Why, Why, Why?

February 5, 2016 5:25 AM

The shadow leader of the House of Commons, Chris Bryant, has joined calls for the Tom Jones song Delilah to be banned from Six Nations rugby matches because it incites violence against women.

“I have sung Delilah as well, everybody loves doing the ‘She stood there laughing’ moment, but if we are really going to take this issue seriously in Wales, we have to change how we do things,” he said.

posted by Just this guy, y'know (47 comments total)

I honestly did not know the lyrics to this song and just looked them up.

Holy hell what.

Um yeah this is a terrible terrible song for people to be chanting.
posted by like_neon at 5:30 AM on February 5, 2016 [8 favorites]

But the Welsh Rugby Union has defended the song by comparing its subject matter to Shakespearean tragedies like Romeo and Juliet. “Within rugby, Delilah has gained prominence through its musicality rather than because of its lyrics,” a spokesman said. “There is, however, plenty of precedent in art and literature, prominently in Shakespearean tragedies for instance, for negative aspects of life to be portrayed.”

And when you start performing Othello on the pitch at the interval, you can sing the song again.
posted by Rock Steady at 5:37 AM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

Where does Bryant get the idea Delilah's a prostitute? There's nothing in the lyrics to support that view.
posted by Paul Slade at 5:39 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

If there were a sports team out there somewhere that held human sacrifices before every game, somebody would be defending the practice with "BUT IT'S TRADITION".
posted by tobascodagama at 5:39 AM on February 5, 2016 [16 favorites]

"Banned" is a strong word, and implies that Bryant wants the use of the song to be forbidden by law. Is that actually the case here? It doesn't seem that way, and I certainly hope not. It's a very questionable choice of song for this purpose, yes, and I'd be happy to see Six Nations choose something better—but banning it? Perhaps it's a difference in the UK vs. US usage of the word.

But, to play devil's advocate for a moment: is this song really that different than any given traditional murder ballad, aside from having been penned a bit more recently? I mean, context matters, of course, and a traditional murder ballad (particularly one involving the vengeful murder of a woman) might not be a great choice for this purpose either—but murder ballads are regarded (by some) as a cherished part of our folkways, whereas "Delilah" is just some distasteful song about a jealous psychopath killing a woman. What makes the difference?
posted by escape from the potato planet at 5:44 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

You know, I played "Brown Sugar" in a bar band about 50 times before I listened to the lyrics. I'm a little obtuse when it comes to song lyrics, I guess. I was pretty gobsmacked when I realized what the guys were singing.

Now, this song: once Tom Jones or Neil Diamond starts singing I change the radio station, but, looking at the lyrics (She stood there laughing/I felt the knife in my hand and she laughed no more)...WTF?
posted by kozad at 5:47 AM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

You know, I played "Brown Sugar" in a bar band about 50 times before I listened to the lyrics.

Then for heaven's sake don't try to understand the words [SLWiki] to that ripping-guitar 70's masterpiece "Black Betty" [SLYT] by Ram Jam!
posted by wenestvedt at 5:54 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

But, to play devil's advocate for a moment: is this song really that different than any given traditional murder ballad, aside from having been penned a bit more recently?

It's not that different, but I also wouldn't want a group loudly singing "Banks of the Ohio" as part of the celebration of a sporting event. I like murder ballads, but there's difficult content in a lot of them, and this isn't really the context to try appreciating it respectfully.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 5:57 AM on February 5, 2016 [11 favorites]

Talking at the inaugural BBC Music Awards in London, 2014, Tom Jones said:

"If they're looking into the lyric about a man killing a woman, it's not a political statement, it's something that happens in life."
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 6:06 AM on February 5, 2016

So in Wales they sing a murder ballad at rugby games? That's the part that confuses me. What the hell has Delilah got to do with anything?

If they're troubled by the implications, how about singing Michael Martin Murphey's Wildfire? A woman still dies in it, but the singer doesn't murder her. And it's still got fuck all to do with rugby, so that element is preserved.
posted by Naberius at 6:08 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

"Delilah" is just some distasteful song about a jealous psychopath killing a woman.

To be fair, the protagonist is awaiting the police at the end rather than going to Mexico like Joe in 'Hey Joe.'
posted by colie at 6:08 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

It's a very questionable choice of song for this purpose, yes, and I'd be happy to see Six Nations choose something better—but banning it? Perhaps it's a difference in the UK vs. US usage of the word.

I think that a lot of things are banned at UK sporting events, such as racist chants. You may think that people have a right to say whatever they want wherever they want it, but people in the UK disagree. Also, I think this song is at least partly being sung in officially-sanctioned ways: played over the PA system or sung by invited guest artists.

I think it's possible to tell a story without trivializing it or celebrating the outcome, which is hopefully what Shakespearian tragedy and murder ballads do. But I don't think that's really what's going on with sporting chants. Nobody is singing about the murder of this woman and reflecting on the tragedy of her loss or the evils that humans do. At least I don't think they are. Do you?

I sort of wonder if there would be an acceptable compromise that had to do with changing the words, though.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:10 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

I think they sing it because it is one of Tom Jones's most famous songs and Tom Jones is really really Welsh.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 6:11 AM on February 5, 2016 [21 favorites]

"Banned" is a strong word, and implies that Bryant wants the use of the song to be forbidden by law. Is that actually the case here?

No, context leads me to assume he wants it forbidden by sporting body policy. That's not quite the same as law. If they just stopped playing it over the PA and inviting Tom Jones to sing it before matches, that'd be a good start.
posted by Dysk at 6:15 AM on February 5, 2016 [7 favorites]

Maybe they could replace it with The Young New Mexican Puppeteer, which maybe seemed like a less goofy name for a song in the '70s?
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 6:17 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

so this is the US politics equivalent of someone in the Sanders campaign coming out against "we will we will rock you"?

or maybe some minor league team that plays seventh inning Skynyrd?

cuz that seems really self defeating...
posted by ennui.bz at 6:21 AM on February 5, 2016

Would Marty Robbins' El Paso be acceptable? Still a psychopathic killer, but at least he gets it in the end?
posted by Capt. Renault at 6:23 AM on February 5, 2016

Although if this means they switch to What's New, Pussycat?, I have no problem with that.
posted by Grangousier at 6:24 AM on February 5, 2016 [15 favorites]

The Young New Mexican Puppeteer is great, I always thought the song must have been written as some kind of dare to get a ludicrous long title. (Also if anyone hasn't listened to Praise & Blame yet, stop what you're doing and do so now, best thing he's ever done)
posted by Damienmce at 6:24 AM on February 5, 2016

or maybe some minor league team that plays seventh inning Skynyrd?

Comparing the rugby in general and the Six Nations specifically to minor league, particularly in a Welsh context, is so far off base I don't even know how to address it.
posted by Dysk at 6:25 AM on February 5, 2016 [17 favorites]

Jeez, you'd have to ban half of what Johnny Cash ever sung.
posted by waitingtoderail at 6:29 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Jeez, you'd have to ban half of what Johnny Cash ever sung.

No you wouldn't, because they aren't the de facto anthems of any national rugby teams.
posted by Dysk at 6:30 AM on February 5, 2016 [12 favorites]

The politician dude is explicitly saying that domestic violence is being caused by this song being sung. I can't see how he's going to prove that to any degree, rather than if he went for the opinion that it's simply an inappropriate choice of song due to the lyrics dealing with a murder.
posted by colie at 6:33 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

No you wouldn't, because they aren't the de facto anthems of any national rugby teams.


Yes, I know.
posted by waitingtoderail at 6:33 AM on February 5, 2016

I think they sing it because it is one of Tom Jones's most famous songs and Tom Jones is really really Welsh.

Okay, okay, I get that. Tom Jones. Welsher than grape juice. Okay, let me think... Yes! okay, I may have a solution that will make everyone happy.

