Mike's Book Discussion Thread (and how it relates to the SS board)

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

too late now...he's gone like the wind.

 

[guitarfool2002]

Back to the book, maybe someone else who has read an advance copy can help me fill in the gaps in case I missed it or am overlooking it...but I was hoping Mike would have addressed the issue of him giving seed money to fund the PMRC in the mid 80's. Most people - music fans - remember this as a pretty big issue overall, and it became part of the national dialogue if not a rallying point against music censorship which even led to documentaries and other films being made about the music community fighting back against the politicians who were advocating warning labels on albums for explicit lyrics and censorship in general.

Again, maybe I'm missing it, or it simply wasn't addressed. It wasn't a popular decision to fund the PMRC, and I would have liked to read Mike's thoughts on that decision after 30 years and whether he took any heat personally for giving them seed money when the majority of the rock community was strongly against what the PMRC was trying to do with censorship and labeling albums for "explicit lyrics".

In case anyone isn't familiar with this story, I took this from the online Billboard archives, September 1985, and that's why the highlights are on the article.





And again, if I missed where the book did address the PMRC seed money topic, please let me know.

GF - as I look at this, it was a non-partisan effort [Tipper Gore is married to Al Gore a Dem VP.](Dems and Republicans) and deals with labeling standards that have been in existence for year in the motion picture industry for viewing.  The G, PG, etc have been in existence for years.  

What I can tell you is that when a Kindergartner comes into a class singing "Back that ass up; show me what you're working with..." - it is the beginning of "sexualizing" 5 year olds.  And, I think some controls (not censorship but perhaps labeling.) They don't even  realize what they are singing. I think a monetary contribution is pretty irrelevant when there was already a standard in place for labeling motion pictures for some time.  I look at it as a consumer labeling mechanism and a way of protecting children.  

Who cares what adults listen to?  It is their choice and should not be censored, but for kids, I disagree.    

As the PMRC was an issue that galvanized musicians and artists in general on the issues of censorship in the mid 80's (and still to this day), and again unless I simply passed over it but I don't recall the book discussing Mike's seed money and support given to the PMRC, I was hoping Mike in his book would have addressed it and given his point of view, or explained/clarified his support of a group and a campaign that the majority of musicians were fighting against.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

GF - as I look at this, it was a non-partisan effort [Tipper Gore is married to Al Gore a Dem VP.](Dems and Republicans) and deals with labeling standards that have been in existence for year in the motion picture industry for viewing.  The G, PG, etc have been in existence for years.  

What I can tell you is that when a Kindergartner comes into a class singing "Back that ass up; show me what you're working with..." - it is the beginning of "sexualizing" 5 year olds.  And, I think some controls (not censorship but perhaps labeling.) They don't even  realize what they are singing. I think a monetary contribution is pretty irrelevant when there was already a standard in place for labeling motion pictures for some time.  I look at it as a consumer labeling mechanism and a way of protecting children.  

Who cares what adults listen to?  It is their choice and should not be censored, but for kids, I disagree.    

OT I know but I wanted to chime in since I am a parent of a five year old. As a parent, I feel a responsibility over what my child listens to and I'm very careful to not expose her to something that is inappropriate. A label isn't going to prevent a five year old from listening to something inappropriate since as far as I know no five year old is out buying music. So the labels in practice do not function as warnings for children. Like the film ratings, they simply operate as condemnations from a body of people who are attempting to filter out works that do not fall in line with a particular moral vision. Rather than label something (which is always a slippery slope), people should be better educated on what is appropriate and inappropriate for children and parents should have that responsibility.

[filledeplage]

Back to the book, maybe someone else who has read an advance copy can help me fill in the gaps in case I missed it or am overlooking it...but I was hoping Mike would have addressed the issue of him giving seed money to fund the PMRC in the mid 80's. Most people - music fans - remember this as a pretty big issue overall, and it became part of the national dialogue if not a rallying point against music censorship which even led to documentaries and other films being made about the music community fighting back against the politicians who were advocating warning labels on albums for explicit lyrics and censorship in general.

Again, maybe I'm missing it, or it simply wasn't addressed. It wasn't a popular decision to fund the PMRC, and I would have liked to read Mike's thoughts on that decision after 30 years and whether he took any heat personally for giving them seed money when the majority of the rock community was strongly against what the PMRC was trying to do with censorship and labeling albums for "explicit lyrics".

In case anyone isn't familiar with this story, I took this from the online Billboard archives, September 1985, and that's why the highlights are on the article.





And again, if I missed where the book did address the PMRC seed money topic, please let me know.

GF - as I look at this, it was a non-partisan effort [Tipper Gore is married to Al Gore a Dem VP.](Dems and Republicans) and deals with labeling standards that have been in existence for year in the motion picture industry for viewing.  The G, PG, etc have been in existence for years.  

What I can tell you is that when a Kindergartner comes into a class singing "Back that ass up; show me what you're working with..." - it is the beginning of "sexualizing" 5 year olds.  And, I think some controls (not censorship but perhaps labeling.) They don't even  realize what they are singing. I think a monetary contribution is pretty irrelevant when there was already a standard in place for labeling motion pictures for some time.  I look at it as a consumer labeling mechanism and a way of protecting children.  

Who cares what adults listen to?  It is their choice and should not be censored, but for kids, I disagree.    

As the PMRC was an issue that galvanized musicians and artists in general on the issues of censorship in the mid 80's (and still to this day), and again unless I simply passed over it but I don't recall the book discussing Mike's seed money and support given to the PMRC, I was hoping Mike in his book would have addressed it and given his point of view, or explained/clarified his support of a group and a campaign that the majority of musicians were fighting against.

GF - I completely get the censorship thing and the positions which would likely clash.  But, when impressionable kids are singing sexualized lyrics or violent lyrics, (and do not even know what they are singing) there needs to be some reasonable safeguard in place to keep that from their ears.  Or at least guide purchases.  

And there are plenty of double entendres in BB music, which have been discussed, and that is fine, because most of that would be consumed by 13+ year olds, who are not little ones, and by the time you figure out what a double entendre is, you are old enough to be a consumer.  

But pre-school and grade school kids? A lot of cable companies and satellite companies have chips or blocks you can set to preclude that kind of viewing or music stations that broadcast x-rated stuff.  Is that so different?  

[filledeplage]

GF - as I look at this, it was a non-partisan effort [Tipper Gore is married to Al Gore a Dem VP.](Dems and Republicans) and deals with labeling standards that have been in existence for year in the motion picture industry for viewing.  The G, PG, etc have been in existence for years.  

What I can tell you is that when a Kindergartner comes into a class singing "Back that ass up; show me what you're working with..." - it is the beginning of "sexualizing" 5 year olds.  And, I think some controls (not censorship but perhaps labeling.) They don't even  realize what they are singing. I think a monetary contribution is pretty irrelevant when there was already a standard in place for labeling motion pictures for some time.  I look at it as a consumer labeling mechanism and a way of protecting children.  

Who cares what adults listen to?  It is their choice and should not be censored, but for kids, I disagree.    

OT I know but I wanted to chime in since I am a parent of a five year old. As a parent, I feel a responsibility over what my child listens to and I'm very careful to not expose her to something that is inappropriate. A label isn't going to prevent a five year old from listening to something inappropriate since as far as I know no five year old is out buying music. So the labels in practice do not function as warnings for children. Like the film ratings, they simply operate as condemnations from a body of people who are attempting to filter out works that do not fall in line with a particular moral vision. Rather than label something (which is always a slippery slope), people should be better educated on what is appropriate and inappropriate for children and parents should have that responsibility.

Lucky you - 5 years old is a magic time.  I agree that labeling can be a slippery slope.  It (the labeling) might not stop someone from smoking, but it is a reminder.   And of course some of the decisions could be arguably subjective. 

Even the US Supreme Court could not define pornography in some decision, but they did say, "you know it when you see it."

[Chocolate Shake Man]

GF - as I look at this, it was a non-partisan effort [Tipper Gore is married to Al Gore a Dem VP.](Dems and Republicans) and deals with labeling standards that have been in existence for year in the motion picture industry for viewing.  The G, PG, etc have been in existence for years.  

What I can tell you is that when a Kindergartner comes into a class singing "Back that ass up; show me what you're working with..." - it is the beginning of "sexualizing" 5 year olds.  And, I think some controls (not censorship but perhaps labeling.) They don't even  realize what they are singing. I think a monetary contribution is pretty irrelevant when there was already a standard in place for labeling motion pictures for some time.  I look at it as a consumer labeling mechanism and a way of protecting children.  

Who cares what adults listen to?  It is their choice and should not be censored, but for kids, I disagree.    

OT I know but I wanted to chime in since I am a parent of a five year old. As a parent, I feel a responsibility over what my child listens to and I'm very careful to not expose her to something that is inappropriate. A label isn't going to prevent a five year old from listening to something inappropriate since as far as I know no five year old is out buying music. So the labels in practice do not function as warnings for children. Like the film ratings, they simply operate as condemnations from a body of people who are attempting to filter out works that do not fall in line with a particular moral vision. Rather than label something (which is always a slippery slope), people should be better educated on what is appropriate and inappropriate for children and parents should have that responsibility.

Lucky you - 5 years old is a magic time.  I agree that labeling can be a slippery slope.  It (the labeling) might not stop someone from smoking, but it is a reminder.   And of course some of the decisions could be arguably subjective. 

Even the US Supreme Court could not define pornography in some decision, but they did say, "you know it when you see it."

I agree - 5 is a magic time. In a week, she will be going into grade one. A whole different ballgame!

Cigarettes are not an act of expression, and music is, so I see a distinction there. I'm not entirely certain what the reference to pornography means. If you know it when you see it, then obviously I wouldn't need a label telling me that it's not something for children, which it most definitely is not. Despite the use of the term "porn rock," my hunch is that that term was used not to accurately describe music but rather as hyperbole to drum up support against the music.

[guitarfool2002]

I was more interested in the issue of Mike giving seed money to fund the PMRC and how and why it wasn't a topic of his book. But on the issue of defending or debating the PMRC and the issues in general, I also see something - maybe it's not the right term - "ironic" in the whole thing, with the timing. Just an observation.

Where do the lyrics of Kokomo fit into the issue? Just a few years after the PMRC issue was current, and into the era where 2 Live Crew, Dice Clay, and others were being labeled as explicit and censored, there is a song which is...to be blunt...about getting drunk, having sex, and using terms like "contact high" and "afternoon delight".

If the standards are extended to slang and double entendre, there is the hypothetical example of 5 year olds singing along to the song, reciting the lyrics "contact high" and "afternoon delight", and would they perhaps ask their parents "what is a contact high?"

Contact high was an old term used by stoners, obviously, to describe the effects of second hand pot smoke. Afternoon delight is obviously a sexual fling in the daytime. So what do the parents tell the kids?

the issue was the PMRC, and deciding what was or wasn't explicit. I'd have to think some on the committee might think references to pot smoke and drunken daytime sex might warrant a label.

And that was the slippery slope. So I would have welcomed reading what Mike's thoughts were 30 years after all of that was a raging issue, and after one of his own biggest hits could have come under the PMRC microscope.

[filledeplage]

GF - as I look at this, it was a non-partisan effort [Tipper Gore is married to Al Gore a Dem VP.](Dems and Republicans) and deals with labeling standards that have been in existence for year in the motion picture industry for viewing.  The G, PG, etc have been in existence for years.  

What I can tell you is that when a Kindergartner comes into a class singing "Back that ass up; show me what you're working with..." - it is the beginning of "sexualizing" 5 year olds.  And, I think some controls (not censorship but perhaps labeling.) They don't even  realize what they are singing. I think a monetary contribution is pretty irrelevant when there was already a standard in place for labeling motion pictures for some time.  I look at it as a consumer labeling mechanism and a way of protecting children.  

Who cares what adults listen to?  It is their choice and should not be censored, but for kids, I disagree.    

OT I know but I wanted to chime in since I am a parent of a five year old. As a parent, I feel a responsibility over what my child listens to and I'm very careful to not expose her to something that is inappropriate. A label isn't going to prevent a five year old from listening to something inappropriate since as far as I know no five year old is out buying music. So the labels in practice do not function as warnings for children. Like the film ratings, they simply operate as condemnations from a body of people who are attempting to filter out works that do not fall in line with a particular moral vision. Rather than label something (which is always a slippery slope), people should be better educated on what is appropriate and inappropriate for children and parents should have that responsibility.

Lucky you - 5 years old is a magic time.  I agree that labeling can be a slippery slope.  It (the labeling) might not stop someone from smoking, but it is a reminder.   And of course some of the decisions could be arguably subjective. 

Even the US Supreme Court could not define pornography in some decision, but they did say, "you know it when you see it."

I agree - 5 is a magic time. In a week, she will be going into grade one. A whole different ballgame!

Cigarettes are not an act of expression, and music is, so I see a distinction there. I'm not entirely certain what the reference to pornography means. If you know it when you see it, then obviously I wouldn't need a label telling me that it's not something for children, which it most definitely is not. Despite the use of the term "porn rock," my hunch is that that term was used not to accurately describe music but rather as hyperbole to drum up support against the music.

First Grade is tough. Kindergarten, on the other hand, is the "child's garden," (German term.) It was more a consumer viewpoint, buying and labeling CD's, rather than strictly expression.

The expression is one of the most famous phrases from the US Supreme Court, came from an obscenity case, Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964.) It had to do with the Louis Malle film, Les Amants (The Lovers) being shown in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.  The quote came from Judge Potter Stewart.  Yes, it is vague.

You would probably have the discretion to know what is appropriate for your child, but, many of the parents of my students were still teens themselves, bringing their kids to school and whose education was interrupted at 14 or so, to become parents, so labeling I think could be a useful consumer tool for them to know what was appropriate listening for their kids.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

First Grade is tough. Kindergarten, on the other hand, is the "child's garden," (German term.) It was more a consumer viewpoint, buying and labeling CD's, rather than strictly expression.

The expression is one of the most famous phrases from the US Supreme Court, came from an obscenity case, Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964.) It had to do with the Louis Malle film, Les Amants (The Lovers) being shown in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.  The quote came from Judge Potter Stewart.  Yes, it is vague.

You would probably have the discretion to know what is appropriate for your child, but, many of the parents of my students were still teens themselves, bringing their kids to school and whose education was interrupted at 14 or so, to become parents, so labeling I think could be a useful consumer tool for them to know what was appropriate listening for their kids.  

Yes, I know the phrase and its origins.

As to your final paragraph, I will repeat that I think proper education is better than labelling which as we agree is a slippery slope. I also think that proper education (which, in my view, is particularly lacking in the United States and England) is a good way to curb the teen pregnancy problem. But now this is way off topic so I think further discussion of this should occur in the Sandbox.

[filledeplage]

I was more interested in the issue of Mike giving seed money to fund the PMRC and how and why it wasn't a topic of his book. But on the issue of defending or debating the PMRC and the issues in general, I also see something - maybe it's not the right term - "ironic" in the whole thing, with the timing. Just an observation.

Where do the lyrics of Kokomo fit into the issue? Just a few years after the PMRC issue was current, and into the era where 2 Live Crew, Dice Clay, and others were being labeled as explicit and censored, there is a song which is...to be blunt...about getting drunk, having sex, and using terms like "contact high" and "afternoon delight".

If the standards are extended to slang and double entendre, there is the hypothetical example of 5 year olds singing along to the song, reciting the lyrics "contact high" and "afternoon delight", and would they perhaps ask their parents "what is a contact high?"

Contact high was an old term used by stoners, obviously, to describe the effects of second hand pot smoke. Afternoon delight is obviously a sexual fling in the daytime. So what do the parents tell the kids?

the issue was the PMRC, and deciding what was or wasn't explicit. I'd have to think some on the committee might think references to pot smoke and drunken daytime sex might warrant a label.

And that was the slippery slope. So I would have welcomed reading what Mike's thoughts were 30 years after all of that was a raging issue, and after one of his own biggest hits could have come under the PMRC microscope.

GF - I do get what you mean, about double entendre.  They don't know at 5 years old, what a "contact high" or "afternoon delight" is. But they do know "Back that ass up."

And, uncomfortable speech is protected.  The Miller test (Miller v. California) 1973 (413 U. S. 15) defines obscenity as "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

But, I do think there need to be boundaries and I have no idea if this is addressed in Mike's book because I do not have it.   I do think that in life everyone should have the right to tell their story, from his/her own perspective.  What Mike included or left out will all be revealed, when it is formally released.  I don't have a punch list for what I think someone should include in "their book" - all of that is up to them.  I have a punch list for myself (not for a book.) An autobiography has that person's punch-list.  

And, besides, Kokomo was a surprise hit that arose from Cocktail the movie sound track, which was a Buena Vista (Disney branch) and it was rated "R."  

[SMiLE Brian]

Summer of Love's lyrics reeks of parental advisory...

[HeyJude]

GF - I do get what you mean, about double entendre.  They don't know at 5 years old, what a "contact high" or "afternoon delight" is. But they do know "Back that ass up."

The Muppets felt differently, and censored "contact high" from their cover of "Kokomo." Seriously.

I think your total guess as to what a five year old might know, or the degree to which they might understand various phrases, is just that, a total guess.

I would also suggest taking any discussion of the PMRC or music censorship, outside of how it pertains to Mike's position or non-position on it, to the "Sandbox."

The original post concerning the PMRC wasn't to argue its legitimacy or need or lack thereof, but rather concerned Mike's involvement and potential omission of such in his book.

[guitarfool2002]

I was more interested in the issue of Mike giving seed money to fund the PMRC and how and why it wasn't a topic of his book. But on the issue of defending or debating the PMRC and the issues in general, I also see something - maybe it's not the right term - "ironic" in the whole thing, with the timing. Just an observation.

Where do the lyrics of Kokomo fit into the issue? Just a few years after the PMRC issue was current, and into the era where 2 Live Crew, Dice Clay, and others were being labeled as explicit and censored, there is a song which is...to be blunt...about getting drunk, having sex, and using terms like "contact high" and "afternoon delight".

If the standards are extended to slang and double entendre, there is the hypothetical example of 5 year olds singing along to the song, reciting the lyrics "contact high" and "afternoon delight", and would they perhaps ask their parents "what is a contact high?"

Contact high was an old term used by stoners, obviously, to describe the effects of second hand pot smoke. Afternoon delight is obviously a sexual fling in the daytime. So what do the parents tell the kids?

the issue was the PMRC, and deciding what was or wasn't explicit. I'd have to think some on the committee might think references to pot smoke and drunken daytime sex might warrant a label.

And that was the slippery slope. So I would have welcomed reading what Mike's thoughts were 30 years after all of that was a raging issue, and after one of his own biggest hits could have come under the PMRC microscope.

GF - I do get what you mean, about double entendre.  They don't know at 5 years old, what a "contact high" or "afternoon delight" is. But they do know "Back that ass up."

And, uncomfortable speech is protected.  The Miller test (Miller v. California) 1973 (413 U. S. 15) defines obscenity as "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

But, I do think there need to be boundaries and I have no idea if this is addressed in Mike's book because I do not have it.   I do think that in life everyone should have the right to tell their story, from his/her own perspective.  What Mike included or left out will all be revealed, when it is formally released.  I don't have a punch list for what I think someone should include in "their book" - all of that is up to them.  I have a punch list for myself (not for a book.) An autobiography has that person's punch-list.  

And, besides, Kokomo was a surprise hit that arose from Cocktail the movie sound track, which was a Buena Vista (Disney branch) and it was rated "R."  

I'm saying again, I did not see it in the book. Unless I simply glanced over it or missed it. But I did not see it in the book, and everything I've written comes from actually seeing the book. Just to clarify. And I was hoping Mike would address it, since it was a major issue in music and still resonates today, and Mike found himself seeding funding to an organization which I'd estimate an overwhelming majority of musicians opposed then and still opposed now.

It would have been interesting to hear Mike's take on funding the PMRC 30 years removed, but alas it doesn't seem to be the book to do that.

[DonnyL]

I'm still skeptical of Mike or anyone losing "credit" on songs due to not agreeing to the sale of the publishing. Here are his words:

If I signed, I’d lose the chance to claim them. But if I didn’t, he said, I might lose credit for Good Vibrations, Surfin’ Safari and The Warmth Of The Sun, which did bear my name.

I'm skeptical of how they legally could have taken his royalties away, and even more so about how they could have taken his credits away. His writing above says "might lose credit", as in the credit on the label.

I'm curious if there's any more detail or context to this. Someone just blankly told them "If you don't agree to this sale, you might lose your credits on the songs you wrote?" This threat seems odd. It's a textbook example of duress, it's a threat that doesn't carry equal weight towards all of the members (e.g. by 1969 Carl, Dennis, and Al all had very few if any songwriting credits, so threatening to take away credits was an empty threat to them), and even if the apparent *verbal* threat itself wouldn't have been provable, Mike would have had pretty strong evidence of retribution having taken place against him if he didn't agree to the sale and then all of a sudden had his royalties cut off and name removed from 80 BB songs.

The "I might have lost my existing credits" argument kinda smells to me more like a latter-day excuse to explain the revelation that *Mike* may have been one of the people who signed the agreement to sell the catalog. And one would think that this "threat" would have been applicable to Brian as well. But Mike doesn't seem to excuse Brian's role in the saga in the same way that he excuses his own. I think Mike has said in the past that Brian was essentially under various forms of legal or at least psychological duress from Murry at the time. But Mike has also still not been shy about shunting some level of blame or at least anger towards Brian specifically regarding the sale of the catalog.

Yeh this scenario and the terminology doesn't make sense. Obviously, the main point is that the group's management and/or legal advisors recommended they sign for whatever reason, and the group (or at least Mike) just went along with it without understanding.

Maybe someone can fill in the blanks, but who actually owned SOT? Was it Murry? If so, the only thing I can think of is that the deal as negotiated by Murry to sell the publishing of SOT included some kind of cut or extra incentive for the writers, and they were advised to sign it because if that particular deal didn't go through, Murry could negotiate a new one that did not include them? Obviously, Mike using terms like losing "credit" is misleading at best. But it's obvious he and the group were not totally aware of the technicalities at the time.

Brian and Mike (and to a lesser degree, Dennis, Carl and even Al) got screwed by the deal. Not sure why anyone advised them to sign. Brian clearly got screwed in a bigger way that anyone else, and it seemed to affect him on a personal level to a greater degree also.

But the apparent fact is that the group DID sign it. The question is, why? And if the answer is that they were advised to, why would that advisor tell them to? Were they even required to sign for the sale to go through, or was it a goodwill gesture (or something to cover Murry's back)?

[Robbie Mac]

I was more interested in the issue of Mike giving seed money to fund the PMRC and how and why it wasn't a topic of his book. But on the issue of defending or debating the PMRC and the issues in general, I also see something - maybe it's not the right term - "ironic" in the whole thing, with the timing. Just an observation.

Where do the lyrics of Kokomo fit into the issue? Just a few years after the PMRC issue was current, and into the era where 2 Live Crew, Dice Clay, and others were being labeled as explicit and censored, there is a song which is...to be blunt...about getting drunk, having sex, and using terms like "contact high" and "afternoon delight".

If the standards are extended to slang and double entendre, there is the hypothetical example of 5 year olds singing along to the song, reciting the lyrics "contact high" and "afternoon delight", and would they perhaps ask their parents "what is a contact high?"

Contact high was an old term used by stoners, obviously, to describe the effects of second hand pot smoke. Afternoon delight is obviously a sexual fling in the daytime. So what do the parents tell the kids?

the issue was the PMRC, and deciding what was or wasn't explicit. I'd have to think some on the committee might think references to pot smoke and drunken daytime sex might warrant a label.

And that was the slippery slope. So I would have welcomed reading what Mike's thoughts were 30 years after all of that was a raging issue, and after one of his own biggest hits could have come under the PMRC microscope.

Ohhhhh my, said Mr. Takei.

There is also the leering lasciviousness of "Summer of Love".

[Chocolate Shake Man]

GF - I do get what you mean, about double entendre.  They don't know at 5 years old, what a "contact high" or "afternoon delight" is. But they do know "Back that ass up."

This goes against what you said previously:

What I can tell you is that when a Kindergartner comes into a class singing "Back that ass up; show me what you're working with..." - it is the beginning of "sexualizing" 5 year olds.  And, I think some controls (not censorship but perhaps labeling.) They don't even  realize what they are singing.

--

The point that I thought you were making is that it doesn't matter if the children know what they are saying or not - that the fact that they are singing these words despite not knowing their meaning has negative effects.

Also, I might add that my daughter would not know what the word "ass" meant whatsoever, thankfully so I'm skeptical that all 5 year olds would understand that line either.

[filledeplage]

I was more interested in the issue of Mike giving seed money to fund the PMRC and how and why it wasn't a topic of his book. But on the issue of defending or debating the PMRC and the issues in general, I also see something - maybe it's not the right term - "ironic" in the whole thing, with the timing. Just an observation.

Where do the lyrics of Kokomo fit into the issue? Just a few years after the PMRC issue was current, and into the era where 2 Live Crew, Dice Clay, and others were being labeled as explicit and censored, there is a song which is...to be blunt...about getting drunk, having sex, and using terms like "contact high" and "afternoon delight".

If the standards are extended to slang and double entendre, there is the hypothetical example of 5 year olds singing along to the song, reciting the lyrics "contact high" and "afternoon delight", and would they perhaps ask their parents "what is a contact high?"

Contact high was an old term used by stoners, obviously, to describe the effects of second hand pot smoke. Afternoon delight is obviously a sexual fling in the daytime. So what do the parents tell the kids?

the issue was the PMRC, and deciding what was or wasn't explicit. I'd have to think some on the committee might think references to pot smoke and drunken daytime sex might warrant a label.

And that was the slippery slope. So I would have welcomed reading what Mike's thoughts were 30 years after all of that was a raging issue, and after one of his own biggest hits could have come under the PMRC microscope.

GF - I do get what you mean, about double entendre.  They don't know at 5 years old, what a "contact high" or "afternoon delight" is. But they do know "Back that ass up."

And, uncomfortable speech is protected.  The Miller test (Miller v. California) 1973 (413 U. S. 15) defines obscenity as "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

But, I do think there need to be boundaries and I have no idea if this is addressed in Mike's book because I do not have it.   I do think that in life everyone should have the right to tell their story, from his/her own perspective.  What Mike included or left out will all be revealed, when it is formally released.  I don't have a punch list for what I think someone should include in "their book" - all of that is up to them.  I have a punch list for myself (not for a book.) An autobiography has that person's punch-list.  

And, besides, Kokomo was a surprise hit that arose from Cocktail the movie sound track, which was a Buena Vista (Disney branch) and it was rated "R."  

I'm saying again, I did not see it in the book. Unless I simply glanced over it or missed it. But I did not see it in the book, and everything I've written comes from actually seeing the book. Just to clarify. And I was hoping Mike would address it, since it was a major issue in music and still resonates today, and Mike found himself seeding funding to an organization which I'd estimate an overwhelming majority of musicians opposed then and still opposed now.

It would have been interesting to hear Mike's take on funding the PMRC 30 years removed, but alas it doesn't seem to be the book to do that.

GF - Do you have a copy of the book or just reading the extract on amazon?

[HeyJude]

GF already mentioned in a previous post that he has read a full advance copy of the book.

Why in the world would someone ask why something *isn't* in a book based on a few pages and excerpts?

[guitarfool2002]

"Filledeplage": If you had read my initial post,  I was able to read an advance copy of the book, as Iain Lee and apparently a number of others did as well, including the various reviewers who have already published reviews. I'm not speaking from ignorance of the book or the contents when I wrote all of this.

Does that clarify it? I know some are trying to twist and bastardize this into whatever flaming arrows they wish to fire, but that's the long and short of it.

[filledeplage]

GF - I do get what you mean, about double entendre.  They don't know at 5 years old, what a "contact high" or "afternoon delight" is. But they do know "Back that ass up."

This goes against what you said previously:

What I can tell you is that when a Kindergartner comes into a class singing "Back that ass up; show me what you're working with..." - it is the beginning of "sexualizing" 5 year olds.  And, I think some controls (not censorship but perhaps labeling.) They don't even  realize what they are singing.

--

The point that I thought you were making is that it doesn't matter if the children know what they are saying or not - that the fact that they are singing these words despite not knowing their meaning has negative effects.

Let's not parse.  A 5 year old, riding a school bus from a housing project in a city, knows what an "ass" is where the older kids are singing all this stuff.  They likely do not know what a "contact high" is.  

And, Kokomo was written for an R-rated movie.  But, I suspect your own child is being gently-reared, which many of my students were unfortunately, not.  

[filledeplage]

"Filledeplage": If you had read my initial post,  I was able to read an advance copy of the book, as Iain Lee and apparently a number of others did as well, including the various reviewers who have already published reviews. I'm not speaking from ignorance of the book or the contents when I wrote all of this.

Does that clarify it? I know some are trying to twist and bastardize this into whatever flaming arrows they wish to fire, but that's the long and short of it.

Well, GF - that puts me at a distinct and highly unfair, disadvantage, not having a copy of the book, in my hand. 

     

[Emdeeh]

Found this in my morning newsfeed -- here's what People Magazine, which has long ago passed into the most shallow and frivolous of coverage, thinks about what's really important in Mike's book:

Beach Boy Book's Shocking Claim: Is There a New Charles Manson Murder Victim?
http://www.people.com/article/beach-boys-book-new-charles-manson-murder

This Friday's issue cover -- note the top headline:
http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2016/news/160829/blac-chyna-cover-1435.jpg

Also a story on the book, more Manson obsessing:
Behind the Scenes of Beach Boys Frontman Mike Love's Memoir, Good Vibrations
http://www.people.com/article/beach-boys-mike-love-memoir-good-vibrations

[HeyJude]

Unless GF is lying about Mike not mentioning the PMRC issue in his book, how does a discussion on this one single issue require having read the book?

Obviously, the question of why Mike wouldn't mention the PMRC is potentially a rhetorical question.

I don't have any problem saying if he didn't mention it, it's probably because it doesn't make him look particularly good. At best, he just didn't rate it worth mentioning.

[HeyJude]

Found this in my morning newsfeed -- here's what People Magazine, which has long ago passed into the most shallow and frivolous of coverage, thinks about what's really important in Mike's book:

Beach Boy Book's Shocking Claim: Is There a New Charles Manson Murder Victim?
http://www.people.com/article/beach-boys-book-new-charles-manson-murder

This Friday's issue cover -- note the top headline:
http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2016/news/160829/blac-chyna-cover-1435.jpg

Also a story on the book, more Manson obsessing:
Behind the Scenes of Beach Boys Frontman Mike Love's Memoir, Good Vibrations
http://www.people.com/article/beach-boys-mike-love-memoir-good-vibrations

Unfortunately, the cycle of cynicism and sensationalism that ends with these reports began with putting them in a book in the first place. As I've said many times, I would be surprised if one of the selling points to publishers on this book wasn't the Manson stuff, as it differentiates it from the million other rock and roll autobiographies.

I also doubt the veracity of the story itself for about fifty different and sometimes disparate reasons.

[chaki]

- That Manson story is in the Steven Gaines book!
- The PMRC controversy was inexcusable and a huge embarrassment to this country. Anyone defending Tipper and her cause should be ashamed of themselves.