THE CURRENT SITUATION
From its inception to present day, Rock and Roll has excited, thrilled, and entertained millions upon millions of people. The sound, rhythm, energy, power, creativity, attitude, and showmanship are alluring and captivating and currently generate annual music sales of $14 billion. It is debatable that Rock and Roll's ambassadors of Elvis Presley, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, The Supremes, James Brown, Aretha Franklin, Led Zeppelin, Stevie Wonder, Bruce Springsteen, U2, Michael Jackson, Prince, Madonna, and Marilyn Manson may be some of the most well known and influential people on the earth, particularly to young people. However, is Rock and Roll without its problems?
Most contemporary music is great, but there are some growing concerns that need to be addressed to make it better. Some of those concerns are the vast amount of negative lyrics that have grown in regressive content and volume with every passing year over the last 30 years. Some examples of negative song lyrics are those that advocate drug use, rape, pornography, racism, gratuitous violence, perversion, hate, sadism, and narcissism. These trends have become so encompassing and pervasive that they are no longer kept to the fringes, but have flooded over into the mainstream, a mainstream whose current is very strong and influential.
THE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF CONTEMPORARY MUSIC
Before one attempts to constructively analyze what is wrong with contemporary music, it would be appropriate and advisable for one to acknowledge everything that is right with contemporary music.
First, and utmost, music provides the opportunity to express different ideas, concepts, human emotions, and literature styles. Music can be used as a vehicle to convey different ideas and concepts that are social, political, educational, cultural, and religious in nature. In addition, it allows the opportunity to convey different human emotions, such as love, hope, charity, fear, anxiety, sadness, anger, frustration, rejection, and despair. Finally, music provides the opportunity to convey different literature and lyrical styles, such as poetry, stories, humor, and satire.
The importance of being able to express one's self is vital in society to facilitate open communication to and among people. Musicians, as all people, need to be able to communicate openly to other people. In addition, even if nobody wants to listen to what they have to say, the availability of open communication provides a means of self-venting and release of bottled energy.
Not only does music provide communication from the musician, it also helps facilitate communication among those people who may have difficulty expressing themselves altogether. Music can be used as a tool to help foster communication among those who have no voice in society, or those who having difficulty communicating their ideas, concepts, feelings, and emotions to others.
In addition to providing an opportunity to facilitate communication among people, music can provide valuable entertainment. Music is a form of art, and art, by definition, appeals to the aesthetic values on an individual and personal level. Because of the connection on a personal level, music can provide friendship and act as a reliable companion to people as a comforter and sympathizer. It also can stimulate the mind and inspire creativity, or offer relief, escapism, and change of environment. In addition, music can be fun, adventurous, and exciting. Such to the point where it can be used to improve morale and health of individuals, if channeled properly.
Another way that music can be positive is that it can help cultivate and develop the individual skills of the musicians and listening audience. First, the exposure to different human emotions, ideas, concepts, music, and literature styles provides an educational opportunity. Second, the process used to select and choose musical preferences can help develop decision making skills needed to establish individual identity and independence. Third, the material and selection process may help to develop individual talents, skills, and areas of interest. For some, music may become a talent to explore, a hobby, or an area of interest. Whether taken separately or collectively, all these factors can contribute to individual personal growth.
Furthermore, music can be positive by being used to promote social opportunities. Music can be used to bring together individuals with common interests. This may be important at fulfilling an important emotional need of belonging. In addition, music can be used to promote social interaction and atmosphere (i.e., music for dancing, festive atmosphere, etc.).
Finally, music can be used to create and promote industry. Contemporary music provides numerous business opportunities for musicians, record companies, merchants, and supporting industry. In fact, it is a huge multi-billion dollar per year industry. The music industry is good in that it provides goods and services, and helps spur the economy.
THE NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF CONTEMPORARY MUSIC
As one can see, there are plenty of positive aspects found in contemporary music, but is there room for improvement? A constructive analysis may answer the question better.
It was previously stated that music provides the opportunity to express different human emotions, ideas, and concepts. It needs to be recognized and acknowledged that some ideas, concepts, and emotions are negative and can be destructive towards individuals, relationships, families, communities, and society.
Although providing escapism, relief, and change of environment, some forms of entertainment clearly undermine the basic foundations of society trying to advance beyond the animal base by acting as a negative and destructive influence. Specific examples are songs that advocate or condone drug use, pornography, racism, gratuitous violence, perversion, religious intolerance, rape, and domestic assaults.
Because of the limitations of one way communication, many negative and destructive ideas in the media are glorified without the opportunity to counter argue or illustrate the potential negative impacts and consequences. How many times has one seen a scene on television or in a movie where two people meet and instantly have sex, while never raising the subjects of: birth control, sexually transmitted diseases, the emotional un-fulfillment of sex without love, issue of using people as objects for self gratification, lack of respect required for relationship to grow, the devaluation of an emotional symbol of commitment which is needed to sustain relationships, and potential creation or reinforcement of low self esteem.
