Blake,

I agree with this article, though from an entirely different moral standpoint. I don't find censorship to be the key. You can find plenty on the subject if you research PMRC and Tipper Gore's campaigns against the music industry a couple decades ago. Hell, there's an excellent clip of Frank Zappa on Crossfire floating around on Youtube that addresses what you're talking about here. What I find to be most appalling in this instance is the use of art as a shield for vulgarity. You could point to sexually explicit lyrics as a source of teenagers' excessive sexual ventures, but there are numerous other factors at play. It's the broad spectrum of the media. Advertising, clothing, movies, music, etcetera--these are all playing a role in the sexualization of society. Why? Because it sells. Most Americans (not saying liberal or conservative, mind you) are too wrapped up in their daily duties to pay much attention to how these things connect and influence our lives. It's unfortunate. A quick aside: There are alternatives to mainstream radio. Check out WVRU. Lots of jazz, PRI shows, and music that isn't heard on commercial radio. Sadly, the station doesn't get as much recognition as it deserves from the RU student body. But, that's not really the point of this post, and I'm rambling. Basically, I see your point. Though, knowing your views on most things, I'll assume you're coming at it from a Christian moral standpoint. My approach wouldn't be at all the same, though we share some of the same sentiments. I personally don't find much of the subject matter to be offensive--I'm not easily offended or grossed out. The mysogyny inherent in the majority of mainstream music, however, does get to me. The glorification of drugs and violence, as well. One thing that I've pondered numerous times in my mind is that this is a form of poisoning racial identity, though that's a bit off-base for what we've got here. Your thoughts?

Yes, let's continue blaming art for depicting society. After all, we've been killing messengers since at least Socrates.

People made similar accusations about Alice Cooper, alleging his anti-child abuse song, "Dead Babies," was meant to glorify the act. In reality, the Coop routinely writes anti-abuse songs and is a devout Christian, portraying the worst in society to shock people into a moral response.

Society and art go hand-in-hand, sure. These songs could indicate we're going to hell in a handbasket, fine. However, one does not exclusively cause the other.

The real question is where are these songs coming from? Art is the visual, audio, etc. interpretation we create of our own surroundings. All of these artists cannot be serial rapists--maybe a few, but not all.

Boycotting the music will not change public attitudes, much like censoring a certain comic strip.

In response to AMFT:

I totally agree about how the "sex sells" bandwagon has picked up most of the entertainment and commercial world. Thankfully, like you said, alternative media helps the cause but I simply do not see it as enough. Which is where the requested censorship comes in. Alternative media is great but it can take awhile before it becomes competitive enough to be on the same level as the media which it is an alternate to (example - Fox News' overtaking of CNN) and in some cases, it falls short of becoming anything major.

And my stance on this topic doesn't solely come from my Christian moral standpoint as you suggested. Even if you look at this issue from a non-religious perspective, you're seeing teens possibly ruining their lives and relationships by engaging in sex at an age that they are not able to properly deal with it mentally and physically (in the case of pregnancy, for example). There's also the messages that women are nothing more than living, breathing sex toys to service their man in every possible way and allow their bodies to be grinded upon and those are some pretty detestable beliefs. Rarely do you ever hear a rap song (from the songs I've heard, hip-hop/rap songs contain much more sexual content than rock or pop songs) that promotes a healthy relationship, marriage or love.

And I agree with you that the media also does indeed glorify drugs and violence as you pointed out. These issues also need to be addressed and dealt with accordingly.

Thankfully, the bandwagon has has not had a major effect on the sports world. Sure, there are cheerleaders for pro teams but that's pretty much it. The last two major sexually-related issues in the sports world - the Terrell Owens MNF Nicolette Sheridan towel-dropping incident and "Nipplegate" at the Super Bowl between New England and Carolina - drew harsh criticism from those within and outside of the sports world. The industry seems to be controlling itself and not allowing its morality to slide.

In closing, there were two things I'm a bit confused on what you wrote:

"PRI shows" and " a form of poisoning racial identity"

...care to expand on those two?


In response to Rick:

I'm not sure why you're defending these recording artists. The product they are producing is sending the wrong message to the youths and teens of this nation, folks who probably look up to the artists they are listening to and/or are not as mentally tough enough to know whether the message they are listening to is right or wrong as they should be when they hear about some rapper who wants his woman to get down on her knees and service him because that's her job in life. They may very well assume that that is ok because a famous guy like Eminem, 50 Cent or Chad Kroeger said it is.

And I think you're missing the point of how removing these messages will help change the public's attitudes. How will these teens hear about explicit sexuality if they do not hear it because nobody is talking about it? Here's the answer - they won't. If you do not advertize sex (as well as drugs and violence), that is one less avenue that kids and teens could here about it from.

Your error is that you're assuming that in "the good ol' days," teens didn't have sex.

Whether Eminem sings about cum-gargling or not, teenagers have always and will continue to explore their sexual urges. Banning music isn't going to solve this "problem."

These are the same arguements rehashed every 10 years, whether it's the waltz, motown, rock, heavy metal, hip-hop, etc.

It's not these artists' fault that sex is inherantly dirty, yet coveted. A real artist captures the moods of his or her audience.

Don't like it? Listen to Enya, but leave the picket lines behind.

"Whether Eminem sings about cum-gargling or not, teenagers have always and will continue to explore their sexual urges."
True, but with less sources of encouragement to do so, it would make sense that the number of those exploring those urges would be less than what it would be with those encouragements.

"These are the same arguements rehashed every 10 years, whether it's the waltz, motown, rock, heavy metal, hip-hop, etc."
The difference is that they've gotten progressively worse. Sure, Elvis moving his hips round and round was considered to be crude but when compared to how things are now, it is quite clear that the industry has gone downhill and fast.

"Don't like it? Listen to Enya, but leave the picket lines behind."
I always try to look a step ahead. There's a clear degression in the content of the music and entertainment industry and there is no reason to assume that it is going to stop or get better unless a serious protest is put up. Thus, by the time you and I are parents, things should be much worse than they are right now. I don't want my kids exposed to that filth because Eminem wants to dance around with his mike, pumping out the "do what I say, b****!" message. You might want your kids' innocence removed at an early age, but I certainly don't.

Blake, I agree with you. These songs and their inapporpriate lyrics should not be played on the radio. I doubt that will happen because "sex sells" but who knows. Maybe one day people will open their eyes and do the right thing.

-A.

Blake, sure. PRI simply stands for Public Radio International. As for the racial identity poisoning...

Mainstream hip hop has long been a vehicle for displaying women as sex objects, materialism as a lifestyle, and violence as an accepted way of life. The keyword here is "mainstream." If you delve deeper into that genre, you'll discover a slew of artists who rally against their more popular peers' subject matter. But of course, these alternative rappers don't get nearly the amount of media coverage. Why? Because they're not doing anything that's going to sell to the masses. Sex, drugs, and violence sell to the masses. Take a medium like MTV or BET. How often do you hear an urban artist addressing issues that don't relate to his/her financial status, sex, or creating a paean to violence? Rarely, at least in my own experience. This has a number of repercussions, including:

A common misconception of the black male as a criminal; and

Impacts youth in areas who would likely have never adopted a particular lifestyle had it not been pushed onto them.

Example: I'm from a small town in Southwest Virginia. The minority population is tiny--especially the African American portion. Yet, these kids grow up with these media images as a step-parent, and despite their surroundings and upbringing, they embrace whatever mindless trash MTV is spouting at the moment.

We can say that's a generalization, sure. But it's true in many cases.

Blake, in your case, you say you haven't been exposed to any hip hop that doesn't align with your perception of the genre. Jurassic 5, A Tribe Called Quest, The Coup, etc. Try those out. They're not exactly "clean" artists, but they're a far cry from Eminem and 50 Cent.

Censorship? I'm against it 100%. It's frustrating when most people our age would rather spend half a day watching The Real World and TRL instead of reading a book or going for a walk. Unfortunately, that's too often the case. I don't think it's the music industry's job to censor itself; the consumers are the problem. The capitalistic society says "Tell us what you want and we'll make it, regardless of what's considered to be in good taste." If society wants feces on a plate, someone will start manufacturing it.

On the subject of alternative music choices: The alternatives are endless. The trouble is, and this ties into what I previously stated, is that people are often too closed-minded to understand (or want to understand) something different or new. In my case, I listen to very few bands that ever see the light of the mainstream media, whether it be MTV or corporate radio. I consider the majority of popular music to be utter shit (an argument I'll back up another time, if you wish). Yet, I'm never at a loss for listening to something intelligent and interesting. Most choose not to venture down that path and are content accepting what's given to them, as opposed to seeking out their own identities.

One final thought--I have no doubts about the artistic merits of the men you mentioned--I think they're void of it. But in the past, the Christian right's tirades against the music industry often failed (and rightly so) because the ones complaining would go about the task blindly. Zappa had an album that was censored when it hit store shelves. The thing is, it was an instrumental album. There's plenty of resources on the subject, if you're willing to look.

"We can say that's a generalization, sure. But it's true in many cases."
I've seen a good many parts of this country (South Carolina; Texas; Oregon; Richmond, VA; Northern Virginia and Southwestern VA) and what I've seen is quite similar to the example you made. Sure, there have been exceptions but it's sad how the media is brainwashing the youths of this nation.

" Jurassic 5, A Tribe Called Quest, The Coup, etc. Try those out. They're not exactly "clean" artists, but they're a far cry from Eminem and 50 Cent."
Alright, I'll give them a listen. I don't really expect all music to be clean but I do expect the artists to consider that the lyrics they are banging out is reaching the ears of the youths and teens of this country and that it is having some serious negative side effects.

"I consider the majority of popular music to be utter shit (an argument I'll back up another time, if you wish)."
Since I don't really have any article in mind on the music industry, I might as well inquire about this. I have no problem with people who have different tastes in music, movies, sports teams, etc. but I am curious as to their reasonings. Care to explain further?

Yeah, I can definitely give it a shot. First off, most mainstream music is based on a formula. Find a formula that sells, and then capitalize on it. When profit becomes the goal, art loses its artistic merit. It becomes merely a product for consumption, not a reflection of human emotion. Few bands that you'll hear on Top 40 radio are worthy of the "artist" tag, as they're more likely to be tools for record companies to maximize profits. The most obvious example is "pop" music--Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson, and the like. Little to no input comes from the singers themselves; professional songwriters are brought in to write something that will sell, and then a pretty face is found to stick on the track's name. It also fails in that no new ground is covered--experimentation is not encouraged; if an "artist" limits his or herself to a box that reaps financial rewards and shuns creativity, what right does he or she have to consider themselves an artistic talent? I already covered hip hop and rap music in my previous post, so let's attempt to dissect popular rock music. Who are some of the bigger rock bands today? Obviously, the Red Hot Chili Peppers and the Foo Fighters have been around for years, and actually have at least a few shreds of integrity. Anthony Kiedis is something of a tool, but at least his band (and Grohl's group) have a grasp not only on rock history, but on how to continue releasing records without becoming entirely watered down. At worst, they're the least worst bands on the radio. Who else is there? Okay, Incubus. A decade ago, these guys were obsessed with hallucinogenic drugs, funk music, and aliens. What happened? A taste of success tainted them. Brandon Boyd cut his dreadlocks and changed his wardrobe to become a pretty-boy heartthrob. The music took a swandive, catering to a culture that would embrace it, instead of continuing to break ground on its own terms. Let's delve into the pop-punk side of things. In the early '90s, this group called Green Day burst onto the popular music scene with their major label debut "Dookie." The album sold a shit-ton of copies. A couple years later, you have a second-generation Green Day in the form of Blink 182. Not quite as respectable or mature as Green Day, and definitely not torchbearers for punk rock, despite any claims. 3rd generation-New Found Glory. Fallout Boy picks up there, and every generation is worse than its predecessor. FOB is a group based on image and hooks, lacking even a shred of originality or thoughtful artistic expression. If I hadn't deleted my Facebook account I could browse and think of a few more atrocious bands that everyone seems to love. The most unfortunate consequence is that the musicians who are worthy being called "artists" are rarely paid for their hard work. The average person has trouble swallowing anything different because it's so ingrained in us that popularity is a result of quality. Of course, this gets worse as time progresses. There have been popular musicians (tons of them!) who have been able to balance fame and artistic integrity--The Beatles, Stevie Wonder, Bruce Springsteen...the list goes on and on. It's not happening today, at least not on the same scale as in the past. Did that clear anything up?

Very well written article with a very good message. I enjoyed it.

Agreeing with those who can ascertain that indeed, in the good ole days, we did have sex, we need to chill. The conservative moral majority needs to relax and realize nothing is spinning out of control. Constant and vigilant effort to try and control what minors see is hardly going to change the fact that they will indeed see it. They learn about sex in school, and I’m sure a few songs about the subject aren’t going to send them into some crazy Bacchic orgy.
Past this irrelevant point of sex in songs, there is something we all need to consider. We, as Americans are prudes, through and through. In Europe, there is an entirely different vibe. I believe being trapped between only two countries and two oceans have in a sense isolated us. Sure, we know about other cultures, but we don’t drive to France for lunch, and most of us haven’t thought of the two lines in the middle of the road as suggestions. Shoot, take Germanys Autobahn of example. The lesson here is that we all need to loosen up and quit trying to shove our 1)scurpals down others' throats, and 2) our natural essence into some set of rules and regulations and enjoy life, live it, and occasionally, sing about SEX.

i'm happy to see "cum-gargling" grace this hallowed blog.

thank you for the early christmas

Whoa, all I did was tell the reader what is in the song (and it is there). It's not like I was telling people to go out and do it - in fact I find it to be a rather disgusting practice. (Add on top of that the fact that ejaculation is partially made up of urine and that makes it even more disgusting.)