The incorporation of explicit lyrics in popular music has always been a means of pushing the boundaries of artistic expression. In today’s music industry, artists continue to push these limits, sparking debates about the benefits and societal concerns surrounding the use of explicit content. Some argue that it serves as a strategy to generate controversy and boost record sales, while others believe it allows artists to fully express themselves. However, there is a fine line between vulgarity and artistic expression that remains an ongoing concern.
Whether driven by controversy or genuine self-expression, the inclusion of explicit content in popular music carries social consequences. Numerous psychological studies have examined how such music affects the brain and its potential influence on aggressive behavior. As a result, government officials and protest groups have advocated for censorship laws and restrictions on the sale of explicit music.
Daniel Levitin (2006) suggests that “Music is better than language as a tool for arousing feelings and emotions.” This statement highlights how negative or angry-themed music can elicit aggression similar to how sad songs evoke tears. Ongoing research aims to understand how aggressive music impacts brain function and overall effects.
This paper explores the societal impact of explicit lyrics, specifically focusing on drug subculture, aggression towards women, legal legislation, and censorship. The media, particularly the music industry, has played a significant role in popularizing drug subcultures in American society over recent decades. According to Wikipedia (2007), drug subculture is defined as “groups of people loosely united by a common understanding of the meaning and value (good or otherwise) of the incorporation into life of the drug in question.” These groups can vary from small circles of friends who use drugs together to larger political and social movements advocating for drug reform. All these diverse drug subcultures contribute to a broader drug culture. Different types of drugs also lead to their unique subcultures; for example, there are distinctions between the cannabis subculture and that surrounding crystal meth users.
The division of drug users into subcultures is influenced by various factors, including different experiences, the stigma surrounding drugs, and the specific problems associated with each drug. These distinct drug subcultures are often portrayed in the media, especially through popular music genres like hip-hop and alternative/punk rock. However, the connection between drugs and music has been long-standing. It dates back decades, from early rock stars such as Elvis Presley and Johnny Cash who faced addiction to the emergence of psychedelic rock in the 1960s featuring iconic figures like Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix who were associated with drugs.
Even one of the most acclaimed bands of all time, The Beatles, included drug references in their lyrics. Songs like “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” are widely believed to be about LSD. In more recent times, jam bands like Phish have sparked another wave of drug use as individuals seek enhanced musical experiences through substances.
The association between drugs and music was firmly established in the 1970s when psychedelic bands like Pink Floyd emerged. Additionally, Eric Clapton’s song “Cocaine” reflected the prevalent drug culture of that era. The disco era from late 1970s to early 1980s was characterized by widespread cocaine consumption symbolizing heavy drug usage.
The excessive alcohol and drug abuse of famous “hair bands” of the 1980s, including Van Halen and Guns N’ Roses, became notorious. In the 1990s, promising musicians faced premature deaths due to drug-induced causes. While the suicide of Nirvana’s Kurt Cobain was the most well-known musician death of the decade, it is widely reported that he heavily used heroin as a result of his depression and struggles with fame. Other notable musicians of the 1990s, such as Shannon Hoon of Blind Melon and Brad Nowell of Sublime, died from cocaine and heroin overdoses respectively. Keith Richards, the lead guitarist for the Rolling Stones, has gained notoriety as a famous drug icon due to his admission of heavy substance use. In a recent interview published in NME Music Magazine, Richards allegedly mixed his deceased father’s ashes with cocaine and snorted them. Though Richards denies this claim as being taken out of context, stories about rock stars and their drug habits tend to captivate the public’s attention. The current generation has made its mark in the drug and music timeline through the emergence of club drugs like Ecstasy, rave parties, and hip-hop music. In a story reported by CNN in February 2001, London police investigated whether rapper Eminem encouraged British youth to use Ecstasy at one of his concerts in Manchester, England.Although no lawsuit has been filed, the impact of rappers referencing illicit drugs in their lyrics, like Eminem’s “My mom smokes more dope than I do,” on society today is evident. While current drug-related lyrics receive more scrutiny, the association between drugs and music is not a new concept and has persisted for generations and will continue to do so for many years. Another consequence of popular music is the portrayal of women as objects in music videos, presenting them as willing to do anything to be with rappers. However, it is not solely male rappers who objectify female dancers; at times, female rappers themselves are to blame.
