It corrupts teenage society itself! It ruins our kid's health and jepordising their souls! And it should be banned everywhere! For those who voted no, do you think parents can police everything their child is exposed to with the pervasiveness of technology? Of course not. And so, knowing they're probably hearing such lyrics, do you ever take time to discuss them? But then, how do you convince a child they are bad lyrics when it's a popular form of music? And for those who find such lyrics an outlet, what is wrong with you?!
Why not focus on the good things about human nature to decompress yourself? Or God forbid, get off your drugged up butt and try to make the world a better place? That is an idiotic argument and shows how far our society has disintegrated into ignorance and apathy. Thank you to all you rappers for demeaning the goodness in people and taking our society down to your low IQ, soulless level. All I can say is, you have to answer to God one day, so you better start coming up with reasons to justify what you've done.
Ryan, Demand Media States: Researchers have found rap music to show more violence and have more explicit language than other music genres. Yes we all have freedom of speech but the constitution states that violent words should not be used. This means in music as well!
The constitution was created for is to go by what it says and ignoring what it states in relation to violent words, isn't abiding by it's purpose. Another reason is adolescents. They are so easily impressionable because of their goal to fit in and be known.
They might want to be a part of a certain group and would do anything they could to get into that group. Violent music isn't "Venting," it's encouragement to children who listen to it.
You can not expect a child to listen to a violent song and it not have any affect on them. There are plenty of examples to how violent music is an incentive to people whose minds are searching for acceptance.
Or even to someone whose expierencing certain emotions that would make them easily influenced. The music helps certain people to feel encouraged and can even be done in the wrong way. These are the reasons violent music should be banned. The violence of war is portrayed vividly in Saving Private Ryan, but the film has not been banned on this basis. Private Ryan portrays violence and suffering in order to remind us of the inhumanity that pervaded the Second World War.
It uses violence to make a didactic point, to move its audience to sympathy and disgust. If a film were to use images of extreme violence or suffering as a form of entertainment, inviting the audience to take pleasure in brutality, a classification board would try to restrict or censor its content.
Violent music does not automatically glorify violence, nor does it cause its audience to see violence as something that is glamorous. Listened to out of context, without any attempt to critically analyse the imagery of the song and the intentions of the artists, it is easy to condemn many acclaimed examples of popular music as containing violent lyrics. By giving into the populist pressure that is represented and generated by newspaper columnists and talk show hosts, we risk creating a chilling effect, not only on mainstream hip hop culture, but on any other musical form that dares to discuss themes that fall outside narrowly and arbitrarily defined limits of social acceptability.
Hip hop is a diverse genre. The quote that opened this discussion is taken from a song by the English surrealist rapper Scroobius Pip. Similarly, artists such as MIA, Optimus Rhyme and the Wilcania Mob have used hip hop to discuss the conflict in Sri Lanka, computer games and life as a member of the aboriginal community in Australia.
Each of these artists share a single common link. They all cater to a relatively niche market and have encountered little in the way of mainstream success. Rappers who write lyrics about cynicism and aggression- from Slim Shady to JayZ- have recorded numerous number one tracks and attracted a wide range of industry accolades. It is clear that rap discussing crime and violence is the dominant genre within hip hop.
It is clear that there is a significant popular and public appetite for rap of this type. As the comment opposite notes, there will always be a need for classification boards, as gratuitous or pornographic content will always form a significant part of the media landscape.
Moreover, despite efforts to control access to such content, pornography and wilfully violent movies continue to make money. There are no nuances of context and meaning to discuss in gangsta rap, only potentially damaging content that, at best, should be regulated and monitored. A new legal prohibition on any type of behaviour or conduct can only be set up by investing large amounts of political capital in order to transform vague proposals into a legislative document and then into a fully-fledged law.
The change being sought in this instance is a reduction in the violence, criminality and social disaffection that some people associate with hip hop music and its fans. Laws do not create changes in behaviour simply because they are laws.
It is unlikely that the consumers of hip hop will refrain from listening to it. The ease with which music can be distributed and performed means that any ban on violent songs will, inevitably, be ineffective. File sharing networks and cross border online stores such as eBay and Silk Road already enable people to obtain media and controlled goods with little more than a credit card and a forwarding address.
