Govemmeni Publicatiecsms Unit iv ‘, 1' - ‘; , ~ ~x.' '. _' ¢_ 1 “‘__'”"\. '5. '; i _‘ : v— _ ,2 I ‘ ‘ - V 1 5-4 * ‘P F ‘J 7‘ 1 ’—:~\ * .‘ i 7 V1,!‘ - _ ,W_% 5 i Washington University Libraries ggi,‘ 85-4035 L M '50 Congressional Research Service i‘-.‘§."'-.E§"-H77..9-«':, The Library of Congress ' "F33 3575537’ Washington, D.C. 20540 LABELING ROCK MUSIC: EDITORIAL COMMENTARY Charles P. Dove U Senior Bibliographer, Government and Law Library Services Division ‘WM Missouri - Columbia ||| illlllllii Hli Hlli nivers i iiiii October 30, 1985 010-103940862 ABSTRACT In part as a response to a Washington based group called Parents’ Musical Resource Center, and congressional hearings. ‘The recording industry is evalu- ' ating the possible impact of current rock lyrics on the minds of the young. This product ia a compilation of newspaper editorials on the issue of labelling music lyrics. These editorials cover the period: September l7, l985. to October 8, 1985. ‘The Congressional hearings took place on Sept. l9,'l985.i This is an illustrative collection of editorial comments on a national issue- The Congressional Research Service monitors the editorial pages of approximately 55 daily newspapers to select those editorials that _reflect local or regional concerns within the context of a national or international issue. The presentation of these editorials is not to be hpvietsd as an$¢ien?#fi¢ sample of U-S-.eéit°=ia1 °Pini9n- CRS-v CONTENTS ABSTRACT 0000090oncoocooooooooooooooooooooonooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo EDITORIALS (arranged chronologically; indexed below by source) Argus Leader (Sioux Falls, S.D.) ......................................... Burlington Free Press (Vermont) .......................................... Chicago Tribune (Illinois).................g.........,.................... Concord Monitor (New Hampshire) ...........................-.............. Forum (Fargo, N.D.) ...................;...........,....................,. 'HartfCtd Courant (Connecticut) ......gQ.........§........%1............c.; Idaho Stateman (Boise, Ida) ....;............,............................' Indianapolis Star (Indiana) oooooooooooooooonooooooooooooooooooooooooococoA, Kansas City Times ........................................................ Los Angeles Times (California) ........................................... Minneapolis Star and Tribune (Minnesota) ................................. Oregonian (Portland, Ore;) ....;.............3....»..;.................... ;P13in Dealgr (Cleveland, 0h;O) ooooooo:;ooooJooo?oooooo’oogooooo;ooooooofim -_Providence Journal.(Rhode Island) ....;..£..,..c.......;.2...,...2........ The Record (Bergen, N}J.) ;.3.J...........;...;.............z............. Reno Gazette-Journal (Nevada) ............{.........;..................... Richmond Times-Dispatch (Virginia) ....................................... St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri) ....................................... The State (Columbia, S.C.) .....................,......................... THE FORUM A 7.5.» (K15 .~ .-A September 17, 1985; p. A4 not answer for society urning records and books containing B words and philosophy objectionable to one segment has a g overtones. , The Associated. Press reported a book- and album-burning in Mandan, N.D., and ' quoted a minister as saying. “Maybe it's time in America we begin to accept some responsi- bility for what we program ingthe people's .' Program in'the people's minds? That's ‘ _ Albums of rock and country-western music _ _ were thrown into the bonfire along with books.' The latter included multi-volume sets . entitled "Understanding Human Behavior" and “Man, Myth and Magic.” The minister also criticized the media for promoting such material and added, “I think there’s too much freedom of press. I can't say that we've been mistreated here in this semi- nar at all, but the interviewer can go sit down at his typewriter and type up any kind of in- terpretation or thought that he wants to after- ward, put that on the air. And who censors him? Nobody, really.” Who censors him? That’s also scary. A small group of congressional wives in Washington is urging music producers to place a rating on records and albums, indicat- ing whether they contain obscene material. This does have merit since it warns youthful buyers and alerts parents. But one rock star says such ratings would actually mean an in- crease in sales of “X" or “R” rated records and would force the “clean” singers to include a bitlof filth to ensure that their,songs would se . Even so, the rating does have merit. Throwing objectionable books and records 9 1935 (Fargo) Forum. Reproduced with Permission. into a fire symbolically raises the specter of witch hunts and the Inquisition. we shudder - when we think of those days. Probably no book and no song are objection- able to ALL persons. Under the Constitution. ' writers and lyricists have a right. to publish. What is filth to one is art to another. There is a point where reacting negatively to osjectionable material can slip into censor s ip. , “People for an American Way,” which calls itself a national. non 1st Amendment citizens organization working to protect indivi- dual freedoms,~ has reported “documented an. 3073519 attempts in,46_ of. the 50 states during the 1984-85 school year. Among the school li- brary books attacked were such classics as J.D. Salinger’s “Catcher in the Rye." John; Stein- ‘ beck’s “Of Mice and Men," “The Diary of Anne . Frank" and “To Kills Mockin bird." Thgdgroup said almost half. e cases chal- leng , school courses ‘and activities aimed at helping students in an increasingly complex - world. including a sex ‘education course in _ M°.nt3na. adhealth education course in Con- necticut an a drug abuse pro m in Georgia. A “tolerance day" in a Maine Eta school was cancelled because it included a omosexual. The censorship activities reflected a 68 per- cent increase over a similar study rwoyears earlier and 37 percent over last year, the group said, and 42 percent of the attempts resulted in books and instructional materials being re- moved or restricted. . All responsible people have to share a valid concern over the yrics of rock music. some of it is terrible. But rather than burning it or try- ing to ban it. op nents should operate on an educational leve . Most adults can't even un- derstand the lyrics of rock. A few newsletters to parents outlining specific-filth could be effective and if the Washington group does succeed in getting records rated, at least buy- ers will be aware of the content. “Burning of literature and music not only re- minds us of the dark ages, it makes the Obiects more intriguing to consumers. We pre- fer a society in which no group programs a mind. It is the only one that is worthwhile. U112 ifiernro September 17, 1985; p. A18 ° 1935 7'“ @9799" EV¢|‘|5fl'9) Record. Reproduced with Permission. Thenew censorship 7. Pa rental guidance suggested Rock performers today are competing to see who can be the most outrageous and ex- treme. The result is a string of teen idols whose behavior is so gross that even the late John Belushi. in “Animal House,” might have ‘ blushed. Prince has a song about masturbation. Judas Priest's lyrics describe what seems to be oral sex at gunpoint. Is this sortof thing suitable for children? or - course not. But what to do about it? Enter the Parents Music Resource Center, a group orga- nized this summer .by three well-connected Washington women -- Tipper Gore. wife of Sen. Albert ,Gore. D-T.enn.; Susan Baker, wife of .Treasury Secretary (andlformer White‘ House . chief of stafi) J_ames "Baker; and Pam Howar, whose husband, Raymond, is a prominent real- °- estate developer. - The PMRC has made a lot of noise on Cap- itol Hill about the rock-music problem. Not sur- . prisingly, given its founders’ connections, its in- fluence has been considerable. Mark Fowler, chairman of the Federal Communications Com- mission, has expressed his concern. Sen. John Danforth, R-Mo., has announced plans to hold hearings on the problem this week. In an inter- view with People magazine, Senator Danforth says he is “shocked" by the lyrics and would welcome an “energetic search for solutions.” What solutions? Well, Mrs. Gore and com- pany want to see album covers rated for sex, violence, drugs and alcohol, and the occult (whatever that may be). They want “ofiensive” album covers either obscured by a brown wrap- per or sold under the counter. They have also suggested that record companies “reevaluate” their contracts with offensive (and unrepentant) rock groups, and have even talked about apply- ing the ratings system to live concerts. Their vigorous lobbying on Capitol Hill sug- gests that they are trying to mobilize more’ than just public support -- that they want Congress to start passing laws. And what these laws boil down to is censorship -— either limiting people’_s access to certain kinds of material, or govern- ment-sponsored labeling of that material. .There is nothing wrong with speaking out against oflensivearock lyrics - or anything else, for that matter. But censorship poses a danger far greater than the most salacious rock-and-' roll lyric. . James Joyce’s “Ulysses” is now unani- r mously regarded as a literary classic. But in the early Thirties it was banned in this country. Groups like Twisted. ‘Sister and Motley Crue , may be a far cry from James Joyce, but they pose the same problem. Many ‘people find them ofiensive- (As,‘indeed, many people would find Molly Bloom's soliloquy in “Ulysses.”) But if the government is free to suppress them, it may not be long before other kinds of expression fall to the same ax. Does the Rolling Stones’ “Sympathy for the Devil” deserve an “O” rating (for occult) be- cause it is narrated by Satan? How about Flip Wilson's comic refrain, “the devil made me do it”? Why not Mikhail Bulgakov’s samizdat clas- sic, “The Master and Margarita,” which has the devil making an appearance in Moscow to argue against the oficial atheism of the Soviet state? Under Stalin, Bulgako_v’s masterpiece was banned for a quarter of a century. No one denies that some of today’s rock lyrics cross the line into bad taste. But parents can deal with that problem. They can pay atten- tion to what their children are bringing home. If necessary, they can forbid their kids to buy records with offensive lyrics. Happily, parents still have that power. Happily, the federal gov- ernment still does not. . El] 2 Ellzzftfofh glnttfant September 18,,1985; p. B8 0 1985 Reproduced with Permission. The Hartford Courant What to Do About Rock? Pressure from people worried about the ef- fects of rock ‘n’ roll lyrics, album covers and televised videos on children has prompted the Senate Commerce Committee to investigate, and its hearing Thursday probably will gen- erate considerable publicity. So long as the lawmakers confine them- selves to studying, the committee's involve- ment can be healthy. If they yield to an impulse to have the government regulate the content or availability of such materials, they will be going too far. Among the members of the group that seems mainly responsible for the congres- sional attention. Parents’ Music Resource Center, are wives of some .prominen’t _men in Washington, including Tipper Gore, ‘who is married to a committee member, Sen. Albert ' Gore Jr. of Tennessee, and Susan Baker, wife of Treasury Secretary James A. Baker III. Their -concerns are understandable, and no doubt shared by many parents. Although a lot of popular music, and rock in particular, has always been provocative, even brazen (remember Elvis the Pelvis?), an unusually disturbing trend has emerged in the past dec- ade or so. Some of today’s rock music, and the al- bum covers and videos associated with it, re- fers to or depicts gratuitous violence, glamorizes drugs and treats sexuality explic- itly but out of context. It would be irresponsi- ble of parents not to think about what prolonged exposure to such things was doing to their children. It would be equally irresponsible, howev- er, to overreact to this phenomenon, or to adopt supposed cures that were worse than the disease. One impractical idea. which seems to be gathering support, is a rating system for songs and videos. Patterned some- what after movie ratings. While some 325 films a year are rated, the recording industry releases 25,000 or so songs a year. How could they be objectively ‘and consistently classified? What expertise and loyalties would the raters have? Who would ensure that teenagers bought only what was appropriate? Wouldn't ratings only make - forbidden songs more attractive? A seemingly more practical idea is print- ing more lyrics on album covers (or, presum- ably, on packaging or paper inserts for _ cassette tapes and compact discs). That way parents, record store owners and disc jockeys . ‘could.b_e sure what children were hearing. _ In addition, parents’ letters to, or meet- ings with, television, radio and record-indus- try executives, rock concert promoters and theater managers might help, by persuading them to be more aware of their responsibil- ities to the teenage audience. The best approach, however, as difficult as it sounds, is for parents to monitor what their children are watching and listening to. The exposure of young children to objection- able material can be controlled; with sensitiv- ity, parents can discuss it with older children. making their opinions clear. It’s worth remembering, however, that nothing will keep sex, violence or drugs out of music. just as nothing will keep them out of movies, television, books or magazines. Sup- pression may be an appealing option, but the realistic (and freedom-preserving) remedies are knowledge and discussion. @112 fiurlingmn (Sire: firms September 19, 1985; p. 12A No Lew Needed On Album Ratings ° 1955 7"‘ 3“'“''flfDfl Free Press. Reproduced with Permissio-n. _ - Apparently convinced of its infinite wisdom, Congress. often ' meddles into areas that properly are beyond the scope of its au- thority, particularly in- matters that involve constitutional issues. If some members of Congress had their way. they would enact legislation which would protect the public from a plethora of real and imagined dangers. The issueof pornographic re- cord albums is 'a case in point. The Senate is considering the passage of a law which would require record companies to use the same type of ratings as now are used by the movie industry. Such a step, the lawmakers be- _,lieve, would protect children from hearing explicit lyrics that might be bad influences on their lives. Not only are congressmen concerned about the circulation of such material but their wives and those of some cabinet mem- bers are engaged in the labeling campaign. Susan Baker, wife of Treasury Secretary James A. Baker III. is leading the drive as a member of the Parents‘ Re- source Music Center in Washing; ton. “We’re saying a line of decency has been crossed," she said. Starting this fall. 19 major record companies. will use labels on such albums. warning that parental guidance is necessary because they contain explicit ly- rics. Sincethose firms are volun- tarily doing what Congress wants them to do by fiat, a law which requires them to label the albums seems unnecessary. Moreover, parents must take the responsibi- lit-y for. exercising control over .what their children hear by checking the content of the al- bums to determine whether the lyrics are offensive. Congressmen should not take on the role of surrogate parents by imposing censorship on activ- ities that are carried on in the homes of their constituents. Be- cause the albums are intended for home consumption. restric- tions on their sale and use under such circumstances clearly would be unconstitutional. Lawmakers should apply their wisdomto other matters of greater importance and should reject legislation which is de- signed to do What parents should be doing. THE PLAIN DEALER September 19, 1985' 0 I985 The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer. "Reproduced with Permission. . Sanciimony alerti hey camped on the prairie one bright starry night: They broke out the whiskey and Betsy got tight; She sang and she shouted and danced o’er the plain: And she showed her bare arse to the whole wagon train. I ‘ It's not likely thatthe campaign to,place warning labels on records is meantth extend to such songs as “Sweet Betsy from Pike,” but forget not the tiny - acorn. -If you accept the need'for ‘warning labels to inhibit the sale of what some think is vulgar and enervating music, then you open floodgates. Proponents of this idea object to rock music that celebrates “substance abuse "and/or is excessively violent, graphic, lewd, anti-authoritarian. Well maybe, but it's wrong to hold music responsible for . conformity and lawfulness. To the opposite, rock music is a‘ useful—and har_mless—wa_y to express ' frustration, boredom and pent-up aggression. . Even more to the point, though, is that ‘the stan- - dards have more to do with backbeat than -with sentiment. Presumably, labelers would not con- demn Sweet Betsy, even.though it contains excessive violence and racism (she “fought injuns with musket and ball”), drunkenness and anti-social behavior. Betsy even rejoiced in then-kinky role- reversal: When Ike’s soul shrank from the alkalai desert and he wanted to return to Pike County. “Said Betsy, ‘you’ll go by yourself if you do.’ ” Betsy is no comparison to today's hymns of hedo- nism and degeneracy. Nor is “Waltzing Matilda,” although it records with admiration the contrary lifestyle of an Australian hobo, sympathizes with his thievery, and paints the stockman as a capitalist roader and symbol of repression. But what about “Willie the Weeper," who “had the dope habit and he had it bad”? Or Tom Leher’s “Rickety-Ticketye Tin,” a satirical song about a young woman who murdered her family? Not as bad as necrophilia, perhaps, but she did “cut her baby brother in two and serve him tin in an Trick _el>o1v_" - 66 Some modern rock music is vulgar, crude, graphic, violent, misogynist and rude. But. ~ controlling a child '5 exposure to and appreciation of those ‘songs is ' a parental job, not a federal one Labeling records means that people who cannot relate to the music will‘ judge it. which clearly makes no sense, One senator’s wife complained that she bought records‘ and tapes for her children without knowing the message they contained. But if the lyrics mean so much, then she, not the record ' industry, was irresponsible. How can labeling hope to turn the tide anyway? Youthful fans might view warning labels as a convenient opportunity to rebel. Record companies might be given an even greater reason to pander. This entire debate is cyclical. It came and went duringthe early 1950s, thelate 1950s, most of the 1960s and someof the 19705. Now here it is again, with the added credibility of senatorial spouses who are shocked at their own naivete. Because they feel incapable of exercising what they consider proper restraint over their children's taste in music, they want the government to do it for them. Some modern rock music is vulgar, crude, graphic, violent, misogynist and rude. But control- ling a child's exposure to and appreciation of those songs is a parental job, not a federal one. Indeed, the idea of labeling records serves only those par- ents who understand their children less than their 9 own sense of propriety. 2 brrpmtiattt September 22, 1985; p. 32 6 19°85 The (Portland! Oregonian. Reproduced with Permission. Leave the labels off records The much-publicized effort of promi- nent Washington. D.C., women to have record companies place warning labels on albums containing sexually explicit or violent lyrics is a well-intentioned but misguided attempt to influence the moraldevelopment of American youths. The intention of the group, Parents Music Resource Center, is not to censor songs or albums that do not measure up to their personal tastes. Rather, they want the record industry to set up a committee that would establish uniform guidelines‘ so that individual record -' companies would place warning labels on albums deemed'to have explicit sex- - u'al or violent lyrics. They desire all rec- ord companies to comply voluntarily with industrywide guidelines. The record industry wants to leave the labeling decision to each company. In addition, it is reluctant to establish industrywide standards for labels. Nev- ertheless, 24 record companies, repre- senting 80 percent to 85 percent