Young Voices 2010/11 - CD2 Track 17 - Disgraceful Songs

[RangTang4]

My DD came home on Thursday night with a CD containing all the lyrics for the Young Voices Concert taking place this year. One track called 'Pop Medley' contains the most horrendously inappropriate lyrics for young voices, of which there will be 90,000 taking part. The lyrics mention 'guns' 'bad romance', 'taking risks', 'lovers revenge', plus lots of bad boys, bad boys bad boys.....!!!!' The literature that comes with the CD asks parents to help their offspring learn the lyrics - over my dead body.
This track in my humble opinion has to be withdrawn immediately unless of course we wish to remain number two in the world for teenage pregnancies. Have a look for yourself at www.youngvoices.co.uk
I only played the CD once but now my three year old boy is singing the mentionned words. My daughter of course loves it and keeps on singing it too.I dont suppose anyone has Michael Gove's email address? Needless to say my daughter will not be attending. I feel I am going to have to seek legal advice. I have emailed the organisation asking for a recall. When I think of all the beautiful love songs they could be singing and they have chosen cheap 'on trend' trashy lyrics, my heart bleeds.

"Is anyone out there familiar with 'the man on the clapman omnibus test' for reasonableness"

Um, yes.

If you look at the replies you've had on this thread, you'll get a fair idea of what the man on the clapham omnibus might think...

Oh do behave.

You are now actively baiting tokyo; Not particularly Christian is it? Although I guess that "turn the other cheek" isn't quite as satisfying as "an eye for an eye" is it?

There is a Dadsnet - I don't go over there much because they're men and therefor their inteeligence far outweighs mine. I don't think I'd understand their posts TBH.

My grandad once had Tom Jones do an act in the club that he workedat, this was years ago, before he was famous and because of this I happen to be the Queen of the Internet.

I once dated the son of a famous west indian cricket captain. He was gorgeous.

Oh well as they say its the hand that rocks the cradle no wonder we are in such a mess.

I am sure Les wouldnt have had his children singing dodgy song lyrics he was a gentlemen - he was going to come along and sing at my parents silver wedding - but my mum thought he was too course so she divorsed him.....!!!

Rang Tang - you are coming over as a bit of a loon , which is a shame, because I think your basic point is a good one. It's fair enough that kids will learn these sort of songs in the playground, and that projects aimed at older children might include them because of familiarity / engaging etc, but if an organised music project was teaching these sorts of songs to my 5 year old, I would remove her from the project and complain.

I rock the cradle to a bit of Lady Gaga, so I agree, that the future is looking bleak.

I once met Billy Connolley and he told me about a woman he had met who had been pierced down there. He said following her to the dance floor she sounded like she had a pocketful of loose change.

RangTang
If you have used (or at least lurked) on MN for a while then I am surprised that you did not get the impression that there would be little support for this OP. Aside from the smug little namedrops, you do come across as terribly ernest.

While it is admirable that you feel strongly about this issue, and wish to alert others to the perceived dangers, you must see that not everyone is going to agree with you. And that references to teenage pregnancies etc. only weaken your argument.

If you had posted, "DD came home with this CD and I am concerned about the language, and the sexual references. What can I do about it? Does anyone feel the same way?", the responses would have been very different.

And I ROFLed at Pott Shrigly too, btw.

Michael Ball went to my school and DH knew Ben Miller slightly at university. Despite this I know of no links between teenage pregnancy rates and pop lyrics.

Thanks I will think about this for next time.

I came home didnt bother telling my husband becuase he would just say get a job and then you would have something better to fill your time with.

I was in a rage about the lyrics,next time I will just tell my mothers prayer group.

Enjoy the concert if you go.

TTFN

ps what does this mean
''
And I ROFLed at Pott Shrigley too?''

What the heck i will go to the concert - I will be wearing the 'dont pimp my boy - he is not bad it is I who is mad'' teeshirt -

spot me off a mile but I wont bring my daughter. DH can look after the children it will be a night out.

"If the Human Rights Act can allow foreign rapists and murderers to stay in this country and Eastern European to illegally squat in other people's homes, I am going to check what human rights our young children are afforded as they to me are more vulnerable and deserving that the above two categories."

It's funny how you've "worked for several years in the legal industry working with the Top 100 law firms", yet it seemed to have passed you by that squatting is not actually illegal.

"Is there a dadsnet - I doubt it, men are not as stupid as us"

know your limits

that's all

You have really stretched your brain cell with a name like yours.

No wonder 80% prefer to work for a man.

Like the rest of us I cannot for the life of me see why squatting is illegal.

That poor woman who cannot get in her house.

I suppose you are going to tell me turn the other cheek. What about the nasty money lenders in his Father's house - did he turn the other cheek like hell he did.

whoops that should say legal.

"I suppose you are going to tell me turn the other cheek. What about the nasty money lenders in his Father's house - did he turn the other cheek like hell he did."

Indeed. Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15 and whatever it is in Luke do indeed refer to violence by Jesus - the only such incident in the New Testament. Do you think that indicates that Jesus is showing that violence as a means to deal with problems is universally acceptable, or is it perhaps more a sign that exceptional situations (the profanation of a temple) require exceptional responses? Or is it perhaps a story that shows that in the face of grave provocation, even Jesus was unable to be peaceful, and that sometimes we have to be strong to resist the temptation to violence, a strength that here Jesus could not show?

It certainly isn't, I would suggest, a universal lesson in how violence leads to good outcomes. And for that one story, there are endless stories that show precisely the opposite. In the case of squatting, I would point to Luke 6:27-31 - as you appear to have some problems with using chapter and verse references, I'll provide the text:

"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you."

Now, perhaps you could explain to me, in your own time, why as a Christian you think that squatting is not precisely covered in the imprecation "If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.". Whilst you're complaining about how evil squatting is (especially by foreigners, for some reason, which means you presumably haven't read Luke 10:25-37), could you tell me how you square that with Jesus's teaching?

Mumi

''It's funny how you've "worked for several years in the legal industry working with the Top 100 law firms", yet it seemed to have passed you by that squatting is not actually illegal.''

There are other (better paid)jobs in the legal industry.

I wasn't a lawyer I was an Associate Director in an software development company thats how I came to meet Noddy and Ken.

Noddy who?

and which Ken?

I think you should go to the concert dressed like this:
not a loon at all

Bramshott you said it better than I could. I actually supported the original premise but things have descended into the comical.
Rang - get a grip.

I think basically that Jesus was so mad with the way those people were treating his Father's divine house that he just let them have it.

Just like God let us have it in the old testament time and time again. Noah being a prime example.

It was an isolated incidence you are right.

Jesus was the most perfect human being - I sadly am not I am a sinner and I know this.

So what you're trying to say is that your mention of your profession was completely irrelevant to your earlier point that you were attempting to support with it anyway. I see.

Forget all that, who are Noddy and Ken?

Is it like Noddy and BigEars? Because my uncle used to go out drinking with them and he said that Noddy was a bit of a gambler and BigEars had to bail him out a couple of times, which casued some resentment obviously.

Ken is, of course, from Ken and Barbie.