Christina Aguilera's video to Candyman! Wow.

GOK · Feb 26, 2007

Wow!

I've always liked Christina - not all of her music but the personality, the looks, the style, the videos. Candyman is great! I love everything about it and I don't think she's too thin - she has a gorgeous bod! Heck, I wouldn't complain if I looked like that! lol

I'm tempted to go along to my local library and borrow the Back to Basics CD now.

Lady Day · Feb 26, 2007

VictorAtomic said:
Im not a big fan of hers but I have been shown MANY clips of her singing courtesy of my other half and shes no joke. Im actually being invited to go see her here in Los Angeles and Im looking forward to it.

ohh.
Its ment to be censored out in all versions

btw

-V. ( Im new here, Hello Everyone!)

Thats lame. I dont like censored tunes. People seem to think I was in a huff when I cited that lyric. Not at all. Im not a fan, but when I heard it, I smiled at it. I thought it was a bit clever.

LD

Bill O'Rights · Feb 27, 2007

VictorAtomic said:
Im not a big fan of hers but I have been shown MANY clips of her singing courtesy of my other half and shes no joke. Im actually being invited to go see her here in Los Angeles and Im looking forward to it.

Oh, by all means. Her first album was a little to..."poppy" for my taste. Stripped was...well...yeah.

But Back to Basics lets her showcase her voice, in a genre that I can at least kind of relate to.
We went to see her show when she was in Omaha, on the 23rd. It was a very good time. The girl's got talent, there's no doubt about that. I'm likin' the new direction.

Oh...and when you go...get there about 45 minutes to an hour late. She has Danity Kane, and the Pussycat Dolls opening for her.
The Pussycat Dolls are entertaining because...well...we know why they're entertaining.

But, Danity Kane? Don't waste your time.

Marc Chevalier · Feb 27, 2007

LolitaHaze said:
Thank you for saying this!!! People seem to forget that people where dirty perverts in the 40's too!

Boy, were they. In World War II, people played it fast and loose. Lots of infidelity, etc...

I once read the unpublished diary of a WWII airman. What he did stateside with teenage girls and the wives of overseas servicemen is w-a-y beyond the scope of this Lounge.

.

Hemingway Jones · Feb 27, 2007

Marc Chevalier said:
LolitaHaze said:

Thank you for saying this!!! People seem to forget that people where dirty perverts in the 40's too!

Click to expand...

Boy, were they. In World War II, people played it fast and loose. Lots of infidelity, etc...

I once read the unpublished diary of a WWII airman. What he did stateside with teenage girls and the wives of overseas servicemen is w-a-y beyond the scope of this Lounge.

.

Well, I think it's beside the point. It's not about what happened, but what was once socially acceptable. Incidental behavior never changes, but the parameters of what is considered deviant behavior sure have, at least in some quarters.

Now, back on topic: the song is derivative of The Andrews Sisters and thank heavens for that; perhaps it will introduce their catchy melodies and harmonies to a new generation (I was introduced to them at an early age through Abbott and Costello, ‚ÄúBuck Privates,‚Äù I think). There are worst quarters to draw your inspiration from than The Andrews Sisters.

The song is catchy and fun. She is attractive and has an excellent voice; probably the best of the Mouseketeer crowd. The lyrics are cheeky, but so were Cole Porter‚Äôs (though I hesitate to make that comparison!).

So, I‚Äôll take this Neo-swing over hip-hop any day.

That's just my opinion and I could be wrong.

Marc Chevalier · Feb 27, 2007

Hemingway Jones said:
It's not about what happened, but what was once socially acceptable.

I'd argue the opposite. What actually happened was the truth; what was socially acceptable ended up being fictional, since it didn't jibe with what happened, let alone prevent it from happening.

Anyway, back to the thread. Christina Aguilera's voice is a force of nature! Her vocal chords blow away Beyonce's. She'll be around for years to come (I hope).

.

Hemingway Jones · Feb 27, 2007

Marc Chevalier said:
I'd argue the opposite. What actually happened is the truth; what was socially acceptable ended up being toothless, since it didn't jibe with what happened, let alone prevent it from happening.

.

If it's truth you're seeking, I would suggest a philosophy class.

