Apple strips vocals from Idris Elba's music in iPhone 14 ad

Posted:
in iPhone
Apple has removed vocals from the Idris Elba track used in the iPhone 14 and iPhone 14 Plus ad "Big and Bigger," seemingly over misheard lyrics.




Two months after releasing the ad on YouTube, and after gaining over five million views, Apple has reissued the video without its opening vocals. The company has not commented on its decision, but it is likely that the change was because of a lyric that was commonly being misheard.





The new version of the ad just includes the music element of the dance track "Biggest," by Elba. Originally, the ad used the song from around 65 seconds into the track, at a point where there is a repeated chanting of the word "bigger."

Heard without the first minute's worth of lyrics preceding it, the word can be misheard as a racial slur.

At time of writing, the original version of the ad can still be seen as posted on YouTube by Apple's division in Australia.

Read on AppleInsider
ronn

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    JP234JP234 Posts: 822member
    You don't like it, don't buy it. Or if you do, buy it somewhere else.
  • Reply 2 of 19
    DAalsethDAalseth Posts: 2,588member
    JP234 said:
    You don't like it, don't buy it. Or if you do, buy it somewhere else.
    You’re not even on the same planet as the point.

    Apple, and any other company, will always err on the side of caution. If a significant number of their target audience are mishearing the line, especially as something THAT offensive then of course they will edit it out. That’s just business common sense. I don’t like bowdlerizing anything, but if it’s becoming a thing, Apple had to act. 
    auxioronnurashidFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 19
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,349member
    This is hilarious. I harken back a number of years ago to some poor bastard who lost his job over in Europe because he used a word in a speech that means “ungenerous and stingy”. Look it up in a thesaurus. He was vilified and canceled. Then the backlash ensued about how the word was a common one and had nothing to do with a racial slur and that ignorant, uneducated race baiters had reacted too quickly. But the poor guy still was pilloried, gutted, and his head placed on a pike in the town square.

    If I typed the word here AppleInsider would likely ban me for life, right?
    edited November 2022 Phoenix303JanNLFileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 19
    amar99amar99 Posts: 159member
    "If you don't buy the next iPhone Pro Super Dexlue Ultra Max, you ain't b...." -JB
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 19
    This is getting ridiculous. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 19
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,821member
    Death of common sense (not specifically Apple but in general when it comes to such things).  

    Common sense says, Apple (or any mainstream large company) would never purposefully use *that* word, so if I think I am hearing it in their ad, I must be mistaken. 

    However, that common sense has died and anyone who wants to be offended can be and make the world conform to them. 
    FileMakerFellerwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 19
    danoxdanox Posts: 1,563member
    I’m out of touch I didn’t hear anything except a East-end accent?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 19
    DAalseth said:
    JP234 said:
    You don't like it, don't buy it. Or if you do, buy it somewhere else.
    You’re not even on the same planet as the point.

    Apple, and any other company, will always err on the side of caution. If a significant number of their target audience are mishearing the line, especially as something THAT offensive then of course they will edit it out. That’s just business common sense. I don’t like bowdlerizing anything, but if it’s becoming a thing, Apple had to act. 
    Of course apple had to “act.” It’s a shameful commentary on culture in 2022, when people should be wiser and more discerning, not mention more durable when actual slights do occur. You’ve got people committing actual assault and battery these days over being called a name. Children used to be taught “sticks and stones…” but apparently mankind has been socially manipulated into regression. Amazing. 

     And now we have Apple, as diverse, inclusive, and human rights freindly as they come having to remove lyrics from a song by a black man because some “think” they heard a derogatory term aimed at …black people. 

     Folks can’t even use their iPhones to figure out the actual lyrics? If you think you heard something out of character, first thought should be “that can’t be right. Let me check it out.” Then do your due diligence and research. Come on already. Heck we have the technology. 

     Hoping against hope that people in general will:

     1) stop mistreating each other with names as well as actual physical harm

     2) when someone gets called a name (slur or otherwise) they either a) call that person a name or even better b) confront the person non violently or c) let it roll off their back.

     3) stop overreacting to every misperceived slight.

     It’s almost 2023. And somehow we are worse off than just 10 years ago? Apple did what it had to. Just a shame they had to
    edited November 2022 danielchowavon b7watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 19
    JP234JP234 Posts: 822member
    DAalseth said:
    JP234 said:
    You don't like it, don't buy it. Or if you do, buy it somewhere else.
    You’re not even on the same planet as the point.