Current urban music genres are already defined and supported by grassroots musicians who specialise in assembling tracks using minimal resources before sharing them among friends or broadcasting them on short-range pirate radio stations.
Although a formal ban on the distribution of music has yet to happen within a western liberal democracy, similar laws have been created to restrict access to violent videogames. Following widespread reports of the damaging effects that exposure to violent videogames might have on children, Australia banned outright the publication of a succession of violent and action-oriented titles. However, in several instances, implementation of this ban led only to increased piracy of prohibited games through file sharing networks and attempts by publishing companies to circumvent the ban using websites based in jurisdictions outside Australia.
Similar behaviour is likely to result in other liberal democracies following any ban on music with violent lyrics. As discussed in principle 10, effective control and classification of controversial material can only be achieved if it is discussed with a high specificity and a nuanced understanding of the shared standards that it might offend.
This would not be possible under a policy that effectively surrenders control of the content of music to the internet. Modern policy making does not rely on the force of law to bring about social change. This is an archaic approach to addressing the harms and deficiencies that might appear in communities. We can reasonably assume that any ban on violent lyrics will be linked to wider reaching education and information campaigns that attempt to address misogynist attitudes and violent crime.
Concerns expressed above that other hip hop genres, and musical innovation in general, might suffer could be adequately countered by offering subsidies and support to non-confrontational forms of hip hop. In this way legal regulation and policy interventions could help the music industry to address the more pernicious aspects of hip hop, while promoting its more innovative side.
These contentions adequately address the problems that the opposition side links to the distribution of illegal and unregulated content via the internet. The implication that a ban on music containing violent lyric might increase piracy is irrelevant — states will still act to address all forms of piracy, and measures taken against the violation of copyright online will be just as effective against prohibited content. Hip hop is an extremely diverse musical genre. Surprisingly, this diversity has evolved from highly minimal series of musical principles.
At its most basic, raping consists of nothing more than rhyming verses that are delivered to a beat. This simplicity reflects the economically marginalised communities that hip hop emerged from. All that anyone requires in order to learn how to rap, or to participate in hip hop culture, is a pen, some paper and possibly a disc of breaks — the looped drum and bass lines that are used to time rap verses.
Thanks to its highly social aspect, hip hop continues to function as an accessible form of creative expression for members of some of impoverished communities in both the west and elsewhere in the world.
Point 7 suggests that free speech flourishes when we respect believers but are not forced to respect their beliefs. Free Speech Debate discusses this principle in the light of religious belief and religious expression.
The positive case for banning- or at least condemning- hip hop often rests on its ability to reinforce the negative stereotypes of impoverished and marginalised communities that are propagated by majority communities. Critics of hip hop note that black men have often been stigmatised as violent, uncivilised and predatory. They claim that many hip hop artists cultivate a purposefully brutal and misogynist persona.
The popularity of hip hop reflects the acceptance of this stereotype, and further entrenches discrimination against young black men. This line of thinking portrays hip hop artists as betrayers or exploiters of their communities, reinforcing damaging stereotypes and convincing adolescents that a violent rejection of mainstream society is a way to achieve material success. Arguments of this type fail to recognise the depth of nuance and meaning that words and word-play can convey.
They are predicated on an assumption that the consumers of hip hop engage with it in a simplistic and uncritical way. In short, such arguments see hip hop fans as being simple minded and easily influenced. When hip hop is seen as being inherently harmful, and as being targeted at an especially impressionable and vulnerable part of society, we both demean members of that group and prevent robust discussion of rap lyrics themselves.
Academics such as John McWhorter see only the advocacy of violence and nihilism in lyrics such as. I think he is very less active in CE, I will try to get him back I assume he don't know, how awesome CE is "now"! Off-topic, Pardon me. You listen "Kill the muthafucker if they hurt you" and go to kill the person, then I would seriously doubt your existence in human community.
I term these people as Jerks in the form of humans They don't heve the right to listen to music at all. I continue to believe that 'adult' stuff shouldn't be in the public media because there's no control over who gets access to it. I still remember and love the serials that used to be aired on DD national television decades ago.
Those serials offered great entertainment for whole family. I might be called 'old fashioned', 'uncool' and 'non open minded'. People aren't wise enough to decide what's good and what's not good, what they should accept and what they should reject. It's foolish to expect youngsters and teens to decide what's right and what's wrong because they're all influenced by the surroundings. It's an unfortunate state we're all a part of. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Whatsapp. Indian web developers rejoice - Google's web font has now included three Indian languages in their international 'local language fonts'.
For many, Pop Smoke signified a watershed moment for the genre, changing what it meant to make drill. In the last two years especially, drill has started to look like a truly global movement.
French drill emerged "with the sound of the English scene in one ear and Brooklyn in the other," as French music magazine Les Inrockuptibles reported in May , while much of Europe followed suit, with artists in Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Poland making drill largely indebted to Pop Smoke and the UK.
ChicoGod, a drill rapper from Kumasi, Ghana, was at a rave when he heard drill for the first time. The way it played out from the speakers was so magical, so I had to Shazam the song and I realised it was somebody called Pop Smoke. I think by the end of the week everybody I knew was caught up on Pop Smoke. By , popular drill artists could be found in countries as far-flung as Sweden, Brazil, Australia and Korea.
But adversity was never far away. In February Pop Smoke was shot and killed in Los Angeles at the age of 20, by a group of teenagers intent on stealing his watch.
Three days earlier he was due to play a show in Brooklyn, but was forced to cancel under pressure from police. Despite the pandemic halting all live music last year, drill's rise has continued.
But attempts to censor the sound have continued too. In November the BBC aired the documentary Defending Digga D , examining the strict legal procedure by which one of the UK's biggest drill artists is allowed to release music.
Having previously served a prison sentence for conspiracy to commit violent disorder, Digga D must now run all his lyrics past a lawyer to ensure they are not deemed to be encouraging violence, with mentions of opps and even certain places like Ladbroke Grove, where Digga D grew up edited out of tracks. From this angle drill sounds like a canary in a coal mine, the sound of a society tearing itself apart from the inside out.
The popular UK drill musician Digga D must now run all his lyrics past a lawyer to ensure they are not deemed to be encouraging violence Credit: Elliot Hensford.
While continually ordering the removal of drill from YouTube, police also use lyrics and videos as a resource for prosecution. Earlier this year the BBC reported on 70 trials across the UK where drill music was used as evidence in court. Despite criticism, police have defended this approach by pointing to specific incidents where the release of drill songs online has led directly to violence. For example, in the year-old drill rapper Junior Simpson, aka MTrap, received a lifetime prison sentence for the murder of a teenager in south London.
As part of the prosecution the court was told of lyrics in which Simpson had described the murder beforehand. He argues that many drill rappers exaggerate or fabricate violent stories because they know it attracts listeners: "This is not to deny that crime and violence take place involving drillers as either victims or perpetrators — rather, it emphasises not to view the violence as directly related to, caused by or evidenced by the music".
Ilan also suggests that censuring drill does more harm than good, further alienating marginalised communities and ultimately exacerbating the conditions which lead to urban violence in the first place. Drill fans and practitioners argue that in confronting the darkest truths of modern life and holding up a mirror to the most deprived, desperate and violent elements of society, their art resonates with young, disenfranchised listeners around the world — and that in itself is valuable.
It's becoming more positive than negative. Johnson says the harsh realities that gave rise to drill should be neither denied nor censored, comparing its reflection of gang violence to the prevalence of domestic violence narratives in early blues music. Same way that behind more or less every fortune there's a crime.
Given that gang conflict is a predominantly male phenomenon , perhaps the receding importance of violence in drill music is linked to the rise of women in the drill scene. While artists like Sasha Go Hard and Katie Got Bandz played a crucial, understated role in Chicago drill's early days, UK drill rappers like Shaybo and Ivorian Doll — who was recently crowned " Queen of drill " — are now reaching levels of stardom that rival the men.
0コメント