Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To pull out because of programme at Christmas concert

331 replies

Whyamistillawake · 10/12/2017 17:28

I've been going to a choir since September, most of which has been practising for the Christmas concert this week.

We've just had the final rehearsal in which they've introduced a duet which us two people (not including me) singing 'Baby it's cold outside'.

Am I overreacting to pull out? At the moment I don't see how I can sit there through it.

OP posts:
Pumperthepumper · 11/12/2017 10:30

Captain I’m sure you understand my point regardless.

curryforbreakfast · 11/12/2017 10:39

if enough people decided the song was inappropriate and it WAS deleted from Elf, would that be a massive deal?

Yes, it would be ridiculous censorship of the highest order.
Cutting a 1940's song from a 2003 film because of the sensibilities of 2017? Plus half the film would no longer make sense!

What next, you want to cut out half of its a wonderful life?

Pumperthepumper · 11/12/2017 10:44

curry It wasn’t actually me who suggested it, I was responding to a PP but you’re right, that would be stupid. Although I don’t think I’ve ever seen Elf all the way through, I didn’t realise that song was so necessary to the plot.

I just meant - does it matter if our opinion on things that were acceptable in the past changes with a modern attitude?

curryforbreakfast · 11/12/2017 10:57

It matters if we think we can rewrite things from a modern perspective. What OP thinks this song is about is not what it was about. The lyrics weren't written with the intent she is assigning them. You can't change what was in peoples minds in the past!

SatsukiKusakabe · 11/12/2017 10:58

Yes but Kevin Spacey abused people - for real - so he has been let go from his current projects. This song could be interpreted by some people as possibly being emotionally maniupulative with the potential to result in abuse. It isn’t a straightforward comparison. I agree the small issues are important and it doesn’t necessarily dilute it by discussing them as well, but in some case they seem a bit driven by other forces. This is so borderline (if that) that it will drive many people to react against it and belittle the actual issue. I think the small things need to be relevant, and I’m not convinced this is.

In Elf he hears her singing it, and quietly joins in, and as a result encourages her to sing later in the movie and overcome her shyness, which the entire plot hinges on. It could be a different song but it wasn’t. In fact I would wager it was chosen because of its innocence, as the scene is there to emphasise his innocence and their potential compatibility.

SatsukiKusakabe · 11/12/2017 11:05

It was on my mind as I watched Elf with my kids yesterday. I was being hyperbolic, but also pondering what it means to judge something to be unacceptable in this climate.

Pumperthepumper · 11/12/2017 11:05

You can't change what was in peoples minds in the past!

Well, you can though. 26 years ago rape within marriage was legal. It’s totally fine to say ‘I used to think X was acceptable but I’ve changed my mind’. I apologise for my clumsy wording, I wasn’t suggesting we rewrite Elf. Just hypothesising that we don’t have to defend something because it was ok THEN.

Satsuki I appreciate that, which is why I I said ‘if enough people decided’. I was trying to reply to your point, not start a new one of my own. And I think if people feel the need to belittle someone’s concerns, no matter how trivial they seem, they need to have a word with themselves.

curryforbreakfast · 11/12/2017 11:13

NO, you cannot. You cannot say that the person who wrote it with one thing in mind must have meant something else.
You literally cannot change what was in the mind of someone else 70 years ago. If I write a song now about, for example, my cat, you can't come back in ten years and say "she obviously was writing about a dog, because that is how I intepret it now!".

It meant what it meant when it was written. It still means that now. It CAN be understood a different way if you do not understand the meaning it had when it was written and you are only using the current sensibility.

Iliketurtles · 11/12/2017 11:14

If you feel that strongly not unreasonable to pull out but you would be unreasonable to not be honest to your other choir members and choir lead as to why you feel unable to participate

SatsukiKusakabe · 11/12/2017 11:14

Not that people will belittle the concerns of others, but that the resulting noise about interpretations of an old song will drown out more relevant discussion.

TatianaLarina · 11/12/2017 11:31

But it’s not about ok then.

The context of the song - a lover feeling reluctantly she ought to go when she really wants to stay - is as fine now as it was then.

The point about different time and different mores is simply that 1940 is 20 years off 100 years ago, when it was still not completely acceptable to sleep with someone before marriage. Hence the lines about mother and father, maiden aunt and the neighbours. Of course some, many people did on the quiet, but many people didn’t.

That’s the context.

Flumplet · 11/12/2017 11:34

Oh give me strength. It is not rapey.

