Should songs be under government consent?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nano-Passion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Government
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the negative societal impact of certain music genres, particularly those that glorify violence and gang culture. Participants express concern over how songs from the early 2000s promote harmful lifestyles, influencing impressionable youth. There is a debate over the role of censorship, with some arguing that regulating violent music could reduce its accessibility and influence, while others warn that censorship could lead to broader issues of control and suppression of free speech. The conversation touches on the multifaceted nature of violence, suggesting that music is a symptom rather than a direct cause of societal problems. Many emphasize the importance of addressing root causes like poverty and education rather than solely focusing on music. The influence of media, including movies and video games, is also highlighted, questioning why music is singled out for scrutiny. Ultimately, the discussion reflects a tension between the desire for moral responsibility in media and the principles of free expression.
  • #61
Disconnected said:
Similarly, if you were to ban these songs, the huge quantity of them already avalible for download/streaming would make it a pretty futile effort.

It would also allow the artists who make these violent songs to assume a veneer of authority by making songs both about violence and busting censorship. Fusing the two issues would nicely confuse the issue for the very people who the censors are trying to stop becoming violence.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
I never knew Tipper Gore was a member here and that she had such a passion for Nanoscience...
 
  • #63
I'm still waiting for a citation on all this 'music causes violence' non-sense.
 
  • #64
zomgwtf said:
I'm still waiting for a citation on all this 'music causes violence' non-sense.

Didn't you know?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #65
Disconnected said:
Didn't you know?

haha touche.
Why didn't I think of posting this!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #66
Nano-Passion said:
You don't see people come out of their house shooting people after playing call of duty. Music has a much more profound affect, I don't know if you live by any ghetto areas but people are moved by these songs. It reinforces the "gangster" and violent things. I've been around in a bad school were your simply scared to walk alone. People ARE moved by these songs. You don't see it, you provide good points but you don't know what extent each influence can play.

Yes, I know music can still be on the internet and the such. But think more long term.. things die over time. Not many people here listens to songs from the 1930s anymore (I don't know if any).

Here's my point: These sorts of things are nice in theory but will be a nightmare in practice. And without you explicitly stating what you mean by "censorship" or "government consent," it's hard to know how to respond!

For instance, I could be persuaded to support limiting play time to certain hours of the day (sort of like late night TV), but an outright ban...well, that's just laughable. Surely that's not what you meant, but I didn't want to assume.

Oh, and on the side, thumbs up to zomgwtf for the Opeth post! Deliverence was my first Opeth album back in high school.
 
  • #67
Two quotes about censorship that I feel are very poignant:
Alfred Whitney Griswold said:
Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.

Noam Chomsky said:
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

As has been said over and over in this thread - censorship is a slippery slope. Where does it stop. Don't start treating people like sheep and slaves - let them make up their own minds. Only better ideas will prevail, not extinguishing those ideas. Treat the underlying problem - not the symptom.
 
Last edited:
  • #68
Hurkyl said:
Depending on the particular belief, of course.

If this is an attempt to say what I'm saying is imposing a belief then I don't buy it... if not then I don't get it.

I'm saying he has no right to do it, not that he can't believe he can do it and that I'll get the government to stop him from believing it. Not comparable.
 
  • #69
zomgwtf said:
I think it's cause you're equating listening to 'gansta music' equates to becoming a 'gangsta' yourself. Go outside and live in the real world man. You have no ****ing idea what you're talking about.

Also you're making factual claims in your posts I want citations for these in your next post or I'm reporting you. It might be General discussion but I don't think the rules are lenient enough to let you just say whatever the **** you want with no backing.

PS. Another ******** point you try to make is that those songs would hardly cause as 'much damage', however imaginary that damage is... Biker gangs are FAR more dangerous around Canada than any other gangs. They hardly listen to gangster rap LOL!

Whats with the cursing and attacks? Relax yourself.

