SHOULD PRINTED LEGAL WARNINGS
ACCOMPANY ALL MUSIC WITH LYRICS?
"DO NOT ATTEMPT: THE ACTS DESCRIBED HEREIN MAY BE ILLEGAL AND PUNISHABLE IN A COURT OF LAW."
by Mervyn Hagger
I don't know about you, but I am getting sick and tired of the media rewriting musical memories which form the cultural backdrop to the past, which many alive today can still remember.
Years ago it was common to refer to the age of Queen Victoria as a time when prudish people became quite silly in trying to disguise their own dreams, desires, and actions. However, many of the Victorians were a wild bunch, judging by the standards of the Neo-Victorian 'Dome of Judgment' that is descending upon us all today. The difference was that the Internet did not exist; television did not exist; radio did not exist, and papers we now call tabloids, were protecting everyone within the Establishment known as the British Crown.
This new age of repressed memory seems to have begun in the British Isles, just like its Victorian ancestor, so this blog is going to revisit those times. We are going to look at it before 'Spin-Cleaners' of today decided to impose their hypocritical morality judgments on the past, and then used their own mass media to tell us what is proper, and what is not proper for us to remember about the past.
It's all about sex and death, the two topics which always inflame passions. But since every human being has some form of sexuality, and every human being is subject to death, neither topic is a State secret. Lies and distortions arise when some judgmental sociologists use mass media to impose their own and often warped interpretations, about how we should respond to these two topics.
This blog is our 'Toto' (as in Toto the dog who exposed the Wizard of Oz),and it is going to rip back that curtain of darkness now descending upon the stage of actual events. But while it descends, another curtain seems to be rising to reveal a sanctimoniously-inspired arena of fiction. This new fable is inspiring judges to rule upon activities which took place over on the first stage of reality. By reaching back into distant memory it is causing a miscarriage of justice because it is excluding evidence that might be described as mitigating circumstances. Not only that, but these same judges were part and parcel of the times that they are now tut-tutting about and sending folks off to prison. One wonders if some, or many of them, may have been as guilty of the same behavior - but they have not as yet been exposed in the way that the lives of Jimmy Savile and now Ray Teret have been torn to shreds.
If we are going to judge the past, then let us judge all of the past, and let us judge the judges. Let us not judge bits of the past like disembodied spirits. This blog is going to produce evidence that others are ignoring. But this blog is not suggesting that exploitation of individuals against their will is a good idea. Far from it. This blog espouses the rights of individuals versus the imposed ideology of collectivism. Slavery in any form and for any duration of time is a bad idea, and it is certainly a practice to be condemned by all who love freedom as expressed by individual liberty.
However, we do need to remember that the ultimate form of exploitation comes from the State itself when it tells young people to go and maim and kill human beings that they do not know, and who have never done any harm to them. We call these killers - soldiers. I am not a pacifist. But while it is necessary for human beings to defend themselves from attack by other human beings, it requires judgment as to what is, and what is not justified as defense, rather than being aggression by another name.
At the end of World War II the British government of the day executed William Joyce, an Irishman, who they dubbed 'Lord Haw-Haw'. Joyce had used taunting words which he broadcast on behalf of Herr Hitler and his Nazi regime. Joyce was not killed because he had killed, but because of his 'words spoken abroad', as Winston Churchill described this form of speech, and his delivery had been directed towards a British audience.
However, Churchill also likened free speech to 'a little mouse', and yet, when the mouse was a Nazi, and not one of Churchill's own, he wanted it to be exterminated. Thus it was that Joyce died on a rope whose control was in the hands of a British Crown hangman. Now this is not an apology for Nazis and gas chambers or the Holocaust - all of which were certainly a part of the Nazi's socialistic killing machine, and of that I have no doubt whatsoever. This is about hypocrisy.
If Churchill could champion freedom of speech as a universal concept to be embraced by all, then to be non-hypocritical he had embrace Joyce's words as well. Silly words maybe, but words nevertheless. Churchill concluded that Joyce's words had inspired actions by other people, and that he was therefore a part of the killing-machine ideology that he was espousing. Therefore those sitting in Joyce's judgment concluded that Joyce had aided and abetted the adverse actions of others. Today this same reasoning is being used to censor the Internet in order to halt acts of 'inspired' terrorism.
Meanwhile, some are now separating words and pictures from the ideology they support. The only difference being that while Joyce's ideology collectively impacted the British nation; this new separation impacts individuals who may seek to financially benefit from their cry for retribution.
This is why this blog now asks what we are to make of the records spun by djs such as Jimmy Savile and Ray Teret? (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Teret#Sexual_assaults CAVEAT! All references to and by Wikipedia which are incorporated into this site are used as a means of demonstrating "what everyone knows", and not what is, or what is not necessarily true - due to the fact that Wikipedia does not claim to be a reliable source of information.
