Rebecca's Thoughts

Likely against better judgment and my sanity, two things I think about more often than I should are the Parent Music Research Centre (PMRC) and the 2012 musical romance (?) movie Rock of Ages. Both essentially live in my head rent-free and are two things that I could talk about ad nauseam. Despite their differences the movie and the committee are forever intertwined. Rock of Ages doesn’t exist in a world without the PMRC and Tipper Gore herself. With that in mind, I think there is an interesting discussion around filthy music, dumb movies, and why no one cares anymore.

September marked the 38th anniversary of the creation of the PMRC and the Parental Advisory Label (PAL) program. For those of you who don’t obsess over 1980s “Washington Wives” and their disdain for rock music… and Cindy Lauper apparently, then here is a not-so-quick run down. 

History of the PMRC

As the story goes, in December of 1984 Tipper Gore bought Prince’s new album Purple Rain for her 11-year-old daughter. The album was a hit, and the song “Let’s Go Crazy” was everywhere. The Gore’s sat down to listen to the album only to be treated to an earful of sexual deviancy in the song “Darling Nikki.” This was upsetting to Tipper Gore, “At first, I was stunned — then I got mad! Millions of Americans were buying Purple Rain with no idea what to expect. Thousands of parents were giving the album to their children.” Already a strong and vocal critic of the “adult excesses” found on MTV, Gore wanted to take up arms against “porn rock” a new kind of rock music that was a “new brand of vicious, violent porn [that] is peddled by rock music labels and their hedonistic singers.” Thus the Parent Music Research Centre was created because the “organization’s intent was solely to make information available for parents and consumers concerned about the contents of the records that their children were purchasing.” 

A trend could be seen from the mid-1970s and into the 1980s around the inclusion of obscenities in music. This ranged from the rise of women like Madonna and her “bad girl persona” to the shift in rock music to more “heavy themes.” This music was blamed for a wide range of issues like teen delinquency, “illegitimate births,” abortions, suicide, and drug use. This hysteria seems to be centred around the moral panic of the 1980s and the looming threat of violence. This trend is largely blown out of proportion, and the increases in these problems are likely attributed to cuts in youth programs and services. According to the Centre for Suicide Prevention, “By the 1980s many of the tropes used by heavy metal bands – allusions to Satan, drinking and drug use, womanizing, the clichés go on – had well-worn but reliable shock appeal and were an essential part of the marketing apparatus. Fans lapped it up, but the vast majority did not seriously emulate the excesses that the bands endorsed. For these fans, the music was simply an escapist outlet or a way to upset their parents. For some disaffected and marginalized youth, however, the heavy metal subculture offered a sense of identity and purpose.”

The PMRC consisted of seventeen “Washington Wives” women married to senators, congressmen, cabinet officials, or the wives of wealthy businessmen. This was the time of Ronald Reagan, and the supporters and members were primarily Republicans, people like Mike Love, from the Beach Boys, and Joseph Coors, the owner of Coors beers gave direct financial support to the committee. Additionally, religious organizations like Teen Vision, Pat Robertson’s 700 Club, and the Religious Booksellers Convention (which distributed Tipper Gore’s book, Raising PG Kids in an X-rated Society) were also heavily involved. To narrow their battle over depravity the PMRC outlined 15 songs that they saw to be the most egregious. Dubbed the “Filthy Fifteen” these songs were targeted for their lyrical content which was seen as being objectionable. Consisting of Prince’s “Darling Nikki,” Twisted Sister’s “We’re Not Gonna Take It,” and Madonna’s “Dress You Up” these songs were targeted for their use of sex, violence, substance use, and occult themes. I think it’s important to note that all of these songs were released in the 1980s and were the main focus of the PMRC. Songs released in the 1970s or earlier were not the main concern of the committee and were not the point either. 

On September 19th, 1985, the PMRC held a hearing with the Senate Commerce Technology and Transportation Committee. The hearing was created to investigate the “pornographic content of rock music.” The hearing was also open to suggestions on what to do about this rising issue. Musicians Frank Zappa, Dee Snider, from the group Twisted Sister, and John Denver were also in attendance to testify to the committee. If you have like 5 hours to burn or want to watch maybe one of the weirdest political discussions the whole hearing is uploaded on YouTube as well as the individual testimonies from Zappa, Snider, and Denver. Some highlights include: 

Zappa said, “The PMRC proposal is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children, infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children, and promises to keep the courts busy for years dealing with the interpretational and enforcement problems inherent in the proposal’s design.”

Snider’s remarks to Ms. Gore, “Ms. Gore claimed that one of my songs, ‘Under the Blade,’ had lyrics encouraging sadomasochism, bondage and rape… The lyrics she quoted have absolutely nothing to do with these topics. On the contrary, the question words are about surgery and the fear that it instills in people. … I can say categorically that the only sadomasochism, bondage and rape in this song is in the mind of Ms. Gore.”

In his testimony, Denver compared the censorship of “Government Watchdogs” towards music is like that of book burning in Nazi Germany. 

I can only speculate, but in my opinion, this hearing was supposed to be more of a witch hunt than a thoughtful debate. In an interview with Rolling Stone Magazine Snider said “[The PMRC] really wanted [Mötley Crüe singer] Vince Neil… Vince is not very articulate. He actually is a life-styler, so he probably would have been half in the bag going in there. They would have smacked him around, because he’s incapable of fighting at the level. As far as going and having an intellectual debate on something, he’d be pretty defenseless.” Additionally, “[The hearings] were primarily meant as a symbolic show of force since no legislation had been contemplated at the outcome, the Committee being aware of the complex constitutional issues involved, and the PMRC believed that the mere threat should prove sufficient to urge the record industry to more caution.” Meaning that they had no real power when it came to actually making substantial change. 

On November 1st of 1985 the Recording Industry Association of America, an organization that represents the music recording industry in the U.S., asked its members (comprising 85 percent of all American record companies, including all the majors) to choose between either to affix a warning label or to print the lyrics on the sleeve. In most instances, the companies chose to put the PAL on their music. This led to about 49 of about 7500 records between January 1986 to August 1989 showing the label. This was more than 70 less than the 121 records that the PMRC offensive.

There is a lot of contention around the Parental Advisory Label and it comes down to three main factors: 

1) it was kind of bigoted.  “Deeper motives for the PMRC’s action are suggested by the fact that its most frequent targets were heavy metal and rap music, two genres traditionally (though erroneously) associated with minority groups, working-class youth and the black community. In the heyday of the PMRC, rap’s success had dramatically increased.” A pretty consistent statistic around rap music is that around 70% of consumers of the music are white people. This is kind of a contentious number and the methodology is somewhat flawed, but from my understanding, it’s a pretty acceptable estimation. “The primary motive behind the action of the Washington Wives was to divert the people’s attention from major issues by focusing it on trivial ones and specific groups [i.e., minority groups]. It is a well-known trick, particularly effective when, as was the case with the PMRC, it is based on genuine though ill-founded moral convictions. Artists and audience alike represent easy targets, obvious scapegoats.” This puts the ”moral burden” on minority groups who face disenfranchisement and systemic issues. These people, according to the PMRC, are responsible for social degradation and are centred around the moral panic against heavy metal and rap music. 

2)    it didn’t do anything. “Most experts and critics alike, feel the label is too vague and that it doesn’t offer any information at all. Of all the rating systems for movies, television, and video games, it’s not surprising that the music recording industry’s label is the least useful and detailed. Critics also say that ratings can cause a “boomerang” or “forbidden-fruit effect” and may actually attract children.” Most people at the time saw these stickers as actually increasing sales in records with the label. Although I can’t prove this, the idea of the “forbidden-fruit effect” is widely documented and can be found in other industries like alcohol and tobacco. Things that seem dangerous or bad are more appealing to youth as they see it as a way to rebel against their parents, society, or authority. “Overall, I don’t think labels adversely affected sales,” says Danny Goldberg, who now heads Gold Village Entertainment, an artist management company. “Since kids, even before the Internet, were able to get what they wanted. It ended up being a way for certain retailers like Wal-Mart to brand themselves as ‘family friendly…’ at least to families who didn’t like profanity on records.”  

3)    its censorship. “It was the course followed by the Washington Wives who tried to rally a majority of Americans around the defence of the family and the race presented as threatened. A subtle mix of moral concerns and political interests on a fundamentalist backdrop, the PMRC crusade was indeed a reactionary form of censorship.” This ‘crusade’ was, at its essence, a battle for “traditional values.” This kind of music threatened Christian values, and although the PMRC was not affiliated with any religion, many of the judgements and assumptions made aligned with the views and ideology of Christian organizations and spokespeople. This led to the attempted erasure of artists and records deemed inappropriate or not family-friendly. 

So, what does any of this have to do with Rock of Ages?  

Rock of Ages is a movie that would not exist in a world without the PMRC. The story oozes not only the 1980s but also a culture of moral panic around rock and roll. There is this degree of twisted irony at the end of the movie that I think ties in with many of the sentiments directed at the PMRC panel during the hearing. And like, I don’t want to speculate on the home life of mostly conservative politicians, that’s gross and something I couldn’t care less about but something is interesting about the idea of projecting insecurities or ‘dirty thoughts’ on media and art. This is something that is not only shown in the movie but also in real life.

Rock of Ages is objectively not a good movie, my mom called it one of the worst movies ever, yet I think that its reflection of politics, politicians, and everyday people is fascinating and funny. To give a quick synopsis for those who haven’t seen the movie there is a brief description:

Soon after hopping off a bus from the Midwest, aspiring singer Sherrie Christian (Julianne Hough) immediately finds herself in trouble. Coming to her rescue is Drew (Diego Boneta), a bar-back at the legendary club the Bourbon Room. With stars in their eyes, the young lovers chase their dreams, but a misunderstanding involving rock god Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise) threatens to tear them apart.

One of the B-plots in the movie, and likely the most relevant to this essay, has to do with the Bourbon Room, the in-movie version of The Roxy. In the movie, the Bourbon Room was going under in debt all while being attacked and protested against by the rich wives of Los Angeles’ elite. This subplot was added to the movie in the adaptation process. In my opinion, the stage musical is vastly different than the movie, they have very different tones, and the outcomes of the movies are almost completely different. This means that someone somewhere thought that a “family values” subplot was not only necessary in the adaptation but also needed to redeem half of the cast. This, I think, turned the themes and the story of the movie on its head as any reason for not liking rock music can be dismissed through characters like the mayor and his wife.

This movie is not vague or nuanced in what it has to say; rock’n’roll is amazing and nothing will ever be able to stop it. The movie is quite blatant with its sex, alcohol, and rock’n’roll messaging so much so that having an affair is used as like 3 different conflicts in the movie. It’s not a subtle movie, but that is also kind of the point. Rock of Ages is not a well-liked movie, it’s actually the opposite and people seem to have a deep hate and many negative things to say about it. I on the other hand have a very soft spot for this movie and quite frankly enjoy watching it and the garbage shoot it wants to show me.

In that vein, I want to have a quick defence of the movie to later prove my point that this movie’s satire outlines a string of false outrage that has filled the hole left by the PMRC and the lack of pearl clutching.

Defence #1 – dude chill… its just a satire

Rock of Ages the movie, much like its musical counterpart, is a satire at heart. The movie, despite what critics want you to think, is not serious in its messaging nor serious in its writing as a movie. I think this is obvious in the dialogue and the places the story goes. Nothing in this movie should be taken seriously and anyone taking it seriously misses what I think is the true message of the story.

Do I think that Rock of Ages is a good satire? Um no. But that doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t treat it like one. There’s an article in Salon that I think explains lots of the sentiments that I have towards the movie and why I like it. The author of the article Andrew O’Hehir describes the movie as “an effulgent celebration of fakeness. It isn’t trying to be real; it’s trying to be faker than any fake thing has ever been before.” The article goes on to describe the Broadway musical it’s based upon as such: “After its fashion, “Rock of Ages” — the screenplay is by Justin Theroux, Allan Loeb and Chris D’Arienzo, writer of the Broadway show — is in fact true to its own tradition, one that’s a little difficult to describe. Let’s call it the tradition of deliberately misunderstanding cultural conflict, of reducing it to cliché and fantasy in order to fit it into a let’s-put-on-a-show musical.”

This move, and the musical, are products of stupidity and good intentions (I think). They want to tell a story and manage to do it in the craziest and most bizarre way possible.

Defence #2 – none of this music is controversial…

This movie is incredibly ironic in the sense that, despite what the movie wants you to think, nothing particularly controversial happens in it. The movie is very PG-13 in nature, and it takes the rating to heart. As put on Common Sense Media: “[this] Musical has more glam than grit, except for drinking.”

To go back to that Common Sense Media review I mentioned earlier. The reviewer asked the following question under the “talk to your kids about” section: Families can talk about rock music. Do you agree with some of the people in Rock of Ages who say that rock can inspire debauchery and wear away community morals? Or is it a means of self-expression that shouldn’t be censored?

I think the most ironic part of this movie is the fact that most of the songs in this movie are particularly controversial. For being a movie about the dredges and corruption of society it’s amusing when musicians like Bon Jovi start playing. Like, these are really safe song choices meant to represent a sub-culture of debauchery and mayhem. Bon Jovi was hated for their lack of street cred when it came to the rock scene.

Whether intentional or not, I think this contributes to the satirical nature of the movie and makes fun of this idea of fake moral panic and sensationalism. In the Salon article, O’Hehir put it

“You should never underestimate the power of stupid movies to give people stupid ideas, but I certainly hope no one comes away from “Rock of Ages” with the idea that the music of Journey and Bon Jovi and Pat Benatar was ever remotely controversial, or represented any kind of subculture (other than the subculture called “people who sometimes turned on the car radio”). One thing that occurred to me while I was watching it is that “Rock of Ages” portrays the L.A. rock scene of 1987 with the same degree of accuracy we would have seen in an exploitative TV movie made in 1987. It bears the same relationship to reality that “Miami Vice” bore to Miami, or to vice.”

Defence #3 – to quote john green… it’s really bad pornography?

Reading the reviews on the website there is a sense of fake outrage and the sensationalism of what is very much a film for adults or as what the rating depicts, people over the age of 13. When this movie came out in 2012, I saw it in theatres with my dad and I don’t think that either of us thought that this movie was any less inappropriate than any other movie we saw that year.

In the province of Alberta and I think for much of Canada, this movie was only rated PG (for course language). A different movie that came out that year 21 Jump Street in comparison got a 14A rating for course language and violence. Alberta does not have a PG-13 rating and therefore movies ranked as such in the States get either demoted or promoted depending on where they fit in the classification system. They see each rating as a spectrum rather than a “one-size-fits-all approach.”

I think this is just a very long-winded way of saying, this movie isn’t particularly bad or controversial. Like, in no world is this movie on the same level as a movie like Sausage Party or Fifty Shades of Grey in either profanity or sexual content. The way that some of the people talk about this movie you’d think it’s straight porn. As this review so elegantly put it: 21+ Heavy Sex/Nudity ADULT content (if you can find Pres’ comment on the website, they… um… watched a very different movie than I did). And sure, there are sex scenes but for being a movie about sex and rock’n’roll they are done mostly off-screen and despite not being particularly chaste they definitely aren’t graphic.

Other ratings on the website include:

• Amazed that it wasn’t given an R rating.
• Really sorry I let my 14-year-old watch this,
• If you want your children to develop sound sexual morals, do not let them see this movie.

and my favourite…

• crotch shots galore–not for kids or teens.

I think what adds salt to the wounds of these comments is the idea that hundreds of teens throughout the English-speaking world perform the teen version of this musical through high school drama productions every year. As of publishing this article 24 high schools will perform this musical in the 2023-2024 school year.

Pearl Clutching

I think that a common theme among both the PMRC and the reception to Rock of Ages is that neither of these things has to be consumed or quite frankly shown to kids? Like, I think there is something to say about choosing not to watch something because of content or moral differences. This isn’t to say that people can’t make inciteful comments or criticisms about media, rather I see little value in getting mad about a known fact. Rock of Ages is ostensibly a movie about sex, alcohol, and rock’n’roll and complaining that there is too much sex, too much alcohol, or too much rock’n’roll doesn’t seem like valid criticism to me. Consumers have the valid option to just not watch things that they find offensive or crude. In 1984 the internet did not exist and for Tipper Gore to discover inappropriate popular music, I’m sure came as a surprise, but I don’t think not knowing is an excuse anymore.

In his article for the New York Times, Ben Sisario discusses the implications of the Cardi B song WAP. In the article, Sisario talks about the rise of the song and how self-censorship played a larger role in the growth and popularity of the song.

“Yet despite the song’s uninhibited raunch, its popularity was partly earned from one of the music industry’s oldest bugaboos: self-censorship. Before “WAP” could be played on the radio, its most explicit verbiage was pruned by Cardi B’s engineers. [Radio programmer Doc Wynter] recalled that the ostensibly sanitized copy first offered by Cardi B’s label, Atlantic — the “clean” version of the song, in industry jargon — was still too racy for broadcast, leading Wynter to ask for nine additional, last-minute edits.”

Further in the article Sisario talks to Hilary Rosen, a former chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America. Rosen claims that despite a history of controversy and organizations like the PMRC did not do anything to affect the kinds of music being made; “the public controversy — the regulatory threat — never felt as great as the retail threat.” At the same time, however, the self-censorship of scrubbing or cleaning music is still vital to the longevity of both artists and songs. If it wasn’t for the clean version of WAP it likely would not have been as big of a hit as it was.

I think that this self-censorship is a way to get around the pearl-clutching of the 1980s. This is not to say that people still don’t get upset about music or movies (Moms for Liberty is considered an “extremist groups” by various organizations), there was plenty of controversy around the song WAP in the same way there was controversy around Rock of Ages but the self-censorship in music has somewhat revolutionized the industry and how artists become big. “There was a constant cultural war around whether music was at fault for coarsening society,” said Rosen “But when you look at it today, I don’t think anyone is accusing Cardi B of coarsening society…”

Conclusion

I think there is a lot to be said about the influence of the PMRC on not only music but on how people interact with morally ambiguous and controversial media. The PMRC, although largely unsuccessful, has set a prescient on how people interact with controversial media and has set the prescient on what should be done with it. Modern day book bans and backlash against “progressive media” are treated with the ideas brought fourth by the PMRC; if you can ban it, mark it with a scarlet letter of impurity and indecency.