Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    I think the point is...
    
    That we do not tolerate the *action*...only the freedom to talk
    about it. 
    
    When we prevent such actions from taking place, we are protecting
    women and supporting their rights to be fully active human beings.
    
    When we prevent *discussion* of such actions, we are practising
    censorship.
    
    If your point is that such 'music' [I use the term lightly, I 
    *personally* don't think it qualifies...] should be banned because it
    might incite young impressionable men [boys] to do such acts; or infer
    to young impressionable women [girls] that such acts are justifiable...
    
    Then I think you are [not *you* here...the editorial *you*...those
    folks supporting this viewpoint] doomed to failure. It didn't work
    when 'they' said rock 'n roll was going to lead to the debauchery of
    millions of innocents in the 50's...and it most probably won't work
    now.
    
    The 'catch' [if you will] of having a Free Speech Amendment is that it
    is blind in its application. It gives the right to all...not just to
    people who have what we consider to be wholesome ideas.
    
    After all, [for instance] to men raised in certain reigious context,
    the idea of women having eqaulity is repugnant...not just 'not a good
    idea' but downright evil.
    
    These issues are never easy...but it *is* hard to play both sides
    against the middle when it comes to Constitutional Rights. They have a
    sticky way of applying to everybody...even those with whom we disagree.
    
    Rather than try to ban this kind of rap...I would think it would be
    easier to educate young men into not finding such 'verbotten' images
    appealing. When the records stop being bought...the message will stop
    being broadcast. Simple economics.
    
    It would be interesting...if all the young women in 'OWH WU high'
    refused to date any young man who owned or listened to the music...
    Hmmm? Much more effective than adults [who are suspect by mere
    definition] trying to ban the sale of the records.
    
    Just my 2 cents worth.
    
    Oh yes, and before anyone accuses me, I think the stuff stinks.
    
    Melinda

    re-.1
    
    Very well said, Melinda. I concur totally. I don't "like" 2 Live
    Crew or the Andrew Dice Clay "tough guy" character for a variety
    of reasons...the biggest being they are totally infuriating and
    repugnant...not two major qualities I look for in being "entertained"
    or "informed". 
    
    But if they were ten times worse than that...I would never, ever
    censor them. We practice a form of censorship in this country known
    as the "rating" system for movies...why is that a form of censorship?
    Because it tells me that someone *else* deemed something inappropriate
    for certain people to see...usually directed at certain age groups.
    
    Now, we wish to expand that to certain musical works, aiming to
    those same age groups. This censorship is almost as bad a practice
    as the practice of writing repugnant and infuriating lyrics. I remember
    seeing an episode of the Waltons once, where the issue was about
    book burning. At the height of World War II, people were burning
    any and all German literature, calling it propoganda and inappropriate
    for our children to read...well, in this episode someone pulled
    a book out of the fire in response to this outlandish ritual...it
    turned out *not* to be something like "Mein Kampf"...but rather
    the Holy Bible. "Been on the best sellers list fer years..."
    
    I absolutely abhor the trend of lyrics perpetuating the myth that
    violent acts towards *anyone*, women included, is good. I cannot
    and will not support any legislation that would try to ban someone
    from saying whatever they want to say, and legislation trying to
    keep someone from listening or viewing something that they wish
    to hear or see. That's not the principal this country was founded
    upon, and not what I believe is "best" for our society.
    
    Stop the practice of the act itself, not the discussion of the practice
    of the act.
    
      

    RE .2 The songs don't 'discuss' violence to women, they *advocate* 
    it. Big difference. 
    
    

    
    Last night I was talking with a friend of mine who is very concerned
    about anti-Semitism in the lyrics of (I'm not sure which) rock group/
    song...is anyone familiar with this? And would arguments similar to
    those in -1 and -2 apply?
    
    Dorian

    re-.3
    
    If they discussed, advocated, or spoke of personal *involvement
    in such acts, the situation is still the same. The act of censorship
    denies the right of any artist from speaking or performing publically
    of what they have the right to speak of. This effects artists from
    Sesame Street to Dice Clay, from the children's icon, Raffi, to
    Sam Kinison...and from the "Lake Wobegon" performers to 2 Live Crew.
    
    The act of preventing someone of hearing the words and music of
    another person publically is also censorship. This also means that
    you *have* the right to publically denounce such artists if you
    wish to do so, which is the preferred alternative than to prevent
    someone from speaking/performing publically materials which you
    may not agree with, but that they *do* have the right to speak and/or
    perform. 

    I am not one (generally) to go jumping off the deep end and advocate
    censorship.  The First Amendment is *very precious* to me - and it is
    an important protection.  Until I read the editorial (and I read it in
    the original publication last week), I honestly didn't understand what
    the problem was, and was willing to believe that the Florida court had
    gone over the edge.  Now, I'm not so sure, and the question of right
    and wrong has become (as usual) more muddy.
    
    Music, movies and art set a tone for a society.  They can encourage us
    to become bigger than we are, or it can appeal to the beast in us.  I
    am concerned that *as a society*, there is a tone, a haze if you will,
    which is encouraging us to go for the lowest common demoninator, to
    regard those around us as less valuable than we are, to go for the
    quick and dirty fix rather than make the effort to do what is best. 
    And it disturbs me.  2 Live Crew and their ilk are part of that haze.
    
    If you go to the note on the teachers we admired, they were the people
    who demanded that we do our best - not let us get away with the least
    amount of effort possible.  
    
    I am no longer willing to simply shrug my shoulders and say that the
    First Amendment freedom means there isn't anything I can do about this
    filth.  I don't want my son and nieces and nephews thinking that the
    kind of behavior described in this 'music' is normal and ok for *any
    part* of our population.  I know that banning it only makes it more
    tempting - so that isn't an answer.
    
    But what is?  How do I (we?) reach out and counteract the miasma this
    stuff starts?
    
    Alison

    
    Re-.6
    
    There *is* something you can do. This garbage can only be fought
    morallistically and with outspokenness on the part of parents, and
    with as much force as the lyrics you're trying to prevent your kids
    from being influenced by. You can't stop your kids from *listening*
    to the words and the music (they tried that in the fifties which
    gave us the problems in the sixties)...but you can express your
    own displeasure at such groups and their music vocally...to the
    artists themselves and to the children you're trying to, for the
    definite lack of a better word, "protect". Try as you may, the
    influences are out there and as strong as they've ever been...you've
    got to be *just* as strong in the counterpoint department and show
    your kids the difference between your version of right and wrong
    and the kind of "right and wrong" these slimeballs are selling to
    your children.

    RE.5 >If they discussed, advocated, or spoke of personal involvement
         >in such acts, the situation is still the same.

    I must disagree. 
    If we have a discussion of, for instance, the historical 
    implications of assassination, that is not illegal. If I say, 
    "You should shoot Senator X" I am suborning an illegal act. If I say,
    "I shot Senator X, and enjoyed it" I am confessing guilt.

    There is no Right to advocate criminal acts. Laws against sedition
    and suborning perjury make this clear.

    re-.7
    
    Then there would not be half the number of country-western songs
    on the charts for the last twenty years...or half of the Rolling
    Stones songs or the Bobby Fuller Four song "I Fought the Law" or
    many of "Prince's" songs...or even "Like A Virgin" which brought
    this subject of censorship back up a few years ago, when a commercial
    showed a little 5-year old girl mumbling the words to that song. And
    didn't the Beatles once ask "Why Don't We Do It In The Road?" to
    a lot of disgruntled parents? 
    
    You see? The lines are clearly not well-defined as to what is a
    legitimate approach to subject matter by an artist ( and believe
    me, I almost choke when I consider 2 Live Crew as "artists" )
    and what is not. So, in the meantime, I will support Guns N' Roses
    right to say their anti-semitic rhetoric, 2 Live Crew and The Diceman
    to profess violence towards women (not really willingly, mind you)
    while supporting your right to verbally oppose their support of 
    such acts. I personally wish you the best of success if that's the
    direction you should choose. 

ABSOLUTELY, we should not 'tolerate this garbage.'  But I'm absolutely against
making it illegal as well.

There are any number of behaviours that I find vile and dangerous that are
quite legal.

I want the stuff to stop.  I want it NOW, dammit!  Don't pass some foolish
USELESS law.

Write to the record company and express outrage.  Call radio stations and
express outrage.  Run off at the mouth about how vile and wrong the stuff is.
Express your opinions about the CONTENT and get the CONTENT out in the open.
I'll wager that many would find the messages objectionable given the chance
to hear them.

Looking at the _legality_ is just another form of MISDIRECTION.  Let's discuss
whether or not people have the right to publish or broadcast garbage rather
than get a down and dirty look at the problem and committing to personal
action.

It's much easier to pass a law and make the content of our lives 'someone
else's' responsibility.

Is that what we really want?

  Annie  

    
    I am hunting for a lyric that was 'banned' that I want to share...
    
    In the meantime...A very short story:
    
    My Dad was a conservative...[that's spelled C O N S E ...well, you get
    the picture.] He fought in World War II...was at Bastogne...the whole
    nine yards.
    
    When I was 5,there was a man who came to your town and preached
    communism...during the height of the McCarthy era. The Town Fathers
    were, literally, ready to run him our of town on a rail.
    
    By himself, alone in the Town Square, my Dad stood and talked them
    down.
    
    What did he say?
    
    He asked them a question. He asked:
    
    "What did I fight for; what did I send young boys to die for; if not
    for this man's right to speak? If what we gave is of so little worth,
    then you can make room on the rail for me too."
    
    Later that night, I asked him if 'communism' was then an alright
    'idea'.
    
    After a brief period during which I found out just how awful 99.9%
    pure Ivory can taste...
    
    "Melinda," he said, I don't ever want to hear that word from your mouth
    ever again. Communism is an evil that will destroy us if we are not
    vigilant." [Yes, he was a bit dramatic now and then...{grin}]
    
    "But, Dad...what was all that you said this afternoon?"
    
    "First, I said he had a right to speak. I did not say *you* have a
    right to listen. It is my duty to keep my own children in line."
    
    "Second..."
    
    "Melinda, I may think Mr. [insert name] is a fool. And I may think that
    what he says is evil. And I will speak out against him at every chance
    I get....But I will die for his right to say it...men 'did' die for his
    right to say it."
    
    Whenever I am tempted to restrict a person's right to speak out, no
    matter how repugnant I think the message is, I remember Daddy saying
    that.
    
    If my Father, who was a raving jingoist, could see the difference
    between taking the action and the right to talk about taking the
    action...then I guess I can try to maintain some emotional distance
    also.
    
    Melinda

    I've never heard any of 2LC's songs, but heard some rap on the radio
    that truly amazed me: I'd never have thought they'd put such explicit
    stuff on the radio!  Of course, that was my opinion.  Other people
    might take stuff that's much milder and thing exactly the same way.
    
    A talk of censoring their work, as well as other "artists", reminds me
    a lot of 1979 -- when I lived on a very Catholic Long Island and Billy
    Joel came out with "The Stranger" album.  Anyone remember "Only the
    Good Die Young"?

    
    Annie!
    
    Well put! Beautifully written.
    
    M_
    

    re: .6
    
    >Music, movies and art set up a tone for society
    
    Well.......speaking as a poet (I consider myself an artist), I'd
    hesitate to say that the art we create ever really "sets the tone"
    for society.  If anything, it reflects, and by the act of expression
    intensifies, those feelings running through our lives in the art.
    However, rarely does art create those contexts.
    
    The old expression that"one person's art is another person's garbage"
    comes to mind.  So does the idea of Jesse Helmes rejecting a work
    by Pollock (sp?) because it "somebody had spilled paint on it. These
    are all very subjective levels as to what is considered to be valid
    artistic expression.  I happen to enjoy Laurie Anderson, while my
    mother only listens to 1950's showtunes.  Are either of these "better"
    than the other?  No -- just our different tastes.
    
