Klarinet Archive - Posting 000537.txt from 2001/07

From: "Tony Wakefield" <tony-wakefield@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Another musician honoured!
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 18:42:17 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: <rgarrett@-----.edu>
Subject: Re: [kl] Another musician honoured!

> 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
>
>

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