What I am saying is that sexuality is best kept to oneself. There has been a decided shift to a more overt and promoted sexuality these days. It's better to keep these things private, as they once were kept; not repressed, but kept modestly.

And tying it back to the video, what she is doing would not have been promoted publicly.

But I'll the folks decide.

Marc Chevalier · Feb 27, 2007

You're right: I could have worded it better. What I probably should have said was, "What actually happened was the unvarnished state of affairs."

I understand that you are talking about ideals and morals. It's true that some of these have changed or been cast aside. But I wonder, what is the use of ideals and morals if people don't behave according to them, as many did not in the World War II era? Today we don't shake hands with the preacher, we just fool around; back then, folks shook hands with the preacher and then fooled around anyway.

As for the video, it seems to me a tarted-up parody of the Andrews Sisters. It's deliberately corny, but not maliciously so. And this makes sense, since the Andrews Sisters must seem very corny indeed to most of today's kids.

.

Hemingway Jones · Feb 27, 2007

Marc Chevalier said:
You're right: I could have worded it better. What I probably should have said was, "What actually happened was the unvarnished state of affairs."

I understand that you are talking about ideals and morals. It's true that some of these have changed or been cast aside. But I wonder, what is the use of ideals and morals if people don't behave according to them, as many did not in the World War II era? Today we don't shake hands with the preacher, we just fool around; back then, folks shook hands with the preacher and then fooled around anyway.

.

The difference is it was not thrust into your face. If you chose to live differently, you weren't bombarded by it through society. People who chose to be obvious were chastized for it, though, ironically enough, probably by some people doing the same thing.

I suppose it all goes back to privacy and modesty.

carebear · Feb 27, 2007

Marc Chevalier said:
You're right: I could have worded it better. What I probably should have said was, "What actually happened was the unvarnished state of affairs." .

Wouldn't that be a tautology?

...to avoid castigation for not adding anything useful

It's not even that things weren't mentioned, they were referenced but briefly and obliquely.

Hard-boiled fiction dealt with the same topics, they just didn't have the implied sex scene take two pages to actually describe. Off-color references in popular songs were a step more obscure, that sort of thing. The girl is still describing the same effect the boy is having, she just isn't actually saying exactly what is going on, unlike today.

Whats changed isn't the topics themselves but the level of detail. Which I think is slightly different than modesty. But I'll have to think how.

Marc Chevalier · Feb 27, 2007

carebear said:
Wouldn't that be a tautology?

You catch on fast!

.

Marc Chevalier · Feb 27, 2007

Ah, but take a look at the cartoons in 1930s issues of Esquire. Lots of nude bosoms ... lots. More than Christina shows.

.

LolitaHaze · Feb 27, 2007

I agree with Marc and Carebear. It was there. I also believe that if music videos were around back then... the cheekiness of Christina's Candyman would have been in the public eye. Many of the members in here need to take off their rose colored 40's glasses and realize that sexuality was just as prevalent then as it is now... technology is what is catching up making it easily accessible to everyone. Just watch pre-code films... people were exposed to "the immoral beasts" all the time in the form of entertainment. And they loved it. Don't forget in your idealized moral 40's society... the generations before them looked down on them for showing too much ankle, wearing too much of that harlot paint and for driving fast in their race-cars. Stop looking to the movies as how life was in the 40's. They were fake.

carebear · Feb 27, 2007

I think that Hem is correct though.

The difference between today and yesteryear isn't that things were "better" or "worse" but perhaps that things were more contextualized.

As Marc points out, "men's magazines" had nudie cartoons and pictures of women in their underwear, as Hem points out, the front page of the local newspaper did not. All the world of sexuality was available, you just had to go looking for it, it wasn't thrust upon you.

Nowadays that is not necessarily the case. The bar of what is "appropriate" in more generally available and public contexts has been moved (lowered implies badly, so just moved).

Whether that is "healthy openness replacing repression and hypocricy" or "crassness and licentiousness invading public life" or some viewpoint in between, comes down to personal morality and societal tolerance.

herringbonekid · Feb 27, 2007

this sort of mall-bright chirpy pop confection makes me feel nauseous at the best of times. that it is referencing music and styles from one of my favourite decades is like some sort of very elaborate torture method.

