Theory

With uncompromising opponents, the current labeling system’s ineffectiveness demands an alternative solution.  Parental regulation of music stemming from exposure to musical content is a more ethical and legal means for combating explicit lyrics.  Parents must get involved.  That is why I propose that the US government initiate a National Parent Awareness Week that would encourage parental involvement in their children’s lives.  This awareness week would include television, radio, and print ads that would offer templates to be used as discussion guides.  Talk shows and televisions specials could highlight various aspects of the music industry.  Celebrity interviews -- similar to the interview of Magic Johnson after his announcement of AIDS infection -- may be a springboard for an exchange of ideas between generations.  Each generation’s music has been an act of rebellion aimed at the adult world.  Once this is understood, the adults may come to appreciate that most young people do not assimilate the music into their psyche and act on it, but rather thrive on the rhymes and rhythms of rap or heavy metal, as well as its unique perspective.  Parents who actively listen, discuss, and analyze the music of their children are parents who are involved in their children’s lives.  Even parents who unconditionally condemn rap music after thoughtful consideration will provide a moral yardstick to be used by their teen.  This website is the start of such a discourse.  By highlighting censorship and providing information of thousands of lyrics on the Internet, adults learn the source of inspiration of this art.  And while in disagreement with its final form, they may develop some appreciation of its appeal to their teen.  This small step allows the parent some influence on their teen, even if denied by the teen at the time.

Knowledge, followed by discussion, is key to making decisions, and those are the primary objectives of this web page.  Through reading lyrics and listening to music with children, the parental involvement in their children’s lives would increase tremendously.  Then, once the lyrical content is known, the next logical step is for the parents to decide if the music under question is right for their child.  Some listening privileges may need to be surrendered until a later date, but this will benefit America’s youth, and discourage rapid maturation.  This entire plan will cost very little and will not disturb precious record sales.  The plan teaches the appeal of the music to parent’s.  With parent’s acknowledging this appeal, the child is more likely to constructively listen, rather than to automatically take a defensive stance that opposes the parent’s opinion.  The objectives of the plan enable parents to take an informed stand.   Hillary Rosen, the President and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and also an active listener as a parent said “But I want to apply my own values -- the needs of my individual children -- to decide what sources of entertainment are appropriate for them.”[1]

In conclusion, this debate over censorship is as alive as emotions and opinions on it are.  The controversy is not about lyrical content, or lyrical quality, but instead over lyrical right.  Governmental censorship is a direct violation of the Constitution, and a direct infringement on our inalienable rights.  However, parental censorship is not only in full compliance with the law, but it also increases parental involvement in a child’s life.  The latter will have a multitude of immense positive effects on America’s youth, such as much needed guidance.   A smarter, more mature youth turns retorts to censorship and explicit lyrics, both once closely associated with negative connotations, into a better America.

[Home]  [Analysis]  [Essay]  [Theory]  [Implications]  [Links]  [Censorship Watch]  [Classmate's Sites]  [Music Lyrics]  [About Me]