# Censorship, banning of non-classical musics



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I was listening during the week to some of Nina Simone's songs, eg. 'Mississippi Goddam', a protest during the 1960's against segregation of African American people. Its a very political song for the time, its basically a very angry protest against discrimination and oppression.

But recently I also heard news of a punk rock band being taken to court in Russia for storming a cathedral and doing a kind of protest with music. Details at REuters here:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/30/russia-pussyriot-trial-idINL6E8IU5RZ20120730

They are still in gaol and they can possibly get 7 years imprisonment (or worse) for their alleged crime. There are accusations of censorship here against President Putin (who this band are opponents of).

I don't know if Nina Simone was censored (maybe in America's south they would not play her music, that kind of thing was not unheard of then). But her lyrics, some of them, are disturbingly still relevant today. Has much changed, I wonder?

*But I'm interested in people giving examples of censorship of rock, jazz, metal, R&B, hip hop and so on (all non-classical).

& maybe also a discussion about what's the limits of these things? Are there any cases where banning or censorship can be justified? Who should decide? (eg. in the Russian case, a court is hearing the case)*

For reference/comparison, I did an earlier thread on classical music that was banned here:
http://www.talkclassical.com/17881-music-banned.html


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Censorship and banning of art is evil. It is unacceptable.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Censorship and banning of _anything_ is evil. :devil:


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

Censorship is bad mmkay...


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Mississippi Goddam is an awesome song everyone should listen to it regularly. Nina Simone actually wanted to be a classical pianist, but at the time it was difficult enough to be a female classical musician, a black classical musician was almost unthinkable, and it still is rare except for singers. Failing in her pioneering ambitions might just have made her one of the most individual voices of the century.

The ***** Riot case is more about Russia's return to authoritarianism, Putin's tightening autocracy and the renewed power of the orthodox church after its long suppression. The music is almost secondary and in fact the band are more of an art collective. Russia has quite a strong punk and metal scene I think but so long as they refrain from embarrassing Putin or causing distress to orthodox believers they are ok to be consumer entertainment.

It obviously has parallels with the Sex Pistols whose God Save the Queen was denied a No. 1 spot during the queen's jubilee year. But then **** Buttons, the name of one of the bands used in the 2012 olympics opening ceremony is still censored regularly.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

******* stars.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Yeah that reminds me quack (re the Olympics), when the Sydney Olympics where on, there was a bit of censorship (well, alleged censorship?).

An Aboriginal singer, Christine Anu, had a hit before the games with a song called 'My Island Home.' But at the closing ceremony of the Sydney games, she sang a version with the words 'Our Island Home.' Apparently to tone down any hint of Aboriginal land rights in the song (which I didn't get from it in the first place, she comes from an Aboriginal islander community, I always thought she was just singing about that, not the whole of Australia as being 'her' island home).

The other thing is that the band Midnight Oil, who were supporters of Aboriginal land rights (but they were white) sang at the closing ceremony too. The lead singer, Peter Garrett, was a left winger and wanted the then conservative Prime Minister John Howard to say 'sorry' to the Aborigines for what happened with them in terms of colonialism and segregation here, the 'stolen generations' etc. So he wore a shirt at the closing ceremony, which I think Howard attended, with the words 'sorry' on it.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/11/03/petergarrett_wideweb__470x282,0.jpg

Ironically, Mr. Garrett, no long a rocker, subsequently entered parliament on the side of Labor, so he criticised politicians but became one himself. Not surprising.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

That is your opinion some music need to be banned like music with hate & violence.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

mtmailey said:


> That is your opinion some music need to be banned like music with hate & violence.


Why, are negative feelings not state-approved?

_Direct incitement to violence_ goes beyond the territory of free speech, at least in the US; as a general rule of thumb, don't threaten or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. But music that deals with hate and violence, or even outright racist music, needs to be permitted. Certain liberties mean you have to take the bad with the good--you can't legislate based on what you find _icky_.

You can't ban music simply because "it has hate and violence", just like you can't ban music because "it doesn't have Christian values" or whatever.

I know some countries, like Germany, are a bit more strict than that when it comes to hate speech laws; for instance, they ban a lot of NS (National Socialist) bands' albums, as well as non-nazi bands who use fascist imagery. Good for them, I guess. All I have to say to them is have fun with your thought-police.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Depending on the country, by and large live in far more liberal times. Just think that in 1969 the BBC sabotaged the chances of the Kinks' Plastic Man reaching a higher chart position. The crime - because Ray Davies had the nerve to sing - gasp! - BUM (a slang word for backside if anyone doesn't get it)! The punishment - complete blacklisting by BBC-run TV and radio (which at the time was virtually a monopoly since the mean-spirited criminalisation of the pirate stations and ITV being the only non-BBC TV channel). The effect - the gradual decline of the Kinks as a regular chart-making band. Only four years later the BBC were letting Lou Reed's 'giving head' line from Walk on the Wild Side slip through the iron gauntlet of censorship - presumably because the doddering old farts who passed as the Taste Police didn't know what 'giving head' meant.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Anyway, censorship is kind of a red herring in the information age. Radio stations only play what pleases their sponsors, so it's all brainless consumerist garbage with no thought-provoking content. No censorship required--just a money thing.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

elgars ghost said:


> Depending on the country, by and large live in far more liberal times. Just think that in 1969 the BBC sabotaged the chances of the Kinks' Plastic Man reaching a higher chart position. The crime - because Ray Davies had the nerve to sing - gasp! - BUM (a slang word for backside if anyone doesn't get it)! The punishment - complete blacklisting by BBC-run TV and radio (which at the time was virtually a monopoly since the mean-spirited criminalisation of the pirate stations and ITV being the only non-BBC TV channel). The effect - the gradual decline of the Kinks as a regular chart-making band. ...


Yeah well similar to that is what's well known re 'Elvis the Pelvis,' how Elvis Presley was shot on camera waist up, so as not to show his hip gyrations which where seen in the 1950's as too sexually suggestive. But unlike what you say about the Kinks, Elvis career I don't think was affected by that.

Of course some bit of notoriety can do a performer good. Who remember's Madonna's 'In bed with Madonna' book in the 1990's. I was never a big fan of her music, so I don't remember if an album came out of that (but a film did, with her doing fellatio on a glass bottle). But as long as the movie had an R rating (which it did) and the book was sold in a plastic cover for over 18's, it was okay, it could be sold and consumed. & this was like 20 years ago.



regressivetransphobe said:


> Anyway, censorship is kind of a red herring in the information age. Radio stations only play what pleases their sponsors, so it's all brainless consumerist garbage with no thought-provoking content. No censorship required--just a money thing.


Well yeah there is that watering down aspect. Maybe also that there aren't many boundaries to push down anymore either. Even in the museum piece of Baroque opera, there have been productions with nudity on stage (I mean exposed genitals) and explicit sex scenes. So anything goes. But its like 'plastic' shock. Its not like Nina Simone's song I posted in my OP, nor is it like what Bob Dylan did early on. Its not a critique of anything anymore, its just cheap shock tactics and superficial wankery to gain attention. Then we move onto the next faddish shock tactic or whatever.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

In line with the idiocy of censorship in general and how it may change with the times, a good example is the Rolling Stones. When they first appeared on the hugely popular Ed Sullivan show in the mid-sixties, the lyric *''let's spend the night together"* was changed by our ever vigilant thought police to "*let's spend some time together". *However. if I remember correctly--and it was a million years ago, after all--the song was introduced as "_Let's Spend the Night Together". _Brilliant, eh?


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Why, are negative feelings not state-approved?
> 
> _Direct incitement to violence_ goes beyond the territory of free speech, at least in the US; as a general rule of thumb, don't threaten or yell "fire" in a crowded theater. But music that deals with hate and violence, or even outright racist music, needs to be permitted. Certain liberties mean you have to take the bad with the good--you can't legislate based on what you find _icky_.
> 
> ...


What i think is the music gives them bad ideas but if people like music like that they can have fun just leave me alone.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

samurai said:


> In line with the idiocy of censorship in general and how it may change with the times, a good example is the Rolling Stones. When they first appeared on the hugely popular Ed Sullivan show in the mid-sixties, the lyric *''let's spend the night together"* was changed by our ever vigilant thought police to "*let's spend some time together". *However. if I remember correctly--and it was a million years ago, after all--the song was introduced as "_Let's Spend the Night Together". _Brilliant, eh?


When the Stones played in China a few years ago they weren't allowed to sing the song (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction at all.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Most artists who write political lyrics, or lyrics that challenge the status quo and make you think never got any airplay in America. Not on commercial networks. Well maybe a little bit in the 60s, but the ruling class learned their lessons, and they won't let it happen again.

The networks make their money from advertising, so they're not going to play stuff like "Who Are The Brain Police?" or I'm The Slime by Zappa. I've never heard Nina Simone on mainstream radio. Things are mind numbing here at this point. You just hear Freebird, Stairway To Heaven, and More Than A Feeling 365 days a year.

Millions of "regular folks" listen to commercial country radio here in the states. They feed you tailor made corporate country music with all the familiar themes. Nationalism, love for beer, pick up trucks, and the pseudo patriotic war glory anthems by singers like Toby Keith. This is accompanied by syndicated right wing talk radio programs by Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. The brainwashing is very effective on tired, frightened uneducated working people who are getting poorer every year. Too tired to think? The scapegoat baiter's have all the answers for ya!

A great example of this, and a sad moment in recent history was the vicious Nazi style attacks on the popular county act the Dixie Chicks when they spoke out against the Iraq invasion. Country music stations around the nation banned their records, and Nazi style public record smashing and burning took place.


The famous Hermann Goering quote rings true in the land that defeated Fascism.


Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

You had the Beatles with "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" banned by the BBC as they thought it had drug references. Lennon denied it?
Then you have "God save the Queen" by the Sex Pistols banned by just about every radio station, in the UK at least, in the 70's.
Should they have been banned? who can really say. It would depend on which side of the politcal fence you were sitting on at the time.
It certainly didn't harm record sales, or the celebrity (infamy) of either of these pieces
Censorship is an interesting concept. Who says what should or shouldn't be allowed?
How do umake the decsion as to were to draw the line?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

cwarchc said:


> You had the Beatles with "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" banned by the BBC as they thought it had drug references. Lennon denied it?
> Then you have "God save the Queen" by the Sex Pistols banned by just about every radio station, in the UK at least, in the 70's.
> Should they have been banned? who can really say. It would depend on which side of the politcal fence you were sitting on at the time.
> It certainly didn't harm record sales, or the celebrity (infamy) of either of these pieces
> ...


Lucy in the Sky may not have been ABOUT drugs but it was surely a song that was written when ON drugs? Any banning of that song didn't particularly harm the Beatles but had it been released as a single things might have been different. Even then the censors were out of touch - other Beatles songs in 1966/67 had definite drug references but were veiled in innocuous or obscure/nonsense lyrics - and I'm inclined to think the censors only picked up on Lucy In the Sky With Diamonds because of the initials of the three key words in the title...

Censorship always cuts both ways - as I previously mentioned it cruelly cut the Kinks off at the knees when the BBC threw the book at them in a heavy-handed manner but if an act has a greater degree of notoriety to begin with (Stones, Pistols, Frankie Goes To Hollywood, certain rap artists etc) then adverse publicity and censorship can - and often will - actually make their stock rise. In the case of the Beatles it probably made little difference as they were so huge that massive record sales were automatically guaranteed and continued to be even when the lovable mop-top days were over and the drug busts and general weirdness started to kick in.


----------



## dionisio (Jul 30, 2012)

Is it bad to think that some music that gets aired nowadays on radio like Black eyed peas or Rhianna should be banned?

There's no political reason, it's just bad music or none at all.


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

Banning of almost anything is unproductive and futile. If its something that people want badly enough they'll buy it or listen too it secretly. Banning of the arts is especially hurtful to a society's culture. Often in history the richest culture was created when citizens were unhappy with their government. Satires, paintings of war, violence, and poverty as well as music portraying the grievances of the people have often become eternal pieces of art that will forever live with humanity.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Just necroing this thread, as news has come in of the punk rock group who where taken to court for their protest in a Russian Orthodox church against the Putin government.

