Control of free speech for popular music...

It's only cool if no one's heard of it.

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Jackpot
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 11:57 am UTC
Location: University o' Teesside
Contact:

Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby Jackpot » Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:54 pm UTC

hear me out on this one.

"I kissed a girl and I liked it"
"Let's get it started in here"

Many pop "musicians" or lyricists tend to use heavy amounts of inuendo, useless sexual catchphrases, and candid bullshit over and over again, over insultingly simple "beats". The time signitures are usually in 4/4 time, with no groove.

They then get labelled as genuine musicans and make a mockery of the word artist.

Is controlling free speech really that bad on this level? Millions of people are literally forced into listening to this shit against their will (seriously. if you go shopping for basic goods or anywhere public, they will play this music. not everyone has music players on them at all times, thus, you hear it against your will).

What I'm suggesting is that we have a system of quality control put in for any music that will be played by major media outlets, and force simplistic, gratiutous yet PG rated music into special acces niche programming slots (kinda like how heavy metal and ambient electronic music have).

This is only for music that is overtly simple, and have blatantly sexual content without actuall referances to human organs.

Opinions?
Even though I walk through the valley of the humourless nerds, I fear no evil, for escape and perspective is with me; my experience and love, they comfort me.

User avatar
Chai Kovsky
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:36 pm UTC
Location: Californication

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby Chai Kovsky » Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:55 pm UTC

Yes, it is that terrible. Bad, bad, bad idea.

Jackpot wrote:Is controlling free speech really that bad on this level? Millions of people are literally forced into listening to this shit against their will (seriously. if you go shopping for basic goods or anywhere public, they will play this music. not everyone has music players on them at all times, thus, you hear it against your will)

The grocery store is a private venue, not one owned by government. You implicitly consent to listening to the music when you enter the store. Even if a government enacted your law, they couldn't touch a private venue.

Jackpot wrote:What I'm suggesting is that we have a system of quality control put in for any music that will be played by major media outlets, and force simplistic, gratiutous yet PG rated music into special acces niche programming slots (kinda like how heavy metal and ambient electronic music have).

Metal and electronica weren't forced into niche programming. ClearChannel, which owns most of the airwaves, and other companies simply decided that there was little money to be made in playing it on mainstream programming.

Jackpot wrote:This is only for music that is overtly simple, and have blatantly sexual content without actuall referances to human organs.

This is the part where, even if you allowed that it was acceptable to curb a right as important as free speech for something as trivial as pop music, your argument falls apart. By what standard is music considered worthy of being played? Is it acceptable to use a song if it has a I-ii-V-I progression instead of the more typical I-IV-V-I? What if you have "blatantly sexual content" and do actually reference human organs? What if the organs are kidneys (okay, yeah, I'd definitely listen to that song). What gives you or any other person the right to judge what music is "worthy?" De gustibus non est disputandum.

Free speech is Serious Business and as such needs serious justification before it is censored. Remember, things that actually get censored are things like yelling "Fire" in a crowded auditorium where there is risk of people dying immediately if you say it. But these aren't songs that have lyrics like "Go out now and kill all the fags/kill all the fags/kill all the fags." These are just songs whose music you don't like.

As they say, this $#!& is bananas. B-A-N-A-N-A-S.
Spoiler:
kellsbells wrote:¡This Chai is burning me!
Chai Kovsky wrote:I can kill you with my brain.

That is all.
superglucose wrote:In other words: LISTEN TO CHAI.
Delayra wrote:Yet another brilliant idea from Chai!

I <3 Pirate.Bondage!

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby TheAmazingRando » Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:15 pm UTC

You do realize that "Let's Get It Started" is already a censored version of the original song?

Cherry Kiss
¡This cheese is burning me!
Posts: 627
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 4:35 pm UTC

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby Cherry Kiss » Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:18 pm UTC

Lets get retarded HA! lets get retarded in here
What they call love is a risk,
'Cause you will always get hit
Out of nowhere by some wave
And end up on your own.

User avatar
tiny
Posts: 771
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:34 pm UTC
Location: Below the fifth cellar.
Contact:

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby tiny » Sun Nov 23, 2008 12:55 am UTC

That's what god gave us mp3 players for. And those who don't own one don't seem to mind the music that you find so crappy.
I hate pop music, just like you do, but forcing your personal taste on others isn't a real solution to the problem of other people forcing their taste and/or marketing strategies on you.
"I write what I see, the endless procession to the guillotine." ~ de Sade

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby SirMustapha » Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:42 am UTC

Jackpot wrote:This is only for music that is overtly simple, and have blatantly sexual content without actuall referances to human organs.


So you want to ban Led Zeppelin?

User avatar
The Rumpled Academic
Posts: 134
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 8:34 am UTC

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby The Rumpled Academic » Sun Nov 23, 2008 2:40 pm UTC

This is the part where, even if you allowed that it was acceptable to curb a right as important as free speech for something as trivial as pop music, your argument falls apart. By what standard is music considered worthy of being played? Is it acceptable to use a song if it has a I-ii-V-I progression instead of the more typical I-IV-V-I? What if you have "blatantly sexual content" and do actually reference human organs? What if the organs are kidneys (okay, yeah, I'd definitely listen to that song). What gives you or any other person the right to judge what music is "worthy?" De gustibus non est disputandum.

Free speech is Serious Business and as such needs serious justification before it is censored. Remember, things that actually get censored are things like yelling "Fire" in a crowded auditorium where there is risk of people dying immediately if you say it. But these aren't songs that have lyrics like "Go out now and kill all the fags/kill all the fags/kill all the fags." These are just songs whose music you don't like.

As they say, this $#!& is bananas. B-A-N-A-N-A-S.


Man -- upon reading the first post of this thread, I was going to write almost the exact same sequence of arguments that you have here. Nicely done.

User avatar
Jackpot
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 11:57 am UTC
Location: University o' Teesside
Contact:

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby Jackpot » Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:30 pm UTC

Chai Kovsky wrote:Yes, it is that terrible. Bad, bad, bad idea.
The grocery store is a private venue, not one owned by government. You implicitly consent to listening to the music when you enter the store. Even if a government enacted your law, they couldn't touch a private venue.


I wouldn't exactly say shit like MK one and topshop or generic malls are "private venues". They're franchises who probably get paid to play this gobshite.

Jackpot wrote:What I'm suggesting is that we have a system of quality control put in for any music that will be played by major media outlets, and force simplistic, gratiutous yet PG rated music into special acces niche programming slots (kinda like how heavy metal and ambient electronic music have).

Chai Kovsky wrote:Metal and electronica weren't forced into niche programming. ClearChannel, which owns most of the airwaves, and other companies simply decided that there was little money to be made in playing it on mainstream programming.


Not exactly my point. Also, we don't have clear channel in the UK. (for clarification : my point was the reform for pop music to become how the mentioned music types are treated at present, not to invert the current structure)

Also, by deciding certain things are not profitiable (but not artistically worthwhile) (ie : the decision is made by profit, not artistic merit) you essentially throw away anything that won't appeal to everyone, and remove anything artistically worthwhile.

(additional subnote : I'll be damned if I admit current pop musicians are artists. They are barely fit to be called musicians, and they do not provide anything artistically noteworthy)

Jackpot wrote:This is only for music that is overtly simple, and have blatantly sexual content without actuall referances to human organs.

Chai Kovsky wrote:This is the part where, even if you allowed that it was acceptable to curb a right as important as free speech for something as trivial as pop music, your argument falls apart. By what standard is music considered worthy of being played? Is it acceptable to use a song if it has a I-ii-V-I progression instead of the more typical I-IV-V-I? What if you have "blatantly sexual content" and do actually reference human organs? What if the organs are kidneys (okay, yeah, I'd definitely listen to that song). What gives you or any other person the right to judge what music is "worthy?" De gustibus non est disputandum.


by an educated team of people who know what high quality music is, instead of people looking at the amount of money some trend makes. In short, substitute low level quality music with high quality music, not pop music for metal.

Chai Kovsky wrote:Free speech is Serious Business and as such needs serious justification before it is censored.


Music is fast losing it's status as an art form.

Chai Kovsky wrote: Remember, things that actually get censored are things like yelling "Fire" in a crowded auditorium where there is risk of people dying immediately if you say it. But these aren't songs that have lyrics like "Go out now and kill all the fags/kill all the fags/kill all the fags." These are just songs whose music you don't like.


Yea, these are songs that say "endanger yourself by excess consumption of alcohol, expendeture of money for frivilous deeds and have multiple sex partners without paying heed to any consequence.

Also, "Go out now and kill all the fags" is political aplication of free speech, and the reason free speech exists : to make political standpoints of your opinion. Free speech isn't there so you can make fart jokes.
Chai Kovsky wrote:As they say, this $#!& is bananas. B-A-N-A-N-A-S.


That's my point.

Also : it is becoming more and more difficult for generic youth to access high quality music. they don't know where to look, and it is not made obvious to them.
Even though I walk through the valley of the humourless nerds, I fear no evil, for escape and perspective is with me; my experience and love, they comfort me.

User avatar
ChocloManx
Posts: 656
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:05 pm UTC
Location: Santiago, Chile (nofewdjokezplz)
Contact:

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby ChocloManx » Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:52 pm UTC

What. Finding music (good or not) has never been easier.
Egotist, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.
-Ambrose Bierce

"My God, all the matter in the universe has just rapidly expanded outward, in some sort of bang."

User avatar
Chai Kovsky
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:36 pm UTC
Location: Californication

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby Chai Kovsky » Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:14 pm UTC

This was an amusing post on many levels. I really don't know which part was my favorite: the part where you think your perception of musical quality justifies the abrogation of an essential right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the part where you think "educated experts" should determine what good music is and what isn't, the part where you grossly misunderstand the working of government in free society (evidenced by your ignorance of the implications of a "private venue"), or the part where you think that inciting to murder is protected "political" speech.

So I'll just say: you do have ClearChannel in the UK.
Spoiler:
kellsbells wrote:¡This Chai is burning me!
Chai Kovsky wrote:I can kill you with my brain.

That is all.
superglucose wrote:In other words: LISTEN TO CHAI.
Delayra wrote:Yet another brilliant idea from Chai!

I <3 Pirate.Bondage!

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby SirMustapha » Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:23 pm UTC

Jackpot wrote:Music is fast losing it's status as an art form.


Correct. Miles Davis killed music when he released that commercial crap called Bitches Brew.

User avatar
Chai Kovsky
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:36 pm UTC
Location: Californication

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby Chai Kovsky » Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:34 pm UTC

I thought it was around when Mozart wrote Le Nozze di Figaro. What a hack.
Spoiler:
kellsbells wrote:¡This Chai is burning me!
Chai Kovsky wrote:I can kill you with my brain.

That is all.
superglucose wrote:In other words: LISTEN TO CHAI.
Delayra wrote:Yet another brilliant idea from Chai!

I <3 Pirate.Bondage!

User avatar
semicolon
Posts: 765
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:21 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby semicolon » Sun Nov 23, 2008 10:45 pm UTC

Kraftwerk ruined everything!

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:01 pm UTC

This is bad. Ridiculously, ridiculously bad. The part of me that handles concepts of human rights is reeling right now. I would type out a detailed response, but I think it's been covered. You want a panel of experts who "know" what good music is to decide what music to play? Seriously? That's basically a good way to ban any new forms from arising. Talk about stifling innovation.

Here's the thing, if people don't want to listen to bad music, they don't have to. It's being played because it's popular.

In the end, I'm not sure I could live in a country that allowed this sort of policy.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby TheAmazingRando » Sun Nov 23, 2008 11:07 pm UTC

Jackpot wrote:Free speech isn't there so you can make fart jokes.
Free speech exists so that you can say unpopular things without being lynched for it. Obscenity absolutely falls under that category. Some of the most noteworthy art ever made has been subject to obscenity trials.
Last edited by TheAmazingRando on Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:14 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Rumpled Academic
Posts: 134
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 8:34 am UTC

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby The Rumpled Academic » Mon Nov 24, 2008 1:10 am UTC

...by an educated team of people who know what high quality music is


That's pretty much the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard. You really think that there is objective "high quality music" and "low quality music", outside of the minds and opinions of those listening to it? You're going to completely ignore the subjectivity pervading all musical opinions that involve the word 'better'? Seriously? There's no "knowing" in the business of subjective evaluation! There's just your opinion, and your seemingly implacable belief that it is Objectively Right.

