The "Call Me Maybe" song by Carly Rae Jepsen

[blackmage_nuke]

Other times, though, I tend to hate a song because of the subject matter discussed in the song, including "Set the World On Fire" by Fun, because it glorifies getting drunk and wasted. I don't get what's so fun about getting drunk and wasted, and when you're drunk in a bar, and you either pass out or start a fight, the police will carry you to jail.

I dont get how giving your phone number to a stranger is such a great idea, you either get stalked and murdered or have sex with them and get an STI.

Also the song is called "We are Young"

[SuperMillionaire]

I accuse you of trolling because the alternative is believing that a 23-year-old male (so states your profile) who is still planning on going to college at some point in the future who is openly and actively interested in preteen celebrities as you are tends to send up some really creepy red flags. I have to hope you're lying (probably about your age) or trolling about something, otherwise it's just kind of... sad.

Also, I think the general consensus in this thread is that nobody really hates Justin Bieber for anything other than the fact that his music is bad. For reference, I'm a fan of quite a few musicians who could not in your wildest dreams be described as "manly" in the way you describe such as David Bowie (try looking up his bi-glamorous stint for most of his recording career). Granted, he probably qualifies as too sexually explicit for your tastes. In which case I urge you to grow a thicker skin, because if you can't learn to handle some of this stuff better without resorting to cries for it to be censored, you're going to have a hard time fitting into the adult world at large.

Also the idea that music started shedding its innocence in the 1960s is patently absurd. People regarded Elvis Presley as "obscene" in the 1950's because he swung his hips while he danced. Perhaps you should consider the argument that your concept of what is decent is a few decades behind everyone else. Frankly, you sound like my grandmother whenever you discuss any of the media, but even she wouldn't be caught dead listening to Justin Bieber on her iPod.

First off, rather than the celebrities themselves, I'm into the psychology and sociology about them, and what makes them develop into erotic adults. I'm in college now, and I'm not exactly into their actual works of entertainment. I've been reading a lot of TV Tropes lately, and a lot of these shows are guilty of what is referred on in-site as getting crap past the radar, or sneaking in apparently "adult" content, assuming that many of these shows even have radars (censors) to begin with.

Second of all, when you say that Justin Bieber's music is bad, what exactly makes it bad? For me, I think rappers, including both Anglo American rappers (such as LMFAO, Drake, and Lil Wayne) and various Latino reggaeton rappers, are ten times worse, and let me tell you the exact reasons why, in my opinion, they are bad:
Sleazy lyrics (perverts and inner-city criminals)
Explicit lyrics
Annoyingly strange repetitive beats
Strange noises in background
Promoting and reinforcing negative stereotypes of black and Hispanic people

Remember, while hip hop is still mainly for black (African and Afro-Caribbean American) people, an increasing number of Latino people (mostly Puerto Rican, but also people from other Latin American countries) like it too. There are also white rappers (such and Eminem and Yelawolf) and white fans of hip hop, and though there is a large percentage of white hip hop fans, the majority of rappers and hip hop fans are still either black or Latino.

I also hate some heavy metal bands, as well as rock bands such as Green Day, for the following reasons:
Overt nastiness (including sleazy lyrics, trash talk, and monster-like screaming)
Explicit lyrics
Scary horror themes
Anarchist themes

And when it comes to pop artists like Kesha, Katy Perry, Nicki Ninaj, and Cher Lloyd, I hate them for these reasons:
Glorifying getting drunk and wasted
Sleazy lyrics
Explicit lyrics
Overall eroticism, including strange outfits that bare too much skin

Lady GaGa, I will admit, is a bit more talented than the others above, but despite the name of one of her songs, she wasn't born that way, she morphed into that. In addition, Weird Al Yankovic released a parody called "Perform This Way," which basically mocks her for her fashion choices (because apparently, every day is Halloween for her), including wearing a meat dress. I just want to know: why do these artists do these outrageous things? Is there any justifiable reason for it?

As you can see, I made the reasons specific as to why I hate the artists that I mentioned above. And I'm not exactly a Justin Bieber fan, either. I think he's okay, but I'm not a major fan. Nor am I a major fan of Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus. Hannah Montana was okay, but Miley Cyrus is awful. The only reason why I had knowledge of Disney Channel stars in the first place was because my younger cousins watched those shows, and it happened to catch my attention. Hilary Duff, however, I think was better, though again, I had never actually watched Lizzie McGuire, and I only liked her music.

Third off, I'm aware that I have developed a rather cynical mindset, which is influenced by several of my teachers and life experiences over the years, though I wasn't exactly sheltered, as I too was exposed to these things. The difference is, I developed a consciousness about what themes are present in the media.

Fourth off, you're right, Elvis was considered obscene because of the way he danced, but keep in mind, that was only during his performances on television concerts, as the music video did not exist yet. However, most of his lyrics, while slightly sensual, didn't seem overly erotic. It was during the 1960s that the lyrics themselves began to shed their innocence; it wasn't an overnight transition, though, as it did so gradually, increasing steadily over time... at least until the turn of the new millennium, when it really took off.

And finally, the reason why many of us are so tolerant of what was originally shock and sleaze (which has now apparently become the norm) was because they kept raising the bar on how risky their performances can be, overpowering the censors. I think that this is a bar that needs to be lowered. Now, again, I am not saying that we should go back to 1950s censorship standards, nor am I saying that we should be as strict with censorship as China and the Middle East, but still, we should at least put restrictions on them. I wouldn't want to ban them, because I acknowledge that there are fans out there who like these artists, but I would still confine them to a niche by labeling them as MAX artists, restricting them to listener 18 and older (listener discretion is strongly recommended). I also believe in content rating for music, not to ban them, (which Australia has also done on a few occasions), but to regulate which artists are appropriate for which audiences.

Other times, though, I tend to hate a song because of the subject matter discussed in the song, including "Set the World On Fire" by Fun, because it glorifies getting drunk and wasted. I don't get what's so fun about getting drunk and wasted, and when you're drunk in a bar, and you either pass out or start a fight, the police will carry you to jail.

I dont get how giving your phone number to a stranger is such a great idea, you either get stalked and murdered or have sex with them and get an STI.

Also the song is called "We are Young"

You're right, or perhaps maybe she was stalking him. Then again, he may have been a next door neighbor for years, and it was only now that she finally got a chance to know him (though in the music video itself, the boy she liked turned out to be gay). And it's abbreviated as STD (sexually transmitted disease).

The thing is, we need to be more conscious of what these lyrics actually mean. I think that in music classes in school, music teachers need to educate their students on what these lyrics actually mean, and songwriters also need to be more conscious of what they're writing. But it's not just music; they also need to be educated about the themes that they see on television as well.

Please acknowledge that I am only trying to make valid points, though you have also made valid points as well.

[kotora]

SuperMillionaire nobody is going to acknowledge your points to be valid because it's ridiculous to be claiming to use an analytical approach and "rational theories" yet base your entire argument on your own taste, what you simply consider to be "crappy music". You claims to have developed a consciousness about supposedly hegemonic media messages yet your solution for hegemony is censorship? It doesn't make any sense. Might wanna pay more attention in sociology class next time.

[blackmage_nuke]

You're right, or perhaps maybe she was stalking him. Then again, he may have been a next door neighbor for years, and it was only now that she finally got a chance to know him (though in the music video itself, the boy she liked turned out to be gay).

Or perhaps "We are Young" is just about people going out and having a good time with thier friends enjoying their time whilst theyre still young, which is the best time to enjoy one's youth and the best time to make mistakes.

Perhaps "Im sexy and I know it" is about having a positive self body image. (In the music video itself he is not at all sexy)

And it's abbreviated as STD (sexually transmitted disease).

They use to be called STD's but theyre not classified as diseases anymore so theyre now officially if not commonly called STI's for sexually transmitted infection.

[Ouch!]

If you want to claim an analytic approach, I would recommend citing research and studies with figures representing your claims, especially if you're going to start making racially-charged (intended or not) claims about demographics involving certain types of music. That you insist that rap and hip-hop are still something of a niche group to African Americans (and now Latino) fans, I would counter that if this were the case, there would be no reason that recording artists like Jay-Z, Kanye West, Lil' Wayne, and others consistently score very highly on the charts. Take, for example, Kanye West. Since 2004 he has released five albums. In that time, all five have gone platinum (min. 2,000,000 album sales). Two of them have gone double platinum (min. 4,000,000 album sales). One of them has gone triple platinum (min. 6,000,000 album sales). These are not insignificant benchmarks, and I believe they're indicative of the pervasiveness of a genre that you're so readily dismissing.

On another note: Anglo-American. You keep using this word. I do not think that it means what you think it means. Stop using it.

You have provided a number of subjective reasons why various genres of music are bad. Your most common complaint (and I at least give you credit for acknowledging that this is personal preference), is the inclusion of explicit lyrics which you find offense. You suggest content labeling and (presumably) restriction of sales based on certain criteria. In case you didn't know this already exists. There are already "Parental Advisory: Explicit Content" labels for albums containing excessively suggestive of profane lyrics as monitored by the RIAA. Most retailers in the United States already restrict sales of these explicit albums to those under the age of 17 (i.e. a parent or guardian must be present to purchase it). And you know what? That's already more intrusive than I care for.

I do not need you, the government, or anyone else trying to serve as my moral watchdog. Moral judgments are inherently subjective (especially in something like the extent of decency in various artistic forms), and individuals shouldn't have some self-proclaimed moral authority dictating what is and is not appropriate content. In the place of children, it's up to (or at least should be) parents to decide what content is appropriate for their own children without dictating the same for every other kid on the planet. I know how I plan to raise my kids, and while it may differ from the way you think that children should be raised, that's none of your smurfing business. You raise your kids how you see fit, and I'll do the same.

Here's my beef with you, SuperMillionaire. It's not that you find this type of content offensive (I think that's silly, but absolutely respect your right to that opinion), it's that you're on such a high horse about it. Your attitude can be summarized in a single sentence from your post: "The difference is, I developed a consciousness about what themes are present in the media." Which, I might add, you bolded and underlined for emphasis. The implication that those who are not properly horrified by naughty words means we lack consciousness about themes prevalent in the media is patently absurd. We're aware of these themes, we just aren't so easily offended.

Also, you completely missed the point of why I brought up Elvis. Do you find his dancing obscene now? Do you cringe every time someone gyrates their hips a bit when they dance? Most people don't. Most people probably think such a reaction is ridiculously prudish. That's how I feel about most of your opinions expressed in this thread. By modern standards, for a college-aged student, you are absurdly prudish. That's totally your prerogative, but at least acknowledge it. You seem blissfully ignorant to how out of touch you are with popular opinion. While I appreciate that argumentum ad populum is a fallacy in most cases, I think it's particularly relevant in this case. What is considered appropriate is culturally defined, and you're fighting against the trends of the culture of which you are a part. Such as how the style of dancing introduced sixty-five years ago by Elvis is no longer considered obscene, what is currently considered inappropriate by many now will not be in probably a decade. The differences in the limits of decency between our generation and the one before it already makes this apparent.

I can appreciate that you might consider this a bad thing, but I disagree. I look forward to a time when profanity isn't something that you have to cover your ears whenever you hear. Words are words, and they all have their use in the right time and place. I look forward to a time when discussing sex frankly and openly doesn't make everyone uncomfortable. Sex is completely natural, and I don't like the puritan attitude our culture still has toward something that everyone does. I look forward to a time when people aren't scandalized because a woman bared her shoulder or thigh. It's a human body, and if people weren't so ingrained in believing that it's such a taboo in the first place, it would unlikely be notable enough to elicit a strong response anyway.

Long story short, if you want to be a serious about psychology and sociology (especially sociology), you're going to need to grow a thicker skin and learn to accept that other people have differing (and valid!) opinions that do not require regulation according to your personal moral code. Both disciplines require a suspension of judgment, which is something you're not doing a whole lot of right now.

Edit" blackmage_nuke is correct; prominent officials in the medical field have pushed toward the more widespread use of the term Sexually Transmitted Infection instead of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, although particularly for the reason provided. They determined that the term disease was misleading because it implied symptoms where often as is the case with STIs, while a person may be infected with a given disease and capable of infecting others with it, they may not personally display any symptoms of the disease.

[nik0tine]

I've done a lot of research, and I've found out that music started shedding its innocence back in the 1960s

Here is a song by Mozart. The words, I believe, are "Lick me in the ass, lick me in the ass nice and clean".

[Madame Adequate]

I just want to know: why do these artists do these outrageous things? Is there any justifiable reason for it?

Here is perhaps the crux of everything you're saying. Your attitude is to demand a reason to do something. Most of the rest of us demand a reason to not do something, especially in the anarchic modern media world where there are ever-fewer barriers to the creation and propagation of media. Why does Lady GaGa wear a dress made of meat or bubbles or Kermits? Why the smurf not? Prudishness that was outdated before the Beatles came onto the scene really doesn't suffice to justify the sort of control you're advocating.

Put simply hunches and your own personal investigation doesn't suffice. You need to give evidence that things like violent media and obscene lyrics cause bad trout. Then you need to convincingly argue that that bad trout is worse than the bad trout which would result from censorship. Do both of those and we'll have something to debate but until then you're just making a lot of transparently ill-informed noise and bluster for no apparent reason.

[Lone Wolf Leonhart]

Overly Attached Girlfriend. Relevant.

[Shoeberto]

And finally, the reason why many of us are so tolerant of what was originally shock and sleaze (which has now apparently become the norm) was because they kept raising the bar on how risky their performances can be, overpowering the censors. I think that this is a bar that needs to be lowered. Now, again, I am not saying that we should go back to 1950s censorship standards, nor am I saying that we should be as strict with censorship as China and the Middle East, but still, we should at least put restrictions on them. I wouldn't want to ban them, because I acknowledge that there are fans out there who like these artists, but I would still confine them to a niche by labeling them as MAX artists, restricting them to listener 18 and older (listener discretion is strongly recommended). I also believe in content rating for music, not to ban them, (which Australia has also done on a few occasions), but to regulate which artists are appropriate for which audiences.

The US congress had hearings on this in the early 1990s to try and prevent children from consuming obscene music - the result of this was the Parental Advisory notice that we currently know. At the time, many well-respected artists came out of the woodwork, including greats like John Denver, to protest the concept as censorship. The problem is putting a blanket label on things as being "dirty" or "obscene" based entirely on some standard designed by individuals who may not understand the intent behind the music.

For every Kesha album you're putting the label on, you're also putting the same label on Pink Floyd. The Wall was an album rife with references to drug and alcohol abuse, as well as an entire song dedicated to hooking up with random women, and by your definition shouldn't be allowed to be heard by children. But at 13, it changed my life. I felt an immediate relationship to the album's story and characters and realizing it's okay to feel conflicted and confused about the world. This is obviously an anecdote, but I'm sure many people have had experiences with "adult" or "explicit" albums at a young age that resonated in such a way as to have a long-term, positive effect.

Ultimately what you propose to do is to have an institution replace the job of the parent. Parents should be concerned with what media their children are consuming and talk with them about the subjects and implications. No amount of advisory stickers or bans on sales will ever replace a parent's involvement in their child's life, and it only serves to restrict the availability of art to a wide audience.

[SuperMillionaire]

SuperMillionaire nobody is going to acknowledge your points to be valid because it's ridiculous to be claiming to use an analytical approach and "rational theories" yet base your entire argument on your own taste, what you simply consider to be "crappy music". You claims to have developed a consciousness about supposedly hegemonic media messages yet your solution for hegemony is censorship? It doesn't make any sense. Might wanna pay more attention in sociology class next time.

Wow, and if I remember correctly, you used to have Justin Bieber as your avatar... anyway, I'm just making an example of how whenever someone dislikes a particular artist or genre of music, they should be specific as to why. For anyone else on this board who hates Justin Bieber or any other artist, you should specify why, in your opinion, his music is bad. In addition, you should also specify how exactly you define "crappy music."

You're right, or perhaps maybe she was stalking him. Then again, he may have been a next door neighbor for years, and it was only now that she finally got a chance to know him (though in the music video itself, the boy she liked turned out to be gay).

Or perhaps "We are Young" is just about people going out and having a good time with thier friends enjoying their time whilst theyre still young, which is the best time to enjoy one's youth and the best time to make mistakes.

Perhaps "Im sexy and I know it" is about having a positive self body image. (In the music video itself he is not at all sexy)

And it's abbreviated as STD (sexually transmitted disease).

They use to be called STD's but theyre not classified as diseases anymore so theyre now officially if not commonly called STI's for sexually transmitted infection.

True, when you're young, it's the time to have fun, but still, try not to be so foolish about it if you don't want to end up in jail. It might be possible that they are portraying going to jail as a good thing, which it is not, unless you need to be scared straight, but still, why go through that in the first place if you don't have to? If you just weren't foolish to begin with, you wouldn't have to be sanctioned and scared straight, now, would you?

And "I'm Sexy and I Know It" sounds quite narcissistic to me, as does "I'm Too Sexy," and even other songs not about sex, such as "We Will Rock You" and "We Are The Champions" by Queen; in my opinion, a number of their songs come across as narcissistic to me. Though the real reason why I hated "I'm Sexy and I Know It" was actually because of the annoying beats and strange sound effects in the background.

And finally, the reason why many of us are so tolerant of what was originally shock and sleaze (which has now apparently become the norm) was because they kept raising the bar on how risky their performances can be, overpowering the censors. I think that this is a bar that needs to be lowered. Now, again, I am not saying that we should go back to 1950s censorship standards, nor am I saying that we should be as strict with censorship as China and the Middle East, but still, we should at least put restrictions on them. I wouldn't want to ban them, because I acknowledge that there are fans out there who like these artists, but I would still confine them to a niche by labeling them as MAX artists, restricting them to listener 18 and older (listener discretion is strongly recommended). I also believe in content rating for music, not to ban them, (which Australia has also done on a few occasions), but to regulate which artists are appropriate for which audiences.

The US congress had hearings on this in the early 1990s to try and prevent children from consuming obscene music - the result of this was the Parental Advisory notice that we currently know. At the time, many well-respected artists came out of the woodwork, including greats like John Denver, to protest the concept as censorship. The problem is putting a blanket label on things as being "dirty" or "obscene" based entirely on some standard designed by individuals who may not understand the intent behind the music.

For every Kesha album you're putting the label on, you're also putting the same label on Pink Floyd. The Wall was an album rife with references to drug and alcohol abuse, as well as an entire song dedicated to hooking up with random women, and by your definition shouldn't be allowed to be heard by children. But at 13, it changed my life. I felt an immediate relationship to the album's story and characters and realizing it's okay to feel conflicted and confused about the world. This is obviously an anecdote, but I'm sure many people have had experiences with "adult" or "explicit" albums at a young age that resonated in such a way as to have a long-term, positive effect.

Ultimately what you propose to do is to have an institution replace the job of the parent. Parents should be concerned with what media their children are consuming and talk with them about the subjects and implications. No amount of advisory stickers or bans on sales will ever replace a parent's involvement in their child's life, and it only serves to restrict the availability of art to a wide audience.

The thing is, the Parental Advisory sticker is a very vague warning, and doesn't seem to be as strictly restricted as R-rated movies and M-rated video games. Also, an album only receives this sticker if it has the F word in it; otherwise, it doesn't, even if it has the S word in the lyrics (incidentally, I've also noticed that the F and S words are the only two censored words on this forum, and are replaced with the words "smurf" and "trout," respectively.) And even if it doesn't have those higher-level expletives (though some may still use "damn" and "hell," which I have stated that I don't mind them all that much; in fact, I can also tolerate the word "bastard"), the album still may not be appropriate for family listening. Plus, consider the fact that some of these artists, especially Latin American artists, may curse in Spanish, and those expletives, since they are not in English, may not be caught by the censors (thus, "getting crap past the radar"). This is the reason why I think that we need content ratings for music that are similar to movies and video games. Again, let me make it clear that I do not intend on banning these artists, but still, I would want them to be more specifically regulated, as many of these artists, for some odd reason, are popular with children. The problem is, there is no regulation that designates which artists are appropriate for which artists. If you like those artists, fine, go ahead and listen to them, as long as you don't blast it loud. But for me, I would just want them more regulated, so that I can filter them out.

My approach to these things is to see my point of view, and then to see other people's points of view, and then come up with a reason why these things should change. I try my best to take other people's beliefs into consideration, and I have, when I said that I only want more specific regulation, and not banning, as I have acknowledge that you may like some of these artists (and to be honest, I might happen to like a few of these artists myself). I also want to know why things are the way they are and how they got to be that way. I am also aware that I have a somewhat cynical mindset.

On another note: Anglo-American. You keep using this word. I do not think that it means what you think it means. Stop using it.

The reason why I use the term "Anglo-American" in this situation is to distinguish it from "Latin American." I know that the term "Anglo-American" refers to North America (particularly the United States and Canada collectively), Greenland, and the Caribbean islands that speak English or any other language besides Spanish; thus, the reason why those counties in Central and South America are often refered to as "Latin America," though some of them might speak other languages, with the most notable case being Brazil, which speaks Portuguese (the sister language of Spanish).

Reggaeton, or regueton, the Latin American style of hip hop, originated in Puerto Rico, but has spread all across Latin America, as well as into Anglo America (the United States and Canada) and other places such as Europe and even Australia. One of the primary artists responsible for pioneering reggaeton is Daddy Yankee, whose most famous single "Gasolina" (which obviously means gasoline in Spanish), achieved high positions on music charts across the world, and was also certified platinum in not only the United States, but also Australia, of all places, as it reached a peak of 12th position on the Australian charts, which made it one of the few Spanish-language songs to achieve such a feat on the Australian charts (since there are not as many Spanish speakers there as there are in the United States and Canada). The majority of Latino rappers tend to come from either Puerto Rico, Cuba, or the Dominican Republic (all of which are located in the Caribbean islands), though there are an increasing number of rappers in other Latin American countries. In addition to Daddy Yankee, other notable reggaeton artists include Don Omar and Wisin y Yandel. Notably, like English-language hip hop in the United States and Canada, reggaeton has caused some controversy in Latin America, mainly due to the exploitation of women (since, as with Anglo-American hip hop, the vast majority of these rappers are men), and to a lesser extent, explicit lyrics and/or gangster violence. Another controversy is perreo (derived from "perro" which is the Spanish word for "dog," thus probably denoting "doggy style"), a kind of dance style that is typically associated with both reggaeton and Anglo-American hip hop music (also known as "booty dancing" or "grinding" in the United States and Canada), which I also think is disgusting, since it involves a woman rubbing her glutes on a man's pelvis, appearing as though they're having "doggy-style" sex in public (they call it "doggy style" because in biology, that's how dogs - and various other canine animals such as wolves - have sex).

In contrast to the majority of rappers and hip hop fans being either black or Hispanic, the majority of rock bands and heavy metal bands, as well as fans of those bands, are white. However, it doesn't seem to stigmatize stereotypes of white people in the same way that hip hop does for blacks and Hispanics.

While rock music, for the most part, is considered today to be accepted into decency standards (with some exceptions), heavy metal is more controversial because it discusses things like demonic themes. Extreme heavy metal, including thrash metal (with the "big four bands" being Metallica, Megadeth, Slayer, and Anthrax) is mostly a scream fest today, with extremely loud guitars and overly-repetitive senseless beats. Regular heavy metal, on the other hand, isn't quite as edgy as extreme heavy metal, but they still discuss much angst, anger, and even anarchist themes, such as Rage Against the Machine. I myself happen to like a few of these milder heavy metal bands, such as Three Days Grace and Flyleaf, but I still wouldn't let my children listen to them.

Also, true shock rock acts, such as Alice Cooper, began in the 80s, and basically combined music with elements of shock value. It seems as though today, shock is the norm, with various artists implementing shock value in their performances, and sometimes, I just feel like, "enough, already!" The difference between him and Elvis Presley was that I don't believe that Elvis was trying to intentionally shock people, whereas Alice Cooper did purposely intend to shock people.

When it comes to pop music, while I dislike Katy Perry, Kesha, and Christina Aguilera, I actually happen to like Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson. While Britney Spears has never officially collaborated with Linkin Park, MTV produced a mashup of "Toxic" with "Faint," which received widespread popularity (I myself happen to be a fan of this mashup). I personally hope that one day, Spears will actually officially collaborate with Linkin Park. The thing is, I actually like some of these artists myself, but I still would want them more properly regulated.

Incidentally, one apparent notable critic of pop stars such as Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera is Amy Lynn-Hartzler, better known as Amy Lee, the lead singer of the gothic rock/metal band Evanescence (which I also happen to like). On their debut album Fallen, the third track on the album is "Everybody's Fool," which was an aimed criticism of Spears and Aguilera, which was written out of Amy's disliking of her younger sister Carrie liking such artists. I would also theorize that the Spears song "If U Seek Amy" (which caused controversy for sounding like she was spelling out the F word, and was subsequently censored into "If U See Amy") might be an answer to "Everybody's Fool," since the "Amy" in the song's title might possibly refer to Amy Lee. Evanescence had been out of the spotlight for several years between albums, as after they released The Open Door in 2006-2007, they seem to have disappeared until 2011, when they returned with their third, self-titled, album. Meanwhile, other former members of Evanescence created an off-shoot band named We Are the Fallen, featuring American Idol alumni Carly Smithson as the lead singer of this new band.

Another notable trend that I noticed is that on YouTube, in the comments section for music videos by hard rock and heavy metal bands such as Linkin Park, users there tend to rampantly pick on artists such as Justin Bieber and the Jonas Brothers. If anything, I would think that the reason why they tend to pick on him so much is that he's not "manly," as many of these metal bands are quite manly. As I had stated earlier, I myself am not a major Justin Bieber fan, but I don't hate him, either. Nor am I a major fan of Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus. I do, however, like Demi Lovato, Selena Gomez, Taylor Swift, and One Direction.

When it comes to music in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, while lyrics started getting sensual and even slightly erotic, they didn't seem to use that many actual expletives like they do now. I can recall hearing many songs from those earlier times that had sexual themes, but none of them seemed to have any profanities in them other than "damn" or "hell," and even then, not very often. In contrast, many of today's songs have more expletives in them. Also, while many of those artists did drugs, the majority of them didn't seem to sing about their drug use. The term "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" probably came from many of these bands singing about sex, and their drug habits, but they didn't seem to sing about drugs (for the most part).

And to be honest, I do not find Elvis' dancing offensive at all. In fact, I must add that I happen to be a fan of Shakira, a Colombian pop star of partial Lebanese descent, and she tends to utilize belly dancing moves in her performances, which I happen to like. Tying in with this, I also especially like the song "Hips Don't Lie," which apparently, some of you might hate. And let's not forget about the fitness craze known as Zumba, which was invented by a man named Beto Perez, who is also from Colombia. Now, I don't do Zumba myself, but I've seen a number of presentations on QVC that showcase and demonstrate the moves, and a lot of them are quite sensual, involving shaking of the hips. (It's one thing to be sensual, and another thing to be erotic.)

I also recall seeing commercials for a series of DVDs called Flirty Girl Fitness, which teaches flirtatious pole dancing moves in a manner that is meant to be healthy. One of the DVDs also requires a dance pole, for pole dancing moves. To be honest, I actually like it when I see girls pole dance, depending on exactly how they dance, and there are multiple ways to pole dance. Some pole dancers, specifically those in shows such as stage, cabaret, and circus performers, dance in a way that is more athletic (in terms of gymnastics) and artistic. On the other hand, other pole dancers, specifically those in strip clubs, place more emphasis on the erotic aspect of it. To be honest, I do like some of the sensual moves, but if the sensuality is overly erotic, then I don't like it anymore, as there's a certain point at which the "personal aesthetic fan service" is overboard and overdone, and while I do like it when they utilize go-go dancing moves, I do not approve of stripteasing. And if that's not enough, consider that it also has connections to an Indian sport named mallakhamb, and performers of mallakhamb were predominately men, whereas modern pole dancing is more commonly associated with women. The name is derived from the Hindi words malla, meaning "a man or gymnast of strength" and khamb, which means "pole;" thus, it can be literally translated into English as "pole gymnastics." For these reasons, many pole dancers want it to be more seriously regarded as a sport, a form of dance, and a form of exercise, rather than just a mere act of erotic arousal.

All of this has taken me a long time to post, and with all of that said, please understand that I do not, by any means, wish for you to stop listening to whatever you're listening to, but I just want more regulation of what we listen to. I also want to know the origins of these things, and why and how these things are the way they are now. I am also trying to make valid points, and while I do acknowledge that you have made valid points, please acknowledge that I have made valid points as well, because I feel misunderstood by the majority of you, and I want to clarify things as best as I possibly can. And lastly, please, do not hate me for the things I do on this forum. I only do what I do because I just want to know why and how, and that I also want change for a greater good, which is why I ask these questions and post my opinions on this board; many of you accuse me of imposing my beliefs onto you, which I have no intention of doing, though ironically enough, many others have tried imposing their beliefs on me in the past.

Thanks, and I'm sorry. Please don't ban me.

[Shoeberto]

The thing is, the Parental Advisory sticker is a very vague warning, and doesn't seem to be as strictly restricted as R-rated movies and M-rated video games. Also, an album only receives this sticker if it has the F word in it; otherwise, it doesn't, even if it has the S word in the lyrics (incidentally, I've also noticed that the F and S words are the only two censored words on this forum, and are replaced with the words "smurf" and "trout," respectively.) And even if it doesn't have those higher-level expletives (though some may still use "damn" and "hell," which I have stated that I don't mind them all that much; in fact, I can also tolerate the word "bastard"), the album still may not be appropriate for family listening. Plus, consider the fact that some of these artists, especially Latin American artists, may curse in Spanish, and those expletives, since they are not in English, may not be caught by the censors (thus, "getting crap past the radar"). This is the reason why I think that we need content ratings for music that are similar to movies and video games. Again, let me make it clear that I do not intend on banning these artists, but still, I would want them to be more specifically regulated, as many of these artists, for some odd reason, are popular with children. The problem is, there is no regulation that designates which artists are appropriate for which artists. If you like those artists, fine, go ahead and listen to them, as long as you don't blast it loud. But for me, I would just want them more regulated, so that I can filter them out.

My approach to these things is to see my point of view, and then to see other people's points of view, and then come up with a reason why these things should change. I try my best to take other people's beliefs into consideration, and I have, when I said that I only want more specific regulation, and not banning, as I have acknowledge that you may like some of these artists (and to be honest, I might happen to like a few of these artists myself). I also want to know why things are the way they are and how they got to be that way. I am also aware that I have a somewhat cynical mindset.

I don't think you got my point. I wasn't condoning the Parental Advisory label. Filtering should be the responsibility of the individual, or in the case of children, done by parents. Having it institutionalized limits availability of artists that get lumped in with others who are crass due to arbitrary restrictions. It's a slippery slope that can't effectively do anything but push one individual's (or a group's) personal agenda which completely flies in the face of what art is.

If you don't like it, filter it yourself. If you don't want your kids listening to it, don't let them. It's as simple as that.

[blackmage_nuke]

You're right, or perhaps maybe she was stalking him. Then again, he may have been a next door neighbor for years, and it was only now that she finally got a chance to know him (though in the music video itself, the boy she liked turned out to be gay).

Or perhaps "We are Young" is just about people going out and having a good time with thier friends enjoying their time whilst theyre still young, which is the best time to enjoy one's youth and the best time to make mistakes.

Perhaps "Im sexy and I know it" is about having a positive self body image. (In the music video itself he is not at all sexy)

And it's abbreviated as STD (sexually transmitted disease).

They use to be called STD's but theyre not classified as diseases anymore so theyre now officially if not commonly called STI's for sexually transmitted infection.

True, when you're young, it's the time to have fun, but still, try not to be so foolish about it if you don't want to end up in jail. It might be possible that they are portraying going to jail as a good thing, which it is not, unless you need to be scared straight, but still, why go through that in the first place if you don't have to? If you just weren't foolish to begin with, you wouldn't have to be sanctioned and scared straight, now, would you?

And "I'm Sexy and I Know It" sounds quite narcissistic to me, as does "I'm Too Sexy," and even other songs not about sex, such as "We Will Rock You" and "We Are The Champions" by Queen; in my opinion, a number of their songs come across as narcissistic to me. Though the real reason why I hated "I'm Sexy and I Know It" was actually because of the annoying beats and strange sound effects in the background.

The point I was trying to make was if you're going to hate or 'regulate' a song based on what the lyrics "might" mean or might imply then every song in existence has a bad angle and every song when read from a different perspective has a positive message.

High Hopes by Frank Sinatra glorifies deforestation and Dam Terrorism.

[Ouch!]

SuperMillionaire, it is not up to you to determine what is the greater good. Your definition of a positive change toward such a "greater good" is based on you subjective worldview, and imposing censors based on that worldview is asserting your values on others. I reject your worldview and substitute my own. If you think that something is obscene, nobody is forcing you to listen to it. You have no right to impede the ability of others to listen to certain music based on your subjective moral values. Stay the smurf out of other peoples' lives.

[The Man]

The point I was trying to make was if you're going to hate or 'regulate' a song based on what the lyrics "might" mean or might imply then every song in existence has a bad angle and every song when read from a different perspective has a positive message.

High Hopes by Frank Sinatra glorifies deforestation and Dam Terrorism.

All books can be indecent books through recent books are bolder
For filth, I'm glad to say, is in the mind of the beholder
When correctly viewed
Everything is lewd
I could tell you things about Peter Pan
And the Wizard of Oz - there's a dirty old man!

[SuperMillionaire]

The thing is, the Parental Advisory sticker is a very vague warning, and doesn't seem to be as strictly restricted as R-rated movies and M-rated video games. Also, an album only receives this sticker if it has the F word in it; otherwise, it doesn't, even if it has the S word in the lyrics (incidentally, I've also noticed that the F and S words are the only two censored words on this forum, and are replaced with the words "smurf" and "trout," respectively.) And even if it doesn't have those higher-level expletives (though some may still use "damn" and "hell," which I have stated that I don't mind them all that much; in fact, I can also tolerate the word "bastard"), the album still may not be appropriate for family listening. Plus, consider the fact that some of these artists, especially Latin American artists, may curse in Spanish, and those expletives, since they are not in English, may not be caught by the censors (thus, "getting crap past the radar"). This is the reason why I think that we need content ratings for music that are similar to movies and video games. Again, let me make it clear that I do not intend on banning these artists, but still, I would want them to be more specifically regulated, as many of these artists, for some odd reason, are popular with children. The problem is, there is no regulation that designates which artists are appropriate for which artists. If you like those artists, fine, go ahead and listen to them, as long as you don't blast it loud. But for me, I would just want them more regulated, so that I can filter them out.

My approach to these things is to see my point of view, and then to see other people's points of view, and then come up with a reason why these things should change. I try my best to take other people's beliefs into consideration, and I have, when I said that I only want more specific regulation, and not banning, as I have acknowledge that you may like some of these artists (and to be honest, I might happen to like a few of these artists myself). I also want to know why things are the way they are and how they got to be that way. I am also aware that I have a somewhat cynical mindset.

I don't think you got my point. I wasn't condoning the Parental Advisory label. Filtering should be the responsibility of the individual, or in the case of children, done by parents. Having it institutionalized limits availability of artists that get lumped in with others who are crass due to arbitrary restrictions. It's a slippery slope that can't effectively do anything but push one individual's (or a group's) personal agenda which completely flies in the face of what art is.

If you don't like it, filter it yourself. If you don't want your kids listening to it, don't let them. It's as simple as that.

You're right, or perhaps maybe she was stalking him. Then again, he may have been a next door neighbor for years, and it was only now that she finally got a chance to know him (though in the music video itself, the boy she liked turned out to be gay).

Or perhaps "We are Young" is just about people going out and having a good time with thier friends enjoying their time whilst theyre still young, which is the best time to enjoy one's youth and the best time to make mistakes.

Perhaps "Im sexy and I know it" is about having a positive self body image. (In the music video itself he is not at all sexy)

And it's abbreviated as STD (sexually transmitted disease).

They use to be called STD's but theyre not classified as diseases anymore so theyre now officially if not commonly called STI's for sexually transmitted infection.

True, when you're young, it's the time to have fun, but still, try not to be so foolish about it if you don't want to end up in jail. It might be possible that they are portraying going to jail as a good thing, which it is not, unless you need to be scared straight, but still, why go through that in the first place if you don't have to? If you just weren't foolish to begin with, you wouldn't have to be sanctioned and scared straight, now, would you?

And "I'm Sexy and I Know It" sounds quite narcissistic to me, as does "I'm Too Sexy," and even other songs not about sex, such as "We Will Rock You" and "We Are The Champions" by Queen; in my opinion, a number of their songs come across as narcissistic to me. Though the real reason why I hated "I'm Sexy and I Know It" was actually because of the annoying beats and strange sound effects in the background.

The point I was trying to make was if you're going to hate or 'regulate' a song based on what the lyrics "might" mean or might imply then every song in existence has a bad angle and every song when read from a different perspective has a positive message.

High Hopes by Frank Sinatra glorifies deforestation and Dam Terrorism.

It's called "guidelines." Movies and video games have ratings that act as guidelines, but music does not, and that should change. If you still want your kids to listen to shock music, fine, but the ratings would act as more accurate and precise advisory guidelines, instead of the vague "Parental Advisory" sticker. And let's also factor in those who sing and rap in Spanish, as they may curse in Spanish, and the people who don't speak Spanish may not catch the expletives. Even if you like a song, you should still know what you're listening to. Personally, as I stated above, I happen to like some of those artists myself, but still, I'm more vigilant about these things. I also want to know about the very nature of controversy itself.

I've met people from older generations who dislike this stuff, and even some younger people who dislike this stuff too. Even better, I have a professor this semester with a very similar cynical mindset to my own.

And I'm not exactly invading your life. Ironically enough, many people I've known over the years have invaded my life, and have told me condescendingly that I should be more like them. Well, I don't want to be like them, because I think they're wrong about me, and yet now you're telling me to stay out of your lives. HOW IRONIC. I'm not exactly telling you to change the way you live and what you listen to or watch, but just to be more vigilant about these things, and know exactly what you're listening to or watching. And whenever you dislike something, specify exactly why.

I'm trying my best to understand you, but you're not understanding me at all. I acknowledge the fact that you like some of those things, and I'm not exactly stopping you from continuing to like them. Nor do I exactly plan on stopping anyone from accessing these things, which many of you seem to think I'm doing. I'm trying to find a middleground between your standards and my standards in order to be acceptable to as many people as possible, because there is a time and place for everything, and there's a certain line that has to be drawn, and I don't think that line has been drawn yet.

The thing is, as a cynic, I find myself today to be very misunderstood by a lot of people at large. I don't want to hate you, and I don't want you to hate me, either.