Music Preferences and Their Relationship to Behaviors, Beliefs, and Attitudes toward Aggression
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED507397.pdf

Tragic Narratives in Popular Culture: Depictions of Homicide in Rap Music.
doi: 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2009.01122.x

Taken from abstract:

"Results show violent death was constructed in glorified ways, incorporated cautionary tales, or used as an analogy for powerful rhyming. The major themes found in these homicide-related rap lyrics were the normalization of killing, respect maintenance, confrontation with the power structure, vengeance, and masculine confrontation. Homicide was almost always male on male. Careful consideration is given to the multiple meanings of homicide, particularly the ways rappers have appropriated the word “killing” and transformed it into a term that indicates creative success."

Whats powerful about music aside from its sheer influential power is its ability to change paradigms and influence cultures.

Dark Side of the Tune: Popular Music and Violence.
Authors: MASTERMAN, BRANDON P.
Source: Notes; Dec2009, Vol. 66 Issue 2, p282-284, 3p

Need more? That was just a quick search too. It doesn't take a genius to understand that music can be really influential. Others have made good points that there are other influences such as the media which I am aware of. Get off your high and mighty horse its a discussion, don't assume a devout certainty, you are not a divine being. Social issues are incredibly complex, its not the type of thing that is either a or b.

I'm here for a discussion, tone it down a bit. Others have made pretty good points which I respected, if you feel so strongly about it go vent to your mother.
 
  • #70
You do know that what you have bolded just means that rappers have turned the word 'killing' into a good thing... like 'i'm killing it'. I don't buy that rappers created this vernacular language but even so what you've posted hardly points the finger of blame of gangs and such at rap music.

So yeah, another source. Ps I'm not acting like a 'divine being' I have no idea what you're on to come up with your **** but perhaps it's time to stop?
 
  • #71
Studies on whether or not violent music makes people violent will always be hard retrospectively. Most studies rely on trying to plot correlations between listening to violent music and being violent but do not outline a cause (nor do they show that the correlation they see is actually reversed).

A test would be to get a random selection of people and make them listen to violent music, then see if they act violently. I severely doubt they will because whilst music is influential it is nowhere near the super-potent memetic virus some people advocate it to be. It could be that if I'm having a bad day and I listen to some music all about punching people in the face that I might be more likely to punch someone in the face who makes my day worse but whether or not it does strongly relies on who I am as a person which is influenced by far more than music. Lastly, I think that suggesting that violent music makes people more violent is as tenuous as suggesting that listening to music about love makes someone more loving.
 
  • #72
Nano-Passion said:
Music Preferences and Their Relationship to Behaviors, Beliefs, and Attitudes toward Aggression

This can go both ways, though. People with aggressive personalities are more likely to associate with aggressive music. I am not saying that music doesn't influence people - it certainly does - but I don't think that violent music is just churning out homicidal maniacs.

This still doesn't approach the main concern I have of the whole situation; how would it be done fairly and effectively? As talked about earlier in this thread, I don't think it can. Nor do I think it should (see the quote about freedom of speech), but I know people have differing opinions on that kind of thing.
 
  • #73
Nano-Passion said:
Whats with the cursing and attacks? Relax yourself.

Music Preferences and Their Relationship to Behaviors, Beliefs, and Attitudes toward Aggression
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED507397.pdf
This shows no causative relationship between listening to violent music causing violence. They only discuss the "relationship" between violent music listeners and increased positive views of violence. Correlation not causation with no analysis of which came first.

Tragic Narratives in Popular Culture: Depictions of Homicide in Rap Music.
doi: 10.1111/j.1573-7861.2009.01122.x

Taken from abstract:

"Results show violent death was constructed in glorified ways, incorporated cautionary tales, or used as an analogy for powerful rhyming. The major themes found in these homicide-related rap lyrics were the normalization of killing, respect maintenance, confrontation with the power structure, vengeance, and masculine confrontation. Homicide was almost always male on male. Careful consideration is given to the multiple meanings of homicide, particularly the ways rappers have appropriated the word “killing” and transformed it into a term that indicates creative success."

