Rock Replies
Promoters of 'anything and everything goes' rock constantly
cite "freedom of artistic expression" and First Amendment protections as
justification for their promotion of sex, violence, drugs, nihilism, and more. And as it
currently stands, the Courts have been unwilling to protect societies moral welfare at the
expense of its "artistic" interests:
In this country the great bulk of offensive popular music
does not fall under the narrow purview of obscenity law as derived from the 1973 Supreme
Court decision, Miller v. California. There will always be experts willing to defend the
"serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" of material like
the rap group 2 Live Crew's "The F*. Shop." And there will always be performers
like Madonna who know how to dehumanize sex even before they take off their clothes. And,
as fundamentalists and feminists have learned the hard way, the First Amendment stands
solidly in the way of any attempt to expand the scope of the law.78
Part of the problem is the frequent, if reprehensible,
intimidation people often encounter from those who promote rock's excesses. No one wants
to be considered prudish, mentally unbalanced, anti-freedom or a Nazi sympathizer.
The authors of The New Book Of Rock Lists referred to "Tipper Gore and her
asshole buddies" because they attempted the mildest possible form of regulation,
voluntary album labeling of explicit lyrics.79 There's just no reasoning with
some people. This can usually be discerned among people who use such phrases as "F*
the police" and "F* society."80 Thus, virtually any response can
be offered to critics of rock, no matter how distorted, as long as the money keeps rolling
in:
...industry spokesman [are] all too willing to call their
critics Philistines as well as prudes. This strategy was employed by Danny Goldberg of the
American Civil Liberties Union and its offshoot, the Musical Majority, when he equated
[Tipper] Gore's proposal of a voluntary labeling system with the banning of Ulysses,
and warned of a new "McCarthyism" bound to have a "chilling effect" on
"artists."81
Perhaps the question is whether or not there needs to be
some kind of a chilling effect upon artists who have contributed to the damning of
society? Surely we can recognize the difference between banning literary masterpieces and
voluntarily choosing, as a society, to restrict cultural excesses that harm our children.
Since no society allows total freedom, all societies have the right to limit freedom as
they see fit. Our priorities are, characteristically of late, skewed. Thus, we spend
billions of dollars trying to place restrictions upon the tobacco industry to keep our
kids from smoking, yet as a matter of national will, we will not contribute positively to
their moral life, something infinitely more valuable and cost-effective. They get the
message. Indeed, we spend equal amounts in sex education programs informing them that
sexual freedom and experimentation is entirely their own business—oh, and, by the
way, here are the condoms to prove it. In a slight twist on this argument: "It is a
familiar irony that governments have been ferocious in their attack on the right to smoke
cigarettes, while totally permissive in their support for homosexual rights. If the issue
is one of health, then the consequences of sodomy are far more terrifying than those of
cigarettes. Money and passion were hurled into the work of finding a cure for AIDS. No
such attention was paid to lung cancer. How can we explain this remarkable contradiction?82
Again, as a people, do we really think it wise to endorse
"artistic expression" whose sole or major purpose is perversity? Having a baby's
dirty diapers hung in a major museum as a piece of "art," as was done years ago,
is one thing. The only consequence is great sympathy for the mental state of the artist,
museum director and viewing public. But perverting music is far more consequential:
Heavy metal,...regards itself as an abject failure if all
hell doesn't break loose. Since heavy metal lacks aesthetic sophistication in the
realms of music, language, visual art, and theater, its sole claim to artistic seriousness
lies in its perversity. "Some art is perverse; heavy metal is perverse; therefore,
heavy metal is art."...[unfortunately] the assault is mounted against a more
vulnerable target: angry, troubled adolescents.... As the record producer, Tom Werman put
its it to the Los Angeles Times, young people "need to be angry, they
need to have music they can clench their fists by, to pump themselves up by....they need
an outlet like hard rock..."83
So, not only do we accept perversity, we foist it on our
children and the unstable elements in society that are least able to resist the impact:
Werman implies that heavy metal works by allowing its
adherents to vent negative feelings that would otherwise cripple and distort their
personalities. In other words, heavy metal can be defended (as pornography sometimes is)
as an escape valve, an "outlet" that keeps already anti-social types from
engaging in even more anti-social behavior. This argument sinks beneath the weight of
examples such as Jeffrey Dahmer of Milwaukee, the serene young psychopath whose constant
indulgence in heavy metal did nothing to prevent his indulgence in murder, necrophilia,
and cannibalism...at the very least, it's worth pondering that such a person found heavy
metal a suitable accompaniment to his deeds....
