Archive for Personal Opinion

Concluding Statement

{ May 28, 2008 @ 12:08 pm } · { Academic Research, Personal Opinion, Responses to Media Articles, Reviews and Critiques, Uncategorized }
{ Tags: , , , } · { Leave a Comment }

As our posts attempted to communicate, mainstream attention to certain musical genres appears minimalistic and often ignorant. While most of the time genres such as experimental music and heavy metal (amongst others) do receive some mainstream coverage they are often disregarded as they don’t fit into the perceived definition of ‘popular music’ by mainstream press such as “Rolling Stone”. What results is a lack of acknowledgment for their importance within and contribution to the field of music.

Our posts highlight the reasons behind the lack of mainstream coverage as well as the motives behind these decisions – such as censorship. Because some music strays from the ‘norm’ or adopts themes that cause conflicts of interest it is often overlooked, ignored or put into a negative light. All music has value, however obscure or however standardised. But it is the obscure genres that get ignored, which we believe shouldn’t be the case.

The mainstream music press has similar attitudes towards other forms of music criticism, such as academic studies which are intended for industry and academic journals as opposed to the popular music press. Since the popular music press is predominantly read by fans, this type of research and comment on music is disregarded, as it often requires a higher level of academic cultural capital to understand.

Since one of the factors that makes any story newsworthy is timeliness, academic writing on music is also largely ignored since it is often not written until years after an artist has been and gone through the cycle of popuarlity and obscurity. This is unfortunate for the way the histoy of music is remembered, since the best analysis can often only be made in retrospect.

We hope you enjoyed our blog because we all definitely enjoyed contributing to it!

Lilen, Heath and Millie

The Story So Far…

{ May 28, 2008 @ 12:03 pm } · { Personal Opinion }
{ Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , } · { Leave a Comment }

The Story So Far…

This post has as a primary purpose of condensing my previous posts into one post to give you an idea of what we have found out about experimental music so far – it’s much more concise!

  • History is important in music, as it gives us knowledge about the past journey music has taken
  • Many music styles rely on history as they have evolved from past musical styles
  • Too much emphasis placed on popular styles, thus the lesser known styles, such as experimental music, are ignored and their value isn’t noticed
  • Through my examination of experimental music, I attempted to explain the genre because I believe it is a heavily under explored genre and thus find a reason why it isn’t part of the mainstream music styles and reinforce why it should be
  • All music is valid because it is all interconnected and styles influence each other and evolve from one another, thus even though experimental music may not be popular, it has still contributed to the field of music
  • Experimental music appears to be in opposition to popular music in many ways, as explained in my previous post
  • John Cage features prominently in the history of experimental music – his academic writing was a major source of my research
  • Because of the nature of experimental music, many people question whether it is music at all
  • This is because it strays so far from many people’s traditional conceptions of music
  • Experimental music is still seen as new even though it has a legitimate history dating back at least 50 years
  • Because the style is so different from much of the music featured in the mainstream, many people don’t take the time to appreciate it or understand it
  • Sound is pivotal in the creation of experimental music. Experimentation with sound is the main purpose. It revolves around the experimentation, production and combination of sounds.
  • The final product is not the purpose – the journey of creation is.
  • Improvisation is a characteristic of experimental music, thus leading to the diversity, unknown quality and uniqueness of the genre.
  • The genre challenges peoples conceptions of music and is in a state on constant change and experimentation
  • The listener and their interpretation are key to understanding the purpose of experimental music
  • The procedure of composing experimental music tends to be radical and different from most mainstream styles
  • The music of the experimental genre can act as a means of communication between the band members
  • Experimentation music involves releasing control and just experimenting and creating with music

To conclude, I believe experimental music has been left out of the mainstream genres of music and also out of the recorded music history because it is a niche music style and also because it challenges what people conceive to be music. Experimental music is highly valuable to the field of music because it is constantly pushing the boundaries of music and making way for the future of music. I believe that experimental music needs to be appreciated for what it is – not criticised for being so different from the popular music. Experimental music deserves a place in the history of music, as does any other music style, because they are all valid and have something to offer the field of music. I think experimental music is fantastic because of the way it challenges people’s conceptions of what music is. This is why I chose to investigate it and fight for its rightful place in music history!