of. new-record sales, have agreed in princi- ple to place warning labels on records when they think it is warranted. Though the effort of the center stems from the laudable desire to pro- tect children and their parents from unhealthy influences. it falls prey to substantial difficulties. It would require all words of all albums to be printed on -' the album cover or in an insert. In the case of lyrics concerning violence or sex, the result would be a further dis- semination of the words they are trying a to warn people against. On the other hand, the restriction would not reach a significant sector of the-market - those who make copies . of each other’s records and tapes. Par- ents of these youths would have no way 1 of knowing the content of the tape. Fur- thermore, ‘the effort to define unaccept- able violence or sex is doomed to fail- ure. Finally. the connection between excessively violent or sexually explicit lyrics and excessive teen-age violence or sexual activity has not been convinc- ingly documented. Helpful moral guidance sometimes can be communicated through pro- nouncements. More frequently, though, and certainly in this case, it is better communicated in a caring, nurturing, private setting where options are dis- cussed and reasons are provided. Chicago (Tribune September 23, 1985; p. 10 6 1985 Reproduced with Permission. Chicago Tribune The problem of blue music Once upon a time the lyrics of popular music favored by adolescents were innocent. But not in the lifetime of the generation whose children today are being bombarded by songs about ~violent' depravity and jaded sex. Even in the good, dull days of the 19505. ipck and roll singers did their best to slur words so that the febrile minds of young people would hear them dirty, even if the printed lyrics read. clean. And by_ the mid-1960s, when the music said, “Ask Alice,” the question was drugs and the coni- mon answer of many rock stars was an emphatic yes. . The difference today is that a lot of songs, if you can understand them at all, seem to’ be pandering to cars so numbed to the ‘off color ', and bizarre that only the most disgusting will. shock‘ them the way they want to be ' shocked. And now the voice of parents is beginning to be heard, demanding that something be done to protect their children against this land of, thing. What you have here is a conflict be- tween the common lament by the mature about the younger generation and a record industry so venal that it is willing to discard any sense of common decency in order to make a dollar. - ‘Hearings in the ‘Senate the other day de- generated into a kind of R-rated performance as_ a group of upright, earnest people com- mitted to cleaning up popular music competed for ‘attention with a group of rock stars for whom shamelessness is part of their job de- scription. The result was both revolting and hilarious, which is the kind of thing kids seem to like these days. _ V It certainly wouldn't hurt if the people who market records began to exhibit a little taste and restraint. Of course, ,the corrupting influ- ence of songs about ' drug use and violent, promiscuous sex easily be overstated. After all, the folks who are today rightly and soberly concerned about their children proba- bly listened to “Lucy in the Sky with Dia- . monds" when they were young and knew exactly what the initials stood for. But still there ought to be some limits.‘ A culture is f defined not only by the freedom it peijmits but -also by the way the freedom is exercised. Short of a moral reawakening in . the enter- tainment industry, which may be so corrupt that it thinks these songs are just examples of gritty realism, there might be some value in a labeling system to allow parents to know when their cltids are buying smutty, druE8‘Y. violent recor s. There is, of course, the problem that the X- rating itself become a marketing device so that young people will settle for nothing less than the worst. And if the government sets the standards, it may become so prim and cen- sorious that they become discredited. But de- spite the risks, a voluntary system of notice would be some help. Disclosure is not a perfect antidote to the problem of shoddy goods, but it . is a beginning. CONCORD'@ MONIT September 24, 1985; p. 12 .o 1985 Concord Monitor. Reproduced with Permission. Same old song? 3 Rock ‘n’ rollis here to-stay, and so is the parental desire to keep it from damaging Ame:-ica’s chil- dren. Some would argue that the .battle was lost in the last genera- tion, despite the good work that went into keeping Elvis’s pelvis off (under?) camera. Today's rock lyrics. like today’s televi- sion; do make one wonder Where the country is headed. At least Elvis wore pants. - ‘We do not mean to make light of the good intentions of parents who don’t want their kids listen- ing to songs about orgasm, '1-ape, patricide, matricide and mutila- tion. No matter how good such in- tentions are, however," this is not a problem that the government can solve. Censorship, whatever its guise, always proves to be worse than the evil it was meant to erase. - . - The group that has raised the issue does not acknowledge cen- sorship as its Rather the Parents Music Resource Center says it wants a voluntary labeling system to warn parents which al- bums contain disgusting stuff. The group counts the wives of several powerful politicians among its number. Last week, they took their case before the Senate Commerce Committee. The committee got an earful - and an eyeful: The Parents Music Resource Center doesn’t care for the graphics on many album covers either. The Senate committee also heard from about as wide a spec- trum of popular musicians as three bodies can represent. These ranged from the whole- some John Denver, balladeer and actor. to the absurd Frank Zappa, a has-been who never really was, and Dee Snider, elec- tric-haired maestro of Twisted Sister. All sang the same tune, defending their freedom of ex- pression. i Denver made the obvious point A that a labeling system would I'nMuI'ner'an'oav.uvimnUv'mefiure Editorial comes desired.” He also talked about his personal experiences . with do-gooders who refused to publish ads for his movie Oh, God! because they considered it blasphemous and disc jockeys who refused to play his song “Rocky Mountain High” because they thought it was about drugs. These may seem like extreme, oddball acts of censorship, but they are proof that one person's entertainment may be another’s devil incarnate. Therein lies one obstacle to labeling. Who decides what is tasteless enough for an X, and by what process? We're not hyperbolic enough to ” buy Zappa’s -contention that the parents’ group’: demand for a rating system is “the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapita- tion,” but we do think the Senate Commerce Committee probably has better things to do. At least it ought to. So, besides being thankful that rock lyrics are usually unintellig- ible, what is the nation to do? In this Republican age, one answer should be obvious: the free mar- ket. This mass culture of ours produces a great deal of trash. What usually keeps it out of the mainstream is the public’s aver- sion to buying it. Parents, however, ought to do more that sit back and wait for American cultural taste to be up- lifted. The Parents Music Re source Group has done them a favor by informing them how far lyrics have come from the days of the double entendre, the wink and the smile. Difficult though it always is, parents would be wise to talk with their teenagers about this issue. They might start by re- {I05 Angeles Glimea September 25, 1985; p. 4, part II 0 1.985 Reproduced with Permission, Los Angeles Times . Ratings Aren’t Lyrical Rock 'n’ roll lyrics—some blatantly sexual. some violent-have come in for ‘their share of criticism lately, culminating in- a Senate hearing at which “rating” labels for record albums were proposed. But labels pose more problems than they solve. True, ratings might help some customers avoid the most tasteless and offensive material. How- ever. the designation could also enhance sales in -_ - some markets, attracting those searching for the sensational and lurid just-as film ratings of “R" and “K” have particular audiences. - _ Furthermore, there are practical problems. c How would record ratings be enforced? Propo- nents of the ratings could hardly expect record- store owners to enforce the age requirements for purchasing record albums that contain sexually explicit lyrics. Who would decide? And which albums would be rated? Only rock 'n’ roll, the target of the recent complaints? What if a country singer recorded a song that some people found ‘offensive? Would the it ' album have to be rated? What about opera? Or show music? Film ratings have dem_onstrated the difficulty in working out an agreed -policy. What some people find offensive, others do not. What some people would ban._others would allow. What some people see as obscene, otherscall free expression. W’ Rock In’ roll has been a. target of parental: concern since Elvis the Pelvis gyrated his way to public attention 30 years ago. For centuries before Presley, songs have celebrated love and lust. and violence as well, with the wording of many American jazz songs rivaling the explicit lyrics‘ of today's acid balladeers. g. Crude words have never been the social threat presumed by their critics because, in all ages, there has been a limited tolerance for vulgarity. And there has always been a remedy: If you don't like the lyrics, don't listen to the song. LEADER e 1985 (Sioux Falls) Argus Leader. Reproduced with Permission ARGUS September 26, 1985; p. Plan to label records is idea whose time is past For some fans. shock power has been part of the attractionof rock music since its birth in the 19505. From the days of Little Richard and Elvis Presley to Twisted Sister and Wendy 0. Williams. there has been a paradeof guitar-banging, prancing singers T ’ who worked over- Edift°ri3l time to refine sug- T gestzve on-stage moves and - naughty song lyrics. .- It takes more for an_ti-establish- ment rockers to shock us now than °‘ 20 years ago. but some of them can .. still do it. The_y’ve been effective enough. in fact, to bring national attention to the Parents’ Music Re- source Center. a sincere but out-of- touch parents’ group in Washing-‘ ton, D.C. ' The group is urging Congress to help protect children from rock songs with raunchy lyrics. Sound familiar? You might re- member similar. short-lived groups that sprouted during the 19505, 19605 or 1910; to protect children and other listeners from the sound of . rock. Some groups burned records. That was silly. So is the goal of this new oganization. The Parents’ Music Resource Center IS worried about lyrics that are sexually explicit. excessively violent or glorify the use of drugs or alcohol. The group wants the record industry to_“voluntarily” police it- self._Spec1fically, the group wants the industry to do three things- ‘C1 Label records with a generic warning about content. E3 Make lyrics available to the‘ - consumer before purchase. . U Create a panel to set up policy guides for which records should be labeled. “A voluntary labeling is not cen- sorship,” Tipper Gore, one of the group's leaders. told a Senate com- mittee last week. . Maybe, in a technical sense,_but labels could have a chilling effect ‘on free expression. _ - Asa practical matter; the plan simply would not work. Labels might even increasedemand for records of questionable taste. “R” ratings on movies aren’t known for keeping teen-agers away. How many parents would screen the music their children buy? How many children would listen? How many adult listeners want a panel screening their music? And what about ‘music played on the radio? Should songs he prefaced with a warning? “Caution: This tune may be hazardous to you or your child.” Free-expression means already exist for concerned groups to express opinions: pamphlets. ad- vertising -- even records. Let’s leave warning labels for products that are really harmful, like cigarettes or saccharine. Words and music only hurt when vnn f|jrn__H'1n vnint-no In-\ fnn Inn.-J E112 Battgiaga Qlitu Ulimcga September 26, 1985; p. A18 6 1985 Reproduced with Permission. The Kansas City Times Labeling the Trash The proposal for labeling record albums with distasteful lyrics threatens to escalate familial disputes over rock music. .Under this proposal parents and children, who must now content themselves with arguments about musical quality and decibel levels, could ex- pand these discussions to include the merits of the words. Many parents have long suspected they should object to the words. But they couldn’t know for sure because it all, to the untrained ’ ear, sounded like, gibberish. Now the National T -PTA and a Washington group are pushing for _ something that -has the record industry wor- ried: “full disclosure,” which means having. record companies print the lyrics on the backs of albums or on cards with cassette tapes. A large part of the industry had agreed to put a warning label on albums with “explicit” lyrics. Since many parents do not stand at the side of their offspring as they peruse the. latest offerings at the record store, the repercussions of warning labels would be largely retroactive: “Young lady -— did you or did you not see this label when you bought this record?” And’ then there would be the fights over record covers’ that got lost between the store and home. But the record companies, while originally agreeing to labels, rejected full disclosure of lyrics. They said this would be - impractical and a step toward censorship. The unstated fear is that printing all the words would make .it, painfully obvious just exactly how inane many of ‘them’ are -—- so inane that perhaps even hard-core rock addicts would start gig- gling.- ' ' . The whole issue, which has been before a Senate committee, is silly, although some serious issues -— violence, teen-age pregnancy, even suicide -— have been dragged into the discussion. Let’s not kid ourselves. Forcing the record industry to print garbage isn’t going to solve those problems. mtrflflrnlxiflrnrr fiilnurnul , ‘September 28, 1985; p. A20 0 1985 The (Providence) Journal. Reproduced with Permission. Labeling sleazy rock verbiage The first thing to be said about the latest rock and roll music controver- sy is that any suggestion music lyrics should beofficially censored to. pro- tect young people is way off base. Music stars who testified at con- gressional hearings last week per- formed . as though censors were poised with scissors and stamp pads at the ready. They used satire. arro- gance and rudeness to defend the sleazy verbiage that pollutes more and more of the output of rock and roll records. And with supersensitive antennae wobbling at the august panel of Senate Commerce Commit: C teee members, they acted like def_end- ers of the faith with their backs to the wall. ‘ The over-reaction of composer and satirist Frank Zappa was not music to the committee's ears. Sen. Slade Gor- ton. R-Wash, called Zappa’s remarks “boorish, incredibly and insensibly insulting" to the two ‘women who had foundedthe Parents Music Re- source Center (PMRC), an organiza- . . tion that seeks‘ some method of steer- ing children away from records with lyrics that are sexually explicit. ex- cessively violent or glorify the use of drugs and alcohol. Tipper Gore. wife of Sen. Albert Gore, D-Tenn. and Susan Baker. wife ‘of Treasury Secretary’ James Baker, were not proposing censorship. “A voluntary labeling is not censorship," said Mrs. Gore. “Censorship implies restricting access or suppressing con- tent. This proposal does neither,” she said. What PMRC asks is that the music industry give parents guidance as to the content of certain records. This would take the form of record labels with generic warnings, making print- ed lyrics available before purchase and establishing a panel to set policy on labeling. This would come no closer to censorship than the motion picture industry’s voluntary rating system or the toy industry’s recom- mended age rating on its products. Yet even the American Civil Liber- ties Unionhas Iept to the barricades. It has formed the Musical Majority, whose chairman. Danny Goldberg, president of Gold Mountain Records, offered a truly awesome prediction: Labeling or rating of records, he said, “will impose an atmosphere of cen- sorship on the creative community. It will interfere with a free market- place. It will erode the First Amend- -ment. It will damagetwo of.‘ th_e'most' wonderful American traditions: free- dom of expression and-music." Given this assessment, there seems ‘reason to wonder how the film indus- try has survived with its voluntary PG (parental guidance), R (restricted) and X (sexually explicit) ratings. One does not have to be prudish to believe that themes of sex and vio- lence may be offensive to some par- ents of _impressionable youngsters. No one is saying the industry should be barred from recording these themes. But the public does have a right to expect a responsible ap- proach to parental rights by those who serve up tapes and platters of musical smut and sell them i to children. ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH September 28, 1985; p. 2B 0 ‘.985 Reproduced with Permission. St. Louis Post-Dispatch Hands Rock’n’ Roll If one were to try to convince one’s oppo- nents to surrender their cause, one shouldn’t begin by heaping insults upon im- portant heads. Normal people who wish to prevail would not, but that didn’t stop p crude-speaking rock stars-who made fools of themselves before the Senatecommerce Committee ‘by ridiculing possible federal regulation of record lyrics. Their point was correct, although they spoke in the same offensive manner as their music. How they said what they said isn't the issue. Just as it's futile to raise an - umbrella in a hurricane, it's. futile as well as‘ a violation of the rights of privacy and ‘free - speech for any government to arrogate the authority to screen the lyrics of music. De- cades ago, Cole Porter wrote fine lyrics while turning out scores of suggestive phrases - in “Always True to You in My Fashion,” “Love for Sale” and “I Get a Kick Out of You.” The late Cootie Williams, Dulce Ellington’s master of the growling trumpet, gave the Ellington orchestra its “danger- ous” jungle sound. At the time it was per- formed. some of Richard~Wagner's music W was branded seductive and disturbing for _ Lyouth; rhythm and intonation .were the tar- get of critics. Remember the hullabaloo over the unintelligible lyrics of “Louie, - Louie” by the Kingsmen 20 years ago? Ob- scene? Many thought so, but they weren’t. If it were possible to box and label the world at large as critics of rock music want, we would still oppose regulatory oversight of the recording industry. It would be self» defeating, expensive and put forth the ». wrong values for this society. Better the industry itself provide truth-in-labeling or voluntary disclosure, but even that would be counterproductive. Children without suf- ficient parental attentionand love will find their own music. Home is where the prob- lem should be solved, not elsewhere, 36¢ E §tate iseptember 28, p. 16A 0 1985 The (Columbia) State. Reproduced with Permission. Public pressure can restrain ‘porn rock’ ON Sept. 19. the Senate Com- merce Committee conducted a hearing on pornographic rock mu- sic, which turned out to be a Wash- ington sensation. The conse- quences are not so clear. A group of wives of prominent Washingtonians organized a move- ment, Parents’ Music Resource Center, five months ago to protest explicit sexual and violent lyrics in so-called porn rock. PMRC wor- ries about the influence of lurid. lyrics on children, , The membership includes wives of Sen. Albert Gore of Ten- nessee, Ernest F. Hollings of South Carolina — both members of the Senate's Commerce Committee — and Treasury Secretary James ' Baker, to namea few. PMRC’s anti-porn rock cam- Opaign has gone" nationwide’ with ' dozens of radio and television talk shows, interviews and news can- ferences to call attention to their cause. The Senate committee hearing was the supreme atten- tion-getter. Also attending were several rock stars, including Dee Snider of the rock group Twisted Sister, and Frank Zappa, formerly of the group called Mothers of Invention, and likeable John Den- ver. Ironically, PMRC's spokes- women didn’t ask the Senate com- mittee to do anything. PMRC does not promote official censorship and isn’t