Entertainment desk
< April 22	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 23

1970s disco hit

I need help identifying a disco hit from the late 1970s, but only have vague information to go on so hope someone can identify it. It was based, I believe, on a piece of classical music, starts off slowly with an organ before speeding up into a regular disco beat. It was a hit in about 1978 or 1979. Sorry I can't be more specific. Thanks 86.149.158.90 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it A Fifth of Beethoven? --Jayron32 18:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked it up on YouTube and sadly it's not that one, but Walter Murphy looks promising as the possible artist as I see he recorded a lot of classical disco hits. Had forgotten that one though so thanks for reminding me. The organ from the intro of the song I'm thinking of sounded almost like it was being played in a Cathedral or large concert hall. 86.149.158.90 (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A piece of amazingly good luck. It's Toccata And Funk In D Minor but the version here sounds slightly different to the one I remember. Did anyone else record a disco version apart from Walter Murphy? 86.149.158.90 (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well now, more luck. It's a version by Sky I was thinking of, although I had it in mind the intro was an organ piece when it actually sounds more stringy. Haven't heard it for years though. Thanks for helping me to find the answer, albeit indirectly. 86.149.158.90 (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Movies question

Is it officially allowed to speak a taboo words like 'fuck' or 'asshole' to speak in any kind of Hollywood movie?Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 19:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Officially allowed" by whom? I've heard many Hollywood movies using such language. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Officially allowed" by government or censor boardMax Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is allowed in the U.S. There is no government censorship of movies. Most movies are given a rating by the MPAA rating system, and the rating is based on content. A few movies are released without a rating. RudolfRed (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a valuable rating system, as it prevents me from accidentally viewing any movie which isn't rated NC-17. :-) StuRat (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

As that article says, "fuck" isn't usually allowed in films for children under 13, but this is a commercial restriction based on what cinemas will show (and what parents will allow), not a legal prohibition. The USA also has obscenity laws though these don't prevent swearing or bad language - the article is quite detailed about cases where material has been prosecuted, and it tends to be either pornographic images or textual descriptions of child abuse. Even films like The Aristocrats, with the filthiest language imaginable, are legal. Until recently, the worst swearing was absolutely prohibited on network television with fines for breaking the ban (see Seven dirty words) but recently standards have relaxed a little[1]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "censorship" of entertainment in the U.S., the only federally-mandated language and nudity censorship is for over-the-air broadcast media under the santion of the Federal Communication Commission, which only covers over-the-air TV and radio, and only over the hours of 6AM - 10PM. Overnight, the FCC established a Safe harbor where over-the-air broadcasters may show nudity and/or swear words; famously the TV show NYPD Blue did so with some regularity. Other forms of media, including cable broadcasting, satellite radio, movies and DVD/recorded media, there are very few restrictions. Which is not to say that anything goes; there are industry-imposed standards, such as the aforementioned MPAA for movies, or the ESRB for video games. Also, for cable and broadcast TV channels, each network has its own office of Standards and Practices which regulates their own content under a regime of "self-censorship", similar to the MPAA and ESRB. --Jayron32 03:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Bully_(2011_film)#MPAA_Rating. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An equally interesting matter is what is allowed on TV. See You go to a movie, it has an R rating and You pay your money as a grown adult, they can put what ever they want in it, since supposedly children are not watching. Of course when the same movie is put on cable type TV (HBO, Sky, etc.,) then it may be uncut, but if so, shown only at certain times so the kids might not see - assuming parents are monitoring things. Here in NZ we had local and foreign ( US, UK, etc ) films in cinema and not too many bans - I recall the Exterminator was banned here for some years before being finally allowed in, but up until 1996 the f word was rarely heard on normal TV, then for some reason everything changed. Now before then You could get it on Sky Movies, but now it is every release made with such language is shown uncensored on network television, and not just those, but made for cable TV programmes like the Sopranos. Once in a while the f words are kept out of some films up until a certain time, but most of the time, if on network TV, movies like that are shown uncut, but at least with those stations they are shown at later times. But nowadays the idea of trying to protect one's kids from such language if they want is harder for parents with online stuff and DVDS completely uncensored. Certainly, the more f words and such a film has, the higher its rating, so ones meant for kids and designated as such would not contain such profanity, as no one would expect Yogi Bear or Papa Smurf to say f u to anyone. This relates to the debate on labelling of music as shown in the movie Warning: Parental Advisory, and therefore to movies. My thoughts on that is that Tipper Gore and her friends were not necessarily trying to censor music, but just at least get the artists and recording companies to acknowledge content that might be deemed offensive, since sure, even if one did not approve of such music, as long as it is not forced on people or if at least parents who are responsible for their own kids can look out for what they think might be damaging, then such music might have to be allowed to be published. The issue was about parents being able to protect their kids and be warned about music they might deem not right for them, since if parents don't even have the right to look after their own kids, what are they for ? But anyway, now we see no holds are barred in making films, and even here in NZ f words are allowed on network tv at certain times in certain films, as that is what the film maker wanted. Main thing is, if anyone does not like it they do not have to watch or hear, and when TV ends up being full of nothing but profanity, then anyone opposed to it may just need to dump TV as a lost cause and read a classic novel with no bad words in it or play Monopoly with the kids but be careful not to curse when they land on sonemeone else's Mayfair with a hotel. Chris the Russian Christopher Lilly 07:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff that's allowed on over-the-air TV in America is rather appalling compared with the way things were in the old days. I think we have Richard Nixon to thank for a lot of this. Vulgarities were forbidden in most of the public media until the Watergate tapes (with no "expletives deleted") got published in newspapers. Suddenly there was vulgarity everywhere - quotes from the President, no less. Nixon certainly wasn't the only factor, but he helped push things along. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm certainly no Nixon-lover, but I think that's drawing rather a long bow, Bugsy, old bean. Lots of people use profanities in private who would never do so in public, and Nixon was no way the first president to habitually swear. Sure, he made all those tapes, but never in his worst nightmares imagined they'd ever enter the public domain. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, for sure he didn't want them made public. Which is odd considering he was supposedly doing it for the historical record. His original transcripts all had the soon-to-be-famous term "expletive deleted" every time he said one of those words you can't say on TV (or couldn't then, anyway). Worse than that, though, his transcripts were sometimes altered to cast things in a different light. Once the unedited and uncensored transcripts were published, he was cooked. But it was the printing and reading of this stuff by news media that helped break the taboo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the point. The media chose to reveal the contents of the tapes to a breathless public, and if they hadn't, the breathless public would have demanded them anyway. Those are the parties we can point the finger at - and Nixon's pretty much out of the picture. Blaming Nixon for contributing to the prevalence of taboo words in the media would be like blaming Einstein for the loss of life in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 08:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The media broke some of the taboos, thanks to Nixon. Had he and his crowd behaved themselves, it could have been a much different story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always fear for the morals of the poor censors who are forced to watch all those dirty movies to decide on classifications. Surely they must now have the most corrupted minds... HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nissan Juke advert

Which motorcycle model was used in this video? --84.61.181.19 (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]