Klarinet Archive - Posting 000508.txt from 2001/07

From: "Tony Wakefield" <tony-wakefield@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Another musician honoured!
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 06:13:27 -0400

I have to make one more observation to Roger`s theories before I end. I hope
you can understand the way that I have re-vamped his text. But you will
observe that it`s all there, and in chronological order.

From: <rgarrett@-----.edu>

you wrote:
> >Who mentioned <censorship>? Certainly not me!
> Here is what you wrote:
> >The pop industry is not at present policed in any way, but we allow that
> >industry to serve up all it can to our young children. It is only <after>
> >our kids, and ourselves have heard all the muck that we then decide to
> >kick up a fuss. The film industry <is> policed. The censorship board
looks
> >at every single film before it is released.
> When I read your paragraph, I conclude that you compare censorship of
> "every single film" to the lack thereof in the pop industry, which you
> claim is not "policed in any way....." You tie that into allowing such to
> sell whatever they want to our children.
> I still read that you wrote with an inference that the pop industry should
> follow the lead of the film industry.

Children are always being subjected to "censorship" by their parents. But is
it censorship really? It isn`t is it? It`s "guidance" mixed with a <little>
censorship.There`s nothing wrong with that - that is the norm, so why
therefore should there not be some stronger guidance for the Pop Moguls to
digest, especially as to me, 75% of their output seems specifically designed
for young people.A lot of them are not too well versed in even moderate
moral standards, and we allow them to enter these children`s minds. Perhaps
a circular of acceptable ethical criteria similar to schools standards would
see some improved responsibility. Maybe even circulated to song writers
also.

> >Who suggested that I am a supporter of censorship?
> It reads that way. You wrote it. More than one person has read it that
way.

I don`t agree. But perhaps you might just be persuading me
that a little censorship is not too bad a thing after all. Censorship these
days is
pretty nearly dead on it`s feet. And a huge dilemma and uncertainty of
standards is, as a result, engulfing us all to the extent that children are
almost
totally exposed to every single corrupting influence there is.

> >What is the difference between the so called "Arts" and "Industry". None
> >as far as I am concerned when we have unacceptable standards from both
sources.
> It really is a question of degree isn't it................

Always the question of degree. I believe one must see <black and white> a
little more often. Otherwise a zillion and one degrees make for never-ending
discussion where no decisions can ever be made. There is no time left for
discussions on degrees any longer. Children are having their childhood
wrenched away from them <now>.

> I don't agree with you - there are differences. Cigarettes are not legal
> until the age of 18 - CDs are.

What has legality to do with this. Young children have always smoked behind
the bike sheds. Because they are, (have been) readily available. But Black
<has> become White here, in that stricter restrictions are being put in
place. Not so much in the pop music industry.

> >The time is very fast approaching when we, and the music companies need
> >much stronger guidance, possibly from an outside independent or
government
> >agency, as this time, as opposed to the days when some of you say that
> >some music was unacceptable years ago, (I have to disagree with those
> >statements), children are being drawn into this slow decline of moral
> >standards.
> You know Tony, you write that you do not support censorship, then you turn
> around and scream for government to guide the music industries (although
> you don't really say how......no guidelines here). From my standpoint, I
> don't see how you can have your cake and eat it too.

I <have> made clear my views on censorship. The debate does not mature
significantly if you are trying to score points off <everything> I say.
Governments offer guide lines in all kinds of environments, especially where
children are concerned. I`m repeating myself now.

> Personally, I abhor the idea of government getting involved in something
so
> personal and cherished as choice. That is what you appear to support by
> way of your suggestion.
> >Some say that parents do the policing. Some do, I agree, but I`ll wager
> >that the majority do <not> listen to their children`s pop purchases first
> >of all, before they allow them to take it up to their room.
> Well gee whiz - I certainly check the CD purchases. I ask other parents,
> young adults, and even do searches on the internet for reviews - just as I
> do before allowing my kids to see a PG or PG-13 movie.

You are quite admirable Roger, and I respect your dedication to your kids.
But what a pity that you have to do that at all.

> >I have not come across one argument that holds water in this debate.
> It looks like you just choose not to recognise those that do. Of course,
I
> could be wrong. From what you have written, I surmise that you simply do
> not accept the idea that parents can, and do, supervise their children and
> their purchases. Frankly, I'm not responsible for what everyone else does
> - just what I do and what I allow my children to do. As they grow up,
>they learn what we approve of or disapprove of and, eventually, we hope
when
> they become old enough that they can make responsible decisions for
>themselves.

All I`m saying is that not <enough> parents show an understanding of the
potential damage. We hear examples of other direct <one to one> corrupting
influences every day being stamped on heavily. And quite rightly. But when
it comes to pop, and I`ll widen it now to a lot of the Arts, (but pop is
most certainly directed towards children), the attitude seems to generally
be, "Oh well, it might be good, it might be bad. It does have strong sexual
and drug related innuendo's etc, but because it does not harm my child
physically, only perhaps mentally, and because I don`t quite know how to
handle <that> side of things, I`ll leave that responsibility of <mine> to my
child to sort out him/herself". Independent advisers come in please.

> It wasn't so long ago that the US wouldn't allow certain Beatles tunes to
> be played, purchased, or broadcast. Why? Because they mentioned "getting
> high with a little help from my friends....." etc. What was the Charlie
> Brown Song.....? ".....Shooting spit wads in the hall......" Also caused
> some real problems. Today, such interference by government bodies seems
> silly and overkill. But, that's what you appear to suggest.

We still do occasionally have banned music. If it helps to protect children,
then why not?

> >The facts are there to be seen in the deluge of POP PORN.
> I don't understand this sentence.

I think you do. I`ll end this debate if I may, by observing that everyone on
the list that has contributed, seems to possess a far more superior
intelligence than what I believe many leaders have. To be a talented
musician must to some degree transmit to me also, a possession of a somewhat
protected and fortunate early life as a child and youth, with good
responsible and loving parenting, and with good opportunities. Without
deflating the whole point (I hope) of my (our) posts, it just could be that
because a lot of us have not seen or sampled too much of the "other side of
the coin" where child <and> parent welfare <is> in sore need, (the deprived
areas etc.) this site has not been a wholly suitable "soap box" to discuss
this issue. But we are all musicians with the exception of - - - well, what
<are> we if not? We are the protector of kids.

But no, I haven`t got any answers we can <all> agree on. I don`t think many
people have - more Black and White required? But we shouldn`t knock
guidance or standards, and wrongly criticise censorship. It has only been
<with> censorship, in days gone by, that we have come to look at these
issues, and learn, enabling us to use what intelligence we have to come to
sensible ways forward in what we present to children. At present, I think we
still have problems.

Best,

Tony W.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org