blah.

I am listening to Leonard Cohen right now...
I hope you hid all your razor blades and pills first.

I love listening to people claim that songs, stories, movies are representative of something or others, even when the people who made the thing says it isn't it is just what it syas with no hidden meaning. I was reading in some journal, can't remember what it was called Gay and Lesbian Journal of America or something, trying to claim that the movie Rope has a hidden meaning behind it and is homophobic please. The discussion on here is just as bad, trying to pull stuff together and fit it into the song in order to prove a point.

Why can't people just enjoy it for what it is, it was the same at high school where we had to pull hidden meanings out of books which I always suspected the author never had in mind. Why couldn't just enjoy Lord of the Flies for the story without having to find some meaning that piggy losing his glasses meant that the boys had lost his vision blah blah blah.

Authors intent is almost entirely irrelevant when analyzing a particular work. You can argue what the author was 'going for' in a particular work, but then you could just ask them. But what of the readers experience? Or how the work interacts with the society it is written in, or observed in years after it's written? Why must someone's reading of a work be so shallow when there is so much depth in it that perhaps even the author didn't realize? Why be so insulting to the piece as to reduce it to nothing more than a passing distraction?

I am listening to Leonard Cohen right now...

He should do a Christmas album, also can we save up all our pocket monies to pay Morrissey to do "Christmas with Morrisey".

I see.

I should stop talking about things I know nothing about.

Heh, don't worry about it ;)

If a sense, we are being overly pedantic, as in fact we know that, normally, when someone says the phrase, "that's not music", they actually mean, "I don't like it", and are not the least bit interested in a philosophical discussion on the meaning of the word, 'music. :)

I hope you hid all your razor blades and pills first.

No, no, that's Nick Drake. Or is it Elliot Smith?

I love listening to people claim that songs, stories, movies are representative of something or others, even when the people who made the thing says it isn't it is just what it syas with no hidden meaning. I was reading in some journal, can't remember what it was called Gay and Lesbian Journal of America or something, trying to claim that the movie Rope has a hidden meaning behind it and is homophobic please. The discussion on here is just as bad, trying to pull stuff together and fit it into the song in order to prove a point.

Why can't people just enjoy it for what it is, it was the same at high school where we had to pull hidden meanings out of books which I always suspected the author never had in mind. Why couldn't just enjoy Lord of the Flies for the story without having to find some meaning that piggy losing his glasses meant that the boys had lost his vision blah blah blah.

Uh...'cause some authors were indeed intending to include symbolism in their works. I think you have to take the author's thoughts on the book (if any are available) into account, as well as the context of when and where the book was written (to some extent), and exactly how much stretching you have to do to get to your metaphor. It's high-order critical thinking, but it needs to be realistic in its ascribing of symbolism to parts of a novel. Melville was a symbolist, as were many who came after him. Shakespeare was an analogist, a point I fiercely debated with an English teacher when she tried to call Shakespeare's writing sexist (when the concept didn't exist when he was writing).

Uh...'cause some authors were indeed intending to include symbolism in their works. I think you have to take the author's thoughts on the book (if any are available) into account, as well as the context of when and where the book was written (to some extent), and exactly how much stretching you have to do to get to your metaphor. It's high-order critical thinking, but it needs to be realistic in its ascribing of symbolism to parts of a novel. Melville was a symbolist, as were many who came after him. Shakespeare was an analogist, a point I fiercely debated with an English teacher when she tried to call Shakespeare's writing sexist (when the concept didn't exist when he was writing).

Well I understand and indeed do recognise that some authors do write metaphors and are very symbolic in their work. And will use various techniques to get their point or underlying theme across. But my point was that not all authors do this, and indeed not all authors will have these themes in their work that people have gone digging for, like how Puff the Magic Dragon is a song about drugs. I think that people can go a bit far with it, like saying how Shakespeare was sexist, or getting students to analyse Othello and explain how it is all about Communism (and that concept certainly wasn't around). Now I don't mind enjoying a piece of work when the author has placed that in deliberately as it is part of the work and makes you enjoy and appreciate it more, but why can't you just enjoy the work for what it is rather than finding something in it that isn't what the author intended, such as the movie Rope, really did these people even watch the damn thing.

