Although lyrics are covered under freedom of speech, they could affect ethical guidelines pertaining to cultural and social norms, which creates conflict in society. Music plays a pivotal role in the socialization of children and adolescents. Popular music is present almost everywhere, and it is easily accessible through radio, recordings, the Internet, and other platforms, allowing adolescents to hear it in diverse settings and situations, whether it’s alone or with friends. Research on popular music has explored its effects on schoolwork, social interactions, mood and affect, and particularly behavior.
The effect that popular music has on children’s and adolescents’ behavior and emotions is of great concern. Lyrics have become more explicit in their references to drugs, sex, and violence over the years, particularly in certain genres. A teenager’s preference for certain types of music could be correlated or associated with certain behaviors. As with popular music, the perception and the effect of music-video messages are important, because research has reported that exposure to violence, sexual messages, sexual stereotypes, and use of substances of abuse in music videos might produce significant changes in behaviors and attitudes of young viewers (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2009).
Lyrics have become more explicit in their references to drugs, sex, and violence over the years. A content analysis of the top 10 CDs performed by the National Institute on Media in 1999 revealed that each of these CDs included at least 1 song with sexual content. Forty-two percent of the songs on these CDs contained very explicit sexual content. Lyrics of some music genres, such as rock, heavy metal, rap, and new emerging genres such as reggaeton, have been found to revolve around topics such as sexual promiscuity, death, homicide, suicide, and substance abuse. Most recently, some rap music has been characterized by the presence of explicit sexual language in its lyrics as well as messages of violence, racism, homophobia, and hatred toward women. Drug, tobacco, and alcohol use also tend to be glorified in these songs (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2009).
There have been arguments raised, stating that children and adolescents use music solely for entertainment, and that little or no attention is paid to the words, and if any attention is given, understanding tends to be limited and related to the experiences lived by the listener. However, other studies have demonstrated the contrary. Approximately 17% of male adolescents and 25% of female adolescents expressed that they liked their favorite songs specifically because the lyrics were a reflection of their feelings. Also, it has been found that the more importance adolescents give to a certain type of music, the more attention they will pay to the lyrics. Furthermore, Knobloch-Westerwick et al have stated that although young listeners might not understand all the details in lyrics, they recognize enough to obtain a general idea of the message they bring (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2009).
Censorship of music is the practice of editing musical works for a plethora of reasons. Stemming from a variety of motivations, including moral, political, or religious reasons. Censorship can range from the complete government-enforced legal prohibition of a musical work, to private, voluntary removal of content when a musical work appears in a certain context. Songs are commonly edited for broadcast on radio and television to remove content that may be considered objectionable to an outlet’s target audience—such as profanity, or references to subjects such as sex and drug usage. This is typically done to comply with any relevant broadcast law or codes of conduct, and to make the songs more marketable to a mainstream audience.
Songs edited for content in this manner are often referred to as a “clean version” or a “radio edit”. Common editing techniques include distorting vocals to obscure offending words (including muting, bleeping, and backmasking), or replacing them with alternative lyrics. The amount of censorship required may vary between broadcasters, depending on standards and practices and their target audience; for example, Radio Disney imposes stricter content guidelines than conventional U.S. radio stations, as it primarily targets a youth audience and family listening. By contrast, some radio stations may relegate unedited versions of tracks containing objectionable content to airplay during time periods deemed appropriate, such as late-night hours. Joel Mullis, an Atlanta sound engineer who became well-known in the industry for his work on radio edits, said that his job was often complicated by differing standards between broadcasters (such as BET and MTV), requiring different edits to meet their individual needs.
