Although a very lovely song, I can't help but wonder if there isn't a double meaning to get passed the censors.

"Today while the blossoms still cling to the vine
I´ll taste your strawberries, I´ll drink your sweet wine
A million tomorrows shall all pass away
Ere I forget all the joy that is mine today

I´ll be a dandy and I´ll be a rover
You´ll know who I am by the song that I sing
I´ll feast at your table, I´ll sleep in your clover
Who cares what the morrow shall bring?"

From: Today by Randy Sparks

It's clearly a metaphor for
an erotic, sensuous relationship. Why do you think it needs censoring? Let him rest his head between her hillocks and plumb her well.

Ah, censorship! We've come a long way.

In the late 50's or early 60's The Kingston Trio had a hit with "Greenback Dollar" which contained the line "And I don't give a damn about a greenback dollar." The first time my mother heard this on the radio she was shocked at the fact that such language was broadcast. It truly upset her.

She died young and, in some ways, I can't help but see a silver lining in the fact that she's not here to witness what is broadcast today. Some 15 or 20 years ago, Lou Reed's immortal "Walk on the Wild Side" (a personal favorite) contained the surprisingly candid lyric "And she never lost her head even when she was givin' head, she said 'Hey, Babe! Take a walk on the wild side!'" Tasting stawberries and drinking metaphorical sweet wine is one thing but how did Lou Reed ever get that song on the radio??! This is one reason I always crack up when, for example, Jerry Fallwell froths at the mouth about one of the Teletubbies supposedly being gay. I say "Hey, Jerry! Take a walk on the wild side!"

And today, of course, write or sing something along the lines of "Yo, Bitch! Do me!!" and the unwashed masses will scream and applaud you for your tender love ballad. I MUCH prefer the good ol' "strawberry days"!

Also, as a sidenote, I went up on Morgan's referenced site and noticed that the piece was by "Minstrels' Randy Parks" as apposed to "Minstrels's's's Randy Parks," but that's another matter entirely...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
...an erotic, sensuous relationship. ...and plumb her well.

---

Second point first: Asa, are you using "well" as a noun or an adverb? For her sake, I hope it's the latter.

First point second: Not to be pedantic (although when has that ever stopped any of us before??) but I assume you are referring to an erotic, sensual relationship. "Sensual" = sexy, "sensuous" = having senses. My dog is sensual although I would never say so publicly seeing as how so many people confuse the two terms. The easiest to remember the difference is to simply recall that the person who wrote "The Sensuous Woman" got it wrong.

Yes, I noticed that, for a change, a US writer had managed to get the plural possessive right. Of course, the fact that the word "minstrel" doesn't end in "s" probably helped. (I am assuming, since I don't know, that the "Randy Parks - whatever or whoever they might be - belong to the troup of minstrels. If I'm wrong then I assume someone will correct me.)

However. I still don't hold out too much hope for future accuracy in this regard since the presumed complexities of what is, in truth, a very simple rule do seem to elude some people's comprehension.

Richard English

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard English:
If I'm wrong then I assume someone will correct me.

---

Me!! ME!! Teacher, call on me! I know this one!!

Yes, R.E., there is a Santa Claus. The also is (or, at this point I'm pretty sure, was) a group called the "Minstrels," hence my delight at seeing the apostrophization as it was on that site.

This is becoming part obsession, part an absolute hoot! Every time I see an "s'" plural possessive, I think of you. Tell you what, let's make a deal: I'll stop voicing my opinion that German beers are superior to their English counterparts if you'll concede that any sub-division of English writers (i.e. US English) has the right to alter the language to fit their own needs or tastes regardless of whether or not it fits the logic of other groups (UK English).

Altogether now!:
"We are the wo-o-o-orld!!
"We are the children!!"

P.S.
It's not well known but while Randy Parks has written a fair number of first rate songs, he also wrote the background music for a number of similarly successful TV commercials.

Sorry, no deal.

Extended to the ultimate that could mean that someone could say, for instance, that he was going to decide to use any word or construction to mean anything he wished.

So the expression, say, "These boots are Killing me" could mean "I like the look of that house". Or even that "bddhetuahbemnb hpoppwioejfn yhht" means I like German beer".

Language changes and so do its rules. However, while the rules are there they should be adhered to since this will help ensure clarity.

Since I have no idea who or what is or are "Minstrels' Randy Parks" I cannot say whether or not the expression is correctly punctuated or spelt. As it is written it implies some Randy Parks belonging to the Minstrels. If that's not what the term means then my point is made. Inaccurate punctuation has led to misunderstanding.

If the expression does not mean what I infer, then please tell me what the it means and I'll punctuate it correctly.

In the meantime I'll do my own research to see if I can discover who or what they are.

Richard English

Having checked the site referred to I find the matter resolved.

The quotation CJ made was incomplete, inaccurate and thus unclear. The full quotation is, "...Words and Music by Minstrels´leader Randy Sparks...".

In other words, Randy Sparks (not Parks) is the leader of the Minstrels - who are, I assume, a perfoming group. Since the word Minstrels is a plural it was made possessive (as it should be since he is the leader of the Minstrels) by the addition of an apostrophe after the final "s". Nowhere will you have seen me suggest any other formation, try as you may.

Had there been only the one minstrel, then "Minstrel's" would have been correct. There are no alternative constructions - certainly not the multi-apostrophised horror that CJ used (I assume humourously).

There is no difference in the rules of UK and US English in this regard.

Richard English

[This message was edited by Richard English on Sun Dec 29th, 2002 at 5:11.]

quote:

---

"Sensual" = sexy, "sensuous" = having senses.

---

My Oxford dictionary has a broader definiton of 'sensuous' than you do, CJ. It says: sensuous= affecting, noticed by or giving pleasure to the senses: The sensuous appeal of her painting; his full sensuous lips; as she danced she swayed her hips sensuously.

I gather this to mean that something that is 'sensual' (erotic) can also be 'sensuous' (pleasing to the senses) and viceversa.

I gather this to mean that something that is 'sensual' (erotic) can also be
'sensuous' (pleasing to the senses) and viceversa.
********************************************
CJ, the Muse has my meaning down pat. I did say both erotic and sensual, so I thought that the meaning was clear that one who uses his senses fully would be much more inclined to metaphor, to compare a lover's various parts to other non-sexual delights such as strawberries. As for the part of speech of "well," I had intended the double enterdre. More of that metaphoric stuff, you know.
:eek

I took the "Minstrals," as a group, to be a singular noun which, ending in "S" would take the hated (by UK standards) S-apostrophe possessive.

I do admit to confusing Randy Parks (the songwriter and TV commercial tunesmith) with Randy Sparks (whom I couldn't pick out of a police line-up if he were the only one standing there) but I assume you'll forgive me for what I would judge to be an understandable slip on my part.

Good news! This my absolute last posting regarding the difference between UK and US English regarding the S-apostrophe vs.
S-apostrophe-S issue. It's tedious and boring and pointless.

I'm glad about that since, as all style books agree, there is no difference between UK and US use. The only difference is between correct and incorrect.

Richard English

I return to the subject of how to make writing sensuous while avoiding those who would be censorous. Here are some of the lyrics of In My Merry Oldsmobile (1905) a song that was very popular in the early days of automobiling.

quote:

---

They love to spark in the dark old park, as they go flying along,
She says she knows why his motor goes; his sparker’s awfully strong.

[Chorus] ... To the church we’ll swiftly steal,
Then our wedding bells will peal,
You can go as far you like with me,
In my merry Oldsmobile.

When I pull the throttle out ...

---

The automobile was of course the mobile boudoir, where "belles will peel".

Was that the record that was given free with every new Oldsmobile? Or am I thinking of a different one?

Richard English

In 1905? I can't say that I know.

The story, as I heard it, was that a certain car manufacturer gave away a free record with each new car. Because the records were never sold and their production was thus limited to the number of cars sold during the promotion, and also because most of those who received one just drove away in the new car and binned the record, surviving copies of this record are now very rare and valuable.

In the story I heard, a comparison was drawn between Caruso records which, by contrast, have very little worth simply because so many thousands were sold and most of them were kept.

If the Oldsmobile song was popular, then it was probably another manufacturer's promotion.

Richard English

Aha! Now I know where we get the phrase "record-breaking sales!"

Now I know where we get the phrase "record-breaking sales!"
**************************************
Yahbut... In 1905, the recording would have likely been made on a tin cylinder. One could have squashed it, but not broken it. Somehow, record-squashing sales just doesn't sound right!

Speaking of "record," whence comes the name of the flute commonly called a recorder? Muse, please go ask your sister, Terpsichore!

In fact, although Edison's orginal phonograph used a tinfoil cylinder this was experimental and very few of those recordings exist and , sadly, not Edison's very first one - Mary had a little lamb.

By 1905 the recording industry was quite large and commercial records were readily available. At that time they were usually cylinders - but made of wax, not tinfoil. They were very fragile and could be broken easily - I know, I've broken some!

The disc record was invented by Emile Berliner in, I think 1899 but in its original form offered poorer sound quality and the cylinder phonograph thus remained the favourite system for some time.

Eventually, with the advent of better manufacturing techniques the disc, with its advantage of much cheaper production (multiple copies could be pressed from a mould made from one original rather than each copy having to be separately recorded) won the day and by the 1920s the cylider phonograph was almost extinct. I had a disc that was made during the First World War (around 1915, I suspect) by the Jumbo company which purported to be a recording of "Our Tommies in the trenches" - although it was obviously made in the studio.

The car promotional record I speak of was a disc, I do know that.

Richard English