Media is a powerful means of communicating and has powerful impacts. Aside from being a means of mass communication, often media can be manipulated using marketing and communication techniques that magnify its aesthetically appeal and ability to captivate. Frequently, the desired objective is to maximize the size of the audience by attracting a wide range of audiences, which may bring in children and teenagers. Other times, the media breeches moral and ethical codes by directly and indirectly targeting children and teenagers with inappropriate material.
Children and teenagers are the most susceptible to negative influences because they have not fully developed the cognitive abilities or experiences to base comparisons against. Other individuals in society may also be susceptible, such as those suffering with low self-esteem, mental health ailments, mentally underdeveloped, and those afflicted with personal problems.
One of the greatest concerns is that people are being bombarded with negative and destructive ideas to the point where they become self perpetuating and feed and grow off each other. Can negative and destructive ideas and concepts really spread and grow? Although it may be difficult to prove or establish a direct correlation, the reality of the situation is that negative material has been increasing at a dramatic and alarming rate. (Note: The rate of increase could be measured and tracked by taking the top 500 selling/requested songs for each year since 1955 and comparing them according to categories of contents, themes, profanity, etc.).
In the past, some of the more negative lyrics were limited to clubs and bars for adults, live performances, artists that targeted their products to mature adults, or an underground following on the fringes of society. However, over the last 10 to 20 years, there has been a cross-over to the main stream, an influential mainstream that includes children, teenagers, and young adults.
This leads to the greatest concern of all, at what point does society or some segments of society become so saturated with negative media that cultural shifts in behavior may begin. At some point what was once the exception becomes the norm. Has society currently begun to witness the destructive effects of cultural shifts that are regressive set backs to the advancement of humanity and in what ways?
There may be a legitimate debate to what extent negative material in the media has in contributing toward this, as compared to other influencing sources. However, there is a consistent denial by some individuals, particularly those who generate the material and profit from it, that there is any relationship at all between negative material and the degradation of human behavior directed at individuals, relationships, families, communities, and society.
DO NEGATIVE MESSAGES HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACTS?
Some people argue that negative lyrics are harmless, that nobody listens to them seriously, and that they have no impact on society. These statements are highly questionable since companies spend billions of dollars every year on TV, radio, magazine, and newspaper advertisements to sell their products. The fact that companies have continued to advertise for more than 80 years on the radio and 50 years on the television demonstrates that it is a very effective medium for promoting messages.
If promoting and advertising using media, particularly repetitive advertising, are not effective then why would companies continue to spend and reinvest billions of dollars annually on TV, radio, newspaper, and magazine advertisements year after year? Obviously, some advertising and promotional campaigns are more effective than others because of the hundreds of different variables that exist during the influencing process.
Music and lyrics work on this exact same principal. Some times a person may be actively listening. However, even when a person may appear not be listening, they are hearing and the mind absorbs all sorts of different information to different parts of the brain. In either case, words are very powerful because words become thoughts. Thoughts are the seeds to belief, and with belief a person is empowered and motivated.
Therefore, over time the negative messages may take hold in the mind in the form of belief, particularly if it is reinforced by other means. So too in the case of negative demoralizing material. Regardless of the creator’s intent, the constant exposure can desensitize the mind and weaken the will to resist, particularly among those groups of individuals that are more susceptible to outside influence. Or in the case of children, because their judgment faculties have not fully developed or have the experience or education, provide a solid foundation of misguided values and beliefs to build upon during their formative years.
Take for example, song lyrics that glorify or condone rape or acts of physical violence against women (i.e., assaults). Depending upon numerous variables, these types of lyrics may contribute to building attitudes of condoning and tolerance of rape and violence against women or building apathy, indifference, and desensitization to rape and rape victims, while in more very rare and extreme cases they may lead to actual physical acts.
In addition, these types of negative lyrics are not just localized and limited to rape or physical violence against women, but because of the inter-related and inter-connected nature of the universe as a giant integrated system, the full extent and the total impacts may have much broader repercussions and ramifications than that which can be readily seen by the naked eye (i.e., gradual, latent, hidden, and indirect consequences and impacts).
What are some of the numerous variables that are part of the influencing process? Some of the internal influencing factors may be: age and mental/physical maturity; cognitive and reasoning capabilities; psychological profile; attitude, mental state, and emotional stability; existing preconceived notions and indoctrinated beliefs; education and cultural influences; other influences such as drugs; etc. etc.
Some of the external influencing factors may be: presentation and delivery of lyrics; weight of influence of the performer; appeal of the accompanying music; amount of peer pressure; influence of popular trends; exposure rate (number of repetitions over time); positive/negative reinforcements; competition for attention (distractions); accompanying elements (i.e., videos); etc. etc. Ultimately, it is all these factors combined together that determine the effectiveness and efficiency of planting seeds that take root and grow.
Although many listeners may not be affected to the point where it affects their behavior, lyrics that glorify or condone rape or physical assaults against women, clearly contribute to increase directly or indirectly in the number of actual acts. Because there are so many variables that are difficult to quantify and measure, the exact number is not known, nor will ever be known. However, the real question is how many rapes or assaults are worth the price of entertainment with no redeeming value? 1 rape or assault? 125 rapes or assaults? 3,500 rapes or assaults? 50,000 rapes or assaults? 800,000 rapes or assaults? or 6,000,000 rapes or assaults?
Still many individuals deny or ignore that lyrics and the entertainment industry may have negative impacts upon influencing society, particularly children. It is interesting how these same individuals praise the effectiveness of certain educational initiatives such as Sesame Street, School House Rock, etc. In addition, they constantly praise movies, TV shows, books, and music that make social commentary which they personally agree with, but are in denial that this same medium can be used to install and reinforce negative or destructive messages and ideas.
If the negative message “Jews and Blacks are inferior races and should be removed from society” were played on the radio every hour, surely and rightfully so there would be an uproar that these messages are promoting and advocating hateful and bigoted ideas that could lead to greater evil. And they would be completely correct and justified in their concerns and assertions. It was this exact same type of methodology the Nazi propagandists effectively employed in Germany during the 1930’s using the media available at the time (i.e., radio, film, articles, books, etc.). History has documented well the results of these initiatives. Are racist messages really the only type of negative messages that influence people in a harmful and destructive manner?
Humor and the ability to laugh at our selves and society may be mankind's greatest saving attribute. But are there moral and ethical lines that should be taken into consideration? For example, what about racist jokes and humor? Racist jokes may have some warped and demented humor to it, but what about the harm it can cause to society, specifically those directly impacted. Some of the negative consequences of racist humor can be contempt, hate, bigotry, reinforcement of negative stereotypes, discrimination, loss of dignity and pride, humility, defeated morale, low self-esteem, and in some cases, actual physical harm.
Does entertainment, specifically music, have moral and ethical dimensions to it? For example, is there a difference between material that is more appropriate for adults, than for children and teenagers? What, if any, should be the criteria for inappropriate material: in our own privacy; in the company of friends; in front of our families; in front of children; in the work place; and in the public space?
HOW ARE CHILDREN AND TEENAGERS IMPACTED?
Besides being a source of joy, children are our future investment. Education is a major component in protecting our investment. In the computer industry, they call it “Garbage In, Garbage Out.” That is, the product that one gets out of the system is only as good as the data put in. Is our society any different? If children are bombarded with pictures and words that glorify irresponsible sex, drug abuse, gratuitous violence, etc., then what outcome can we expect?
The values that children learn as they develop become the most important attributes they possess in life because they define the social and subculture boundaries and influence the choices made in life. Unfortunately, the words “values and morals” has been overused by certain groups on one side, while ridiculed and trivialized by other groups on the other side, all in the attempt to implement their extreme agendas.
Regardless, values and morals are the basic building blocks to any civilization and cannot be ignored or disavowed. It is morals and values that ultimately become the power to prevent lying to your loved ones, stealing from your friend, abusing a child, raping a women, pulling the trigger, etc., etc. W ithout values and morals such as honesty, fairness, responsibility, trust, kindness, generosity, equality, and justice we are no better than animals, regardless of how sophisticated our technology advances make us appear. In fact, we are less than animals, because animals do not have a choice.
Of course, many civilizations have risen and fallen prior to rock and roll music ever being invented. It is absurd and silly to blame the entire decline of modern civilization on the ills of the entertainment industry, when there are so many other key driving forces shaping society, such as lack of parental involvement, single parent homes, insufficient education, limited economical opportunities, etc. However, it is equally absurd and silly to claim that music, movies, and TV play no part or have no effect on shaping behavior at all, particularly those of impressionable children and teenagers.
In the timeline of recorded human history, TV and radio are relatively new communication media, and the long-term effects and saturation of negative programming has had minimal amounts of study and research, particularly compared to the amount of trillions of dollars of revenue generated by the industries themselves. Yet, if it is true that the average teenager watches or listens to more than four hours of music a day, then there is a probability that this high exposure rate does have some influence on their lives.
Under present conditions, two things are happening in our modern environment that effect children. First, we are introducing through mass media inappropriate material to minds too young to make differential judgments, which during their formative years these may become the foundation of their beliefs. Second, we are denying our children the opportunity to grow up in a protected environment where they can enjoy their childhood without growing up too fast, and at the same time, develop a strong value base for their adulthood choices.
When we continually expose children to negative elements, we are planting seeds with the potential to take root and grow. There are fundamental reasons why Sesame Street does not show drug abuse, pornography, violence, etc.
Those who believe that it is the parent's responsibility to look after their children are correct in that they face the main burden of responsibility. Consistent consumer labeling for content could serve as an important aid for parents to better oversee the material to which their children are exposed. However, labeling is not a cure all. Parental responsibility infers subjugating personal interests and ensuring time for children. Even appropriate CDs and TV shows for children (or video games or the internet) are not acceptable surrogate parents.
In addition to parental responsibility, we have a responsibility to each other as a society. The “societal contract”, in part, is an agreement to restrain from some individual interests for the collective good. There are many children who, for various reasons just do not get the supervision they need (i.e., parents working two jobs or overtime, single parent homes, etc.).
Can society afford to ignore those kids in order to indulge in soft-porn on the radio or TV? One would hope that a caring society would try to minimize this exposure to children, not maximize it. Also, one of the things that made this country great is that we traditionally looked out for people who need help and assistance (i.e., welfare, the elderly, children, etc.). Are we to begin turning our backs now?
The formula for raising children is relatively simple: providing love, guidance, and the basic necessities. The challenge for most parents is implementing it. Children need role models for behavior. If these are not provided, they will take it from other available sources like TV and music. Society’s role should be to provide a supportive environment for parents, guardians, and good neighbors to carry through on their responsibilities.
As one gazes through the collection of quotes contained in this book, it is hoped that one takes a moment to honestly and objectively reflect, is it good practice to expose these song lyrics to: a 5 year old child? a 7 year old child? a 10 year old child? a 12 year old teenager? or a 15 year old young adult?
CAN NEIGHBORS BE TRUSTED ANYMORE?
We live in a society that seems to become more superficial and lowers its standards with every passing year. For example, as we elevate certain individuals on pedestals, do we question whether they deserve these pedestals?
Can we agree that heroes are not: rock and roll musicians who are drug addicts, die from overdoses, or sell messages telling kids to do drugs, beat and rape women, kill others, kill themselves; celebrity superstars who jump from bed to bed to get "good free press” and the “trash-can sniffing” reporters who make this front page news to sell more newspapers; and athletes who holdout or strike to make an extra million dollars to assuage their egos and also set terrible role models to kids with their illegal or irresponsible behavior?
Can we agree that heroes are not: career politicians who say anything to get elected and lie to their constituents to protect their own personal interests and walk above the law; lawyers who chase ambulances or abuse loop-holes and faults within the system to win at any cost; pornographers who exploit, demean, and demoralize women to make money and who hide behind grand ideals such as “freedom of expression” or “artistic merit?”
Can we agree that heroes are: parents who work overtime to maintain an acceptable standard of living and do not “cut corners”; teachers who work in challenging environments for limited salaries; social workers that are constantly exposed to depressing and abusive conditions and rarely thanked for their services; policemen protecting us and our communities during difficult and dangerous times; veterans who have sacrificed their bodies, families, sanity, and lives protecting our often abused freedoms; and disadvantaged people who are born or incur set backs and overcome obstacles placed in their path?
Heroes are volunteers who work for not even a smile or a thank you, but because they know it is right. Heroes are the people who do the little things that make life better for the rest of us without us ever knowing.
If there is recognition of the above, then why does it sometimes seems that society’s motto is “In Hollywood and MTV We Trust.” By buying into their superficial world or by being indifferent and apathetic, by default, we have left them to direct our future as a society. The question is are you going to let someone else: Direct your life’s future? Direct your family’s and children’s future? Direct your community’s, state’s, and country’s future?
There is a great irony about the entertainment industry. They claim that they care so much about humanity, as illustrated by their contributing to some charitable causes and “save the world” specials. Although some of their charitable work is extremely admirable and generous, how can it possibly compensate for the daily dosages and damage they impart through the media, particularly upon children? Are they really building a better world the rest of the time? Are they neighbors that can be trusted anymore?
It was stated previously that one of the good things about music and entertainment is that it can provide friendship and act as a reliable companion to people. However, friendship by definition is someone who can be trusted and looks out for their friend's best interest. Are some entertainers really looking after their friend's best interest?
Regarding the multi-billion dollar music industry, it is good that it provides employment and business opportunities for musicians, record companies, merchants, and the supporting industry. However, like any capitalistic business driven by profits, it is not immune to abuse and greed. High on the list of corruption are those individuals that exploit the negative elements within the human psychology to market their products, make money, and advance careers. Some individuals that we entrust fail to acknowledge the impacts of their negative material or take responsibility for the resulting consequences. Some individuals have lost sight of their responsibilities to society, particularly children.
Looking back, the controversies surrounding Elvis and the Beatles appear fairly harmless compared to many of the individuals who have been elevated to celebrity status in the last couple of decades. Elvis’s and the Beatles's music and act had a certain appeal. However, there is no denial that they are responsible for opening a Pandora’s box of “losers and abusers” who are constantly pushing the envelope beyond legitimate tolerance and who have lost sight of at least maintaining a minimum standard of good will toward humanity. Will society reach a point of saturation for grossness and reclaim a civil standard above a base animal behavior?
If individuals do not start standing up to the superficial, self-indulgent, and greedy entertainment industry, it will only get worse until the point where cultural shifts occur and self-restraint deteriorates, affecting everyone in society because why should anybody else restrain themselves or give unto others, when they look out upon a world where nobody else does?
Much criticism can be aimed at the entertainment industry and the material that they throw at consumers. However, the bold truth remains that we, the consumers, provide the market and money for them for them to exploit by continuing to support them with the multi-billions of dollars we spend each year on their products. The real ability to control our future and make it as positive as possible lies within ourselves with the decisions that we choose each and every day. And one of those decisions that everybody must face everyday is what are my priorities in life?
CONSUMER RIGHTS
Many consumers are not aware of the content of the music they purchase for themselves or others. Many are unsuspecting or naive about the music industry. One of the purposes of this book is to serve as a source of information to build awareness of the contents of popular music and the music industry. This vast, concentrated collection of rock and roll lyrics attempts to illustrate to consumers the messages to which they have been subjecting themselves and others, whether intentionally or not.
Like those who knowingly feed their bodies the wrong foods, some consumers may not care if they nourish their minds with “unhealthy food” thoughts. However, this reference book is intended to help those who do care and want to learn more about the forces bombarding their mind and the children in our lives and communities.
Consumers have a legal right to know the content of what they are purchasing. When one goes shopping for food, the food industry is required by law to provide a breakdown of components and ingredients via labels. Consumers who are concerned about their health or fraud can ensure the are not making a purchase under false pretense and can make an informed decision on other relevant concerns. This is not consistently practiced in the music industry, and only partially in other areas of the entertainment industry.
There are some individuals who believe that parents (and guardians), who may be concerned about the content of music, should be forced to listen to the music for hours (and days) before they allow their children listen to it. Besides being unrealistic, because it is extremely difficult for one not conditioned or appreciative of a certain type of music style to listen attentively for content, consumers should never be required to go through undue burden just to find out basic information about a product. Consumers should always be able to receive enough basic product information that it enables them to make an informed decision prior to the purchase.
Similarly, some individuals believe that parents (and guardians) who may be concerned about the content of music, should read the lyric sleeves that are attached inside some CDs, albums, or tapes. This is a very good idea, and is highly recommended. However, it needs to be pointed out that this still puts undue burden upon the consumer, and is not a legitimate substitute for the labeling of products for consumers prior to the purchase. In addition, lyric sleeves are not mandatory, and are only included in a roughly estimated 25% to 50% of all albums/CDs sold.
Some individuals believe that labeling is a form of censorship. Labeling is not censorship because censorship involves editing or restricting market access (i.e., prohibiting the publication and distribution). Consistent labeling of music, movies, and television shows for content assists the consumer in making an informed decision, but does not prevent access or suppress content.
Some individuals believe that if music is allowed to be labeled, that it may influence certain stores and distributors from carrying the music. This may occur in some instances, however, it is illegal and unconstitutional to force a private merchant (store owner) and distributor to sell a product that they do not want to carry regardless of whether it is labeled or not.
For example, if some author writes a new book advocating racism or Nazi-ism, a book store owner or distributor has no obligation to carry the item. And even if they want to carry the item, in a free and democratic society, those opposed to the content of the book may mobilize and protest the sale of the book using legitimate means (i.e., boycotts of the book, store, and distributor). Similarly, proponents of the book (or those who support the idea that the book store and distributor should carry the item regardless of content), may mobilize to show support, as well. The music and entertainment industry is filled with many individuals who advocate for various social causes, and they participate or condone this method of boycotting and protesting all the time. It is interesting to find how they suddenly object to these means, if it can be used against them.
The challenge (or downside) of labeling records is how to do it in such a way that gives the consumer the relevant information they need to make informed decisions without creating biased consumer labels (i.e., informative but neutral in criticism) or without creating a system and process that is ineffective and unmanageable (i.e., poorly defined criteria, inconsistent across the board consumer labeling, etc.). In addition, labeling may not be successful at meeting the original intent and objectives sought by the designers of the policy. That is, certain types of labels may attract some “rebellious” youth, many consumers and parents appear to be apathetic or indifferent to labels or the contents of lyrics, and resentment may be built up by those who oppose labeling altogether.
THE MYTH ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION
Ask the question to any reasonably intelligent person what their thoughts are on freedom of speech and expression, and the natural instinct is to say, “freedom of speech and expression is essential to a free democracy and guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America.” Who is not for the ideal of freedom of speech and expression?