In some cases, a record label may choose to withhold a release entirely if they believe that the subject matter would be too controversial amongst society; Ice-T and Paris both had gangsta rap albums either withheld or indefinitely delayed by Warner Bros. Records over content concerns, with Ice-T’s Home Invasion delayed due to the 1992 Los Angeles riots and controversy over “Cop Killer”—a song by Ice-T’s metal band Body Count, and Paris’s Sleeping with the Enemy over its songs “Bush Killa” and “Coffee, Doughnuts, & Death”. Listeners have expressed dissatisfaction over the editing of songs for radio airplay, arguing that it compromises the artistic integrity of the original song, and encourage listeners to seek out alternative platforms that are not subject to such censorship, such as digital streaming. At the same time, edits are considered a necessary modification to receive the radio airplay that can influence a song’s overall performance. N.W.A.’s debut album Straight Outta Compton contains a song called “Express Yourself”, which criticizes radio censorship of music as hindering free expression, as well as rappers releasing clean, inoffensive songs in an effort to target mainstream radio airplay. “Express Yourself” is the only song on the album to not contain profanities.
Some songs may be pulled or downplayed by broadcasters if they are considered to be inappropriate to play in the aftermath of specific events. In 2009, after Chris Brown’s alleged physical altercation with his then-girlfriend Rihanna, various radio stations began to pull Brown’s music from their playlists as a result of his actions. In March 2019, some radio stations began to pull the music of Michael Jackson in response to the HBO documentary Leaving Neverland, which featured allegations by Wade Robson and Jimmy Safechuck that Jackson had sexually abused them as children. One can argue whether these examples are ethical or not on behalf of broadcast companies and various mediums after a specific event concerning an artist.
While music has been classified as a protected form of expression under the First Amendment, there have still been cases of censorship within the music industry, particularly in regards to protecting children from being exposed to age-inappropriate subject matter, corporate objections to an artist’s work, and by radio and television stations to remain in compliance with the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC was given the power to regulate the broadcast of content considered “indecent” on radio and television after the 1978 Supreme Court case FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (Levi, 2018). In the Supreme Court’s 1964 landmark case on obscenity and pornography, Justice Potter Stewart famously wrote: “I know it when I see it.” That case still influences FCC rules today, and complaints from the public about broadcasting objectionable content drive the enforcement of those rules.
The product of the music business—the music—at its foundation is an effective tool for communication. It has the potential of telling a story, conveying an emotion, or being the vehicle of celebration. Due to the universality of music, its impact can be felt in almost every aspect of life. In like manner, the business of music has an almost similar effect on our perception of the world around us. Within the parameters of ethics, the study of what we consider right and wrong, music and the business that promotes it play an important role in communicating its ideal “social norms.” These norms have challenged cultural and social boundaries, political and religious ideologies, and gender and individual rights. Since there have been few external obstructions, the music industry has been able to create its own epistemology that allows artists and industry moguls to execute their craft and business practices however they desire (Golden, 2001).
Plato, who first developed the concept of idea, said that it was a form to which the human spirit tries to attain. The physical world is a representation of the real world (Stumpf, 1994). Many songwriters echo this sentiment in every lyric, note, and phrase of their musical creations. They seek to bring to light that which is hidden by emotion, conflict, and every other human experience. In doing so, they find fulfillment as a voice of reality.
The business that produces, manufactures and distributes pre-recorded product is run by a different ideal. The music industry is a joining of two very different passions — art and commerce. One issue that is addressed in the epistemology of the music industry is the relationship between the knower and the object known. The relationship between the music industry and the artist is a precarious one. It is a relationship of mutual exploitation to accomplish what each feels is important. The artist desires to express their inward images of reality externally. That expression is accomplished by songwriting, playing an instrument, writing lyrics, or singing. Performance is the vehicle through which the images are shared (Golden, 2001).
The business side of the industry desires to make as much money from the sale of pre-recorded product as possible. It is not concerned with the images of reality. The more products it can sell, the more successful it becomes. What stimulates the business side is the commercial quality of the expression, not the expression itself. Artists know that in order to continue to create their art they need financial resources, therefore, they exploit the record labels for the financial resources to produce, manufacture and distribute their recorded products as well as for living expenses. Record labels exploit artists by giving them a small percentage royalty of the sale of the pre-recorded product – usually less than 10% – and keeping the rest. In addition, the record labels expect artists to pay for all the costs in producing the pre-recorded music. Both parties enter these agreements aware of the mutual exploitation and hope that the product of the artist will generate enough resources to pay for all the expenses (Golden, 2001).
