From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #99 Reply-To: ammf@smoe.org Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Tuesday, July 14 1998 Volume 01 : Number 099 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: greetings from Alberta! [dacilen@bu.edu (Vika Zafrin)] Re: greetings from Alberta! [dot0926@aol.com (Dot0926)] Re: greetings from Alberta! [dacilen@bu.edu (Vika Zafrin)] fanieul hall show --and-- the Greetings from Alberta/censorship debate [] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:13:26 GMT From: dacilen@bu.edu (Vika Zafrin) Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! On 14 Jul 1998 14:49:51 GMT, dot0926@aol.com (Dot0926) wrote: >>I immediately assume that there may be nudity, or violence, and I >>should probably watch the movie first before showing it to my kid >>(which I don't have. I'm being completely hypothetical here.) Will I >>automatically prohibit my kid from watching it? Don't be silly. I'll >>decide whether that happens, thank you. >if everyone thought this way, there wouldn't even be an issue here, There would be, but it would be a different issue. It would be an issue of differing ideas that are backed up, as opposed to differing but uninformed or unconsidered opinions. The former is much more productive, I think. >however, >the problem is that most people don't have the understanding to think like >that, and will automaticly prohibit their child from watching the film. True. So the question is: would you rather pass a law because somebody out there may think it's okay to randomly punch people in the face, or *not* have a law because some people aren't thinking? I vote for the first: at least the guy has a (presumably) formed opinion that he will (presumably) back up. If a person is thinking, it's possible for them to be persuaded to change their mind. If a person is not thinking, it's a dead-end until they start doing so. >parent to prohibit it to his or her child......anyway, im curious, what about >books on tape? would a book such as the women's room on tape recieve an >explicit lyrics sticker? or the clockwork orange? or any other book that >contains harsh language or sexual situations? just wondering..... Huh. I've never heard of it either way. Anyone? >damn advil, false no fever alarm, so ill spend my day ranting again...... Ohhhhh dearrrrr..... two words: chamomile tea. Okay, two more: chicken soup. :) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Vika [VEE-kah] Zafrin Patron Saint of Caffeine dacilen at bu dot edu aka Coffee Fru "You and your hula dance of culinary delight..." -ceecee ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 1998 15:08:41 GMT From: dot0926@aol.com (Dot0926) Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! >dacilen@bu.edu (Vika Zafrin) wrote: >>the fact is that even if these labels do not directly prohibit the sale of >>certain artists' works, the indirect implication of "buy these and you are >bad >>and perverted" is enough to be called censorship. > >Enough to you, but not to me. Censorship means it's not widely >available to the public, not easily reachable. but who makes up the public? are minors part of the american public? i believe so (and really hope so, as i am one), and therefore their indirect inibility to purchase labeled music, either by their parents or the music store itself is a form of censorship. censorship does not only mean deletion, but suppression of anything considered objectionable. by using explicit lyrics or content labels, the items labeled are automaticly deemed "bad" in the mind of society. this is a clear form of indirect censorship, via psychological supression. As for someone else saying that I may >be bad and perverted, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. :) neither do i, however, we are a tiny little minority. most people are driven by the force of " what will it look like to everyone else", or "what will the neighbors think?"....if everyone felt like you and i ( and i think im pretty safe to assume most of the people on the ng), and didnt feel the need to conform, then we would be living in a beautiful world. unfortunatly, it hasn't happened yet.....there's nothing left to do but make it happen. >Seiously, though, not only do I not give a damn, I also have arguments >to support my viewpoint. If Jack the Senator and I will ever get into >discussion about whether I am a pervert, I will be open to change my >mind - IF he brings up valid viewpoints. But I sincerely doubt that, >in this case. It'd have to be a *very* convincing argument. > yes, if you are a wealty, powerfull tycoon, then you could have a long and meaningful discourse with jack the senetor however, in reality, the masses never have the chance to communicate with their so-called representatives aside from the occasional letter and/or petition ( im stealing starfox's fruvous tie in, haha), so they never have the chance to convince jack the senator of anything. - - nora ************************************************************************** ******* " there's something exciting about the failure of modern technology to create a real looking fake human." - john linnell nora cohen (dot0926@aol.com) **************** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 15:29:55 GMT From: dacilen@bu.edu (Vika Zafrin) Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! On 14 Jul 1998 15:08:41 GMT, dot0926@aol.com (Dot0926) wrote: >but who makes up the public? are minors part of the american public? i believe >so (and really hope so, as i am one), and therefore their indirect inibility to >purchase labeled music, either by their parents or the music store itself is a >form of censorship. Yes, minors are certainly part of the public. However, as a minor, you are also your parents' responsibility, whether you (or they) like it or not. The government isn't telling the parents not to let their children buy records with the labels, it is merely calling their attention and saying "Hey, we find this offensive, but it's up to you to let or not let your child listen to it." As for censorship by parents, I don't advocate it, but I also think it's a parent's right to tell their child "I don't want you buying this record" (presumably followed by an explanation why). If the kid *still* wants the record, I'm sure the kid will have a friend who is over 18 (or looks