Whats powerful about music aside from its sheer influential power is its ability to change paradigms and influence cultures.
I couldn't access this paper, so I cannot comment other than on the abstract. The abstract simply seems to be investigating cultural shifts based on rap music. As was already stated, this is not necessarily a bad thing.


Dark Side of the Tune: Popular Music and Violence.
Authors: MASTERMAN, BRANDON P.
Source: Notes; Dec2009, Vol. 66 Issue 2, p282-284, 3p
Did you even read through this book? I read about 20 pages of the "inciting to violence" chapter. Violent music used to incite violence apparently goes back to biblical times - I guess that shouldn't be all that surprising. Half the book was cut out from google books, but it seemed like a very interesting read.

Need more? That was just a quick search too. It doesn't take a genius to understand that music can be really influential. Others have made good points that there are other influences such as the media which I am aware of. Get off your high and mighty horse its a discussion, don't assume a devout certainty, you are not a divine being. Social issues are incredibly complex, its not the type of thing that is either a or b.

I'm here for a discussion, tone it down a bit. Others have made pretty good points which I respected, if you feel so strongly about it go vent to your mother.
I don't think anyone would argue this is a complex issue - but you must remember that a large group on this forum are Americans and freedom of speech is sort of fundamental to the American identity. I actually find it fairly disgusting that you would even consider discussing the idea of governmental censorship of music and how much that could lead to the erosion the fundamental basis of human rights.
 
  • #74
Norman said:
I don't think anyone would argue this is a complex issue - but you must remember that a large group on this forum are Americans and freedom of speech is sort of fundamental to the American identity. I actually find it fairly disgusting that you would even consider discussing the idea of governmental censorship of music and how much that could lead to the erosion the fundamental basis of human rights.

Point of order: Americans don't have a monopoly on Freedom of Speech ideals.

Other than that I agree with everything you've said.
 
  • #75
ryan_m_b said:
Studies on whether or not violent music makes people violent will always be hard retrospectively. Most studies rely on trying to plot correlations between listening to violent music and being violent but do not outline a cause (nor do they show that the correlation they see is actually reversed).

A test would be to get a random selection of people and make them listen to violent music, then see if they act violently. I severely doubt they will because whilst music is influential it is nowhere near the super-potent memetic virus some people advocate it to be. It could be that if I'm having a bad day and I listen to some music all about punching people in the face that I might be more likely to punch someone in the face who makes my day worse but whether or not it does strongly relies on who I am as a person which is influenced by far more than music. Lastly, I think that suggesting that violent music makes people more violent is as tenuous as suggesting that listening to music about love makes someone more loving.

I don't see the problem with the studies that you talked about. The studies do not need to show a cause but rather that there is an influence. And its quite apparent that they do have an influence. But I agree with what you said for the most part except that I'm probably biased about this.

Furthermore, the problem with the study you proposed is that it assumes I am talking about music causes violence. Rather, what I've been proposing several times (seems that its getting overlooked) is that it promotes a way of life which leads to violence. It changes paradigms of being violent as a masculine thing to do among other things which if you listen to closely you will notice.
 
  • #76
ryan_m_b said:
Point of order: Americans don't have a monopoly on Freedom of Speech ideals.

Other than that I agree with everything you've said.

I didn't mean to imply that. I was just contextualizing the discussion, since it seemed to be a very social science-based discussion. I should have been more general in my statement, but since I am an American, I felt it better to not overstep my bounds and rope anyone else into my generalization (since it was a generalization).
 
  • #77
ryan_m_b said:
It could be that if I'm having a bad day and I listen to some music all about punching people in the face that I might be more likely to punch someone in the face who makes my day worse
This is a fair point. I find my use of the bird increases dramatically on days that feature Mr Shady on my playlist...
 