    The Eurovision Verdict…

    { May 28, 2008 @ 7:42 am } · { Personal Opinion, Responses to Media Articles }
    { Tags: , , , , , , , , , , } · { Comments (1) }

    Pseudo-Originality

    On Sunday night various thoughts echoed in my head. I had regrettably spent 3 hours watching the finals to the Eurovision Song Contest and when it came time for each of the 47 countries to vote for their “favourites” a common theme seemed to be emerging. After the first few countries had released their preferences I quickly came to one simple conclusion: Eurovision has become less about the ’search for the most original song’ and more about the political relationships between neighbouring European countries.

    The Contest has long been perceived as political in some sense, where judges—and now televoters—allocate points based on their nation’s political relationship to the other countries, rather than on the “musical value” of the songs (wikipedia online). An analysis of voting patterns does indeed show that certain countries tend to favour certain other countries with which they are politically aligned with the most obvious example being between Greece and Cyprus, which have awarded each other the maximal 12 points every single time since televoting was introduced in 1998.

    Apart from the political aspects of the voting system and of the Eurovision Song Contest, I also noticed flaws in the musical content. To me it seemed that the original intent of the Contest had been completely reversed and it had become less of a celebration of musical creativity and more a colourful, glitter contest where the same song is just a simple pop-song – an accumulation of previous songs only remixed and regurgitated by pretty, tone-deaf representatives. As I discussed in some of my previous posts, Eurovision is a prime example of how emphasis is put on the show elements in order to guise the often disastrous performances by each of the contestants. If ‘authenticity’ and ‘creativity’ are used as the primary marking criteria then what of the cheesy, semi-mimed performances and the fact that ALL Eurovision songs are not written by the performer? There is little encouragement for a contestant to be ‘authentic’ which is also shown by observing the physical performances of the contestants. In this case, the Contest appears to have become more ‘Westernised’ with many non-English speaking countries adopting Western elements both musically and visually. Musically, the song structures are terribly simple. There is a standard progression between verse and chorus which includes a deafening amount of repetition. Visually, the performances are a complete emulation of a standard MTV video, including back-up dancers, show elements and dancing contestants. This year Germany looked EXACTLY like an older version of the Spice Girls complete with dance moves that looked terribly familiar to those performed by the Spice Girls in their “Stop” video. Stereotypes have engulfed the way the Contest is presented with all of its representatives embodying certain traits that reinforce certain discourses. For example, the Finnish entry this year (Terasbetoni) appeared onstage as swaggering, muscled males with bare chests and long hair encapsulating and reinforcing the stereotypes surrounding masculinity.

    While these examples highlight some of the more negative aspects of the show there are some contestants who do attempt to break the Western trend by singing in their own language and dancing in a traditional style. However while there has been an attempt to demonstrate some elements of “creativity” I think that the way Eurovision is presented today has allowed it to be viewed as a joke – as something you watch if nothing else is on or if you’re looking for a good laugh.

    Below are two videos – the entrants for Greece and Finland for Eurovision 2008. In the first video note the ways the contestant appears like so many previous pop artists regularly seen on American television or on MTV (Britney Spears keeps coming into mind). The second video (and even the first as well) highlights the ways stereotype have formed the core of the Contest and it is regularly emphasised by the contestants.

    Lilen Pautasso

    Words: 600

    A Thought-Provoking Solo

    { May 21, 2008 @ 6:25 pm } · { Personal Opinion }
    { Tags: , , , , , } · { Comments (3) }

    “Windowpane”

    Opeth

    Just recently I became exhausted by my assignment-ignited stress and decided to take a moment and relax. I proceeded to turn off all the lights and turn on my lava lamp so that the room became engulfed in a fade blue light. At this point I also turned on my stereo and allowed the CD inside to play a random track – having no initial idea of what that CD was. The CD skipped tracks and finally stopped on an all-time favourite of mine titled “Windowpane” by Swedish Prog-Death quintet Opeth. While I had listened to that song various times before, it seemed like I was hearing it for the first time. I had allowed myself to become so detached from my physical environment that all I was focusing on were the sounds escaping from the speakers. And what a sound it was.

    I had always loved the solo in the middle of the song performed, most eloquently, by Opeth mastermind Mikael Åkerfeldt. Initially I just listened to the solo as part of the overall song, yet halfway through it I started to listen to it on its own. Instantly I noticed the way the solo appeared to be some sort of hybrid – a mixture of over 50 years of rock and roll. There were elements of jazz, blues, psychedelic rock and 60s-style rhythms, all combined and juxtaposed into a simple, one minute solo. Now, this isn’t the greatest solo ever performed (is there such a thing?), nor does it adopt a difficult mode of play, but it was like I noticed another layer that was hidden underneath its sheer simplicity.

    As well as heightening my long love affair with the group (and even more so with heavy metal) it made me think more about the perceived ‘gap’ that exists between pop and alternative acts…a very cool experience indeed.

    Lilen Pautasso

    Words: 307

    Unholy Forces of Evil

    { May 19, 2008 @ 10:49 am } · { Personal Opinion, Responses to Media Articles }
    { Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , } · { Leave a Comment }

    Unholy Forces of Evil

    “Norwegian Black metal is an institution, a solidified genre within a genre…[that] began its conception as a radical entity of revolutionary attributes” (NBM online).

    (The following is a response to the above quote about the nature and origin of Norwegian Black Metal cited in an online article)

    In metal today, Norwegian Black Metal (NBM) has become a byword for ‘True Black Metal’ and has long been attributed to bands such as Immortal, Mayhem, Burzum and Darkthrone. Since it first appeared the genre has become suppressed, ignored and vilified due to its strong themes and unconventional music style. Nordic pride, Aryanism, anti-Christian/Jewish themes and even Neo-Nazi affiliations have become the backbone behind the genre’s continued suppression and exclusion from positive mainstream attention. Infamous events such as the suicide of vocalist ‘Dead’ (Mayhem), on April 8th 1991 initiated a wave of hysteria by the media and only became worse when Burzum main man Varg Vikerenes (Burzum) murdered Mayhem guitarist, Euronymous in the stairwell of his apartment building on August 10th 1993. Furthermore, NBM band members such as Gaahl (Gorgoroth) who freely express their close minded ethos of Norse pride merged with strong Anti-Christian/Semitic hatred have also initiated concern – particularly from parent and religious groups. These examples coupled with incidents of church burnings by fans and band members, have created a lingering stereotype that continues to this day.

    While Black Metal first appeared through the likes of bands such as Venom and Celtic Frost, the “erosive atmosphere and basic recording quality [of bands such as Darkthrone]…re-defined the very soul of what one perceived as Black Metal” (NBM online). It is a genre that is rarely spoken about positively – at least with the mainstream press. The controversy that surrounds the genre has denied it the ability to be freely (and positively) promoted.

    However, while the genre is subject to vilification and ignorance it is precisely the same thing that has maintained its survival. It is the minimalistic mainstream coverage that has helped maintain the original purpose of the genre and (even more so) its reputation. While acts such as Immortal, Emperor and Mayhem do get some mainstream coverage, it does not hinder their ‘authenticity’ within the culture – a very important aspect of the genre. If you compare groups which have had extensive mainstream coverage (such as those in pop, R ‘n’ B or rock), the genre has continued its existence in a way that is respected by its many fans, not by means of constant commercial promotion.

    While the subgenre is characterised by its “assaultive power”, Satanic or Odinic underpinnings and a history of violent and criminal activity, it is a fascinating contrast to mainstream acts that often produce music littered with repetitive and regurgitated themes. There is a constant misinterpretation of the themes exemplified in the genre – most of the mainstream press even go as far as labelling certain events as promotional rather than ideological statements (which is very incorrect). However, as a relatively ‘new’ genre, Norwegian Black Metal can still be respected for not caving into commercial pressures and (despite conflicts of interest) for remaining one of the most eccentric branches of heavy metal today.

    Abbath - vocalist/guitarist from \

    Gaahl - \

    Fire Breathing

    Lilen Pautasso

    Words: 524

    Reference:

    “A History of Norwegian Black Metal” [online article]. Available from: http://www.norsksvartmetall.com/history.htm [Accessed 19 May, 2008].

    Music journalism

    { May 18, 2008 @ 5:03 am } · { Academic Research, Personal Opinion }
    { Tags: , , , , , } · { Comments (2) }

    We can’t have fun all the time. Sometimes we have to talk about what this blog is actually supposed to be about. So what’s so wrong with contemporary music journalism? What are the gaps which we are trying to fill?

    One of the biggest gaps in contemporary music journalism is the lack of regard for academic studies, research and theories. When was the last time you saw a reference to Simon Frith or Shane Homan in Rolling Stone magazine? Even better – when was the last time you saw a reference to a godfather of popular music theory like Theodor Adorno or Pierre Bourdieu? That’s right – you’ve never seen these people mentioned in music journalism, despite their well considered, structured arguments, innovative perspectives and evidence through empirical research. Instead, what you have seen is the stoned-out-of-their-minds, ill-considered, rants written by music journalists who listened to an album the night before their review was due on the editor’s desk and have only heard of the artist they’re writing about because they read about them on Wikipedia. I agree that this is a far-out stereotype of music critics, but my argument is that the reasons people have for not paying attention to academic music writers are also based on inaccurate stereotypes.  So what are these reasons?
    Well for starters I think that it’s very likely that many musicians and music fans agree with Elvis Costello’s assertion that “Writing about music is like dancing about architecture”. That is, they might think that music is too personal and fluid to be done justice by academic analysis. The same people might think that analysing music ruins the experience of listening, by making the listener over-think their enjoyment so much that they forget to actually listen and have fun.

    I’ll admit that I had this perspective, but through reading academic articles on various aspects of music, I’ve come to believe that academics aren’t trying to ruin music for us. Indeed, most of them are music fans as well, and they may even be more enthusiastic music fans than those of us who don’t bother to listen closely enough to music to analyse its meaning and the reasons behind our enjoyment of it.

    Without academic research, all we have are sketchy observations and unfounded comments by friends about the discourses of patriotism in Bruce Springsteen, for example. But if we’re interested enough to read Anne Cranny-Francis’ analysis of the song and video of ‘Born in the USA’ (1994: 38), then we’ll see that our friend’s comment is not as crazy as it seems, but nor is our friend as smart as we might think, because it’s not the first time something like that has been thought or said.

    However, as introspective music fans, we might like to think that we are the only person who has considered intertextuality in our favourite artist’s songs, and this leads to my next point: music journalism doesn’t cover academic research because music fans do not want to second-guess their interests and habits relating to music. For most, music is an unintellectual past time which serves as a pleasant distraction from their working lives. This is exactly how Adorno saw popular music (1992). For this reason, it doesn’t serve the purpose of music, especially popular music, to analyse its effect. It is enough for most people to accept that it simply is enjoyable, without questioning why. With this use of music in mind, reading about music is also generally more enjoyable if it’s non-confronting, and just tells us what we should be listening to this week.

    Furthermore, from the industry’s perspective (which the music press arguably exists to serve), making fans question their listening habits could be dangerous; they might stop buying records! Even worse – they might stop buying popular records, which would mean they’d stop needing to buy the magazines to tell them which records to buy.

    So in conclusion, it isn’t in the interests of the music press to channel readers’ attention to academic writing on music, because such a move would be self-destructive.

    References:

    Anne Cranny-Francis, Ch 3: ‘Pop/ular Music’ in Popular Culture, Deakin University Press, Geelong, 1994, pp 33-50.

    Theodor Adorno, from ‘On Popular Music’ (1941) in Anthony Easthope and Kate McGowan (eds.) A Critical and Cultural Theory Reader, Allen and Unwin, North Sydney, 1992, pp 211-223.

    Heath J

    Warning: labels (no, that’s it – the warning is that there’s labels)

    { May 17, 2008 @ 5:34 am } · { Personal Opinion }
    { Tags: , , } · { Comments (1) }

    As promised, here is my rant about ‘fans’ who are so hung up on labels that they let the labels tell them what to like, instead of keeping their minds and ears open to whatever strikes them.

    I’ll admit that I’m guilty of this myself. I find myself enjoying, maybe even singing along to the repetitive chorus of a pop song (I know I’m hypocritically using labels, but part of my point is that it’s impossible not to), only to remember that I’m listening to a commercial radio station, and that the song I’m enjoying was not written by the person who (allegedly) sings it, and that the ‘artist’ probably only has a career because he / she looks good on TV and album covers. When this occurs, I give myself a quick uppercut, change the station to Triple J, and try to appreciate some (allegedly) less mainstream music. I try to remember to forget the pop song, so that if it comes up in conversation with my painfully mainstream friends, I can either cringe my disapproval, or deny having heard it.

    So why do I do all this? Why don’t I go with my musical instincts? I was, after all, enjoying the pop song, wasn’t I? What’s so fundamentally wrong with that?

    The answer is the label. In my head, I’d labeled that song as mainstream pop, hence I’d already decided that I wouldn’t like it, before I heard it. The truth is that I didn’t want to like it, because then I’d have to admit to knowing and liking it. Does this make me a hypocrite? Yes, I believe it does, but I’m trying to do better. If music is enjoyable, that’s all that should matter.

    As a quick test, always ask yourself if you’d listen to what you’re listening to if you weren’t allowed to tell anyone. This can work both ways: Would you still listen to pop if you knew you wouldn’t look unhip when it got played in the club and you didn’t know the words?

    OR, and I think the next question is more appropriate for people who claim they deplore ‘mainstream’ and label themselves as ‘alternative’: Would you still seek out the currently-less-popular, but bound-for-great-success tunes and genres if you knew you’d never have the cultural ego-boost of declaring truthfully that you were into a band before they were popular?

    Stay tuned for more on this idea.

    Heath J

    Experimental Music – Underrated or Underachieving?

    { May 14, 2008 @ 12:34 am } · { Personal Opinion }
    { Tags: , , , , , , } · { Comments (1) }

    Experimental Music – Underrated or Underachieving?

    Thinking about the idea of music histories is a daunting one. Music generally has had a recorded history for an incredibly long time.

    However, I find that much of the recorded history of music ignores certain genres, and mainly focuses on the most popular genres and their history, as I explored in my previous post.

    This may be seen as the logical and obvious reason for charting the particular music histories that have been charted because they are the most popular, thus the majority of people would be most interested in the music that is most popular to them, but what about the rest of the vast, diverse and infinitely expanding genres in the world of music?

    Even though they may not be the most popular, they may be obscure, they may be hard to listen to, they may be hard to understand, and you may not even like them, I believe they still deserve to have a place in the history of music.

    All music is valid because it is all interconnected and styles influence each other and evolve from one another.

    I would like to investigate experimental music which I believe is a heavily underexplored genre of music. I also believe it is a highly valuable genre of music because it is constantly pushing the boundaries and challenging what people see as ‘music.’ I’m not arguing that it is more valid or better than ‘popular music’; I more want to explore why it isn’t as popular and what makes this music so interesting and what it gives to the world of music.

    To give an idea of what experimental music is, “in a broader sense, it is used to mean any music that challenges the commonly accepted notions of what music is.” (Experimental Music, online) John Cage, which many will know from the 4’33” composition, states that the term ‘experimental’ “is apt, providing it is understood not as descriptive of an act to be later judged in terms of success or failure, but simply as of an act the outcome of which is unknown” (Experimental Music, online)

    In explaining experimental music further, I thought I would use Heath’s explanation of popular music and define some of the differences between the two genres.

    ·         The first major difference is that experimental music isn’t popular in the same sense that popular music is; experimental music isn’t “widely liked.”

    ·      In relation to cultural capital and attitudes towards experimental music, I believe that today, high culture and increasing one’s cultural capital are both associated with experimental music because it is so far from ‘the norm’ and I agree with the idea that the genre of ‘popular music’ is seen as inferior to other genre’s of ‘serious music’ such as experimental music. However, I don’t agree with the idea that one genre of music is inferior to another – I believe all music is valuable and each style or genre has something to offer – some genres have been ignored though in constructing a history of music.

    ·      Adorno refers to popular music as being constructed through a definite structural form, whereas experimental music is very much unorganised and doesn’t follow a set structure most of the time.

    To conclude in explaining experimental music and its difference from popular music, experimental music is seen as being original, diverse, not standard, constantly changing and evolving and not following a set structure; all of these characteristics are seen to be in opposition to the idea of ‘popular music’.

    I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with popular music, (I swear!) I just believe that the genre of experimental music has contributed a lot to the world of music which it isn’t given credit for and is a valuable addition and is worthy of investigation as it is an area of music that is highly unexplored.

    I’d really like responses from other group members on their opinion of experimental music – even if you think you’ve never heard anything that could be classed as experimental music, I’d just like your ideas about it!

    Proclaimer – popular opinion

    { May 12, 2008 @ 11:32 pm } · { Personal Opinion }
    { Tags: , , , } · { Leave a Comment }

    This post serves as somewhat of a retrospective (since I’ve already made two posts) proclaimer for my angle on popular music.
    It’s a proclaimer, but it’s not those singing Scottish twins, so hold off on the “da-da-da-da”s for now, OK?

    If you haven’t you might want to read my post titled “Definition of Popular” under the category academic research, before you read this post, because this follows on from that.

    If you’re too lazy to read my last post, then I’ll tell you that it ended with me saying:
    “What’s so wrong with popular music? It’s popular for a reason, right?”

    This leads to my first point about this blog – I’m of the understanding that we are not denigrating music that is more popular, but rather we are filling a gap in the music press, which ignores styles we like equally or even more than the types of music that receive greatest attention in the industry. Put simply, we are not lowering popular music, but attempting to raise the attention paid to other styles, which are just as worthy.

    I’d be interested in the responses of other group members to this idea.

    Forgive me if I use unreferenced generalizations, as I am attempting to overcome such generalizations by considering academic perspectives on the matter, but there simply are no academic sources which can conclusively distinguish between pop and alternative, and this is exactly the point I am trying to make: labels are useless for something as fluid as music!

    This leads to my second major point: Music is interpreted in different ways by different people, which makes classification of music by genre labels (which are the basis for distinguishing between pop / mainstream and alternative) completely irrelevant.

    I contend that “alternative” styles are just as fad-driven as “popular” styles, and that “alternative” music is often simply the next popular music before it becomes popular enough that it replaces whatever was called popular before that. Many music fans of “alternative” music take pride in placing themselves at the opposite end of the linear spectrum to pop, but music culture is not linear, but a cycle; an endless continuum.  I would argue that what we call pop music is simply the most popular artists from all genres. This is how a band who starts as alternative, can become popular, and then be considered pop music, without their sound changing. All that’s changed is their level of popularity, and suddenly we call them ‘pop music’, which implies a certain sound. SO – instead of artists changing to become pop, the definition of pop changes to mean the styles which are currently popular. This fits with my previous assertion (in the post about academic definitions of popular), that pop is at least as easily, if not more easily and often defined by what it is not.

    The Wikipedia article on pop music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_music) also takes the stance that pop isn’t a sound, but a socially defined term:
     “Pop music is music charted by the number or sales, plays, etc., that the work receives.[1] It is not a particular genre or style of music, but simply that which is the most popular for the tracked period of time. … Although pop music is produced with a desire to sell records and do well in the charts, it does not necessitate wide acclaim or commercial success: there are bad or failed pop songs.” (Wikipedia)

    So, if the definition of pop always changes, then the definition of alternative must change with it, so as to maintain the pop / alternative dichotomy / binary opposition, which some seem to live and die by.

    The popular music press will report on whatever is popular at the time, so this will include alternative happenings, as long as they are widespread enough (i.e. popular enough) to be significant enough to warrant a report. With this in mind, what this blog attempts (at least what I think it attempts) is to give attention and support to styles of music what are currently not achieving mainstream popularity, but which we think deserve just as much attention as what is currently popular.

    I can only hope that we won’t stop liking it once it becomes popular. Please see my next post for what I mean by this.

    Heath Johnson

    Censorship – a reaction to Lilen’s piece

    { May 12, 2008 @ 10:53 pm } · { Personal Opinion }
    { Tags: , , } · { Leave a Comment }

    Censorship – a reaction to Lilen’s piece

     Ladies and gentlemen
     Welcome to the disclaimer
     That’s right, the disclaimer
     This American apple pie institution
     Known as parental discretion
     Will cleanse any sense of innuendo or sarcasm
     From the lyrics that might actually make you think
     And will also insult your intelligence at the same time
     So protect your family.
     This album contains explicit depictions
     Of things which are real.
     These real things are commonly known as life.
     So, if it sounds sarcastic, don’t take it seriously.
     If it sounds dangerous,
     Do not try this at home or at all.
     And if it offends you, just don’t listen to it

    Disclaimer – opening track of ‘Ixnay on the Hombre’ (1997) album by The Offspring.

    Youtube link (worth a listen, as the way it’s spoken carries added sarcasm):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5UvuFI462c

    Also take note of the name of the album. A comment left by a Youtube user explained:

     As he explained in an interview with Dutch magazine Oor in 1997:
     Ixnay = Away
     On The
     Hombre = Man
     Away On The Man
     Away With The Man
     Away With The Man Who Represses You
     Fuck Authority

    What are The Offspring getting at with this sarcastic / ironic / innuendous introduction?

    I think they’re taking a big swipe at censorship in general, by arguing that it’s most often “depictions
    of things which are real” that are censored. Besides things which obviously need censoring from young audiences – most obviously, coarse language – there are few guidelines as to what will be censored, but someone has to decide.

    In Australia, that someone is two someones working together: ARIA and AMRA.

    “Since 1996, Australia has had a system of warning labels on audio-only recorded music products. This system is called the Recorded Music Labelling Code of Practice, and is managed by ARIA and AMRA (the Australian Music Retailers Association).” (ARIA 2005)

    Link to the code of practice: http://www.aria.com.au/pages/documents/ARIAAMRACode_March2003_Final.pdf

    See this page for a run-down of the labelling system: http://www.aria.com.au/pages/labelling-code.htm

    Note that this code only covers audio material, so music videos (which are often included on “enhanced” CDs nowadays), are subject to classification by the Office of Film and Literature classification, which works under a completely different system. For example, “Audio recordings with visual content are defined under the Classification Act as “film” and therefore are subject to the classification requirements applicable to films.” (OFLC 2008

    Link to OFLC page: http://www.classification.gov.au/special.html?n=174&p=1

    I think these classification guidelines are so poorly defined that artists would not be able to tell what will be censored, beyond obvious things such as bad language. This is especially the case as artists often use clever poetics to disguise their message artfully. Where interpretation is involved, who’s interpretation is used to decide what is censored? If one person (who happens to be a member of ARIA or AMRA) reads some lyrics as anti-Christian, for example, does make fair grounds for the song being banned from stores or radio?

    An attempt is made in the code of practice to define terms such as ‘gratuitous’, but final decisions will always come down to the discretion of a few individuals. This is the fundamental irony with censorship – to decide if they want to see or hear something, an individual has to see / hear it first. If they individual then decides that they didn’t want to see / hear it, or that other people shouldn’t, they will blame censorship authorities for not having censored it in the first place! Due to this conundrum, I understand that censorship is a difficult issue for governments as well as audiences, but I still feel the current system could be improved.

    I imagine these several systems of classification would be very cumbersome and difficult for artists to navigate. See the below example from the comical ‘Rock-umentary’ This is Spinal Tap. However, note that it is the visual (album cover) that is being censored here, not the audio.

    Description of the ‘offensive’ album cover: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFF4Ldyh_6k
    About 3:30 into the above video is the description of the cover.

    The ‘compromise’ album cover: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlynf–lsxA

    Why Spinal Tap’s cover was censored, but a similar cover was allowed in stores: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVVahII-EIo
    7 minutes into the above video is the ‘fine line between stupid and clever’ scene

    The classifications resulting from these several systems are equally confusing for consumers, as a CD which contains video content could potentially have two (possibly conflicting) warning labels. It may be even more confusing if the CD has only one label, which would say that the audio is appropriate for all audiences but the video content is not, or vice versa. How does this help audiences and parents decide what is appropriate?

    As a solution, I would suggest that there be a single classification board for all media, as this would allow for consistent censorship decisions to be made and would remove the difficulty of classifying content which exists in more than one media form. Furthermore, the guidelines should be more clearly defined through use of examples and precedents, as in the legal system. I understand that this would necessitate publishing of some potentially offensive material, in order to build a reference point, but I believe this is the best way to help both artists and audiences understand what the warning labels mean.

    Heath Johnson

    References:

    The Offspring, ‘Ixnay on the Hombre’ (1997)

    Youtube – various videos

    Australian Recording Industry Association website: http://www.aria.com.au

    Office of Film and Literature Classification website: http://www.classification.gov.au/

    « Previous entries