Conference marvin::uk_music

>    last few years ?? Are the guidelines that affected 'Relax" changed ??

'Relax' wasn't 'banned' by any censorship other than one BBC Radio 1
(so-called) DJ deciding to save the souls of the nation from the (in
his opinion) corrupting lyrics of 'Relax'

the original video for "I touch myself" is supposed to be quite
interesting :-), unfortunately Idon't think I'll get to see it on tv
since it's been censored
(unless its on late at night I guess - anyone seen it?)


...corrupted art

If I remember, 'Relax' was heading out of the charts when it was 'banned', 
and then it shot back in and made number 1... the rest is history. I'm sick
of hearing the thing.

Dave

    Has any music ever been officially censored (ie. had bits taken out, or
    been banned officially from being sold)?
    
    I remember Jasper Carrott's "Magic Roundabout" being banned by the BBC
    (result: huge success), and "Relax", as was mentioned by previous
    replies (same result). It seems to me that this kind of unofficial
    censorship always has the same result, regardless of the field of art
    in which it occurrs. Remember "Spy Catcher", "Satanic Verses", "Lady
    Chatterly's Lover", "Last Tango In Paris", "Caligula"? All huge
    successes BECAUSE OF being banned, or else involved in scandal over
    their content.
    
    My opinion is that censorship, whether official or not, is
    counter-productive, and should therefore only be done in exceptional
    cases. Examples of situations where I would find it justified:
    Childrens' material, and material which invites people to break the
    law.
    
    These are only my opinions, of course, and I accept that some people
    feel so offended by some material that they want to prevent anyone from
    seeing it.
    
    Dave Hazel

The original version of "Shake, Rattle and Roll" back in the fifties
was "censored" in that they changed the lyric before it was acceptable.
I don't know the exact details (why not? you should - ed) as it was
before my time, but originally the song mentioned "Monroe" (this was
prior to her death).

However, a lot of this so-called censorship (as in "Relax" and "Magic
Roundabout") is simply one or more radio stations electing not to play
a record, which they're entitled to do. True censorship ("Lady
Chatterly's Lover", "Hair", etc) does not, I believe apply to (sound)
recorded material: only to live shows, films and printed matter (and
the latter only insofar as it may contravene the Obscene Publications Act).

Keith

    Judge Dread had a string of hits in the 70s, none of which the Beeb
    played, I think because of naughty lyrics.  Lets not forget that some
    of these products are very good in thier own right, and deserved to be
    successfull anyway (eg Satanic Verses).
    
    There is a point at which Censorship becomes stupidity, as in the Relax
    farce.  This is the area which needs looking at, where people should be
    treated as intelligent enough to make up thier own minds.  
    
    Mikef
    

    I forget the name of the song and the band (fink it was the Stones),
    but it had the line 'Lets spend the night together' in it which was
    changed to 'Let's spend some time together' after official protest.
    
    Sorry about the lack of detail, but I'm a bit touched this morning.
    Fnarr, fnarr :-)
    
    Balders (and his double entendres)

    re .5 
    
    Why do you always sneak in ahead of me when I'm replying :-)
    
    Everyone has the right to censor things, simply by switching off,
    closing the book, walking away, etc. Censorship should be confined to
    material which is an incitement to commit illegal acts. Anything more
    is surplusage.
    
    Next stop, the rathole...
    
    Balders

    
    A couple of you have said censorship should only be applied where
    material incites to commit an offence.
    
    Since Relax was supposedly of a sexual nature (Am I really the only
    person in Britain who STILL can't understand what all the fuss was 
    about?) it might well have been argued that, as people under 16 (or 
    maybe 21 is more appropriate?) would listen to it, it was inciting them
    to commit ILLEGAL acts rather than merely corrupting them.
    
    You know what you really mean, but the trouble with law is that there
    is a whole industry based on twisting the words to get the meaning you
    want and this is a true of laws relating to censorship as anything
    else.
    
    Mark
    
    P.S. Of course there is the current case of NWT's new album, which from
    the excerpts played on the radio consists of 90% obscenities (just like
    an Eddie Murphy film really! :^)) and 10% incitement to commit illegal
    acts (drug taking and underage sex), but should you be able to buy it 
    in the shops?

   Its interesting how peoples tolerance changes ... another record which
   was banned for a while was Adam Faith's "What do you want if you don't
   want money", just because it 'might' have been interpreted as an indirect
   reference to prostitution. Imagine how Julian Clary would have got on in
   1960! 

   30 years from now, there won't be anything left that could shock anybody
   in the UK. Pop-videos will be all be 3-D holographic hard-core porn movies.
   (Except for Cliff Richards...)

   :-)

   Dave

    Re. .8:
    
    A couple of points occurred to me when reading this reply:
    
    1: About material which encourages underage sex: this falls into my own
    classification of "childrens' material". While this definition is not
    literally true in many cases, the fact that material can be bought by
    children needs to be a consideration. Hence, it is not the (somewhat
    forced) illegality of the material which I would object to, but the
    lack of responsibility towards impressionable children or minors (ie.
    anyone below about 16-17 years old).
    
    2: About the way in which the law gets twisted by the legal industry:
    Laws in Britain are passed by Parliament, which has a higher density of
    lawyers per square foot than any other place in Britain. The fact that
    laws come out with ambiguous terminology implies that either these
    lawyers who frame the laws are incompetent ones, or else they are
    deliberately leaving their practicing colleagues with something to
    argue about. This is not to say that censorship laws would come out any
    different: just that all laws should come out precisely stated. (Can
    you tell that I don't have much time for politicians?)
    
    Some of the interpretations of what should be censored show that the
    censors have an active imagination, to say the least. I wonder if they
    aren't the most likely people to be corrupted by such "bad" material?
    
    
    Dave Hazel

    Wasn't the "Let's Spend" thing changed for the Ed Sullivan show on
    American TV ??   The same way that some Doors stuff was supposed to
    be changed but Morrison didn't on the night ???
    
    The Frankie wind-up was perfect.   Mike Read had interviewed them for
    the cable TV station in Swindon before all the furore so he knew
    exactly what they were/weren't singing about.   As he was _the_ DJ
    in Britain at the time, a quick "that's enough of that" live on air
    was sufficient to put it to number one the following week.   Clever,
    very clever.
    
    Ray

    The censorship is only on allegedly explicit stuff anyway...you could
    say that a pretty high proportion of pop music is about the
    sex/love/boy meets girl subject.  And if that is so - either the kids
    know what its all about and even a subtle message is incitement - or
    else they wouldn't understand if you recorded a sex manual to music.
    
    Censorship seems daft - I believe Radio 1 is currently playing a little
    ditty called "I want to sex you up", but banned Chuck Berry's "My
    ding-a-ling" in the 70s.
    
    Its a strange (and hypocritical) world....
    

slightly off the topic of actual contents...

Heard on Ch4 Daily that 65%+ of record shops have refused to stock the new 
Bowie/Tin Machine album because it has pictures of Ancieint Greek nudes on the 
cover!

perhaps it's their 'polite' way of saying that Tim Machine are cr*p :-)



...art