But that is what freedom of speech and expression is, it is an ideal. In a complicated world filled with diverse people and competing needs, freedom of speech and expression is often placed under certain constraints and limitations.
One point is clear though, and that is that there is no such thing as total unlimited and unconstrained free speech and expression under the Constitution in the United States, or anywhere there is a collective group of people defining a society. There exist thousands of situations and circumstances in which unlimited and unconstrained free speech and expression is not fully protected under the U.S. Constitution.
Several such examples that readily come to mind are: child pornography; noise level ordinances; lying under oath (perjury); spray painting graffiti; slandering another’s reputation; protesting on other people’s property; revealing grand jury testimony; leaking classified information; making false advertisements; inciting riots; offensive speech in a work place/office, disclosing client privilege information; using copyright protected works without permission; requiring minimum clothing in public; disclosing schematic diagrams of nuclear and chemical weapons; impersonating a police officer; broadcasting inappropriate material on government licensed radio and television stations; shouting a false fire alarm in a movie theater; making threats against the President of the United States; disturbing air-traffic control transmissions; etc...
Ideally, one should have total freedom of speech and expression, but again, in reality there is no such thing. The truth is we give up many of our personal freedoms when we belong to a society. The question and challenge then becomes, how do we balance such diverse and competing needs among so many different people?
WHO HAS THE "RIGHT-OF-WAY"?
When it comes to music and lyrics there are six primary entities that each have individual rights and are all competing for personal freedom. They are:
- Individuals who want to make the music and lyrics of their choice and want to be heard;
- Consenting adults who want to listen to the music and lyrics of their choice;
- Non-consenting adults who may be accidentally or unwillingly exposed to certain types of music and lyrics;
- Children who may be exposed to music and lyrics, and influenced without the faculties to render good judgment (consent is irrelevant);
- Parents and guardians who have a protective interest in what their children are exposed to and are responsible for their children’s physical, mental, and emotional well being;
- And a society collectively consisting of individuals who have a Constitutional right to govern and establish law through democratic means, including establishing community standards.
HISTORICAL RULINGS ON THE CONSTITUTION
There are some individuals in society who feel that they should have the ability to say or do anything they want, any place they want, any how they want, and anytime they want. When someone attempts to place legitimate constraints or restrictions upon these freedoms, they cite the Constitution of the United States and in particular, the First Amendment, which defines in “actual words” what freedom of speech and expression is in the United States.
The First Amendment of the Constitution specifically states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
If one takes this literally, then individuals should be able to say anything they want, any time they want, anywhere they want, etc. But as indicated previously, it is impossible to do this in a society where there are diverse and competing needs. Therefore, it is important to understand the Constitution is referring to an ideal and a goal. And it is a great ideal, at that.
It also very important to point out that there were many laws that existed before and after the Constitution was ratified by the States that limited and censored speech (i.e., pornography was prohibited). This is very important to point out, not because pornography is unconstitutional, but because it clearly illustrates that the original intent of the First Amendment, as ratified by the States, was not to allow total unlimited and unrestricted freedom of speech and expression.
But instead, it was intended that “the protection given speech and press was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people...All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance--unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion--have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests.”
It is also needs to be pointed out that censoring certain types of books and material (i.e., pornography) was common and fully allowed under the Constitution for the first 170 years (until the 1960s) after the Constitution was ratified to accommodate the different moral codes of local communities and States across the country. And these views were unanimously supported and endorsed by almost all of the United States so called “great leaders,” as demonstrated by legislation in which they enacted and respected by presiding Supreme Courts.
During the early half of the 20th century, the First Amendment was re-interpreted to “whether a reasonable person would find [literary, artistic, political, or scientific] value in the material, taken as a whole.” In addition, this was coupled with a criteria that was used for many years called “clear and present danger.”
Then in the 1970s the Supreme Court came up with a new criteria, which was "whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and whether the work taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”
As illustrated with these three different interpretations, the First Amendment allows for some flexibility in terms of defining what freedom of speech and expression is in the United States, depending upon who is appointed by the President of the United States to the Supreme Court.
One could discuss and debate endlessly different perspectives and philosophies on interpreting Constitutional law...ranging anywhere from a civil libertarians perspective of lifting all restrictions upon individuals to guarantee the rights of free speech, thought, and action…to a more conservative perspective of where activist courts have ignored intent of law and "rewritten" the Constitution to create new rights and have by-passed Amendments and ratification, which were established to limit government's encroachment upon existing rights without due process and consent by the people to which it exists to serve.
It is suggested that if one is interested in learning more about the Constitution, that a good place to start is by reading the Federalist Papers, which were written prior to the Constitution being ratified, so as to provide an explanation of the engineered design and intent of the Constitution and rally support for the colonies/states to ratify the Constitution, so as to make it a binding contract between the people and their government.