SatsukiKusakabe · 11/12/2017 11:34

Yes, tatiana

Pumperthepumper · 11/12/2017 11:39

curry I think we’re just going to have to disagree then. I don’t think the interpretation is as clear cut as you do. I also think it’s fine to look back on things with modern sensibilities and change your mind.

Satsuki I think people are capeable of caring about more than one thing at once though.

maddiemookins16mum · 11/12/2017 11:39

They'll still sing it if you're there or not.
People get so wound up about pointless stuff these days.

Original poster
Whyamistillawake · 11/12/2017 12:56

Curry a lot of people seem certain of the meaning it was written with in 1945 (still not sure where this proof is from but hey). Shortly after that in 1949 it was used in a way which to me was sexual coercion. Done for humour at a time where life was different but it doesn't make for very comfortable viewing. - he's grabbing her arm to stop her leaving and she removes his hand from her leg etc. Personally my view is that the boundary between the two interpretations has always been a bit blurred because the latter wasn't seem as unacceptable at the time. I certainly don't think it's as simple as saying in the 40s this was OK so you shouldn't be able to have an issue with performing it now.

I still haven't decided what I'm going to do BTW. I'm being won around a bit by arguments that I'm letting others down. I'm trying to objectively work out whether anyone would be particularly upset if I wasn't there. Obviously if I was doing a solo or a small group thing it would matter but I'm not and I'm not sure they wouldn't sound better without me!

OP posts:
curryforbreakfast · 11/12/2017 13:03

I certainly don't think it's as simple as saying in the 40s this was OK so you shouldn't be able to have an issue with performing it now

you are determined to miss the point aren't you. That isn't what we are saying, at all, but I can't be fucked explaining it again.

curryforbreakfast · 11/12/2017 13:05

I also think it’s fine to look back on things with modern sensibilities and change your mind

I didn't say it wasn't. I said you cannot change the thoughts people had in their minds AT THE TIME OF WRITING SOMETHING. Someone could write something and later on say that they wouldn't say that now, but that is not the same thing.

This isn't something you can disagree with! You can't time travel, and even if you could you can't control other peoples thoughts.

Original poster
Whyamistillawake · 11/12/2017 13:13

It might not be what you're saying but it is what my OP is about! I don't think anyone on this chain is disputing that the cultural context when the song was written was different to now. To me it still isn't clear what the accepted meaning was (in light of how it was used in the film) but lots of people seem very certain.

I'm asking if IABU to not want to be associated with it being performed now because of how the wording can be interpreted in today's cultural climate.

OP posts:
Nikephorus · 11/12/2017 13:15

I still haven't decided what I'm going to do BTW. I'm being won around a bit by arguments that I'm letting others down.
It sounds to me more like you came on here for a spot of virtue-signalling which has backfired.

curryforbreakfast · 11/12/2017 13:15

I'm asking if IABU to not want to be associated with it being performed now because of how the wording can be interpreted in today's cultural climate

And I am saying if you don't erroneously interpret it that way then you don't have a problem in the first place. You(and others) have literally invented a problem to campaign against.

you're in a similar vein to those people trying to remove paintings from the Met that are a hundred years old because they don't fit well in the current climate.
It's not ok to treat cultural history like that, to use it to suit your own agendas.

SatsukiKusakabe · 11/12/2017 13:20

I don’t believe I said anything to the contrary. I don’t believe there is something here to be concerned about, not that people can’t be concerned about many things, some smaller than others, yet still relevant.

Making an issue of a song based on a feeling that is not convincingly substantiated by the text or the context is not the most useful line in the sand to draw, in my opinion.

But potato, potato.

Original poster
Whyamistillawake · 11/12/2017 13:24

I don't think it's the same thing at all - I'm talking about a new performance. I don't think that painting causing the controversy should be removed. I wouldnt be happy if my art group (not that I have one!) decided to do an exhibition that included someone's copy of it along with my work. Would you be?

Im not dithering on this because I've been shot down by mumsnet. I'm dithering because a few people who seem to know what they're talking about with choirs have suggested it might be a bigger deal me dropping out than I initially thought and maybe this is something I can just deal with to avoid upsetting others, particularly if I can move myself from the front row so I'm less obvious in how I react and therefore my total enthusiasm is less relevant.

OP posts:
CourtneyLoveIsMySpiritAnimal · 11/12/2017 13:25

To me it still isn't clear what the accepted meaning was (in light of how it was used in the film

Out of interest, have you watched all the film or just the clip?

Original poster
Whyamistillawake · 11/12/2017 13:29

Completely accept just the clip. Does the film drastically change the meaning?

OP posts: