The year 1985 was a dramatic one for the music industry. That year, a group of 22 high-profile and influential cultural watchdogs—including Tipper Gore, wife of then U.S. Senator Al Gore—convened a committee called the Parents Music Resource Center. The group’s goal was to give parents more information about the content of the music their children were listening to. Specifically, they sought to compel record companies to label racy content in such a way that parents could quickly see that it might not be appropriate for young listeners.
The almost circus-like Senate hearings that ensued featured Twisted Sister frontman Dee Snider facing off against Al Gore as the cameras rolled, certainly one of the more unlikely debates ever to transpire in the hallowed halls of the federal government. John Denver and Frank Zappa showed up to testify, too.
The PMRC strongly encouraged the Recording Industry Association of America to create a content rating system similar to the Motion Picture Association of America’s movie rating system. Eventually—protests of censorship from Snider, Denver and Zappa notwithstanding—that political pressured yielded a voluntary agreement by 19 record companies to begin putting the Parental Advisory Label (its official name) on music with violent, sexually oriented or profane lyrics.
Note the use of the word voluntary, however, which I’ll come back to momentarily.
You might wonder, of course, why I’m bothering to elucidate this history of the PMRC nearly 30 years after the fact. Well, it may seem like ancient pop-culture history, but what transpired in 1985 is still surprisingly relevant today in terms of what the Parental Advisory Label does—and does not—accomplish. Especially as it relates to that key word voluntary.
I recently reviewed the new album by Linkin Park, The Hunting Party. The first song includes five f-words, and a couple more are scattered throughout the balance of the album. But despite the presence of that harsh profanity, there was no Parental Advisory sticker on the album. I checked online, and it wasn’t there either. For comparison’s sake, the last Linkin Park album to include similar profanity, 2010’s A Thousand Suns, did have the label.
So what gives? Isn’t seven f-bombs enough to warrant a Parental Advisory label these days—content that, if it were in a movie, would almost certainly garner an R-rating?
Despite the appearance of oversight and accountability created by the Advisory sticker, the answer to those questions is no. That’s because unlike the MPAA, which rates movies based on an objective list of predetermined content criteria, the Parental Advisory label is voluntary and totally subjective. That’s right: The RIAA leaves the decision in the hands of musicians and record companies. (The same is true of the rating system for television, by the way.)
Digging a little bit, I found the RIAA’s statement on these standards, which was last revised in October 2006. In the document titled “Uniform Guidelines for Determining Whether a Sound Recording Should Use a PAL [Parental Advisory Label] Notice,” we read:
“Participant record labels and/or artists should use the following guidelines to determine whether any particular sound recording contains strong language or depictions of violence, sex, or substance abuse to such an extent as to merit parental notification, as described in more detail in these Standards. Strong language or depictions of violence, sex, or substance abuse to such an extent is referred to herein as ‘PAL Content.’ Only the record label or artist that owns and/or distributes the particular sound recording may determine whether the sound recording contains PAL Content and warrants the use of a PAL Notice.”
The document goes on to clarify what might warrant such a warning, but puts prevailing cultural values at the top of the list: “Contemporary cultural morals and standards should be used in determining whether parents or guardians would find the sound recording suitable for children.” The document also suggests that context plays a big role, too: “The context in which the material is used, as some words, phrases, sounds, or descriptions might be offensive to parents if spotlighted or emphasized, but might not offend if merely part of the background or a minimal part of the lyrics.”
In other words, despite the appearance of a system intended to help alert parents to objectionable content, it’s so subjective that if an artist and/or a band decide something isn’t a big deal, it won’t get a warning label.
Which brings us back to The Hunting Party, by Linkin Park.
For whatever reason, the band and/or Warner Bros. don’t think seven f-words are worthy of parental notice in 2014. Referencing the RIAA’s verbiage above, it seems someone in a decision-making role decided that these profanities no longer constitute content that “contemporary cultural morals and standards” deem problematic. And that shifting, subjective and culturally dependent standard—not to mention a self-serving one—makes the RIAA’s loose, creator-defined guidelines pretty problematic too.
So where does that leave us? At the very least, parents and consumers need to know that the lack of a Parental Advisory Label doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s no racy lyrics within. It just means the artist and record company don’t think it’s too racy. And it almost goes without saying—but I’ll say it anyway—that there’s no guarantee that their mores and morals are the same as your family’s.
Pushing one step further, I think it also means that parents of tweens and teens delving into today’s popular music need to be engaged and aware of the messages they’re receiving. Sometimes artists and musicians alert us to the fact that their words and ideas are potentially objectionable. Other times, however, there’s no such warning at all … even if the words and worldviews within their songs are at significantly at odds with a Christian view of truth and the world.
And that means it’s just as important for parents to be intentionally plugged in to their kids’ music choices in 2014 as Tipper and Co. were trying to be way back in 1985.
Recent Comments