Two of the band's members have been sent to two years imprisonment/hard labour. Sounds a bit similar to some unpleasant aspects of Russia's past in the Soviet era, I think.

This wikipedia entry makes that comparison too, ironically its banned due to p8ssy riot being the name of this band. So you have to search for it yourself!

There's also been the case of this youtube video going 'viral' and getting many hits of a Russian Orthodox priest kissing Mr. Putin's hand. This has become like a symbol of how some people see the relations between Church and State in Russia as too close for comfort. Mr. Putin is a practising member of the Orthodox faith. Looks to me he's using it a bit for political leverage, and Soviet leaders of the past did that kind of thing too (eg. Stalin, during the war, eased repression of the church to raise morale in the war effort).


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

> In the middle of the summer Moses the raven suddenly reappeared on the farm, after an absence of several years. He was quite unchanged, still did no work, and talked in the same strain as ever about Sugarcandy Mountain. He would perch on a stump, flap his black wings, and talk by the hour to anyone who would listen.


 -- _Animal Farm_

Putin is an autocratic Tsar. He has destroyed the multi-party system established under communism, the parties that are left merely look on while he maintains power, anyone who could challenge him is in jail or exile. So he strengthens the church to legitimise his rule, giving it lots of money to rebuild churches as tourist traps in moscow and voter traps in the provinces. His pet patriarch Kirill doesn't seem very subtle, drunk on the wealth and influence gained. He buys an expensive Swiss watch while 18 million Russians live in poverty then denies he every had it and does a worse photoshop job on it than 1930s soviet censors would have. http://rt.com/news/patriarch-watch-photo-scandal-326/ Also http://www.theglobaldispatches.com/articles/putins-patriarch

In other music news, the new islamist regime in northern Mali that took power during the Arab spring is doing what it can to ban music in a country that has one of the strongest musical traditions in Africa. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/23/mali-militants-declare-war-music


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Sid James said:


> Just necroing this thread, as news has come in of the punk rock group who where taken to court for their protest in a Russian Orthodox church against the Putin government.
> 
> Two of the band's members have been sent to two years imprisonment/hard labour. Sounds a bit similar to some unpleasant aspects of Russia's past in the Soviet era, I think.
> 
> ...


Looks like people complaining on twitter with some obligatory support from Lady Gaga & Madonna still doesn't make much of a difference in some countries.



> Millions of "regular folks" listen to commercial country radio here in the states. They feed you tailor made corporate country music with all the familiar themes. Nationalism, love for beer, pick up trucks, and the pseudo patriotic war glory anthems by singers like Toby Keith. This is accompanied by syndicated right wing talk radio programs by Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. The brainwashing is very effective on tired, frightened uneducated working people who are getting poorer every year. Too tired to think? The scapegoat baiter's have all the answers for ya!


Agreed with everything you say about country music, but which is more likely? It's a tightly knit neocon conspiracy to brainwash citizens? Or sponsors simply know what kind of braindead drivel makes money with already disenfranchised people and so they shelve it out? I think it's just a snowballing of greed, laziness, and lack of culture & education.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> I was listening during the week to some of Nina Simone's songs, eg. 'Mississippi Goddam', a protest during the 1960's against segregation of African American people. Its a very political song for the time, its basically a very angry protest against discrimination and oppression.
> 
> But recently I also heard news of a punk rock band being taken to court in Russia for storming a cathedral and doing a kind of protest with music. Details at REuters here:
> http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/30/russia-pussyriot-trial-idINL6E8IU5RZ20120730
> ...


Sid: each cited 'case' here is more a matter of the text in the musical vehicle than the music itself.... Meaning it is, _once again as usual, words being censored, not 'a bunch of notes.'
i.e. it is not MUSIC which is being censored in these cases._

just sayin'


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

In the case referred to, the ladies' band gave a quite unauthorized performance in a church, a performance that was stopped by church security personnel. The band was charged with "hooliganism," a vaguely-defined offense that seems handy in Russia.

Just to note that the charge has no connection with the lyrics. Of course, if they had sung Putin's praises, things might have been different. Clarifying only; there was no overt "censorship" involved. Still...


