Best Ever Albums

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

Anonymous — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 19:31:40 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/17/2015 23:31

The problem with censorship is that those deciding what is censored are basing their ideas of what "should" be censored on either their own subjective idea of morality, or a baseless assumption that a certain art directly effects violence or something else equally... not good. It certainly causes more problems than it strives to prevent, and that's not even addressing the idea of artistic freedom etc.

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

Norman Bates — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 02:53:34 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 03/17/2015 06:53

So the question is: what, if anything, should be censored in music?

Nothing.

Should a company refuse to sell an artist's album because, for example, the album art is offensive?

No. If anything, they should sell it in that case, as it's bound to make a little money just out of the outrage. It's a businessman's world out there.

Should the music on the radio be censored?

No.

And if so, where is the line between appropriate and inappropriate?

"Always let your conscience be your guide, son". Considering your "conscience" is for a large part influenced by what is socially deemed "appropriate" or "inappropriate", you'll sort it out somehow.

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

benpaco — Tue, 17 Mar 2015 01:31:59 GMT

Author: benpaco

Posted: 03/17/2015 05:31

LevonTostig wrote:

I think GTA is a good example. A game that utilized senseless violence for entertainment seems at least morally dubious to me...I know that's not the "cool" view, but I do think it's unethical.

Anyways, as far as censorship goes, I don't think the Government needs to play any role in censoring art (including video games) until that art poses a direct threat to those who either willingly or unwillingly consume it. GTA poses a relatively small if not nonexistent threat, so it shouldn't be censored...2 Live Crew, on the other hand...

Eh, to each their own, but it's a game I have no problems with whatsoever, there are only a handful I'd call morally questionable and even then I'd think of them as art, still. The violence that the game presents is not "senseless" as you've presented it, much of the violence the game MAKES you do plot wise makes sense, you're killing bad people or you have to for well set out reasons. Past that, it's up to you as a person. Not gonna argue that too much, though, as you've presented it as a "small if not nonexistent threat" so really, no problem there, even if you do think it's unethical, that's just two different schools of thought which don't necessarily have to clash.

I'd like to hear your opinion on how 2 Live Crew is a major threat, though. Maybe overly sexual, but do you think it leads to rape or porn addiction or prostitution or what exactly?

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 23:45:26 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/17/2015 03:45

benpaco wrote:

Can I ask what both of you mean by "glorifying" violence? Like is that GTA V...

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

benpaco — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 23:39:48 GMT

Author: benpaco

Posted: 03/17/2015 03:39

LevonTostig wrote:

I think many Christians would contend that we ought not glorify violence whether it's fictional or not, blanket statements about "people in the Bible-belt" do nothing to advance useful discussion.

Can I ask what both of you mean by "glorifying" violence? Like is that GTA V, is that Kill Bill, is that the WWE, is that media coverage of school shootings? All of the above?

EDIT: To massively clarify, one of you specified fiction, one said about either. I'm not saying that school shootings are fictional. I'm not a Columbine/Sandy Hook disbeliever and those people piss me off about as much as the holocaust deniers.

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 22:28:45 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/17/2015 02:28

StreetSpirit wrote:

In this backward society I live in (the USA), we censor the hell of out the news, bad language, and sexual content; but we glorify fictional violence. Now that I find offensive, but people in the Bible Belt are okay with it.

I think many Christians would contend that we ought not glorify violence whether it's fictional or not, blanket statements about "people in the Bible-belt" do nothing to advance useful discussion.

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

benpaco — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 22:14:01 GMT

Author: benpaco

Posted: 03/17/2015 02:14

Decurso wrote:

I am opposed to any and all forms of censorship....BUT...a company determining what standards they want to be associated with is NOT censorship. IMO censorship is the limiting or restricting of access to materials. Just because one company decides not to release a certain album or song because it doesn't conform to their moral standard does not mean another company can't release the same material. This becomes a bit more problematic when you take into account that most artists are locked into exclusive contracts with one company. I think that as long as the company's standards are clearly defined and consistent, it should not be an issue.

For the most part, I agree with this, it's just a little tough when it's more than a choice. For example, how many hip-hop stations would honestly choose to use only clean versions all day if they could choose? It's one thing to me if a company doesn't want something and you're their employee, it's a bit more blurred when you make laws about the showing of art. It's a tough line for me to draw. On the one hand I wanna say that radio play shouldn't matter to an artist, but on the other, that's how a LOT of artists get discovered.

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 19:11:48 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/16/2015 23:11

Censorship is a bad thing and it would be better if there was no censorship 🫵

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

CA Dreamin — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 15:40:14 GMT

Author: CA Dreamin

Posted: 03/16/2015 19:40

We've all heard the story of the radio station in the '70s playing George Carlin's 'The Seven Words You Can't Say on Television' at 2 in the afternoon when a father and child were listening. The father wasn't too pleased, and he sued the station. This led to a court case, which then led to the establishment of the 'Safe Harbor Hours,' between 10pm and 6am. During these hours, TV and radio can play porn, or programs and songs with explicit language. I have no problem with this.

As for censorship by music labels, labels have the right to refuse to sell artists' albums. But album art or explicit lyrics should not be a reason. And if a company finds album art offensive, there's the option of releasing two album covers, and let the buyers choose. 'Electric Ladyland' and 'Is This It' are two albums I can immediately think of that have two covers, one erotic and one not.

But something that hasn't been mentioned yet, is that what some people find appropriate others do not. In this backward society I live in (the USA), we censor the hell of out the news, bad language, and sexual content; but we glorify fictional violence. Now that I find offensive, but many people are okay with it.

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

samistake2ice — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:00:25 GMT

Author: samistake2ice

Posted: 03/16/2015 18:00

CubaZed wrote:

I'd say something but I honestly think I can't elucidate my opinions any better than Mecca already has for me. Definitely a really interesting topic though.

This

also, everyone knows that the "Tipper Gore Censorship Initiative" actually benefited the music industry by making albums with a parental advisory sticker more coveted by those mischievous youths.

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

RockyRaccoon — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 13:41:49 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 03/16/2015 17:41

meccalecca wrote:

Rocky, That's definitely a problem I've heard quite a bit. Networks need to show greater responsibility in those regards. I think it happens a lot with sports because of the high testosterone viewership they tend to market to.

I'd agree. And I mean, it's not typically drastically terrible stuff, it's just stuff where I'm like "I'd really rather him not have seen that". Previews for action movies are a good example, tons of shooting and explosions and stuff, and while that's not really that bad, it's still something I'd rather my 4-year-old not seeing.

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:51:30 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/16/2015 16:51

I'd say something but I honestly think I can't elucidate my opinions any better than Mecca already has for me. Definitely a really interesting topic though.

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

meccalecca — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:45:15 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 03/16/2015 16:45

Rocky, That's definitely a problem I've heard quite a bit. Networks need to show greater responsibility in those regards. I think it happens a lot with sports because of the high testosterone viewership they tend to market to.

For some reason, this thread has made me think of the film Dogtooth which I finally watched recently. It's a Greek film about parents who raise their 3 kids with zero exposure to the outside world. They completely condition them to think and act a certain way. It's a jarring fictional story deeply rooted in the reality of completely controlling development.

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

RockyRaccoon — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:06:58 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 03/16/2015 16:06

zdwyatt wrote:

Makes perfect sense. It's one thing for the government to say "you cannot make this art," which I am not okay with. It's another thing to place restrictions on when and how that art is distributed, or to create guidelines to aid responsible consumption.

I can agree with that. As a parent, there are times when I can't control the fact that my son sees something that I didn't want him to see. Even now, if I want to watch a basketball game or something, I have no problem watching that with me, but then they cut to commercial and there's an ad for something really violent or sexual or something and all of a sudden I'm trying to find the remote and change it really fast. It's frustrating. And obviously I'm aware that I couldn't possibly expect the FCC to conform its rules to my moral standards, but there are instances in which, as a parent, you're not able to stop your child from seeing something you may not want them to see, because it might just be out there in the public.

All that being said, I'm strongly against censorship in the sense of the government or any institution (schools especially) saying "You may not make that art", but that doesn't mean that warnings/rating systems/whatever can't accompany said art.

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

zdwyatt — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:02:04 GMT

Author: zdwyatt

Posted: 03/16/2015 16:02

meccalecca wrote:

So, now I'm contradicting myself. But I think the artist should never be censored. Only the public may sometimes need to be shielded. If that makes any sense.

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

meccalecca — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:57:34 GMT

Author: meccalecca

Posted: 03/16/2015 15:57

I agree with others here that say the government needs to steer clear of censoring art. It's often done haphazardly, and and with biased motivations.

Sure, there's music, movies and art that's unethical. From hate-filled skinhead nazi punk to underage porn, there's stuff that has no place in the public spectrum, but I think it's up to the public to make those decisions, by exercising their purchase power, as well as parents overseeing what their young children listen to.

Of course, there are times when parents are totally absent from the picture, and I guess society has to step in and act as surrogate parents. And that's why we have a movies rating system and what not. So we're in this situation where the FCC is basically needed at times because there's so many terrible parents out there.

So, now I'm contradicting myself. But I think the artist should never be censored. Only the public may sometimes need to be shielded. If that makes any sense.

When I was in college, I was working in an electronics department, and there would be times I'd see parents buy their very young child extremely violent video games, and couldn't help but wonder what the fuck was wrong with them. a young child's brain is very malleable, and the influence of such a thing could really shape them.

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

Decurso — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 11:38:36 GMT

Author: Decurso

Posted: 03/16/2015 15:38

I am opposed to any and all forms of censorship....BUT...a company determining what standards they want to be associated with is NOT censorship. IMO censorship is the limiting or restricting of access to materials. Just because one company decides not to release a certain album or song because it doesn't conform to their moral standard does not mean another company can't release the same material. This becomes a bit more problematic when you take into account that most artists are locked into exclusive contracts with one company. I think that as long as the company's standards are clearly defined and consistent, it should not be an issue.

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:43:51 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 03/16/2015 14:43

RockyRaccoon wrote:

side note: my apologies for not having a PoD last week (if anyone noticed), I was pretty sick.

Sorry to hear that, man. Hope you're feeling better now.

As for the PoD, I'm very anti-censorship. Of course, I can imagine extreme cases where I would support it (e.g., some types of slander, leaking of private or classified information), but those are definitely the exceptions.

That's not to say that private companies should be forced to sell something they find offensive, but I do think governments should stay out of such things. Maybe I'm a bit of an idealist when it comes to artistic expression, but I'd say that art reflects life much more than life reflects art.

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

zdwyatt — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:19:32 GMT

Author: zdwyatt

Posted: 03/16/2015 14:19

RockyRaccoon wrote:

So the question is: what, if anything, should be censored in music? Should a company refuse to sell an artist's album because, for example, the album art is offensive? Should the music on the radio be censored? And if so, where is the line between appropriate and inappropriate?

Generally, I have no problem with a company refusing to sell something they find offensive. Just as I should be allowed to consume what I want, another person should be free not to. Back in the major label heyday, this was probably a thornier issue, because an artist might not have had to freedom to take their "offensive" work elsewhere. These days, it'd be easier for someone to find the market for their work.

I also generally agree with the FCC obscenity rules (nothing indecent from 6am-10pm). The whole notion of those and other FCC regulations is that these things are broadcast over open air and in limited broadcast space. Having a license grants a sort of power of imposition and that has to come with some rules. I will say that what qualifies as "indecent" tends to be a little puritanical for my taste, but that will change with time.

Re: Point of Discussion: Censorship

RockyRaccoon — Mon, 16 Mar 2015 09:36:24 GMT

Author: RockyRaccoon

Posted: 03/16/2015 13:36

side note: my apologies for not having a PoD last week (if anyone noticed), I was pretty sick.