  • #78
Disconnected said:
This still doesn't approach the main concern I have of the whole situation; how would it be done fairly and effectively? As talked about earlier in this thread, I don't think it can. Nor do I think it should (see the quote about freedom of speech), but I know people have differing opinions on that kind of thing.
Yes this is a major concern. I don't have a strong view of whether it can be done effectively or not. Rather I created the topic to see whether it would be better if these songs simply didn't exist. And that for the most part I definitely agree with. I didn't make the topic with the concern of attacking the major issues of enabling such censorship nor did it cross my mind.
 
  • #79
Nano-Passion said:
I don't see the problem with the studies that you talked about. The studies do not need to show a cause but rather that there is an influence. And its quite apparent that they do have an influence. But I agree with what you said for the most part except that I'm probably biased about this.

Furthermore, the problem with the study you proposed is that it assumes I am talking about music causes violence. Rather, what I've been proposing several times (seems that its getting overlooked) is that it promotes a way of life which leads to violence. It changes paradigms of being violent as a masculine thing to do among other things which if you listen to closely you will notice.

The study you posted only has an abstract available, despite using many of the subscription services I have I cannot access it. Please post the full article so I can read what it is actually about. The abstract does not suggest that any investigation was done into the influence of music, rather it investigated the content of music and how it has changed.

I do accept that you are suggesting that the music encourages a way of life but this is irrelevant to the original point that this way of life includes violence. I do not accept that claim that censoring this music will lead to a reduction in the number of people taking up "gang" lifestyle as I have yet to see evidence for this claim.
 
  • #80
Nano-Passion said:
I don't see the problem with the studies that you talked about. The studies do not need to show a cause but rather that there is an influence. And its quite apparent that they do have an influence. But I agree with what you said for the most part except that I'm probably biased about this.

Furthermore, the problem with the study you proposed is that it assumes I am talking about music causes violence. Rather, what I've been proposing several times (seems that its getting overlooked) is that it promotes a way of life which leads to violence. It changes paradigms of being violent as a masculine thing to do among other things which if you listen to closely you will notice.

I think maybe you are missing the point. There may not actually be an influence of the music on a person's actions at all. That is the point he was making. People who listen to this music AND perform violence may have been just as likely to perform the violence regardless of the music. (or live that lifestyle or whatever).

I am uncertain of your premise that a certain way of life will definitely lead to violence. Is there even an example of a lifestyle that 100% of the time leads to violence by the person living it? If something like that does exist, how do you disentangle the violence from that lifestyle?

But maybe I am the one missing the point.
 
  • #81
Norman said:
I think maybe you are missing the point. There may not actually be an influence of the music on a person's actions at all. That is the point he was making. People who listen to this music AND perform violence may have been just as likely to perform the violence regardless of the music. (or live that lifestyle or whatever).

I am uncertain of your premise that a certain way of life will definitely lead to violence. Is there even an example of a lifestyle that 100% of the time leads to violence by the person living it? If something like that does exist, how do you disentangle the violence from that lifestyle?

But maybe I am the one missing the point.

Exactly right, the fundamental issue is violence and crime. To suggest that music encourages this is tenuous, whilst people might see the common sense argument it fails to hold up to scrutiny.
 
  • #82
Norman said:
This shows no causative relationship between listening to violent music causing violence. They only discuss the "relationship" between violent music listeners and increased positive views of violence. Correlation not causation with no analysis of which came first.

I contend that a more positive view of violence leads to a higher probability of partaking in violence.

I couldn't access this paper, so I cannot comment other than on the abstract. The abstract simply seems to be investigating cultural shifts based on rap music. As was already stated, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

The way I see it is that a cultural shift toward the gangster life is very powerful and would lead to more people joining gangs etc. I also believe that rap music has the power to shift paradigms toward gangs and violence.


Did you even read through this book? I read about 20 pages of the "inciting to violence" chapter. Violent music used to incite violence apparently goes back to biblical times - I guess that shouldn't be all that surprising. Half the book was cut out from google books, but it seemed like a very interesting read.

