62
It is my understanding that, in law, First Amendment Issues are decided with a
preference for the least restrictive alternative. In this context, the PMRC's demands
are the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation.
No one has forced Mrs. Baker or Mrs. Gore to bring Prince or Sheena Easton into
their homes. Thanks to the Constitution, they are free to buy other forms of music
for their children. Apparently, they insist on purchasing the works of contemporary
recording artists in order to support a personal illusion of aerobic sophistication.
Ladies, please be advised: The $8.98 purchase price does not entitle you to a kiss on
the foot from the composer or performer in exchange for a spin on the family Victrola.
Taken as a whole, the complete list of PMRC demands reads like an instruction
manual for some sinister kind of "toilet training program" to house-break all
composers and performers because of the lyrics of a few. Ladies, how dare you?
The ladies' shame must be shared by the bosses at the major labels who, through
the RIAA, chose to bargain away the rights of composers, performers, and retailers
in order to pass H.R. 2911, The Blank Tape Tax: A private tax levied by an industry
on consumers for the benefit of a select group within that industry. Is this a
"consumer issue"? You bet it is. PMRC spokesperson, Kandy Stroud, announced to
millions of fascinated viewers on last Friday's ABC Nightline debate that Senator
Gore, a man she described as "A friend of the music industry," is co-sponsor of
something she referred to as "anti-piracy legislation". Is this the same tax bill with
a nicer name?
The major record labels need to have H.R. 2911 whiz through a few committees
before anybody smells a rat. One of them is chaired by Senator Thurmond. Is it a
coincidence that Mrs. Thurmond is affiliated with the PMRC? I cannot say she's a
member, because the PMRC has no members. Their secretary told me on the phone
last Friday that the PMRC has no members . . . only founders. I asked how many
other D.C. wives are nonmembers of an organization that raises money by mail, has
a tax-exempt status, and seems intent on running the Constitution of the United
States through the family paper-shredder. I asked her if it was a cult. Finally, she
said she couldn't give me an answer and that she had to call their lawyer.
While the wife of the Secretary of the Treasury recites "Gonna drive my love
inside you . . .", and Senator Gore's wife talks about "Bondage!" and "oral sex at
gunpoint," on the CBS Evening News, people in high places work on a tax bill that
is so ridiculous, the only way to sneak it through is to keep the public's mind on
something else: 'Porn rock'.
The PMRC practices a curious double standard with these fervent recitations.
Thanks to them, helpless young children all over America get to hear about oral sex
at gunpoint on network TV several nights a week. Is there a secret FCC dispensation
here? What sort of end justifies THESE means? PTA parents should keep an
eye on these ladies if that's their idea of 'good taste'.
Is the basic issue morality? Is it mental health? Is it an issue at all? The PMRC
has created a lot of confusion with improper comparisons between song lyrics,
videos, record packaging, radio broadcasting, and live performances. These are all
different mediums, and the people who work in them have the right to conduct their
business without trade-restraining legislation, whipped up like an instant pudding
by The Wives of Big Brother.
Is it proper that the husband of a PMRC nonmember/founder/person sits on any
committee considering business pertaining to the Blank Tape Tax or his wife's
lobbying organization? Can any committee thus constituted 'find facts' in a fair and
unbiased manner? This committee has three. A minor conflict of interest?
The PMRC promotes their program as a harmless type of consumer information
service providing 'guidelines' which will assist baffled parents in the determination
of the 'suitability' of records listened to by 'very young children'. The methods they
propose have several unfortunately [sic] side effects, not the least of which is the reduction
of all American Music, recorded and live, to the intellectual level of a Saturday
morning cartoon show.
Teen-agers with $8.98 in their pocket might go into a record store alone, but 'very
young children' do not. Usually there is a parent in attendance. The $8.98 is in the
parents pocket. The parent can always suggest that the $8.98 be spent on a book.
If the parent is afraid to let the child read a book, perhaps the $8.98 can be spent
on recordings of instrumental music. Why not bring jazz or classical music into your
home instead of Blackie Lawless or Madonna? Great music with no words at all is
available to anyone with sense enough to look beyond this week's platinum-selling
fashion plate.
Children in the 'vulnerable' age bracket have a natural love for music. If, as a
parent, you believe they should be exposed to something more uplifting than sugar
walls, support Music Appreciation programs in schools. Why haven't you considered
|
previous | next | contents