In many instances the lyrics of those records fostered the same 'swinging' era in which these and other djs lived-out their own lifestyles, and they are the lifestyles which are only now being condemned. So perhaps we should have a look at these lyrics and the people who wrote them. After all they are the hits that kept on comin', and which are now 'golden oldie' memories that many sitting in judgment of Savile, Teret and others, all sing along to.
This is the third segment of the movie 'Serious Charge' starring Cliff Richard who sings the original uptempo version of 'Living Doll' to a girl ('living doll') sitting next to him. (Fast forward the slider to the last third of the segment.)
As he touches her hair he sings: "Take a look at her hair, it's real, and if you don't believe what I say, just feel. I'm gonna lock her up in a trunk so no big hunk can steal her away from me."
This is a movie about smear allegations about sexual molestation; an expectant single mother who, when she sees the father kissing another girl across the street, steps into the path of a truck and is killed. It's also about forced attempted rape and a gang armed with knives. To this is added a song whose lyrics speak of taking and holding a person against their will because of a sexual obsession. ( http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/cliffrichard/livingdoll.html )
"I DIDN'T MEAN FOR IT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY"
Lionel Bart is the author of the lyrics to 'Living Doll':
Got myself a crying, talking, sleeping, walking, living doll Got to do my best to please her, just 'cause she's a living doll Got a roving eye and that is why she satisfies my soul Got the one and only walking talking, living doll
Take a look at her hair, it's real And if you don't believe what I say, just feel I'm gonna lock her up in a trunk So no big hunk can steal her away from me
Lionel Bart, composer of the song claimed that he "had been approached by film producer Mickey Delamar to write songs for the film. The idea for the song came on a Sunday morning in October 1958 while reading a newspaper and seeing an advert for a child's doll. The doll was said to "kneel, walk, sit and sing". Bart recounted, "I was looking at the back pages and there was a small advert for a doll which could apparently do everything. I wrote the song in ten minutes." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Doll_(song)
The big problem with this Wikipedia explanation by Bart is that he wrote it for a movie about gang violence and attempted rape, to be sung by Cliff Richard to a living girl sitting next to him whose hair he touches as he sings "take a look at her hair, it's real and if you don't believe what I say, just feel.."
Then Cliff Richard sings Bart's words "I'm gonna lock her up in a trunk so no big hunk can steal her away from me," and he does this as he demonstrates who is referring to, which is not a child's doll.
From this movie called 'Serious Charge', because it is about the seriousness of gang violence and attempted rape, comes a remake of the same lyrics which have been slowed down to make it into a ballad to be sung to girls dominated by bullying boys. It's akin to the drunk who hits a woman at night, and then says in the morning that he did not mean it. That excuse is lame, and so is Lionel Bart's excuse for this song.
If the song was inspired in the way Bart suggests, then it was perverted by someone to turn it into an aggressive song about male domination of women as mere property of the male. But not only that, At some point in his life Cliff Richard had to know what he was singing, especially when it was rereleased as a result of the British TV series called 'The Young Ones'. ("The show was voted number 31 in the BBC's Best Sitcom poll in 2004." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Ones_(TV_series )
Just so that we all get the point, members of 'The Young Ones' scream Bart's lyrical line: "gonna lock her up in a trunk"; then make references to 'political incorrectness' of the lyrics, and further comment that "its only a song." (Listen at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Pyoawu84lA )
In that same Wikipedia article reference above, it says:
"In 1986, 27 years after the first release, alternative comedy group The Young Ones approached Richard to record a comic version of "Living Doll" for the Comic Relief Comic charity. Despite the apparent contrast between the anarchic comedians and the clean cut Richard, he agreed and their version again topped the UK UK Singles Chart, for three weeks from March 1986."
So what else do we know from Wikipedia about this song?
"Currently, its main supporters are the BBC, BT, Sainsbury's supermarket chain and British Airways. The BBC is responsible for the live television extravaganza on Red Nose Day; BT provides the telephony, and Sainsbury's sells merchandise on behalf of the charity."
In other words, here is a song stressing male domination of women as mere property, first recorded as part of a gang movie with an attempted rape scene, that the BBC then endorsed with its anarchistic sitcom that its viewers heartily endorsed along with a major supermarket chain and telecommunications company, because it was also turned into a promotional device for a charities which included 'Children in Need'.
Children do not need this, unless they are being taught mixed signals.
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
To understand the cultural climate in which the song 'Living Doll' was written by Lionel Bart, requires a flashback to the time when Jimmy Savile (James Wilson Vincent Savile) was on his rise to fame on Radio Luxembourg. It was a time before Ray Teret got a job on the offshore station Radio Caroline North off the Isle of Man. Both men were familiar with this record, because both played it on the airwaves that were listened to by millions of British listeners. The listeners loved the song and they loved the men who spun the disc. To report otherwise is to revise history to such a point that yesterday never happened. But it did happen, and that is what is being examined here.
