Members Billster Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 Al Gore presents at the Grammy Awards? Everybody run to Google and search "PMRC" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Super 8 Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 I didn't see Tipper there.Al's gained weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 Say what you will about the PMRC but I think it was a pretty clever political move that may actually have helped artists dodge a bullet. At the time the PMRC was formed (during the Reagan administration), there were people making noise about actual government censoring of lyrics. What Tipper proposed was a labelling system similar to movie ratings, which accomplished the goal of warning parents about music that might be unsuitable for children, while maintaining artists' right to free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Super 8 Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 That's true. And the labels actually helped move more units.You wanna sell something? Make it taboo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gus Lozada Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Well.. if you saw the Red Hot Chilly ladies performance, you could tell that the PMRC actually won its battle against evil music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted February 12, 2007 Author Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 I think my final opinion on the PMRC is that it was a political stunt to raise the profile of the junior senator from Tennessee, and gather a database for a national campaign... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members spokenward Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 I think my final opinion on the PMRC is that it was a political stunt to raise the profile of the junior senator from Tennessee, and gather a database for a national campaign... In politics, regulated industries are reliable contributors. Maybe part of the ongoing trouble in the record business is that they asked for the wrong things in return. Like a misguided child who thinks he wants candy (crackdown on home taping and p2p), when he would do better by not forcing his music education out of the public school curriculum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 I think my final opinion on the PMRC is that it was a political stunt to raise the profile of the junior senator from Tennessee, and gather a database for a national campaign... Whatever. Politicians have to run campaigns, and they have to raise their profile somehow if they're going to run for office. It's nice if they can do that by actually doing something. In the case of the PMRC, like I said, I do think it actually helped artists and was an excellent compromise compared with what some in Congress at the time were proposing. I find it ironic that any artists thought it was an affront to free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted February 12, 2007 Moderators Share Posted February 12, 2007 I find it ironic that any artists thought it was an affront to free speech. I agree 100% Lee. I never understood why that was considered censorship. It is what enabled the release of a lot of albums. Is an R rating censorship? I'm seeing plenty of R rated movies so I guess not. My 10 year old isn't so... hey, it works! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted February 12, 2007 Author Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 Whatever. Politicians have to run campaigns, and they have to raise their profile somehow if they're going to run for office. It's nice if they can do that by actually doing something. In the case of the PMRC, like I said, I do think it actually helped artists and was an excellent compromise compared with what some in Congress at the time were proposing. I find it ironic that any artists thought it was an affront to free speech. Well, I don't think any of the more draconian stuff would have passed muster, so if PMRC was an end run preventative measure, it wasn't necessary in my opinion. As for politicians having to raise their profile, in the particular case of Mr. Gore, I want to point out that in the notorious 2000 election he lost his alleged "home state" of Tennessee, so who exactly was the senator representing in the senate? ( Oops, wrong forum. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 Well, I don't think any of the more draconian stuff would have passed muster, so if PMRC was an end run preventative measure, it wasn't necessary in my opinion. Maybe, maybe not - but I still think it's not out of line for parents to want labels on CD's. They can't listen to everything that their kid might buy, and if it's OK to have movie ratings I don't see where it's not helpful to have CD ratings, especially if they are voluntary. So the PMRC certainly didn't hurt anything with respect to record sales or artists' freedom of speech, and some people find the ratings idea useful. So I don't see the same irony you see, that's all. As for politicians having to raise their profile, in the particular case of Mr. Gore, I want to point out that in the notorious 2000 election he lost his alleged "home state" of Tennessee, so who exactly was the senator representing in the senate? ( Oops, wrong forum. ) Well that's just it, I think your judgement of the PMRC is colored by the fact that you obviously don't like Mr. Gore. Which is fine, I'm not a fan either, but I just don't see the PMRC as the scourge to artists that some do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 I find it ironic that any artists thought it was an affront to free speech. Now that Wal-Mart is the only retail outlet for music in this area (Sam Goody closed it's doors.), that label keeps your music off the shelves. Government mandates label, stores refuse to carry it...seems like censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 Al Gore presents at the Grammy Awards? Everybody run to Google and search "PMRC" What's next, Hillary presenting at the video game awards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 Now that Wal-Mart is the only retail outlet for music in this area (Sam Goody closed it's doors.), that label keeps your music off the shelves. Well that is a whole other issue, and I agree it's a frightening one. Monopoly corporate control over the media is bad, mm-kay? It's not "just" the label that keeps a CD off the shelves at Wal-Mart, either. They screen everything they carry themselves, and decide for themselves what's "appropriate" for their shelves, including a lot of stuff that doesn't even have a warning sticker. Which would be fine for a private company to do if, as you say, they weren't the only record retailer in town. Luckily you can still buy CD's online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 Well that is a whole other issue, and I agree it's a frightening one. Monopoly corporate control over the media is bad, mm-kay? It's not "just" the label that keeps a CD off the shelves at Wal-Mart, either. They screen everything they carry themselves, and decide for themselves what's "appropriate" for their shelves, including a lot of stuff that doesn't even have a warning sticker. Which would be fine for a private company to do if, as you say, they weren't the only record retailer in town. Luckily you can still buy CD's online. Yeah, I buy everything from Amazon. Too easy and actually a pleasant purchasing experience. Amazon has their {censored} together. The thing that burns me most is why can you get Kill Bill 1&2, GTA3, and all other sorts of sex and violence, but some album is a no-no. I can watch one of the most violent movies ever, while playing the most violent video games ever, but I can't buy a Helmet album? Wal-Mart has some bizarre standards. I do not understand why the record industry doesn't pressure Wal-Mart to abandon this stupid (and obviously hypocritical) policy. The music industry is losing sales, Wal-Mart is losing sales...wtf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lee Flier Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 I do not understand why the record industry doesn't pressure Wal-Mart to abandon this stupid (and obviously hypocritical) policy. The music industry is losing sales, Wal-Mart is losing sales...wtf? Wal-Mart doesn't give a crap what the industry thinks. They know that the CD market is dying and they're practically the only game in town, and their CD's are probably a loss leader anyway (like they are at Best Buy). They've got the record industry by the balls because if they pull their contracts with labels the labels believe they're screwed. But we've already seen the infinite wisdom of labels over the past few years and what they think is good business sense. So we shouldn't be surprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Wide Posted February 12, 2007 Members Share Posted February 12, 2007 It's not "just" the label that keeps a CD off the shelves at Wal-Mart, either. They screen everything they carry themselves, and decide for themselves what's "appropriate" for their shelves, including a lot of stuff that doesn't even have a warning sticker. My girlfriend recently bought an album by the group Stained at Wal-Mart. There was no warning sticker or label on the CD, but it had obviously been edited. The didn't just edited the vocals, there were one or two second gaps of complete silence where they made the edits ! She was able to get a refund and has sworn that she will never buy music at Wal-Mart again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Billster Posted February 13, 2007 Author Members Share Posted February 13, 2007 My girlfriend recently bought an album by the group Stained at Wal-Mart. There was no warning sticker or label on the CD, but it had obviously been edited. The didn't just edited the vocals, there were one or two second gaps of complete silence where they made the edits ! She was able to get a refund and has sworn that she will never buy music at Wal-Mart again. Oh yeah, the "Wal-Mart editions" are pure evil I pretty much refuse to enter the place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members the stranger Posted February 14, 2007 Members Share Posted February 14, 2007 I pretty much refuse to enter the place. Most of us small town folk don't have a choice. :sad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.