РефератыИностранный языкMuMusic Censorship Essay Research Paper Music CensorshipDuring

Music Censorship Essay Research Paper Music CensorshipDuring

Music Censorship Essay, Research Paper


Music Censorship


During the Doors concert in Miami, in 1969, lead singer Jim Morrison,


“did lewdly and lasciviously expose his penis and shake it. . .” (Rosen et al.


90). Today, Billy Joe Armstrong, lead singer of Green Day, bares all at his


concert in Philadelphia (Bernstein 95). The eccentric Courtney Love will rip


off her bra for the audience to marvel and glorify at her action (Bernstein 95).


She acts in such a fashion because she is insane and wants to prove it to the


world, where as Billy Joe just performs naked for the shock value and the love


of hearing tabloids and gossip. Both performers of past and present conducted


strange acts on stage for the shock value and attention, but with performers of


old, it reflected their life and what they were really like. Today’s performers,


however, do not act like that in real life, for the most part. Today,


performers take on challenges, like the dare of a child. . . “Betcha won’t do


it!” These rock performers cannot turn down a dare or back away from even the


slightest bit of public notoriety. By listening to one of their


“questionable” albums, it is easily noticeable how they thrive off of it. All


of these performers do have one thing in common, at one time or another,


censorship made them victims because of their social unacceptable actions or


the content of their music and lyrics. While censorship is slightly more


realistic and open-minded (no more censoring performers from the waist down,


like Elvis Presley on the Ed Sullivan show), it still affects listeners and


their choice of music quite significantly. Although the government, music


associations, and other various groups try censorship, the music a person


chooses is still, and always should be, his choice.


Some children are too young for the exposure to certain types of music. Albums


containing sexually explicit lyrics depicting sexualacts in great detail are


not good for young children to hear. Also, sexual content within the albums, as


in their artwork, is unacceptable. For example, the Frankenchrist album by the


Dead Kennedys, which portrays an extremely sexual painting by H.G. Giger,


entitled Landscape #20: Where Are We Coming From (Wishna 444). Not to mention


all the shows and concerts in which some kind of pornography is used or


displayed that is inappropriate for younger kids, such as Billy Joe Armstrong,


of Green Day, baring all for a concert of his in Philadelphia (Bernstein 95).


Also, in Cleveland, a frustrated Courtney Love tore off her bra and screamed,


“Now you know how I get all the guys,” (Bernstein 95). Most parents would not


allow their children to attend a concert with actions such as Courtney Love’s.


These actions and paintings, however, are choices of the musicians, part of


their expression.


Who are we to say what is wrong and what is right? Parents are not always aware


of the references to sex in their children’s music choices. Most parents would


not allow their children to listen to the music if they knew it consisted of


lyrical references to masturbation, orgasms, sodomy, and anal vapors (Zucchino


9). An example is the hit song, “Sugar Walls,” by Sheena Easton which makes


references to orgasms: “The blood races to your private spots. . . come spend


the night inside my sugar walls,” (Zucchino 9). “Feel the hot cum dripping on


your thigh,” from “Tie You Up” by the Rolling Stones, is also a reference to


orgasms (Zucchino 9). Not to mention an excerpt from the 1983 song “Fits Like


A Glove” by Kiss, “when I go through her, it’s just like a hot knife through


butter,” (Zucchino 9). When the majority of people (children) listen to these


types of music, they do not sit and analyze the lyrics and say, “Gee, this


sure is quite sexual music.” No, people listen to the music because they enjoy


the style, and most realize the sexual content of this music is not to be taken


so seriously. Lastly, an piece from Mentors’ “Golden Showers” on their You


Axed For It LP:


Listen little slut /Do as you are told. . . /Come with Daddy for me


to put the gold. . . /All through my excrements you shall roam. . . /Bend up and


smell my anal vapor. . . /Your face is my toilet paper. . . /On your face I


leave a shit tower. . . (Zucchino 9). Most songs and lyrics are not quite this


extreme.


