Andrew's poll.

[aurs01!aurxc3!whitcomb@mcnc.org (Jonathan Whitcomb)]

>aruss@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Andrew Russ) offers the following questions:

>Do you think recordings should be labeled with warning stickers based
>on the lyric content of individual songs?  Why?

No.  The US government has used two "ratings" systems that immediately
come to mind (motion pictures and pornography), and both are ineffective.
Now movie houses throw in gratuitous sex and violence so their 
movies will get an "R" rating so they will sell better.  Name a
horny 13 year old who doesn't have a stack of porn mags under his/her 
bed.  Why would anyone expect stickers on album covers to be more 
effective?

>If a record company chooses not to label its recordings, do you think
>an independent agency (government, private, or perhaps a particular
>store) should do so?  Why?

If a store chooses to label its own products, nobody can stop them, but
if such stores are offended by sex, drugs and rock'n'roll, why are
they selling pop music to begin with?  Any private group that wishes to 
is free to audition new recordings and distibute their findings amoung 
anyone who wants to hear/read it.  Getting the government involved
would mostly result in delaying the release of every new album by
12 to 18 months.  Besides, I thought we elected officials for their
ability to make laws.  Heaven help us if we also had to elect them
based on their tastes in music.

>What sort of content would merit a sticker?

If the record has some really good or really bad songs it should
be stickered, because, after all, I am the ultimate authority of
good taste.

>Do you think that such labels, if applied, should be printed on the CD booklet
>or cassette insert as a permanent part of the package so that the warnings
>can still be seen on used recordings or do you think that the label should be a
>sticker that will not mar the album art.  

It should also be tattooed to the songwriter's forehead, and a scarlet letter
sewed to all his clothing.

>Do you think album art (eg the new U2 cover) should be stickered in addition
>to song content?

If someone is looking at an album cover, don't you think they can
figure out for themselves if they find it offensive?  "Hey, nice picture...
oops, this sticker says it's dirty..."

>If you think labelling should be done in certain circumstances, how 
>should the labels be worded?  

"The following individuals and organizations find the contents of this record 
to be naughty: <list of names>."  That way I can see if the groups and
people who I pay and/or vote for to form my opinions for me approve or not.

>Do you think that stores should be provided with lyric sheets that people 
>could read to determine what the lyric content of a recording is?  In addition
>to or instead of labelling?

Ideally, I like this solution, but it wouldn't work. Americans have neither 
the patience nor attention span to read anything longer than the menu at 
McDonalds, so why would they read the lyrics of an album they were going 
to buy?  Besides, who could figure out the lyrics to any of the early REM 
albums?

>Do you think certain kind of music should be labeled and others not?  Which
>should be and which not and why or why not?

Music that is more than 20 years old should not be labeled, because most
people have forgotten why it was controversial when it was released.  Music
I like should not be labeled.  Music I don't (and is less than 20 years old)
should.

>Do you think that a rap album like those made by 2 Live Crew or the Geto Boys
>should be labelled?

Yes.  After all, they're black.

>Do you think that heavy metal albums by groups such as W.A.S.P. or Napalm Death
>should be labelled?  (a song title:  "Animal:  Fuck Like a Beast")

I suppose so, but mostly because I don't like heavy metal.  It is fundimentally
evil, and makes people worship the devil or god or velvet Elvis posters.

>Do you think that punk bands such as The Sex Pistols or th Dead Kennedys should
>have their albums labelled?  (titles:  "Bodies", "Too Drunk To Fuck")

I once saw Abbie Hoffman speak.  He brought a bumper sticker that said
"FUCK COMMUNISM" along with him to a school board meeting about what
books should be cut from the school curriculum.  A great debate broke
out because half of the people objected to the "F" word, while the
rest said that while they didn't like the "F" word in general, it was
okey when used in conjunction with the "C" word.

>Do you think that industrial albums by bands such as Whitehouse or Throbbing
>Gristle should be labelled?  (titles:  "Hamburger Lady", "Slug Bait")

Yes.  The labels should say "This is tough music to dance to."

>Do you think that Country music albums should be labelled (song title: "The
>Rodeo Song")

Sure.  "Deplorable grammar used on this album."

>Do you think that classical opera albums should be labelled in all cases or
>only where the libretto is in English, or not at all?

"Shrieking foreigners:  don't even try to sleep when this is on."

>Do you think that alternative of dance music should be labelled?  (title:
>"Let's Go To Bed")

Only when the alternative dance steps have been determined to cause
bodily injury.

>Do you think that Kate Bush albums should be labelled (titles:  "The Infant
>Kiss", "Waking the Witch")?

They should be labeled with my personal ratings as to which ones I like.

>Just wondering what people think, if and when they do,
>					andrew

A note for the sarcasm impaired:  aw, forget it.

Anyone who doesn't think that labelling music for "objectionable" contents
is censorship doesn't understand what censorship means.  

The real argument is whether or not you're in favor of censorship.

-Jonathan Whitcomb