Kevin wrote:
"Hell, why is hard-boiled popular fiction worthy of respect
and even serious discussion, but a four-minute song dealing
with the same subject deemed somehow morally suspect or
culturally negligible?"
Interesting question. The culture of the masses never gets
the respect of more refined cultural pursuits. Literature,
even the more popular genres, gets more respect because it
requires a certain level of education and/or literacy.
However, music is aural and can be understood by anyone,
regardless of age, education or literacy. So those who feel
they must save us all from immoral culture trumpet the risk
of the young being exposed to things for which they are not
yet ready (must save the children!). Plus there are often
class and race distinctions at play.
The same applies to movies, being visual and accessible to
all. Reminds me of something I heard about video regulation
in the UK in the era after the "Video Nasties" controversy.
Supposedly the video release of Reservoir Dogs was long
delayed because of fears about its possible influence. There
was no delay, however, for the release of the far more
graphic Man Bites Dog, about a documentary crew following a
serial killer (a very sick, but entertaining movie, far
better than the similar Natural Born Killers). The release
board decided its audience would be limited to an artier
(read better educated) audience because it was black and
white and had subtitles, so there was no need to worry about
its effect on viewers.
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06 Apr 2008 EDT