The one I tried to reference to was a review of the book. But I'm surprised you read it, I just made a quick search to show that I'm not making wild and absurd speculation as zomgwtf claimed.

I don't think anyone would argue this is a complex issue - but you must remember that a large group on this forum are Americans and freedom of speech is sort of fundamental to the American identity. I actually find it fairly disgusting that you would even consider discussing the idea of governmental censorship of music and how much that could lead to the erosion the fundamental basis of human rights.

I am American myself but some things may be better off under control.

Violence, rape, murder, etc. is under control, but people don't call that oppression of freedom.
 
  • #83
ryan_m_b said:
Exactly right, the fundamental issue is violence and crime. To suggest that music encourages this is tenuous, whilst people might see the common sense argument it fails to hold up to scrutiny.

Regardless of if it does cause violence or not isn't even that great of an issue in my opinion (although I also don't buy it).

We live in a society where we try not to punish the innocent. What's that saying about letting 100 guilty men walk free if it means one innocent person doesn't get convicted?

The vast majority of people who listen to this type of music aren't even violent in the slightest (This is demonstrably true due to the fact that this type of music is REALLY popular/mainstream and the fact that violent crime let alone violent gang related crime is very low it'd have to be much higher if there was such a strong causative link) Why should the majority of innocent people lose freedoms in order to 'protect' society against future crimes possibly committed due to some music?

First people are losing rights. Second the majority of these people are innocent. Third it's a pre-emptive revocation of rights to prevent crimes in the future. Something which there's hardly any evidence to even support in the first place!
 
  • #84
Nano-Passion said:
I contend that a more positive view of violence leads to a higher probability of partaking in violence...the way I see it is that a cultural shift toward the gangster life is very powerful and would lead to more people joining gangs etc. I also believe that rap music has the power to shift paradigms toward gangs and violence.

But nano you haven't demonstrated that music that talks about violence leads to a higher probability of violence on the listener and secondly haven't taken into account that as a multifactorial phenomenon there are likely to be synergistic and emergent effects that make the A increases B argument tenuous in the absence of evidence.

Nano-Passion said:
The one I tried to reference to was a review of the book. But I'm surprised you read it, I just made a quick search to show that I'm not making wild and absurd speculation as zomgwtf claimed.

I'm very surprised that you haven't read it. When citing references that one believes supports one's case you should have a thorough understanding of what that reference is saying. Otherwise you just look for things whose abstract or title tends to be in line with what you are saying. This is very wrong to do, it's a practical form of an appeal to authority. Without reading the actual study how can you know if its methodology is correct or flawed, what its data shows, what its limitations are etc. Have you got a copy of the article you referenced or have you not read that either?

Nano-Passion said:
I am American myself but some things may be better off under control.

Violence, rape, murder, etc. is under control, but people don't call that oppression of freedom.

There is a big difference between crime and talking about crime. The idea that you should have a system of censoring some of the latter is both highly impractical and very dangerous.
 
  • #85
Nano-Passion said:
I contend that a more positive view of violence leads to a higher probability of partaking in violence.
I contend that since, yet again you're making positive claims, that you must cite sources and as well you have to link this to how music will lead to a more positive view of violence. A change in the usage of the word kill to put it in a positive connotation does not mean that the negative connotation of the word is taken any more lightly. And if it IS taken more lightly it does not show at all that the change in view of the negative connotation of the word is due to any music.


The way I see it is that a cultural shift toward the gangster life is very powerful and would lead to more people joining gangs etc. I also believe that rap music has the power to shift paradigms toward gangs and violence.
You see gangsters walking around shooting their nines every day all day do you? Rap music is very popular yet gangs still seem to be confined to certain areas. Hmm I wonder why rap music can break the barrier of poor socio-economic areas but 'gang' mentality and life struggles to break out to middle class and upper class people who also listen to rap. Granted there are cases where these people will 'act gangster' but that's a far cry from saying that they are now violent.




The one I tried to reference to was a review of the book. But I'm surprised you read it, I just made a quick search to show that I'm not making wild and absurd speculation as zomgwtf claimed.
So you admit that when you made the claim you had utterly no idea what you're talking about and needed to do a 'quick' search to grasp for some straws? Your claim is still wildly absurd speculation. Your sources have provided no evidence to support your claim.



I am American myself but some things may be better off under control.

Violence, rape, murder, etc. is under control, but people don't call that oppression of freedom.
Name one freedom which has been lost for absolutely no reason other than speculation that was intended to curb violence, rape and murder. If anything some things which took freedoms away from people for no reason other than speculation in an 'effort' to do these things made it worse. AKA projects AKA not mixing whites and blacks etc. etc. etc.. things like 'not allowing anyone to own a gun' is not based on speculation if that's along the lines of what you're thinking.
 
  • #86
Nano-Passion said:
I contend that a more positive view of violence leads to a higher probability of partaking in violence.



The way I see it is that a cultural shift toward the gangster life is very powerful and would lead to more people joining gangs etc. I also believe that rap music has the power to shift paradigms toward gangs and violence.




The one I tried to reference to was a review of the book. But I'm surprised you read it, I just made a quick search to show that I'm not making wild and absurd speculation as zomgwtf claimed.



I am American myself but some things may be better off under control.

Violence, rape, murder, etc. is under control, but people don't call that oppression of freedom.

Ok, so what happens if someone violates this hypothetical law? How are you going to enforce it? By asking them to stop? What if they don't stop? You are going to have force them to stop.

What is that you are advocating? Do you see the irony here?
 
  • #87
zomgwtf said:
Keep thinking they want that over a normal life away from the ghetto. There probably are some like that but the majority of people? No way. They want what everyone else wants... money and a good life.

I don't mean people from the ghetto, I mean the druggies and drug dealers. Most people from the ghetto hate these.
 
  • #88
Having a government with control over the music industry is much more terrifying than the music industry itself.
 
  • #89
zomgwtf said:
Regardless of if it does cause violence or not isn't even that great of an issue in my opinion (although I also don't buy it).

We live in a society where we try not to punish the innocent. What's that saying about letting 100 guilty men walk free if it means one innocent person doesn't get convicted?

The vast majority of people who listen to this type of music aren't even violent in the slightest (This is demonstrably true due to the fact that this type of music is REALLY popular/mainstream and the fact that violent crime let alone violent gang related crime is very low it'd have to be much higher if there was such a strong causative link) Why should the majority of innocent people lose freedoms in order to 'protect' society against future crimes possibly committed due to some music?

First people are losing rights. Second the majority of these people are innocent. Third it's a pre-emptive revocation of rights to prevent crimes in the future. Something which there's hardly any evidence to even support in the first place!

I actually agree with pretty much all of what you have said here. I don't see any point in taking the argument any further since my viewpoint has changed since then.

Though one last thing to note, I still hold the viewpoint that rap music has the power to influence and shape paradigms of which I thought would be commonly agreed. But that seems to be a pretty big topic in its own that deviates from the topic's original intention.
 
Last edited:
  • #90
bp_psy said:
In the case of cigarettes there has been conclusive scientific evidence that there is actual harm.I doubt that this is true for "music with violent message", whatever that means.

Cigarette smoking isn't banned. Cigarette ads are banned. Cigarettes are known to be bad for you. The ads are banned on the assumption they promote smoking.

Violence is bad. Music with a violent message ought, by the same logic as with cigarettes, to be banned.

Why is it such an easy assumption that cigarette ads promote smoking, while no one dares to assume music with a violent message promotes violence?

There's some kind of double standard in operation here, it seems.
 

Similar threads

Replies
64
Views
17K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
42
Views
8K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K