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).

Historical Context of Censorship in Rock and Roll

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).

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).