What sort of criteria would this team make their judgements upon, anyway? You seemed in your first post to imply that one would be 'complexity'. Does this mean that shops will only be allowed to play 500-chords-a-song avant-jazz explorations? That the 4/4 time signature (the one most people can follow and enjoy most easily) will be wiped from the airwaves? This would not be a 'public service' providing 'better' music for people - even if it's intended that way. Rather, it would just be the foisting of a minority's (subjective) musical opinions and prejudices onto everyone else, and pretending that it's somehow scientific. As has been established, the tepid pop music currently played in most stores is there because it's popular with a majority of the population. What you're essentially proposing is that an elitist vanguard takes over, and plays music that the majority would dislike. In what Universe is this considered fair practice?
"Shitty" mainstream music is very genuinely enjoyed by a lot of people. You are basically saying that they are wrong -- that their enjoyment is wrong. I hope you can realise how messed-up that is.

Listen to me carefully: you don't like the music you do because it's objectively 'better' than the music you dislike. You just like it more. That's all. There are a multiplicity of reasons why people like the different music that they do, and none of them apply (or should apply) to anyone but themselves.

Free speech isn't there so you can make fart jokes.


Free speech is absolutely there so to allow people to make fart jokes.

Also : it is becoming more and more difficult for generic youth to access high quality music. they don't know where to look, and it is not made obvious to them.


That is just so ridiculously wrong I can't even begin to address it. In the past, you had to rely on radio or word of mouth to hear about non-mainstream music ~~ now, what with this internet thing, "the youth" have virtually instant access to all of the different music of the world. We're in a truly unique position to seek out only the music that truly moves us, and to reject what is thrust upon us if it doesn't.

I mean... postulates wrong... conclusion wrong... all so very wrong...

User avatar
Chai Kovsky
Posts: 1652
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:36 pm UTC
Location: Californication

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby Chai Kovsky » Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:35 am UTC

What I'm interested in is the definition of a "generic" youth. Is this the opposite of a brand-name youth? What is a particularly good brand of youth these days, anyway?
Spoiler:
kellsbells wrote:¡This Chai is burning me!
Chai Kovsky wrote:I can kill you with my brain.

That is all.
superglucose wrote:In other words: LISTEN TO CHAI.
Delayra wrote:Yet another brilliant idea from Chai!

I <3 Pirate.Bondage!

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby TheAmazingRando » Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:16 am UTC

I also don't get how it's more difficult for "generic youth" to find music. Pop music these days is a lot more varied and complex than pop music 30 years ago, and a lot of that music is still played on the radio.

User avatar
seladore
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:17 pm UTC
Location: Tumbolia

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby seladore » Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:38 am UTC

I can't imagine what criteria you would apply, in order to choose what is 'good'.

I have known a girl with a degree in music theory, who loves drum 'n' bass. Is she an 'expert'? So shops should listen to her opinion rather than anyone else's? What about other musicians?

Would you be happy with shops etc. all just playing avant-garde post-jazz freeform? I'm sure that this is critically acclaimed by many experts. But what about the NME? They must count as experts, surely?

And how can you even talk about censoring art because of its obscenity? Would you have censored 'Lolita'? What about 'Lady Chatterley's Lover'? Would you want to ban Tool's 'Stinkfist' because of the graphic content? What about the fact that it is considered high art by many people, and the philosophy lecturer of someone I knew had the lyrics on his door? But then again, it does mention body parts in a sexualised way...

tl;dr - Nope, sorry. Worst idea ever.

User avatar
Vox Imperatoris
Posts: 364
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:42 am UTC
Location: Alabama

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby Vox Imperatoris » Mon Nov 24, 2008 8:40 am UTC

You have no conception of rights at all, do you?

