There are always people with either unconventional or conservative views when it comes to subcultures and other preferences. For example, Parents Music Resource Center is a group created in 1985 in the United States, whose primary purpose has been to condemn the immorality and aggression of rock music, claiming that it is essentially to blame for the myriad illnesses that beset the nation (Anderson 32). The PMRC stated that its main goal was to enlighten the community, and it is largely assumed that the campaign’s activities only led to a de facto banning of mainstream music.
The group was constituted by four women who were known as the Washington Wives, referring to their spouses’ official ties. The mothers were worried by the songs their children were listening to, which included Prince, Madonna, and others. On September 19, 1985, the subculture disputes emerged in a hearing on rock, which featured evidence from John Denver, Dee Snider, and Frank Zappa (Anderson 32). The Parents Music Resource Center eventually expanded to 22 members before having to close in the late 1990s.
Several incidents surrounding rock music in the 1980s drew greater media interest that later made the Parents Music Resource Center take action. However, during the hearings, the PMRC recommended a categorization for material that could be considered inappropriate for some age groups (Anderson 32). Most significantly, the group had to clarify that the PMRC was not pushing for any type of Federal action or regulation (Anderson 32). The PMRC finally won on a larger scale when it persuaded the music business to use the parental advisory—explicit content tag.
The position of those in favor of the PMSC was voiced by a group of mothers, including Howard, Baker, and Gore. The three women criticized music labels for releasing songs with explicit context; they demonstrated how serious the risks of such cultural trends were to the nation. According to Howard, a spokesman for the whole group, she was shocked as soon as she heard songs performed by Prince, in which he was singing about masturbation. In 1985, the group expressed their fears regarding the music industry in a letter to record labels, saying that rock music has become filthy and now involves a depiction of sexual content, suggesting pornographic ideas (Anderson 32). Meanwhile, many parents are clueless about the songs their offspring are listening to, dancing to, completing schoolwork, or falling asleep to.
Within this context, pornographic and inappropriate modern music was thought to influence children’s daily life. The music gradually invaded the audience’s perceptions and bodies by drawing the listener’s attention, then altering bodily motions, a physical instant reaction, becoming part of a cognitive learning experience, and eventually infiltrating one of the most intimate areas inside a home: the bedroom. This type of music was thought to have a severely harmful impact on children, interfering with their development as well as their purity and humility. As a result, in order to solve the issues they identified, the PMRC needed to determine who was responsible for the creation of this sort of music.
As a result, the main position of those in favor of Parents Music Resource Center was that rock music was that overly explicit content in such songs has a negative influence on children. At such a fragile age, the lyrics might affect children’s minds and create distorted perceptions. Consequently, by listening to songs that involve pornographic ideas, children might follow the same path or become uncontrollable.
There is the opposite view of the same issue, which artists and music industry representatives mainly advocate. This same year some performers and music industry experts vehemently resisted any sort of censorship imposed from outside this business and advocated for self-restraint. For example, Spencer Proffer, a producer of Quiet Riot, claimed that everything is subject to interpretation since music is basically an expressive form of art (Anderson 32). Thus, reasonable judgment is still the most significant source of censorship.
Moreover, an opinion was expressed by Frank Zappa, an artist and composer. According to perceptions outlined in the man’s memoir, The Real Frank Zappa Book, there are a variety of arguments against PMSC, and they all involve distorted interpretations of the parents (Anderson 31). The author describes a situation in which Gore, a senator’s wife and an advocate of PMSC, bought her child an R-rated CD of Prince’s album, Purple Rain, that had already sparked heated debate due to its inappropriate sexual context (Anderson 31). Nevertheless, she was taken aback when their child mentioned a point of masturbation in a song titled Darling Nikki (Anderson 31). The woman later gathered a group of her senator housewife friends, the majority of whom were married to influential members of the U.S. Senate, and established the Parents Music Resource Center. Thus, the main points of those opposed to the opinions of the Parents Music Resource Center were regarding the parents and personal interpretations of the songs. According to many, music is a form of art expression.
As for my personal opinion, I believe that Parents Music Resource Center is a clear representation of conservative society’s beliefs and perceptions of how children should be raised in a bubble and how media and the music industry should be controlled. In reality, their plan might not only be destructive but lead to violation of fundamental rights of people. In the first scenario, parents cannot protect their children from the influence of societal trends. In this respect, if they do not hear the songs on their own initiative, they might hear them from their peers. The desire to prohibit something and make it unreachable might backfire.
In the second scenario, banning explicit music or putting it under censorship violates the right to freedom of expression. According to the First Amendment to the Constitution, individuals are granted the freedom of speech. They can express their own opinions or create music that aligns with their interests or perceptions without fearing being punished. As per the words of Spencer Proffer, music is an art form of expression, and this right cannot be violated.
For example, one of the songs by Twisted Sister, We’re not gonna take it, might be considered an anthem of youth rebellion. As the lyrics go, “we’ve got the right to choose, and there ain’t no way we’ll lose it” (Twister Sister, 1:20). Such songs might be considered inappropriate by PMRC since they encourage the children to oppose authority. Nevertheless, any child and adolescent have the right to hold their own opinion and explore the world on their terms.
To conclude, Parents Music Resource Center was a group created by four women in 1985. The aim of this group was to control the music that was released and make the songs with explicit content undergo censorship. Those who were in favor of this group held the opinion that the lyrics of modern songs encourage children to rebel and cause harm to the proper development of children. Those who opposed PMRS claimed that this is an apparent restriction of artistic expression, and in many cases, the parents are to blame when children make references to inappropriate songs. I believe that banning specific genres of music or different songs is a violation of human rights. Additionally, I think that it is impossible to protect children from every danger in this world, and any child or adolescent must have a right to form their opinion.
Works Cited
Anderson, Avery. “Parental Advisory: Tipper Gore and the PMRC.” Women Leading Change: Case Studies on Women, Gender, and Feminism, vo. 5, no. 1, 2020, pp. 31-47.
Twisted Sister. “We’re Not Gonna Take It.” YouTube, 2010, Web.