    There is no doubt in my mind that the attitudes reflected by Andrew
    Dice Clay and 2LiveCrew are reprehensible.  However, obviously,
    there is a market out there that is willing to buy them.  The more
    pressing question to my mind is how did that happen?  Certainly
    not because it is legal to express oneself in such a manner.  The
    deeper question is why does society produce such conditions that
    people feel the need for such violent, misogynist and destructive
    impulses to be released? The art form may be repulsive to you, but
    banning the expression of it does not address the root of the issue.
    It's like giving a patient an aspirin to deal with a headache. 
    You can't feel the headache anymore, but does that help matters
    if you die of a brain tumor six months later?
    
    Censorship these days is getting to be a sticky issue.  Our liberal
    friends on Capitol Hill are doing well, deflecting attacks on free
    speech by blocking the flag burning ammendment, and raising a protest
    over the Helmesians clamp down on the NEA.  However, this is not
    where the only censorship movement is taking place.  Right inside
    our own liberal establishment some very vigorous and heated censorship
    drives have formed.  It is difficult to see, even embarrassing,
    for we have gotten used to accusing the right wing of such tactics,
    but we tend to ignore the implications when our liberal friends
    do the same thing.  Even if it is for the "good reason" to stop
    sexism and racism, the current movements to ban 2LiveCrew, and the
    movements to clamp down on certain form of speech expression on
    campus' is *still* censorship.  The justifications for these clamp
    downs read almost exactly like those offered to us by conservative
    demagogues when they argue against flag burning and Robert
    Mapplethorpe. I'm certain that Jesse Helmes feels that he is "acting
    iin the best interest of the public" as he tries to cut N.E.A. grants
    to controversial artists.  It doesn't make censorship correct when
    either side of the spectrum tries to implement it.
    
    "Since when do you need to agree with someone to stand up for their
    rights?"
    		-- Lillian Hellman
    
    
    my .02 worth,
    
    daniel

    re .16 In the pre-electronic era I'd agree, art reflects 
    a society's views and values. 
    Nowadays, TV, radio, etc...allow an artist to 'set the tone' to
    a greater extent. (It's not the only source.) A few bad apples
    can affect a few million bushels these days. 

    I guess we may have to agree to disagree.  When I look at the issue,
    I tend to look at it from the other direction:
    
    What context of our society makes such forms of expression possible?
    
    Generally, I feel that if society didn't create the atmosphere that
    makes expression like that have an audience?  Especially in the
    mass media marketplace: in today's electronic age, if there isn't
    a market for it, it won't exist.  That leaves the problem of social
    situations giving people a feeling that they "need" to outlet their
    rage in such a fashion.
    
    But I'm just a subversive educational theorist after all. :-)

	Censorship is very dangerous, don't play lightly with it.

	If this society did not present women as objects then there
	would be no customers for this kind of stuff.  If you want
	to protect your children then men and women should value
	women as fully competent human beings and treat them with
	respect.  It is not the words/music that is dangerous nor is it
	the idea espoused it is the fact that women can and are 
	killed - maimed - raped - treated as less than human every
	single day and there is little outrage about it.

	My point of action would be "Stop mouthing off about how
	terrible RAP music is, and how it degrades women and start
	acting - every day and all the time - in a way that says
	to everyone who sees you that you value women as full human
	beings."  There will always be the fringes, what we should
	do is make sure that they stay the fringes on this issue.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

    
    
    
      re .19
    
    
      Exactly how I feel!

There is one rap artist, whose name I understandably have forgotten,
that appeared on Phil Donahue to defend his lyrics.  One song dealt
exclusively with fucking a woman with a flashlight, and if a woman
screams it really means she's loving it.  When Phil asked him about
these lyrics he kind of laughed and said, "Hey, it's a joke.  Would
I really be serious about something like that?  Ha ha ha."

They showed the lyrics with *'s replacing "nasty" words and what he
was rapping (I can't call it singing) is that women loved to have
anything shoved up them, the harder the better, blah blah blah.  I
couldn't watch the whole segment.

Carla

    2 Live Crew will be famous for another fifteen minutes.
    
    -roger
    

    	Forced anal intercourse followed by forced oral intercourse are
    	both crimes.  If 2LC is advocating either or both of these acts,
    	then this is not a case of Free Speech as much as a case where
    	this group is being stopped from encouraging crime.

    	Let's think about this in the context of crimes that don't involve
    	women.

    	Do you think the law would have allowed 2LC to advocate killing
    	police, or burning down forests, or kidnaping and torturing
    	African Americans or Jews?
    
    	It isn't MERELY insulting to women to advocate raping and sodomizing
    	us.
    

    re-.26
    
    Again, it wouldn't matter if the "current trend" in music/lyrics
    is the brutally raping of farm animals by twelve year-olds...or
    the advocating of such a disgusting concept. The issue remains the
    same...If I'm the artist, you are not going to "tell me" or legislate
    me or control me as to what I may or may not perform...If I am the
    consumer of such information, you are not going to "tell me" or
    legislate me or control what I may or may not wish to listen to...no
    way. That is censorship, and censorship is not one of the principals
    this country was founded upon. You know, we have a funny standard
    of righteousness in this country...we always say what a sad world
    it would be without music, then we take it upon ourselves to say
    what is and isn't "music", trying to legislate it like alcohol or
    drugs, dividing it into factions saying that "this" music is the
    "good" music and "that" music is the "bad" music. It doesn't work
    that way, folks. Prohibition was outlawed, so will censorship be
    as well. 
    
    2LC, whether we want to admit it or not, are a musical group performing
    an acceptable form of musical expression, and nothing will change that
    fact. Nor will the fact that in my opinion, they do it very BADLY.
    They are not a very talented group, again in my opinion, but my
    opinions would never persuade me to interfere with their performing
    what music they wish to perform, however they wish to perform it.
    We have the right to congregate to listen to a person say what he
    has to say, and he has the right to speak before us. If you don't
    wish to attend, you also have that right. Just don't block the entrance
    for the rest of us. You don't have that right.

re.23

point #1 - thank you. indeed writing to the label would be ineffective in this
instance.

point/question#2 - I haven't the foggiest notion of what goes on with the
popularity of SNL.  It is something I do not care about.  However, the protest
served good purpose by focusing upon ADC's style and content -- suddenly the
teen-agers on my street find him fairly gaggeous and un-cool. [no, I didn't
incite or ask ...]

One wonders if you are picking nits or if you truly missed the point of my 
little snit.  That being that the public welfare is the responsibility of
the public.  And that those who want a better world need to get off their
arses and make one ... if they leave it to governments and rule makers, the
lazy sods may find that they are living in an orderly world of benign [?]
facism.

  Annie

    	RE: .27  Baldwin

    	> Again, it wouldn't matter if the "current trend" in music/lyrics
    	> is the brutally raping of farm animals by twelve year-olds...or
    	> the advocating of such a disgusting concept. The issue remains the
    	> same..

    	Nice speech, but there are laws against criminal solicitation -
    	it goes beyond the bounds of free speech.  Thus, the issue is not
    	the same.

    	> If I'm the artist, you are not going to "tell me" or legislate
    	> me or control me as to what I may or may not perform...If I am the
   	> consumer of such information, you are not going to "tell me" or
    	> legislate me or control what I may or may not wish to listen to...no
    	> way. 

    	Obviously, the law is set up to do exactly that (if you try to
    	incite riots or solicit criminal behavior.) 

    	> That is censorship, and censorship is not one of the principals
    	> this country was founded upon. 

    	If you don't like our present laws, change them.  
    	
    	> You know, we have a funny standard of righteousness in this 
    	> country...we always say what a sad world it would be without music, 
    	> then we take it upon ourselves to say what is and isn't "music", 
    	> trying to legislate it like alcohol or drugs, dividing it into 
    	> factions saying that "this" music is the "good" music and "that" 
    	> music is the "bad" music. It doesn't work that way, folks. 

    	It works if the music openly solicits criminal behavior.

    	> Prohibition was outlawed, so will censorship be as well. 
    
    	For the moment, our country does appear to have the right to stop
    	groups from commercializing criminal solicitation.

    	That's why they're able to ban 2LC's records, evidently.

    	> 2LC, whether we want to admit it or not, are a musical group 
    	> performing an acceptable form of musical expression, and nothing 
    	> will change that fact.

    	If they are breaking the law, then their music is not acceptable
    	and they can be stopped by the government.  Criminal solicitation
    	is against the law.

    	> We have the right to congregate to listen to a person say what he
    	> has to say, and he has the right to speak before us. 

    	Evidently, we have no such right when it comes to listening to
    	someone incite to riot or attempt to solicit criminal behavior.

    	> If you don't wish to attend, you also have that right. Just don't 
    	> block the entrance for the rest of us. You don't have that right.

    	I'm not the one standing in anyone's way here.  Evidently, the law
    	is doing it because 2LC is committing criminal acts.

    	Again, if you don't like these laws, change them.

    
    	RE: .30  Mike Z.
    
    	Don't blame me for the law - I didn't write it.
    
    	I'm just pointing out that this is how the government is able to
    	put some stops on what 2LC is doing, evidently.
    
    	Finding out that they advocate rape and sodomy puts a new light
    	on the whole situation (whether any of us likes it or not.)
    
    	We have laws in place to address this sort of thing.  If you don't
    	like the laws, change them.
    

    
    Is it possible to distinguish between "art" and "advocacy"?
    
    Just wondering...
    
    D.

    I think the problem with determining "criminal advocacy" falls along
    the question of proving intent.
    
    If someone stands in front of a crowd and encourages armed rebellion
    against the government, says thats the only way to change things
    and, for a topper, says let's go torch city hall and the crowd does
    that, then the police have a pretty good case to say the sedition
    was intentional.
    
    With a music group's lyrics, that gets more difficult...
    
    Is the description of a criminal act the same as advocating it?
    
    The ground here is seperated by a very fine line, and I'm not certain
    that I trust the government to draw it for me.
    
    a few more cents worth,
    
    daniel
    

    RE: "if you don't like the laws change them"
    
    
    This statement has been rather over-utilized in our country. *I*
    may not have to change it personally in this particular instance,
    although I will support the cause to the best of my ability.
    
    Artists of every caliber have made their feelings known on this
    issue. The Neville Brothers (currently touring with Linda Ronstadt
    I believe it's Aaron Neville who sings those three duets with her)
    have already cancelled several tour dates in I believe Louisiana
    because they recently passed pro-censorship legislation. They released
    a statement to the effect: "We could not conceive of performing
    in a state where the freedom of speech is not condoned". And there
    other many other artists who will join in this "movement" I'm sure.
    
    A few years ago, artists gathered to sing against Apartheid. The
    "target" of the song was "Sun City", and the purpose was to convince
    other artists *not* to perform there because of the current events
    in South Africa. They brought the focus of Apartheid to the forefront
    even though the song was not successful in deterring a few artists
    from performing at Sun City. 
    
    This issue will also be brought to the forefront of this country,
    and while *I* will not directly change the legislation, I *will*
    support any and all who oppose the constriction of freedom of speech
    as a whole.  

    	RE: .35  Baldwin

    	> RE: "if you don't like the laws change them"
    
    	> This statement has been rather over-utilized in our country.

    	Well, it wasn't meant as part of anything as far-reaching as
    	that, believe me.

    	It's just that you were starting to preach to me about why I
    	shouldn't stand in the way of what you consider others' rights
    	to hear 2LC, so I was trying to explain to you that this isn't
    	what's happening.

    	If 2LC is breaking the law, they can either stop doing it or
    	the laws can be changed.  

re: .27 CSCMA::BALDWIN

>    Again, it wouldn't matter if the "current trend" in music/lyrics
>    is the brutally raping of farm animals by twelve year-olds...or
>    the advocating of such a disgusting concept. The issue remains the
>    same...

Not really.  Women and farm animals are just a tad different.  One way
is that women actually hear and understand the ideas being presented.
Another is that women are taxpaying citizens who allegedly have the right
and the mental faculties to protest against those who would glorify
violence against them.

