Rebecca's Thoughts

Originally published in The Lost Art of Pearl Clutching

September marked the 38th anniversary of the creation of the Parent Music Resource Centre (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. 

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 against the “adult excesses” found on MTV, Gore wanted to take up arms against “porn rock” a new kind of rock music that was “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 with the mission to “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 of 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.