"We Are the Champions" and GP?

[John Gutmann]

OK just for the sake of not seeing anything else come from what in my opinion I think is a stupid discussion. Can a Mod please lock this thread?

Thanks,
John

[Madison]

Originally Posted by John Gutmann

OK just for the sake of not seeing anything else come from what in my opinion I think is a stupid discussion. Can a Mod please lock this thread?

Thanks,
John

We'll take action as is necessary and appropriate.

[GaryVoshol]

Beside reffing FLL, FRC and FVC, I also ref soccer. There we have the concept of a "trifling" foul. Yes, the action was technically a foul - but it had no effect on play and to whistle for it would be a bad thing.

"No time for losers ..." - yes, techincally it's anti-GP. But in the overall scheme of things, it's just a trifle. Such a little part of the song, with such little effect on anyone, we just let it go.

[Jane n Mike]

Wow! Taking on what seems like the whole FIRST community, including someone with Dave Lavery's credentials, seems more than a little Quixotic. But here goes...

First, a word of advice to people who find this thread ridiculous: Stop Reading! Almost 90 posts later, there appear to be a lot of folks who find the subject worth talking about.

Second, some acknowledgments up front. The playing of this song at FIRST events is not of earth-shattering importance, even in the scope of FIRST issues. Whatever else we conclude, it certainly does not "put the lie to the entire concept of gracious professionalism" in the overwrought rhetoric of the original poster (to whom I happen to have a close personal relationship). Obviously many people like the song and find it a fitting paean to the champions of FIRST events and indeed so many other competitions that we could fairly call it a cliche. But analyze the lyric "No time for losers" dispassionately, and its dissonance with the finest ideals of FIRST is simply inescapable.

On its face, the line has a mocking, denigrating tone. Yes, it is possible to read the words as meaning something else, as many in this thread have tried to do. But listen to the musical figure to which the words are set. It is unmistakably the "Nanny nanny boo boo" taunt of the school yard, rhythmically and tonally. It is also true, as some have pointed out, that the song celebrates many faces of winning, including hard work, perseverance, and overcoming adversity, and these are all virtues that we rightly associate with successful FIRST participation. But in that lyric, repeated as part of the chorus, the ugly face of the taunting victor is an undeniable part of the message.

I have only been associated with FIRST for a couple of years, but I am afraid I may have caught the bug. Certainly one of the things I have found deeply appealing has been the concept and practice of gracious professionalism. In a culture in which taunting, trash-talking, cheating, and trying to find an angle are all accepted parts of competition, the idea of GP seems almost quaint. Dave, Woodie, Dean, and the rest of the FIRST leadership deserve tremendous credit for fostering a FIRST culture in which such an idea can flourish, and the willingness of so many competitors to embrace that ethos gives me hope for our future. Playing "We are the Champions" won't change that, but I do think that it is a betrayal, in a small way, of what we claim to stand for.

Mike Dennis

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Jane n Mike

...analyze the lyric "No time for losers" dispassionately, and its dissonance with the finest ideals of FIRST is simply inescapable.

I can escape that dissonance just fine, though I think it's hard to consider any part of the song dispassionately. By the way, that word does not mean "in isolation" or "out of context" the way some seem to want to read the word "losers". It means "without strong emotion", and the whole meaning of the song is lost if you try to remove the emotional part.

On its face, the line has a mocking, denigrating tone...listen to the musical figure to which the words are set. It is unmistakably the "Nanny nanny boo boo" taunt of the school yard, rhythmically and tonally.

On the contrary, I think those who hear it that way are mistaken. It doesn't have the same number of syllables ("nanny" vs. "no"). It doesn't use the same notes (minor vs. major intervals).

But in that lyric, repeated as part of the chorus, the ugly face of the taunting victor is an undeniable part of the message.

It's hardly undeniable. I'm denying it right now.

Seriously, I'm going to repeat what I told Paul upthread. If you think the song "We Are The Champions" goes against the ideals of FIRST, it seems to me that it's because you want it to be that way. If you don't like it, you can easily choose otherwise, and interpret it as being perfectly consistent and uplifting instead of as an ungracious slap in the face. That's what I do.

[Alivia]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

..., you can easily choose otherwise, and interpret it as being perfectly consistent and uplifting instead of as an ungracious slap in the face. That's what I do.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

I believe it's all in interpretation.

[Dan Petrovic]

Originally Posted by Alivia

I couldn't have said it better myself!

I believe it's all in interpretation.

Exactly.

All songs are that way.

This is why the thread was started. Paul interpreted the song to be disheartening to those who didn't win, thus in violation of FIRST's greatest principle: Gracious Professionalism. He asked what everyone else felt, and we all have had our own opinions about it.

This thread has gotten much better now that the ugly arguements are over.

[Alivia]

Originally Posted by InfernoX14

Exactly.

All songs are that way.

This is why the thread was started. Paul interpreted the song to be disheartening to those who didn't win, thus in violation of FIRST's greatest principle: Gracious Professionalism. He asked what everyone else felt, and we all have had our own opinions about it.

This thread has gotten much better now that the ugly arguements are over.

We Are the Champions definitely has a lot of different ways it can be interpretted, which is why this thread has had such as vast array of responses. I totally understand everyone's interpretation, and have the utmost respect for what they think.

And I definitely agree...I like having conversations that are thought-provoking, but in a respectable way.

[artdutra04]

If everyone's opinions and interpretations of the song are relative, then it's impossible to expect everyone to come to an absolute, either "black or white" stance on the song. And trying to pick single lyrics out of a song doesn't do any good.

It's like looking at a robot at a competition who is definitely in the running for the Engineering Excellence award, and then deciding that because they used X kit item instead of custom fabricating their own, that they aren't worthy of the award. It's issues like this that one must look at the whole picture, to see the integration, purpose, and/or excellence of the entire thing.

Just because there is one small object which one may have issues against, doesn't mean they didn't carefully calculate and engineer out the entire assembly. Who knows, the one small part which one may have objection against may have been exactly what they needed to complete the assembly as a whole, in the most efficient manner.

I think at this point, the thread has come to the level of "Let's all just agree to disagree", and move on to more important issues. After all, the FLL and FTC seasons kickoff in only a few weeks, and I'm sure there are teams in your area which would love to have additional mentors.

[Brandon Martus]

This thread just got way out of hand, and I've only had to read one post.

Someone PM me in a day or two if you have anything productive to add to it.

[Madison]

...