In addition, there are the songs which contain references to sex crimes mainly


against women. The PMRC produced lyrical references to the Senate on September


19, 1985 (Zucchino 9). The songs usually consist of either rape, incest, or


bondage. Two examples of these styles are: “incest is everything it’s meant to


be,” from the song “Sister” by the artist formerly known as Prince (Zucchino


9); and the Judas Priest song “Eat Me Alive” : “I’m gonna force you at gun


point to eat me alive,” (Zucchino 9). Most men who hear this misogamist music


do not go out and commit crimes against women. Men realize that committing


such a crime against women could have serious consequences. Certain people


believe that censorship is violating the First Amendment, but it is highly


doubtable that the framers of the First Amendment thought that the amendment


would be used to protect such filth, so that it may be broadcasted into our


homes. What the framers wrote, however, is already “in stone.” The amendment


means exactly what it says, people have the right to speak their minds and


express how they feel, and others cannot stop them.


Rap, as all music, has its positives and negatives, but it is not as awful as


people seem to think. The problem of urban violence is much bigger than rap,


and rap should not be named as its main cause (Leland 64). The real problems


are outside the music, not within it. Hard-core rappers are only telling what


life is really like in the ghettos and hoods. Rappers would not have the gangs


and gang violence to sing about, if police started abolishing gangs and gang


warfare (Leland 64). Rappers speak the truth about where they are from and if


people do not like it, they blame it on the rappers (Leland 64). People could


at least put blame where blame is due, the law enforcement agencies.


The arrests of Tu Pac Shakur, Snoop Doggy Dog, and Flavor Flav show what little


effect rap actually has in the real world (Leland 64). These people should be


the classic American success story: young unknown men, who through a lot of


hard work and talent, rose to be the millionaire with the mansion on the hill.


Ironically, most rappers do not own a mansion; they choose to stay where their


roots are, which is usually the slums, ghettos, or inner part of whatever city


they are from (Leland 64). The fact that they stay with their roots proves


that they do not all forget where they came from and who helped bring them


along through the rough times. Obviously, some of them actually do care about


their roots and the people that helped them get where they are today; and they


are not all corrupt.


Snoop Doggy Dogg really is not the sinister, awful person his critics make him


out to be. (He received this rap by being an ex-gang member. Also, because of


the content of his lyrics, the critics labeled him “bad.”) About four years ago,


Snoop (real name Calvin Broadus) called up Richard Harris, minister of Golgotha


Trinity Baptist Church (coincidentally where he learned to sing in the


children’s choir), just to recite a Biblical rap about grace, Jesus, and coming


down from the cross (Leland 64). Snoop’s music is not intended to cause people


to go out and kill people and steal and do drugs. Instead, it is intended to


make people STOP committing violent crimes. Taneika Archer, 17, an African-


American girl, believes this about Snoop Doggy Dogg:


He tells it like it’s supposed to be told. People will always try to bring you


down no matter what you do. It’s the same with Dolly Parton and her big breasts.


He’s not trying to be something he ain’t. If he said he wasn’t a gangster,


he’d be lying. They [gangster rappers] talk like that to look hard. They don’t


actually treat people that way. Most girls won’t let them.” (Leland 63-64).


Snoop described his idea of the perfect happy day:


I want peace on the street like it was 4/29/92-” the day Los Angeles gangs


called a truce- “That shit felt good. Bloods, crips, everybody just chill’n. I


ain’t never felt that before, being able to go to the neighbor-hoods where they


restrict you because you wear this color and they wear that color. Everybody was


together. That’s what my music’s going for- to stop you banging for a second.


Listen to my music and get on another vibe.” (Leland 64). While rap is not the


devil, it is also not perfect either. Dr. Dre’s reputation could use a little


doctoring itself. His top hits, “Deep Cover,” main chorus read, ” It’s 1-8-7


on an undercover cop”: 187 is Los Angeles cop talk and rap slang for homicide.


