Frank Zappa on Crossfire (1986)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr-K

That's actually an incredibly conservative viewpoint, technically. True conservatism is dead these days.

---

ugh, tnl ate my fucking post

No, actually, of those three guys, Zappa was the only conservative. He was the only one that wanted to keep things the way they were and believed in people to handel it themselves.

It is easy to understand why you might say that though. The republican party, the members that get all the air time, aren't really conservative. The republican party has mutuate into another democrat party. The only difference being what they think is right and wrong. Just look at Bush. He spits in the face of conservatives daily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Indeed, Ill also note that we have moved so far to the neoconservative right these days that saying things like, "i dont want the government to spy on people without warrants" and "I believe we should go to war only when confronted by a serious, real threat" makes you one of those darn liberal hippies.

---

That is so sad. It is almost like people don't even understand the meaning of the word "conservative."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JefmcC

I don't see the harm in labeling any media for content.

---

It is the idea behind it that is wrong. Musicians consider their music to be art. Would you go to a major art gallery or museium and start putting up those rating images?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

ugh, tnl ate my fucking post









It is the idea behind it that is wrong. Musicians consider their music to be art. Would you go to a major art gallery or museium and start putting up those rating images?

T

---

Directors consider their movies art, yet they are rated for content. How's it any different?

The rating system seems like a good idea, but who really enforces it? The parents don't care; but they wan't the government to babysit their kids by determining what they can and cannot buy. Parents need to start parenting and stop blaiming everyone else because their kid is a dumb-fuck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

Directors consider their movies art, yet they are rated for content. How's it any different?

---

You'd have a better argument there if Directors were not paid to do a job. Despite what directors think, movies and shows are a product from the get go. Music doesn't always start out that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

You'd have a better argument there if Directors were not paid to do a job. Despite what directors think, movies and shows are a product from the get go. Music doesn't always start out that way.

---

This statement is idiotic. Directors and musicians are exactly the same. They either create art from scratch or interpret things in their own vision.

The thing about labeling both music and movies while not labeling something like an art exibit is that it makes the two mediums seem like a lesser art. But with the labels and rating it does get the content crazy Theocratic neo-cons and the nannyist liberals off of artists' cases while doing the least amount of harm to actual content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mman

This statement is idiotic. Directors and musicians are exactly the same.

---

You are wrong sir. I can't go outside and pick out a award winning block buster or a summer hit.

Movies start and end as products, regardless of how much art went into their construction.

And besides, I don't really think movies should be forced to be rated either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr-K

But with the labels and rating it does get the content crazy Theocratic neo-cons and the nannyist liberals off of artists' cases while doing the least amount of harm to actual content.

---

True. But in an ideal world they shouldn't have to. Espically in todays world, where google can find you reviews and rants really fast that will tell if you if Movie A or Movie B is good for your kids.

But we don't live in an ideal world. We live in a world were people are lazy and stupid and need to have their hand held.

Quote:

---

Movies start and end as products, regardless of how much art went into their construction.

---

What about indie films? What makes them difference from indie music releases?

Whenever Britney Spears or 50 Cent start an album, is that not a product from start to finish?

Are you really comparing indie music, some guys playing in a garage hoping to strike it big, to a summer hit or an Oscar winner? It works both ways.

I know you dig music but I think that bias is making you evaluate them as something they're not.

Haha. I've seen this before. I'm pretty sad that there is still any debate on this issue so many years later.

And of course there are movies that are made solely for the sake of art. That's probably why you've never seen or heard of them. I forget what that has to do with the discussion though. =X

Also, movies aren't "forced to be rated." But generally ones that don't get rated for whatever reason don't make it into theaters, or at least not to wide audiences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

What about indie films? What makes them difference from indie music releases?

Whenever Britney Spears or 50 Cent start an album, is that not a product from start to finish?

Are you really comparing indie music, some guys playing in a garage hoping to strike it big, to a summer hit or an Oscar winner? It works both ways.

I know you dig music but I think that bias is making you evaluate them as something they're not.

---

I don't really know where I was going with that. He dragged me off topic by assuming I liked the rating system for movies. I don't.

I do know that I don't like the idea of a rating system on the grounds to help parents, and I don't like the kind of censorship talked about in the video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IronPlant

It is the idea behind it that is wrong. Musicians consider their music to be art. Would you go to a major art gallery or museium and start putting up those rating images?

---

Depending on the content, yes I would. What's wrong with putting a small sign on a doorway to an exibit of erotic art that alerts parents the exibit might not be suitable for children? It wouldn't affect me one bit, but it might HELP A PARENT MAKE A DECISION about wether or not to bring a child into a particular art exibit.

I totally fail to see the logic with some people. Explain to me how a rating system, or labeling any media for content does any harm to anyone? All it does is help parents, or anyone for that mater, make a decision. AND, it lets the artist do whatever the fuck they want and then some.

Labeling for content doesn't hurt anyone. Having had worked in retail for many years, I know for a fact that for every parent that doesn't care what their kids see, there are some that actually do, and it's the rating system that helped those parents make informed decisions.

Also, I don't see it as a step toward censorship. All I see it as is a tool to inform consumers, and nothing more. Labeling for content doesn't take anyone's rights or libertys away.