sufficiently old) and have that friend buy the record. That's working around the system. >censorship does not only mean deletion, but suppression of >anything considered objectionable. by using explicit lyrics or content labels, >the items labeled are automaticly deemed "bad" in the mind of society. Again, in my mind, all of this comes down to whether the individual is thinking for him/herself or not. There IS no perfect government for any one individual, much less for the millions we have here. So thought process on an individual basis, and decision-making, is required. >this is >a clear form of indirect censorship, via psychological supression. Psychological suppression has nothing to do with this. They aren't using magical radio waves to make us all into zombies, repeating "Must do this; can't do that" to ourselves. They are telling us what they think and allowing us to think for ourselves. >>be bad and perverted, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. :) > >neither do i, however, we are a tiny little minority. most people are driven by >the force of " what will it look like to everyone else", or "what will the >neighbors think?".... Again: I do not care what those people are driven by. As far as I am concerned, if a person isn't thinking for him/herself, it's a *good* thing there's a government to make sure they don't kill themselves accidentally (for example). >if everyone felt like you and i ( and i think im pretty >safe to assume most of the people on the ng), and didnt feel the need to >conform, then we would be living in a beautiful world. No, we wouldn't, unfortunately. There would still be quarrels, wars even. But their nature would be different, yes. >unfortunatly, it hasn't >happened yet.....there's nothing left to do but make it happen. True. But I don't think that taking away the government's right to voice its opinions as a collective is the way to do it. >yes, if you are a wealty, powerfull tycoon, then you could have a long and >meaningful discourse with jack the senetor however, in reality, the masses >never have the chance to communicate with their so-called representatives aside >from the occasional letter and/or petition ( im stealing starfox's fruvous tie >in, haha), so they never have the chance to convince jack the senator of >anything. Tell that to the people in power in the Winter Palace in 1917, being killed by the Russian peasants because they (the people in power) were selfish and greedy. Tell that to a local school district with an active Parent-Teacher Association. The members of that PTA will give you plenty of proof that the "masses" can get their way if there's enough drive. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Vika [VEE-kah] Zafrin Patron Saint of Caffeine dacilen at bu dot edu aka Coffee Fru "You and your hula dance of culinary delight..." -ceecee ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:31:37 -0400 From: hakmusic@juno.com (Harry A Keates) Subject: fanieul hall show --and-- the Greetings from Alberta/censorship debate >7/31 at 5:30....I saw an ad for them yesterday. They will be playing >downstairs from the Sam Goody. woah - who? Fruvous? Please tell me you are talking about Fruvous. Let me add a slightly different dimension to the censorship debate. We have talked about how Fruvous controls their language during free outdoor concerts and folk festival appearences, a practice that some have not liked, but I applaud. Dan Bern, who is also a favorite artist of mine, does not do this. As a matter of fact, at Falcon Ridge last year, he encouraged the kids in the audiance to sing along and then played "no missing link" which has a chorus that goes "aliens came and f*cked the monkey, they f*cked the monkey." FRFF got a lot of complaints from parents and this year told Dan they would only invite him back if they could put him in a late night spot. When he said he could only make it for a daytime appearence, they declined to invite him back. Was this censorship? My take is that it is not. I think that artists have a right to say whatever they want, but they also need to take responsibility for it. Dan is welcomed to sing that song, and I think it is entirely fine for him to sing whatever he wants at his own shows. But at a family folk festival, I think it was inappropriate and unthoughful for him to play it. This is kind of the same way that I think about explicit language stickers. I think the artists should be able to say whatever they want to say, but they should be responsible for it as well, and people should have the right to bring their kids up in non-explicit environment if they so choose. If they had had a warning, they could have chosen to not watch Dan's set, and then anything he said and did would have been acceptable because the people there chose to knowingly. I agree with what Vika has been saying in this debate. As a parent of a three year old who loves music, and listens to just about all of my CD's, I like to be aware of what I am getting, and I think this will be even stronger in the future when she is a little older. We buy albums that have explicit lyrics, We listen to Live Noise almost every day, she also listens to Patty Griffin, the Indigo Girls. and Don White all of who have explicit lyrics. We are aware of it and deal with it. But I do have CD's. like my Suicidal Tendencies and Circle Jerks CD's, which I love and certainly do not think are crap, but I feel are very inappropriate for her to hear. I think a warning on these is just dandy. I fully understand what people are saying about the evils of censorship, but I think there is a significant difference between warnings and prohibiting. Would the people against warning labels also advocate removing the child restrictions on the sale of pornography, and make Penthouse and pornography videos freely available to all children? These are actual restrictions, not just warnings, and are therefore more stringent. But I think there is an obvious justifiable reason for having them that is not capricious and arbitrary. I fully support the right of Penthouse to publish whatever it wants, but as a parent, I want to have the ability to know what it is, and to be able to knowingly prevent my children from seeing it if I so choose. - - Harry _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #99 *******************************************