From: adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams)
Subject: Re: Tipper Gore for Vice Lady! (Was: Clinton's VP list gets shorter
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 04:08:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Jul29.215045.6731@seas.gwu.edu> korman@seas.gwu.edu (John Korman) writes:
>
>So, WHY don't 'concerned' parents read such literature (which is already 
>available) to inform themselves and their kids, instead of winning to 
>record companies for labels? Are they too lazy to search? Do they want 
>to impose their decency standards on other parents? Do they think that
>other parents and kids are too stupid? Do they feel insecure about the fact 
>that they don't pay enough attention to their kids intellectual and emotional 
>needs? And, that their kids are automatically going to turn towards the satanic
>messages broadcasted by those godless long haired musicians? 
>
	What do "satanic messages" and "godless long haired musicians" have
to do with music which glorifies rape, torture, brutality and
objectification of women? These aren't religious issues, they are
psychological ones. I couldn't care less if "satanic" messages are being
presented - unless those messages include injunctions (explicit or
otherwise) to act in a violent manner toward non-consenting individuals -
which is _precisely_ what these albums _do_ include!

	It isn't a question of imposing decency standards on other parents -
no one is suggesting that the records be banned - only that either labels be
affixed OR the lyrics be printed on the album covers. If I wish to monitor
my son's reading, or determine the suitability of a book for him (he is
eight, an age I do NOT consider old enough to have unlimited access to any
and all books or records), I need only open the book at the bookstore or
library and read portions of the text. With a record, otoh, I must first
purchase it THEN listen to it to learn if it is suitable. Is it unreasonable
to ask that the record industry afford me the same opportunity to make an
informed decision as a parent that the publishing industry (or, via ratings,
the movie industry) does? This is essentially what Gore is asking for, and I
see nothing unreasonable about that request.

	You argue that parents should pay attention to their kids instead of
to the music they listen to. Yet failure to pay attention to that music IS
neglecting them as surely as failure to pay attention to their other needs.
Further, you argue that parents are imposing standards on other parents. Yet
if the end result of exposure to material far too mature for the listeners
(many of whom are pre-teens) is to increase the levels of violence and
sexism in our society - then it _is_ the business of other parents to
examine that music in order to protect their children. Again, this is not
support for censorship - but a reasonable request for information. There is
no inherent threat in printing the lyrics of a song on the cover of an album
- apart from a possible loss of sales of that album to those who would
choose not to purchase it, if given the opportunity to make an informed
decision. That isn't unreasonable limitation, it's consumerism!


>WHY don't these 'concerned' parents pay more attention to their kids instead 
>of the music that their kids listen to?
>
	Why don't these musicians pay more attention to their art instead of
the commercial "shock value" of their material?

	So long as the music industry is dominated by performers whose focus
is on sales rather than content, on the commercial rather than the artistic,
parents (and everyone else, for that matter) _better_ pay attention to the
music!

	This is the real world. Many parents _don't_ pay as much attention
to their kids as they should. But, far from providing an argument _against_
labeling or printing lyrics, this is an argument in favor of such acts. If a
parent is only paying limited attention to their kids, then it benefits us
as a society (and those of us who DO pay attention to our kids as
individuals) to maximize the benefit of the the attention they DO pay to
them. Labels or printed lyrics do just that, by making it easier for the lax
parent to maintain awareness of the content of the music being listened to
by their children.

	Simply put, there _is_ no valid reason why the printing of lyrics or
the inclusion of _voluntary_ labeling should NOT be a part of the music
industry. If attempts at censorship result, then THAT becomes an issue to be
addressed by the public - but fear of censorship does NOT justify rejection
of the root concept. 

	It is terribly easy to label those who support labeling as
fundamentalist loonies. It is also terribly inaccurate!
-- 
    Rick Adams | KE8HH    /|\        You are right from your side,         
      adamsr@ais.org    /  |  \        And I am right from mine.           
     adamsr@netcom.com  \ /|\ /  We're both just one too many mornings,    
    rick.adams on GEnie   \|/  And a thousand miles behind. (c Bob Dylan)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.elections:9186 alt.politics.clinton:797