----------



## Metalkitsune (Jul 11, 2011)

I read somewhere, that during the 80's or so that South Korea banned heavy metal on all it's radio stations and gave metalheads haircuts on the spot.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Remember the incident where Pete Seeger's band "The Weavers" got blacklisted during the McCarthy era for being "Communist?"

"This Land Is Your Land"---obviously a socialist, if not Communist sentiment.
"If I Had a Hammer"---and a sickle?
"Give Peace a Chance"----Support our troops; if you're not with us, you're helping the terrorists.









_Any connection, implied or stated, between Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie, Communism, Ruth Crawford Seeger, Bob Dylan, the 50s, the 60s, or John Lennon is purely coincidental._


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Remember the incident where Pete Seeger's band "The Weavers" got blacklisted during the McCarthy era for being "Communist?"
> 
> "This Land Is Your Land"---obviously a socialist, if not Communist sentiment.
> "If I Had a Hammer"---and a sickle?
> "Give Peace a Chance"----Support our troops; if you're not with us, you're helping the terrorists.


For the record, Seeger was an easy target in those days. "In 1936, at the age of 17, Pete Seeger joined the Young Communist League (YCL), then at the height of its popularity and influence. In 1942 he became a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) itself. He eventually 'drifted away' (his words) from the Party in the late 1940s and 1950s."

Also for the record, _Give Peace a Chance _was written in 1969 by John Lennon.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Agreed with everything you say about country music, but which is more likely? It's a tightly knit neocon conspiracy to brainwash citizens? Or sponsors simply know what kind of braindead drivel makes money with already disenfranchised people and so they shelve it out? I think it's just a snowballing of greed, laziness, and lack of culture & education.


I'm not speaking of brainwashing as far as radio music programming goes. It's pure cynicism on the part of the music business.

But there is a vigorous campaign on the part of the media to deceive and mislead people. That's why pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Sean Hannity are on the air everyday feeding people lies and spin.

Even the so called real news people won't be honest about why America is in Afghanistan, and why Iraq was invaded.

And every nation brainwashes their school children with the national mythology so they will be filled with pride and march and die when the government wants to go to war.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Also for the record, _Give Peace a Chance _was written in 1969 by John Lennon.


But when Lennon sang it he was just being annoyingly hippy, when Seeger sung it a few months later he was being dangerously subversive.

http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/vietnam-abc-43174-moratorium-vietnam-protest-1969


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"This land is your land, this land is my land..." The subversive Seeger was WRONG! Show me your titles and deeds, Herr Seeger! Until the final moments, the Declaration of Independence said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Property."


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

It would take over 48,000 years to count out the dollars the Pentagon is dishing out to defense contractors and our armed forces each year. They ain't ever gonna give peace a chance.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

All men are created equal, except the ones who aren't. - Gore Vidal


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

And on the sign it said "No Trespassing." 
But on the other side it didn't say nothing, 
That side was made for you and me.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

starthrower said:


> It would take over 48,000 years to count out the dollars the Pentagon is dishing out to defense contractors and our armed forces each year. They ain't ever gonna give peace a chance.


It is true that we probably spend way too much on defense but the alternative is not a good picture either. A strong military is the best deterrent to war that there is. If the U.S. was to make themselves vulnerable it would not be many years before the U.S. as we know it would no longer exist. Peace is an elusive dream and nothing more. The way to peace has been bought with a whole lot of blood and it's a very unstable commodity. I hear what you are saying but John Lennon's Utopian dream is just that...a dream.

Kevin


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Kevin Pearson said:


> It is true that we probably spend way too much on defense but the alternative is not a good picture either. A strong military is the best deterrent to war that there is. If the U.S. was to make themselves vulnerable it would not be many years before the U.S. as we know it would no longer exist.
> Kevin


Defense is a euphemism. No sane country spends over a trillion dollars a year for defense. The argument for deterrence to war doesn't hold up. The US has been involved in one war after another since the end of WW2. And in most cases on the offensive, not defensive.

And this obscene amount of military spending has made the US extremely vulnerable in many ways. Gigantic debt, huge neglect to education, health care, clean energy, and fueling terrorism and anti-American sentiment around the globe.


----------

