I just watched this, and remembered how bizarre a moment in musical history this is:
The Animals, a British band, rocket to fame on the strength of their number one hit, The House of the Rising Sun. Which is an American blues song, possibly with roots in British folk songs.
It's not a particularly famous song before the late fifties and early sixties. In part because it is a first person narration of a girl who ends up as a prostitute in a New Orleans bawdy house, which isn't necessarily what you want to be singing about as a lady balladeer.
Then Joan Baez sings it ... okay, it's the sixties, we're ready to address prostitution.
But the Joan Baez version isn't the version that becomes super famous. No, the version everyone now knows is the Animals version.
But the Joan Baez version isn't the version that becomes super famous. No, the version everyone now knows is the Animals version.
But the Animals are an all male act. And apparently think it would be too unmanly to sing from the point of view of of *girl*. So they change the line "It's been the ruin of many a poor girl" to "many a poor boy". (Bob Dylan, who also sang the song, fudged with "poor soul").
The problem is, the song doesn't, like, make a huge amount of sense if it's a dude? Like, what, exactly, is he doing in the House of the Rising Sun?
The song is about women who get forced into prostitution because in the 19th century, when it was written, there were very few market opportunities for female labor, particularly if you came from a family that wasn't "respectable".
It doesn't make any damn sense about a man, even though male prostitutes certainly existed. 19th century guys didn't end up trapped in brothels because Dad was too busy gambling to feed the family.
Yet this is the version everyone knows, because the lead singer does an exceptional job of conveying dissolute despair, which somehow caused everyone to forget that the words he was singing were kind of nonsense.
Funny old life, innit?
Funny old life, innit?
