OPINION: Radio may as well censor entire songs
Listening to the radio and hearing blanks suddenly appear in the middle of the lyrics is a vexing thing. Even though I know exactly what’s being said — or at least I’m 90 percent sure — hearing the lyrics deleted or blurred draws much more attention to the expletive in question than if the song were allowed to play and I was allowed to listen.
The Federal Communications Commission regulates nationwide radio play, but the line around what is and is not appropriate, and therefore edited, is difficult to draw.
The FCC uses three rules when deciding what is appropriate: (1) An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
The thing that really bothers me about radio edits is not the potential to detract from the values listed above, but rather that the message of any given song is typically more vulgar than select words used within the song. And yet, in a backward twist of preserving morality, only the words are removed and the entire song is still allowed to play.
The song “Tonight I’m Loving You,” by Enrique Iglesias, is a classic example of the issue at hand — notice even the title is edited. The first verse is raunchy enough: “I know you want me. I’ve made it obvious that I want you too. So put it on me. Let’s remove the space between me and you.”
Anyone age 12 and older knows what’s being implied, but when it comes to saying the F-word that explicitly states Iglesias’ aforementioned intentions, we get either a blank pause, a blur that still sounds vaguely like its harbinger, or the word “love.”
In addition to the laughable idea that “love” is an appropriate substitute for the F-word and Ludacris’ not-so-innocent rap verse in the middle, the entire song is about sex. There’s just no getting around it. So why are the words taken out and the song still allowed to play?
Don’t get me wrong. Any reader of mine knows the chances of me being offended by song lyrics are slim to none, but I still chafe at the implied message of radio edits — “If we don’t actually say it, it’s OK.”
This disturbing attitude can be applied to any taboo topic indigenous to Utah, particularly if the topic is of a sexual nature. Things are bleeped out, ignored or shamed into the shadows, rather than confronted and discussed. Sometimes it’s easy to forget the things we don’t talk about, but lyrics aren’t among those.
I found myself in my car the other day singing along word for word with Britney Spears to lyrics I literally haven’t heard in 10 years. My point is not that I have incredibly good taste in music, or that Britney Spears is making a comeback, but that we remember lyrics whether they’re edited, considered swear words or depict lewd situations.
In fact, in a study led by Zehra PeyrnircioÄlu, 180 students were given clues to remember songs, including titles, melody snippets and lyrics. When students read the lyrics, all other aspects of the song were remembered more easily than when they read the melody or title of the same song.
So, we know we remember lyrics, and lyrics are comprised of words. Words represent ideas. If radio employees remove words representing ideas considered to be obscene, then they should get rid of the lewd ideas as well.
This would make most mainstream radio songs obsolete. Maybe that would be a good thing. I would suggest keeping the songs without adult connotations on one channel, and let the vulgarity reign supreme on another. That way explicit words can accompany explicit intentions. Those of us who enjoy our vices pure and unadulterated can do so in edit-free peace.