9 ms·

Also relevant: Tipper Gore is responsible for the "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics" stickers, because, as everybody knows, the only way kids ever learn swea

• Neliquat 9y ago
  Indeed. For a good jumping off on this topic, do check out Zappa's testimony, along with that of John Denver, when asked before congress.
  • smhenderson 9y ago
    Yes, a very interesting bit of our history. Here's a link to the entire hearing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d65BxvSNa2o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d65BxvSNa2o Dee Snyder is also there. The "Filthy Fifteen" list sure brings back a lot of memories!
• maxerickson 9y ago
  Can you explain more about how the explicit content warnings force people to do anything? I guess they make it easier for parents to control some of the circumstances where their children listen to music but I don't see how it affects others. Worse than government laws about little notifications are things like Walmart demanding watered down versions of the music.
  • strathmeyer 9y ago
    Asking people to change their art is generally considered a negative thing.
    • maxerickson 9y ago
      Asking people to change their art is generally considered a negative thing. What do you think I'm talking about with the statement about Walmart?
      • CoryG89 9y ago
        Some might say that the album cover is just as much a piece of art as the actual music. Would it be okay to put a parental advisory sticker on any other piece of art?
        • aidenn0 9y ago
          Wasn't the sticker on the out side of the shrink-wrap?
      • Floegipoky 9y ago
        There's a big difference between refusing to comply with a distributor and losing access to their network, vs standing up to one of the largest trade groups in the country. In practice the RIAA probably has more clout with their record label than the artists themselves.
  • 6stringmerc 9y ago
    Actually, the point of organizations like PMRC and MADD are for outright bans. As in, MADD espouses prohibition now as a goal (nobody can have alcohol because some people make bad decisions). PMRC wanted / wants all obscene material to simply not exist in music, and if they can't get that, then burnish them with a SCARLET LETTER (or sticker) so those who wish to live the Pure, Unstained Life of High Virtue should never have to engage with Low Class Expressions like Rap or Comic Books.
    • maxerickson 9y ago
      So the theory is that if you give an inch they'll take a mile? Hasn't really worked out that way.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  • moomin 9y ago
    Indeed, it seems like its principal purpose is to sell CDs to teenagers. Admittedly, the sticker doesn't seem to do very much of anything anymore, possibly due to the dearth of CDs to attach it to. The original use case was "Darling Nikki" by Prince which, I have to say, isn't a song I'm going to be playing to my daughter anytime soon. (And believe me, I think the whole of Purple Rain is genius.) But the tone? That's hugely damaging. It's all "these musicians are corrupting our kids" and not enough "some people make art for adults and that's OK". Of course, if the debate had been more reasonable, Eminem would have had to come up with a different marketing angle.
  • stratigos 9y ago
    They destroy artistic presentation, artistic value, and artistic message. Its impossible to see a piece of art as art, if they state stands in between the art and the observer and forces acknowledgement of its righteous dictations and moral superiority. The state forces you to acknowledge its authority before you are allowed to observe and ponder an artistic message - additionally, compromising the display of said artistic message with a big nasty horribly designed stamp of disapproval covering a significant portion of the work. Its is parents' responsibility to police content their children are exposed to. Its parents' responsibility to read the lyrics of "Louie Louie" and determine if that is safe for their children or not. Requiring the state to burden itself with this role is not only no route to security in such a situation, but tremendously irresponsible of this so-called league of concerned parents.
  • CoryG89 9y ago
    I agree that trying to force a change in the actual music is worse than requiring the parental advisory sticker, but they are both forms of censorship. One problem is that the interpretation of lyrics is subjective, as this FBI investigation so well illustrates. Albums that sound sufficiently pop/clean/bubblegum go without the sticker when there are clearly songs explicitly about sex/drugs/etc. For an example, look at Third Eye Blind's self-titled, debut album. Semi-Charmed Life is clearly about meth and sex, but it is sufficiently clean sounding that it gets by without a sticker. Meanwhile, albums that sounds a little edgier, but are actually about clean, mundane subject matter have the sticker forced upon them. IMO, the movies and games industries have much better, more objective rating systems.
    • loeg 9y ago
      > IMO, the movies and games industries have much better, more objective rating systems. If you believe that, I recommend you watch This Movie Is Not Yet Rated[0]. It's just as bad in movies :-). I don't know anything about game ratings to dispute that part, though. [0]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/
      • cavanasm 9y ago
        ESRB (games rating system) is the same way. Almost no physical retailers will carry NR (Not Rated) or AO (Adults Only) rated games as a matter of corporate policy. ESRB DOES clearly list whatever content caused the game to receive it's rating though. If you're a dev who wants to make a game and distribute physical copies, you can still do so online through Amazon or some other distributor, and Steam hosts digital distributions without ESRB ratings of any kind simply because there are too many indie games for ESRB to rate (if they all applied for ratings that is).
    • chimeracoder 9y ago
      > IMO, the movies and games industries have much better, more objective rating systems. Honestly, the music industry is way better than the movie industry. The MPAA rating system is a literal censorship board, complete with an actual member of the clergy serving in an advisory role on all appeals. But if you don't get your film rated, it's almost impossible to distribute it to anyone but the very small independent movie theaters. The MPAA results in an immensely chilling effect, which influences the movies people produce in the first place. Contrast that with music, where the distribution mechanisms are much more varied than for film, and there's nothing preventing people from releasing music with incredibly explicit lyrics, as long as they don't expect the uncensored versions to be played on the radio - a medium which, while still popular, is by no means thr primary distribution channel anymore.
  • ams6110 9y ago
    I don't have a problem with Walmart. They are a private company, they can pick and choose what items they want to sell in their stores. They can ask a manufacturer to make changes, which the manufacturer is free to decline. Walmart is a big retailer, but hardly the only place to buy music, even when people still bought music in stores.
