| I can't answer the poll because if you accept that a band is offensive then that could be for so many different reasons. I know what you mean, but there's a whole world of debate wrapped up in this one.
The music I find most offensive is bad music. But what I call bad music is someone else's "our song" or treasured discovery.
I've got so many points I want to make that my head's really swimming. I'm just going to freestyle, I hope it all hangs together......
Cannibal Corpse have a song that depicts the rape and murder of a young girl. This clearly struck a chord given recent tragic events in Perth. I'm not familiar with the song, but to what extent is the rape and murder "depicted"? If a band was to write a song with the lyrics "we truly believe that rape and murder are good things and we actively encourage you to try it out as soon as you leave the show" then there's a clear case for not being too chuffed if they turn up in your home town, or if they put out any records at all. But even then you can play the "freedom of speech" card. It's tricky.
There's a song by David Pajo called "Last Caress" (it's actually a cover of a Misfits track) which is beautiful. It's a beautiful song but contains lyrics covering (in loose terms) the same material. David Pajo has played in Australia and all over the world many times with, as far as I know, no trouble from any "morality" groups. I'm sure there are many many artists covering the same ground. Cannibal Corpse are well known, and their name is designed to portray an image. It seems to me that when such an image is portrayed it's easy to point the finger because you can back it up with the "and besides, just look at them!" argument. I'm sure Marilyn Manson would agree. This shows prejudice and opens up its own debate.
I think there's a question of scale here, the larger band dealing with a touchy issue will attract more attention because their profile is higher. Reaching thousands of people in whatever way (fans, critics, parents, "morality" groups) will also reach a divide in opinion, and that divide will be huge. I dread to think of the amount of people opposing this band's tour who haven't even heard the offending song! Any frenzy like this attracts people like a bunch of animals feeding attracts other animals. Many will take sides without consideration, they'll hear "song about the murder of a child" and be instantly against it. Shame. I also think a lot of people will hear "being censored for song about the murder of a child" and be on the band's side. Well, that may still be a shame, depending on the motivation behind the loyalty.
A smaller band will reach less people. Think of a local band just starting out. Their fans will most likely be friends and friends of friends. As that band takes on more fans they'll grow, obviously, and chances are that they'll still be reaching friends of friend of friends, or in other words: relatively like-minded people. Do you think that's a fair comment? So if that band suddenly writes a song about rape and murder, chances are their fanbase will understand or at least appreciate the band's approach. There will be discussion, I'm sure, but among friends discussion is often civilised and two-sided. So zip forward and the band has become huge, their songs are reaching people around the world and the track depicting rape and murder is in their live set. At this stage, you're not dealing with just a fanbase any more. You're dealing with parents of fans, concerned citizens and reactionaries. This is where you have to deal with people who won't listen to common sense, even if that just means having a shred of debate about an issue. What bothers me is the instant dismissal of something and the assumption of higher moral ground without debate. I'm sure we all know people like it.
Man, there's more to come but my head hurts. I'd better read all that to make sure it makes sense, and that I actually agree with it.
I think, in summary: no.  |