asking for any new laws. That is most laudable and shows awareness of some First Amend- ment considerations which could be involved in any legislative ac- tion to restrain porn rock. Actually, PMRC has been doing quite well with its campaign without using any legal clubs. It has gotten 24 recording companies considered porn rock music which has been aired. Snider acknowledged the ef- fect of - PMRC’s campaign. He must have been a sight confronting the senators with his mass of Medusa-like hair in blond and black streaks, and wearing a sleeveless T-shirt emblazoned with his rock group’s name - Twisted Sister. He told the ‘sena- tors, “I’m tired of running into kids on the street who tell me that they can’t play our records anymore because of the misinformation their parents are being fed by the PMRC." He said he thought PMRC was taking heavy metal music “overly serious” and that it is no worse than monster movies -- “not total- ly a bad-- thing.” - ' - The Chr'i.sti'an_Scie-(ice . Monitor reported, howe‘,’°3‘. that he didn't convince the adults on the Senate panel: “At one point the hearing room crowd gasped in uni- son as a testiiier, youth minister Jeff Ling, droned the lyrics from rock songs depicting violence, praising incest and advocating rape or suicide.” PMRC is on the right track. Raising public awareness of the contents of porn rock will almost certainly bring public pressure on the recording companies, broad- casters, and, perhaps, the rock stars themselves to goalong with PM2RC’s recommendations. Those recommendations are for the recording industry to label records with a warning of content, to make lyrics available to a buyer before purchase, and to create a panel to make policy guides on which records ought to be labeled. None of these proposals is un- reasonable, and none promotes ‘O Minneapolis Star and Tribune October 1. 1985; p. 10A 4: 1985 Reproduced with Permission. _ Minneapolis Star and Tribune Rock and ‘roll can be very, very good, but . . . When rock and roll is good. it is very, very good. Farm Aid. a Sept. 22 concert that raised 39 million and concern for financially strapped farmers. was good. Live Aid. a rock concert last July that raised _ 70 million and global concern for Africa's hungry, was very good. Some misplaced politics intruded, _ and questions remain about how the money will be spent. but the intent of both concers was solid gold. But when rock and roll is bad. it can be very had indeed. A Washington, D.C., group called the Par- ents Music Resource Center makes that point. Cen- ter founders -- wives of government leaders and mothers of teen-agers — cite lyrics about sex, violence and the occult to argue_th_at rock-and-roll musicdangerously influences young people. Led by ‘ripper Gore and Susan Baker, the women were shocked by the contents or some rock-and-roll al- bums they bought for their children. But for that matter, the sight of Gore, an impeccably turned-out senator's wife. matter-of-factly reciting erotic lyrics has its own shock value. That bid for attention is the_ point. Gore and Co. exposed rude rock lyrics to garner attention for their cause, just as Farm Aid employed rock stars to spread awareness about farm problems. just as some would-be rock stars use _garish dress and raunchy songs to distinguish themselves from other hopefuls. All three groups have benefited from the freedom to grandstand. ’ y - The Parents Music Resource Center abandoned a demand for a rock rating system, and now asks that the recording industry voluntarily provide warning labels and printed versions of the lyrics. Neither is needed. Contemporary music has been worrying _p'arents and-galvanizing kids. ever since radio. tele- . _vision and now rock-video gave it mass -appeal. Some argue that Sinatra's sneer, Presleyfs hips or ,' even the Beatles’ '60s anthems were benign com- pared to today's worst; that society has become deplorably hardened to explicit sex and violence. It the arguments are right, society surely has lost. But if the critics’ clamor for censorship were to gain ground, that would be a greater loss — of a I fundamental right to speak out. and to choose whether to listen. tat. srarresmm b 5 ’ 1 8 5 ; _ 8 A 9 1985 lioproducod with Permission. Octo er 9 P ' The (Boise) Idaho Statesman Parents need record ratings 7 The First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech, sometimes gets bandied about in arguments that have nothing to do with free speech.'I‘ake porn rock. You've. likely seen or heard porn rock in your own home, perhaps without realizing it. It's. far different from the Elvis-the-Pelvis _ stuff that riled parents in‘ the '50s. Porn rock glori-fies sexual promiscuity, sado-rnasoch- ; - ism, drug use, and other lests-attractive fea- tures of our society. . It makes perversity routine. And inevitably, such exposure can only desensitize children to right and wrong. The National PTA, working in‘ conjunction with parents groups, _has -put forth several proposals to solve this problem-_. ~ - . -The major proposal is that recordings con- taining objectionable material“ be rated on the cover. Industrywide guidelines would be used by each record company. The PTA also wants the industry to provide lyrics for all songs, either on the cover or on lyric sheets. This would enable Mom or Dad to see what the songs say before Junior brings a record home. The recording industry, in a classic leap of logic, is crying censorship. It has refused to adopt uniform rating standards, will not rate releases, and will not agree to provide lyric sheets. It has offered, instead, to have individ- ual companies label albums with the warning “Parental Guidance - Explicit Lyrics.” But each company would be deciding for itself what constitutes “explicit lyrics.” In addition, “parental guidance” is too mild a warning for the kind of raunchiness involved. Parents want just one thing: specific infor- mation that will help them decide, as is their responsibility, whether a certain record is ap- propriate for their children to hear. Th-“'5 “°t °9?‘S.°F5.hiP:....- , _. i. October 6, 1985; p. 2C Proposal to rate records merits public support T he outraged U15. senators’ wives are t right. So arethe indignant members of parent-teacher associat.ions and ~ those affiliated with organizations professing to_ be battling moral . degradation in American society. They are right when they say the time has come to place consumer ratings on record albums. Rock ’n’ roll lyrics have created problems for the American music , industry for more than three decades. .- long before rock music entered the picture —- and when social-mores were far, more strict than they are today‘-— lyrics challenged the consciousness of an ' American public attempting to balance individual rights with socially accepted behavior. But, up to now, there have been relatively few cases in which labeling was seen as a necessary restraint. Times have changed - not slightly, but drastically. Concerned parents and others are no longer cautiously skeptical about the words of songs. They are grossly offended. And they have every right to be_ Lyrics no longer suggest harmless sexual encounters. They promote violence. Words no longer express interest in those of the opposite sex. They speak of incest, rape and a wide variety of hard-core mayhem. The time to move on this problem is now.‘ The Washington-based Parents’ . Music Resource Center and the National PTA have not made unreasonable demands. It is only the recording industry and those who cry “Censorship! 8 1.985 Reproduced with Permission. Reno C-az ett e-Journal whenever this matter is discussed who buy the argument that it is an abridgement of freedom of expression. Others see it for what it is - a sensible compromise. The principal objectives of the PMRC are threefold: The formation, by the music industry, of a panel of appropriate representatives to establish guidelines for material requiring a warning label; the evaluation of musical releases by individual record companies to determine the necessary" label; and an , agreement by the industry to provide the lyrics for all labeled recordings, whether on the album jacket or in outlets where they are sold. At a later date, it can be determined whether offensive recordings should be marked with an or whether more - specific warnings‘, such as “O" for occult . and “V” for- violent, should be ‘used. What is important is for the'American' public to reach _a consensus on labeling. It works in the movie industry; it can work for music. Toward this end, more people should pay attention to what the youth of this country is hearing. How about a little ditty from Kiss: “Burn, bitch, burn/Gonna drive my love inside you/Gonna nail your ass to the floor/ On your knees!” Then there’s Prince: “My sister never made love with anyone but T me/Incest is everything it’s said to be.” This is sleazy stuff, by any standards. Opponents, of course, voice all types of objections. Kids don’t listen to the words anyway. Labeling records will only make them seem like contraband and attract A the curious. Parents should keep closer tabs on what their children buy if they are so concerned. Still, a little consumer awareness never hurt anyone. It certainly hasn’t hurt the movie industry in its 17 years of ratings. Labeling records would at least provide some kind of guide. And that's better than hauina nnthind Exposing Porn Rock Should recorded popular music packages have the lyrics on display? A Such an approach would neither‘ classify nor censor performers or composers. But it would warn music buyers and parents that lyrics may not be suitable for young ears. And it would ‘put music broadcasters on alert for the kind of “porn rock” that should not be polluting the public. airways. 'The sound and fury over porn rock has reached a crescendo as the Senate Commerce Committee and the music industry study ways to answer complaints against the escalation of vio- lence and sexu-ality in such music. ' 1 In hearings late in September, the-_lyric7print-' - ing idea was suggested as an alternative to mandatory ratings and warning labels on re- ' cords. It might cost the industry something, but it would be an expense comparable to the printing of nutritional information on food pack- ages. r . - A chorus of voices to clean up the airways is coming from the Parents Music Resource Center a and the Na_tional Parent-Teacher Association. They contend that the music industry has gone too far in trying to cash in on shock value. Rock composer-performer Frank Zappa, who sounded in his Senate Commerce Committee statement as if he saw storm troopers in the hallway, said he could accept the idea of stan- dard lyrics-printing under certain conditions. So would Sen. Albert Gore of Tennessee. who was one of those who sought hearings, though he and other concerned senators are not proposing legis- lation now. ~ The National Association of Broadcasters al- ready has asked that_ lyrics be furnished to radio stations. Parents have reason to want the same protection,‘ and it can be achieved. -13- Birhmonh Eimes-Eispatrh Ocotber 8, 1985; p. A10 Rock Music’s Hard Spot The compromise record labeling plan set up by the Recording Industry Association of Ameri- ca to head ofi congressional act-ion on objection- able rock lyrics. is in danger of falling apart. At ‘least two major record companies have an- nounced they won’t go along with the plan out of concerns over business and censorship. It’s just “blacklisting by another name,” said one oppo- nent of the plan. Advocates of the plan, however, can use the .- same arguments to justify it: If opponents are troubled by ‘business and censorship consider- ‘ ations now, just wait until Congress gets in- volved. Surely congressmen and senators pushed ‘ by their wives and parents’ groups aren’t going to be less restrictive than the RIAA. In all likelihood they’ll be more so. When members of the Washington-based Par- ents Music Resource Center — including the wife of Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore — charged that current rock music glorifies sex, drugs, violence and the occult, they found an attentive audience in Congress. Virginia Sen. Paul Trible joined their cause in testimony during the recent Senate Commerce Committee hearings. “Our culture powerfully afiects individual character,” he said. “When we are constantly confronted by that which is coarse, we become .e-19:35 The Richmond Times-Dispatch Reproduced Wm, pe,m,ss,o,,* coarsened. Repeated exposure to song lyrics describing rape, incest, sexual violence and per- version is like sandpaper to the soul — it rubs raw on"e’s sensibilities, resulting in a state of -emotional numbness and shock; in the words of George Will, one becomes literally ‘de-moral- ‘ ized’.” At the very least, says the senator, a reason- able response to the problem should mean clear- ly oflensive records have warning labels and lyric sheets. The RIAA plan proposes a label that would_say: “parental guidance: explicit lyrics,” ' ' wording which ought to satisfy all parties to this dispute. . g , _ . . This solution is not without potential prob- lems. It may be that labels would, as Los Ange- les Mayor Tom Bradley has suggested, simply lead children to the “forbidden fruit.” But par- ents would be alerted to listen to the music and judge for themselves for objectionable content (if they wanted to inflict it on themselves). Some stores may refuse to carry labeled records, op- ponents worry. Well, if the demand for such records is there, we suspect the records will be too. At any rate, critics of the RIAA label should realize it could be “worse.” They ought to go along with it before Congress shows them how.