And further, such active misogyny isn't simply "current trend".  It has
been a way of life for generations, a way of life that women are working
hard to change.  Farm animals will unfortunately always remain passive to 
the whims of men but women shouldn't have to.  Or do some think they should??
2LC seems to think so.  But women, you see, for the most part, don't.  Would
all those who believe these messages should be protected under the free
speech blanket also protect a Vietnamese "musical" group releasing records
over here about various repugnant forms of retaliation on American men?
How about a Panamanian group singing about killing or harming Bush in some
sexually violent ways for destroying their homes and families?  Suzanne
made a good point in separating the violence itself from the intended target
and examining if it's the violence or the target that makes the music
acceptable or unacceptable.  I think Suzanne thinks that the target, (women),
is what helps to reduce this to merely an issue of free speech and artistic 
expression and I do too.  I understand that in this country we are allowed 
to climb up on a bar and scream that we hate the president but that isn't 
quite the same thing as producing "info-tainment" for mass consumption by 
an impressionable audience, relatively young kids, which is 2LC's audience.

> That is censorship, and censorship is not one of the principals this 
> country was founded upon. 

Hm, so what was all the flack about Lenny Bruce?  What about George Carlin's
7 words you can't say on tv?  How come it used to be that you couldn't
show a toilet on television?  Or that Rob and Laura Petrie HAD to sleep
in twin beds because couples in double beds weren't allowed to be shown?
How come no male frontal nudity on tv or in the movies?  How come no
erections in Playgirl?  There is plenty of censorship but it goes under
the name of "standards of decency".  How is it that an erect penis is
"indecent" and therefore "supressed" or "censored" while the violent
sexual abuse of women is vehemently defended as free speech and artistic
expression?

In context, the ideas advocated by this band are ideas that men have had
about women for eons.  And women know it.  We're not farm animals after
all.  Nearly every woman alive has been bullied to some extent by men.
It's the "close to home" theory once again.  But it isn't close to home
to men.  They have the luxury of thinking about their own standards and
attitudes, make personal decisions such as "I wouldn't do anything like
that" and then decide that "most men" are like them so what's the beef -
it's only a rap song.  But most women have encountered the dangerously
violent potential of males in their lives.  It may not have been you,
but it was there and it threatens to be there again at any time, any
place.  It feels rather frightening and intimidating to have the popular 
culture and media zeroing in on this male potential and glorifying it.
YOU may not ever be violent toward a woman, but plenty of men are already
very willing and everyone's tolerance level shifts a little more violent-
ward when the popular culture begins to espouse and glorify violence.
Which means that those on the edge shift a little more over the edge
thereby increasing the pool of men who would do violence to women.  And
that means a more dangerous world for women EVEN if you educated DECcies
have shifted down from abhorrence to now chuckling at the violence.  Even
some of you may, in response to frustration, grab a woman's arm a little 
tighter and harder than you would have before.  We get the bruises.  So
why not ask us about it.  It's our society, too.  Isn't it??
    

>    2LC, whether we want to admit it or not, are a musical group performing
>    an acceptable form of musical expression, and nothing will change that
>    fact. 

"Acceptable" is the key word here.  Think again about all the things I
listed above that are, even today, not "acceptable".  What's the difference
between something being not acceptable and something being censored?  Is it 
based on what is being done?   On who it's being done to or for?  When I
see some serious male frontal nudity or even hear some women croaning about
the joys of tying men up and attaching battery leads to their genitals,
then I'll accept that 2LC is merely exercising free speech and/or artistic
expression.  Until then, I remain skeptical about how much the target 
figures in to what is "acceptable" and what is "censorship".
    
                                                            

    	RE: .37  Mike Z.

    	> No, 2 Live Crew was censored on the basis of obscentity laws.

    	> While your statement may be right, it has yet to be shown to
    	> be relevent to this discussion.

    	There may have been more laws broken than the ones they've been
    	charged with, so far.

    	Even if all they did was to break obscenity laws, though, they
    	still have the same choices.  They can stop doing it or the laws
    	can be changed.
    
    	At the present time, though, it appears that laws are being broken
    	(so the government has the right to stop these guys and charge
    	them.)

    .36
    
    A friend of mine is noted for constantly proving that "What goes
    around comes around, and vice versa"...let's hope the same holds
    true for 2 Live Crew in that maybe they'll learn that the "experience"
    that they preach could be "practiced" on them someday and that they
    may not want to be so quick to condone or endorse such actions to
    others. However, this confrontation would merely be postponed until
    someone else preached such actions to others. There are satanists
    who legally preach to others in certain states...and they are also
    quite controversial. Judas Priest sings about suicide, destruction,
    Satan, bad breath ;-)...and they even advocate such things. But,not
    once have I heard their name mentioned (not just in this conference)
    during this whole fiasco. Priorities and focus may change, sure...but
    the issues seem to remain the same.  

    reply: .38
    
    > But it isn't close to home for men.
    
    Some of us *have* been on the other side, know the fear and the
    humiliation.
    
    Let's not turn what has been a good airing of ideas into an "us
    vs. them" scenario.
    
    daniel

    
    re:-.38
    
    First of all, I am not comparing women to farm animals. It was merely
    an exaggeration of an idea whose content is of unacceptable behavior
    to others. And yes, if someone else had a song which professes voilent
    behavior towards man, then yes, I believe he has the right to discuss
    it. We had a song in the top forty at the height of our hostage
    crisis with Iran, called "Bomb Iran" which professed our killing people
    over there. "Just joking?" some may say? Tell that to them. I may
    not like it, I may not agree with it, but I will support their right
    to say whatever they wish to say.  

    re .45 Part of the problem is that when you challenge these
    people, they hide behind the "Just joking" excuse. IMO, it
    doesn't excuse a damn thing.

    	RE: .44  Mike Z.

    	> Don't negect the possibility that the state judge erred.

    	The judge didn't pronounce them guilty without a trial, though,
    	so they'll have the opportunity to defend themselves.

    	> Some states ban abortion - does that make their decisions correct?

    	Correct in what sense?  Accurate spelling and grammar?  ;^)

    	When we disagree with laws, some of us attempt to change them
    	for ideological differences we have with said laws.

    	The point is - 2LC was nailed on existing laws.

    re:.38
    
    	� How come no male frontal nudity on tv or in the movies? �
    
    What "no"??
    
    Right off the top of my head, I can think of three movies that quite
    explicitly show male genitalia: MONTY PYTHON'S LIFE OF BRIAN (Graham
    Chapman), BRITANNIA HOSPITAL (Malcolm McDowell), and THE QUIET EARTH
    (Bruno Lawrence). I'm sure that I could come up with some more,
    given the time.
    
    --- jerry

    re:-.48
    
    Jerry,
    
    Weren't those British made programmes, though? Outside of a few
    locker room scenes with guys in and out of towels, I have not
    seen male frontal male nudity on any American made features, and
    the ones I'm struggling to remember were scenes filmed quite a great
    distance away from the actors in the scene. I don't see as many
    close-up shots (and personally, I'd rather *not* ;-) ) on the nude
    body parts of a male stripper than as I do on the body parts of a 
    nude female stripper. But, I believe that too will change in a few
    decades, if women want it...especially if Patrick Swayze were the 
    stripper ;-) ;-)...but that's for another topic altogether.

    
    As far as the State judge goes...he could not politically afford
    *not* to bind them over for trial...no matter what he may have thought
    about the actual legality.
    
    As far as obscenity laws go...they are few and far between that can
    stand up to scrutiny at the Federal appellate level...just *because*
    'my' idea of obscenity may be different from 'your' idea of obscenity,
    and the minute you enforce 'my' standard then you are being
    discriminated against. [There is a ton of this stuff in the Legal
    registers...case upon case] The [Louisiana is it?] law has not been
    tested yet beyond the bounds of Louisiana, I don't think.
    
    Do we care to remember that this is the state that brought us a legal
    right to wife-beating?
    
    No, I am not picking on Louisiana...the point is that local and state
    laws are parochial in nature...they reflect [supposedly] the ambiance
    of the citizenry they rule...As soon as this case is decided at the
    State level, [if the combatants are interested or moneyed enough to
    push it], it will move to the Federal Appellate circuit...and
    historical perspective would lean in the favor of 2lc...very few
    obscenity laws have made it past.
    
    I still agree with Annie, that the most effective way to deal with this
    kind of repulsive material is to mobilize people to *not buy it*
    
    If you push it through the courts and you lose, everybody runs out to
    buy the stuff...just to hear it...result 2lc makes money.
    
    If you push it through the courts and win, everybody has their cousin
    in New York run out and buy it and mail it to them...result 2lc makes
    money.
    
    If there is no market, it won't exist. I really liked that comment
    awhile back...[apologies, too lazy to read my way through again to find
    it...]...'they'll be famous for another 15 seconds' [sic]
    
    Well said.
    
    Melinda

    RE: -49
    Ghost Story, off the top of my head, does indeed show the male G's....

    re-.50
    
    
    Absolutely correct, Melinda. Attack them where it counts and where
    it will hurt them the most...their wallets ;-)
    
    One single woman wrote letters to protest something she didn't
    like on a network tv program. She didn't just write to the network,
    though...she wrote to the advertising sponsors of the program who
    immediately pulled their advertising from the show. Other sponsors
    of the show followed suit. On this level, I would recommend writing
    to the sponsors of the tour of 2LC (which stands for "Low Class"
    in my book) and see if you can get them to pull their advertising
    from the tour. You might have a better chance of stopping the shows
    and curtail further this group by hitting them at the source.
    
     

    
    
    re .24 carla,
    
      i think the guy you saw was the lead [singer/rapper??] for 2LC.  i
    remember watching 10 minutes of the same show about two weeks
    ago. i was disgusted.
    
    ~robin

    
    	Willie Ames  and Phoebe Cates are shown totally nude in an
    	underwater swim scene in "Paradise". Fortunately for me, Phoebe
    	has more nude scenes :-).
    
    	Ever since we got cable, my wife pointed out that:
    	1. Most teenage type movies has a scene in the woman's showers.
        2. Many, many female stars had to due nude scenes when first
           starting out, or making comebacks (including Linda Blair).
    	   Very few male actors have had to do the same.
    
    	Guy
    

    I'm not really sure how I wish to proceed with this, as I believe
    the quotes speak for themselves. Suffice to say, that if these songs
    were musical lyrics, I believe certain people would want them banned
    and/or censored. But, before they did such a thing, I suggest they
    look at the authorship of the statements:
    
    "Woman should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bring up
    children." 
    
    "If a woman grows weary and, at last, dies from childbearing, it
    matters not. Let her die from bearing; she is there to do it."
                                                
                                                MARTIN LUTHER (1483-1546)
                                                 
    
    "To the women he said, I will greatly multiply your pain in
    childbearing; in pain will you bring forth children, yet your desire
    shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
                                                
                                                GENESIS 3:16
                                                 
    "A proper wife should be as obedient as a slave. The female is a
    female by virtue of a certain lack of qualities- a natural
    defectiveness."    
                                              
                                              ARISTOTLE (384-322 BCE)
                                               
    
    "One hundred women are not worth a single testicle."
                                              
                                              CONFUCIUS (551-479 BCE)
                                               
    
    "Let us set our women fold on the road to goodness by teaching them
    to display submissiveness. Every woman should be overwhelmed with
    the shame at the thought of being a woman."
                                              
                                            SAINT CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA
                                                  (96 CE)   
    
    
    
    "Let a woman learn in silence with submissiveness. I permit no woman
    to teach or to have authority over men; she is to be kept silent...
    Yet women will be saved through bearing children."
                                              
                                              I TIMOTHY 2:11-15
                                               
    
    "The souls of women are so small that some believe they've none at
    all."                                      
                                               SAMUEL BUTLER (1612-1680)
                                                
    
    And there are several other quotes from this article I pulled out
    of the archives...my thanks to GEMVAX::KOTTLER for originally placing
    the information in note 871.0 "Quotable Sexists", and to the author
    of the book where they came from {"Why We Burn, What Famous Men
    Throughout History Really Think Of Women"} Meg Bowman. It was
    originally published in _The Humanist_ magazine in November of '83,
    and yes, the quotes were mostly by the "great" men of religion.
    But if such lyrics were to be placed in music form today, the public
    would be outraged...but it's just wierd to think that we could actually
    conceive of censoring such illustrious philososphers for a few ignorant
    and sexist albeit archaic comments. 

    
    	RE: .57  Baldwin
    
    	Well, to make the comparison fair...these guys should REALLY
    	be like 2LC...
    
    
    	When you submit one that quotes Aristotle as saying that he
    	thinks women should have flashlights shoved up inside REAL HARD
    	(and that we love it,) or that we should be forced to have anal
    	intercourse followed immediately by oral intercourse, then
    	I'll show you the sparks you seek.
    
    	Deal?
    

    RE-.58 CONLON
    
    {Just the reply # is fine, thank you}
     
    I am *not* making comparisons, I am merely illustrating that certain
    people can make certain statements that other certain people won't wish
    to hear for certain reasons...but all have the RIGHTS to verbally
    discuss their differences rather than try to GAG one another in the
    guise of "protecting" some faction of society!! If you don't like
    the music or the lyrics, don't listen...if you don't like the group,
    don't buy their music...if you don't want your kids listening to
    it, then it's your responsibility as a concerned parent to see that
    they do *not* listen to it. Not mine, and not the legislature. The
    2LC broke a certain law that has made the general public look at
    the validity of such laws and how they pertain to the issue of
    censorship. If you say "Violence towards women can not be sung about"
    and it becomes law, that is a form of censorship, and that I cannot
    support because somewhere along the line, someone could say "The
    act of making love cannot be sung about" (for example) and the 
    frightening possibility of it becoming a law scares me to death.
    You say the group broke a law...and technically you are correct...and
    yes, the lyrics ARE infuriating...but don't put the blame on the
    artist...he didn't create the fact that such an act exists and that's
    something I think we should elaborate on...the act! *Not* the musical
    influence.
    
    Because, we shall just continue to agree to disagree, and I think
    for the sake of this conference, we should just leave it at that
    before this issue gets more nauseating. 
    

    I'm putting my vote essentially with the previous noter.  To look
    at the rap group and say "that is the source of the problem and
    must be stopped" is to approach society's collective violence against
    women from the wrong side.  Violence against women does not exist
    because of the music; the music exists because it is reflecting
    a trait of society in general.  There have been studies that show
    correlations between acts and forms of expression, but at no time
    has a causal relation ever been proven.
    
    The question to ask is why is there a market for such expression?
    What makes people find 2LC and Andrew Dice Clay so appealing?  Why
    is the humiliation and degradation of another group in society such
    a practiced form?
    
    I'd say the answer lies deep at the roots of how our society is
    structured.  We live, essentially in white, upper-class, male dominated
    culture.  That is where the majority of the power and wealth
    originates.  Social Reproduction Theory states that society will
    always try to recreate itself with each successive generation. 
    This means that those who are disadvantaged, remain disadvantaged,
    and those at the top of the totem pole (the 10% who control 80%
    of the wealth) remain there.  The Big Myth in America is that social
    mobility really exists.  We hear about anecdotes of people we know
    who "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" but those are
    essentially anecdotes.  The correlation coefficient between where
    you start when you are born and where you end up when you die is
    almost exactly 1:1. 
    
    Mind you, this is not to say that I feel there is a Big Conspiracy
    to keep the disadvantaged in powerless positions.  Rather, the elements
    of society that control today have a greater voice on what tomorrow
    will look like and tend to, mainly out of a lack of awareness of
    what is around them, perpetuate our current power structure in a
    way that keeps them in power.
    
    What this leaves us is a permanent underclass.  A group of people,
    mostly minorities, who are essentially powerless in our country.
     They have been so for years, and the picture isn't too rosey to
    change in the near future.  The unfortunate tendency of this is
    for those people to seek some power, *any* power.  This is one of
    the reasons why drug trade is so prevelent in the inner cities.
     Another way to seek power is to find a group even more disadvantaged
    than yourself and exert your own power over this group.
    
    In this context, women become an inviting target for violent thoughts
    and even actions.  The stereotyped portrait of women in this society
    grants them even less political and economic power, and hence, they
    become the new targets of the pent up frustration and rage against
    the current power strucure. While thisd cycle is clearly unacceptable,
    it is, however, understandable.  The greater demon here is the cycle,
    established by society, that bringsd forth the conditions for abuse.
     These ideas don't spontaneously pop out of vacuum...they are nurtured
    by environment.
    
    2LC is a disgusting reflection of that cycle.  The very fact that
    they have an audience that finds their message appealing is evidence
    of this.  If the conditions to foster such emotions did not already
    exist, they would never have found any audience.  Taking the group
    and banning them seems much more of way for white society to try
    to ignore the root of the issue.  You may lower the volume of the
    problem for a time, but I guarantee you that it will spring up again
    elsewhere, and maybe not with words, but with actual violence. 2LC
    is an outlet -- plug up the outlet and you haven't solved the problem.
    One real place ot solve the problemm is in our schools.
     
    What we really need is a way to make free will an actual part of
    our society.  To date, our schools, as agents of the dominant culture
    (again -- I'm not implying intent...it tends to happen naturally
    without deliberate malice), simply engage in preparing students
    for roles in society predetermined by where they were born.  If
    schools could be what I call subversive, they could be actual places
    of equality where students are given the chance to dtermine their
    *own* pathways instead of simply walking down the road that was
    chosen for them.  Our schools have to stop giving up on the majority
    of students so that the cycle may be broken.  If that happens, we
    may find that there are no longer the conditions to foster such
    violence and degradation.
    
    Of course, this still doesn't remove the issues of sexism and violence
    at *all* levels of our society.  The upper class has a lot for which
    it must also be held accountable.  But again, a subversive education
    would help girls and boys break their socialization at *all* levels of
    society.  It is here that true choice of enters and with the ability
    to choose one's life, the level associated with preassigned roles
    drops.
    
    If we tackle the issues from *this* side of the fence, 2LC and the
    like may eventually loose their audiences completely.
    
    a few more cents,
    
    Daniel
    

    RE: .59  Baldwin

    > I am *not* making comparisons, I am merely illustrating that certain
    > people can make certain statements that other certain people won't wish
    > to hear for certain reasons...

    As offensive as it was to hear women described in the quotes you provided,
    it's still not the same thing as advocating rape and sodomy.

    > ...but all have the RIGHTS to verbally discuss their differences rather 
    > than try to GAG one another in the guise of "protecting" some faction of 
    > society!!

    No one has been granted the right to criminal solicitation since we spoke
    last.

    Try starting a rap group that advocates killing policemen or burning
    down forests, and see how far you get.

    By the way, did you know that it is illegal to JOKE at an airport or
    on a plane about carrying weapons for hijacking?  (Why?  It goes
    beyond free speech, that's why.  Same thing here.)

    > If you don't like the music or the lyrics, don't listen...if you don't 
    > like the group, don't buy their music..

    Stop preaching to me as if I'm personally involved in this issue - I'm
    not!  This is notes and I'm expressing a Notes-opinion, ok?

    > ...if you don't want your kids listening to it, then it's your 
    > responsibility as a concerned parent to see that they do *not* listen 
    > to it. Not mine, and not the legislature.

    If they're breaking the law, then they should either stop doing it or
    the law should be changed.  

    > If you say "Violence towards women can not be sung about"
    > and it becomes law, that is a form of censorship, and that I cannot
    > support because somewhere along the line, someone could say "The
    > act of making love cannot be sung about" (for example) and the 
    > frightening possibility of it becoming a law scares me to death.
   
    Again, I really wish you would stop personalizing this as if I'm out
    there making laws about this stuff.  I'm not.

    If 2LC is advocating the rape and sodomy of women, it's goes far beyond
    merely discussing violence against women (or singing about sex.)

    If others are not allowed to perform criminal solicitation in their
    musical acts, then there isn't a reason in the world why it should be
    tolerated with 2LC (even though they are MERELY advocating the usual
    old rape and sodomy of women.)  Ho hum.

    	RE: .60  Daniel

    	> To look at the rap group and say "that is the source of the problem 
    	> and must be stopped"...

    	Daniel, I doubt you'll find ANYONE who believes this is the entire
    	source of this problem (or that it MUST be stopped, even.)

    	The point is - it's illegal to solicit crime - so why should we make
    	an exception in this case?  To prove what good sports we are?

    	If a rap group advocated killing the President, they'd be stopped.
    	If they advocated hunting down and torturing African Americans or
    	Jews, they'd be stopped.

    	Why should we decide that since they're only advocating the rape
    	and sodomy of women, we should worry more about losing free speech
    	than what might happen to women or how this might make women feel?

    	Women are so often expected to be accommodating - sure, we'll be good
    	sports and tell you that it's ok if a group advocates raping and
    	sodomizing us (even if they'd never get away with saying this about
    	some other group) because we don't want to put anyone to any trouble.

    	Would that make people happier about this?

    
    re:.59
    
    If I am "personalizing" the issue, forgive me. Your headings implying
    direct response to what I have written also initiates my personalizing
    my responses to "you" (whoever "you" may be). It also was accentuated
    by your dissecting my entire responses to make your point. I would
    suggest making your statements more generic and I will try to do the
    same. Okay? "Fellow Noters" again? ;-) 

    re:-.63
    
    My apologies...that last response was to noter in :-.61

    
    	RE: .63
    
    	You can address my notes personally, but please don't preach to me
    	about what I shouldn't prevent you from listening to, etc. 
    
    	I am not personally involved in the arrest and prosecution of these
    	guys, nor of the banning of their album in certain areas.
    
    	Ok?
    

    re: .62
    
    I still haven't heard people say that the lyrics actively say that
    people *should* go out an do these things.  Yes, there may be implicit
    acceptance in the description of the acts, but as I said before,
    there is a very fine line that I don't really think people should
    be empowered to draw.  That kind of power easily turns around snaps
    your head off.
    
    There have been otehr controversial rap groups in the past (Public
    Enemy, most recently) that make anti-semitic and white statements
    in their music.  People got angry and protested, and some radio
    stations pulled the songs in response. However, nobody went to the
    *courts* and had them made *illegal*  They weren't heard over the
    airwaves due to personal decisions of taste, but not due to gag
    orders.
    
    I don't advocate women being submissive to the sexism and simply
    be "good sports"  I think public protesting is fine -- that's the
    right to free speech.  What I don't think is fine is trying to satisfy
    a sense of outrage by simply eliminating the source...in this case,
    sexist and vulgar music lyrics.
    
    You keep hanging onto the "advocacy" issue, and someone has even
    paraphrased what the lyrics describe.  I ask the question again:
    is description, however graphic, advocacy?  In court, intent has
    to proven, and there isn't enough circumstantial evidence to do
    that unless (forgive the example please) they were to rape someone
    at a concert while singing the song.  Description of an act is not
    implicitly advocacy of that act

    	RE: .66 Daniel

    	> People got angry and protested, and some radio stations pulled 
    	> the songs in response. However, nobody went to the *courts* and 
    	> had them made *illegal*  They weren't heard over the airwaves due 
    	> to personal decisions of taste, but not due to gag orders.

    	Are you blaming women for this?  I wasn't aware that we had enough
    	influence to make instant laws in this country.

    	> I think public protesting is fine -- that's the right to free 
    	> speech.  What I don't think is fine is trying to satisfy
    	> a sense of outrage by simply eliminating the source...in this case,
    	> sexist and vulgar music lyrics.
    
    	Do you think women disguised themselves as male Sheriffs to go
    	arrest these guys and ban their music, or what?  Where is all this
    	widespread involvement of women in the criminal portion of this
    	case?

    	> I ask the question again: is description, however graphic, advocacy? 

    	Let's test it.  Why don't you publish a song that describes the
    	assassination of Bush in graphic tantalizing detail.  Let's see
    	how far you get with it.

    	> In court, intent has to proven, and there isn't enough 
    	> circumstantial evidence to do that unless (forgive the example 
    	> please) they were to rape someone at a concert while singing the 
    	> song.  Description of an act is not implicitly advocacy of that act

    	As I mentioned earlier, it is illegal to joke about hijacking an
    	airplane at the airport or on a flight.  It doesn't matter if the
    	hijacking didn't take place and the joker had no weapons at all.

    	It's also illegal to write letters threatening death to the
    	President, isn't it?  (I seriously doubt that they wait until
    	the Pres is dead before being able to make a move to protect 
    	him.)

    I'm not blaming or accusing women of anything...if you want to read
    that into my response, that's your right, but I take exception to
    it.  It is also beginning to sound like a "us vs. them" context
    which is nothing that I had in mind.
    
    I'm commenting on your reply that seemed to ask if I felt women
    should sit back and passively ignore the issue.
    
    Like I said, no.
    
    My other comments are addressed at the broader issue of censorship
    and also at trying to resolve whether or not a law was actually
    broken.  You say it was, but I still haven't seen evidence proving
    conclusively that decsription is advocacy.
    
    Bob Marley: "I shot the Sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense"
    
    Was he arrested for advocating shooting police officers? (tame, in
    comparison to the lyrics being discussed, yes, but along the lines
    of the example of writing a song about killing the president)
    
    And 2LC was charged on public "obscenity" laws...while the advocacy
    issue is an interesting one, it shouldn't be wielded unless there
    really is good evidence of intent. That's a very sticky legal problem. 

    	
    	RE: .68  Daniel

    	If you didn't mean to imply that women were the ones trying to
    	express a sense of outrage (or whatever) at 2LC, then I apologize
    	for misinterpreting your reply.

    	However, it is not the case that Free Speech is unlimited in the
    	U.S.  Some aspects of speech are against the law, and plenty others
    	are grounds for law-suits.

    	I don't see any reason why we should make an exception in the case
    	of 2LC (when so many other things they could have said would have
    	been against the law as well.)

    Accepted...and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on what I said.
    
    I hear what you're saying, about free speech not being an absolute,
    but I still think there needs to be caution applied when finding
    aspects to be limited.
    
    If you sue someone for slander, you absolutely must prove malicious
    intent or the suit is dismissed.
    
    Similarly, incitement to crimes must be carefully proven as
    intentional.  Otherwise, it could blossom into a speech restriction
    frenzy.  Obviously, finding something morally repugnant is not enough
    to restrcit speech (although Helmes is trying to do that to
    Mapplethorpe's work)  Incitement to criminal acts may sound like
    a good measure because it leads to other people being hurt, but
    it still needs to be painstakenly proven that malicious intent was
    present.
    
    Maybe the hardest thing to do in the U.S. legal system
    
    Daniel

    Well, with the "I shot the sherriff" lyrics, maybe go a bit farther and
    find...
    
    "I shot the sherriff
     but I claim it was in self defense
     I shot the sherriff
     Now they say it is a national offense"
    
    or something like that.  At least no KNOW it's wrong when you listen to
    the song - if they said "hey I do (something-incredibly-kinky), but
    everybody knows it's against the law and wrong", that would be
    different to a certain degree, I think.  It would take some of the
    sense of advocacy or exhortation out of it....
    
    -Jody
    

    RE:-.65
    
    "Ok?"
    
    I believe I already responded to that.....but okay. I won't preach
    if you (not meaning "you" personally, of course) don't prevent me
    from either making the music I wish to make or listening to what
    I choose to listen to. Whether it be Donny Osmond or some KKK member
    singing about how he advocates the sodomy of farm animals as the
    cross burns in his back yard on Yom Kippur just before the attack
    begins on all Blacks and Jews in his neighborhood. I may not like
    it, but I believe that he'll receive his just rewards by a higher
    power than me or you or the legislature.  

    
    
    
    .......sayyyy....whatever happened to that basenoter anyway? Maybe
    the last forty or fifty pages of "light banter" frightened them away?
    Please! Come back!! Start a new topic or something!! ;-) ;-) ;-)

    I never would have heard of 2Live Crew if it weren't for all the
    publicity they receive, as is demonstrated in the base-note article. 
    The same goes for Andrew Dice Clay and even flag burning.  Censorship
    is unconstitutional, no matter what is being censored.  This group
    wouldn't be selling so many records if there wasn't such a
    hype/controversy surrounding them.  

<	I'm surprised no one feels like they may be a victim of media
<    hype here.

    I've heard only a brief bit of one of the songs on NPR. Every other
    word was beeped out. However, I refuse to go buy one of their albums to
    hear the words. In our local paper a record store owner said they
    hardly sold any of the 2LC albums until the Florida arrest. Since then
    he sold out.

    Much as what I've heard about disgusts me I can't side with censorship.
    This is merely a side effect of our increasingly two tier society. The
    haves and the have nots are becomming further apart each year and as
    the scapegoats of society women are the targets of the revenge that
    can't be gotten from the ruling class. Some men hate us because they
    fear every advance we make is one they miss out on. When we are all
    fighting for the scraps the strongest win by intimidation. liesl

    
    i never listen to the words
    ;^)
    

    The following is an article printed in the Boston Herald on June
    20th, 1990. The writer is Henry Louis Gates, Jr. a professor of
    English at Duke University and author of "The Signifying Monkey".
    This article is reprinted without permission.
    
    Durham, North Carolina:
    
    The rap group 2 Live Crew and their controversial hit recording
    "As Nasty As They Wanna Be" may well earn a significant place in
    history of First Amendment rights. Just as important is how these
    lyrics will be interpreted and by whom.
    
    For centuries, African-Americans have been forced to develop coded
    ways of communicating to protect them from danger. Allegories and
    double meanings, words redefined to mean their opposites ("bad"
    meaning "good", for instance) , even neologisms ("bodacious") have
    enabled blacks to share messages only the initiated understood.
    
    Many of the blacks were amused by the transcripts of Marion Barry's
    sting operation, which reveals that he used the traditional black
    expression about one's "nose being opened". This referred to Barry's
    love affair and not, as Barry's prosecutors have suggested, to the
    inhalation of drugs. Understanding this phrase may spell the difference
    between prison and freedom.
    
    2 Live Crew is engaged in heavy-handed parody, turning the stereotypes
    of black and white American culture on their heads. These young
    artists are acting out, to lively dance music, an exaggeration of
    the oversexed black female and male.
    
    This is the street tradition called "signifying" or "playing the
    dozens", which has generally been risque, and where the best signifier
    or "rapper" is the one who invents the most extravagant images,
    the biggest "lies", as the culture says. (H. "Rap" Brown earned
    his nickname in just this way) In the face of racist stereotypes
    about black sexuality, you can do one of two things: you can disavow
    them or explode them with exaggeration.
    
    2 Live Crew, like many "hiphop" groups, is engaged in sexual
    carnivalesque. Parody reigns supreme, from a takeoff of standard
    blues to a spoof of the black power movement. The group must be
    interpreted within the context of black culture generally and of
    signifying specifically. Their novelty, and that of other adventuresome
    rap groups, is that of their defiant rejection of euphemism now
    voices for the mainstream what before existed largely in the "race
    record" market---where the records of Redd Foxx and Rudy Ray Moore
    once were forced to reside.
    
    Much more troubling than its so-called obscenity is the group's
    overt sexism. Their sexism is so flagrant, however, that it almost
    cancels itself out in a hyperbolic war between the sexes. Still,
    many of us look toward the emergence of more female rappers to redress
    sexual stereotypes. The appreciation of verbal virtuosity does not
    lessen one's obligation to critique bigotry in all of its pernicious
    forms.
    
    The question of 2 Live Crew's "obscenity" cannot even be addressed
    until those who would answer them become literate in the vernacular
    traditions of African-Americans. To do less is to censor through
    the equivalent of intellectual prior restraint---and censorship
    is to art what lynching is to justice.

    re:.49
    
    	� Weren't those British made programmes, though? �
    
    Well, THE QUIET EARTH was New Zealander, but, essentially, yes.
    It's not clear to me that the point is relevant, though. Regardless
    of where the movies were produced, all three have been and are
    readily and easily available in the American market -- either
    theaters, home video, or CATV movie channels. I think that
    access to the material is more relevant than its origins with
    respect to the topic at hand. When discussing, for instance,
    pornographic magazines with glossy photos of naked women that
    can be had in the Combat Zone, do we discriminate between those
    photographed and printed in the US as opposed to those in, say,
    Sweden?
    
    --- jerry

    
    .75>  I'm surprised no one feels like they may be a victim of media hype
          here.
    
    Having listened to Pat Buchanan (conservative) and Mike Kinsley (liberal)
    agree that there was no question the lyrics were obscene I did not doubt
    that they probably were.                                     
    
    Regardless of that however, I went to three record stores this weekend
    and dicovered that the only version you could get was labeled;
    
    	"Contains no explicit lyrics"  and the title has changed to;
    	"As clean as we can be".
    
    Nice to know the powers that be have decided for us.
    
    	Rich...
    

    
    	RE: .78  Baldwin

    	> These young artists are acting out, to lively dance music, an 
    	> exaggeration of the oversexed black female and male.

    	If only they'd left it at this, though.  Why delve into descriptions
    	of rape, sodomy and overtly sexist attitudes towards women?  Why
    	was it necessary in this exaggeration?  The author doesn't say.

    	When I first heard of the problems facing 2LC, I thought it was
    	ludicrous that they were banned for explicit material.  I'd assumed
    	they were engaging in a celebration of sex (the way rock music has
    	often glorified love and sex over the years.)  It never occurred to
    	me that they were describing the joys of things like rape and sexism.

    	> Their novelty, and that of other adventuresome rap groups, is that 
    	> of their defiant rejection of euphemism now voices for the 
    	> mainstream what before existed largely in the "race record" market
    	> ---where the records of Redd Foxx and Rudy Ray Moore once were 
    	> forced to reside.

    	Overt sexism is definitely a ticket to acceptance in the mainstream,
    	unfortunately.  I will grant the author this.

    	> Much more troubling than its so-called obscenity is the group's
    	> overt sexism. Their sexism is so flagrant, however, that it almost
    	> cancels itself out in a hyperbolic war between the sexes. 

    	I disagree that it almost cancels itself out.

    	As others have said, I'm not an advocate of censorship - I've never
    	claimed to be one.  

    	It still seems to me that the material sounds like the sort of
    	criminal solicitation that wouldn't be tolerated against other
    	groups (including African Americans.)

    	While I wouldn't stand in line to see these guys banned or
    	prosecuted further, neither would I lift a finger to stop it.
    	I don't consider it the same thing as merely describing sex.

    Reported without comment...

    On CNN this evening it was reported that a concert hall (in Texas? not
    sure) was trashed by a rap music audience which went on a rampage after
    the rap group failed to show up due to a dispute over money. The rap
    group in question was Two Live Crew.

    RE-.83
    
    
    Maybe they heard the song "Gonna tear your playhouse down" and
    misinterpreted it to mean destroy music halls? Seriously, though,
    I heard the story on WBZ-TV4 last night and with everything else
    that's been going on with the group, it wouldn't surprise me if
    the fans thought that the concert was cancelled by the manager,
    *not* because of the money, but rather because of the controversy.
    It still doesn't excuse the actions of the fans, however. I'm not
    saying that's what happened really (somehow I find the money dispute
    kind of a lame story), I just offer a possibility of actual events.

    I'd still ove to hear just a tiny scrap of information that proves
    that description of an illegal act (even saying that you like it)
    is the same thing as criminal solicitation of that act...even
    a case precedent would help.
    