Ayana Byrd’s article “Claiming Jezebel” examines the depiction of women in rap, with a specific focus on Lil’ Kim’s music video for “How Many Licks.” The video showcases Lil’ Kim transforming into a doll with interchangeable parts, highlighting the prevalent self-objectification in the industry. Female rappers often present themselves as sexual objects and heavily emphasize sexuality through provocative language such as referring to themselves as “bitches” and “hoes.” It is important to recognize that these women operate within a male-dominated industry where their appearance and behavior are dictated by male bosses. As a result, women in rap constantly face objectification that devalues their humanity, leaving them susceptible to mistreatment and violence. A concerning issue both in media and the rap industry is the presence of abusive lyrics targeting women. Eminem has faced criticism for his hateful portrayal of women in songs like “Kill You,” leading to content restrictions enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). This song contains descriptions or allusions to various acts of violence against women including choking, rape, shooting, murder with a chainsaw, and stabbing.The derogatory references and discussions about violent actions found in Eminem’s rap lyrics can have detrimental effects on society as they encourage hatred and objectification of women. Repeated exposure to these lyrics desensitizes people, causing them to overlook the harmful messages conveyed. Consequently, acts of violence are often seen as comical. In a culture where demeaning remarks and expressing desires for violence against women are deemed humorous, it becomes apparent how a culture endorsing rape can develop. Research indicates that individuals exposed to aggressive or violent music are more likely to display similar behaviors (Anderson, 2002).
The impact of music on one’s mood is significant and can intensify it. If someone listens to violent music, they are likely to feel violent themselves. Moreover, many individuals idolize their favorite musicians, actors, and video games, imitating their admired figures who engage in violence while looking glamorous. Social learning theory suggests that people model their behavior after their role models. Thus, when they see their idols behaving in certain ways, they perceive it as acceptable to act violently towards women. As a result, popular music deeply contributes to violence against women in society. Another issue related to inappropriate lyrics in popular songs is the legal consequences and controversies they generate. Eminem serves as a prime example of an artist with improper lyrics causing accusations of homophobia, racism, and sexism throughout his career due to songs like “Kill You” and “Kim”, which have faced heavy criticism for promoting hatred and violence towards women.
“Come on, get out! (I can’t, I’m scared.)” I said, “Get out, bitch!” (Let go of my hair, please don’t do this, baby)… Don’t you get it, bitch? No one can hear you. Now shut the fuck up and get what’s coming to you. You were supposed to love me.” {*Kim choking*} “NOW BLEED! BITCH BLEED! BLEED! BITCH BLEED! BLEED!” -Kim by Eminem
“Slut! You believe I won’t strangle any prostitute/Until her ability to speak is impaired in her throat indefinitely” ~Kill You by Eminem
The court cases surrounding Eminem have reignited controversy surrounding his reputation for violence and racism. His lyrics have been used as evidence or persuasion in legal debates. Additionally, The Source, a rap magazine, faced a lawsuit from Eminem for publishing his teenage lyrics, including racially offensive quotes such as “black girls only want your money”. The publication violated a court order prohibiting the release of these offensive lyrics, resulting in The Source being obligated to cover Eminem’s legal fees. This incident served as a public showcase of Eminem’s admitted “foolishness” to the magazine’s readers (USA Today).
The examination of song lyrics in relation to recent school shootings has been extensive. Cho Seung-hui’s music preferences during the Virginia Tech massacre on April 16, 2007, offer valuable insights into his character. Similarly, following the school shooting at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999, there was a significant debate surrounding the role of music. The shooting by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in 1999 ignited various controversies including discussions on gun control laws, high school subcultures and bullying, as well as violence depicted in the media. The impact of media such as TV, movies, video games, and music played a part in these discussions. It was discovered that the two perpetrators frequently listened to angry music and specifically listened to artists like Marilyn Manson before carrying out their attack.
Research has been conducted to examine the impact of inappropriate lyrics in popular music on individuals. One comprehensive study focused on what they referred to as the “precursors to aggression”. The findings revealed that listening to violent songs led to a greater tendency for interpreting ambiguous situations and wording aggressively. Both short-term and long-term effects of these lyrics on the listeners’ psyche were investigated by the researchers. In terms of short-term effects, it was observed that “The increase in aggressive thoughts and feelings inspired by violent songs can affect how ongoing social interactions are perceived…
” (Anderson et al., 2003). On the other hand, long-term effects could potentially contribute to the development of an aggressive personality (Anderson et al., 2003). In either situation, it is evident how such consequences may result in a heightened inclination towards responding verbally or physically aggressively when provoked, initiating a cycle of increasingly aggressive behavior in social situations.
The argument against explicit lyrics in music and the need for parental control has been used previously. Concerned parents worry about the impact of inappropriate lyrics on impressionable children. To address this issue, regulations have been put in place, requiring albums with offensive content to have Parental Advisory stickers. Such content includes violence, sexual content, or inappropriate language. Moreover, this concept of parental control has expanded to cover other forms of media like television shows that parents can regulate for their children. The relationship between music and personality development has been established, leading to regulations on children’s exposure to these influences. Nevertheless, there is ongoing debate as to whether this argument can hold up in court when attributing blame to angry teenagers’ actions.
Many individuals, including parents, congressmen, teachers, and the general public, believe that the explicit and violent lyrics in contemporary music require censorship. Various forms of censorship exist, such as parental advisory labels, banned concerts and cover art, rating systems, and legislative bills and laws. These lyrics are not only believed to be responsible for teenage violence, drug abuse, and aggression towards women but also seen as a disgrace to society as a whole. The topic of music censorship has generated significant controversy in the past two decades. Although there are currently no censorship laws in place, numerous businesses like radio stations and retail stores have taken strong actions to express their disapproval of crude, obscene, or vulgar lyrics in today’s music.
Rap and hip hop artists frequently need to produce a sanitized version of their songs for radio stations. One example is rapper Xzibit, who had to alter the explicit lyrics in his single “Front 2 Back” to ensure its airplay. The original verse contained offensive language, but Xzibit created an edited version that omitted those lyrics. Different broadcasting outlets such as radio stations, MTV, and BET have distinct criteria regarding what content they deem suitable for broadcast.
Various measures are being implemented to ensure the censorship of offensive lyrics in music. One strategy involves artists releasing clean versions of their songs, while another approach entails retail stores like Wal-Mart refusing to sell music that is deemed offensive. As a result, Wal-Mart has decided not to stock any popular music compact discs that it considers objectionable. To distinguish between acceptable and altered versions, all CDs available at Wal-Mart are categorized as either “clean” or “edited.” Moreover, Wal-Mart imposes requirements on record labels to modify album cover artwork according to its criteria.
Wal-Mart’s decision not to carry albums with objectionable lyrics or cover art has caused frustration among some customers, musicians, and record-industry executives due to its status as the largest seller of pop music in the country. In order to secure a spot on Wal-Mart’s shelves, record labels and bands are willing to make various changes such as creating different covers and booklets, excluding songs from albums, electronically censoring objectionable words, and even altering lyrics (Strauss, A1).
The censorship demands of businesses like radio stations and retailers ultimately overpower the efforts of musical artists and record labels to resist altering their work. This censorship issue remains a highly controversial debate, but it is the distributors of today’s music who ultimately have control over what gets censored. Over the past fifty years, researchers have gathered experimental evidence on the correlation between exposure to media violence and real-life aggression. The overall consensus is that there is a causal relationship between violent media and both short-term and long-term expressions of aggression (Davis & Palladino, 2006, pp 224-225). One consequence of excessive exposure to media violence is desensitization, which involves a reduction in psychological reactivity to violent observations or thoughts (Davis & Palladino, 2007, pp 224-225).
The text suggests that media has a significant impact on individuals’ responses to violence, potentially leading to increased engagement in violent acts. According to psychologists, this question has been extensively studied for many years. Research has indicated a connection between media exposure and both development and brain behavior. However, there is ongoing debate regarding whether explicit lyrics about drug use and aggression can influence criminal behavior in young people. Some defence attorneys have blamed the media and musicians for their clients’ wrongdoings. Nonetheless, the opposing viewpoint argues that the media cannot be held responsible for supplying criminals with weapons. This controversy will persist as long as the music industry prioritizes profit, artists seek self-expression, and young individuals are exposed to explicit lyrics in popular music.
Works Cited
Levitin, D. J. (2006). This is your brain on music: The science of the human obsession. New York, NY: Dutton.
Davis, S. F. ; Palladino, J. J. (2007). Psychology (5th Edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
The text “Drug Subculture” is an article from the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. It was published on April 12, 2007, and can be found on the website Wikipedia.org.
“Keith Richards snorting his dad’s ashes? It’s just a joke,” according to CNN News (2007), which awarded the story 14 points on April 12, 2007.
“Keith Richards ‘snorted father’s ashes’.” Yahoo News (2007): 14 pts. 12 Apr. 2007 .
“Police confiscate video recordings of Eminem’s concert.” CNN News (2001): 19 pts. 12 Apr. 2007 .
Byrd, A. (2004). The fire this time. Claiming Jezebel: Black female subjectivity and sexual expression in hip-hop. New York, New York: Anchor Books.
Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., & Eubanks, J. (2003). Exposure to violent media: The effects of songs with violent lyrics on aggressive thoughts and feelings. Journal of Personlaity and Social Psychology. 84, 960-971.
The 2004 lawsuit involving Eminem and a magazine ended in favor of the rapper, according to an article titled “Judge rules for Eminem in magazine flap” from USA Today. The article was published on April 17, 2007.
Diehl, Matt. (2001). Talking S***: How labels censor songs for radio. Rolling Stone 19 Jul. 2001: 15.
Originally published on November 12, 1996, Neil Strauss wrote an article in the New York Times titled “Wal-Mart’s CD standards are changing pop music.”