The song’s main topic (yet again) consisted of killing a cop (Leland 63). The


line, “if your bitches talk shit, I have to put the smack down,” seemed quite


arresting and ironic coming from Dr. Dre because he just settled a law suit


for allegedly beating up Dee Barnes, a rap television host (Leland 63). Public


Enemy’s Chuck D and Ice Cube defend their lyrics by stating that the lyrics


depict real inner city life and ghetto realities and black consciousness in


ways that have never been documented before (Lewis n. pag.). Ice Cube said


that the song “Black Korea” describes life with Koreans in a black community.


He believes that Blacks do not like the Koreans and vice-versa. There is much


hatred shared between both groups (Lewis n. pag.). So, in the song he raps


about killing the Koreans because they cannot live in the black community. He


also raps how they take away money and jobs from the black people because of


their stores, mainly grocery stores (Lewis n. pag.). For this, the Korean


grocers boycotted the malt liquor of the McKenzie River corporation that Ice


Cube endorsed. The company then turned around to bounce Ice Cube from the ads


and donated $90,000 to the Korean grocers (Lewis n. pag.).


Some people are “waking up” and finally taking a stance against it. The KACE-


FM radio station out of Los Angeles has banned all songs degrading women or


promoting drugs or violence (Leland 64).The Reverend Calvin Butts, a high


profile minister of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem, has mounted a


crusade against “offending” (rap) music (Leland 64). Last summer he held a rally


where he ran over tapes and compact discs of ” offending” material with a


steamroller (Leland 64). The Reverend Jesse Jackson added policing rap part of


his campaign against black-on-black crime. Even Rap Sheet, a hip-hop fanzine,


has taken a stand by banning all album and artist ads featuring guns (Leland 64).


These people care enough to speak up for what they believe and some of them


actually know what they are talking about.


Nathan McCall, a reporter for the Washington Post, knows all too well the


influence of violence in the entertainment (Leland 64). He served nearly three


years in jail for armed robbery in the mid seventies (Leland 64). He recalled


the exhilaration of shooting someone as a teenager, and being intoxicated with


the rush of living out and fulfilling the life he watched on the screen in The


Godfather (Leland 64). The influence of violent entertainment on teenagers is


something he takes quite seriously. One reason, according to him, that the


black community ignores some of the harsh language is because it reflected the


backlash

and anger of young, disenchanted black folk, but then evolved into


something else (Leland 64). Also, he feels that we should acknowledge the


“obvious” correlations between the constant, negative, violent messages that


are being put out by rap and violence in the world (Leland 64). He realizes


that some people take the rap they listen to very seriously and just wants to


warn people of why and how these boys can sing about such violence and


destruction.


Some options for the awareness of music and its content have been and could


possibly be made public, making censorship unnecessary. In 1985, the Parents’


Music Resource Center, better known as the PMRC, managed to pressure eight


percent of the music industry (twenty-four companies) into placing a PG rating


onto music of uncertain content (Zucchino 9). More pressuring enabled them to


persuade companies to print the lyrics in some albums of uncertain content


(Zucchino 9). Also, the television plays a very strong role in society, so it


could be used as a very strong medium. People complain about the filth that


fills the air-time of television, but if some of the time consisted of alerting


parents of certain parental issues, such as music and the different types and


styles of music, then people could not complain as much. Not all choices for


awareness are possible though.


Certain styles of censorship cannot be enforced for many reasons. Unlike the


movie industry, records and albums cannot be rated the way movies are because


approximately 25, 000 songs are released every year in comparison to only about


325 movies per year (Zucchino 9). Although the idea of printing lyrics in the


albums and cassettes has the endorsement of the great Frank Zappa and John


Denver, this is not possible (Zucchino 9) . The record companies, who print the


albums, do not own the rights to the lyrics, the music companies do (Zucchino


9). Providing printed lyrics to radio stations cannot be done for the same


reason (Zucchino 9). Because of FCC regulations, the music a station chooses


to air cannot be controlled, let alone how often the music is played (Zucchino


9). Lewd or otherwise, actions of rock performers at their concerts, cannot be


controlled because only the performers can control their actions (Zucchino 3).


