By Jeff Leeds
Last week, the purveyors of rap music cheered as new CDs from Kanye West and 50 Cent burst onto the top of the Billboard chart. But on Tuesday, rap artists and entertainment executives found themselves fending off Congressional criticism that they exploit violence and sexism for profit.
In a hearing convened by Representative Bobby L. Rush, Democrat of Illinois, lawmakers asked music industry executives about their companies’ role in the production of explicit rap, at one point inviting them to read aloud from 50 Cent’s lyrics. The lawmakers also asked whether marketers were doing enough to shield young listeners from graphic content.
“This hearing is not anti-hip-hop,” said Mr. Rush, a former Black Panther who several years ago fought a challenge from a then little-known Barack Obama to hold on to his House seat. Still, he said, violence and degradation have “reduced too many of our youngsters to automatons, those who don’t recognize life, those who don’t value life.”
Mr. Rush, echoing comments of others on the panel, praised freedom of expression but asked the chief executives of two music companies whether they would consider a ban on certain words considered derogatory.
“We don’t think that banning expression is an appropriate approach,” said Edgar Bronfman Jr., chairman of the Warner Music Group. Tasteless language, he added, “is in the eye of the beholder.”
Under questioning, Mr. Bronfman and Doug Morris, chairman of the Universal Music Group, stood by the industry’s existing method of handling explicit content, including the voluntary labeling of graphic CDs with parental-advisory stickers. Though they defended the industry’s practices, Mr. Bronfman and Mr. Morris lamented that efforts to restrict young listeners’ access to explicit music had become futile amid the proliferation of copyrighted songs and videos online.
The hearing, before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, reflected the continuing debate that has swept the rap world since CBS fired Don Imus, the radio host, for making derogatory comments about the Rutgers women’s basketball team. Mr. Imus’s ouster prompted discussions about performers’ use of misogynous or violent language in songs and music videos.
All of that culminated in the hearing on Tuesday. It touched just lightly on the Imus case, in which a white radio host insulted black women. Instead, the spotlight fell on a panel of white executives defending music principally recorded by black men, and in some instances considered offensive to women. The focus was not only on record labels. Also questioned were executives from Viacom, the parent of MTV and BET; Radio One; and the video-game maker Take-Two Interactive Software.
At least one performer at the hearing told lawmakers that rap music had been unfairly singled out as a scapegoat for deeper social problems. “Gang violence was here before rap music,” said David Banner, a rapper who records for Universal Music and whose real name is Levell Crump. “I can admit that there are some problems in hip-hop, but it is only a reflection of what is taking place in our society. Hip-hop is sick because America is sick.”
A different note was sounded by Master P, previously a dominant force in rap, who has recently struggled to find a hit. Master P, whose real name is Percy Miller, said rap artists needed to consider how fans might be affected by their music. While societal woes contribute to violence and other problems, he said, “we are inflaming this problem by not being responsible.” He said he had devoted himself to producing cleaner music with positive messages.
Mr. Miller also apologized to “all the women out there,” and added, “I was honestly wrong.”
This article from the New York Times newspaper covers a 2007 hearing focused on violence in rap music. Two artists directily invovled in the hearing were David Banner (Levell Crump) and Master P (Percy Miller). Each rap artist had a different opinion on the subject, and both spoke out durring the hearing before a group of law makers.
The approach from the Bobby L. Rush (Democrat of Illinois) was both clear and fair to the artists, and rap music in general. He stated that through this hearing, his intention is not to create an "anti-hip-hop" movement, or to ban freedom of expression in music explained Edgar Bronfman. Bronfman added "Tastseless language is in the eye of the beholder."Banning freedom of expression in music would go against what makes America a free country. I think that this is a very fair statement for rap and the artists involved, and is an approch that could to lead to a legitimate compramise. Although they supported freedom of expression, and the production of hip-hop, they still had concerns. They explained that violence and degration have “reduced too many of our youngsters to automatons, those who don’t recognize life, those who don’t value life.” This statement supports my thesis about who is effected : people who don't recognize and value life, and those who have a troubled or unstable life.
Both artist made very strong points aswell. They both addressed the issue at hand, but in very different ways. David Banner's approch was very defendant of rap music and its lyrics, while Master P took a more subtle and apologetic approch. David Banner addresed the issue by stating that “Gang violence was here before rap music." He goes on to say, “I can admit that there are some problems in hip-hop, but it is only a reflection of what is taking place in our society. Hip-hop is sick because America is sick.” This is one of the strongest and realistic quotes that I have found that convinceingly defends violent rap music, and offers the facts to back his statement up. Banner explains that gang violence, and violence in general, has been around way before rap music began, and that violence is found in music because it reflects real life. Many artists reflect their personal life and experiences through their music, and with some, violence is just part of their life.
Master P's response was almost the opposite of Banner's, he talked with an apologetic tone, and spoke against violence in rap. He stated that violent rap is inflaming the problems in today's youth, and explained that he has devoted himself to making cleaner music. This is a mature and responsible approch to the issue, but would seem that it is sacraficing his freedom of expression, and his true feelings (explicit or not). I think it is an interesting movement that has never been strongly proposed before. He ended by apologizing to people that he may have offended or degraded by stating "all the women out there, I was honestly wrong."
This hearing exposed some of raps violent elements, and expressed opinions from both view points. Many sides were represented, and some compromises were proposed as well. I think this hearing is one of many future hearings involving explicit lyrics and the artists/record labels involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment