It's not the Music!!

[Sazerac]

Originally posted by SSJ4Sephiroth: Whoa, i think this is the longest post ive ever made except for my story posts on my guild forum!

You did great SSJ4Sephiroth! I for one appreciated the points you made.



------------------

[AngelofDeath]

Wow, thanks eveyone for the input, this is great. I noticed that out of all the responses, I did not see anyone putting any blame on the parents. I understand that in this day and age that it is very hard to keep tabs on kids with, working, and single parents, and all that kind of stuff. But, to respond as this kid's mom did is irresponsible. Parents need to know what the hell is going on in their kids life. On the other hand if the kids parents do not know right from wrong, or care then this point is mute. There is a difference between "real life" and "movies".

Yorick, I see where your headed too, however, I do not think that an artist should have to say to himself........"self, should I not put this out because someone might go on a killing spree".....That borders on censorship, not being able to express his/her-self.

I think that the brick, bat senario is exactly what I'm talking about. How can they (the Makers of the bricks, and bats) share the "blame" for someone committing this crime. That is if I understood you senario.

Originally posted by MILAMBER: I agree with all you. Music doesn't make people do stuff like that. It is their own instability that causes problems like this. I completely support the death penalty too, I just think it should be carried out more swiftly so that people can put two and two together. Most of the time the sentence is carried out 10-15 years after the crime and so nobody even remembers why the guy is being put to death. It should happen soon after the crime so that other people can learn that it is not a good idea to kill people.

Right on the Money, I agree totaly in regards to the death penalty. Three[though in my opinion two, I'm being conservative here] Strikes(appeals) and you your out. After that(a week or two) it's of to the execution.

[Sazerac]

Originally posted by AngelofDeath: Wow, thanks eveyone for the input, this is great. I noticed that out of all the responses, I did not see anyone putting any blame on the parents. I understand that in this day and age that it is very hard to keep tabs on kids with, working, and single parents, and all that kind of stuff. But, to respond as this kid's mom did is irresponsible. Parents need to know what the hell is going on in their kids life. On the other hand if the kids parents do not know right from wrong, or care then this point is mute. There is a difference between "real life" and "movies".

Actually, I figured the "blame" on the parents was self-evident, which is why I didn't discourse more on it.

However, it still doesn't abrogate original responsibility, though. I remember an anecdote I heard once about two brothers whose father was an abusive alcoholic. One brother became as bad of an alcoholic as his dad, beating on his wife and kids. The other one became a success and spent much of his free time volunteering at homeless shelters and alcohol awareness centers. When each was asked why they had become what they had, each responded with the same answer: "What else could I do, with a father like I had?"

In other words, it's up to us to make our own decisions and take responsibility for our own actions. I've seen problem kids with absolutely wonderful parents, and winners who had abusive parents. Certainly, one's background can be (and usually is) a influencing factor in one's outlook on life...but it's up to the individual as to how they are influenced.



------------------

[Yorick]

Originally posted by AngelofDeath: Yorick, I see where your headed too, however, I do not think that an artist should have to say to himself........"self, should I not put this out because someone might go on a killing spree".....That borders on censorship, not being able to express his/her-self. .

And what is wrong with that? With a public voice comes responsibility. If you have influence over impressionable children, and they dress like you, start speaking ideologies you mention, and start imitative behaviour, an artist sure as hell has an obligation to watch and think about the effect of their expression, just as we all do in a given situation. I'm not talking about supressing honesty, but being mindful of the effects of that honesty.

There is so much censorship anyway - self and otherwise - involved in the creative process before something reaches a mass market that that argument holds little ground. In many of these cases the "art" has become a "product". Intellectual property holdent to the laws of the free market. Recognise these words? Image, timing, value for money, packaging, marketing schedules, involvement in cross promotion, exposure, cutting edge development, the "new thing". It's "art" at inception, but to be released becomes "product". That is the languaged used. An artist/entertainer usually only goes promoting and doing the talkshow/radio circut when they have "product" to "promote".

If any other company releases a product (car, shampoo, tampon etc) which is harmful to human heath they have to recall it and modify it, or pay damages. As intellectual property, the only thing such product can affect is the mind.

If you want to be purely expressive without any censorship, editing, involvement from others, advice or refinement - don't release anything, create purely for yourself and the joys of self indulgent expression. The minute you put something in the marketplace it falls under the same"rules" as say a hamburger. It's competing for the "entertainment dollar".

Art becomes "product".



------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by AngelofDeath: Wow, thanks eveyone for the input, this is great. I noticed that out of all the responses, I did not see anyone putting any blame on the parents.

That is what I'm talking about. It takes a villiage to raise a child, not just two people, unless they live in a vacuum or desert island. Besides, as Saz said, the individual chooses how to respond to such upbringing.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Kaz]

I believe that people like these kids had a "screw loose" to begin with, like a little imbalance in their personality, a psychic problem - for instance not being able to tell right from wrong or not being able to differentiate between the real world and a fictive world. Whether they watch violent videos or listen to heavy metal and so on or not decides whether the flaw grows or not. As somebody said (sorry, i forgot who), a native whos never seen a gun will not suddenly start murdering people with one. But IF he has this flaw, he may start killing people depending on how much it grows. Things that can make this flaw grow can be things like violent movies or heavy metal, but ALSO smaller things that destabilize the person, e.g. stress, family problems, relationship broken up or disabilities like stuttering (stuttering can increase the probability of psychical problems and depressions, did you know that?). Then suddenly a small thing comes and BANG! The last straw breaks the camels back, the people go berserk. Dont laugh at me, this is just an idea from a stupid newbie and I probably didnt describe it too well but i think its worth considering.
Of course this doesnt explain things like the kids in/at Columbia, just some cases described here.

[This message has been edited by Kaz (edited 08-21-2001).]

[Sazerac]

Originally posted by Yorick: And what is wrong with that? With a public voice comes responsibility. If you have influence over impressionable children, and they dress like you, start speaking ideologies you mention, and start imitative behaviour, an artist sure as hell has an obligation to watch and think about the effect of their expression, just as we all do in a given situation. I'm not talking about supressing honesty, but being mindful of the effects of that honesty. There is so much censorship anyway - self and otherwise - involved in the creative process before something reaches a mass market that that argument holds little ground. In many of these cases the "art" has become a "product". Intellectual property holdent to the laws of the free market. Recognise these words? Image, timing, value for money, packaging, marketing schedules, involvement in cross promotion, exposure, cutting edge development, the "new thing". It's "art" at inception, but to be released becomes "product". That is the languaged used. An artist/entertainer usually only goes promoting and doing the talkshow/radio circut when they have "product" to "promote". If any other company releases a product (car, shampoo, tampon etc) which is harmful to human heath they have to recall it and modify it, or pay damages. As intellectual property, the only thing such product can affect is the mind. If you want to be purely expressive without any censorship, editing, involvement from others, advice or refinement - don't release anything, create purely for yourself and the joys of self indulgent expression. The minute you put something in the marketplace it falls under the same"rules" as say a hamburger. It's competing for the "entertainment dollar". Art becomes "product".

I agree, Yorick, up to a point. Every artist has a responsibility to be mindful of how they influence others, but that should not dictate public policy about it. You mention "art" as "product." Under basic economics, all products have a supply and a demand in order to exist viably. In short, if the demand isn't there, the supply wouldn't exist.

Why do such violent themes persist in art, music, gaming, etc.? Why do shows like "Jerry Springer" and all the courtroom TV shows continue to be renewed from season to season? Because a demand for them exists. Once again, we are talking about a societal reflection; values our society holds reflecting in its art and culture. If we are a violent society, that reflects in what we demand...and the supply of course is right there to meet that demand. Should values change, so will the supply.

The change, once again, must occur within society itself. We're all in this thing together.




------------------

[Redblueflare]

I agree with Yorick. The kids were the ones who murdered that girl, but they had to be influenced by *someone*. I doubt anyone can be so weak willed to let music take complete control of their life. I listen to rap, and the more violent it gets the less I like it. I play violent games too, Perfect Dark, etc, but that doesn't mean i'm going to pick up a shotgun and go on a rampage. You still can't place the blame on a single party, and I think that's what Yorick is trying to say.

------------------
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I just don't have to listen.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Sazerac: I agree, Yorick, up to a point. Every artist has a responsibility to be mindful of how they influence others, but that should not dictate public policy about it. You mention "art" as "product." Under basic economics, all products have a supply and a demand in order to exist viably. In short, if the demand isn't there, the supply wouldn't exist. Why do such violent themes persist in art, music, gaming, etc.? Why do shows like "Jerry Springer" and all the courtroom TV shows continue to be renewed from season to season? Because a demand for them exists. Once again, we are talking about a societal reflection; values our society holds reflecting in its art and culture. If we are a violent society, that reflects in what we demand...and the supply of course is right there to meet that demand. Should values change, so will the supply. The change, once again, must occur within society itself. We're all in this thing together.

Agreed. Their is a chicken/egg syndrome, where producers need to meet demand, yet still decide to wantonly follow public taste rather than guide it.

Look at free range eggs, actually anything that is enviro friendly or a "healthy alternative". Food producers slavishly meet public demand because the bottom line, the profit margin dictates decisions rather than public health. By the same token, many people will not pay a little extra for an egg not produced by a battery hen, or for recycled toilet paper. Who is to blame? The consumer for refusing to buy recycled toilet paper? Or the manufactuers for continuing to make non-recycled paper? Are none to blame or are both to blame?

This is where taking responsibility can initiate change. If both sides say, "I am to blame, I will not put this before the public and damn the cost..." or " I am to blame, I will not buy this product and damn the cost..." change occurs. Look at the abundance of health foods, sushi, flavoured mineral waters and products which have been put on the market and which consumers have decided to buy.

It takes a bold artist to decide to shape rather than be shaped by demand, and it takes a bold consumer to reject certain products no matter what.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 08-21-2001).]

[Istaron]

I really wanted to say someting here since I am intressted in the human mind... but you have said all that can be said

------------------
We call him Bobby Corwen