Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: It Takes Two To Lie, One To Lie And One To Be Black Previous entry: Out, Out, Damn Spot Blogger

Is “Darling Nikki” scandalous 25 years later?

Music

Foo Fighters Darling Nikki


A minor discussion broke in the comments of my post on Purple Rain‘s 25th anniversary about the most notorious song on the album, “Darling Nikki”—-specifically, if “Nikki” was released today, would it still seem as shocking?  It’s hard to imagine that it could be.  It was, after all, the song that kicked off Tipper Gore’s ridiculous censorship movement that led to the parental warning stickers that turned straight into a joke and even a selling point.  (Without the stickers, it’s hard to imagine that gangsta rap would have had nearly the same appeal that it got, for instance.)  In the 80s, Madonna rolling around in a wedding dress and Prince sitting in a bathtub were considered provocative, and now you pretty much need that kind of overt sexuality in order to get a video played at all on MTV, in the 20 minutes a day they play music videos.  Graphic song lyrics aren’t a big deal, anymore, either.  So, is “Darling Nikki” still shocking in that context?

Of course I’m going to say yes.  The song is still incredibly unnerving, and if it’s lost some of its power to shock with words like “masturbating”, I’d argue that it hasn’t lost its reputation much at all.  The most obvious reason is that it mines territory that’s still taboo in our culture—-female sexual assertiveness.  There are exceptions to the rule, like much of Missy Elliot’s catalog, but on the whole, I’d say that no matter how raunchy pop music gets, it still puts women in the role of objects.  “Darling Nikki” is 25 years old, but it still feels futuristic, just like the movie “Blade Runner”. 

I’d say the song also maintains its reputation as the most notorious Prince song.  Certainly when I saw him perform about a decade ago, he played a little of it, and when the audience started to sing along, he teasingly stopped and told us we were dirty-minded.  But if you think about it, the subject matter—-female sexual aggression—-is rarely far from Prince’s mind in most of his 80s and early 90s oeuvre.  There’s two other songs I can think of off the top of my head that basically tell the same story, just with small tweaks: “Little Red Corvette” and “Shockadelica”.  On top of that, you have songs that draw on that theme to varying degrees: “When U Were Mine”, “Head”, and “Gett Off” come to mind.  The subject of aggressive female sexuality absolutely fascinates Prince, and at times it bothers and revolts him.

But what’s interesting about Prince, particularly his decade plus of utter genius, is that he draws on liminality and he positively rolls in delight over contradiction.  Well, delight and anguish, but already you see what I mean.  He’s a notoriously sexist pig and a homophobe who also worships women, openly plays with embracing his feminine side, and borrows heavily from gay culture and gay colleagues.  He doesn’t even try to hide his fascination with alternately delineating and then subverting categories—-he’s pretty bold about that in the lyrics to “Controversy”. 

I just cant believe all the things people say—controversy
Am I black or white? am I straight or gay?—controversy
Do I believe in god? do I believe in me?—controversy
Controversy controversy
I cant understand human curiosity—controversy

And if it wasn’t clear that he’s calling you a fool for wanting resolution, he reiterates later in the song:

People call me rude, I wish we were all nude
I wish there was no black and white, I wish there were no rules

Prince is drawn to the topic of Bad Girls because he can’t decide what he thinks of them.  Are they saints who live above the rules imposed on them by a cruel society, or demons that are attempting to tear men down with their sexuality?  In struggling between these two views, Prince ends up creating a fascinating portrait of how at least a certain kind of misogyny takes hold, as men entranced (as he is) with the idea of masculine sexuality as a dominating force feel vulnerable because of their desire for women, and they want to lash out.  The balance of his feelings shakes out differently in every song.  For instance, in “Little Red Corvette”, the narrator is trying to control the woman by the end, trying to shame her with judgmental words like “fast”, while the music creates an interesting counterpoint, suggesting that making Corvettes drive slow is the real crime here. 

But “Darling Nikki” stands out because it really lays bare the issues at stake.  Our narrator is cocky at the beginning, and his tone is one of someone describing a conquest of sorts.  Then, his ability to even speak about his experiences falls apart, and he’s left with talking about Nikki’s pleasure palace (implied S&M dungeon, I’d argue) in incredibly vague and euphemistic terms.  At the end, when she reverses his expectations of who should wake up in the morning craving love and feeling vulnerable, the song gets weird and dark and angry.  It’s implied that he should have seen it coming, of course.  Nikki is characterized from the very beginning of the song as masculine, not just in her name, but the fact that she masturbates to magazines (porn is generally understood as a male interest) to the fact that she owns a “castle” (like she’s a king).  Nikki is a post-gender woman fucking a man who isn’t ready for that, and what’s he left with is the undeniable and disturbing sense that he’s being emasculated. 

What makes the sexuality in Prince songs so amazing is that he really seems to express how much sex can really deconstruct gender, by making men vulnerable, in particular.  There’s an immense amount of energy in our culture put into covering this up, with everything from excusing sexual violence (using sex as a weapon against women is a perfect way to get back at them for making men feel vulnerable!) to homophobia (gay sex reveals to straight people what we don’t want to admit—-that sex is more about two bodies than two genders, especially in the midst of it) to machismo in general.  Which Prince has loads of, so the tension that it dredges up in him to be honest about his fascination with women who reject social constraints on female sexuality makes the songs even more immediate and sexy, while adding a layer of psychological disturbance. 

By the end of “Darling Nikki”, though, there isn’t any macho shield he can grab onto to rewrite the vulnerabilities out of the experience he just had, and instead he just wails at Nikki to come back, while the music gets loud and eventually chaotic, as if his world is shattering.  It doesn’t make a lot of sense, either—-didn’t she just say to call her whenever he was feeling horny?  But obviously, that’s not what he means by “come back, Nikki, come back!”  He wants her to come back and play the role of the person who was laid emotionally bare by the experience, so he can feel the balance of power set right again.  Laudable?  Of course not.  But it’s a fascinating document in that he just lays it all out for the audience, the internal workings of a man whose machismo and attraction to sexually adventurous women results in a slide towards misogyny. 

That’s why I think the song still has the power to shock and unnerve.  It’s not the sexual explicitness, but the fact that it cheerfully exposes the vulnerability and ego problems that drive so many other emotionally false sexual displays in our culture saturated with them.  The objectification of women, the attempts to shame and control them—-in the world of this song (and many others by Prince), it’s traced back to macho desire in so many men to hide from others and even themselves that they feel vulnerable and even dependent on women.  Dependence and vulnerability are supposed to be female traits, and when a woman refuses to play the role assigned her, it all falls apart.  To make it all worse, the song bundles up this disturbing revelation in a song that starts off as if it’s a little sexy jaunt, so that when the end comes, it’s like smacking you upside the head. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 07:41 PM • (45) Comments

Allow me to make another suggestion...

Comment #1: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  06/08  at  08:10 PM

Re: “When U You Were Mine”

I always liked Cyndi Lauper’s version of the song rather than Prince’s, because of the line “When he was there/Sleeping in between the two of us.” Whether the “you” in the song is male or female (or transgendered too, I guess), disexuality is unavoidable in Cyndi’s version the same way it’s impossible in Prince’s.

I also just saw on Wikipedia that Ani DeFranco performed this live with Maceo Parker, and how did I not know about this? That ought to have been released as a single. Le sigh.

Comment #2: Neil Morse  on  06/08  at  08:30 PM

Piator, I’m unsurprised that Dave Barry would disapprove of this sort of writing, but I don’t really see why I should care.

Comment #3: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/08  at  09:40 PM

I was 11 when Purple Rain was released, and I sang along to “Darling Nikki” when it came out on the radio. I was “the children” that Tipper Gore was worried about. I had absolutely NO idea what that song was about.  If I gave it any thought, I would have assumed it was similar to one of the more drug addled Beatles songs my mom played all the time for me, what with the castle references.  “Masturbation” was a song from Hair.... I did mishear “grind,” thinking he was saying “cry.”  That changes the song considerably.

