Conference marvin::uk_music

    It's been demonstrated that subliminal visual material works,
    so perhaps the resident applied psychologist at CBS advised the
    company to try aural subliminal cuts to try and sell some of the
    more dreadfully unsaleable material on their books.
    
    They should hand over the tapes -- the space they take up at CBS
    could be put to better use.
    
    Richard.

    This is very good for pop! Your granny likes Rick Astley, and that
    can't be a good thing. We need banned groups so that pop can wear
    the correct rebellious attitude and thus retain its attraction.
    
    On the other hand, the whole affair is too stupid for words.
    
    Rod

    re .2:
    
    You're right about rebellion. When you've done just about everything
    else to get yourself banned, I suppose you have to do things that
    people can't actually hear, then start rumours about them.
    
          
    Richard.

    re .1
    Let's not turn this into a "My music is better than yours" arguement.
    Comments about, "The space could be put to better use" are not
    necessary in this forum and are not appreciated.
    
    Now back to the subject.  I find it extremely worrysome that people
    can have that much control over what we hear.  I don't want the
    rest of the world to become as opressed and censored as the Soviet
    Union.  
    
    As far as suicide goes, it has been PROVEN in study after study
    that something as simple as a song CAN NOT drive someone instantly
    to suicide.  It goes much deeper than that.  If anyone, the parents
    are to blame!  They should not have been so blind as to miss all
    of the other signs that a suicidal person shows.  I believe that
    it is very much human nature and a factor of guilt that makes people
    (the parents) blame others for their mistakes.
    
    This kind of behavior by the Parents and the Courts is wrong!  Our
    basic freedoms are in jeopardy because of people like this.  
    
    Steve O

    It seems as though some paranoid parents are putting the "squeeze"
    on Judge Whitehead ;^)
    
    joe.

>    Comments about, "The space could be put to better use" are not
>    necessary in this forum and are not appreciated.
    
Well I for one appreciated them. It was a joke, wasn't it? I don't think you 
should take offence at the sort of good-natured joshing that goes on in Notes, 
surely you don't expect every humourous line to be signalled with smiley 
symbols.

>    This kind of behavior by the Parents and the Courts is wrong!  Our
>    basic freedoms are in jeopardy because of people like this.  

Your freedoms maybe, not ours. No British court would countenance such rubbish. 

Nigel

    
    	Lucky his name isn't Blackhead Eh! Joe
    
    	C'est moi

 
    Re .6
    
>     ........No British court would countenance such rubbish. 
              
    I wouldn't put too much money on that .
                                          
    There are one or two dodderers that preside in *our* courts , with
    one stick short of a bundle .
    
    John J 

>>    < Note 241.7 by RTOEU::ARAWSON "Buster Gonad ... A.H.I.L.T" >
  
    Sorry to rathole, but FYI it should be A.H.U.L.T  ;^)
    
    Tony Keep
          Music
           Live

RE . 6 >      No British court would countenance such rubbish. 

    Hush your mouth :-) ... America is supposed to be the bastion of freedom
    of speech and the like. If it can happen there, then it can happen
    anywhere. 
    
    I really hope that some "higher up" authority gets to grips with this
    problem.
    
    Just imagine, all records that do not conform to some PTA (Parents
    teachers association) thoughts on "good nice music for the kiddies" get
    banned. This judge needs to re-read a certain constitution that
    he's supposed to uphold.
    
					Gru�
    						Mark

    thank you Mark,
    
    No British Court,Well let me tell you Nigel,
    
    if it is happening here I can saddly say you
    
    will probebly hear more about it if someone
    
    does'nt put a stop to it A.S.A.P.
    
    I mean one half "no" 80% of all movies here have a good percent
    
    of violence that could give someone a wrong idea about "real Life"
    
    But you dont see Law brining down Paramount Studios.
    
       Well I dont know,,Just an opinion from a voice far away.
    
                                 Jim..Tama
    
    

	The reason that I said that no British court would countenance such 
rubbish is because viewed from this side of the Atlantic the US is a 
ludicrously litigous society. Because of the enormous percentage of damages
that are claimed by lawyers (contingency fees) then there are enormous numbers
of court cases that are pursued that have no hope of success merely on the off 
chance that some jury will be eccentric enough to make some lawyer rich.