I mean he specifically says he's not going to do you no harm.
posted by Naberius at 6:35 AM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

The politician dude is explicitly saying that domestic violence is being caused by this song being sung.

That is the byline the Grauniad went with, yes, but his actual statements seem to be more that rugby and the culture around it has a problem with domestic violence (with a vague reference to statistics correlating big rugby fixtures with an increase in domestic violence) and that things like this song are part of that culture, both expressing, normalising, and reinforcing it. Getting rid of it would send a signal and necessarily have to be part of a larger kulturkamp push - "if we are really going to take this issue seriously in Wales, we have to change how we do things" seems to be me to be far more in line with that sort of interpretation than the (admittedly far more click-baity) 'song causes domestic violence' angle.
posted by Dysk at 6:46 AM on February 5, 2016 [20 favorites]

The time-honored tradition for old objectionable songs with great melodies is to rewrite the lyrics. It worked for the Salvation Army when they turned drinking songs into hymns. If they want to keep the tune, keep it, just write new lyrics that are actually about football.
posted by emjaybee at 7:03 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Typical. "Hey, it's a song that promotes violence against women, but it's TRADITIONAL". Yeah, so's violence against women.

I suppose the people here are also supporting the Washington Redskins? Because you know, its traditional.
posted by happyroach at 7:13 AM on February 5, 2016 [5 favorites]

But the song is still played on the radio. It hasn't even gone through the airplay issues that we've had with 'Money for Nothing' or 'Oliver's Army' or 'Hurricane'.
posted by colie at 7:18 AM on February 5, 2016

The time-honored tradition for old objectionable songs with great melodies is to rewrite the lyrics.

Because it'll be easy to get the fans to learn a bunch of new words and of course the crowds won't defiantly sing the old words on top of the new ones, with extra emphasis on the worst bits.
posted by straight at 7:32 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

You could make the new words more fun, easier to remember, and specific to football. There would be holdouts but there would be others who liked them better. I only suggested it because one of the objections was that they didn't want to lose the "catchy melody" and I wanted to point out that there's a very common workaround.

And I don't know about audiences in Wales, but here in the US most people only know the chorus and maybe the first verse of any popular song you sing at ballgames, and they're often fuzzy on those.
posted by emjaybee at 7:36 AM on February 5, 2016

You could make the new words more fun, easier to remember, and specific to football.

That's not going to help it catch on with rugby fans. Not at all.
posted by Dysk at 7:42 AM on February 5, 2016 [9 favorites]

And I don't know about audiences in Wales, but here in the US most people only know the chorus and maybe the first verse of any popular song you sing at ballgames, and they're often fuzzy on those.

I can speak from experience that beyond "why, why, why Delilah", knowledge of lyrics drops off sharply.

In other news, this is a good thing, and it's not like there's a dearth of other rugby songs to replace it.
posted by kalimac at 7:57 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

You know...I'm a woman, I'm a feminist, I like the song, it doesn't make me uncomfortable, I agree that it's basically a typical murder ballad, I don't think it incites or glorifies violence against women--

--and I am 100% okay with deciding not to have it sung at public events like this. It's less about this song and more about making a strong statement to think about what we're saying before we say it. Bryant himself says if we are really going to take this issue seriously in Wales, we have to change how we do things. It's not that he thinks the song is unspeakably offensive, it's about taking violence against women seriously. It's about making it a top-of-mind issue in Wales. I'm cool with that.
posted by capricorn at 8:45 AM on February 5, 2016 [14 favorites]

"Incites violence against women" is a serious accusation. Can Chris Bryant point to any incidents of violence caused by this song? Is he joining calls by actual women who felt threatened by hearing it, or is this just him being sensitive on their behalf?

On preview: capricorn, I disagree that it's "taking violence against women seriously" to look at higher incidents of domestic violence after rugby matches, and decide that the solution is to ban a song. Do you think a ban would do anything to prevent real violence?
posted by Rangi at 8:51 AM on February 5, 2016

"Incites violence against women" is a serious accusation.

