From: dtokarew@tokafew.Doc.Provo.Novell.COM (Deb Tokarewich)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Music labelling (was So its Clinton/Gore, eh?)
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:49:55 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc.

In article <1dcfdgINNcj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon  
Livesey) writes:
> 
> In article <Bx9oyy.3FB@Novell.COM>,  
dtokarew@tokafew.Doc.Provo.Novell.COM writes:
> > In article <1dc205INNcj@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com  
(Jon  
> > Livesey) writes:
> > > 
> > > Two questions:
> > > 
> > > 	When do they get started on Shakespeare and the Bible?
> > > 
> > > 	Who decides on the label?   Who writes the label for
> > > 	Upton Sinclair's books, Zola, Gorky?   Does the label
> > > 	say "Recommended: social comment"? or "Warning: socialist
> > > 	propaganda"?
> > > 
> > > You have to be ready to answer questions like that before you
> > > throw words like "truth" around with such gay abandon.
> > 
> > If you really want to compare labelling music to other
> > things like literature or movies, OK: Who complains when a
> > book jacket "blurb," a book review, or a parent/school
> > teacher/librarian/bookstore employee lets you know what the
> > book's about, what kinds of topics it deals with, and how
> > the topic's handled?
> 
> Bad analogy.   Blurbs don't present themselves as anything
> but subjective, plenty of people complain about reviews -
> read the letters column of the New York Times Book Review
> section sometime - and a list of topics is informative.

So some people complain; and some appreciate the same things others  
complain about. (And I don't understand the point behind your mentioning  
that a list of topics is informative. That's true...and...?)

> I think that if some self-appointed "publisher's group"
> started to put warning labels on books, we'd know that for
> what it was.

I doubt if any "group" of this type was ever formed that it would be  
"self-appointed." Is the movies ratings group self-appointed? Granted,  
they didn't win their positions in any sort of national election, but I'd  
guess that some sort of selection process happened (and happens any time a  
new member is needed). And even if someone started putting "warning  
labels" on books, do you think that'd stop people from buying them? Maybe  
if they decided they didn't want to read the kinds of things the label  
said were in the book--but not just because the label was on the book in  
the first place. (If anything, such a label may make some people who  
normally wouldn't buy the book, or record, buy it out of curiosity or  
because it seems "tantalizing" or whatever.) And what about those "brown  
wrappers" put around magazines like "Playboy" and books like "Marilyn" and  
Madonna's "Sex"--that's a type of "warning label" and even a type of  
"censorship." And who does it harm? 
 
> We wouldn't call it outright censorship, so that's a straw
> man, but we would certainly wonder about the chilling effect
> on authors that it produced.

There's been outright censorship of many things, including the arts, over  
the years (whether imposed by governments, religions, school boards, or  
individuals), and that has not stopped authors or whoever from creating.  
What "chilling effect" do you envision?

I think it all comes down to the fact that unless it's outright  
censorship, something like a "contents label" would really do no harm to  
records, and might be helpful to those who buy them. If all the label does  
is tell you what's what inside the thing you're contemplating spending  
your money on, great. And even if you don't think it could possibly be  
"objective" (though I'd probably disagree), then it would still have no  
more influence than a written review of the record--and just like reviews  
for things like movies and books, you ingest them, try to decipher them,  
take them for what they're worth and, in the end, make your own decision  
about whether or not to see the movie, read the book, listen to the  
record. And after you've seen/read/listened to it, you can give your own  
review to friends and family to help them make their decision. Or would  
that make you guilty of "self-appointed censorship"? ;-)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada