From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: record album stickering
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 03:29:42 GMT


In a previous article, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) says:

>In article <farenebt.716423991@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell) writes:
>>I am no fan of censorship but I am wondering how the stickering of
>>record albums ("Parental advisory: explicit lyrics") is any different
>>from the movie industry rating its movies, G, PG, Pg-13 and R (and NC-17)?
>>Why is one ok but the other elicits fervert opposition?
>>
>
>Both are bad...the difference is that some musicians still are
>interested in artistic freedom whereas Hollywood is interested 
>only in money and not in art, so they don't really mind censorship,
>and impose it on themselves.

I have to disagree with this.  rating systems are not censorship, they are
a system of information.  You will notice that the movie system does not
actively prevent anyone with the money to see a film, it only lets the
viewer know what he may be in for.  Likewise, thje application of warning
labels on albums in no way constitutes censorship.  Labeling only allows
parents to be aware that an album may contain material which they may not
approve their children listining to.

Also, I disagree that Hollywood is not interested in art.  In the last
decade, there have been many films which were produced primarily for
their artistic value.  Of course, if they made enormous sums of money,
so much the better, but that does not discount their value as art.

As an aside, I would be interested in seeing the figures on labeled albums
vs. unlabled.  I suspect that labeled albums tend to go gold more often.

>
>What's ironic is that noone had much problem with Arnie, the member
>of the Republican Administration, mowing down cops by the dozen in
>T2, while they have a problem with Ice-T!

I agree.

>
>What's ironic is what gets censored by Hollywood is anything with
>a sexual theme, but violence, almost no matter how extremseemed
>to be just fine with everyone!

I also agree with this, but realize that there are several groups
actively protesting, and lobbying, to reduce the amount of violence
in film and on television.

>
>The proper non-censorship system is to get rid of any labelling
>systems, and those people who are truly concerned should set up
>reviewing systems where people worried about content can subscribe
>to, to get reviews.

This I also disagree with.  Since the studios and the album houses are
making the money, I believe they have a responsibility to inform the 
public that a product contains material which may be offensive.

And while I would seriously oppose any system of rating or labeling which
would prevent access to materials, or oppress an artist's right to express
themselves as they see fit, I think labeling content is appropriate.

  It also makes more sense...because they you
>can get a "rating" from someone whose values you share or have
>checked out, rather than some anonymous industry or government
>reviewer who for all you know could be an "agent of Satan".
>
>Gerald
>
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Assembly of God???  Strange.. *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // I was not aware that the diety  *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // was available in source form..." *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc