In 1985, a significant debate over music content and parental control culminated in a United States Senate hearing. This event was a direct result of the Parents Music Resource Center's (PMRC) efforts to address what they perceived as explicit themes in music, particularly those related to violence, drugs, and sex. The PMRC, a bipartisan committee formed that same year, aimed to increase parental oversight of children's access to such music. Their
advocacy led to a pivotal hearing that brought together politicians, musicians, and experts to discuss the potential impact of music on young audiences and the controversial idea of labeling records.
The hearing, held on September 19, 1985, before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, focused on "the subject of the content of certain sound recordings and suggestions that recording packages be labeled to provide a warning to prospective purchasers of sexually explicit or other potentially offensive content." This gathering became a public forum for deeply divided opinions, pitting concerns about protecting children against fundamental questions of artistic freedom and censorship. The discussions and testimonies presented during this hearing would ultimately shape the future of music labeling in the United States.
The PMRC's Concerns and Supporting Voices
The Parents Music Resource Center was driven by a stated goal of increasing parental control over music deemed to have violent, drug-related, or sexual themes. The committee's work was supported by American televangelists, Reaganites, and the broader evangelical movement, who often accused rock and heavy metal music of harboring Satanic and occult-related themes. Before the Senate hearing, 19 record companies had already agreed in August 1985 to implement "Parental Guidance: Explicit Lyrics" labels on albums to warn consumers about explicit lyrical content. However, the PMRC pushed for further action, leading to the Senate's agreement to hold the hearing.
During the hearing, Susan Baker, a representative from the PMRC, testified about the perceived societal ills linked to music. She asserted, "There certainly are many causes for these ills in our society, but it is our contention that the pervasive messages aimed at children which promote and glorify suicide, rape, sadomasochism, and so on, have to be numbered among the contributing factors." Tipper Gore, another prominent figure from the PMRC, specifically requested that record companies voluntarily "plac[e] a warning label on music products inappropriate for younger children due to explicit sexual or violent lyrics." These testimonies highlighted the PMRC's belief in a direct correlation between explicit music content and negative societal outcomes, particularly for young people.
Expert Opinions on Music's Influence
Beyond the PMRC's direct appeals, the hearing also featured expert witnesses who offered their perspectives on the power of music to influence behavior. Dr. Joe Stuessy, a music professor at the University of Texas at San Antonio, spoke about the unique characteristics of heavy metal music. He argued that it differed significantly from earlier forms like jazz and rock and roll, describing it as "church music" that contained "as one of its central elements the element of hatred." This characterization aimed to distinguish heavy metal as a particularly problematic genre due to its perceived negative emotional core.
Another expert, Dr. Paul King, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, testified on the phenomenon of heavy metal musicians being "deified" and the presentation of heavy metal as a form of religion. He also noted that "many" adolescents tend to read deeply into song lyrics, suggesting that the messages within these songs could have a profound impact on their young, impressionable listeners. These expert testimonies provided a psychological and sociological framework for the PMRC's arguments, attempting to lend academic weight to their concerns about music's potential to shape adolescent attitudes and behaviors.
Musicians Speak Out Against Censorship
The Senate hearing was not without its vocal opposition, particularly from prominent musicians who viewed the PMRC's proposals as a form of censorship. Frank Zappa, a renowned musician and producer, delivered a strong statement asserting that "the PMRC proposal is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children, infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children, and promises to keep the courts busy for years dealing with the interpretational and enforcemental problems inherent in the proposal's design." Zappa also expressed suspicion that the hearings were a pretext for a proposed blank tape tax, linking the PMRC's efforts to broader industry politics.
Folk rock musician John Denver also testified, unequivocally stating his strong opposition to "censorship of any kind in our society or anywhere else in the world." He highlighted that censors often misinterpret music, citing his own song "Rocky Mountain High" as an example. Denver compared the PMRC's proposals to Nazi book burnings, emphasizing his belief that censorship is ultimately counterproductive. He argued that "That which is denied becomes that which is most desired, and that which is hidden becomes that which is most interesting," suggesting that attempts to suppress content would only make it more appealing to young people. His testimony was particularly impactful as many had expected him to side with the PMRC.
Dee Snider, the frontman and lead singer of the heavy metal band Twisted Sister, also spoke against the proposed labeling system. He defended his band's songs, "Under the Blade" and "We're Not Gonna Take It," which the PMRC had interpreted as promoting sadomasochism, bondage, rape, and violence. Snider clarified that "Under the Blade" was inspired by a band member's surgery and was about the fear associated with undergoing such a procedure, stating that "the only sadomasochism, bondage, and rape in this song is in the mind of Ms. Gore." He concluded by emphasizing that the responsibility for guiding his children rested solely with him and his wife, not with external committees or labels. The testimonies of these musicians underscored the artistic community's deep concern for freedom of expression and their resistance to external control over creative content.
