• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

"Apple Music and Pandora will no longer promote artists embodying harmful behavior "

Rod

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
683
Likes
266
#2
Watch out Tom Waits.
or this
or this
or this
or this
or this
Or this
Could you imagine what would of happened if this had been released in 1920's Mississippi?
Many more were very controversial when released. My point is that all of these would of been considered promoting "harmful behavior" at some point in time.
 
Last edited:

Sal1950

Major Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,915
Likes
5,087
Location
Central Fl
#4
Good for Spotify, Pandora and Apple!

Makes Tidal more palatable.
Yea you can count on JayZ for continued support of the most anti-social garbage he can find for Tidal.
Reason I continue to oppose the site and encourage folks not to subscribe to it.
 

Rod

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
683
Likes
266
#5
Ok, that's fine and they have a right to censor there promotions . But I don't need a gatekeeper and I am perfectly able to do that myself through ethics with no help from streaming services. They are dominating the music distribution and have a lot of power, slippery slope concerns here.
I just don't listen to the crap that offends me, that's how I handle it.
 
Last edited:

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,534
Likes
2,213
Location
UK
#7
They are removing things from their playlists, not from the site, this is more about how they present themselves (PR) than censorship as such. It's more akin to a radio station taking things off a playlist, than a record shop removing things from shelves. IMHO.

 

Rod

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
683
Likes
266
#8
When FM goes away some day, these streaming services will become the major broadcasters.
From Wordpress:
Censorship In Radio
I would like to begin this section with a quote by John Street. Street claims that:

“Whether we do or not, more important is recognizing that acts of censorship involve a complex chain of events in which interests conflict and coalesce to create the circumstances in which bans are implemented and in which music is, as a consequence, invested with particular meanings and forms of power.”

John Street, Music and Politics, Page 15

In relation to radio broadcasting, this complex chain of events seems to be rooted in the ideologies that the government, the FCC, and many parents believed that Rock music represented and evoked. The censorship of radio airwaves has a history dating back to the start of the 20th century, however, significant progress was made over control of airwaves during the late 1920’s and early 30’s as federal regulators were given the power to suspend the licenses of providers who were broadcasting obscene or profane language. Furthermore, in the early 30’s, the FCC was established to help regulate publically owned bandwidth¹².

During the Rock era in the early 60’s, the FCC began to ban certain songs that had to do with a range of topics that were considered indecent. These topics ranged from sexuality to violence and any songs that were considered to promote, incite, or explicitly mention these issues were often times regulated by the FCC. In Anti-Rock: The Opposition of Rock n’Roll, a handful of examples are provided and I will provide a few links to some of the examples that were mentioned. In regards to some of the taboo subject areas, it is mentioned that:

“…Anti-war sentiment, class-consciousness, and racism were political concerns of the young, it was inevitable that these topics would be discussed in Rock and Roll lyrics…Drug use was the focus of adolescent experimentation and it was certain that drug experiences would be described in song. It is interesting to survey a cross-section of words, phrases, or lines that were banned in the sixties and early seventies. Many seem innocuous today which merely emphasizes how relative and subjective the label ‘obscene’ or ‘distasteful or ‘damaging’ can be.”

Linda Martin and Kerry Segrave, Anti-Rock: The Opposition of Rock n’Roll, Page 189



As these topics continued to creep into the music of the generation, more and more radio stations were being threatened by the FCC. It is explained that,

“Apparently there were no hard and fast rules for determining what was obscene or inappropriate. This made the whole censorship issue ridiculously arbitrary. It was left to the FCC, broadcast executives, radio program directors, record company managers, and adult opinion to decide what could or could not be used. The FCC avoided legal battles over whether lyrics were pornographic or discordant with their vague regulations concering ‘community standards’, because the courts would undoubtedly argue that the musc had ‘artistic merit’. But the FCC exercised their power in no less a heavy-handed manner. Through warnings, short-term license renewals, fines, and bureaucratic red tape the FCC could pressure a station into economic collapse. Rather than provoke the FCC, therefore, almost every station owner and program director toed the line, or in other words, practiced self-censorship.”

-Linda Martin and Kerry Segrave, Anti-Rock: The Opposition of Rock n’Roll, Page 191

Although a lengthy explanation, I feel that the authors really summed up the issue at hand in radio industry. The issue for broadcasters was an issue of regulatory red tape and warnings that prohibited them from playing any music which fell under the vague definition of obscene that the FCC provided. Furthermore, these kinds of warnings and fines allowed for the FCC to avoid actually shutting down any radio stations³. In this way, the FCC could control what was being broadcast without actually shutting down a station, it was a means of censorship that took the form more of the oppressive force rather than a method of moderation.

This type of censorship and regulation reached the White House during the Nixon administration. In an instance in October of 1970, President Nixon invited about 70 radio broadcasters to a drug abuse conference in the White House, hoping to win them over in the battle against the screening of rock music. Martin and Segrave mention that, “Nixon had no intention of telling them what to broadcast, but he would ‘appreciate’ their cooperation” (203). It is interesting that such a strong correlation between Rock music and the influence of drug use had motivated the President and the FCC to hold such a conference simply because when asked about the correlation, many of the broadcasters explained that there really was no such correlation. Although many young listeners experimented with drugs, the broadcasters believed that the music did not introduce listeners to drugs but rather simply reflected the culture of the generation.

Similar to the Presley case, it is evident that, once again, the issue of censorship seems to be entangled in a much larger process. The reason that many songs were censored or outright banned from being played by stations had to do with the fact that they were reflecting parts of culture that were seen as negatively affecting the youth and encouraging experimentation with drugs. However, it is interesting that the broadcasters mention that the music is simply a reflection of the culture rather than a catalyst for these obscenities. Also, the fact that the definition of obscene that the FCC provides to stations is vague seems to further hint at the fact that it is not so much about the content of the music that makes it offensive. Thinking back to the Street quote from earlier in this section, it is also interesting how music, as a result of this complex chain of events, is given a sort of power. A power that the Ancient Greeks may have hinted at early on.

As a sort of concludimg point, I like to think that for the most port the question of censorship has not necessarily been answered, but has begun to be clarified. In order to truly understand censorship in its various degrees, it is important to survey the various ways in which censorship is used not only in the US, but around the world. By understanding a general survey and seeing what remains constant across that general survey, I believe it is possible to begin to pinpoint the essence of censorship. In terms of dealing with labels of obscenity and offence, I think it has become clear that these labels are subjective and at times even the institutions that provide definitions for these terms are often times vague. I find that it is important to begin to see that the definition of obscene, or rather, what is considered to be obscene will continue to change as new generations come and go. Keeping this in mind may help clarify some of the vagueness that surrounds censorship and its ever-changing radar.
 
Last edited:

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,534
Likes
2,213
Location
UK
#9
Radio 1 banned Frankie goes to Hollywood, that sure had the desired effect. Getting banned has been one of the most effective ways of getting publicly for years. Getting the internet into a frenzy is the modern equivalent.
 

Rod

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
683
Likes
266
#10
"Keeping this in mind may help clarify some of the vagueness that surrounds censorship and its ever-changing radar."
 

Rod

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 24, 2018
Messages
683
Likes
266
#11
Radio 1 banned Frankie goes to Hollywood, that sure had the desired effect. Getting banned has been one of the most effective ways of getting publicly for years. Getting the internet into a frenzy is the modern equivalent.
True in the 60's and 70's it just made us want to listen to the music even more.
 
Last edited:

RayDunzl

Major Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
8,537
Likes
6,002
Location
Riverview FL
#12
Meanwhile, back when things were a little less vitriolic...

The Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) was an American committee formed in 1985 with the stated goal of increasing parental control over the access of children to music deemed to be violent, have drug use or be sexual via labeling and censorship.

The committee was founded by four women: Tipper Gore, wife of Senator and later Vice President Al Gore; Susan Baker, wife of Treasury Secretary James Baker; Pam Howar, wife of Washington realtor Raymond Howar; and Sally Nevius, wife of former Washington City Council Chairman John Nevius. They were known as the "Washington wives" -- a reference to their husbands' connections with government in the Washington, D.C. area.

In August 1985, 19 record companies agreed to put "Parental Guidance: Explicit Lyrics" labels on albums to warn of explicit lyrical content. Before the labels could be put into place, the Senate agreed to hold a hearing on so-called "porn rock". This began on September 19, 1985, when representatives from the PMRC, three musicians -- Dee Snider, Frank Zappa, John Denver -- and Senators Paula Hawkins and Al Gore testified before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee on "the subject of the content of certain sound recordings and suggestions that recording packages be labeled to provide a warning to prospective purchasers of sexually explicit or other potentially offensive content."

During his statement, musician and producer Frank Zappa asserted that "the PMRC proposal is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children, infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children, and promises to keep the courts busy for years dealing with the interpretation and enforcement problems inherent in the proposal's design." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMRC)

So, he put this "Warning/Guarantee" on his records for a while:

upload_2018-5-12_14-34-51.png


Part of the Congressional Hearing:

The statement ends and the questions begin at about 12:50


Al Gore admitted to being a Zappa fan...
 
Last edited:

RayDunzl

Major Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
8,537
Likes
6,002
Location
Riverview FL
#13
Of course, all that led to another Album:

upload_2018-5-12_14-39-32.png


The most relevant track, with clips from the hearing, executed partially via Synclavier:

 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,534
Likes
2,213
Location
UK
#14
The parental advisory thing was great, made it much clearer which records you should be interested in, the ones with the stickers. You still see kids wearing t-shirts with the logo on.
 

restorer-john

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
3,798
Likes
7,499
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
#15
So, does that mean NWA will get banned again for F#ck the Police?

And, I have a copy of the original first release of Frankie Goes to Hollywood's welcome to the pleasure dome- what a great recording that was. (on CD)
 

Sal1950

Major Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,915
Likes
5,087
Location
Central Fl
#16
So, does that mean NWA will get banned again for F#ck the Police?
I abhor the idea of censorship as much as anyone but it's a fine and very fuzzy line between free speech and yelling FIRE in a theater.
We have punk gangsters walking that line preaching hate against police that was inciting the shooting of police for sport as we have witnessed over the last number of years.
We have a-hole neo- Nazis preaching hate against people of a color and religion inciting violence against them for decades.
Many calls on the handling of these issues is difficult and sometimes the safety of the masses must be weighted against the rights of a few.
Yes it is even against the law, severely so, to even view child pornography, rightly so, and I don't have to explain why.
So if a few streamers chose not to list a few of the more detestable anti-social, I'm not going to lose sleep. That shit isn't banned and is still available if it interests folks that much.
 

Wombat

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
5,202
Likes
3,780
Location
Australia
#17
Ban Hollywood movies. They have, over the years. numbed people into expecting more graphic depictions of sex and violence to get their 'jollies'. :eek: It all didn't come out of nowhere. The general community has lowered its standards and the buck-makers sell them what they want. The extremes in turn become more extreme.
 

Soniclife

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,534
Likes
2,213
Location
UK
#18
And, I have a copy of the original first release of Frankie Goes to Hollywood's welcome to the pleasure dome- what a great recording that was. (on CD)
It is a stunning recording, a Trevor Horn masterclass, only DR10 according to Roon, think that says more about the DR algorithm than the recording though.
 

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
1,952
Location
UK
#19
This is about hate speech or hate behavior of the artist.
Is it really just about that? Will Spotify be including this song in any of their playlists?

It's an interesting thing, I think, that you can probably find what are now considered to be awkward moments in practically any film, song, TV comedy, drama that's more than a couple of years old.

Anything that shows a father going out to work while a mother stays at home with the kids is now regarded as literally harmful. This is the UK's governing body for advertising:
Gender stereotypes have the potential to cause harm by inviting assumptions about adults and children that might negatively restrict how they see themselves and how others see them. These assumptions can lead to unequal gender outcomes in public and private aspects of people‘s lives; outcomes, which are increasingly acknowledged to be detrimental to individuals, the economy and society in general...
...a tougher line needs to be taken on ads that feature stereotypical gender roles or characteristics, which through their content and context may be potentially harmful to people
Given time, pretty much every sitcom from the past will be seen as "harmful" and relegated to 'under-the-counter' availability only. Instances of this have already happened in Britain. Even a sitcom from the 90s is seen as 'problematic':
"The homophobia is staggering - the punchline of every joke about Ross is that his ex-wife is a lesbian, as if that's some failing of his and that it's hilarious that she's a lesbian.
"The sexism's pretty rampant as well... [and] it's the whitest show in the whole world."
The Simpsons has fallen foul of this recently. Will Channel 4 in the UK now be sifting through and discarding certain shows from the series? Of course. These shows will disappear forever.

Staple films from the 80s are well on the way to being deleted, as are any films featuring actors who have been accused (not found guilty) of #metoo-style shenanigans. The BBC recently re-shot a completed Agatha Christie dramatisation at great expense in order remove all traces of such an actor. And they changed the plot in order to make the killer a pale stale male; not the downtrodden woman. I think this is the start of a new era of 'diversified' historical drama rewrites. The awkward books of old are about to be rewritten for modern consumption.

Songs are the same. Many songs from the past will feature lyrics that may 'trigger' today's 'snowflake generation'. Anything that suggests 'girl meets boy' is at risk, I would say.
 
Last edited:

Sal1950

Major Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
6,915
Likes
5,087
Location
Central Fl
#20
Well your right. It didn't come out of nowhere. Theirs been over 30 years of war in my lifetime. Then theirs all the fraud and corruption and brutality that's been around my entire life. It tends to lower community standards quite a bit I think.
War has been a fact of life since the beginning of man. Always some madman that wants what don't belong to him, and violence is the only answer. We tried to put together a answer with the forming of the United Nations but that's gone no where.
 
Top Bottom