Comment #4: 'stina  on  06/08  at  09:55 PM

I think the lyric is: masturating “with” a magazine, not that it makes a difference in the analysis. I remember, at the time, really getting tired of that song because most of my friends (who were in high school) wanted to hear it because it had masturbate in the lyrics. I considered it controversy for controversies sake, and I was probably a bit of a prude. Still am, I suppose.

Comment #5: sancerre2001  on  06/08  at  11:01 PM

I like Tipper Gore a lot more now that she doesn’t seem to talk so much.

Comment #6: Bitter Scribe  on  06/08  at  11:21 PM

Yeah, I never understood that line “masterbating with a magazine” to mean that she was looking at porn; I always thought she was using the magazine in another way, based on the “with”. Not that I actually engaged in textual construction back in the day . . .

Comment #7: rea  on  06/08  at  11:24 PM

Piator, I’m unsurprised that Dave Barry would disapprove of this sort of writing, but I don’t really see why I should care.

Dear heart, you’re a highly intelligent, educated person trained in the liberal arts - I simply think you may be overanalysing it well past the level of credibility.

Comment #8: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  06/08  at  11:55 PM

Feel free to believe that!  I’m sorry if it bores you, but you know, I find pop music fascinating, at least the intelligent, provocative kind.

Comment #9: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/09  at  12:14 AM

The sexual explicitness of it would definitely not be seen as that shocking. In fact, we don’t even need to make that a hypothetical. Remember, the Foo Fighters released a cover of “Darling Nikki” in 2003, and I don’t remember even a peep being made about it. Hell, it probably seemed downright quaint compared to some of the stuff gangsta rappers were putting out.

Comment #10: Jeff  on  06/09  at  12:26 AM

So?  What happens when something is over-analyzed?  If something is over-cooked, it tastes bad (so you don’t eat it).  If something is over-done, it’s not fun (so you don’t watch it).  If you think this over-analyzed, follow the pattern (and don’t read it).

“over” is a matter of taste, dear PIATOR.

Comment #11: Antigone  on  06/09  at  12:33 AM

So?  What happens when something is over-analyzed?

I’m reminded of a piece of film criticism I once saw, tracing Ripley’s development over all three of the Alien films.  It was a beautiful, coherent piece which made perfect sense.  The only minor problem was that I knew from reading interviews with the directors that at least two of the critical points in the “development” were just happenstance - choices prompted by the process of making the films.

Comment #12: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  06/09  at  01:08 AM

Sigh. PIATOR, if you’re still convinced that authorial intent is all that matters, you really should just skip reading any criticism, of anything, ever.

Comment #13: Well, what?  on  06/09  at  01:14 AM

Sigh. PIATOR, if you’re still convinced that authorial intent is all that matters, you really should just skip reading any criticism, of anything, ever.

There’s obviously justification for saying the authorial intent isn’t the sole way of looking at something but that doesn’t mean that all criticism is valid.  I’ve seen examples of elaborate criticism that is logical and well-thought out…and clearly objectively wrong.  For instance, I’ve seen one theory that the Battle of the Five Armies is clearly Tolkien’s reference on World War 2 (three on one side: the US, UK and Commonwealth, and the USSR, versus Germany and Japan), how rival powers joined together to fight a greater evil et cetera and so on.  In a book published in 1937.

Comment #14: KeithM  on  06/09  at  02:01 AM

Thank you, PiatoR, for making me lose another 15 minutes of my life to TV Tropes.

By the by, got a link to that Alien/Aliens/Alien 3 article you mention?

Comment #15: Katherine  on  06/09  at  06:04 AM

Certainly when I saw him perform about a decade ago, he played a little of it, and when the audience started to sing along, he teasingly stopped and told us we were dirty-minded.

No, stopping a song that your fans love and are enjoying with you makes you a egotastic douchenozzle.  I think that little incident provides a nice little illustration of why Prince has always grated on me: he radiates I’M SO ARTISTIC AND IMPORTANT in just about everything that he does, to the point that it makes it difficult to approach the music.  Paul Weller is like that: great songwriter but one wants to look at him and say, “you are nowhere near as important as you think you are”.

Comment #16: seeker6079  on  06/09  at  09:06 AM

I read a great criticism on the entire “Rubber Soul” album once.  It was wonderful, for a “reader response” piece: worthless for any insight into the Beatles’ thought process, since the critic reviewed the American version of the album (fewer and different songs in a Beatles-unintended order) and seemed to believe in an introspective narrator in “Norweigian Wood” who’s simply ‘sit[s] by her fire’ contemplating his life as opposed toburning the wood down.

I still like that review; it’s a nice interpretation, even if it has nothing to do with authorial intent.

As for “Darling Nikki”...The PMRC is one reason I’ve still not jumped on the Al Gore train.  Although I did turn on MTV 10 years ago and saw a video (as opposed to the reality shows that seem to be their current trade) and was rather horrified to see what parents were afraid of us watching when I was a teen was now truly on the tube.

I had friends who were not allowed to watch MTV.  We thought that was ridiculous, and it was, since nothing was really that harsh.  C’mon, Olivia Newton-John’s “Physical” couldn’t even be played on the radio in Indianapolis except on Casey Kasem’s Top 40 Countdown, and it was #1 for 6 weeks.  Talk about a different world.

I don’t even know what video I saw, but it was definitely exactly what my friend’s parents were afraid of…they were just 15 years too early.

Comment #17: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  06/09  at  09:09 AM

What KeithM said at 1:01.  It puts in one in mind of Steven King’s commentaries on just how much BS & bilge is pumped into and out of university English departments.  The best snark on that ever was possibly in the now-forgotten Rodney Dangerfield movie “Back to School”:  an English prof takes issue with a paper on Slaughterhouse Five submitted by the successful-businessman-turned-student Dangerfield.  She huffs, “I don’t know who you paid to write that paper for you but it’s obvious that they know nothing about Vonnegut!”  The joke—inevitable but funny—was that the paper was written by Kurt Vonnegut.

Comment #18: seeker6079  on  06/09  at  09:12 AM

Why are Piator and the rest getting so antsy? Amanda’s reading of the song is about as straightforward as a reading gets.

Prince is writing here about sex, gender, passion, and power. That’s not subtext, it’s text.

Comment #19: Angus Johnston  on  06/09  at  10:08 AM

Oh, and Seeker? Dangerfield’s Vonnegut bit is a weak ripoff of the Marshall McLuhan scene from Annie Hall.

Comment #20: Angus Johnston  on  06/09  at  10:11 AM

There is a video of me, 4 years old, in a leather mini skirt, teased hair and full make up, singing “Darling Nikki” for my family one Sunday when they came home from church.

I.WAS.4.YEARS.OLD

My 22 year old mom thought that was a good way to entertain our church-going family.

Then one day when I was 12, I heard the song again and understood it.

Comment #21: SuperD  on  06/09  at  10:54 AM

Sadly, I mostly know this song from the (actually pretty good) Whale cover (remember Hobo Humpin’ Slobo Babe?). Which you can hear over at my brand new music blog, Victorian Squid.

[/shamelsss blogwhoring]

Comment #22: Egnu Cledge  on  06/09  at  11:22 AM

By the by, got a link to that Alien/Aliens/Alien 3 article you mention?

I’m fairly certain it was the Literature/Film Quarterly.  I’m at home, and the OPAC link is down alas. A quick check on line leads only to:

Cobb, John L. “Alien as an Abortion Parable.” Literature/Film Quarterly 18.3 (1990): 198 -202.
Abbott, Joe. They Came from Beyond the Center: Ideology and Political Textuality in the Radical Science Fiction Films of James Cameron.” Literature Film Quarterly 22:1 (1994,) 21- 27.

Neither of them really works well with my recall of the piece.

I probably won’t be able to get the chance to browse it on the shelf tomorrow. The Humanities Index covers the journal from 1983 onwards, so should have the article mentioned.  If I get the chance I’ll check it, or you can chase it up from there in any reasonable library.

Comment #23: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  06/09  at  11:48 AM

Dangerfield’s Vonnegut bit is a weak ripoff of the Marshall McLuhan scene from Annie Hall.

Sure. If by “weak ripoff” you mean “actually funny”.

Woody Allen is the Prince of comedic film-making. Hugely talented but utterly incapable of entertaining me.

Comment #24: Sarcastro  on  06/09  at  12:59 PM

I remember singing that song with my freinds in 6th grade, right after the album came out. We thought it was hilarious, and liked the general concept, even if we did not completely understand the whole lyric & what it all meant. “Masturbating with a magazine” was a high point for us, or “she had so many devices- everything that money could buy”.

Comment #25: atheist  on  06/09  at  01:05 PM

What makes the sexuality in Prince songs so amazing is that he really seems to express how much sex can really deconstruct gender, by making men vulnerable, in particular.

An excellent and underrated point. Yes, this is sometimes how males can embrace misogyny, or at least how the males can get more controlling. The sex feeling is too large, too intense. The sex feeling is felt on too many levels. There can be a strong impulse to re-assert control.

Comment #26: atheist  on  06/09  at  01:19 PM

Angus Johnston:
Yeah, I know, but the Dangerfield one had the added benefit of being in the English lit BS hit zone.  I still recall the horrified look on the face of one of my fellow students when, after submitting a poem which was about alcoholism (and painfully obviously so), our prof started to prattle on about the vivid menstrual imagery.

Sarcastro, I know what you mean.  I think that’s why Allen inserted the fat-faced, brain-dead moron (in which film I can’t recall) blathering about how “I used to watch all your films, when you were funny!”.  The snark would have been forgivable on his part if he still wasn’t making movies which he markets as funny as well as Oh So Deep.  You can’t tell people that you’re funny when you stopped being funny in the late 1970s.

Allen (which is easier to say than “creepy quasi-pedo bastard with boundary issues and scummy father”) writes movies that actors fall in love with.  They come to the set and perform with a depth of feeling and worth that they can’t bring to other films.  Unfortunately, that feeling isn’t communicated to the audience, save for movie critics who live vicariously through the actors and director.  The rest of us are left feeling chilled and kept at arm’s length as we sit through somebody else’s party even though we’re the only ones who paid to be there.

Comment #27: seeker6079  on  06/09  at  01:21 PM

One other thing about the Annie Hall scene.  Let’s face it: at least the bore in the line is only in our faces with his Important Views for a few minutes.  Allen does it for hours at a time.

Comment #28: seeker6079  on  06/09  at  01:25 PM

Thanks PiatoR - that’s a good place to start!

Comment #29: Katherine  on  06/09  at  03:02 PM

What the hell you talkin’ about seeker6079? Woody Allen roolz, pedophile or no.

Comment #30: atheist  on  06/09  at  05:02 PM

Allen ... writes movies that actors fall in love with.

While Mel Brooks writes movies that comedians fall in love with.

If we lived in a just world, all of Annie Hall‘s Oscars would be taken away and given retroactively to Gene Wilder and Madeline Kahn.

Comment #31: Sarcastro  on  06/09  at  05:53 PM

Seriously, seeker, you need to get out more.  Anyway, the “early, funny” line has been appropriated to mean Allen’s slapstick period, but it actually came (as a running gag) in 1980’s Stardust Memories, as a reaction to Allen’s first non-comedic film (Interiors) that surprised people expecting to see another Take the Money and Run.

Comment #32: Cliffy  on  06/09  at  05:55 PM

Cliffy, I get out often enough, thanks.  I think that Allen is a self-important twerp who has, in one variant or another, been playing the same tired riff since the early 1980s.  Actors love him and critics love him, but he left me cold long before he started molesting his stepdaughter.  I’ve read divorce files with more compelling human drama than he can manage.

Comment #33: seeker6079  on  06/09  at  06:00 PM

This is the last place I expected to find people carping about the dreaded “overreading.”  Fuck it.  It’s all about argument.  If you can defend your reading of a work, make it stand up, make it convincing, that’s effectively the same thing as saying _That’s how it works_, _That’s what it means_.  That’s how we prove things in the humanities.  Ain’t nothing new.  And Amanda isn’t even way out on a limb or anything.  Sexy song is about sex and gender.  She isn’t saying Prince is really tracing an allegory about the withdrawal from Lebanon and the invasion of Grenada.  And if she were, she could be persuasive about it, and she’d be right.  That’s what being right IS in the arts and letters.

Comment #34: FlipYrWhig  on  06/09  at  08:14 PM

That’s how we prove things in the humanities.  Ain’t nothing new.  And Amanda isn’t even way out on a limb or anything.  Sexy song is about sex and gender.  She isn’t saying Prince is really tracing an allegory about the withdrawal from Lebanon and the invasion of Grenada.  And if she were, she could be persuasive about it, and she’d be right.  That’s what being right IS in the arts and letters.

And yet Amanda is an atheist.

“Right” to me means “conforming with reality” not “is entertaining”.  I’d rather use the term “resonant” for arguments like Amanda’s or for religious myths, things of beauty in and of themselves but not necessarily useful.

Please tell me you’re not responsible for creating anything other than entertainment - anything people might invest money in or risk their lives on.

Comment #35: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  06/09  at  09:44 PM

Sarcastro - i agree 10000000%!!! Blazing Saddles might actually be one of the most insightful movies of all times regarding sterotyping, corruption and the (ab)uses of power, and ethical vs. socially acceptable. Mel Brooks = genius who happens to be funny. Woddy Allen = genius at turning funny into stupid.
just IMHO, of course - YMMV. but Madeline Kahn is one of my role models still. i cried when she died.

Comment #36: denelian  on  06/10  at  01:39 AM

“Right” to me means “conforming with reality” not “is entertaining”.

Well, there’s your problem.  Get over that.  In arts, literature, culture, “right” means something more like “hmm, that’s plausible, and you’ve convinced me.”  Yes, it’s bounded by the parameters of “conforming with reality,” in that arguing (frex) that Prince’s sex-and-driving song is commenting on the death of Princess Diana is just plain impossible, because, y’ know, time.

Also, is there some reason why you felt like being a dismissive killjoy here?  Or was it just “happenstance”?

Comment #37: FlipYrWhig  on  06/10  at  03:09 AM

FlipYrWhig: I think it’s wrongsideofthetracks’s basic shtick, to be dismissive of anything said here. Or attempt to be that way, anyhow.

Comment #38: atheist  on  06/10  at  06:30 AM

In arts, literature, culture, “right” means something more like “hmm, that’s plausible, and you’ve convinced me.”

Again, the parallel between this and theology is striking.  On the plus side, Amanda is unlikely to declare jihad on people who disagree with her about Prince - if she was nuts for Elvis or Tori Amos, I might have to be more discreet.

Also, is there some reason why you felt like being a dismissive killjoy here?

Yeah.  I read Amanda’s piece, and then went and looked up the lyrics.  WTF?

I have about 2 weeks to write 20 pages or so on information audits.  I am not a happy camper, and if I have to suffer, I’m going to take it out on anything that irritates me.

Comment #39: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  06/10  at  06:36 AM

Please tell me you’re not responsible for creating anything other than entertainment - anything people might invest money in or risk their lives on.

Holy Moley, Piator, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed yesterday or something?

She wrote a really insightful critique about the sexual politics of the song “Darling Nikki”, which I really liked because I like Prince and the song, and frankly it’s an interesting take that resonates with how I’ve always wiewed the song. Now you’re accusing her of being a dangerously bad critic or something. What gives?

Comment #40: atheist  on  06/10  at  06:42 AM

Oh did not see your earlier comment. I’m sorry you are stressed out with your information audit project, that doesn’t sound fun. Still, even if this post annoys you, I gotta say that it doesn’t annoy me.

Comment #41: atheist  on  06/10  at  07:00 AM

While there’s still a topic of matters Princely on the front page, I saw this and wanted to share.

Comment #42: damnedyankee  on  06/11  at  09:19 AM

“There’s obviously justification for saying the authorial intent isn’t the sole way of looking at something…”

It’s awesome that people have been bickering about the value of authorial intent since at least 399 BC.

Comment #43: preying mantis  on  06/11  at  10:41 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.