A few years back, there was a discussion of vulgarity and its impact on credibility. Credibility from Vulgarity (October 2021). That post has several links to other thoughts on credibility. The subject is persistent in my travels. I meet many who want to discuss the credibility of witnesses, I updated the topic earlier in 2023: Credibility Again (June 2023) in a piece that also includes some thoughts on the direction appellate courts may choose in light of the new ubiquity of video testimony.
Then, in the Fall of 2023, a young singer came across my music feed with a song that I found light and funny. I was sufficiently impressed that I searched that artist out and as a result have enjoyed the genre of her music, including similar as selected by the algorithm of the computer program. It is amazing how these computers evaluate what we like and then direct us to more of that.
Clearly, I am enjoying these young singers. They produce catchy and imaginative tunes. They are largely upbeat and that is enjoyable. But, and it is a big but, I started to notice a very obvious focus on the proverbial "F-bomb." In fact, it may be fair to say that this is one of the favorite lyrics of modern music. And, we all know it used to be verboten. If you do not remember Tipper Gore, here is a link to an NPR story of her war on lyrics back in 1985. It was a different era.
In what initially seems like inattention to the simplicity of the alphabet, Gayle sings “abcdefu.” Yes, it turns out the last two letters are an intriguing take on her feelings for a former paramour, and that person's "mom," "sister," "job," "vehicle," and more. Gayle, it seems, retains affinity in that former relationship only for "your dog." and everyone else can essentially get lost, go away, sod off (but in more explicit terms).
Olivia similarly asks "what's up" to a former paramour, but again in a bit more explicit manner. (Good4U). Stereogum posits that there is a degree of "copycatting" in the use of both phraseology and theme of today's music. There is a reference to singers like Leah Kate (10 Things I Hate About You and __-You Anthem). But the affinity for the dismissive expletive is not so new. There are websites dedicated to memorializing a somewhat lengthy history of the F-bomb in music. Not so much mainstream, but still music.
EMELINE concludes a melodic Make out with a Stranger with an angry, crass sendoff. Only love could possibly evoke such vitriol?
Years ago, I penned When is Profanity Appropriate (April 2017). There I reviewed some expressions of endorsement for the F-bomb, or at least a growing acceptance of it. Why the expansion today in musicThe Los Angeles Times notes that swearing is not original, but one pundit adds that "every few years, I think the idea to say something really bluntly feels original again."
iNews contends that modern singers are "obsessed" with vulgarity. It reports that "The use of expletives in pop music has increased exponentially in recent years." It is, it seems, so hip to be rude today. The key issue may be with the "pop" genre. The vulgarity is apparently more expected in rap or metal music. But the prevalence is in pop, and dominated by these young stars. Will that drive a parallel prevalence in the workplace?
Even Taylor Swift has entered the fray with some strong lyrics. She reportedly told one publication that using these terms made her feel good, a rebellious abandonment of "every rule book." There are those who believe musicians and singers are using such words to demonstrate they are not immature, or "for kids." They posit a credibility or maturity being sought with the use of these strong lyrics. Does one need to be crass to evoke credibility in a grown-up environment like the workplace?
In this, there is rebellion. There is an edginess. There is a counter-culture. That is not new. Musicians and others have been shocking and worse for decades. No f-bomb will ever be as shocking as Elvis' hips. And, there is a resulting main-streaming of some crass and vulgar words.
It is fair to say that lyrics today would likely curl poor Tipper's locks. But, will the effect be as impactful on our daily word choices, the world of work, and the office environment? I recently discussed the challenges of earbuds in the workplace. A supervisor complained of staff wearing earbuds persistently.
I was asked, essentially, whether allowing such persistent use was a "bad idea" (coincidentally, those two words are the title of songs by a whole raft of young singers, including the donut licker who hates America). But as to earbuds, my advice was simple. I suggested, merely, that seeing your team wearing earbuds might very well be better than hearing the lyrics in their music. As I mentioned at the outset, I have been listening to these young singers, so make that "my music" as well.
So perhaps F-bombs bring the desired impression of maturity and rebellion. But, does this bring credibility? Some psychologists suggest that the jury is out. They claim there may be positives and negatives, perceptions and realities. That article is a good read.
In the end, there are some perceptions that the use of such language may be positive. But, in a broader sense, it is very likely that the use of such terms will be offensive to at least some population of listeners (music, office gossip, and more). Is the credibility of these interesting word choices worth the potential detriment? Is it different in the office, in social environs, in our earbuds? Will the world of work evolve to Olivia Rodrigo not being NSFW?