Well I understand and indeed do recognise that some authors do write metaphors and are very symbolic in their work. And will use various techniques to get their point or underlying theme across. But my point was that not all authors do this, and indeed not all authors will have these themes in their work that people have gone digging for, like how Puff the Magic Dragon is a song about drugs. I think that people can go a bit far with it, like saying how Shakespeare was sexist, or getting students to analyse Othello and explain how it is all about Communism (and that concept certainly wasn't around). Now I don't mind enjoying a piece of work when the author has placed that in deliberately as it is part of the work and makes you enjoy and appreciate it more, but why can't you just enjoy the work for what it is rather than finding something in it that isn't what the author intended, such as the movie Rope, really did these people even watch the damn thing.

Seems to me that you're focused on Rope. Thing is, there may have been a homoerotic element to the film, considering the director and considering just how veiled such an element would have to be to get past the various film codes of the era.

So long as a teacher or professor acknowledges that something like finding communist leanings in Othello is an exercise and not a historical thing, that's fine. It's an exercise in critical thinking and finding themes in artistic or literary works, and that's good for the mind. It's when they start trying to document a long-dead author's intent as if that were the only way to see any story and refuse to accept any arguments to the contrary, that I start to get piqued. The only way that kind of revisionism works is if you're using it as a posit to get your students to refute using logic, history and reason.

Seems to me that you're focused on Rope. Thing is, there may have been a homoerotic element to the film, considering the director and considering just how veiled such an element would have to be to get past the various film codes of the era.

So long as a teacher or professor acknowledges that something like finding communist leanings in Othello is an exercise and not a historical thing, that's fine. It's an exercise in critical thinking and finding themes in artistic or literary works, and that's good for the mind. It's when they start trying to document a long-dead author's intent as if that were the only way to see any story and refuse to accept any arguments to the contrary, that I start to get piqued. The only way that kind of revisionism works is if you're using it as a posit to get your students to refute using logic, history and reason.

The only reason I was focused on Rope is because it is a good example of this critical thinking that tries to tell us what the directors intent was when making the film, and considering their basis of their claim was because there were two men sharing an apartment means that those two must be gay is simply ridiculous. As for the rest of it fair enough, but that was what I meant the author was writing it as a supporter of communism, shakespeare was a communist etc. But why look for something in there when it isn't there desperately pulling quotes to use as evidence. Critically analysing a book is all well and good, but I don't see why people shouldn't just read a book and enjoy it for what it is rather than going onto this long depth discussion about how a character wore a red jacket to signify that he is a socialist, when in no other part of the book does the author make reference to or indicate that the character is a socialist, the author may have just liked the colour red.

The only reason I was focused on Rope is because it is a good example of this critical thinking that tries to tell us what the directors intent was when making the film, and considering their basis of their claim was because there were two men sharing an apartment means that those two must be gay is simply ridiculous. As for the rest of it fair enough, but that was what I meant the author was writing it as a supporter of communism, shakespeare was a communist etc. But why look for something in there when it isn't there desperately pulling quotes to use as evidence. Critically analysing a book is all well and good, but I don't see why people shouldn't just read a book and enjoy it for what it is rather than going onto this long depth discussion about how a character wore a red jacket to signify that he is a socialist, when in no other part of the book does the author make reference to or indicate that the character is a socialist, the author may have just liked the colour red.

Well, that's what reading for pleasure is. Reading for an English or Lit. class is another beast altogether.

Well, that's what reading for pleasure is. Reading for an English or Lit. class is another beast altogether.

Well that's true, no argument here.