    Free speech is not absolute, but the restrictions on it are *very*
    slight, and the resctrictions on artistic expression (however you
    define it) are practically nonexistant.  AS mentioned earlier, most
    obscenity laws stop holding water the instant they hit the federal
    level.
    
    If these people are engaged in criminal solicitation in their music,
    it has to be proved in court, and I don't know of the precedent
    by which that would be done.  Simply stating that that's what an
    individual or even a group of individuals thinks that they are doing
    isn't enough.

    I agree with .85. I have never heard of a limitation on free speech
    due to criminal solicitation.
    
    -roger
    

    re: .86
    
    It can happen: people have been charged with incitement to riot
    
    However, you really, really *really* have to prove malicious intent.
    Otherwise, there is a risk of blindly clamping down on artistic
    expression based on a *presumption* of intent.   
    
    What I would like to hear is a case precedent that would allow this
    interpretation to apply to rap lyrics however despicable in content.
    (In the recent past "Public Enemy" could have been accused of "criminal
    solicitation" based on exceedingly anti-semitic language -- they
    were not...it is almost impossible to prove maliccious intent in
    a situation like this)
    
    Daniel

    I started a conversation with my son and his girlfriend about this
    group and others.  I asked them about the content and I was told that
    indeed there is alot about rape and sodomy.  However, when I ask
    my son more about the intent of the songs he said that the songs are
    jokes.  My son is 20 years old (BTW). My question to any of you is
    have your children listened to this music and how do they feel about
    it?
    
    Another thought with this music.  While listening to a talk show
    addressing this kind of music a major issue was the fact that because
    this music was being listened to my white kids that this was the only
    reason interest was being paid to the lyrics.  This was brought up by
    one of the performers.
    
    Any comments on this?
    
    denise  
    
    
    
    
      
    

    	RE: .88 Denise

    	My son and I have talked about this issue a number of times.

    	At first, we were both amazed and angry that 2LC was being banned
    	and arrested for using explicit language about sex.  We figured
    	that most people could see actual sex acts in videotapes, so we
    	didn't understand the big deal.

    	Later, when I found out that the songs were about rape and sodomy,
    	I was no longer sorry they were banned (although I'd never be part
    	of any kind of group that advocates censorship.)  I figured that
    	the laws could be valid in stopping them, which would require a
    	change in the law to make 2LC legally acceptable.

    	Now, I see that the people being most vocal about this issue seem
    	to be the "Family Decency" groups, which want to ban all sorts of
    	other books and material, as well (which I am definitely against!)

    	So.  While I don't have a problem with anyone being able to buy
    	descriptions of elicit sex, I wish 2LC hadn't chosen to include
    	sexism, bigotry against women, rape, sodomy, etc. (no matter HOW
    	anyone thinks such images of bigotry and violence against women
    	can be justified.)

    	I wish 2LC had found some other way to rocket their music into
    	the mainstream (rather than latching onto images of violence
    	against women) - there's already too much of this sort of thing
    	around as it is.

    	Basically, I guess it could be said that I've gone neutral on this
    	issue (no longer pulled either way.)

    There are days when I feel like running off to some island 
    someplace, because sometimes it feels like "civilization" has 
    nothing to do with me.  Of course, that need for total isolation 
    usually passes as quickly as it arrives, but the sense of estrangement 
    that I often feel from the formal institutions of "justice" and legislated 
    morality definitely colors my judgement and perspective.  
    
    I do feel great respect for the importance our culture places on the 
    protection of self expression.  It frightens me when anyone is jailed or 
    their expression is curtailed because of the ideas they express.  
    I'm also deeply committed to fighting misogyny, so the issue of 2LC 
    being banned in some cities poses a conflict between two of my deeply-held 
    values.  But as I've read the discussion going on in this string, and as
    I think about the issue more, it strikes me that what happens to 2LC
    legally is really separate from what their existence and popularity mean
    to me as a woman.
    
    I'm glad that it's illegal to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium.
    If legal action must be taken against 2LC to protect the public, then
    I think that should happen, but I hope that the courts will be cautious
    whenever they act to curtail self expression in the name of public safety.
    I agree with whoever said (maybe Mel) that if the 2LC case makes it to
    the higher courts, chances are good that the right to free speech
    will prevail.  And in the meantime, a group that might have been merely
    one of many of the latest wave of counter-culture rap groups has been
    catapulted to greater fame and fortune.
    
    That brings me to my other concern.  No matter what happens legally to
    2LC, their existence frightens me.  It frightens me that people would
    use their considerable talent to sing/rap about abusing women -- 
    physically, mentally, spiritually.  Think of what it means that someone
    spent time writing lyrics and getting them to rhyme and spent time 
    rehearsing to get the sound and the timing just right.  They got musicians 
    to play with them and recording studios to record them.  There were men 
    (I'm assuming it was all men) sitting in a mixing room listening to the 
    cuts over and over and over, working to get the best mix for the CD.  And 
    it was ok with all these people.  They didn't walk out, refuse, cry, yell, 
    worry.  Was it just a business decision?  Even if it was, what does that 
    say?  How could it be just business for anyone to write, perform, and 
    produce music that advocates hatred of women?  That's what frightens me.  
    
    What do I want to do about this?  Do I want 2LC to be banned, stopped, 
    locked up?  Well, there's part of me that would like to burn every copy,
    but that won't solve the problem.  As long as it is profitable to make
    this music, and as long as there are people who are not too disgusted 
    by it to do it, it will be here.  So I don't want censorship -- both 
    because I am opposed to the idea of it and because I think it's ineffective.
    I want to piss and moan about it.  I want to tell everyone who will listen
    how awful this is.  I want us all to be upset about this.  When see
    this kind of trash in our record store, I want us to take it up to the
    counter, demand to see the manager, and then ask him or her how they could
    sell this stuff.  I want us to write angry letters and talk to each other 
    about how angry we are.  Let's not take this!  (BTW, after Sinead O'Connor
    boycotted SNL because of Andrew Dice Clay, I went out and bought her CD --
    my way of thanking her for standing up for what she felt was right.)
    
    We women and supportive men can say we're angry about misogyny in music
    without debating why censorship is ok sometimes.  Those are their rules.
    If I have children, I might not be able to stop them (and I'm not sure I'd
    want to) from hearing this kind of music.  But if I heard one of them
    absent mindedly singing along (as a friend and I once heard her daughter 
    doing), you can bet we would talk about it.  We would talk about what those 
    words really mean.  Hearing what groups like 2 Live Crew have to say 
    probably won't hurt us.  But I think not being shocked, outraged, and 
    willing to say so will hurt us all deeply.
    
    Justine

    re: .90
    
    Well said, Justine!  I agree with the sentiments whole heartedly.
    
    
    There's a fundamental problem with *society* at large if the kind
    of expression manages to appeal to certain people.  We need to take
    a long hard look at *that*
    
    daniel

    Thank you Justine, for articulating what it was that bothered me about
    the whole situation.
    
    Alison

    re-.90 and -.91
    
    I agree, Justine...very well said, indeed. Your sentiment is well
    said and well noted. We cannot stop that kind of expression from
    appealing to certain segments of the populace, but I believe that
    discussing it and being informed of the negativity of such expressions
    will be of tremendous help in countering those negative influences.  

    Justine, your point about the "business decision" aspect really
    focussed it for me!  How indeed could people be so callused as not to
    understand or care about the social consequences of their decisions? 
    That's the very *definition* of "unethical"!
                                             
    							=maggie

    I see an important item in the article in .0. The author mentions
    that A.D. Clay's audiences are 'resentful'. I think this is the 
    core of a *lot* of the 'hate' acts. And resentment is not the
    exclusive domain of misogynists. Resentment is a common theme.
    Resentment of whites, of blacks, of males, of females, of the young, 
    of the haves and have-nots. I have not heard a single comedian, male or
    female, in the last couple of years, who has *not* included a 
    'men vs. women' segment in their act. "It's all in fun." Sure.
    But there is a *lot* of resentment out there. Comedy seems to be
    the safest place to air this resentment. We all know it's just
    for laughs. But is it ? The resentment gets a lot nastier when
    you take away the comedy context. Like 2LC, for instance.
    
    One could argue that airing this resentment is a positive step
    towards better understanding. I'm inclined to think, though, that
    a lot of people are simply cashing in on it. There's a lot of money
    in resentment and hate these days. 

    I agree with Justine.  I'm all for free speech, and if this case
    makes it to the high courts, I think that will be the opinions of
    the judges too.  But it will be a bittersweet victory.  There are 
    some in the public who would censor certain ideas of mine before 
    they would censor those of 2LC, and so a victory for their free
    speech is a victory for mine, too.  But 2LC preaches a message that
    is clearly not, ah, (I'm hedging here, because I've never heard a
    2LC song), in my best interests.  So although their message may make
    me sick, I'll rejoice in their right to say it.

    I think 2LC has chosen that misogyny can be a canny business decision.
    I suppose there is some comfort in the fact that a group can say
    these things and have shock value - I'd worry more if everyone took
    it in stride.  But, as Justine has pointed out, lots of people *did*
    take it in stride, long before 2LC hit the concert halls.  And yet -
    remember the guy who made the somewhat sympathetic film about a mass
    murderer recently?  The film that was released unrated and hardly
    made it into any theaters?  Why does violence against women sell?
    My concern is not "how can stores sell this stuff?", it's "who *buys*
    this stuff?  Who thinks this stuff has *value*?  And why?"  

    It saddens me that this sort of material is compatible with a canny
    business decision.  It bothers me that it sells enough copies to be
    met with a reaction of "shock" (and not mere disgust).  The members of
    2 Live Crew are not themselves the problem; they are symptomatic of
    a larger problem, and, unfortunately, using that role for personal
    profit.  I don't like being reminded that that problem does exist in
    our society; I wish it would just go away.  To the point that their
    lyrics may awaken the complacent to the fact that the problem has *not*
    gone away, I'm glad 2LC is singing what they are.  And, in general,
    I am glad that they have the right to sing what they want.  The
    question is, if they can sing about whatever they want, what motivated
    their current choice of subject matter, and what can we do to change
    that motivation.

	Sharon

    An article by David Rowan appeared in the Guardian newspaper this
    weekend in the Lingua Franca section. I'm reproducing it here (without
    permission) as it is relevant to this topic:
    
    "...the hostility which permeates such songs as Bad Ass Bitch and Get
    the **** Out of My House (Bitch) is so loaded against women that even
    bitch or whore soon begins to sound complimentary....
    
    The machine gun regularity of the [2LC] album's verbal abuse can inure
    listeners to its language. Under such bombardment, words eventually
    lose their sense of taboo - and hostile feelings become easier to
    utter, as they have done among American college students. According to
    a survey, 19-year-olds at state universities or colleges are most
    likely to use hostile terms to describe members of the opposit sex. It
    is not clear why their vocabularies are so heavily weighted towards the
    negative; but as the more adverse words gradually lose their sense of
    taboo and become more familiar and accessible, they cannot fail to
    shape thoughts and attitudes. 
    
    Robin Holt, a college lecturer in Maryland, asked 348 male and female
    students to record as many words and short phrases as they could find
    to describe women (or men)...The lists of words...were overwhelmingly
    hostile and derogatory...men recounted three negative terms for every
    positive one, and women four to every one.
    
    Over four years' research, sex and body parts dominated the men's
    lists, and character traits the women's. Bitch was the most commonly
    mentioned synonym for women, followed by a four-lettered word for the
    female genitalia, and then whore. The top three terms for women were
    chauvinist, bastard, and another obscene term. Women were also three
    times more likely than men to mention words which suggested mutual
    reliance in relationship, such as lover, friend or companion.
    
    `Of the 10 most used words on each gender's list, only three were
    positive: lady, gentleman, and sexy,' Mr Holt said. Which, if the
    survey is at all representative, certainly puts the rappers' message in
    its context."
    

  re: 233.38 (Sandy Ciccolini)

  >  It feels rather frightening and intimidating to have the popular 
  >  culture and media zeroing in on this male potential and glorifying it.

	That's my strongest reaction to the whole issue of
	2 Live Crew and their music.

						nancy b.

    Here's a new twist on this subject.  As I was listening to various
    pieces of music over the weekend, I realized that there is a yet
    undiscussed aspect to misogyny in music -- opera.
    
    Some of the most sexist scenarios arise in opera, and in many cases,
    something horrible has to happen to women in order to "redeem" the
    situations.
    
    Tragedies -- the men die...women are usually blamed.
    		 Verdi's "Otello," and "MacBeth"
    		 
    Romances -- the women die.
    		Puccini's "La Boheme," "Tosca," "Madama Butterfly"
    		Verdi's "La Traviata"
    		Donezetti "Lucia"
    		Bizet "Carmen"
    
    Comedies -- nobody dies, but everyone ends up married
    		Mozart "Le Nozze de Figaro" "Die Zauberflote"
    
    Wagner --   everybody dies
    
    What is it about "traditional" structures for operatic stories that
    requires such roles for women?  Can't the men ever die in a romance? 
    Why do they call it a tragedy if only the men die/ (are these
    rhetorical questions?)
    
    Daniel

    Oh, wait a sec!
    
    I'm not trying to point fingers...just making an observation (also an
    observation good for several academic papers, I think)
    
    
    I think that general tendency in "classical" works (opera and
    literature) is an interesting discussion topic.  I also just read a
    paper tracing the use of music as a metaphor for orgasm in opera...no
    surprise there.  Just listening to Sigmund and Sieglinde meeting is
    proof enough, eh?
    
    Daniel

    well, dang, there's goes my dissertation! ;-)

    Remember also that the operas you cite are from a different century.
    late 1800's for most I'd guess.

    Look at what singing goes on in opera also. It's made for violent
    emotion. Passion is what most of it is about. The story line for opera
    is often awful I agree. Cose Fan Tuttie(sp?) is positively attrocious.
    I think comic opera is often the most sexist. It almost always involves
    a woman being stupid in love.
    
    But some of the female leads are noble indeed. Even the women of ill
    repute. Violetta gives up any chance at happiness to let Alfredo's
    sister have a good marriage. Lets face it, the life of a Violetta with
    high society parties is much more addapted to grand staging than the
    life of a "good" wife who stays at home. It also brings more excitement
    to the story. No one writes a grand opera about an average "honey I'm
    home" couple. Why would they even want to sing a high C? liesl
    

    I love the music also...
    
    The way that emotional messages are encoded is rather impressive. 
    Example:  Otello at the end of Act I...the climax builds and
    then reaches the high point seve 
    If there is any better candidate for a musical orgasm, it would
    probably be in Wagner.  Anna Russel said it woderfully in regards to
    opera:
    
    "And they fall madly in love despite the fact that she's married to
    Hunding which is immoral and she's his sister which is illegal.  But
    that's the wonderful thing about grand opera, you can do anything you
    like so long as you sing it.  And after slipping Hunding a Mickey Finn
    so's not to wake him, they certainly do SING IT"
    
    I'll agree that the misogyny in the stories are developed from the
    literature of the time, but there's one problem I have.  This is music
    that tends to surpass specific ages.  I mean, if it is really good, we
    tend to find beauty and truths in it no matter what age the art is a
    part of.  Does the beauty of a work of art, in this case opera, tend to
    blind us to the social agenda of the story?
    
    not pointing any fingers, just pondering a ponderous point,
    
    daniel 

<    not pointing any fingers, just pondering a ponderous point,
    
    Hmm, a pundit ponderously pondering the pandering in plenty of music?
    :*)

    At any rate...there is a "grand" difference between the music in opera
    and a 2 Live Crew. Take away understanding the words in an opera and
    know only that the singers are having relationship problems, and the
    feeling is still there. The ache that the music conveys transcends the
    words - which even if you understand the language are often
    unintelligable. The emotion is so intense you can feel it. Carmen's
    song to Hose' is sultry in the same sense as Kathleen Turner in Body
    Heat. 

    Take away the words from 2 Live Crew and no sense of the original
    meaning is left. It becomes nothing more than another rap song with
    nothing left but a beat. It conveys no emotion. liesl
    

    
    i don't think anyone's going to get very far analysing the
    libretti of most operas for anything of substance. opera was
    the b-movies of the 19th century.
    

    I'm fascinated.  What were the A-movies?
    
    						Ann B.

    
    all right, you caught me being misanthroperatic. i'd rather listen
    to gilbert & sullivan than verdi, i admit. maybe i should say 
    *italian* operas are b-movies. maybe the works of meyerbeer or 
    massenet (as in, 'gee, i've heard of the b-minor mass, but i've
    never heard of the massenet') could be considered the flashy 
    blockbusters; wagner and his ilk the serious, david lean type
    epics; offenbach the screw-ball comedies, etc.
    

    I was hoping somebody more knowledgeable than I am would correct
    the factual misstatements in this discussion but since nobody has,
    it's going to have to be my limited knowledge of musical history
    and limited exposure to opera. . .
    
    First of all, the discussion lumps together almost a hundred years
    of musical and political development as if it were all one period.  
    Wagner wrote his first opera in 1833; Puccini, the giant of
    Italian opera, wrote his last opera in 1924.  Making social points
    without taking that into account is like using the original 1939
    _Gone_with_the_Wind_ to prove a point about the role of blacks in
    America in 1990.  Verdi's operas take on a whole new tone when you
    learn that many of them couldn't be performed in Italy because
    they were considered incendiary.  
    
    Second, none of the composers cited in .111 are Italian and only
    Myerbeer wrote in the Italian style.  Wagner is German and wrote
    in the German style, Offenbach is German but wrote in French and
    invented opera bouffe (comic opera), Massenet is French and
    unfortunately I'm not familiar with his work, and Meyerbeer is a
    German who wrote in Italian and French and is seldom performed
    today.
    
    The big names in Italian opera are Bellini, Rossini, Puccini, and
    Verdi.  A lot of the best stuff was written by less well-known
    composers such as Leoncavallo and Mascagni.  
    
    Third, opera varies in quality as much as films -- there are
    magnificent operas that offer deep insight into the human
    experience, there are mediocre operas designed simply to entertain
    (_The_Student_Prince_ and _The_Merry_Widow_ come to mind) and
    there are plain bad operas (I won't stir up trouble by saying I
    think Wagner comes in this category . . .).  And the composers of
    opera vary as much as composers of any other music or authors of
    any other tales.  So any blanket statements about either the
    quality or the content of opera just don't work. 
    
    For less conventional operas of high quality, check out Mascagni's
    _Cavaleria_Rusticana_, a short opera in which a cheating husband's
    wife and mother form an alliance against him and force him to
    acknowledge his guilt by not fighting back in a duel; 
    _La_Rondine_, in which, instead of dying for her sins, the
    Traviata-style heroine leaves her young lover who wants to marry
    her and goes back to her sugar daddy;  Verdi's _Tosca_, in which
    the titular heroine refuses to trade her body for freedom after
    she gets caught trying to overthrow the government; Puccini'a
    _Turandot_, in which the princess wins a prince by strength of her
    will and intelligence; and the much older _Don_Giovanni_ (Mozart),
    in which Don G's wronged women gather to bring him to justice. 
    I'm not saying that any particular listener will necessarily enjoy
    any of these, let alone agree with my evaluation, but they're not
    like Mimi dying in the attic.  The women are well-drawn
    individuals behaving out of their own motives and needs, not
    puppets of romance or tragedy.
    
    --bonnie

    
    Thanks, Bonnie.  I'd noticed the discrepancies there, too, but my
    knowledge of opera is not extensive enough to cover the topic as well
    as you just did.
    
    Puccini's _Turandot_ is my all-time favorite; I *weep* during
    _Turandot_ (how cliche :-)  Did anyone happen to tape the Met's
    performance of _Turandot_ that was shown on public TV about 4 years
    ago?  I'd go to great lengths to get a copy of such a tape.  (- Begging,
    sending money and chocolate, signing up for Mike's MACHO campaign - are
    not out of the question - I *really* want a copy ;-)
    
    						/Rita
    

    Gee, I cry, too.  It is THE single most powerful piece of music I
    have ever heard.  But then I cry at the end of _La_Boheme_ even if
    it is a trite silly love-and-death romance. . . 
    
    I don't have the PBS version of _Turandot_, but I have it on CD
    with  Sutherland, Pavarotti, Caballe, and Ghiaurov in the leading
    roles, Zubin Mehta with the London Philharmonic.
    
    --bonnie	

    
    re:.112
    there are quite a number of people who would argue against puccini
    being the 'giant' of italian opera, though i'm not one of them.
    i've conducted or played in dozens (even sung in a couple) of 
    operas, and might even confess to liking 'la boheme' in a pinch. 
    but in general, i find the music lacking in substance and the plots 
    particularly unctuous. but the question raised before still intriques 
    me: does the beauty of a work of art transcend any social attitudes 
    it contains that are now considered reprehensible. for myself, i can
    think of very few works, if any, that i can wholeheartedly enjoy if
    i feel they are recidivist.
    

    
    p.s. i'm quite aware of the nationalities of the composers i
    mentioned in .111. i was offering them as examples of styles
    *different* from the italian/b-movie style (into which i would
    gleefully put mascagni, rossini, verdi, leoncavallo, boito
    and just about any other italian composer *except* puccini).
    

    re: .116

    Ah.  I guess I misinterpreted your statement.  I reread it several
    times and still thought you meant those were examples of
    "b-grade."  Thank you for clarifying it. 

    When I referred to Puccini as the giant of Italian opera, I was
    referring more to his impact -- longevity, productivity, and
    popularity -- than necessarily to the quality of his work.  My
    personal favorite is Bellini -- I adore bel canto.

>    but in general, i find the music lacking in substance and the plots 
>    particularly unctuous. 
    
    In general this is true of most novels, popular songs, cantatas,
    and symphonies.  Only a relatively small portion of any of it --
    indeed, only a relatively small portion of most artists' work --
    generally have real substance.  I've always felt it was quite
    unfair to dismiss an entire genre of anything simply because most
    of it, or the most noticeable or most popular instances, were
    mediocre. 
    
>does the beauty of a work of art transcend any social attitudes 
>    it contains that are now considered reprehensible. for myself, i can
>    think of very few works, if any, that i can wholeheartedly enjoy if
>    i feel they are recidivist.

    This is a question that bothers me quite a lot as an author.  I
    know that what I write reflects my own values and beliefs, and
    those values and beliefs reflect the culture I grew up in.  By the
    very nature of humanity, those values and beliefs almost certainly
    include stupidities, inconsistencies, cruelties, and blind spots
    that will appall a later generation.  Does this mean I shouldn't
    write honestly about what happens in our society?  Because our
    society is talking about the value of women, does that men an
    operatic or other work that accurately depicts a society in which
    women were not valued is no longer valuable?  
    
    The answer may be yes.  Works of art, whether literary or musical,
    become popular and live on because they say something to the
    people who are reading or listening.  It may or may not be the
    same thing that the original audience saw, but if it doesn't
    connect with the audience at some emotional or intellectual level,
    it will fall away, perhaps to be rediscovered by a later
    generation for whom it does have a meaning.
    
    It seems to me that condemning a work of art for not reflecting
    *all* of our values, and for containing things that we object to,
    attempts to constrain artists to only what's approved rather than
    to telling their version of the truth.  It cuts off the valuable
    things that the work has to offer. 
    
    For instance, I always thought _La_Boheme_ was pretty sappy, but 
    when I saw Sarah Caldwell's interpretation last year, I realized
    for the first time that there's also a major plot line of "friends
    fight with each other and sacrifice for each other and stick
    together through thick and thin, through love affairs and even
    death."  The real tearjerker wasn't that Mimi was dying, it was
    that Colline was sacrificing his coat for her and that they were
    all standing together, helping each other even though they were
    each grieving as individuals. 
    
    Similarly, Kat was very surprised when I pointed out the racism in
    _Huckleberry_Finn_ -- or rather, surprised that it mattered.  She
    had just skipped over it for the sake of a story about how
    friendship and society are often at odds.  A nonsexual variation
    on Romeo and Juliet, almost.  
    
    Every artist is going to say things that offend someone.  They're
    going to be too profane or too conventional, too violent or too
    unrealistic, too gentle or too rough, too sexist or too feminist,
    too religious or too irreligious, or something.  Just because we
    disagree with the artist on one front doesn't mean she has nothing
    of value to teach us in other areas, and it's not fair to dismiss
    all the great works of the past simply because the authors didn't
    anticipate our highly progressive views :)
    
    --bonnie

    Sigh, I *like* Verdi, but then, I like B-movies too. :*)

    I agree that we have to be careful about censorship. It's very easy to
    condenm a work becasue of the time and society it was written in and
    for. We also have to remember that many (perhaps most) artists in the past
    few hundred years had to please an even stricter audience than the NEA.
    If their personal patron didn't like it, they didn't get paid or lost
    the patronage entirely.

    As a brass player I can appreciate Wagner as having some great
    signature themes in his operas. Horn players love Siegfried's call. As
    a viewer I find his operas tedious. My knowledge that Wagner was an
    anti-semmite colors my view of his work. I suppose someone who really
    liked his music would say it didn't matter.

    Totally irrelevant but this topic brought it to mind.
    The way I was taught to remember certain theme's was to put words to
    them. My favorite is for Barber of Seville. Put these words to the tune
    "my name is Rossini and I write this stuff to make a lot of money".
    I suppose this attitude is why musicians always have to take the
    servants entrance. :*) liesl

    
    rat-hole
    
    i never said 'b-grade' i said 'b-movie'; a genre. most vampire
    movies (which i happen to enjoy) are 'b-movies'. popular, low-brow,
    often low budget. theoretically, it has nothing to do with how good 
    they are as art, though in practice most are emphemeral.

    as for puccini's 'impact' you might have trouble defending that
    position as well. while a large proportion of his works have stayed
    in the 'standard repertoire', he did not write that many operas
    (not unlike ravel, another wildly popular, not particularly
    prolific composer living at the same time) and it is difficult to
    find any lasting influence on other composers, even opera composers,
    with the possible exception of gian-carlo menotti. i, personally,
    agree as to his greatness as an composer, however.
    
    as to the relative quality of art and an artist's oeuvre, i would
    argue that, in fact, in the realm of opera we tolerate a far lower
    quality of work than we tolerate in other forms. people don't read
    the works of alexandre dumas much anymore, for example. but rossini's
    'l'italiana in algieri' is performed easily 100 times a month and
    no one is going to convince me it has any artistic merit after the 
    first 5 minutes.    
    
    i guess i have no problem dismissing a genre if the majority of it
    doesn't appeal to me. i have no problem thinking of the works that
    i do like as exceptions.
    
    
    on the topic:
    
    i would agree that *any* work of art speaks to us *now*. it may be
    useful or interesting to understand the creator's intentions or
    societal milieu or whatever. but ultimately a work affects us in
    the context of what we believe and feel *now*. which is interesting.
    if we listen to a beethoven symphony and it moves us, we may or may
    not be being moved by the same thing that moved his listeners in 1803.
    beethoven may have *meant* something different, his listeners may
    have *felt* something different.
        
    so i am reacting purely to what i perceive in the art now. as it
    happens, i don't like verdi for many reasons. its 'political 
    incorrectness' is merely one of them. obviously, most people who
    enjoy opera enjoy verdi, no doubt for their own reasons and either
    are not offended by the politics or appreciate it inspite of them.
    i certainly don't intend to condemn either verdi or opera-goers.
    merely personal taste.
    
    but the dynamic is real. that is, first of all, there is politics in
    art and second of all it is both reasonable and unavoidable for us
    to take it into consideration in our aesthetic evaluations.
    
    to use your two examples, 'la boheme' came to life for me when i
    realised that the 'artists' (male) were, in fact, 'slumming' by
    being bohemians, whereas mimi (and to a lesser extent musetta)
    were *really* poor. class implications on top of a sweet love
    story? you betcha. similarly, i am of the school that believes that
    in 'huckleberry finn' twain is consciously using different flavors
    of racism to raise important social questions.
    
    (from the 'do you know? department': colline's 'coat aria' is basically
    the same music as mimi's death scene music and is also the same as
    her opening music- except in the beginning of the opera it's in major
    mode)
    
    'it's not fair to dismiss all the great works of the past simply 
    because the authors didn't anticipate our highly progressive views'
    
    sure. *if* they really do have something of value to say to us *now*
    we each of us make that kind of evaluation all the time.
    

    WHO doesn't read dumas anymore?!!
    
    DougO

    
    i believe most people would be hard pressed to name more than 3
    dumas novels (he wrote dozens) let alone to have read more than 1.
    
    

    re: .121
    
    Well, I'm thoroughly lowbrow and never considered myself anything
    else, so that explains at least part of our disagreement.  I don't
    happen to think that great art of any genre needs to be
    unemotional.
    
    Do you mean Dumas pere or Dumas fils?

    Dumas pere wrote The Count of Monte Cristo, The Three Musketeers,
    Twenty Years After, and The Black Tulip, all of which I've read. 
    All right, I admit I had to go to the bookshelf to remember two
    of the titles, and I couldn't summarize the plots, but I did read
    them and enjoy them.  They're historical novels with a strong
    emphasis on story and no characterization to speak of.  Would I
    read them again?  You bet. 

    Dumas fils wrote La Dame aux Camellias (basis for _La_Traviata_)
    and Un Pere Prodigue, which could be interpreted as either a
    canonization or a hatchet job on his father.  He's tenditious,
    moralistic, bombastic, and boring.  However, he did write about
    contemporary issues with serious intent, and isn't usually
    considered low-brow.  Would I read his stuff again?  Not on your
    life.  I wouldn't have finished it the first time if my French
    grade hadn't depended on it. 

    I always thought b-movie was a cinema-specific synonym for
    b-grade.  It's usually used by people who are advocating the
    virtues of Fellini or other "serious" moviemakers, who can put me
    to sleep in ten minutes flat.  I think that entertainment, a good
    and moving story, has value in and of itself, even if it doesn't
    have profound characters or deep insights into human nature.  

    It sounds like we agree on the necessity of each of us judging the
    relevance of artistic work for ourselves and our time and place,
    and that political correctness, for want of a better term, isn't
    the only criterion, or even necessarily a major one.  As I said in
    my first note, I hardly even qualify as a novice at opera, so I'm
    not going to try to convince you to like Verdi -- as far as I can
    tell, being in political hot water is the only virtue he has -- or
    argue with your musical judgement.  I can only speak to the
    emotional and intellectual high some of the operas I do know have
    given me.
    
    --bonnie

    About "B-movies"...
    
    It's one of those great conflicts between original usage and modern
    popular usage. Back in the 30's and 40's, a trip to the movies
    would involve seeing newsreels, perhaps a serial chapter or short
    feature (like a Three Stooges short), a first feature and a main
    feature.
    
    The main features were referred to as "A-movies", the first features
    as "B-movies". The distinctions were economic and not inherently
    quality. The A-movies were the ones with major budgets, major
    directors, and major stars. The B-movies had low budgets, and were
    generally used as "training wheels" for relatively inexperienced
    actors and directors. Many times the lead roles in the B's were
    played by those people who generally only had supporting roles in
    the A's. Because almost all actors were part of the "studio system"
    (i.e. they had exclusive contracts with a single studio, and were
    often on retainer), even some of those who were A-movie stars found
    themselves cast in B-movies simply to keep them busy in between
    the A-movies.
    
    In general, the A-movies were the major dramas, while the B-movies
    were genre films, most notably westerns and thrillers. Historically,
    many of those 30's and 40's films that are considered classics
    started life as B-movies, while some A-movies have virtually vanished
    into oblivion.
    
    We return now to our topic, in progress.
    
    --- jerry

��
    
    re: dumas (pere)
    
    my point exactly. i think rossini and dumas might be of similar
    artistic merit. but we hear about 50% of rossini's output on a
    regular basic and about 1% of dumas's work. i was suggesting that
    alot of crap that we wouldn't put up with in other forms gets away
    scot-free in opera. it is somewhat whimsical point that i really
    wouldn't want to have to defend too far.
    
    re: great art being unemotional
    
    who said anything about great art being unemotional? great art *must*
    be emotional. it seems to me that great art is rarely *only* emotional,
    but i'd be willing to admit all kinds of exceptions to that thesis
    also.
    
    re: high-brow/low-brow
    
    i guess i've in effect suggested that alot of opera is 'low-brow'. 
    if by that we mean appealing to a not-particularly sophisticated
    audience and usually having wide popularity, i firmly believe that
    in it's 19th century manifestation opera was largely 'low-brow'
    (the same could be said of some beethoven or tschaikowsky symphonies
    or even a novel by dickens).
    
    that is not meant to imply anything about its quality, per se. it seems 
    obvious to me that a significant percentage of 'low-brow' art has 
    turned out to be of outstanding quality. it does mean to imply,
    however, a general lack of political or philosophical sophistication
    that might (or might not) seriously affect one's aesthetic
    appreciation.
    

    re: .124
    
    I agree with your definition of low-brow, which is why I labelled
    myself with it.  
    
    I don't have a lot of political sophistication or musical
    sophistication.  I know what I like and I know what I don't like,
    and what I like tends to be labeled "sentimental" (which would
    have been a better choice than "emotional") as if there was
    something wrong with feeling bad about someone's love affair
    ending, even if it was doomed from the start by being unreal and
    written by Rossini.  
    
    Many such stories work for me when they don't work for other
    people.  More sophisticated people do tend to think that works
    that deal only with the emotional side of life are more shallow
    and less worthwhile than more intellectual dramas.
    
    --bonnie

Note 39.52                        Quotable Men                          52 of 53
PROXY::SCHMIDT "Thinking globally, acting locally!"  18 lines  17-OCT-1990 09:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> That is truly obscenity, IMHO

>  Yeah let's run right out and arrest somebody and throw them in
>  the slammer.  And burn their records, tapes, CDs, and (doubtless)
>  videos.  Then we'll all feel better.  Or maybe we can shoot
>  them.  Or just send them back where they came from.

    Excuse me, Atlant, but *where* did anyone suggest arresting someone,
    burning their records, or any form of censorship.
    
    I am anti-censorship.  I also believe the lyrics Nancy posted were
    obscene, filthy and disgusting.
    
    Don't make wild leaps of logic in the conversation, please.
    
    D!

    
    .126 - well said.
    
    I suppose it's too much to expect lyricists, and the media in general,
    to refrain from encouraging violence against women unless it's made
    illegal ...
    
    D.

  A wild leap?

  Pshaw!

  Ask the art museum in Cincinnatti if I made a wild leap.  Ask
  the person who sold the "2 Live Crew" albums down in Florida.
  Or ask the "Crew" themselves.  Ask J.D. Salinger.  Or Kurt
  Vonnegut.  Or Dr. Suess, for heavens sake!

  A noter called the material under discussion "Obscene".  It
  logically and legally follows in many parts of this fine country
  that the next steps are *EXACTLY* as I outlined.

                                   Atlant

    re:.128
    
    Sorry, but you *are* making a leap. Calling something obscene is
    *not* the same thing as working to ban it, or even *suggesting*
    that it be banned.
    
    The Cincinnati and Florida (and other similar incidents) are
    irrelevant. You were essentially accusing Phil of wanting to censor
    that particular song merely because he called its lyrics obscene.
    
    There are any number of books, movies, songs, paintings, whatever
    that I consider to be obscene. That doesn't mean that *I* want them
    banned simply because of my own *personal* opinion.
    
    --- jerry