The government has no right to force people not to play music you don't like. They also have no right to force you to listen to music you don't like, which, in fact, it isn't doing. Private entities are doing that, and the government has no right to abridge thir freedom to play pop music you don't like, whether it's by Britney Spears, Hannah Montana, or whoever else that you deem to have no merit. If everyone thought it sucked, then it would not be making money, and therefore, wouldn't be played.

So if you really want to stop this, go out and convince people to listen to better music; don't force it on them by fiat.
Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.
17/♂/Heterosexual/US/Atheist/Objectivist
Tigion wrote:Gods, [Mafia] is like poker, 'cept harder.

Nu Știu Să Fiu Numai Pentru Tine—Andreea Bălan—Amazing song! Verrückte Jungs—Blümchen—My avatar.
Image

User avatar
Eriksson
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 2:29 am UTC

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby Eriksson » Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:21 pm UTC

Okay, I'll start off by stating what has already been mentioned: This is absolute madness. It shouldn't need much more explanation than that by this point.
Also, the real issue here is with the companies providing FM radio and publishing music. If you wanted to broaden people's musical horizons on a massive scale, kill off FM entirely, hasten the digital-distribution revolution, encourage independent publishers, and implement some kind of intelligent music-blog-trawler as the new car radio. Just to drive the point home, launch a massive PR campaign encouraging people to listen to something new.
Even then, people will still listen to simple, sexy pop music. Because that's what they want to listen to (and/or can't get out of their heads).

Bobofthedead
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2008 8:00 pm UTC

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby Bobofthedead » Sun Dec 07, 2008 8:25 pm UTC

Maybe we shouldn't have censorship on popular music; quite a lot of good music has questionable lyrics: you name it, it's been in the charts. Look at, maybe every band in the '60s and '70s.

We just need better quality control: look at examples like Soulja Boy. Pure, sheer excrescence (+10 if you can tell me why this isn't in fact wrong), but it somehow broke into the UK charts, and onto UK radio. Oh, and club remixes of every new song that comes out, that gets on my wick too: every time the gym radio is switched to the dance station, all I hear are cruddy remixes of the pop songs that came out last week. No talent needed to make them, just a copy of Audacity and the copy-and-paste function.

Quality control, EMI?

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

It's not anyone's place to enforce their idea of "quality" in anything as subjective as music. Lots of people like that stuff.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
aaron
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:43 am UTC

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby aaron » Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:35 am UTC

i just popped in to say that i love katy perry

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26516
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby SecondTalon » Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:31 am UTC

Bobofthedead wrote:We just need better quality control: look at examples like Soulja Boy.


This website gives a figure of 1,732,000 digital copies sold for Crank Dat and 200,000 copies of the album.

You yourself say that it made it onto the sales charts and covered the radio.

Despite what you think, a whole lot of somebodies out there like it. There is a statement that's so incredibly basic and obvious but maybe you've just forgotten, so I'm going to type it out.

People Don't Like Things That They Think Suck.

At no point in my life have I ever said "Oh boy! Mushrooms!" I can't stand the vile things. But I don't start insisting on quality control on food because pizza sometimes comes with them on it, or they often end up in a stir fry. I work around it.

Now, I'm not saying that 50 million people are right. You're telling me that fifty million screaming fans are never wrong. I'm telling you that fifty million screaming fans are fucking morons... not by a long shot. I am, however, saying that those 50 million people are seeing something in it that you are not, and they like it.

As far as remixes go... like everything, the good ones hang around, the bad ones vanish and are forgotten. Have a look.

In a large, democratic environment sometimes things are going to happen that you don't like - such as radio stations being put on because the majority of the people there enjoy it, or at least find it tolerable. Unlike government elections, you do have the ability to just opt out via headphones for your own music, earplugs so you don't have to listen to it, or simply leaving.

Jackpot wrote:They then get labelled as genuine musicans and make a mockery of the word artist.

... Really? They're not? So can I say the guy that composed that 4 minute "song" that had no instruments playing or notes written on the score isn't an artist too? Because that was totally not a song.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
aaron
Posts: 663
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:43 am UTC

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby aaron » Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:09 am UTC

SecondTalon wrote:
Jackpot wrote:They then get labelled as genuine musicans and make a mockery of the word artist.