    • maxerickson 9y ago
      Oh, I don't think Walmart should be legally stopped from putting pressure on artists, I just think it is likely to be more culturally corrosive than a content warning.
• gunnyguy121 9y ago
  I mean is that really much different than an R rating? It's just for parents to have an idea of what they're getting for their kids
  • 6stringmerc 9y ago
    Unless a movie trailer is intentionally deceptive regarding content, would ratings really be necessary after watching a preview? I'm of the opinion many trailers are not honest - they cut out the dirty stuff - but there are Red Band trailers that do basically show uncensored material. Should every trailer be the Red Band version so you can get a good look instead of wondering if PG or PG-13 or R is really just right? There's not a lot of real critical thinking that can come from "Brief Nudity. Light Drug Use. Violence." hashtags to go with MPAA or videogame ratings I think...
• ajosh 9y ago
  I often feel like sentiment such as this assumes that these kinds of notices, movie ratings, "clean" / radio versions of media, etc are solely meant for teenagers. Maybe that's how they relate to it - as some kind of restriction as a teen. Keep in mind that while you will learn this stuff in your life, for very young children, there is definitely a lot that is inappropriate whether it is sex, language or violence. A 2 year old is unable to fully understand what is appropriate when. They are not ready to handle many of these concepts. Beyond that, if an adult doesn't want to listen to something or watch something, this helps them. If they've don't want to see or hear something, why should anyone else care?
  • hashkb 9y ago
    The definition of "dirty" is arbitrary. Your "right" to not hear something abridges some else's right to publish it. You have to pick a side, and live with the consequences.
    • IanCal 9y ago
      A parental advisory sticker does not stop someone publishing the music.
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • AndrewUnmuted 9y ago
        Having your artistic creation 'scarlet lettered' like this is something we condemn when applied to other forms of media. Think of the outrage surrounding Facebook and Google implementing labels for news they deem fake or unreliable. Though such companies are within their rights to do such a thing, many consumers recognize the chilling effect this can have on distributing information and also adds a layer of needless obscurity to the process of reading the news. The music industry does not employ a 'rating system' like the film, TV, and video game industries. Rather, it's a catch-all for any and all content that arbitrarily may be viewed as offensive to a broad demographic of potential customers. This takes the label from a mere rating system to more of a form of soft censorship. I've seen albums that are largely instrumental labeled with the parental advisory sticker, because the sounds are intense and experimental. I've seen the sticker on albums whose only crime was being critical towards a religious institution. The label does a lot of harm, while I am not so sure how helpful it truly is for parents.
• stratigos 9y ago
  Inability to feel vulnerable begets nothing but violence.
• faster 9y ago
  Regarding Tipper Gore, this (PMRC) hearing discussing labeling contains some of Zappa's best work, a lot of it directed at her. I have usually found Zappa to be both entertaining and insighful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgAF8Vu8G0w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgAF8Vu8G0w I wonder how the process of gathering information in such hearings has changed since the 80s.
  • pimeys 9y ago
    The Real Frank Zappa Book is definitely a must read for everybody. He talks about this issue in the latter chapters and writes about stuff like a streaming music service where you don't need physical media anymore to deliver the music. And it is a VERY funny book.
• mirimir 9y ago
  The Gore family turned off many liberal Democrats. Tipper with her BS about music lyrics. And Al with his support for the Clipper chip. That arguably helped him lose the 2000 election.
  • 6stringmerc 9y ago
    Oh wow the Clipper chip. Almost forgot that one. Quite a bit of baggage in those arenas. Nice mention, thanks for your perspective, I can see the context very well.
• unit91 9y ago
  The issue isn't whether a children can (or often do) learn "swear words or dirty concepts" from sources other than music. The issue is whether I, as a parent, want my children learning those concepts at all at their age. I appreciate the advisory sticker, because it allows me to make an informed decision. Moreover, especially at a young, impressionable age, the real problem is not whether they learn about swearing or immorality, but whether they learn to participate in it. I know about murder, rape, slavery, etc., but I don't participate in them. Now, I'm not equating dropping the f-bomb with murder, I'm merely pointing out that when participation is purely mental, it's very rare that children (and many adults) have the maturity to know about vulgar thoughts without participating in them. Given that background knowledge, I exercise discretion regarding what concepts I allow my children to take in, to the extent that I'm able.
  • 5ilv3r 9y ago
    No it doesn't allow you to make an informed decision. It only indicates the presence of offensive words from a list you do not know, but trust anyway. To keep an eye on my son, we just mirrored the TV and stereo signals from the living room to the kitchen. We actually see and hear everything he does. THAT'S how you stay informed!
    • unit91 9y ago
      > No it doesn't allow you to make an informed decision. It only indicates the presence of offensive words from a list you do not know, but trust anyway. This seems overly skeptical to me. Not having the list memorized doesn't translate to me not gaining any information from reading the label. I imagine there are additional terms I'd probably want to see on the advisory list, and possibly terms I don't think merit parental advisory. Still, the label does inform me that reasonably responsible people believe other reasonably responsible people may find the content inappropriate for young children. Surely that counts as at least some information! > To keep an eye on my son, we just mirrored the TV and stereo signals from the living room to the kitchen. We actually see and hear everything he does. THAT'S how you stay informed! I think you inferred that I was saying a parental advisory label was the only way to stay informed, and that's certainly not my view. For example, in my house, nobody turns on the TV (not even me) except for on Saturday mornings to watch cartoons. I have 5 kids; I can't possibly monitor everything they watch all the time -- so we turn it off, they play during the week, and we watch 1-2 hours of TV a week as a family.