	Aside from this the principles of the legal system are rather different 
in that under British law you have to prove that someone was negligent or in 
some way deliberately caused you damage in order to win a case. As I understand 
it under US law you merely have to prove that someone was responsible for 
causing you damage even if it was accidental or even if you contributed to it.

	British lawyers may not charge contingency fees so I find it very 
unlikely that any such case would come before a British court. It seems to me 
extremely implausible that even if it came to court that it could be proved. 
There are after all historical precedents, Sylvia Plaths poetry can be seen as 
encouraging suicide, I don't recall any court actions against her publishers by 
bereaved relatives.

Nigel

	just out of interest,

		have 'Joy Division' been banned in the U.S. yet ?


						Graham_the_cynical_hippy

    re .13
    
    Not that I know of.  Why?
    
    Did you once kill yourself while listining.  8^)
    
    Steve O

	I've just been re-reading what I wrote in .12 and realised that I may 
have created the impression that I was recommending or endorsing the British 
legal system and in particular drawing a favourable comparison with it vis a
vis the US system. 

	This was not my intention and I apologise for any inconvenience that 
may have been caused.

	It has been suggested by a medical researcher that lawyers should be 
substituted for laboratory animals in vivisection experiments. This would have 
the twin advantage that they multiply during a crisis and one wouldn't grow 
fond of the little buggers.

Nigel

    No Offence taken Nigel,
    
    I does seem to me that lately music has been a big issue for Publicity,
    
    If these people are so concerned about this so called "Listen and
    
    Drop Like Flys" Music,  Watch, It will be like going to the movies,
    
    Rated "G"  "PG"  "R"  "X"  "XXX" <----- on this XXX Special life
    
    Insurance before Buying this,
    
                                      Jim_who_was_"Born_IN_THE_USA"

    Did anyone understand .-1?

    
    	re .-1
    
        	Yep, what's your problem???

    	Doug (Spurtle)

    re .17
    
    I'm not sure what you mean ?
    

Re .16 - my translation

    I does seem to me that lately music has been a big issue for Publicity,

	> In some quarters recently a lot of people have been making a lot
          of fuss with regards to the music industry.
    
    If these people are so concerned about this so called "Listen and
    Drop Like Flys" Music,  Watch, It will be like going to the movies,
    Rated "G"  "PG"  "R"  "X"  "XXX" <----- on this XXX Special life
    Insurance before Buying this,

	> Because these people are getting so concerned with the possible
          bad side effects of certain types of music e.g. heavy metal and
          the possibility thereof of subliminal suggestions being therein
          contained it might not be too long before music has ratings as do
          films at the cinema. G for the likes of the majority of pap that
          makes up the top 20 ranging thru to XXX for something on a par
          with Ozzy Osborne. Jim also suggests that possibly special insurance
          might have to be taken out before you are allowed to listen to the
          XXX brand of music.

:-)

Rich

    Thank you Rich,
    
    
    I deeply appoligize for not making my statement clearer, and If
    I caused any cross eyed confusion, Charge the Glasses to me.
    
                                       Ok.  Jim
    one_who_now_will_make_clear_what_I_shall_speak!
    
                                           thanx again Rich
                                  ya bailed me out
    
    
    
                                       
               

    Wasn't/isn't there a movement in the US which would like to censor
    the lyrical content of records? And wasnt it endorsed by a disturbingly
    large amount of musicians?  I dont remember too much about it, just
    that Frank Zappa made a stand against it.
    Sometimes it seems to me that theres not that much difference between
    the west and the east - there, freedom of speech is restricted,
    as is the media; here, freedom of speech acts as a kind of safety
    valve - you can say what you want (but for how much longer + anything
    too far from what is regarded as the norm is instantly
    dismissed/derided/ridiculed) but perish the thought of any change
    in the established order. Also, the media can be used by those in
    power to manipulate public opinion, for instance by the legal powers
    that be to gain support for these crazy censorship movements, or
    to cause outrage about subliminal suggestion; or by the music business
    who will go to any lengths (like supporting crazy censorship movements,
    or causing outrage about subliminal suggestion 8^)) to shift units,
    as they term it.
    Re an earlier note - I thought the technique of subliminal visual
    suggestion in terms of tv advertising had been shown *not* to work
    conclusively, and that such practises had been stopped.......
    unless of course it *does* work and is still going on even though
    *they* tell us that it isnt there. Oh wowwww!!!   8^)
    
    Paranoidly yours  
    Bob Green      (the cynic in the corner)
                                                         
    p.s. never mind Buster Gonad A.H.U.L.T.........
    where's Paul Whicker the Tall Vicar?

    
    	Subliminal suggestion was tried out by several superstore chains.
    Their background music was overdubbed with "do not steal" types
    of messages and they found a marked decrease in the icidence of
    shoplifting. I have no Idea if this is still being tested used or
    what but I remember reading an article about it about a year ago
    in one of the sunday supplements that showed all kinds of strange
    images included in advertising posters (like genitals in a margerine
    advert and ghostly images in a well known soft drink's posters.)

    Anyone else know any more on this???

    Gav.

    Way back when, Right before an intermission or a non important part
    of a Movie, they would show just one frame of and advertisement
    for "COKE a Cola" or something like that.  Supposidly, It worked
    enough to make a difference.
    
    As for Music ratings, I don't know of any artists that supported
    it, just some who were dead against it.  These included Frank Zappa
    and John Denver, (yes John Denver!)  John's comment was this,"Oh
    great, If you put ratings on the records, I'll have to add some
    dirty words and phrases just to get my records to sell"  Go John!
    
    Steve O

    
        And don't forget Dee Snider (Twisted Sister) in the list of
        'crusaders' for the cause.
    
                                                       Shawn L.
    

    The organization in question was (is?) the PMRC. Don't know what
    it stands for. Tipper Gore, wife of Senator Al Gore, headed it up.
    It was contained of mostly of wives of senators, I believe. I don't
    think they wanted to censor lyrics, just put ratings on them (similiar
    to moving ratings). Did Snyder really testify FOR this?
    
    Ken....
    

    PMRC = Parent's Music Resource Center
    
    They won a promise of voluntary Warning stickers on objectionable
    albums, although I have seen very few, if any.  I think it would
    attract more purchases than detract.  One of their more ridiculous
    issues was ratings for LPs, similar to what we have on movies. 
    These so-called ratings included V for violent songs, O for occult
    (devil worship), and the ever-popular X for "sexually explicit".
    They used to parade shock- and fear-mongering lyrics from pop songs.
    Some of the groups I remember they wanted to ban were Anthrax and
    especially Ozzie Osborne.  They got a lot of mileage from Prince.
    
    I like to think Tipper's excessive ravings led to Al's defeat in
    the presidential primaries, but chances are it did more good than
    harm for him, there being more Pat Boone voters than Frank Zappa
    ones.
    
    -Brian

    
        Prince's "Darling Nikki" started it all ...
    
        " ... met her in a hotel lobby masturbating with a magazine."
    
                                                       Shawn L.
    

    I thought it started with Tippers daughter having a copy of Wasp's
    F*ck like a beast.   I could be wrong....
    
    Steve O

    
    	Does it reall matter how it started..??  The whole point is that
    it's ridiculous.  The sub-messages on the tele or in the theatre
    were proved to be effective.  One way of finding them was to look
    at the film.  Every 10th (??) frame was cut out and an advertisment
    was put in.  How would they find the messages on the analog tape??
    And why would a band...whose livelyhood was it's fans want to kill
    them??  It's all ludicrous...if you ask me.  And I firmly believe
    that no one in their right mind would kill them selves after listining
    to an album for a certain period of time.  I think that the two
    that did had much bigger probs that the parents were either to stupid
    to see or choose to ignore it, and call it a teenaged phase.
    
    Bk
    

    re .30
    > whose livelyhood was it's fans ......
    
    That's the absolutely best point I've heard so far.  Brilliant work,
    BK!
     
    Steve O Who_Has_a_big_smile_on_his_face_because_he_thinks_the_whole
            controversy_is_funny_(especially_because_of_that_comment!)

    Don't knock dead punters -- they are the overwhelming majority of
    the record-buying public.
    