... Really? They're not? So can I say the guy that composed that 4 minute "song" that had no instruments playing or notes written on the score isn't an artist too? Because that was totally not a song.


First John Cage mention I've seen on the board!

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby SirMustapha » Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:14 am UTC

Just dropping by before the argument that the media CONTROLS THE PEOPLE'S MINDS, so people only actually listen to that crap because THEY'RE BEING BRAINWASHED WITH SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26516
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby SecondTalon » Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:50 pm UTC

aaron wrote:First John Cage mention I've seen on the board!
His name's come up a time or two

SirMustapha wrote:Just dropping by before the argument that the media CONTROLS THE PEOPLE'S MINDS, so people only actually listen to that crap because THEY'RE BEING BRAINWASHED WITH SUBLIMINAL MESSAGES.
Oh me yarm are they going to stealz my megahurts?!

Anyway, an interview of the Insane Clown Posse of all groups I read once actually made a pretty good point - I don't remember which one of them said it nor do I recall the exact quote, but for some reason the Spice Girls came up. This was in the late 90s at the time, so the Spice Girls were.. you know.. relevant then. The interviewer was asking them something to the effect of what their opinion of them was, and one of them said back something to the effect of "I'm not going to say it sucks. They've sold how many millions of albums now? Some people - a lot of them - like that stuff enough to buy it, so it doesn't suck to them. I don't like it myself, but I'm not going to say that it sucks."

I'm pretty sure there was more use of the word "fucking" and a juggalo reference or seven I've forgotten a this point, but the main point stands.

And really.. when the goddamn Insane Clown Posse is more open-minded than (the universal) you.. what does that say?
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Berk and Hair
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:51 am UTC

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby Berk and Hair » Thu Dec 11, 2008 11:27 am UTC

I believe in free speech because an open forum for debate tends to favour good ideas over bad. But if there was a justification for limiting freedom of speech (beyond libel or soliciting a crime) rock/pop music would be it.

Rock/pop consists of a verse of one simple melody line repeated over and over until the chorus which is typically another simple melody line repeated over and over until the verse starts again. To say that the level of complexity of rock music compared to jazz or classical is as 'Spot the Dog' is to 'War and Peace' would be insulting to 'Spot the Dog'. The quality of art is subjective but complexity is not. If you listen to nothing but rock/pop as an adult you are on par with people who read nothing but comics.* If we discovered that reading novels was a rarity amongst people under the age 30 we would regard it as a cause for concern.

Manufactured/chart pop is aimed at children and the level of complexity reflects this. The sexual content of much of this music however, is entirely inconsistant with the age of the audience. Anyone who markets a singer whose audience consists mainly of 8-14 year olds by filming her cavorting about in nothing but body glitter should be put on the sex offenders register.

Rock and alternative rock have about the same level of complexity as manufactured pop, but are marketed at people who should know better. Rock stars typically represent themselves as rebels whilst living in country mansions and promoting a value system more bigoted and conservative than any mainstream right-wing politician. To them women are objects to be used for enjoyment and the goal of life is to experience as much material pleasure as possible. They may flirt with controversy as a publicity stunt, but rarely go beyond the bounds of what would be acceptable on a day-time soap opera. No current area of human enterprise is more dominated by white heterosexual middle-class males than alt-rock. The audience for alternative rock believe themselves to be dissidents when all they really have to dissent against is being asked to tidy their rooms.

I have some sympathy for the view of the original poster, but denying freedom of speech, even to something as worthless, bigoted and hypocritical as popular music, is a road that we, as a society, do not want to go down.


* This is not an attack on people who read comics. It is directed at people who don't read anything else.

User avatar
Clumpy
Posts: 1883
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:48 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby Clumpy » Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:44 pm UTC

I think that mainstream media outlets drive impressionable dummbopfs toward bland, well-engineered music, and that, improperly used, alternative outlets like the internet drive people toward similarly-bland, independent music. Yet I don't think my musical opinions are gospel. Jackass* here obviously has no concept of subjectivity or ramifications. His categorical assertion that all mainstream music no longer has any artistic relevance alone should discount him - some of the top records of last year didn't get played much on the radio but sold hundreds of thousands of copies.

Radio will die if we let it. Letting it live on as some kind of oppressive, fascist construction is just wrong.

Which poster are you flaming, exactly? -ST

A: The only guy arguing for this type of censorship, the creator of the post whose name also begins with "Jack." In retrospect, a personal epithet was probably in bad taste and made things ambiguous besides.

User avatar
If Chickens Were Purple...
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 9:51 pm UTC

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby If Chickens Were Purple... » Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:31 pm UTC

Rock/pop consists of a verse of one simple melody line repeated over and over until the chorus which is typically another simple melody line repeated over and over until the verse starts again. To say that the level of complexity of rock music compared to jazz or classical is as 'Spot the Dog' is to 'War and Peace' would be insulting to 'Spot the Dog'. The quality of art is subjective but complexity is not.

It wouldn't be hard to argue that your average modern rock album is as/more complex as/than a piece of classical music. Judging complexity based on the melodies alone is a filthy trick, like saying a Shakespearian sonnet is simple because it can be kept in a text file not even a kilobyte in size. The thing is, rock is a medium of sound (or 'timbre' or whatever the word is) much more than it is of melody. If a small orchestra (or whatever) performed their own note-for-note version of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" (or whatever), then yeah, I'd let you get away with calling that simple. But when Nirvana do it in a studio, they've got so much expensive equipment behind them that's been either specially selected or even purpose-built, then maybe tuned scrupulously by skilled people (oh man, I know nothing about anything) ...basically after all the production and post-production (and heightened emphasis on individual musicianship and blalalala) it makes no sense to just write the songs down as sheet music and say "see, see, it's all stupid and rubbish grrrrr". I would also like to defend comic books, however then I'd just be typing this paragraph over again with different examples.

Mo0man
Posts: 1258
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:46 am UTC
Location: 2 weeks ago

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby Mo0man » Sun Dec 14, 2008 12:32 am UTC

Obvious troll is obvious.
I think we at the xkcd fora are kinda spoiled. We think that everyone who says idiocy actually means it.
Either that, or we've got absolutely no faith in humanity. Either way, I'll say it again
Obvious troll is obvious
causa major dormuc vulnero ut ovis goatee
I'm number 20075. Remember that. It's important

User avatar
Antimatter Spork
Posts: 679
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: The third planet from the sun.

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby Antimatter Spork » Sun Dec 14, 2008 3:01 am UTC

Jackpot wrote:hear me out on this one.

"I kissed a girl and I liked it"
"Let's get it started in here"

Many pop "musicians" or lyricists tend to use heavy amounts of inuendo, useless sexual catchphrases, and candid bullshit over and over again, over insultingly simple "beats". The time signitures are usually in 4/4 time, with no groove.

They then get labelled as genuine musicans and make a mockery of the word artist.

Is controlling free speech really that bad on this level? Millions of people are literally forced into listening to this shit against their will (seriously. if you go shopping for basic goods or anywhere public, they will play this music. not everyone has music players on them at all times, thus, you hear it against your will).

What I'm suggesting is that we have a system of quality control put in for any music that will be played by major media outlets, and force simplistic, gratiutous yet PG rated music into special acces niche programming slots (kinda like how heavy metal and ambient electronic music have).

This is only for music that is overtly simple, and have blatantly sexual content without actuall referances to human organs.

Opinions?

Are you serious?
Albert Schweitzer wrote:There are two means of refuge from the misery of life — music and cats.

User avatar
fishyfish777
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:29 pm UTC

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby fishyfish777 » Sun Dec 14, 2008 3:33 am UTC

On a side note, the rappers are actually nice, it's just the composers who make this crap up.
Jay-Z came to our school once. He was all nice, and the reason he came to our school was a particular "Playpumps" Water-in-africa project.
My mom's friend's brother composes for eminem (His name is louis or whatever).
Neon Rain wrote:And somehow we humans can invent scanning-probe microscopes that can "see" individual atoms, yet still can't invent a machine that can reliably scan tests not taken with a #2 pencil.

