Dear Wang Chung

Re: Dance Hall Days


I was appalled to learn from Radio 2 this morning of your infant abuse encouragements, Wang Chung. 


To take an infant by the heel, hair, ears, wrist and hand with a view to forcing her to do a high handstand is just not on Wang Chung, no matter what ‘phase’ of gyration within a large public building you may be, to say nothing of the admittedly unlikely to succeed practice of placing an amethyst in the poor unfortunate's mouth and sapphires in her eyes. 


You have my assurance, Wang Chung, that were I to witness any attempts at minor extremity or follicular yanking or facial cavity corundum or quartz insertions in a civil auditorium (INCLUDING a venue hosting ''speciality acts'' on Britain's Got Talent) or indeed anywhere else I would have no hesitation in alerting the police force or social services and share in what was true.


I Bid you GOOD DAY

D Philpott




Dear Mr Philpott,

Thank you for your observations and concerns about our popular song Dance Hall Days, but we think perhaps there might be some misunderstanding apropos your interpretation of its lyrics.

Whilst we applaud your sense of civic responsibility in flagging up a potential child abuse scenario presumably triggered by our use of the word 'baby' in the lyrics of our song, we think it should be pointed out that, as in the case of many songs in the pop music oeuvre, the meaning of the word 'baby' within the context of a popular music song, is not necessarily (and in fact is usually not) a literal one.


As in adult romantic 'real' life, to address someone as 'baby' can be construed and applied as a general term of endearment to one's ADULT partner and/or lover, and not to an infant in these cases.


So in the specific case of Dance Hall Days, taking one's 'baby' by the hand and making her do a high handstand, doesn't mean literally taking an infant and turning her upside down willy nilly (even though generally speaking we approve of healthy physical education for young people). An actual baby or infant is not being referred to in that line of the song or in any of the other lines, whether involving hair, heels, hands, wrists, ears or any other part of the human anatomy for that matter. 


By way of illustration of this point about literalism, we'd like to use another well known pop ditty as an example of how the word 'baby' in a lyric is not to be taken erm wit Britney Spiers.


In her world famous song 'Hit me baby one more time', Britney was in no way exhorting (in a northern English accent) her very young infant child to be walloped more than once (assuming she meant it to be understood in an accent from the north of England that is).
Or alternatively if it was not intended to be understood in a northern English vernacular sense, then it can also be safely surmised that Britney was not asking to be given another smack herself by a young infant either. She is not addressing the song to an actual baby or young infant. 


The point of this example is that Britney's song's message is definitely very different to both of the literal interpretations outlined above, and is equally therefore presenting nothing to be concerned about from a child abuse point of view (although admittedly Britney was something of a child herself at the time of that record's release but that doesn't seem relevant to the line of discussion we're outlining here).

As far as using gemstones, semi precious gemstones, quartz and corundum goes,



To see full jawdropping


response from Wang


Chung, please support the




campaign NOW and pre-


order your digital or hard-


back copy of the fantastic


and unique


Unbound/Penguin book


''Dear Mr. Pop Star''....and


get your name in print in


the back!! The book is 99%




Click here  <<<<



©2009-2014 Dawson-Rice | Website designed with the splendid help of Oast One.