If anyone has any actual quotes from Bryant to that effect, I'd love to see them - having read this story in every news outlet I could Google, I can't find any. It seems to me like this is the Guardian (and Telegraph) putting their own spin on this which is rather over-egging the pudding. Bryant's actual words seem to be more in the vein of 'given that rugby has a problem with increased domestic violence, this seems inappropriate'...
posted by Dysk at 9:01 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

The level of incredulity and dismissal in the responses to Bryant--much of it around the Guardian's words, not his--is very telling. Part of the problem of around the trends of violence against women is that there's a ton of cultural artifacts that normalize it. Every time someone starts in with a position like "OMG it's just one song, get over yourselves!" or "but does it really matter?" it's just another, well, brick in the wall.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:09 AM on February 5, 2016 [12 favorites]

Would Marty Robbins' El Paso be acceptable? Still a psychopathic killer, but at least he gets it in the end?

The implication in Delilah is that the guy expects the same for himself. (Plus Marty Robbins doesn't kill the object of his affection, so he's got that going for him.)

PLUS, and only for the record, the lyrics were written by Barry Mason.
posted by BWA at 9:36 AM on February 5, 2016

I disagree that it's "taking violence against women seriously" to look at higher incidents of domestic violence after rugby matches, and decide that the solution is to ban a song. Do you think a ban would do anything to prevent real violence?

It would be good if he could explicitly say this is a symbolic move. "We're going to talk explicitly about the problem of domestic violence, put the issue front and center. We're even gonna change the songs we sing as an expression of our commitment to change the culture that sees violence against women as acceptable." Symbols are important.
posted by straight at 9:37 AM on February 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

and then there's Not Responsible
posted by philip-random at 9:57 AM on February 5, 2016

Bryant's actual words seem to be more in the vein of 'given that rugby has a problem with increased domestic violence, this seems inappropriate'...

Which is fair enough. It's just that the song isn't actually about domestic violence - it's a straightforward jealous lovers' tragedy. And as such it's much less shocking than, say, Kylie Minogue and Nick Cave's 'Wild Rose'. If the song doesn't contribute to increased violence in itself and isn't banned on the radio, it's a hard sell to put banning it at rugby games at the forefront of efforts to deal with that social problem.
posted by colie at 10:20 AM on February 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

capricorn, I disagree that it's "taking violence against women seriously" to look at higher incidents of domestic violence after rugby matches, and decide that the solution is to ban a song. Do you think a ban would do anything to prevent real violence?

No, I think it does something to call attention to real violence.
posted by capricorn at 10:40 AM on February 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

Or, what straight said.
posted by capricorn at 10:43 AM on February 5, 2016

It's just that the song isn't actually about domestic violence - it's a straightforward jealous lovers' tragedy.

Man kills his wife - that's not domestic violence??

And as such it's much less shocking than, say, Kylie Minogue and Nick Cave's 'Wild Rose'.

...which isn't a song regularly sung at the rugby, with which increases in domestic violence are correlated. Nobody is asking for the song to be banned from radio play our removed from the public record, just for it not to be a Welsh rugby anthem. You know, like Wild Rose isn't.
posted by Dysk at 11:42 AM on February 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

Which is fair enough. It's just that the song isn't actually about domestic violence - it's a straightforward jealous lovers' tragedy.

Seriously? Is that your argument? I'd really like to hear the distinction you make between domestic violence and a jealous lover's tragedy. I'm sure there's a lot of guys out there who would love to use it in their defense.
posted by happyroach at 12:44 PM on February 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

They've just got nothing more important to do in parliament; That's all!
posted by Burn_IT at 3:19 PM on February 5, 2016

Guys, it's okay--Delilah is fine, she just moves to New York City.

Dude still sings creepy songs obsessing about her, but he's a thousand miles away.
posted by Pryde at 4:11 PM on February 5, 2016