User avatar
Marbas
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:01 am UTC
Location: Down down down at the bottom of the sea
Contact:

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby Marbas » Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:46 am UTC

Berk and Hair wrote:The quality of art is subjective but complexity is not. If you listen to nothing but rock/pop as an adult you are on par with people who read nothing but comics.* If we discovered that reading novels was a rarity amongst people under the age 30 we would regard it as a cause for concern.


There is an elegance in simplicity that is unparalleled by many other things. As for preferring "simplistic" entertainment, I'm going to say that there's really nothing wrong with that. There's nothing wrong with simple escapism, and the fact that you think people are beneath you because they prefer that to your "complexity" is something I find hilarious. In fact, sometimes complexity can be a negative thing. Remember, the word Baroque is also a pejorative. For example I listen to Noise, which is obviously more complex than any Jazz or Classical piece because it is bound by wholly different considerations than standard music. Does this mean my music carries more worth than other people's? No, most people find it awful and grating, and I understand that.
Jahoclave wrote:Do you have any idea how much more fun the holocaust is with "Git er Done" as the catch phrase?

User avatar
OmegaLord
LXIX
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:33 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby OmegaLord » Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:55 pm UTC

Oh. No. My proposal falls under the start a rating system for books/music like we have for video games/movies. We have parental advisories to stop kids from buying Lords of Acid (Google it if you don't know. (Actually, don't.)), but I have lots of songs that parents of small children would probably not like their children to hear. Exempli gratia Black Cadillacs by Modest Mouse. There isn't any advisory on the album. We can't/shouldn't enforce age limits; iTunes and the like would easily circumvent any attempt. Plus, if I want a song, I would like to buy this song, and if I can't, I will turn to several questionably legal methods to obtain it. But it would work that the "Care Bear stare Theme Song" is G or equivalent, and Tenacious D is.... not.

Note to those of you who don't live in the USA: I'm not sure whether rating systems are prevalent where you live.
So what do you guys know about *glances down at sheet* the kingdoms of orgasms
but I just don't see why someone would tape themselves together.
Bear Police wrote:I got Ready to Die today. Took me too long. Great record.

User avatar
1337geek
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:21 am UTC

Re: Control of free speech for popular music...

Postby 1337geek » Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:36 am UTC

OmegaLord wrote:Oh. No. My proposal falls under the start a rating system for books/music like we have for video games/movies. We have parental advisories to stop kids from buying Lords of Acid (Google it if you don't know. (Actually, don't.)), but I have lots of songs that parents of small children would probably not like their children to hear. Exempli gratia Black Cadillacs by Modest Mouse. There isn't any advisory on the album. We can't/shouldn't enforce age limits; iTunes and the like would easily circumvent any attempt. Plus, if I want a song, I would like to buy this song, and if I can't, I will turn to several questionably legal methods to obtain it. But it would work that the "Care Bear stare Theme Song" is G or equivalent, and Tenacious D is.... not.

Note to those of you who don't live in the USA: I'm not sure whether rating systems are prevalent where you live.

The "Parental Advisory" sticker we have is put on CDs completely voluntarily by the RIAA. The reason we don't have Tipper Gore's proposed rating system similar to the one we have for movies is because artists such as Dee Snider, Frank Zappa, and John Denver fought it in the Senate in 1985. The current system is controversial because some obscene music might avoid getting the sticker, but it might get put on something that's fairly clean. Not too terrible, you think, until you realize that some stores (like Walmart) refuse to carry anything with the sticker. Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_Advisory Also, you can read all about the Senate hearings here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PMRC It's quite an entertaining read, especially if you look at the Senate hearing transcripts. The PMRC tried to classify "We're Not Gonna Take It" as promoting violence and "Rocky Mountain High" as promoting drugs. Essentially the problem the artists had with censorship was that often songs can be mis-interpreted. All in all, the system we have for censoring music is like copyright: it started out with good intentions, but it just has too many problems.
"Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together." --Carl Zwanzig


Return to “Music”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests