Conference marvin::uk_music

        I,m in Germany at the moment so I am unable to tell which
    	record was being played but it was probably "We call it Aciied"
    	by I believe D. Mob - somebody correct me if I am wrong.
    
    	And, I suppose its up to you whether you think it influences
    	yourself to drop acid or not?
    
    	Al. 

    Well, I don't think 'responsibility' is reserved solely for your
    own actions. For instance if this record encourages its audience 
    to try 'hard' drugs, its performers/producers are surely largely
    responsible for the consequences. 
    
    Here we are on the one hand pushing the need for condoms and the
    avoidance of needles, and then there's a top forty record that sounds
    like a Timothy Leary seminar.
    
    I mean, is it advisable to take acid (in whatever form) or not?
    Simple question. If not, then it's inadvisabel to play this record
    to those who may be ill-advised by it.
    
    Richard.

    The lyrics are actually very ANTI drugs. Seems to me that this is
    just part of all this press hysteria directed against acid-house.
    The term originally had nothing to do with drugs. And I'm finding
    it hard to find all these junkies that the craze is supposed to
    be creating, you see more drugs doing the rounds at Motorhead concerts.
    It's just another dance fad.
    
    Mike

    Sorry -- didn't know there was any hysteria, press or otherwise.
    
    Richard.

    
    
    	If we stop music from conveying a message of any sort I 
    	think you'll find that we stop music.
    
    	Al.

re .2

>    Here we are on the one hand pushing the need for condoms and the
>    avoidance of needles, and then there's a top forty record that sounds
>    like a Timothy Leary seminar.
    
I don't see how these items are related.

Nigel

RE .5
    
    I agree entirely with that, and I wouldn't ever suggest stoppping
    music conveying messages. I'm just questioning the decision to give
    lots of air time to a message that is at the very least ambivalent,
    at a time when received opinion seems to be very clear: don't use
    needles.
    
    Richard.

    
    
    
    	Well if it's ambivalent why worry?

    I havent actually heard this record, but the concept of people being
    responsible for their own actions is one which has also been touched
    on by others in the 'Banned' note - a certain lp was banned ( or
    attempts to have it banned were made ) because its lyrical content
    was cited as being the reason for the suicide of two people.
    
    Can a record incite anyone to suicide??
    Can a record incite anyone to take take acid??
    
    For the first, I think you'd have to be pretty unhinged to want
    to commit suicide, and then be influenced enough by a record to
    actually *do* it.
    
    For the second, it can appear that taking acid (particularly a brand
    known as Extasy) is a good thing, loads of fun etc. (while saying
    nothing about bad trips etc.) However, if the record is anti-drugs,
    could it actually incite people to *stop* taking acid? Surely the
    actual moment when you take the acid is *totally* your *own* choice,
    regardless of outside pressures and information. Also LSD has been
    shown to be neither physically or psychologically addictive, which
    reinforces the idea of its continued use as being a matter of personal
    choice.
           
    Then again, perhaps you need to be slightly unhinged to want to
    take it anyway.....
    
    Bob

re .7

I don't think I've heard the record but as I alluded to in .6 I don't think 
that even if it is about LSD that this has anything to do with needles (or 
condoms).It is not possible to contract AIDS from taking LSD or MMDA or any
other hallucinogen that I am aware of as they are all taken orally. 

There are lots of unsafe & unsavoury practises peddled in music (drinking & 
smoking to name but 2) and censorship is a very dangerous road along which I do 
not care to travel.

Nigel

    
    
    RE .9
    
    	Slightly unhinged?
    
    	Some of the most popular drugs in the world today are
    	just as dangerous with serious long term effects.
    
    	Nicotine/ -physically addictive
    	Smoking	   Can cause hardening of the arteries
    		   which can lead to loss of limbs,
    		   and cardio-vascular problems
    		   Death
               
    	Alcohol	 - physically addictive
    		   Can cause sclerosis of the liver(long term)
    		   pancreatitis(any time) etc.
                   Death.                         
    		
          
    	So somebody is unhinged when they take a drug that is 
    	not socially acceptable, but, is not unhinged when they
    	take a drug that is.
    
    	Al.

    
    
    It would appear here that not many people really know what they
    are talking about. Firstly Ecstasy is an MDMA based drug of which
    originates back to 1914. That old eh? LSD however has an entirely
    different molecular structure that can cause many damaging effects
    to the body. Simpler forms of Ecstasy are prescribed to 1000's of
    people every day as a general purpose stimulant.
    
