Today rock n? roll is about getting a contract with a major company, and pretty much doing what the company tells you to do. …they inflict their taste on the people who actually make the music. To be a big success, you need a really big company behind you because really big companies can make really big distribution deals (Zappa 1988).
To spread your message to the masses, you need the help of a record company to record, manufacture, and distribute your work. Although it may appear that the record companies are in control, this is not always the case. Record companies face a conflict because of pressure from outside parties. Companies weigh the risk of controversy that may damage the image of the entire company against the potential profit of a few albums, and the albums have been losing. John Mitchell, attorney for the National Association of Record Manufacturers, points out:
If you can be prosecuted and the whole corporation put at risk because of one extremist [censor] in one area, American consumers are going to find that suppliers are going to be very gunshy at providing that product anywhere in the country (Marsh 1991).
Rock music critic Dave Marsh offers the corporate profit-principle view:
Anybody who thinks that record companies are going to continue signing and recording bands whose music can?t be sold in major record chains doesn?t understand why record companies exist (Marsh 1990).
What consumers buy is a piece of vinyl, tape, or aluminum, what they pay for is the sounds and ideas recorded therein. Record companies do not deal in goods or services, they essentially deal in ideas, musical and otherwise. By censoring the artist, they censor their own product, even though this censorship may subtract from the quality of the product. It has been shown above that this is not done for profit. Besides the submission to the PMRC in the labeling issue, Executive Vice President of RCA records Rick Dobbis has implied that his firm may have to go further to compromise with outside pressure to censor: “We recognize that we have a responsibility, and if we don?t put our own house in order, someone else will (Terry 1989). Dobbis? statement hints towards a fear of controversy that has seemingly become a company policy. RCA President Bob Buziak says he is “…not for censorship,” but his actions prove otherwise:
…Buziak says he asked one of his new acts to remove the word mother*censored*er from an old blues song the band recorded for a debut album. The group ended up dropping the song entirely (Goldberg 1990).
On contracting artists, Buziak says, “…we don?t go out looking to sign N.W.A. or metal bands that advocate sodomy or bestiality (Goldberg 1990). Bob Krasnow, Chairman of Elektra records, says he will not contract “groups like Guns n? Roses and Public Enemy because of their racist and anti-semitic comments and lyrics” (Goldberg 1990). A committee has been established at MCA Records to review music for potentially objectionable lyrics. Other companies, Arista, Atlantic, Columbia, Elektra, Epic, EMI, and RCA, will explain to the artist the possible “consequences” of their material (Marsh 1990).
Power-Knowledge
This pressure to present widely acceptable ideas of expression comes from special-interest groups who aim to protect their own point of view, even if it means suppressing other?s ideas. Throughout history, events such as the Inquisition and the Star Chamber were essentially censorships whose purpose was to eliminate dissenting opinions by establishing and enforcing one “correct” opinion. Some special-interest groups consist of the extremists within a majority, and of themselves, more often than not, constitute a minority. This minority may not accurately represent the views of the majority.
Today, special-interest groups, by lobbying lawmakers and by picketing, have made record companies uncomfortable about their products. Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center referred to Ice Cubes new album as “a cultural Molotov cocktail” (Cole 1991). The Center is trying to bar the album from being sold because they feel it expresses ideas contrary to their cause. Ice Cube raps that his former manager, a “white Jew,” should be shot. In general, his may not be a socially desirable opinion, but believing and expressing such an opinion is a legal and allowable act. Similarly, Cardinal O?Connor, head of the New York City Catholic Diocese, blames Heavy Metal for the rise of Satanism in that city (Marsh 1990). Again, the majority of people may think Satanism is a harmful practice, but Satanists are simply enjoying the same First Amendment right to freedom of religion that Catholics enjoy. In fact, Justice William O. Douglas wrote a decision which stated, “…literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor” (Douglass 1957). One record company, Geffen Records, realizes the impact of this concept. President David Geffen states,
…I think if you?re going to work in the arts, the question is, is this considered good work? It would be a terrible thing if we all conspired to keep them from being able to make a record because we disagreed with what they have to say. That would be terrible (Goldberg 1990).
Special-interest groups advance their own cause by trampling other causes, without regard to Constitutionality. The hard boots of the courts will not fit their feet, rather, they ironically use language to stand on. When a person in a position of power, such as Cardinal O?Connor, denounces Satanism, those people within his sphere of influence tend to accept his opinion as a fact to be acknowledged and possibly even acted upon. These people may not know anything of or have ever experienced Satanism, but because this person says it is something evil they take him on his word because it is his word. He can use his power to negatively redefine words. Author Sue Curry Jansen describes this as the phenomenon of power-knowledge and points out the importance of correct, consistent language:
The powerful require knowledge to preserve, defend, and extend their advantage. For them, knowledge is power. The way the powerful say things are is the way they are, or the way they usually become because the powerful control the power to name. …we know because we need to know. We have a vested interest in knowing. Knowledge may help us to rule or survive the rule of others (Jansen 1991).
Jansen explains that without power, an individual has no means of gaining experience. One needs experience in order to become knowledgeable, and knowledge is vital to assuming even an introductory level of power. The censor halts this circular motion by limiting one’s knowledge. Brian Turner, President of Priority Records, recognizes this power struggle and uses the Tacitean Principle in his defense:
This [warning] sticker actually came about because of this music. …because of rap music and how threatening it is to the white establishment. I couldn’t imagine a more perfect way of marketing that type of music (Rosen 1990).
If the unpowerful have an opinion that is important to them they must guard the definitions of their ideas which others may wish to suppress.
Government
In this light, branches of the government can be considered special interest-groups also. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1971 informed rock music radio stations that broadcast material ?promoting? or ?glorifying? the use of drugs could endanger station licenses (Volz 1991). This threat was made without the backing of law or precedent. Although the FCC is a federal power, it is not an elected body and is not answerable to Congress, so in theory the amount of power it exercises is indeterminate.
Since 1971, the FCC has established restrictions on language that can be broadcast. The FCC defines indecency as
…language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs (Pareles 1989).
In 1989, the FCC imposed a fine of $2,000 on WTZA radio in Miami for broadcasting “indecent” material. WTZA?s penalty came as a result of playing “Penis Envy,” a song by the folk trio Uncle Bonsai. The offensive lyrics read: “If I had a penis, I?d still be a girl/ But I?d make much more money and rule the world.” The station?s encroachment only borders on ?depicting sexual organs,? and is more political than sexual. Doctor Ruth?s popular call-in sexual advice program of the mid-1980s may not be allowed on the air today, at least not before midnight. The problem is exasperated by the lack of specific guidelines; a program director will not know what his community?s standards are until he has overstepped them and been fined. Further enforcement of this law will restrict the dissemination of ideas on any subject even remotely sexual for fear of being economically penalized.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) decided music was within its realm of concern in 1989 when it sent a letter on Department of Justice stationary to Brian Turner, president of Priority Records. Priority released a song by the rap group N.W.A. entitled “—- tha Police” (the dashes are part of the title.) The letter, written by F.B.I. chief spokesman Milt Ahlerich, says the song “encourages violence against and disrespect for the law enforcement officer.” It continues, “I wanted you to be aware of the F.B.I.?s position relative to the song and it?s message. I believe my views reflect the opinion of the entire law enforcement community” (Pareles 1989). Although the letter contains no specific threat, one need only remember the F.B.I.?s involvement in suppressing alternative newspapers in the 1960s and 70s to realize what kind of fear the F.B.I. is capable of inducing. As a result of Ahlerich?s letter, local police departments have been reluctant to provide security officers for N.W.A. concerts, resulting in the cancellation of shows. The Bureau?s action was its first pertaining to a work of art, but not its biggest. N.W.A. was treated lightly compared to actions taken against photographer Robert Mappelthorpe and the art gallery his works were displayed in. An analogous action in music would be the removal of an artist?s records from stores and the confiscation of any works in progress.
Political Philosophy
Statements on free expression such as the F.B.I.?s were rejected by the composers of our Constitution. They are reminiscent of Thomas Hobbes? political theory that expression must be controlled in order to keep the peace. Our government is instead founded on John Locke?s theory which says rulers may be every bit as corrupt as the citizens, and checks must be placed on the government. This is an important concept when dealing with the press because the press not only acts as a medium of expression, it may also act as the check on government. By criticizing the ruling party, the press (in our case, music recordings) can inspire change and improvement. By censoring the press, the government (the FCC and the F.B.I., for instance) preserves their own ideas; ensuring power-knowledge.
Eli M. Oboler extends this application from the way the government rules to the way the people rule:
The democratic philosophy is based on man’s presumed ability to reason, to decide for himself in his own best interest. It relies on man’s educability and his free exercise of conscience in moral issues. Censorship represents the complete denial of all of these, and is, therefore, both anti-democratic and pro-totalitarian (Oboler 1974).
Conclusion
Throughout this essay are reasons against the effectiveness of censorship and reasons why censorship should not be tolerated. They are condensed below.
Art is important to us. Art lets us see the world in new ways, and gives us pleasure. It is a unique language in which we can say things that cannot be said otherwise, regardless of quality. Music lyrics are of value because they are an artform and because they comment on reality. The specific issues that popular music comments on are of particular value to youth, the age group whose access is most restricted.
For an artist, the sharing of artwork is a matter of pride and self-worth; it is an individual’s contribution to civilization. It is also one’s profession, a vital mean of self-support.
The labeling of music albums has had undesirable effects. In some cases it has limited access to materials not only to minors, but also to adults. Contrary to the censor’s wishes, labels have served to increase interest in controversial ideas.
Record companies, whose assistance is vital to a writer of popular music, enforce artistic and market-censorship out of fear for their economic welfare. Special-interest groups generate this fear through intimidation.
The definition of what is obscene or profane is determined by the majority and is used to suppress the views of the minority. The watchdogs from the majority are often extremists, themselves a minority that may not accurately express the views of the majority. This minority consists of special-interest groups that assert their own notions of morality to confine other’s right to freedom of expression. By limiting an individual’s expression, the knowledge which is necessary to overcome such oppression is not disseminated. These groups use this method to guard their own power and to paralyze the power of others. The actions which these suppressed ideas denote may be the censor’s actual target.
Censorship is contrary to the political philosophy on which the United States was founded. The Bill of Rights ensures an individual’s right to free expression. The use of this freedom to criticize the ruling party agrees with the Constitutional conviction that there must be checks on government. A democracy assigns the individual the task of choosing the most appropriate manner of life. Censorship restricts these choices, and is therefore in conflict with democracy.
A Solution
It is now clear that censorship is unacceptable to American individuals and to America as a nation. What should also be made clear is that censorship doesn’t work, even if the intentions are noble and accepted. The censor’s effort is ultimately futile, defeated by three factors: the desire for freedom of expression, time, and the Tacitean Principle.
History has shown that the desire for freedom has won, and is winning, many battles against oppressors. Religion and government have been severely weakened in their power to censor. Even in the past when these forces were powerful they did not completely crush ideas, they just delayed their flowering. The words of Jesus, Galileo, and Darwin have escaped initial condemnation, and there is no reason why contemporary words will not do likewise, given time. The desire to hear and express these words has led to modern liberal nations such as the United States. It is presently weakening Apartheid in South Africa, dismantling the Soviet Union, and reunifying Germany as well. The desire to express oneself is a deeply rooted characteristic of the human persona.
The example cited from Verdi’s La Traviata demonstrates that morality is not what it used to be. Time serves to erode moral standards regardless of the censor’s efforts. There have been censors since Aristotle with the power to torture and to kill, but controversial ideas have emerged anyway, along with their respective influence on our lives.
The Tacitean Principle ultimately overcomes the censor because the censor unknowingly encourages it. The harder the censor works the brighter the Principle will shine, illuminating the offensive material for all to see. A more acute censor would quietly suppress a work, but fortunately in our society it is rarely possible to quietly overcome legal constraints and artistic spirit. Allowing an artwork to fall into obscurity by itself would be more effective censorship than drawing attention to it through controversy.
Independently of the censor, we must decide for ourselves whether or not music lyrics are beneficial to us. There is no proof that they are harmful, so it would be wrong to censor them. Then again, they may be harmful and we are simply ignorant to this fact. In this case, as is shown above, censorship would not be the solution.
History has shown that censors do not change the course of music, music itself does. Great artists and their ideas influence other artists. Bob Dylan pioneered the protest song. Miles Davis, Led Zeppelin, and Run D.M.C. did the same for bebop, heavy metal, and rap, respectively. These forms of music were successful because they prevailed upon other artists and because consumers found them interesting.
Within our culture are people who want to provide for a safe, rational, and happy society and who see some music as a threat to this goal. Changing the course of music through censorship is not a viable solution. So if these people wish to reach their goal, they must find another way to influence artists as well as the buying public. The way to do this is to become artists themselves; to enter their own music and ideas into the pool of the marketplace. If their product is good (interesting, truthful, popular, influential), then other artists and consumers will absorb it, enjoy it, buy it, and/or let it influence them. If their product is not good, then, just like other artists throughout history whose work was not good, it will not be an influential force. This would be a more probable and historically-precedented way of “protecting” society.