On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 10:58 AM, David Bruggeman <[email protected]> wrote:
> To widen the conversation, would similarly themed play-on music for > non-political candidates make a difference for anyone in the conversation? > The coverage of this incident has included some notes about other cases. > The one political incident was when Branford Marsalis opted for "So What?" > when Ross Perot visited Jay. I believe ?uestlove had opted for "Da Butt" > for Serena Williams. Not necessarily rude, as I don't know how Ms. > Williams feels about it. Playing "Loser" for the celebrity trainwreck of > Heidi and Spencer is arguably of a kind with "Lyin' Ass Bitch" > > Cutting to the chase - Is it the "Lyin'", the "Bitch", the tone, the > office, or the whole thing that matters here? > > Donz, has Paul ever been considered to cross the line in his selections? > While I'm sure the other late night bandleaders put some thought into the > tunes for their guests (depending on their clearance budget - Jimmy Vivino > probably doesn't worry about this), it seems that only Shaffer and > ?uestlove go to the lengths they have. > For me the problem is really with calling a woman who comes as a guest on your show a bitch. I guess I could see how certain celebrities, perhaps those who cultivate a "bitch" persona, (maybe someone like Kathy Griffin) might have fun with a play-on song like that, but when it is aimed at someone who clearly would not appreciate it, or aimed in anger and disrespect, then I think it enters the region of "uncool". I don't have a problem with any of the examples you mention above, which I think were all more or less playful, and I think I mentioned earlier in the thread that I liked how Paul dealt with Cain last week, which I think Cain himself would have laughed at (it did not seem like it registered with him at the time). These are obviously judgement calls - and I don't think the offense rises past the level of a TV Show misdemeanor. I would certainly rather see the shows play with the line, and occasionally cross over it, then impose a tame homogeneity. But if you play close to the line you have to expect to sometimes cross over it, and when you do I don't see what the big humiliation is in just acknowledging that, apologizing and then moving on. I had a group of kids over playing the other day with my son - they were goofing around in the living room, making fun of various dancers, and one kid's stray, flailing arm hit another kid in the nose. There was a moment of tension, and then the first kid just said "sorry - that was an accident" - the other kid said okay, and they all went back to goofing off. I guess I could have either said "you have nothing to apologize for - if he doesn't want to get punched in the nose once in a while he should not be over playing", or "that's it, everyone stop goofing off and sit quietly on the couch", but it seemed best to just have the first kid apologize and then everyone go back to playing - perhaps at least for a few minutes a little more aware of possibly hurting each other. I don't see much difference here. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