    Richard
    

    
    re.32
    
    >> Don't knock dead punters -- they are the overwhelming majority
    of the record-buying public.
    
    Huh??????????  What's this a joke??  Idontgetit.... it must be all
    the satanic music I listen to. 8^)
    
    BK
    

    
    re. 30
    
    >> the sub messages on the tele or in the theatre were proved to
    >> be effective.
    
    Is that right? I was under the impression that the technique had
    been tried for such products as soap powders in the late 50's
    but that results were inconclusive - I'm ready to be corrected here,
    though.
    
    If these sub-messages were proved to be effective, it would mean
    that they were still being used nowadays, especially as any means
    of advertising seems to be legitimate in todays total consumerist
    pigout 'economic miracle' (not my words). Perhaps they *are* still
    being used.....
           
    And if they are being used, perhaps Saatchi & Saatchi are using
    them to put across the government line on important issues - it's
    certainly one way of explaining this country's swing to the right
    in the last few years! (Paranoia increasing daily here!!)
    
    The point I'm trying to make, I suppose is that another strand of
    'banning' that has been with us for a while is the suppression
    of records with supposed politically sensitive/radical views. I
    can think of records such as Give Ireland Back To The Irish, by
    Paul McCartney as an example, also the video of the Stones "Under
    Cover of the Night", and good old God Save The Queen by the Sex
    Pistols.
    
    I find the banning of records for these kind of reasons far more
    worrying than banning them for containing the f word or supposed
    incitement to commit suicide (like the reasons given in .30, its
    laughable really, isn't it? What isn't so laughable is the minds
    of the people who can *find* these references, let alone find them
    *offensive*, or blame a *record* for a suicide) - and banning a
    record/film/book/idea/person from putting across its viewpoint
    is dangerous.
    
    An analogy could be drawn here to Victorian times, between the 
    sexual morals of the times, and the actual practises.......(or so
    I've been told! 8^) )
    
    Bob

    It is now illegal to use subliminal advertising in the States!
    
    Steve O

    
    re .34 & .35
    
    It is illegal to do the sub message but no one knows when it happens.
     At least the victim dosen't know...and what comission has time
    to screen anything...so there could be a definite possibility that
    sub-mess for advertising are still used....  That might explain
    some of my wierd obessions for BUDWEISER...8^) 
    
    BK
    

    .36
    
    Your obsession with Bud is nowt to do wi' submessages... it's just
    stonkin good beer 8^)
    
    Bob

    
    	re .37
>        Your obsession with Bud is nowt to do wi' submessages... it's just
>        stonkin good beer 8^)

	Yuk!!
    
    	See the DCC::BEER conference for some 'stonkin good beer' KP7 etc.
    
    	Doug.        

    It may be banned in the States, but practices that are illegal can
    often still be worth pursuing. 
    
    Sunday opening over in the UK is illegal, but Hardaware chainstores
    openly advertise Sunday opening, and pay the fines when necessary.
    
    Now if subliminal cuts really did give the competitive edge, then
    I bet it's worth the risk of getting caught.
    
    Richard.

    	
    	re .39
>    Sunday opening over in the UK is illegal, but Hardaware chainstores
>    openly advertise Sunday opening, and pay the fines when necessary.

	It's not illegal in Scotland 
    
    	Doug

 
    Huge Companies, like Coke, don't do these things anymore because
    it would be too much of an embarasment if they got caught.  They
    just don't think that it's worth is anymore.
    
    Steve O 

    >> Huge Companies, like Coke, don't do these things anymore...
    
    How do we know they don't - because they say so ?? Huge
    multinationals are well known for their honesty and corruption-
    free practises, aren't they 8^)
    
    In business, I suppose increased market share and sales are the
    bottom line (doncha just *hate* that phrase along with all the other
    bigbiz shorthand newspeak ??) - and they'll use any means they can
    get away with to achieve this end, including putting out "offensive" 
    records, knowing they will be banned, and thereby increase sales
    of said record
    
    It makes my brain hurt!
    
    I suppose the only way to avoid submessages, if there are any such
    mind invasions going on, is not to watch tv or go to the cinema...
    
    Bob