Am i the only one here who thinks that the current method that albums are rated sucks? We all know that whenever an album is deemed having explicit content it gets this:

The problem is this really doesn't tell us exactly how bad it may be. to help explain lets look at the Movie and Video Game rating systems.

Film:
G-General Audience (The movie contains no mild violence, sexual content, and/or language. There is no need for parental guidance)

PG-Parental Guidance Suggested (The movie may contain mild violence, mild sexual innuendo, or language. Young children (ages 9 and under) should have parental guidance).

PG13-Parents Strongly Cautioned (Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. May contain moderate language, minimal strong language, some explicit nudity, intense violence, gore, some sex, or mild drug content).

R-Restricted (A film with this rating requires a viewer under the age of 17 (18 in some jurisdictions) to have a parent or other adult guardian accompanying the viewer. May contain very strong language or strong sexual emphasis, strong explicit nudity, strong violence and gore, or strong drug content).

NC-17-No One 17 and Under Admitted (May contain very strong sexual or offensive language, strong explicit nudity, very strong gore or disturbing violence, or graphic drug abuse. Films with this rating can not be watched by anyone under 18 (even if they are accompanied by an adult) and are usually edited to get an "R" rating. Today NC-17 movies are called "uncut" to get verification that very graphic sex or violence scenes will be completely displayed during the film.

Video Games:

E-Everyone (May contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence).

E10+-Everyone 10 And Up (May contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language, animated blood and/or minimal suggestive themes).

T-Teen (May contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of moderate language).

M-Mature (May contain intense violence (more so than in the Teen category), blood and gore, sexual themes/content, use of alcohol/drugs, and frequent use of strong language).

AO-Adults Only (Contains content that is considered unsuitable for people under 18 years of age, and cannot be bought by anyone below that age. These may include adult video games that depict sex and nudity and/or extreme depictions of violence that include blood and gore.)

These rating systems all help the Film-goers/Video-Game players understand what they'll be in for when whey go see films or buy games.

The Parental Advisory Explicit Content box on the other hand tells us nothing other than the fact that younger listeners shouldn't be listening to it. There's been albums that have little to no explicit content and they get the sticker. EX: Gorillaz' self-titled album, Bloc Party's Silent Alarm, Sum 41's Does This Look Infected?, and Saving Abel's Saving Abel , among others. The sticker was attached to Frank Zappa's album, Jazz from Hell, because of the title of one track, "G-Spot Tornado", although the album is entirely instrumental and contains no lyrics that could be "explicit lyrics". Apparently theres no rule about the sticker. It's the record company's decision to put it on.

So as you can see this system has quite a few holes. Do you guys think there should be a music rating system?

No. Just no.

Most, if not all rating systems are flawed. No one's completely unbiased.

And music doesn't have the ability to be as offensive as images, I believe.

I don't think anything should have a rating system. Ratings are just wannabe censorship. Music, games, and movies are all art and should not be restricted in any way.

I agree with War_Hero. They are a form of art and they are censoring it. People can learn a lot from games as well as music. Like not to go into the ghetto unless you're an idiot who wants to be shot several times before they actually die.

i don't see how rating things is censoring. all its doing is saying ok this has sexual content or this has bad language. maybe im just not thinking about it hard enough, but i consider it censoring when they prevent you from listening without having things cut out. such as language. with rating your still getting what the artist created.

They are indeed censoring it. A "parental advisory" sticker can translate into millions less net sales for some albums, and have lasting effects on the artists. The fact is that organizations like the MPAA are corrupt, biased, and BY NO MEANS representative of the views of the "average american parent". Also, you're an idiot if you think that it's the record companies who put the stickers on. The record companies of all people know that these translate into less sales, so why the hell would they want to knowingly sell fewer records? Ratings Originizations work under the guise of promoting the view of said "average american parent", but what happens is that the record companies lobby to not have a sticker included. I point to one example, R.E.M.'s "Automatic for the People". On it, Stipe closes a track called "Star Me Kitten" with the words "Fuck me kitten". The album was not stuck with the dreaded sticker, despite having the literal sexual use of the word. This means that either (or both) the record company that owned the album lobbied to have this be the case, or the ratings organization is flawed and biased.

Long story short, censorship is wrong, and rating systems (at least those established to rate media today) are flawed.


And I suggest you watch this documentary to see how naive you are.

http://www.documentary-log.com/d102-...not-yet-rated/


Many would disagree with this, I'm sure.

[QUOTE=SporeCc;1553276]They are indeed censoring it. A "parental advisory" sticker can translate into millions less net sales for some albums, and have lasting effects on the artists. The fact is that organizations like the MPAA are corrupt, biased, and BY NO MEANS representative of the views of the "average american parent". Also, you're an idiot if you think that it's the record companies who put the stickers on. The record companies of all people know that these translate into less sales, so why the hell would they want to knowingly sell fewer records? Ratings Originizations work under the guise of promoting the view of said "average american parent", but what happens is that the record companies lobby to not have a sticker included. I point to one example, R.E.M.'s "Automatic for the People". On it, Stipe closes a track called "Star Me Kitten" with the words "Fuck me kitten". The album was not stuck with the dreaded sticker, despite having the literal sexual use of the word. This means that either (or both) the record company that owned the album lobbied to have this be the case, or the ratings organization is flawed and biased.

sorry i just didn't think about it like that. i probably should have thought harder about this. can someone just close this thread right now

The ratings in films, TV or music make no sense.
I can't see what's the problem in seeing boobs and DICKS on the TV as a kid.

Censorship is shit, ratings systems would be ok if they made any sense. Any "artist" censoring his own work to get moar monny should reconsider the whole "art" thingie.

EDIT: PARENTS