Man for all we know he was pressured to take that stance. How can one argue against the contemporary consensus about the song? Unless that narrative was a fake news smear campaign from 50 years ago. Needless to say I doubt I'd be able to contact the author of the song with my measley ass. kek
All I know is what he said. You don't know anything. Contemporary "consensus"? It seems that the "consensus" about the word "queer" is that it simply refers to homosexuality. This came up in a discussion about L. Frank Baum and the Oz stories, where "queer" plainly meant something that was Unusually Abnormal. Was Baum writing about homosexuals? Absolutely not.
The songwriter hadn't been heard from in years. No one thought about him, but he was disturbed that his song was being taken as a "gay anthem." You can track him down. You can write an open letter to him. I doubt you would be able to contact him, also, because you give up in advance of doing anything.
I can see either or being the case. However it should be noted that the YMCA organization itself tried to distance from the song due to the way it was received at the time, so at the very least, they were completely tone-deaf in dropping a song that would be so easily perceived as a homo anthem. I could of course be putting the cart before the horse here.
From AI-
At the time, the YMCA was still largely perceived as a family-oriented and wholesome organization, and the song's connection to gay culture stirred some unease among conservative members of the organization. The lyrics and the music video, which depicted men having fun in a way that could be interpreted as flirtatious, led to concerns that the song could overshadow the organization's mission and values.
Some local YMCAs reportedly tried to distance themselves from the song, especially when it became a popular party anthem in gay clubs. The organization faced a dilemma: while the song contributed positively to visibility for the LGBTQ+ community, it also potentially conflicted with the YMCA's image as a family-friendly establishment.
Despite this tension, the song's catchy tune and widespread popularity ultimately made it a cultural phenomenon, and the YMCA came to embrace its association with the song over time, recognizing its role in promoting inclusion and diversity. The song remains a significant part of both the YMCA's history and LGBTQ+ culture.
This looks like a case of cultural imperialism, just like the transmogrification of the word "gay" to mean homosexual, when it originally meant innocently lighthearted. I decided years ago not to give in to this expropriation. I don't call people "gay," I call them homosexual. In so many cases, their lives are not "gay" at all, but sordid or sometimes even vicious. So, calling them "gay" (to my mind) is only so much excessive rouge. (And also a cover for pedophile tendencies. I've seen some of that: homosexual men declaring their membership in NAMBLA.)
I mean I could write the guy but I doubt he'd reply to a non-public figure. Regardless of that, the abundance of sentiment from the time of the song's release and subsequent years after rings quite another tune... When did the author make the claim that it wasn't about homosexual comradery? (apologies if you already stated the date, I'm half asleep)
Who else would he reply to? I don't get the idea he has a thriving internet life going on. No harm done to write him, if you can find an address that would work.f (As a 6th-grader, I once wrote Robert Heinlein to chide him over a technical flaw in "Rocket Ship Gallileo." He was kind enough to answer me with a typewritten postcard.)
I see you caught the article from 2017 (excellent due diligence), but I saw a restatement from his position just less than a week ago, in reaction to the fact that it was becoming a fixture at Trump gatherings.
So, you go tell the songwriter he is wrong. I'm sure he will hear you respectfully.
Man for all we know he was pressured to take that stance. How can one argue against the contemporary consensus about the song? Unless that narrative was a fake news smear campaign from 50 years ago. Needless to say I doubt I'd be able to contact the author of the song with my measley ass. kek
All I know is what he said. You don't know anything. Contemporary "consensus"? It seems that the "consensus" about the word "queer" is that it simply refers to homosexuality. This came up in a discussion about L. Frank Baum and the Oz stories, where "queer" plainly meant something that was Unusually Abnormal. Was Baum writing about homosexuals? Absolutely not.
The songwriter hadn't been heard from in years. No one thought about him, but he was disturbed that his song was being taken as a "gay anthem." You can track him down. You can write an open letter to him. I doubt you would be able to contact him, also, because you give up in advance of doing anything.
Ok, I did a google. 2017
https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/music/tours/village-people-founder-victor-willis-on-why-ymca-wasnt-a-gay-song/news-story/6a5c7a926bf8bb235d1bea9ceb0d6a92
compare with
https://gothamist.com/arts-entertainment/the-real-story-of-the-ymca-that-inspired-the-village-peoples-gay-anthem
I can see either or being the case. However it should be noted that the YMCA organization itself tried to distance from the song due to the way it was received at the time, so at the very least, they were completely tone-deaf in dropping a song that would be so easily perceived as a homo anthem. I could of course be putting the cart before the horse here.
From AI-
At the time, the YMCA was still largely perceived as a family-oriented and wholesome organization, and the song's connection to gay culture stirred some unease among conservative members of the organization. The lyrics and the music video, which depicted men having fun in a way that could be interpreted as flirtatious, led to concerns that the song could overshadow the organization's mission and values.
Some local YMCAs reportedly tried to distance themselves from the song, especially when it became a popular party anthem in gay clubs. The organization faced a dilemma: while the song contributed positively to visibility for the LGBTQ+ community, it also potentially conflicted with the YMCA's image as a family-friendly establishment.
Despite this tension, the song's catchy tune and widespread popularity ultimately made it a cultural phenomenon, and the YMCA came to embrace its association with the song over time, recognizing its role in promoting inclusion and diversity. The song remains a significant part of both the YMCA's history and LGBTQ+ culture.
This looks like a case of cultural imperialism, just like the transmogrification of the word "gay" to mean homosexual, when it originally meant innocently lighthearted. I decided years ago not to give in to this expropriation. I don't call people "gay," I call them homosexual. In so many cases, their lives are not "gay" at all, but sordid or sometimes even vicious. So, calling them "gay" (to my mind) is only so much excessive rouge. (And also a cover for pedophile tendencies. I've seen some of that: homosexual men declaring their membership in NAMBLA.)
I mean I could write the guy but I doubt he'd reply to a non-public figure. Regardless of that, the abundance of sentiment from the time of the song's release and subsequent years after rings quite another tune... When did the author make the claim that it wasn't about homosexual comradery? (apologies if you already stated the date, I'm half asleep)
Who else would he reply to? I don't get the idea he has a thriving internet life going on. No harm done to write him, if you can find an address that would work.f (As a 6th-grader, I once wrote Robert Heinlein to chide him over a technical flaw in "Rocket Ship Gallileo." He was kind enough to answer me with a typewritten postcard.)
I see you caught the article from 2017 (excellent due diligence), but I saw a restatement from his position just less than a week ago, in reaction to the fact that it was becoming a fixture at Trump gatherings.