Porn Wars: Frank Zappa Meets the Mothers of Prevention

[Julie in the rv mirror]

We've touched on this topic on the board before in regards to some of the Lyrics on HCTB, namely in "Like a Rose" and "California", and most recently in the Apprentice thread regarding the PMRC. I think it's an interesting subject to discuss, but I didn't want to drag the thread off topic, so I started this one.

For those who may not know, Frank Zappa testified before the U.S. Senate hearings regarding the PMRC. According to Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Z...nate_testimony

On September 19, 1985, Zappa testified before the United States Senate Commerce, Technology, and Transportation committee, attacking the Parents Music Resource Center or PMRC, a music organization, co-founded by Tipper Gore, wife of then-senator Al Gore. The PMRC consisted of many wives of politicians, including the wives of five members of the committee, and was founded to address the issue of song lyrics with sexual or satanic content.[175] Zappa saw their activities as on a path towards censorship,[176] and called their proposal for voluntary labelling of records with explicit content "extortion" of the music industry.[177] In his prepared statement, he said:

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 interpretational and enforcemental problems inherent in the proposal's design. It is my understanding that, in law, First Amendment issues are decided with a preference for the least restrictive alternative. In this context, the PMRC's demands are the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation ... The establishment of a rating system, voluntary or otherwise, opens the door to an endless parade of moral quality control programs based on things certain Christians do not like. What if the next bunch of Washington wives demands a large yellow "J" on all material written or performed by Jews, in order to save helpless children from exposure to concealed Zionist doctrine?[178]



Zappa set excerpts from the PMRC hearings to Synclavier music in his composition "Porn Wars" on the 1985 album Frank Zappa Meets the Mothers of Prevention. Zappa is heard interacting with Senators Fritz Hollings, Slade Gorton, Al Gore (who claimed, at the hearing, to be a Zappa fan), and in an exchange with Florida Senator Paula Hawkins over what toys Zappa's children played with. Zappa expressed opinions on censorship when he appeared on CNN's Crossfire TV series and debated issues with Washington Times commentator John Lofton in 1986.[179] Zappa's passion for American politics was becoming a bigger part of his life. He had always encouraged his fans to register to vote on album covers, and throughout 1988 he had registration booths at his concerts.[180] He even considered running for President of the United States.[181]


In looking for information, I found quite a few interesting interviews, it was hard to decide which ones to post (I realize this is a lot; I think the Morning Show would be the one if you only want to watch one).

First, The ABC Morning Show:

Part I:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sp6w6Y92hk

Part II:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99_L4Z9uyhg


Nightline (Also features Donny Osmond):

Part I:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FarkwYDir2Y

Part II:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBskHjoQxxk

Part III:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x-HRtTwuhY


It's interesting to note the contents of the "Warning/ Guarantee" sticker that Frank subsequently put on this (and other) albums:


WARNING/GUARANTEE

This album contains material which a truly free society would neither
fear nor surpress.

In some socially retarded areas, religious fanatics and
ultra-conservative political organizations violate your First Amendment
Rights by attempting to censor rock & roll albums. We feel that this is
un-Constitutional and un-American.

As an alternative to these government-supported programs (designed to
keep you docile and ignorant), Barking Pumpkin is pleased to provide
stimulating digital audio entertainment for those of you who have
outgrown -the ordinary-.

The language and concepts contained herein are GUARANTEED NOT TO CAUSE
ETERNAL TORMENT IN THE PLACE WHERE THE GUY WITH THE HORNS AND THE
POINTED STICK CONDUCTS HIS BUSINESS.

This guarantee is as real as the threats of the video fundamentalists
who use attacks on rock music in their attempt to transform America into
a nation of check-mailing nincompoops (in the name of Jesus Christ).

If there is a hell, its fires wait for them, not us.


Anyway, I'm curious as to people's thoughts...

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

WARNING/GUARANTEE

This album contains material which a truly free society would neither
fear nor surpress.

In some socially retarded areas, religious fanatics and
ultra-conservative political organizations violate your First Amendment
Rights by attempting to censor rock & roll albums. We feel that this is
un-Constitutional and un-American.

As an alternative to these government-supported programs (designed to
keep you docile and ignorant), Barking Pumpkin is pleased to provide
stimulating digital audio entertainment for those of you who have
outgrown -the ordinary-.

The language and concepts contained herein are GUARANTEED NOT TO CAUSE
ETERNAL TORMENT IN THE PLACE WHERE THE GUY WITH THE HORNS AND THE
POINTED STICK CONDUCTS HIS BUSINESS.

This guarantee is as real as the threats of the video fundamentalists
who use attacks on rock music in their attempt to transform America into
a nation of check-mailing nincompoops (in the name of Jesus Christ).

If there is a hell, its fires wait for them, not us.

The thing that pisses me off about assholes like that is that they live in a society where they are able to put something like that on the cover of an album without being dragged off to the nearest concentration camp/gaulag for "re education" and they complain that they are victims of the supression of freedom of speech.
Publicly complaining that you do not have freedom of speech is a contradicion in terms.

Guys like that don't know the first thing about not having free speech, and come off as whinny little bitches crying over a stubbed toe in a room full of guys who have had a leg torn off.

Same goes for Lennon.
It's all well and good ranting about the authorities, and telling everyone to "give peace a chance" but if everyone in England had got into the idea of giving peace a chance in the early 1800's, we'd all be speaking French.
If we'd all have given it a crack in 1939 we'd be speaking German.
And those are just the first two most obvious examples that spring to mind.

But one more, perhaps more relevant example.......
If we'd all have got behind the idea in the 70's and given peace a chance and got rid of the our armies, sacked the generals, dismantled our warheads, then we'd all be speaking Russian right now, and we wouldn't be using those Russian voices to criticize our glourious government and exalted leader (not even in a constructive way ).
Because if you did you would disappear.
Now that is closer to the mark of not having freedom of speech.

Yeah, the man is a pain in the ass, but without him you are open to the very next authority figure who decides they want to take control.
It's not perfect (by a long chalk) but it's the best we've got.

If you think daddy is a spoilsport, grandpa is a sadistic old ~~~~ with a big cane, and he's got your ass in his sights.

[Sarge]

I expected an interesting discussion about censorship in music, instead I just had to read a pseudo-political rant.

I'm just wondering whether it's Zappa's or Lennon's fault that I speak Russian (among other languages).

[Evil One]

Are Zappa or Lennon your dad?

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Sarge

I expected an interesting discussion about censorship in music, instead I just had to read a pseudo-political rant.

You wouldn't be trying to suppress my freedom of speech would you?
Because I have stickers I can put on my posts if you do

Sorry if you didn't like me expressing my view on the subject, but I wanted to have my say, i've done that
It seems funny that my opinion on the matter of sensorship are dismissed as a "pseudo-political rant" because I think that people who feel that their freedom of speech is being violated sahould look at things with a little perspective

Originally Posted by Sarge

I'm just wondering whether it's Zappa's or Lennon's fault that I speak Russian (among other languages).

I'm not sure I gave the impression that Zappa or Lennon were in the habit of occupying foreign countries, which is what I used speaking their language as a metophore for
Just that people who have a problem with authority figures (wishes they were not there) would be a hell of a lot worse off without them.

Originally Posted by Evil One

Are Zappa or Lennon your dad?

Neither, thankfully.
I was using it as a metophore of the "father figure" of the state, and that no matter how bad it seems, and how much of a killjoy that father figure is, there is someone else in the wings waiting to take over, and that person takes a lot less crap.


Anyway, i've had my say, so in the nature of self sensorship I will now take myself off to the one word story thread or something

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

You wouldn't be trying to suppress my freedom of speech would you?
Because I have stickers I can put on my posts if you do

You wanna be an "authority figure"?

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

Sorry if you didn't like me expressing my view on the subject

On the subject? What Zappa's attitude on censorship has to do with past wars and political conflicts is beyond me. The only thing I understand about your post is that you're obviously living in fear of having to learn foreign languages.

You don't have to give me lectures on "authority figures" and freedom of speech. I had the misfortune of having to grow up in Communist Germany, I know what it's like when music is censored, when bands are banned (!), when great musicians are driven out of the country... Trying to prevent the use of certain words in songs might appear ridiculous compared to that but it could lead to more severe restrictions.

[AndyK]

Censorship of music (or anything for that matter) is an issue of control freedom of choice isn't it? If the powers that be censor something they're controlling what the masses can hear, they're deciding if it's acceptable to be heard or not.

The few (in the example quoted above the PMRC) want to control what the masses listen to. In any society an element of control is required, without it there's complete anarchy and a breakdown of society as we know it. With freedom also comes responsibility. We have free speech, but that doesn't mean we can say anything we want.

It's a question of where the line is drawn to balance those controls against the personal responsibility, the PMRC seem to think that those listening to such music don't have the level of personal responsibility to not be affected by what they hear. Personally I don't beleive in censorship of music (even Boyzone and Brotherhood of Man have a place), but then I was brought up to take responsibility for my thoughts and actions. Having said that I have no issue if there's a warning that a CD contains material some may find offensive because of it' content, if there's additional information to aid me in exercising my freedom of choice then that's a good thing isn't it? Take the example of a film that describes itself as a "psychological horror drama", if it has a "12" rating, then I'd know that it probably isn't as good a film as the 18 rated directors cut version, so I know which one I'd prefer to watch.

So, give the masses the freedom of choice, but give them the information to exercise that choice seems a fair compromise doesn't it?

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by Sarge

I know what it's like when music is censored, when bands are banned (!), when great musicians are driven out of the country... Trying to prevent the use of certain words in songs might appear ridiculous compared to that but it could lead to more severe restrictions.

And that's the crux isn't it? Having no censorship at all will mean some people are offended, but once we start censoring music and lyrics where do we stop? Complete freedom of speech would allow too much arguably, but we have laws against slander, and also aganst inciting others to violence and to hatred of groups by virtue of their race, creed, beliefs etc I'm not familar with such laws outside the UK, but we have them here, and I believe it's right that we should. And it seems on balance that this should be sufficient. Should lyrics that may offend some because they are for eg sexually explicit be banned? I really don't think so. It's not compulsory to listen to them, and anyway broadcasters, aware of the controversy/complaints that may arise, will doubtless be selective in what they play depending on the audience that makes up their demographic, which seems quite enough censorship to me without having some authority deciding what words may be used or not.

And the world moves on. Many words that the BBC would not broadcast in the past are acceptable now, mainly because they have become more acceptable to the majority of society. It seems to me that parents have a responsibility for what their young children are allowed to listen to, and when the words they object to are likely to be heard in the street or playground, isn't it better to deal with that reality rather than lobby to prevent them ever being broadcast?

I think it was you who said that rock has always had an element of rebellion (not sure exactly your words, but that was I think the gist), and most contemporary lyrics surely only reflect society at the time. Society develops, what is acceptable moves on, and not everyone will find that comfortable or welcome, but it's a fact of life. Trying to hold it back is probably as pointless as Canute trying to hold back the waves. Imo there are far worse "moral" issues to deal with than censoring sexually explicit words, and frankly I don't consider Christianity to have an altogether clean slate on morality anyway. I've heard the argument that some lyrics encourage the young to violent action or to taking drugs, but as they patently don't incite all teenagers to this I think that it's a fairly hollow claim, and rests more on how generally disaffected the former are. Those who seek to censor music might be better placed tackling the real underlying problems.

Ultimately it's about all of us exercising personal responsibility and making our choices, not having them made for us and removing responsibility. That's what we need to learn as we grow up.

Caryl

[Evil One]

Originally Posted by CarylB

I've heard the argument that some lyrics encourage the young to violent action or to taking drugs, but as they patently don't incite all teenagers to this I think that it's a fairly hollow claim, and rests more on how generally disaffected the former are. Those who seek to censor music might be better placed tackling the real underlying problems.
Ultimately it's about all of us exercising personal responsibility and making our choices, not having them made for us and removing responsibility. That's what we need to learn as we grow up.

Spot on.

[Sarge]

I agree with Caryl again - should I be concerned?

[Evil One]

Don't worry. She'll spout some nonsense later and all will be right with the world!

[duke knooby]

Originally Posted by CarylB

Ultimately it's about all of us exercising personal responsibility and making our choices, not having them made for us and removing responsibility. That's what we need to learn as we grow up.

Caryl

the health and safety brigade might disagree with that

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by duke knooby

the health and safety brigade might disagree with that

At their beginning they were sorely needed, and even today although under health and safety law the primary responsibility is with employers, workers have a duty to take care of their own health and safety and that of others who could be affected by their actions. If you're talking about the more general issue of the plethora of rules and regulations which seem to be designed more and more to over-protect everyone, everywhere, it seems to me to have got worse and worse since we became part of the EC; the very real danger of allowing yourself to be governed by the biggest collection of bureaucrats ever assembled.

That's a whole other topic! Although allowing another group to set up another bureaucracy to decide what you may and may not listen to could be seen as one more slippery slope. Those who seek to make those decisions on our behalf are another brigade who would not agree with the concept of choice and personal responsibility, but their desire to take it away doesn't make it right.

Caryl

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Thanks to those who have replied; I think there are some very good points that have been made. I'm going to combine things in my reply, because trying to quote everybody would make me dizzy.

First, Mouse, of course you are most certainly entitled to voice your views, but I think you're being a bit harsh on Mr. Zappa. I personally got a kick out of the sticker when I first saw it years ago; it's written in the same irreverent style as many of his song lyrics- it's a bit tongue-in-cheek actually. In it, he alludes (as he does in the interviews) that the PMRC are in some measure motivated by religious views, which I think should be left out of the picture. As Zappa said, every person's sense of morality is different, and what I might find offensive or inappropriate for my child may seem perfectly reasonable to another parent. What gives someone else a right to decide for me what is considered offensive?

On the surface, what the PMRC was proposing as a rating system seems reasonable. They state that they just want to give parents information on which to base a decision, and as a parent, I don't really take issue with that. However, it can become a slippery slope; as Zappa pointed out, and Caryl also mentioned, any time you have radio stations deciding to not play a song, or retailers refusing to carry it, that is in fact censorship. (Think about Wal-Mart and HCTB)

However, as a few people pointed out, we do have to draw the line somewhere. I like AndyK's post a lot- I agree with most of what he said, and that "with freedom comes responsibility". And, in the specific case of the PMRC, it's a vocal minority that are proposing to decide what is right for the majority. (Dave also said this in the other thread) The fact that the founding members of the PMRC happened to be the spouses of lawmakers, I think becomes a delicate situation.

As Sarge pointed out, you might start out merely talking about words, but it can lead to more severe restrictions down the road. In fact, the PMRC had as their goals:

1. Print lyrics on album covers.

2. Keep explicit covers under the counter. ("Smell the Glove", anyone? )

3. Establish a ratings system for records similar to that for films.

4. Establish a ratings system for concerts.

5. Reassess the contracts of performers who engage in violence and explicit sexual behavior onstage.

6. Establish a citizen and record-company media watch that would pressure broadcasters not to air "questionable-talent."

The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) refused to comply with the PMRC's demands. But for fear of losing money, the RIAA started ordering a sticker stating "Parental Advisory Explicit Lyrics" to be put on albums containing profanity, violence, and sexual content.

When you start getting into items such as numbers 4-6, I think you start to impinge on artistic freedom as well as freedom of speech, not to mention the right of performers to make a living. (Zappa also talked about how songwriters who are not performers could stand to lose) It could easily turn into a witch hunt. Think about Meat's live show- how do you think the performances of "Paradise", or more recently, the penis guns would go over with the PMRC?

What do folks think of Donny Osmond's assertion that he would feel "pressured" to make an R-rated record? Were his concerns valid? Do they still apply today? I believe someone made the point (I forget who- the post seems to be gone now?) that he would go for the "higher" rated cut of a film, as he would perceive it to be better.

I'm reminded of when Madonna's video for "Justify My Love" was banned from MTV for being too explicit. The resulting controversy probably gave her more publicity than she ever would have gotten otherwise. MTV wouldn't show it, but you could conveniently buy it, and it was a best-seller. I remember thinking of Madonna that it was a genius move on her part. I've never seen the video, so I can't comment on it's content.

This issue has been in the news very recently; a few days ago, the Canadian equivalent of the FCC banned the old Dire Straits song, "Money for Nothing" because of the use of the word, "faggot", in response to a complaint from a listener. Personally, I think in the U.S. at least, we may be becoming too politically correct.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011...nothing-banned