Music Censorship in Rock and Rap: History and Impact

Introduction

There have been many attempts by society to control music. Governmental statutes, agency regulations, business controls, and parents have all tried to censor music — sometimes successfully, sometimes not. It is important to examine censorship efforts through the lens of offending lyrics and the surrounding youth culture, beginning with rock in the mid-1950s and continuing through rap and hip-hop culture from the mid-1980s onward. For many people, a genuine tension exists between an idealistic belief in free expression as a cornerstone of democracy and a reluctance to extend that freedom absolutely. The limits of such tolerance regarding popular music are worth examining (Davidson and Winfield, 1999).

An examination of rock and rap music censorship necessarily touches on a wide range of topics: general societal reactions to unfamiliar music, racism, governmental responses, media outlets such as the New York Times, and the music industry itself. Each of these has served as a gatekeeper — a veritable controller of the music and lyrics that make their way into the collective consciousness. Censorship, or "bleeping," has been part of American society for a long time. As the nineteenth-century French observer Alexis de Tocqueville once noted, "intolerance runs alongside a democracy."

Legendary music producer Sam Phillips had firsthand experience with the suppression of musical expression. In 1957, while promoting Jerry Lee Lewis's "Whole Lotta Shakin' Goin' On," a record distributor asked him to delete the word "it" from the "shake it, baby" refrain. Phillips refused. Another 1950s figure, Elvis Presley, "frightened a lot of people," according to Kenneth A. Paulson, executive director of the First Amendment Center, speaking at an Associated Press Managing Editors conference. Paulson noted that Elvis's appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show — during which producers refused to show the singer below the waist — gave many young Americans their first experience of censorship. Singer Jill Sobule encountered censorship when her single "I Kissed a Girl" struggled to find airtime due to its lesbian theme. Steppenwolf's John Kay, having grown up in East Germany after World War II, was keenly aware of how destructive the suppression of ideas can become when no one speaks out. Paulson argued that instead of suppressing music, society should celebrate it: "Music has done more to break down areas of censorship, racism, international understanding… More than all of the damn ambassadors put together… around the world" (AJR, 1990, p. 20).

The controversy over American popular music began in earnest in the post-World War II era, as popular songs increasingly referenced human sexuality and the racial tensions in society. The Spanish-born cellist and conductor Pablo Casals (1876–1973), considered one of the finest musicians of his generation, offered a famously harsh assessment of rock and roll in the early 1960s — a view that must be understood through the perspective of a musician whose entire life was devoted to European fine-art music:

"You want to know what I think of that abomination, rock 'n' roll? I think it is a disgrace. Poison put to sound! When I hear it I feel very sad not only for music but for the people who are addicted to it. I am also very sorry for America — that such a great country should have nothing better to pour into the expectant ear of mankind than this raucous distillation of the ugliness of our times, performed by juveniles for juveniles. It is a terrible and sardonic trick of fate that the children of the present century should have to grow up with their bodies under continual bombardment from atomic fall-out and their souls exposed to rock 'n' roll" (Casals, 1961, p. 18).

Many observers seemed eager to attribute the sordid lifestyles of certain rock musicians, as well as the untimely deaths of several others, directly to the music itself. As Martin and Segrave observed: "Rock and roll fans, if even a portion of what the critics have said was true, by now would be stone deaf, with their minds burnt out by drugs, and their bodies wasted by excessive fornication. That none of this is true has never bothered rock opponents nor caused them to pause in their attacks. Rock bashing has remained constant since the mid-1950s both in content and style" (Martin & Segrave, 1993, p. vii).

No other musical genre in Western civilization has aroused more controversy and stronger emotions than rock and roll. No other type of music has attracted so many powerful and self-righteous opponents. No group of musicians has taken such self-indulgent and self-destructive glee in merging the roles of entertainer, artist, and social outlaw. Simply invoking the names of three identifiable strains — "shock rock," "cock rock," and "schlock rock" — gives some sense of this music's power to send the self-appointed guardians of American culture into a tirade. The music's identification with teenage thoughts and behaviors has contributed to overwrought reactions against its perceived menace (Budds, 1999).

Historical Context of Censorship in Rock and Roll

Rock and roll has become a prime target for censorship campaigns waged by a wide range of special interest lobbies, including religious, political, economic, and musical groups (Martin & Segrave, 1988; Cloonan, 1996). Such vehement opposition, whether well intentioned or cloaked in self-interest, has existed almost perpetually throughout rock music's relatively short lifetime. Strangely, the passion and energy directed at suppressing rock seem only to have spurred musicians to further flaunt whatever aspect of their music or behavior is considered objectionable — a kind of defiant celebration.

At the heart of the issue is a fundamental departure of attitudes and practices from those that have characterized mainstream American culture since the colonial era. This change in taste was dramatic because it symbolized the widespread acceptance of musical customs rooted in Black America and rural white America — sectors of society that had very little prestige and were dismissed as irrelevant to national standards. What was new in the 1950s was the emergence of an enthusiastic audience of middle-class white teenagers, paired with a new designation for the music: "rock 'n' roll." Young people with a fascination for minority music proved to be one of the major forces behind the reshaping of social patterns in American society during the second half of the twentieth century (Budds, 1999).

This transformation of American popular music became the source of intense debate precisely because it was embraced by the youth of the dominant culture without the blessing of their parents. Few other musical movements in history have been so clearly defined by generational lines. Once the music had been around long enough to establish itself as more than a passing fad, it quickly became the social emblem of rebellious youth.

Much of the negative reaction from establishment voices can be identified as both racist and elitist. In 1956, Time magazine set the tone for the national debate by describing rock and roll in terms such as "jungle," "juvenile delinquency," and "Hitler mass meetings" (Time, 1956).

Entertainment music in America was also a highly lucrative business at this time, and the sudden rise of young Southern upstarts flooding the marketplace caused real financial anxiety among industry insiders. "A serious loss of income and control caused industry executives to go on the defense, going so far as to condemn the music of competitors as both socially irresponsible and morally corrupting. The editors of Billboard and Variety, the trade magazines of their profession, raised the ugly specter of government censorship as the ultimate solution to the dilemma" (Billboard, 1954; Green, 1955).

It was not long before the industry, lured by obvious financial rewards, wholeheartedly embraced rock and roll — a move that helped solidify the music's hold on the American middle class while also introducing commercial compromises. By the end of the 1950s, many observers felt the industry itself had become a central part of the problem.

The most obvious target for censors has always been the lyrics of rock and roll songs, labeled from the very beginning as trivial, sexually suggestive, or obscene. Song texts in mainstream America had long been shaped by European high culture, however watered down for middle-class ears; songs that offended this sensibility were banned from radio or cut from Broadway and Hollywood productions. Rock and roll, like folk music and fine-art music before it, came to accept the premise that the subject matter of music should span the entire spectrum of human experience (Budds, 1999).

While many welcomed this spirit of uncensored expression as evidence of rock's "coming of age," opponents intensified their efforts, repeating their claim that rock and roll influenced young Americans in deeply negative ways. Much of the criticism focused on a cult of violence associated first with 1970s punk and heavy metal, and later with gangsta rap (Ro, 1996) and the "hate" rock of white supremacist groups. For decades, feminists had been vociferous in condemning the misogynist words, images, and actions that pervade the male-dominated world of rock and roll (Meade, 1971).

There is no better record of what American teenagers in the second half of the twentieth century were about than rock and roll. It remains music with an attitude — at odds with authority figures. These attitudes have regularly been expressed, without apology, in the common language of teenagers intent on carving out meaningful identities. The casual use of profanity, explicit references to sexual behavior and drug use, and open attacks on other cultural "sacred cows" are not exclusive to rock and roll. With the twenty-first century well under way, rock and roll is more complicated and controversial than ever. One aspect of its tradition remains unchanged: the music created by young Americans for young Americans continues to alarm, shock, and challenge the fabric of society. Its opponents remain just as ready to voice outrage and fight for censorship as they ever were (Budds, 1999).

American parents have attempted to censor music by organizing and pressuring government and industry to control youth-oriented music and culture. Much of the censorship carried out by white adults has been conducted under the guise of protecting children. The underlying fear is that children might emulate the behavior modeled in rock and rap culture as they mature amid increasingly provocative music and lyrics.

During the second half of the twentieth century, the reaction to rock and rap music developed into a genuine clash of cultures. Many biases play a role in this reaction. Because creativity goes all the way to the roots of a culture, clashes inevitably occur between the foundations of European and African musical traditions. In Euro-centric music, creativity equals change — sometimes subtle, with one melodic idea building upon and replacing another. Composers experiment with new forms and sounds, but melody remains central, and lyrics often interact with a Western harmonic progression. In Afro-centric music, by contrast, creativity depends on repetition and the revitalization of rhythmic sound, with the beat primary. Words fit the beat and express human emotion. These principles are especially prominent in rock and rap music closely tied to African musical traditions and explicit lyrics (Winfield, 1999).

Despite court rulings that music and other cultural expressions are protected under the First Amendment, the reality is that many American adults have historically disliked non-European sounds, particularly upon first exposure. In the historical progression from blues to jazz to rock to rap, critics accused this music and its creators of disrupting cultural values, inciting violence, and being generally detrimental to society.

Meanwhile, teenagers were not merely searching for new musical sounds; they were seeking voices and words that spoke to them as they forged adult identities. Adolescence involves navigating the pressures of sexuality, romance, morality, parents, authority, and government, and emerging forms of rock and rap music spoke personally to older children. Since teenagers' tastes are still forming as they move toward adulthood, their interests center around music. They are drawn not only to lyrics and sounds but also to the possibility of breaking previous taboos.

The biggest taboos for teenagers appear to concern incitement to violence against women and authority figures such as the police, as well as sexually explicit language. For parents, music aimed at teens raises fears of out-of-control rebellion and social depravity. Parents worry about incitement leading some minors toward misogyny, racism, and violence. Rock and rap music have become common scapegoats for whatever seems wrong with young people. The response to these fears has been a series of attempted controls ranging from government legislation to economic and commercial forms of censorship (Winfield, 1999).

The justification for such controls rests on fears about the effects of rock and rap on young audiences. This music, the argument goes, may cause youth to become ungovernable and unlikely to follow social and parental rules. The possible effects parents wish to avoid include bizarre behavior, imitation of alien sounds, use of taboo language, emulation of violent lyrics, premature sexual activity, copying performers' outlandish antics, and being overwhelmed by extreme audience reactions. Many adults view rock and rap musicians as instigators whose lyrics and actions encourage sexual antics and savagery, including murder, drug use, and suicide. Since music conveys feelings and emotions, the danger of such music is vivid and immediate to those afraid of these behaviors.

The "clear and present danger" standard has historically meant that the state may regulate speech if the danger is sufficiently grave and obvious — in other words, free expression in the United States is not absolute. Nevertheless, certain areas have not warranted protection, including pornography and obscenity accessible to children. Despite granting constitutional protection to many forms of entertainment, the Supreme Court has never ruled definitively on the degree of free-expression protection that should be afforded music, beyond copyright protections.

Censorship Under the Guise of Protecting the Children

Beyond legal controls, the censorship of music can be indirect. Consumers have been urged to boycott concerts and to refrain from purchasing music publicized as harmful. Businesses and discount mega-stores have responded to public pressure by refusing to carry music labeled as obscene or violent. The industry may even censor itself, dampening creative expression regardless of commercial success.

Young people, as the primary consumers of new musical forms, have always purchased records, tapes, and CDs, listened to the radio, watched MTV, and attended live concerts (Berry & Wolin, 1985). Rock topped the list of musical purchases by dollar value (Jones, 1982). Industry executives tend to avoid artists or groups controversial enough to hurt sales. Music companies also react to vocal parental groups who publicly protest that particular lyrics are too violent or sexually suggestive. Some individuals have even sued musicians and record companies directly as a remedy for perceived harm to themselves and their families.

Public officials have often responded to controversial music with moral outrage, proposing new laws to protect children and society. In recent years, former Secretary of Education William Bennett, along with C. Delores Tucker and other governmental and parental leaders, reacted strongly to rap songs about urban violence. In the 1980s, after hearing explicit masturbation lyrics in "Darling Nikki" on Prince's Purple Rain album, a group of politicians' wives — calling themselves the Parents' Music Resource Center (PMRC) — lobbied for legislation requiring labeling to warn of obscenity and deviant content (DeCurtis, 1992).

Warning labels on CDs, tapes, and printed lyrics have become a standard part of music products today. Interestingly, warning stickers often served to increase sales. One of the leaders of the movement to educate parents about provocative movies and music, Tipper Gore, stated that censorship was not actually her goal (Gore, 1987). In general, attempts to apply long-standing obscenity or indecency statutes to music have failed. This is partly because messages that offend one person may appeal to another. Music is evaluated individually by song, album, and performer.

For a message to be declared obscene, it must satisfy all three prongs of the legal test established in the 1973 Miller decision: first, "whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest"; second, "whether the work depicts in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law"; and third, "whether the work has any redeeming social value." The Supreme Court has also ruled that a state may define obscenity for minors under the age of 17 and prohibit sales of obscene material to them. Even so, applying the Miller test is difficult given the artistic or political value defense. In the case of Luke Records and 2 Live Crew's 1992 album As Nasty as They Wanna Be, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that "the obscenity test had been misapplied, and that the recording was not legally obscene because it did not meet the third legal prong concerning redeeming social value."

The constitutional debate over heavy metal rock and gangsta rap is not only about explicit language but also about advocacy — specifically, incitement to violence. Earlier censorship concerns over incitement dealt with political speech; in the context of rap music, incitement refers to brutality and physical injury. This means that even though the government has broad interests in children's welfare, it bears a heavy burden in justifying regulations, and community standards rules would not apply in the same way.

Historically, when music challenged society's norms, various internal or external controls were exercised, or the music was altered to make it more acceptable. Traditional blues singers developed new imagery to get past record company censors. By the mid-1950s, rock and roll — with its mass appeal to white youth during the early civil rights movement — was under particular suspicion. It was not just the startling sexual lyrics but also the performers' suggestive stage manner, double entendres, and guttural sounds that many adults found shocking (Flood, 1991).

In the late 1950s, when "Rock Around the Clock" became a national teenage anthem, many adults tried to link it to teenage sexuality and rebellion (McDonald, 1988). Adults quickly denounced rock as the devil's music, claiming it was filled with messages about sex, drugs, perversion, communism, atheism, miscegenation, and criminal activity. As well as generating public outrage, the new rock music separated youth further from their parents and threatened the perceived "normalcy" of American life.

When rap music rose into public consciousness by the mid-1980s, it represented a collective, community-based form of expression. The adult fear was that suburban white youth would empathize with — and "join" — Black adolescents' urban experience. Although white rappers existed, Black artists dominated gangsta rap, using Black codes and street lingo explicit enough to be widely understood. Even though nearly 75% of all rap albums were purchased by white youth, rap was widely regarded as a Black cultural phenomenon.

The lyrics confronted audiences with uncomfortable realities about racism, sexism, and Black feelings toward white authority figures. Unlike earlier concerns about heavy metal's effects on troubled individuals, rap music was believed capable of provoking violent reactions from entire audiences. In April 1989, the song "Wild Thing" by Tone Loc was blamed for the sensational Central Park "wilding" rape. The hysterical reaction cast Black youth as unthinking and animalistic, ready to erupt into "wilding" and rioting at any moment. Inflammatory songs such as "Cop Killer" were believed capable of inciting an entire race to murder police officers. Unlike previous reactions to musical change, these anxieties were aimed not at individual artists but at an entire racial group (Talerman, 1994).

The accusations about rap lyrics became more than a racial issue, reflecting gender and social concerns about sexism, sexual harassment, rape, and murder. Much rap was sexually explicit — 2 Live Crew's As Nasty as They Wanna Be included tracks such as "Me So Horny" and "Dick Almighty." Ice-T's "Cop Killer," from the album Body Count, infuriated many with its lyrics "Die, die, die, pig, die!" Public outcry went to the extreme of death threats against record company employees until Ice-T agreed to pull the track from his album. Irish radio stations and Australian live venues also banned "Cop Killer" (Campbell, 1991).

The argument soon became that censorship was justified because rap lyrics were graphic, sadistic, and masochistic. At the same time, rap music clearly resonated with a wide range of listeners and became a weekly fixture on MTV. Political, boastful, and angry, rap lyrics reverberated with primitive beats that shouted conflict. Rap upset the prevailing assumption that lyrics were secondary to sound. Groups such as 2 Live Crew were charged with using lustful lyrics to encourage sexual exploits and incite violent confrontations. In July 1990, 2 Live Crew's recordings became the subject of the Donahue and Geraldo shows, with musicians such as Frank Zappa and Axl Rose speaking out in support of musicians' right to self-expression. Luther Campbell, the leader of 2 Live Crew, released a solo single entitled "Banned in the U.S.A."; to show support for the free-expression principles at stake, Bruce Springsteen granted Campbell permission to use the chorus from "Born in the U.S.A." (Campbell, 1991).

Scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. argued, in a letter to the New York Times, that the case of 2 Live Crew "tells more about the American psyche" than about the group itself (Gates, 1990).

In some ways, banning particular songs ends up creating a kind of defiant partnership between artists and their audiences. The German group Die Ärzte was banned by their CBS label from releasing "Helmut Kohl Beats His Wife." In response, the group released the song to great popular acclaim. When they were scheduled to perform in Munich, police surrounded the venue and warned the band that singing the song would result in arrest. Die Ärzte shared their dilemma with the audience in attendance; while the musicians played the music, the audience sang the words. No one was arrested (Holden, 1993).

Since the early 1970s, American government officials have been increasingly outspoken in their judgments about music aimed at youth. Rock music has paralleled the civil rights movement, the Vietnam War protests, the assassination of popular leaders, the "credibility gap," the "generation gap," the "gender gap," and various environmental concerns. American youth had already been politicized, and their ideology permeated the music (Lull, 1992).

President Richard Nixon attempted to deport John Lennon from the U.S. in 1970 because of the political content of Lennon's lyrics and what Nixon termed Lennon's deviant behavior. Vice President Spiro Agnew declared that rock lyrics were "threatening to destroy our national strength." Performers were fined for sexual, anti-drug, and anti-war messages. Country Joe McDonald was fined $500 in Massachusetts for his "Feel Like I'm Fixin' to Die Rag," described as the work of a "lewd, lascivious and wanton person in speech and behavior." The United States Senate, led by Senator James Buckley, investigated the "drugola" relationship between drugs and rock music, accusing CBS and Columbia Records of using drugs as payment to disc jockeys in exchange for promoting particular songs (Fong-Torres, 1973). Simultaneously, the FBI compiled extensive files on John Lennon (92 pages), Jim Morrison (91 pages), and Elvis Presley (87 pages) (McDonald, 1988). Federal officials continued to link music's political messages to the power of resistance from the mid-1960s into the early 1970s.

The marketplace can also censor music indirectly. Music that lacks a potential market faces insurmountable obstacles in securing recording contracts, promotion, and airplay. At about the same time that Black music achieved mainstream status, much of the jazz, blues, and rhythm-and-blues genres lost their racial identification and some of their meaning. While government censorship was based on content restrictions, the industry's self-restraint was driven directly by the power of the marketplace. Billboard's chart-compilation lists had historically determined the rankings of popular singles and albums; with the adoption of new computer technology in the 1990s, Black music performances on those charts improved dramatically (Sernoe, 1994).

Record companies, many of which began as small operations, had moved toward a marketed consumer-product model by the 1980s (Goodman, 1997). Companies with thriving subsidiary enterprises were effectively held hostage to PMRC demands. By the 1990s, both music companies and music stores refused to sell rock or rap music labeled as violent or sexually explicit to anyone under 16. Even mainstream non-music retailers such as Wal-Mart began refusing to carry certain labels and album covers.

Violence and extreme behavior in rap lyrics sell music. Before his murder in Las Vegas in 1996, Tupac Shakur — one of gangsta rap's biggest stars — was encouraged by his record label to be extreme in his antics and lyrics. His first album, All Eyez on Me, released in early 1996 on Death Row Records, sold over five million units. The more confrontational he was, the more newsworthy he became, and the more his records sold. To some he was a hero; to others, a demon. Tupac was caught squarely between his own character and the commercial image his record company required of him, and he paid the highest price (Bruck, 1997).

After the rap group N.W.A. released "Straight Outta Compton" and Ice-T released "Cop Killer," enraging many police officers, organized boycotts of the albums and concerts followed (DeCurtis, 1992). An incitement charge would strip away First Amendment protection if the danger were deemed immediate and likely and the intent was to stimulate an illegal action. Although music qualifies as protected speech, and there is a right of public access to such speech, various states and cities passed statutes banning rap or heavy metal concerts on the grounds of possible incitement. Unreasonably high insurance premiums for concerts became another form of prior restraint.

Conclusion

Since 1956, censorship, regulation, and control have all been persistent issues for rock and roll. Public indignation and virulent criticism were responses to the very nature of the music form. Rock was so alien at its inception that it was scrutinized first for its sounds, then for its lyrics. Yet the music endured, in many hybrid forms. Over forty years of rock music and its offshoots are all the evidence needed to confirm that it flourished despite vehement opposition and blatant attempts at censorship.