Censorship plays a large role in the music industry; this can be seen without a doubt. Many individuals have their favorite songs interrupted with “blanks” because of the explicit words that had to be removed in order for it to be aired. True, by censoring, they remove the actual words, but to what benefit or gain? Children still know what they’re saying nowadays, so it seems a bit pointless to keep it up.
To prevent a lot of censorship from occurring in their songs, artists find that they may be limited in choosing particular words to emphasize a stronger point (through use of explicit language) or express deeply or emotionally (with those particularly explicit words). Of course, other may argue that there are multiple synonyms within the dictionary to replace the words of expression with other, more meaningful words. Is it really fair to say that censorship limits artists’ ability both economically and professionally?
Artists tend to portray their feelings and outlook on life through their music, and a series of censorship can be seen within this particular category. Many artists that had songs involved with Bush and the September 11 attacks had been censored and or removed because of the effect it might have on the public. It goes without saying that this was a very difficult moment for all Americans, and in hopes to control outrage, censorship played a large role in limiting artists from speaking out against Bush and the government. Although this was limited to air-time radio, there could be copies that are not censored online. The various artists that had been affected by such censorship, obstructing their views both personally and professionally, consist of several well-known figures such as Notorious B.I.G. and Jadakiss.
“Economic hardship” is a very broad term that applies to nearly all individuals. To stop censorship would be to trample on all the efforts made to construct a more peaceful environment. It is true that the rules being applied to censorship are becoming more and more strict, however, this is not a limitation that cripples professional and economic growth of the music industry. Similar to what I said earlier, there are many synonyms- it’s a matter of word play that needs to be well structured (or differently).
To stop censorship would only cause a greater outcry from the older generation against the new stations. It had been reported in multiple instances where radio station DJs would accidentally play uncensored versions of songs, their station would be flooded with phone calls. They would be complaints about how they had played a song with uncensored lyrics; as unorthodox as one would think, this would be potential open grounds for lawsuits pertaining to children’s mental health. The sense of outrage arising from particular songs against national crisis may also be something that cannot be controlled if left uncensored, because of the mob mentality that may arise. Removing censorship because of “economic hardship” is more detrimental to both the artists’ well-being as well as the general public, and would do greater harm than good.
To prevent a lot of censorship from occurring in their songs, artists find that they may be limited in choosing particular words to emphasize a stronger point (through use of explicit language) or express deeply or emotionally (with those particularly explicit words). Of course, other may argue that there are multiple synonyms within the dictionary to replace the words of expression with other, more meaningful words. Is it really fair to say that censorship limits artists’ ability both economically and professionally?
Artists tend to portray their feelings and outlook on life through their music, and a series of censorship can be seen within this particular category. Many artists that had songs involved with Bush and the September 11 attacks had been censored and or removed because of the effect it might have on the public. It goes without saying that this was a very difficult moment for all Americans, and in hopes to control outrage, censorship played a large role in limiting artists from speaking out against Bush and the government. Although this was limited to air-time radio, there could be copies that are not censored online. The various artists that had been affected by such censorship, obstructing their views both personally and professionally, consist of several well-known figures such as Notorious B.I.G. and Jadakiss.
“Economic hardship” is a very broad term that applies to nearly all individuals. To stop censorship would be to trample on all the efforts made to construct a more peaceful environment. It is true that the rules being applied to censorship are becoming more and more strict, however, this is not a limitation that cripples professional and economic growth of the music industry. Similar to what I said earlier, there are many synonyms- it’s a matter of word play that needs to be well structured (or differently).
To stop censorship would only cause a greater outcry from the older generation against the new stations. It had been reported in multiple instances where radio station DJs would accidentally play uncensored versions of songs, their station would be flooded with phone calls. They would be complaints about how they had played a song with uncensored lyrics; as unorthodox as one would think, this would be potential open grounds for lawsuits pertaining to children’s mental health. The sense of outrage arising from particular songs against national crisis may also be something that cannot be controlled if left uncensored, because of the mob mentality that may arise. Removing censorship because of “economic hardship” is more detrimental to both the artists’ well-being as well as the general public, and would do greater harm than good.
I respectfully disagree on your idea on what you wrote “Children still know what they [musicians] saying nowadays, so it seems a bit pointless to keep it up.” Does this mean our kids know everything -harsher language, women/drinking/drugs, violence, immoral attitudes, insult? So if they know “as you mentioned” they should be exposed to any devaluing messages, murder, theft, disrespectful words. Imagine a child grown up in an environment where violence is his every bit of life experience, where murder and theft is common, bad language is the way of communication. Do you think this kid will understand killing is immoral? That is why we do need to censor any bad that harms our kids, we do need to raise our kids with innocence. Censoring music doesn’t have any relation with generational gap, as a society we are progressing but immorality is not an expression of progression. In any generation this will not have value and place. I am not in the old generation, I do appreciate the advancement my generation has brought but by no means I don’t agree exposing innocent mind to distorting messages.
ReplyDelete