    These forms are not identical to Ecstasy indeed they are a subset.
    Ecstasy is a combination of several MDMA based concoctions that do 
    not cause people to hallucinate, do not cook peoples brains and as 
    tests have proved (since 1914) have no disastorous long term effects. 
    
    The only known side effects of MDMA based drugs are a slight increase of
    nervousness, paranoia, and related feelings, and if too much is
    taken the taker can become spasmodically violent. However the
    definition of 'too much' is several tabs a day over a period of
    some months. As this drug is hardly addictive, most users confine
    themselves to weekend or on off use. This is not because of their
    fear of overdosing on Ecstacy, but because generally Ecstacy parties
    go through the night and the majority of the takers hold proffesional
    positions of responsibility. Once a week is fun - every day would
    lose them their job.
    
    
    Mike Morris
    

re .12
    
>    to the body. Simpler forms of Ecstasy are prescribed to 1000's of
>    people every day as a general purpose stimulant.

Care to put a name to this as it's news to me.
    
>    some months. As this drug is hardly addictive, most users confine

Any substance that causes pleasurable sensations/feelings is addictive by a 
simple process of conditioning.

Nigel

    The discussion of the relative merits and demerits of various drugs
    is not appropriate for this conference.
    
    Keith

    Aren't we loosing the point here - it's the we're concerned about.
     
    As far as I'm concerned is all trash - resampled repetitive *hit.
   Any song with the phrase 'ACID MAN....ACID MAN...' repeated at two
    second intervals for 3 1/2 minutes could only have been written
    by brainless degenerates... or is that perhaps the intended audience.
     
    After seeing Top of The Pops last week, I suggest that the former
    is true.  The sooner this dies - the better.
     
    Phil 'I appreciate talent, not electronics' Gardner.

    Songs about drugs/sex/booze/etc etc have been around since time
    immemorial. Banning them makes them sell better (witness the judge
    dread records in the early 70's).
    
    Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds got banned, without being anything
    at all to do with drugs.

>
>    Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds got banned, without being anything
>    at all to do with drugs.
>

	This should have had a SMILEY after it right? I mean I got a
	good laugh out of it!

	L ucy in the
	S ky with
	D iamonds

Ed

    
    Silly boy, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds was named after a picture by
    Julian Lennon (then quite small). Anything else was seen by the eyes of
    the beholders.

    re: .17
    
    Andy, you're falling prey to the dreaded intentionalist fallacy
    here.
    
    Richard.

    See .17.

    Hendrix song...
    
    S tars
    T hat
    P lay with
    
    L aughing
    S ams
    D ice
    
    Now that *is* overt, even if Lucy... wasn't!
    
    The point I was making, about being unhinged was at least partly
    tongue in cheek. As was pointed out, we all know the long term effects
    of smoking/drinking/tranquilisers/other socially acceptable drugs,
    yet we take the risks. However, the danger with LSD is a) its totally
    unpredictable effects and b) the long term effect of perhaps only
    one trip. These dangers would not be associated with smoking one
    cig or drinking one beer *I am not defending or attacking any of
    these practises*
    I still say that regardless of outside pressures such as records
    or any other form of advertising, the final decision about what
    *you* put in to *your* body is *yours* (leaving aside forms of air
    pollution and water additives of course....!)
    
    Bob

    Heed .14, or we write-lock the topic. Your choice.

    
    
    	For once I agree with the mods. but I do think if we 
    	are going to start a discussion about glorification,
    	why don't we start with some of the subjects listed
    	below.
    
    	Rape
    	Violence
    	Homosexualism
    	Politics
    	
    	
    	On all the above, there have been songs written that
    	may offend some people, and yet they still get air
    	time. 
    
    	My motto is 'If thine ears offend thee turn the radio
    	off'.
    
    	Al.

    Yes, I agree with the mods, too. I didn't intend to discuss the
    relative danger of various drugs, or whether records about drugs
    should be banned. I intended merely to question how responsible
    it might be to produce or to promote a record which seems to fuel
    the resurgence of a drug culture among young people. On the one
    hand, I can see the marketing genius at work. On the other, I can
    see over time a normalisation of drugs, produced by confused and
    garbled messages (as in the acid house record).
    