CENSORSHIP VS. THE WELL BEING OF CHILDREN
Censorship is wrong. Censorship is coercive and suppresses freewill which is not compatible with human nature. In fact, coercion may build and fuel resentment and generate the exact behavior intended to prevent. Particular in the United States, where one of our strongest characteristics is our strong sense of independence. In general, Americans have a natural tendency to put up defenses that block normal rational thinking when coercive or hostile forces threaten our independence. Therefore, not only is censorship wrong because it suppresses freewill, but it may be counter productive toward achieving the desired objective.
Censorship also falls under the category of authoritarian and fascist forms of government. Like elitism, it assumes that people cannot think for themselves or behave appropriately and need to be controlled by others and coerced into behaving properly. However, it needs to be acknowledged that society only benefits from the freedom and privilege of unconstrained speech if people take it upon themselves to be responsible to their selves, relationships, families, communities, and country.
Another reason why censorship is wrong is that although some forms of speech are clearly abusive and destructive, there may be a time in one's life when one needs to exercise and breech the censors standard to receive or transmit information without government restraint and retribution. However, it needs to be acknowledged that society only benefits from the freedom and privilege of unconstrained speech if people exercise this discretion wisely, and abusive and destructive speech are the rare exception, rather than the norm.
Another problem with censorship is that it places the responsibility for societal change in the hands of politicians, lawyers, and judges, which has proven consistently over time to accomplish very little. The root cause of negative lyrics is much larger than the lyrics, the negative lyrics are a reflection of what is in “our hearts and our souls.” Our current degradation cannot be changed with legislation, but only with increased knowledge, enlightenment, and a renewed desire to do the right thing for ourselves, our families and children, our fellow man, and our future.
Other problems with censorship is that all material are subjective in interpretation, which provides one of the most controversial dividing issues with regards to lyrics and entertainment. Subjectivity may offer the opportunity for human error, bias, and abuse. Then there is the issue who decides and regulates. This may result in fueling resentment by those who may disagree with the interpretations or implementation. However, should society ignore important issues and legitimate concerns just because it is difficult to establish 100% consensus on a common definition for pornography and inappropriate material for children or in how lyrics may be interpreted and their impacts?
Then there is the strategic problem resulting from censorship. By censoring lyrics and certain material it allows those who generate it to divert attention and discussion away from the real problems created. By playing off of the divided political beliefs of the public, it gives the generators a diversion and shield to hide behind. Take away their strategy, and what one is left with is the truth, which is that some of these individuals are not contributing toward building a better world for others, may not care to either, and are only looking out after their own self interests and greed.
However, although censorship is wrong, there also needs to be recognized that there is clearly a difference between censoring material for adults verses censoring material for children. It is absolutely necessary to keep certain types of inappropriate material away from children since they do not have the faculties to render good judgment. Indulging in our own selfish personal recreations (i.e., getting one’s jollies) at the expense of exposing inappropriate material to children is fundamentally wrong.
It is never permissible to expose pornography and other types of inappropriate material to children. And only permissible to expose older children, such as teenagers and young adults, to certain adult oriented material with the consent of parents and guardians or in other cases at least providing consumer labels so that they may intervene at their own discretion. In addition, it is not reasonable to expect that parents and guardians to be able to watch over their children's well being 24 hours a day for 365 days a year for 18 years. Society has a responsibility to act as a good neighbor.
It is not always a “black and white” world, and we must search for solutions in the “gray” by being open minded and creative, willing to work with each other, and always using legitimate means and being fair. Acceptable compromises can be found so that we may keep both ideals intact.
There is an appropriate time and place for all types of speech and expression, and these forums must be respected and protected at all cost. Once music is labeled for consumers consistently and informatively, and the sources for accidental exposure to children have been minimized, uncensored shows and music should continue to be available in appropriate venues, regardless of how vile or repulsive one may think they are.
The dark side of some of today's lyrics and entertainment is a direct reflection of our society, our era, our leaders, and personal priorities. Values cannot be legislated, which is why, for the most part, attempts have failed in the past. Values are altered as we evolve or devolve. Hopefully, we want to reach toward the direction of higher progressive aspirations to which everyone benefits. This can only be achieved individually through self-improvement and collectively through consensus, holding ourselves and each other accountable in the process.
WHAT IS THE STATUS REGARDING LABELING?
Concern and controversy over the content of lyrics exposed to children and consumer rights has been around for a long time. Most recently in the last 15 years, initiatives led by groups like the Parents Music Resource Center (i.e., Tipper Gore), has had initial progress at implementing a consumer product labeling system for music. However, the actual implementation of labeling efforts to-date appears to have been weak, inconsistent, and ineffective mainly because of industry resistance to implementing uniform standards and little effort given to promoting the new system or raising consumer awareness.