Marc Chevalier · Feb 27, 2007

herringbonekid said:
this sort of mall-bright chirpy pop confection makes me feel nauseous at the best of times. that it is referencing music and styles from one of my favourite decades is like some sort of very elaborate torture method.

I kind of feel this way, too. I enjoy the original musical shorts of the era more.

.

carebear · Feb 27, 2007

herringbonekid said:
this sort of mall-bright chirpy pop confection makes me feel nauseous at the best of times. that it is referencing music and styles from one of my favourite decades is like some sort of very elaborate torture method.

Weren't the Andrews Sisters bright, chirpy pop(ular music)? Three-part harmony does not "serious music" necessarily make.

If malls existed in the era you don't think young music acts would be showcased there? At least then the mall would be full of circle skirts and fedoras, when the music started the aisles would be filled with dancing teens, not grumpy-faced slouchy ones.

I can agree the video wouldn't be the way it is, but the music itself wouldn't lead to rotten veggie throwing.

LolitaHaze · Feb 27, 2007

This is what I mean by rose colored glasses... anytime anyone disagrees with what a higher up says, the thread is closed, put on moderation, or banned. I understand wanting to stay on topic, I completely do and will do that after this, but when something is put on a moderation before anyone can defend their postion -- that just gets annoying. We all know that a seperate thread on the sexual morals of the 40's would never be allowed. I am not saying that the opinions of others who disagree with my opinions are wrong. I don't think anyone is a bad person for what they think... I just hope people realize that their facts are candy coated just as mine are perversed. I would love to live in a society that matched the ones that you talk about, but it is my opinion that it never exsisted. But just like you said, nothing I can say will change your mind. The only difference is you can say your peace, but I can't say mine.

Hemingway Jones said:
I hate to pull moderator's prerogative here, but I am going to.
Let's keep this on topic and state our opinions of the video and keep the social commentary to a minimum.

Back to Christina...

herringbonekid · Feb 27, 2007

carebear said:
Weren't the Andrews Sisters bright, chirpy pop(ular music)? T

yes. they were kitsch in a GOOD way.

Hemingway Jones · Feb 27, 2007

LolitaHaze said:
This is what I mean by rose colored glasses... anytime anyone disagrees with what a higher up says, the thread is closed, put on moderation, or banned. I understand wanting to stay on topic, I completely do and will do that after this, but when something is put on a moderation before anyone can defend their postion -- that just gets annoying. We all know that a seperate thread on the sexual morals of the 40's would never be allowed. I am not saying that the opinions of others who disagree with my opinions are wrong. I don't think anyone is a bad person for what they think... I just hope people realize that their facts are candy coated just as mine are perversed. I would love to live in a society that matched the ones that you talk about, but it is my opinion that it never exsisted. But just like you said, nothing I can say will change your mind. The only difference is you can say your peace, but I can't say mine.

Back to Christina...

Dearest Lolita,

Nothing is banned or closed, and your defense or your position stands and is as quoted above. You are right that sexual discussions have no place on the Lounge, which is just the sort of thing I am trying to avoid here. However, once again, if you cannot see a difference between the way that sexuality was presented in the popular media in the 1940s and now, then what can I or anyone else say? For better or worse, that is just how it was then and how it is now. The differences are simply self-evident, and I am saying this devoid of any judgment or statement of preferences on my part.

If you want to speak more about it, then be my guest. Your input is always appreciated here, and I no sooner think your facts are ‚Äúperverse‚Äù as I believe my own to be ‚Äúcandy coated.‚Äù

High regards,
HJ

Christina Aguilera's video to Candyman! Wow.

One Too Many

I'll Lock Up

New in Town

Gone Home

I'll Lock Up

Gone Home

I'll Lock Up

Gone Home

I'll Lock Up

My Mail is Forwarded Here

Gone Home

Gone Home

Call Me a Cab

My Mail is Forwarded Here

I'll Lock Up

Gone Home

My Mail is Forwarded Here

Call Me a Cab

I'll Lock Up

I'll Lock Up

Similar threads

Log in

Forum statistics