Now to put matters in context, neither Jimmy Savile nor Ray Teret were espousing political views similar to William Joyce ('Lord Haw Haw'), and Joyce had placed Churchill in a contradictory position. On the one hand Churchill promoted freedom of speech and expression and he mocked dictators such as Hitler who advocated censorship. Churchill went further and compared freedom of speech to "a little mouse", verses the tanks and planes that were waging lethal war. But after WWII, Joyce who was Irish, was hung by the British., merely for the words he had spoken.
However, if we link Joyce to Nazi gas chambers, to what are we linking Savile and Teret? The answer is records like 'Living Doll' with lyrics about locking girls in trunks to isolate and presumably exploit them in any manner possible. So if the message caused harm, as suggested by the execution of Joyce, then what was the message indoctrinating Savile and Teret? Well part of it was the idea that it is the right of males to lock up females in trunks in order to imprison them from the self-gratification of their captor.
WORDS AND DEEDS
On October 16, 1938, Winston Churchill, who had been routinely kept off the BBC airwaves by the autocratic John Reith, made a broadcast over U.S. media, and this is what he said in part about the likes of Adolph Hitler:
"You see these dictators on their pedestals, surrounded by the bayonets of their soldiers and the truncheons of their police. On all sides they are guarded by masses of armed men, cannons, aeroplanes, fortifications, and the like - they boast and vaunt themselves before the world, yet in their hearts there is unspoken fear. They are afraid of words and thoughts; words spoken abroad, thoughts stirring at home - all the more powerful because forbidden - terrify them. A little mouse of thought appears in the room, and even the mightiest potentates are thrown into panic." (See http://www.winstonchurchill.org/learn/speeches/speeches-of-winston-churchill/524-the-defence-of-freedom-and-peace )
In 1968 the Bee Gees recorded a song titled 'Words' ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JECTUQVrvzE ) with lyrics that incorporated these lines: "You think that I don't even mean a single word I say. It's only words, and words are all I have to take your heart away." http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/beegees/words.html
Perhaps it was due to the power of words that Lionel Bart attempted to obfuscate the lyrics that Cliff Richard recorded three times over several decades. Cliff Richard has also espoused words on behalf of Billy Graham, a man who has made his living from words written and words spoken, which Cliff Richard has embellished with song at his Crusades. But here is the contradiction: Bart claims that he wrote about a child's toy, a doll; yet the facts reveal that he specifically wrote it for Cliff Richard to sing in a movie about gang violence and attempted rape. The evidence shows that Cliff Richard sang this song to a real woman and that at the appropriate moment he gestured towards that woman's hair which symbolized his lyrical line about her hair being real - "just feel". It is from there that Bart's words through Bart's mouthpiece, then descend into the description of a violent act that involves "locking her up in a trunk".
I am sure we can find the proof necessary that both Savile and Teret played the record 'Living Doll' on more than one occasion over more than one radio station. I am sure that we can prove that this record has been heard and is continue to be heard, by millions of listeners.
This man Lionel Bart. He was not decorated by the British Crown in the same way that the British Crown decorated Savile. However, Bart was the creator and Savile was merely a promoter of his works which have been performed by vocalists such as Cliff Richard, who has also been decorated by the British Crown.
No, Savile was not railed against for playing a dubious record sung by Cliff Richard. He was found guilty by the press for having carried out the kind of actions depicted in the movie 'Serious Charge'. The press, including those that run pictures of semi-naked young girls on their pages, all condemned Savile as if their pictures do not encourage the same kind of behavior that Savile carried out in real life. But Cliff Richard, well, he was not singing about girls who removed their clothing. Cliff Richard was singing about locking up a girl in a trunk.
If creative words are linked to action in such a way that anti-terrorism laws forbid the expression of views deemed harmful to the British Crown, then what are we to make of the hypocrisy shown by attacking the deceased Jimmy Savile, while not taking action against the legacy of the deceased Lionel Bart? Then there is the question of what to make of Cliff Richard, because over decades since April 28, 1959, he has continued to sing about locking up a girl in a trunk, and the lyrics of 'Living Doll' come to mind when stories like this appear:
November 24, 2014: "...I remember him removing my clothes, locking a dog collar around my neck and dragging me upstairs. Up in his bedroom I was chained to the floor." http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/i-groomed-online-abducted-chained-4684151
December 18, 2004: "...man accused of locking teen in shipping container, sexually assaulting her in 10-month ordeal." http://bangordailynews.com/2014/12/18/news/nation/nh-man-accused-of-locking-teen-in-shipping-container-sexually-assaulting-her-in-10-month-ordeal/
(Additional news links will be added.)
It is as if it is split into two halves, with one half condemning what the other half is doing, but the half that is condemning the other half, is supporting the very culture which makes the deplored half possible. Neither Savile nor Teret lived in isolation to Society, and in reality Society is not composed of two halves, it is one and Savile and Teret were both contributors to its success. But because Savile supported the causes of both children and adults in need, it became difficult for the exploitive tabloids to deal with him as a human being.