Most will agree that society would not benefit from government meddling into regulating labels for lyrics and other forms of entertainment. However, the record industry and musicians clearly have a conflict of interest and are not objective nor bold enough to oversee effectively any self imposed labeling initiatives by themselves.
Therefore, it may be necessary for an independent (non-government) organization to be established to implement the recommendations of working group(s) consisting of stakeholders or build upon existing initiatives that involve parents groups, record companies, musicians, distributors, elected officials, expert witnesses, special interest groups, young adults, etc. The movie industry implemented a system like this over 30 years ago because they recognized the mutual benefit to all. If there are costs to be born, the music industry whose revenues are about $14 billion dollars annually surely can afford the expenses.
Finally, it is suggested that parents and guardians recognize that almost all teenagers and young adults go through “rebellious stages.” They need to be given some freedom to make decisions regarding the selection of music so as to establish their own self-identity, develop their decision making skills, and build self-confidence and independence. This freedom may mean that they may make some mistakes along the way, but that is how they learn and grow, particularly with a supportive and caring parent.
But this should be done at the discretion of the parent, because as many parents recognize, not all children and teenagers are the same and require different approaches and formulas to raising. In addition, it is also encouraged that parents show concern for their welfare by spending time with them and discussing many of the issues regarding contemporary music and other forms of entertainment. Finally, the positive influence a parent or an adult can have upon children by sharing quality time and providing a positive role model should not be underestimated (i.e., lead by example). Although nothing is guaranteed in a world with so many variables, there is a strong probability that the person a child role models after is the kind of person that child will grow up to be. What type of person do you want your child to be and what personal sacrifices are you willing to make it happen?
LEGITIMATE MEANS FOR MAKING POSITIVE CHANGES
If one was to make a constructive suggestion toward what direction contemporary music should take (and entertainment as a whole), it would be towards generating less negative material (as compared to generating more negative material) with a minimum goal of meeting social and community responsibilities. It has been proven repeatedly over the years that high quality work can be generated without compromising and sterilizing the creativity process or the points the artists are trying to make.
Another irony with the entertainment industry is that an over whelming majority of the most critically acclaimed pieces of music, movies, plays, and television shows do not utilize techniques associated with negative material. Perhaps one of the reasons they are great and withstand the test of time is because they rise above the pettiness of cheap gimmicks and rely on creativity, vibrancy, energy, honesty, and the genius of the creator. People with real talent do not need to rely on tricks.
Yes, there are individuals who abuse the freedoms and liberties that we cherish. Some do not care about the impact they have or their responsibility to society, but rather focus only on their self-interests. They continuously exploit the gray in our Constitution, our trust in our fellow citizens, and our wonderful ability to forgive and tolerate.
Many of the individuals who generate negative material justify many of their actions in the belief that they have been the victims or observers of some great injustice. Maybe they have and are, but they need to understand the necessity that in order to build a better world it is essential to take these injustices and turn them into some type of positive action. Two wrongs do not make a right, it only advances and contributes to the original injustice.
In addition, the honesty and integrity of their excuses and alibis are questionable, because many of their lyrics and behavior go way beyond the original crime in which they have been victimized. Some of them appear to self-rationalize many of their actions with the sole intent of providing an excuse to self-indulge further without having to face any accountability to themselves or society. After all, running away from one’s self, quitting, and self-indulging is easier than facing the truth, standing up to a challenge, and thinking of other people.
Can some of these visionaries actually produce better products or will they continue to sell out to sleaze to grab attention, create controversy, make a buck, stay on top, or wallow in their own self-pity, hate, negativity, and narrow thinking? It is disappointing to see these individuals waste their gifted talents on selfish behavior and indulgences, when they could be using it to help others. Many of these individuals have tremendous amounts of talent that will never be fully realized as long as they continue on their current paths.
Unfortunately, society cannot rely on the entertainment industry to realize the collateral harm and destruction that they generate. For those individuals who are concerned about the direction of some contemporary music, particularly with regards to children issues, there are many proactive legitimate activities that one can partake in a free democracy, such as:
- Educating the public and increasing awareness of the negative issues generated by the entertainment industry, particularly with regards to the well being of children;
- Deterring investment in the record companies, parent companies, record stores, distributors, radio stations, TV networks, and sponsors that fail to live up to their social and community responsibilities;
- Challenging and encouraging certain musicians, artists, and performers to generate better and more inspiring craft and to live up to their social and community responsibilities;
- Partaking in letter writing campaigns, protests, and boycotts of the artists, record companies, conglomerates, record stores, radio stations, TV networks, and sponsors that result in public relation problems;
- Joining or establishing organizations and support networks that raise awareness of certain material, discuss important issues, set objectives, and build teams that are committed to the same ideals.