A rock concert cannot be rated for content because the content of the


happenings is not known until after the concert has occurred (Zucchino 3).


Placing “questionable” albums behind the counter or wrapping them in a plain


brown package would jeopardize a retailer’s business, therefore they refuse to


do that (Zucchino 3). Parents place too much responsibility on society for


establishing what is morally and socially acceptable and not acceptable in


music. If they are wary of the actions at a concert or of the lyrics their


children are listening to, then obviously the best censorship is parental


awareness (Zucchino 3). Getting more involved with their children and learning


what their tastes consist of, is much better than society doing it (Editors 10).


If society becomes too involved, it will take away parental responsibility.


Then gradually (perhaps) parents could become virtually meaningless.


Most definitely the music industry cannot “refrain from the use of hidden


messages or backward masking” for a few reasons (Zucchino 3). First of all, the


industry does not have and cannot take the time to play each song of every


album released backwards and analyze the lyrics and music, scrutinizing for


these so called “hidden messages” and “lewd meanings” (Zucchino 3). Secondly,


the writers of music would also have to do this and they are more concerned with


placing their album onto the market than with acknowledging the content of the


lyrics within their albums. (Zucchino 3). Finally, most executives have never


even experienced such things. Even Stanley Gortikov, president of the


Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), claims he has never heard of


or heard an example of these “hidden backwards messages” in all of his twenty-


five years in the business (Zucchino 3). Most of the general public has not


ever heard of these either.


Fuji Tape conducted a survey of young Americans between the ages of eighteen


and twenty-four asking whether or not anyone has the right to control what


prerecorded music is bought or sold. Seventy percent of those surveyed believe


that no one has the right to control what prerecorded music is bought or sold.


Of those who did reply yes, twenty-six percent would give it to local or state


governments, twenty-five percent to record companies, and eighteen percent


would give it to the federal government (”Youth Will Be Heard ” 4). This study


shows that most people realize how unnecessary censorship actually is. There are


numerous reasons why censorship is unnecessary and unwanted . Only nine


percent of buyers of censoring-type music are between the ages of ten and


fourteen (Zucchino 9). Parents seemingly enjoy complaining about the trashy


music their children listen to, but if parents feel that strongly about it,


they should check the music their children purchase either before or after


their children purchase the album (preferably before) (Editors 10). People and


musicians alike, agree that it violates the first amendment, ” freedom of


speech” (Rosen et al. 10). Since most of the lyrics to that type of music are


inaudible anyway, what is the point? (Editors 10). These supposedly, awful,


“backward messages” would be very hard to detect because approximately ninety-


five percent of music players cannot play things backwards (Editors 10). By


stating such a thing, advocates of censorship suggest that when played


backwards, secret messages are unearthed that normally would not be heard when


music is played like it should be played. The censorship action of taking the


music off the shelves takes away the privilege of buying that music for people


who have different values and who want to listen to that music. If the music


bothers someone, turn it off; if the album offends someone, complain to the


band or ignore them; if a video disgusts someone, change the channel. The


options for censorship are there, use them. Not every person in the world is a


moral freak. The government takes censorship too far because most of the


senator’s wives are members or “associates” of PMRC. In most music stores,


listening booths have been erected in order for customers to listen to the


music before purchasing it, so that they did not buy “objectionable” music or


music that they personally found offensive. Also, radio stations cannot please


everyone all the time. Meaning that some of the music played might be


objectionable to some, but everyone’s thoughts and ideas on “objectionable”


music differ. Therefore making it virtually impossible to please the entire


public at the same time. Not all alternatives to censorship are inept and


unreasonable. “Toning down” lyrics is an option to musicians, especially big-


time sellers. Maybe if more parental involvement became incorporated in their


children’s lives, which includes music, the need for censorship would decrease.


Labels placed on albums acknowledging the use of explicit or vulgar language


alert people who prefer not to hear those sort of words. Printing the lyrics


inside the albums was also a suggestion made to musicians. Musicians might


also start to consider the majority age group in which they are popular, and if


the group is of younger ages, nine to fourteen, for them to consider the “moral


health of children in America” when writing lyrics. Lastly, if what the


listener is listening to does not appease them, the off and stop buttons are


there for a purpose. If the radio is a problem, turning the station will do


just fine.


Most ratings and labels are unnecessary evils we have to live with. Musicians


feel these will eventually lead to more and more censorship, such as taking


away the first amendment rights and telling them they may not sing certain


lyrics because it is “offensive” or rated R. As quoted way back in 1985, Frank


Zappa feels it:


Opens the door to and endless parade of moral quality-control programs based on


Things Certain Christians Don’t Like. What if the next bunch of Washington’s


Wives demands a large yellow J based on the material written and performed by


Jews. . .? (Zucchino 9).


During the summer of 1985, the women of PMRC, managed to get eight percent of


the music industry to place PG labels on albums with lyrics or pictures thought


to be sexually explicit and/or promoting violence, suicide, rape, the occult,


or drug abuse. (Eight percent is about twenty-four companies) (Zucchino 9).


The label reads :”Parental Advisory – Explicit Lyrics,” (Zucchino 1). As if the


PG rating was not enough, the PMRC felt it had been watered down too much. So


they asked that it be raised to R (Zucchino 9). Also, because they already had


the PG label they wanted, they felt they could get more, so they tried for four


additional labels: D/A for drugs and alcohol, V for violence, O for occult, and


X for vulgar and explicit language (Zucchino 9). Plus, they wanted a panel of


all industry types [such as artists, songwriters, executives, producers,


distributors, broadcasters, retailers, et cetra] and consumers to draw the


guidelines of what qualifies for this rating, instead of the people who


actually write these “dirty records” (Zucchino 8).


Stanley Gortikov, president of the Recording Industry Association of America


(RIAA), suggested that the PMRC develop its own rating system for songs, lyrics,


and albums, as the Catholic Church had done for movies (Zucchino 3). He felt


insulted that the PG rating was shoved back into his face as not being good


enough. Even the PG rating was “approached with trepidation,” and yet they had


the audacity to push and push for more. A “review panel” in itself is a first-


stage form of “ad hoc censorship,” to him. After two meetings with the PMRC


women, Gortikov had been pressured into trying to get ALL recording companies


to place the PG rating label on certain albums (Zucchino 8). For that, Frank


Zappa, Dee Strider (lead singer of Twisted Sister), and Danny Goldberg ( a rock


manager and lyric libertarian), accused Gortikov of “caving in” to PMRC


(Zucchino 8). The PMRC realizing that it was strongly influencing Gortikov,


took advantage of that and pushed for further extensive ratings (Zucchino 8).


Ratings ultimately provide no benefit to the children they are meant to protect.


In fact, they seriously threaten the artists’ freedom of expression and


everyone’s freedom of choice (Editors 13). Currently, songs identified as


“objectionable” contain sexual, violent, or occult imagery or lyrics. But once


the restriction of language, for any reason, becomes possible, that could be


extended to include politically unorthodox lyrics (Editors 13).


Radicals and people who believe they can change the country constantly try to


convince the American public that censorship is a very good thing and it is


“healthy.” People were born with minds for a reason, to use them and make


choices for themselves. Censoring music takes away that whole purpose. If we


had been born without brains and not able to make choices for ourselves, then


maybe censorship might be necessary. Ratings, labels, and censoring in any


form are all unnecessary evils that society needs to relinquish, besides that, a


brain’s purpose for creation involved choice and decision making, let people


take advantage of their privilege.

Сохранить в соц. сетях:
Обсуждение:
comments powered by Disqus

Название реферата: Music Censorship Essay Research Paper Music CensorshipDuring

Слов:4215
Символов:27290
Размер:53.30 Кб.