How The PMRC And Their Influence On Music

Music has been around for centuries. Governments have also been around for centuries. People probably would not expect that the two would ever be linked together. But after the 1985 PMRC hearings, the term “government” would forever be linked to its influence on music and the sale of music in stores. Now some people might not know what the PMRC is or what their impact was on music. According to the article “PMRC Events”, The PMRC or Parents Music Resource Center was formed in 1985 by Tipper Gore, Susan Baker, and other senators’ wives after Tipper Gore’s daughter came home with a Prince “Purple Rain” album. Tipper was upset about the sexual content in the lyrics. Particularly the song “Darling Nikki”, which is about pleasuring one’s self. She did not think a child that age should be listening to that kind of musical content and that other parents should know what their kids are listening to. So when the PMRC was formed, the goals of the group were to lobby the music
industry and record companies, especially those who produce heavy metal music, to require lyrics to be printed on all album covers and to keep albums that are determined to be explicit, out of reach for younger children (“PMRC Events”). Other parents might not have wanted that kind of because not every parent is Tipper Gore. It should be up to the individual parent or parents to decide how much sexual and drug content that they want to expose their children to. Plus why should the music industry listen to a bunch of Washington housewives who have nothing better to do than criticize what these bands were call “art.”
The sexual and drug content in music from the 1980’s was not something new. Musicians had been singing about drugs, and sex in the 1960’s and 1970’s and some of the content was

Kenyon 2 even worse. For example, in Led Zeppelin’s 1971 song “Whole Lotta Love”, there is a line that says “shake for me, girl. I wanna be your backdoor man.”(“Whole Lotta Love”) Based on those lyrics, “Whole Lotta Love” sounds like a pretty explicit song, another song that features sexual lyrics is the Rolling Stones’ 1965 hit song “I can’t get no satisfaction” Based on the title, one can assume the song is about sexuality. So if the government wanted to put a warning label on the album, why did they not do it in 1971 or even before in 1965 when the Rolling Stones released that song, instead of waiting 14 years? Also, according to Patrick Goldstein, when Susan Baker, a member of the PMRC, was in high school, she listened to Elvis Presley at a time when Elvis was considered risqué. 30 years later, Baker was a mother and had a 7 year old and she was shocked by how much rock music had changed. But that is her being a hypocrite because if she listened to risqué music, then she should not shield her daughter from the same type of music. But just like everything else in the world. Things change over time and if she wanted to know what other kids her daughter age was listening to, she could just brought an album, read the lyrics printed on the back of the album instead of just determining that every child should not listen to this type of music and if the lyrics were not printed on the back of the album, they should have been. In 1985, the PMRC and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held hearings on music lyrics and also proposed systems to rate and sticker albums that contained violent and/or sexual content (U.S. Government Printing Office). Several musicians were called in for testimony including Dee Snider, lead singer of Twister Sister, John Denver, and Frank Zappa. According to Frank Zappa’s testimony at the hearings, he mentions the first amendment and the part that says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an
Kenyon 3 establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abiding the freedom of speech, or of the press of the right of the people peacefully to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
(Cole). So if the United States constitution is the law of the land and it state that the government is not allowed to do something, then the government cannot do it. So, according to that excerpt of the first amendment, that makes the entire hearings unconstitutional because it clearly says that congress cannot prohibiting freedom of speech which is what the PMRC is trying to do.
In the world, there is such a thing as figurative language and not taking every word seriously.
Lots of music artists use figurative language in their music. An example of this was used during the hearings when Dee Snider, lead singer of heavy metal band, Twisted Sister defended his music against the allegations that Tipper Gore had claimed. She claimed that the song “Under The Blade” was about sadomasochism, when in fact, according to Dee Snider’s testimony, the song was about guitarist Eddie Ojeda’s fear of going under during surgery. But it wasn’t just heavy metal music that was the concern of the PMRC. The PMRC released the filthy fifteen, which is a list of fifteen songs that the PMRC deemed inappropriate to be sold in stores. But that music is considered art in the musicians’ eyes. Also the artists are exercising their freedom of speech by singing these lyrics. Also, why do they not just let the music industry regulate this songs and albums, since they know the artists better than the PMRC
does?
Actually the music industry was already regulated. It is regulated by the artists and producers who make the music. But the problem is that there is no written definition of what the industry considers “explicit”. The only criteria for material that is deemed “explicit” are strong language or depicting of violence, sex, or substance abuse, which is what the songs on the filthy fifteen list
Kenyon 4 were about, (NPR Music). So if the records were already prescreened for content by the record companies, why did the PMRC decide to hold the hearings and furthermore, why were they even formed in the first place? Did they not trust the record companies that their screening was thorough? Also, some artists printed the lyrics on the back of the albums. So if a parent is concerned about what their children are listening to, then they could read the lyrics on the back and determine, based on those lyrics if they want to expose those children to that type of content.
Many people did not think that the PMRC was necessary. But you will not convince the folks in Washington of that. They would tell you that it was completely ok to hold those hearings and be concerned about music and they are right. According to Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, congress has the right “to regulate private corporations engaged in interstate commerce. (Our Document).” So as far as congress getting involved, they ultimate have to right to be concerned and hold these hearings since the music industry falls under the title of “private corporation engaged in interstate commerce.” So the PMRC did not violent any laws and they were in their jurisdiction to be concerned and hold hearings to address the issue about whether music was being regulated properly.
Overall, the PMRC hearings were not really necessary. But they did address an issue that was concerning to some parents. Which was are children listening to music with lyrics that has suggestive themes of sex, drugs, etc. ? They also changed the way music is sold and accessed by requiring a parental advisory sticker on certain albums which are deemed inappropriate for younger audiences.