First Bosch buys Midas, and now Harmon International has agreed to be acquired by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Goldman Sachs for $8 billion dollars. Hey, I’m small time and $1 million dollars seems like a lot of money to me. Therefore, an $8 billion dollar purchase sounds like the type of numbers my friends and I would spew out when we were little kids trying to outdo each other on the playground. “When I grow up,” I’d say, “I’m going to have a gazillion million billion dollars.”
“Oh yeah?” my friend would counter, “Well when I grow up I’m gonna have a billion gazillion umpty bumpty gazumpty dollars.” Of course, back then, none of us ever believed that these types of dollar numbers could ever exist, but now it seems as though we’re beginning to get close. As a matter of fact, these numbers are impressive to me only because I never knew that audio could be so profitable. ($8 billion!) Nonetheless, these numbers pale in comparison to how Exxon Mobil’s net income for the first quarter of 2007 rose from $8.4 billion in 2006 to $9.28 billion this year. That’s almost $1.25 billion dollars more profit for the first quarter of 2007 than posted for the same period in 2006. Go figure.
In other absurd news, as reported by the New York Daily News, 69% of the 330 colleges surveyed “explicitly prohibit speech that, outside the borders of campus, is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” For example, Drexel University has a school policy that prohibits “not only ‘inconsiderate jokes,’ but also ‘inappropriately directed laughter.’” Northeastern University prohibits sending any e-mail message “which in the sole judgment of the University is offensive.” Johns Hopkins University takes it a step further and prohibits “rude, disrespectful behavior.” I’m assuming that since these are private institutions, they can make up any rules they please and get away with it, but it certainly makes me stop and think. After all, the First Amendment wasn’t devised to guide citizens in manners and etiquette, but rather to allow for debate and the free expression of ideas in a democratic society.
A while back, Howard Stern was hounded off terrestrial radio because the Federal Communications Commission decided to arbitrarily fine him and his station for every uttered obscenity. Unfortunately for Howard Stern, the FCC made its own subjective guidelines, which it capriciously enforced (think Drexel University). Howard saw this as harassment and decided that it would be in his best interest to leave terrestrial radio for satellite radio where the FCC would have no say in his programming. This move proved to be a tough break for his station(s) as they ended up losing millions in advertising dollars. But the FCC prevailed, and Howard is now plying his trade to a smaller market share of listeners than in the past. Still, he has done quite well for himself monetarily because he has an incredible advertising base that he brought to his new format, which, by the way, allows him more artistic freedom as well. We should all make such sacrifices.
Talkin’ Dirty
Arts, entertainment and media have always pushed the limits of respectability and controversy, and censorship is not a new phenomenon relegated to our modern age of digital correctness. In 1913, at the premier of Igor Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring, fights broke out between audience members over the unconventional dance and music and its topic of ancient fertility rites. In 1933, a U.S. movie code was instituted and overseen by Joseph I. Breen, an ardent Catholic missionary for purity and decency; for the following 20 years, he was the totalitarian moral barometer for Hollywood and, by extension, America (think Johns Hopkins University).
With the arrival of rock ‘n’ roll in the early ‘50s, there was also a backlash from the religious and “morally minded citizens” who found the new art form ethically reprehensible. For the sake of God and country, they did their best to ban the salacious dance, rhythms and words of this new art form. Interestingly, much of the new art form to which these moral compasses were objecting, was steeped in black American culture or “R & B” music. From its inception, rock ‘n’ roll was a contentious art form, due to its racial, sexual and socio-political overtones, which led to various records and artists being banned from media outlets like mainstream radio and television. Ironically, this censorship often served to make the banned group or record even more popular with the listening public — the latest case being the Dixie Chicks. For more amusing facts about the censorship of various recording artists go to: http://www.classicbands.com/banned.html.
The word “obscene,” as defined in the Encarta Dictionary, yields these definitions:
1. Indecent: offensive to conventional standards of decency, especially by being sexually explicit.
2. Disgusting: disgusting and morally offensive, especially because of showing total disregard for other people.
While these definitions of the word obscene are usually applied to the sexual content of a show or recording, one can also use these definitions, especially the second one, to describe despicable behavior, such as for the obscene profits reaped by the oil companies or the obscene amount of money record companies and radio stations make from advertising promoting their obscene content. Just as “free speech” is hard to define, so too is the word “obscene,” as witnessed in three of the better-known court cases regarding obscenity laws.
In Miller v. California (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that materials were obscene if they appealed, “to a prurient interest,” showed “patently offensive sexual conduct” that was specifically defined by a state obscenity law, and “lacked serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value.” The court determined that decisions regarding whether or not material was obscene should be based on local, not national, standards.
In Reno v. ACLU (1997), the Supreme Court struck down indecency laws applying to the Internet, which cast serious doubt on Congress’s ability to pass such wide-ranging regulation banning “indecent” speech on communications technologies that enter the home.
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) is better known as the landmark “seven dirty words” case. In that 1978 ruling, the justices found that only “repetitive and frequent” use of the words in a time or place when a minor could hear can be punished.
Recently Don Imus, a well-known radio personality, was fired from his job after he off-handedly called a girls’ basketball team “nappy-headed hoes.” If one thinks that Imus was fired because Al Sharpton made the radio station see the error of their racist ways, they’d be mistaken; the station made no decision until the show’s sponsors started to withdraw their cash. Again, I doubt that the sponsors’ actions, on their own behalf, were prompted by a moral obligation as much as it was a monetary decision.
Sharpton, on the other hand, apparently had stepped in his own quagmire, as he was then obligated to lead a group of 300 protesters through the streets of New York City in a drive to demand decency in hip-hop lyrics. I personally doubt that anything will come of this protest since it is the hip hop community, as well as the record companies, who are getting obscenely rich by using the words, “ho,” “nigga” and “bitch” in their recordings. In 1995, Sharpton defended “gangsta” rappers and stated that they had a right to make music about sex, drugs and violence. He also stated, “We’re not talking about censorship. We’re not talking about content; we’re talking about three words.” Apparently he, along with everyone else in the music business, is not up on the FCC v. Pacifica ruling because, until he found it opportune to take offence with Imus, he paid no attention to rap lyrics.
Matters of Taste
I consider Sharpton, Imus, Stern, Opie and Anthony, Rap music, American Idol, reality TV and the huge conglomerates that either do or do not support them to be, not necessarily obscene, but in poor taste. I take offense at stupidity and poor taste, and I plan to lead a march against it. Unfortunately, these traits are hard to pinpoint, and in too many instances, these same traits are even embodied by the American public. It is difficult to say who and what can be deemed stupid or in poor taste as exemplified by the fact that some people like the paintings of Manet while others prefer a nice Elvis on velvet.
That said, let me leave you by posing this question: If you are on tour with your band (regardless of genre), and you roll into an outdoor venue that insists on keeping a dB meter on hand to make sure that you do not exceed 95 dB during the show, does this constitute censorship of free speech or harassment due to bias? If dB control is not censorship of free speech, then it certainly appears to be a way in which to censor the audio level of free speech. After all, if anyone can legally enforce an arbitrary volume of 95 dB, who can say that they couldn’t enforce a level of 72 dB or even 45 dB? Therefore, acting on behalf of all audio engineers, I feel it is my job to try and get a ruling by the Supreme Court to state that there will be no restrictions placed upon the volume at which free speech is presented. If we want to speak freely at 120dB (A weighted), then so be it. Otherwise, we will be at the whim of every advertiser with a dB meter capriciously deciding the volume of any given program. Ohhhhh…
You can be as loud as you want in any e-mails to blee@fohonline.com.