Does heavy metal offer a release for anger that is already
there? Or does it whip up even more anger? And does whipping up more anger offer greater
release? And what happens afterward? Does the head banger go home after the concert with
his troubled emotions under control, ready to face the sometimes tedious demands of daily
life? I don't think so.... Heavy metal...[is geared to] arousing many of the troubling
passions and treacherous currents of contemporary life, with the sole aim of immunizing
the young against shared values -- that is, of preventing their socialization.84
If society has no interest in upholding moral values, even
if it means restricting certain artistic expression, even when it's understands something
as serious as the fact that "neo-Nazism was partly nurtured in the poisonous
atmosphere of punk," then how can society uphold any values at all?85
It seems to us of the burden of proof lies with those who
would repeal laws against violence and obscenity, not with those that would enforce them
for societies greater welfare.
Noted author William Burroughs (Junkie, Queer,
etc., known affectionately to rockers as "the Godfather Dope"86a) is arguably
one of the most decadent figures around -- a homosexual sadomasochist, drug addict and
probably worse. Even when, initially, most rock critics actually loathed heavy metal he
could only praise it as "magical and evocative."86 Eventually,
somehow, the critics came around to seeing things Burroughs way. So where do we get off?
Even Spin magazine, who lists Burroughs as a contributing editor, in a June 1991
article on "Grindcore" added the subtitle: "Heavy Metal Goes Too Far."
Again, the question is raised, Can we go too far with
"artistic freedom"? Who but the most extreme libertarian would deny it? If, as a
society, we say "no", that there are limits, then everything is permitted
and we have no right to complain about anything. If we say "yes," there
are limits, it is incumbent upon us to define those limits in the best interests of
societies welfare and the welfare of future generations. After all, if we don't decide now
where music can go with rock stars " bored with serial murder and cannibal feasting
on the private parts of little children,"86aa then perhaps we deserve what
we get. Unless art and culture are once again connected to the realm of the moral and
ethical, we are all the losers-- just as many of our children have already been lost. The
sad realization is that we should never have sacrificed them in the first place. As
painter, actor and avid rock 'n roll fan, Duncan Hannah once commented, over the perverse
impact of rock on a friend, "So I guess it's true. Rock & roll is a bad
influence, isn't it?"86b
The other sad realization is that a vicious cycle has
begun. A generation of rockers will breed another generation of rockers, only one with
more daring appetites. This can be illustrated in the lives of Iggy pop and Sid Vicious.
It was, after all, Sid Vicious' own mother, who lived up to her son's name, as she sat
serenely next to him, while blood flowed freely, encouraging his failed suicide attempt.
Later, she finally gave him the heroin that killed him. A mother-- who gives the greatest
gift of all, life, and who is to nurture life-- chooses instead to give death. (How
comforting for us all that we live in an age when mothers routinely do this with
abortion.) In part, Vicious was suffering from an inherited legacy: "On February 2
1980, in honor of the first anniversary of Sid's death, 1,000 punks marched from London's
Sloan Square in Chelsea[?] to Hyde Park. Ma Vicious and Beverly, was supposed to have
taken part in the proceedings--instead she was taken to a hospital due to a drug
overdose."86c But the legacy for good or ill continues from generation to generation.
Iggy Pop confided in 1981 "that his reputation as a philanderer was leaving deep
emotional and psychological scars." Yet, in 1993 he described his own son, Eric, with
the following words: "His pitchin's a little bit suspect, but all the girls want to
f* him and that's 80 percent of the deal taken care of right there."87 A generation
of rockers has begotten a generation of rappers, punkers and skin/metal heads. What they
beget remains to be seen. Perhaps the 1956 Encyclopedia Britannica description of
rock as "instant savagery" is a description that will become even more apropos.
Whatever happens in the short run, the verdict is certain
in the long run. How many punk, rap, metal, and grunge records were ever that important?
How many were socially or spiritually relevant? How many will be remembered with fondness
by a future generation? The author's of The New Book of Rock Lists tells us that,
even in all its perversity, rock has "a hopeful future."86d Perhaps. But then
again, perhaps rock as we know it, is approaching it's eve of destruction.
The conclusion, when all is said and done is this: music is
far too valuable to trash. Those who care about it should do something. Maybe we could
start with our kids. But then again, before too long, rock as we know it may be
approaching its own eve of destruction.
For more specific information see
our Resource Center or call 1-800-805-3030:
Books
Videos
FOOTNOTES
78. Bayles, p. 14.
79. Marsh and Bernard, p. 18.
80. Ibid.
81. Bayles, p. 59.
82. Kenneth Minogue, "Id Control" National
Review, November 10, 1997.
83. Bayles, p. 259.
84. Ibid., pp. 259-61.
85. Ibid., p. 357,cf., pp. 251-52, 63-64, 76-77, 326.
86. Ibid., p. 316.
87. Kent, p. 265.
86a. McNeil, McCain, p. 381
86b. Ibid., p. 432
86c. Des Barres, p. 274
86d. Marsh, Bernard, p. xix
|