    Apple, and any other company, will always err on the side of caution. If a significant number of their target audience are mishearing the line, especially as something THAT offensive then of course they will edit it out. That’s just business common sense. I don’t like bowdlerizing anything, but if it’s becoming a thing, Apple had to act. 
    From your lips to Tipper Gore's ears. (Y'all know about Tipper and her testimony at a Senate Hearing in September 1985, right?)
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 19
    This story made me realize I could probably disable explicit songs from Apple Music which often clutter up my interface. But it was very hard to find the setting to do that. It's under system Settings / Screen Time(!) / Content and Privacy / Store Restrictions. (Not exactly an obvious location.) After disabling Explicit Content, the titles of the explicit songs still show up in the listings, but I can't preview, play or purchase them. While this is a small improvement, it doesn't remove the titles from the screen, which means they still clutter up my screen.
  • Reply 11 of 19
    ronnronn Posts: 567member
    Using common sense and decency. Why is that bad on Apple's end? 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 19
    JP234JP234 Posts: 822member
    ronn said:
    Using common sense and decency. Why is that bad on Apple's end? 
    It's only bad if you don't consider censorship to be "common sense and decency."
    I don't listen to that $41+ either. But censoring what people want to hear on one platform is a waste of effort. There are legions of other music services. This and all other negative influences in our lives (deviant sex, drugs, profanity, alcohol, tobacco, religious fundamentalism, social media disinformation) cannot be mitigated on the supply side. As long as there is a demand for something, there will be someone to supply it. That goes for explicit lyrics as well. And if you've ever watched Apple TV+, you've been exposed to all of those I mentioned, so the music censorship is just a red herring to draw your attention. Apparently it worked.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 19
    ronnronn Posts: 567member
    JP234 said:
    ronn said:
    Using common sense and decency. Why is that bad on Apple's end? 
    It's only bad if you don't consider censorship to be "common sense and decency."
    I don't listen to that $41+ either. But censoring what people want to hear on one platform is a waste of effort. There are legions of other music services. This and all other negative influences in our lives (deviant sex, drugs, profanity, alcohol, tobacco, religious fundamentalism, social media disinformation) cannot be mitigated on the supply side. As long as there is a demand for something, there will be someone to supply it. That goes for explicit lyrics as well. And if you've ever watched Apple TV+, you've been exposed to all of those I mentioned, so the music censorship is just a red herring to draw your attention. Apparently it worked.
    So Apple is censoring itself? What nonsense. They don't want to be associated with anything negative and took the step of changing the music that listeners think is repeatedly using a slur. A simple matter and for them, the right thing to do.
    urashidwatto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 19
    JP234JP234 Posts: 822member
    ronn said:
    JP234 said:
    ronn said:
    Using common sense and decency. Why is that bad on Apple's end? 
    It's only bad if you don't consider censorship to be "common sense and decency."
    I don't listen to that $41+ either. But censoring what people want to hear on one platform is a waste of effort. There are legions of other music services. This and all other negative influences in our lives (deviant sex, drugs, profanity, alcohol, tobacco, religious fundamentalism, social media disinformation) cannot be mitigated on the supply side. As long as there is a demand for something, there will be someone to supply it. That goes for explicit lyrics as well. And if you've ever watched Apple TV+, you've been exposed to all of those I mentioned, so the music censorship is just a red herring to draw your attention. Apparently it worked.
    So Apple is censoring itself? What nonsense. They don't want to be associated with anything negative and took the step of changing the music that listeners think is repeatedly using a slur. A simple matter and for them, the right thing to do.
    "They don't want to be associated with anything negative…"

    So you don't have Apple TV+ do you? Every single word Apple is censoring on Apple Music can be heard thousands of times on their TV programming. Every sin you can imagine is also represented, in graphic detail. Violence? You got it, and plenty of it! Adultery and sexual deviance? Check! Go ahead, think of something you consider offensive and I'll name an Apple TV+ show depicting it! That's selective pandering. But it's true, you won't find postive views on racism on Apple TV+. Leave that to FoxNews, Breitbart and Twitter (among many, many others).
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 19
    Prejudice rears its head once again.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 19
    ronnronn Posts: 567member
    JP234 said:
    ronn said:
    JP234 said:
    ronn said:
    Using common sense and decency. Why is that bad on Apple's end? 
    It's only bad if you don't consider censorship to be "common sense and decency."
    I don't listen to that $41+ either. But censoring what people want to hear on one platform is a waste of effort. There are legions of other music services. This and all other negative influences in our lives (deviant sex, drugs, profanity, alcohol, tobacco, religious fundamentalism, social media disinformation) cannot be mitigated on the supply side. As long as there is a demand for something, there will be someone to supply it. That goes for explicit lyrics as well. And if you've ever watched Apple TV+, you've been exposed to all of those I mentioned, so the music censorship is just a red herring to draw your attention. Apparently it worked.
    So Apple is censoring itself? What nonsense. They don't want to be associated with anything negative and took the step of changing the music that listeners think is repeatedly using a slur. A simple matter and for them, the right thing to do.
    "They don't want to be associated with anything negative…"

    So you don't have Apple TV+ do you? Every single word Apple is censoring on Apple Music can be heard thousands of times on their TV programming. Every sin you can imagine is also represented, in graphic detail. Violence? You got it, and plenty of it! Adultery and sexual deviance? Check! Go ahead, think of something you consider offensive and I'll name an Apple TV+ show depicting it! That's selective pandering. But it's true, you won't find postive views on racism on Apple TV+. Leave that to FoxNews, Breitbart and Twitter (among many, many others).
    Did you hit your head? This is about an ad that was edited to make sure there is no confusion about a word misheard. It's not about Apple censoring squat. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 19
    lkrupp said:
    This is hilarious. I harken back a number of years ago to some poor bastard who lost his job over in Europe because he used a word in a speech that means “ungenerous and stingy”. Look it up in a thesaurus. He was vilified and canceled. Then the backlash ensued about how the word was a common one and had nothing to do with a racial slur and that ignorant, uneducated race baiters had reacted too quickly. But the poor guy still was pilloried, gutted, and his head placed on a pike in the town square.

    If I typed the word here AppleInsider would likely ban me for life, right?
    For the life of me I can't figure out what this word is even after Googling it.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 19
    ronnronn Posts: 567member
    jace88 said:
    lkrupp said:
    This is hilarious. I harken back a number of years ago to some poor bastard who lost his job over in Europe because he used a word in a speech that means “ungenerous and stingy”. Look it up in a thesaurus. He was vilified and canceled. Then the backlash ensued about how the word was a common one and had nothing to do with a racial slur and that ignorant, uneducated race baiters had reacted too quickly. But the poor guy still was pilloried, gutted, and his head placed on a pike in the town square.

    If I typed the word here AppleInsider would likely ban me for life, right?
    For the life of me I can't figure out what this word is even after Googling it.
    I'm not aware of an incident in Europe, just this one in D.C.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly#David_Howard_incident
    On January 15, 1999, David Howard, an aide to the mayor of Washington, D.C., Anthony A. Williams, used "niggardly" in reference to a budget.[7] This apparently upset one of his black colleagues, who misinterpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint.

    Of course it's all about context, learning and agendas. Lots of details are left out of discussions of an incident that happened a generation ago.

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 19
    JP234JP234 Posts: 822member
    ronn said:
    On January 15, 1999, David Howard, an aide to the mayor of Washington, D.C., Anthony A. Williams, used "niggardly" in reference to a budget.[7] This apparently upset one of his black colleagues, who misinterpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint.

    Of course it's all about context, learning and agendas. Lots of details are left out of discussions of an incident that happened a generation ago.

    Of course it's about context. I remember school boards in the '70's wanting to ban Huckleberry Finn because of the N word. Never mind that it's one of the first anti-slavery, anti-racist American novels, and that the slave, ****** Jim is virtually the only noble character in the book.

    But given the appalling rise of white supremacy in America over the last 5 years, it's time to erase racial pejoratives from the vocabulary of citizens of good conscience. Or archaic words which risk triggering offense by Americans that are the intended targets of such incivility. Thinking things like "savage," "redskin," "coolie," "wetback" or insults to people from anyone who isn't of your fatherland. I'm part "Bohunk," "Dago," "Frog," "Kraut," and "Limey." And I hope the context in which I use these pejoratives is under consideration by anyone reading this, who has been the recipient of such abuse.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.