Klarinet Archive - Posting 000515.txt from 2001/07

From: rgarrett@-----.edu
Subj: Re: [kl] Another musician honoured!
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 08:59:44 -0400

At 11:13 AM 07/18/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>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.

The more control an elected, political body becomes in family
decision-making, the less freedom we experience.

Exactly what does "Guidance" from a governmental body for the Pop Moguls
"to digest" mean? That the governing bodies or committees will draw up a
list of dos and don'ts for the Pop industry? I'm talking about legislation
that censors for everyone - including adults - and that is a very different
issue than a parent reviewing and making decisions for their non-adult
children.

> > >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.

Which part don't you agree with? The part that said "It reads that way,"
or "You wrote it" ?
the last part is verified - more than one person read it that way.

>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.

I didn't ever argue in favor of even a little censorship. So if you are
persuaded, it came, perhaps from someone else.

>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.

My children don't smoke behind the bike sheds. And they don't listen to
anything at home that I or their mother discourage.

Legality has everything to do with it. Here is what you wrote:

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.

I was responding to what you asked - the difference. Once again I need to
ask you, how can you have your cake and eat it too? First you want more
laws that provide a "little censorship" and then you say there is no
difference between laws and no laws - that children will break them
anyway. If this is true in your mind, why are you in favor of new
legislation that will, ultimately, be ineffective??

There is only one area in which I am in favor of more censorship - and that
is the area in which we subscribe to a media that comes into our home -
television. We have basic cable - that is, no movie channels, no extra
frills, no extra anything - just basic cable. What comes on during the
hours children are home from school is sometimes just terrible. It is much
more difficult to control this as a parent. When you say - sure, you can
watch such and such, but then, you aren't aware of the new show that just
came out, and it isn't on your list of no-nos. But, I digress.

>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.

I wasn't trying to score anything. I was pointing out a contradiction in
your argument - that you can't have it both ways. I hope you see that that
was my meaning - as well as understand that perspective.

>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.

Not at all. It's my job as a parent. In the 1800s, people had to decide
when their kids were old enough to hold a rifle, ride a horse, go to town
alone, etc.......

I often have to decide if my 10-year-old can ride his bike up to the school
5 blocks away and play on the playground equipment. It is a busy street,
and there are some weirdos that occassionally show up at these places.

I don't see screening CD purchases or movie choices as much work at all -
and I'm happy to be kept abreast of what is out there.

But my moral and ethical upbringing is not necessarily the model for the
punk rocker who has had a tough life and wants to sing about it. That's
his right. It's also my right to ignore it. I just don't want the rights
taken away.

>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.

I'm just thinking back to prohibition - when the government stepped in and
banned alcohol. In a society that didn't support such governmental
influence, prohibition was not only a dismal failure, it was a waste of
federal funds. In a society that thrives on freedoms, there will always be
abuse of freedoms that people don't like. But, rather than take away the
freedoms, it seems better to me that we a) continue to educate people about
things that are important (quality of music, ethical standards, etc.); b)
continue to monitor those lawsuits that are landmark cases for situations
in which freedoms are abused to the point of infringing on other people's
freedoms; and c) try not to become biased or blind to another person's
right to expression - regardless of if they offend me or not.

Matt Hale offends me - but I defend his right to speak at the Bloomington,
IL library - even if his topic is vulgar and unbelievable in his cause
supporting racism. Why do I support that right? I don't have to attend it
his speech, and I can do my part to make sure that others know how I
feel. But it is his right to speak about whatever he wants - as long as it
does not trample another person' freedoms.

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

That was an example of banning music that certainly didn't change anything
Tony. If I recall, people still got high on pot with or without that music.

You wrote:
> > >The facts are there to be seen in the deluge of POP PORN.

I responded:
> > I don't understand this sentence.

You wrote back:
>I think you do.

Tony - I said I didn't understand your original sentence - the meaning
completely bypassed me. Your assertion that I do understand it is somewhat
frustrating to me. You don't have to explain it to me, but that doesn't
mean you have to tell me that I didn't mean what I said.

>But we shouldn`t knock guidance or standards, and wrongly criticise
>censorship.

I just want you to know that I don't believe guidance or guidelines are the
same thing as censorship. I'm all for guidelines - I just don't want any
more laws on the books that tell me what I can and cannot listen to in term
of music. And I don't want any laws on the books that define what music is.

>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.

We do have problems - but in my opinion, the answer is better parenting -
at least in this case.

As a closer - I should say that, our differences aside, you are passionate
about what you want and why you want it. Your ideals (ethics and morals)
are strongly voiced and, in my opinion, highly worthy. We don't appear to
disagree on what we want for children in their music listening - just the
method for how they can or cannot hear it. I hope you don't take my
"discussion" the wrong way. I am just pointing out my opinions as I would
if we were sitting in a bar having a beer and discussing the woes of the
world. At the end of the discussion, there would be some sublime clue that
we had each said what we wanted and we would move on.

It is an interesting issue - one that would be a good study for a doctoral
thesis.

Best wishes,
Roger Garrett

Roger Garrett
Clarinet Professor
Director, Symphonic Winds
Illinois Wesleyan University
School of Music
Bloomington, IL 61702-2900
Phone: (309) 556-3268
Fax: (309) 556-3121

"A man never discloses his own character so clearly as when he describes
another's."
Jean Paul Richter (1763-1825)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org