    I still think the time is not right for this record.
    
    Richard.

    
    
    	But, as I said in .24 where do you stop! Do you ban or
    	censor for example, records that glorify and incite people
    	into violent acts due to the message pervade.
    
    	Al.

    >> Rape
    >> Violence
    >> Homosexuality
    >> Politics
    
    All these are *glorified* in music? Presumably, by glorification
    of rape, we're talking about Steve Albini and Rapeman here. To my
    mind, and not having heard his music (either with Rapeman or Big
    Black), this is a dubious name for a band fronted by a person who's
    beliefs and statements seem to contradict each other freely.
    Perhaps the choice of bandname, as well as the title of Big Black's
    lp (look it up!) is a calculated pitch towards getting increased
    sales through controversy or banning. 
                                         
    Glorification of violence - yeah, I can see that. However, I don't 
    believe these kind of records should be banned, rather we should tell 
    these idiots how out of order they are by not buying them....
    
    Glorification of homosexuality - Well, the few records that are
    released (Glad to be Gay, etc.) which actually confront the issue
    of being gay head on, I would hardly call glorification, rather
    I would call them enlightening - as a non-gay, it's very difficult
    to understand what gays have to put up with daily, and records such
    as this can do a lot of good. Unless of course, you still persist
    in the belief that homosexuality is a perversion, and that by    
    definition, all gays are perverts who are only interested in making
    as many conquests as possible (it's surprising how many non gays
    still feel some sort of threat, as if every gay in the world 'wants'
    everyone - comments like 'watch yer backs, etc...). Anyway, why
    pick out gays in this context - surely a large proportion of records
    made by people of *all* sexual orientations and either sex are
    glorifying sex in general, especially recently, and particularly
    sex without love.
                                                      
    Politics - how do records *glorify* politics?? All they do is put
    across a point of view, which I suppose is glorification to an extent.
    As I see it, a record is political, whether its Billy Bragg's "There
    is Power in a Union" (overtly socialist) or The Pet Shop Boys 
    (you know the one, the words go "...lets make lots of money..."
    - overtly capitalist). Any song must be a reflection on the beliefs,
    morals, values etc of its composer, and as such has a political
    context
    
    Going on from all that, I suppose the release of *any* song could
    be said to glorify its lyrical content......
   
    However, maybe the thing that is being glorified in any song is
    nothing more than its composers ego 8^)  
    
    Bob

    
    
    	RE .27 
    
    	So it looks like you agree with me then. It should be your
    	own persoanl choice as to whether you buy or listen to
    	these types of music. 
    
    	By the way the list was just an example!
    
    	Al.

    re -.1
    
    yup, personal choice is all (and I don't mean this in a "new right"
    choice for the customer way either! 8^) ) and should be safeguarded
    at all costs.
    Banning records for "glorifying" anything is not on - having the
    maximum amount of freely available information in order to make
    up one's own mind is paramount.....
    
    "individual freedom is governed by collective action"
    
    (that's enough lefty pinko stuff - Ed.)
    
    8^)
    
    Bob

    
    
    
    	Thanks for the vote of support Bob.
    
    	Al.

    
    Lyric from We call it acieed
    <acid ,you thought it was a drug,but now you know your wrong>
    
    I am very much into acid house,It`s Great music to dance to
    you don't need drugs
    
    Acid house is a dance music that is being associated with the drug.
    
    
    My opinion,
               Kirk...

    re .-1
    
    > Lyric from We call it acieed                                  
    > <acid ,you thought it was a drug,but now you know your wrong>
     
    Still no more in the picture, I'm afraid. 
    
    Richard.

    
    
    	I'll explain the line 
    
    
    		But now you know your wrong
    
    	its the type of music see! Acid House Music.
    
    	Simple ain't it.
    
    	Al.

    
    So what is the difference between ACID and HOUSE "music" ?

    A bit circular, isn't it? 'This music is music that's not about
    drugs, and it's characterised by not being about drugs even though
    it sounds like it might be.'     
    
    Nuff said. Another bunch of tiome-wasting hypesters.
    
    Richard.

    House music originated in the big House`s of the USA ,House`s being
    warehouse`s mainly, Acid is just a spin off from house(yet another
    trend of the 80`s)

                      Kirk......
    

    I read an article about it recently, heard the chart - and am I
    glad that we've got Glen Medeiros over here :-)