No

by Smith Smith

Created on: November 23, 2008   Last Updated: January 19, 2010

There is no such thing as moral or immoral music, and this is why the answer to the topic question of this debate is definitely "No." Oscar Wilde wrote a similar statement concerning the amorality of books (1890, p. 1), and he continued to sum up succinctly the way it applies to all forms of art: "An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style." (p. 1)

The morally upright among us will be quick to point out that this was extracted from his most controversial work, one that deals explicitly with decadence and sin, and one that was later used against him in his trial at Old Bailey, but I am here to argue that this statement contains wisdom that is separate from the everlasting battle between decadence and righteousness.

My argument consists of three parts, but first I would like to point out the flaw in the question, "Should the music industry do more to improve the moral content in song lyrics?" The question implies that the music industry is some kind of evil, corrupt empire that can do whatever it wants, when it wants, but this is not the case. The music industry is like any other industry, a marketplace where the best products succeed and the failures fail. A plea to the industry whether we argue that one should be made or not would not be heard over the din of trade and the endless releases of saleable products. The "music industry", not being a tangible entity, cannot be asked to "improve itself" just as a market cannot be asked to self-regulate. Markets can be controlled by government regulation, but that leads us on a parallel debate, that old one about censorship, freedom of speech and the evils of capitalism.

To return to my thesis that true art is amoral, here are my three reasons:

My first argument is that true music contains more than the lyrical content. The meanings of the words that make up the lyrics of a song are only at its very trivial surface. It is possible for a song to have a meaning that conflicts with its lyrics, and it is possible for a meaningful song to have no lyrics at all.

There are many levels below the surface of any song. The obvious aspects that come to mind are the other two visible parts of the music, the melody and the rhythm, but I am not referring only to these. What I am referring to are the other subtle aspects of great song-writing, things that you cannot define, and that are only apparent in a great song itself. They are things like the way the words sound together, the use of language, and the sense of poetry in the way the concepts relate to the words or to the song itself.

For example, the lyrics of "Folsom Prison Blues" by Johnny Cash (*1) are decidedly evil, describing shooting a man for the fun of watching him die, but you cannot deny the poetry, and the dark beauty of the song. Alternatively, I could list a thousand meaningless, forgotten songs about arguably the most virtuous and moral subject of all, love.

To disregard the beauty and worth of a piece of music just because the language or subject matter is coarse or inappropriate, is shallow, closed-minded and immoral in itself, and is the equivalent of the tired old axiom about judging a book by its cover.

My second point for why music is amoral is a rebuttal of the common argument that music affects the behaviour of young people, and that "immoral lyrics", or obscene language can cause bad behaviours. This argument is absurd, and I will explain why.

The first part of the above statement, that music affects young people, is undeniable. Studies have shown that even in today's media-saturated world, music is as important to kids as it was to kids in the 60s, when the radio or record player was their only source of entertainment. It is true that music affects young people, but the ways in which it affects them is entirely unpredictable.

Specifically, it is incorrect to assume that obscene language about inappropriate subjects will cause bad behaviour in kids. A literary example that springs to mind immediately is Alex in Anthony Burgess' "A Clockwork Orange", preparing himself for rape and "ultra-violence" to the holy music Ludwig van Beethoven, J.S. Bach, and so on (pp. 26-27, 32). Alex observes that this music makes him want to main, murder and rape, but the reader can see that his malevolent behaviour cannot be attributed to the music he is hearing.

My final argument is to point out that what some call "immoral music" is actually "poor art". The act of criticizing art can be as noble and civilized as producing it yourself, but to ask the curator to remove a work from the gallery is uncultured and wrong. Much of contemporary music could be described as dull, monotonous, hate-filled, and bad art, but to attribute its invalidity to the bad language used or the unpleasant subject matter is to undervalue the good art.

To add to this argument, I would like to rebut one of the affirmative responses which argued that "immoral lyrics" are a modern phenomenon, and that bands of the past such as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin did not feel the need to use them. I wonder if the writer's definition of immoral lyrics excluded subjects like drug use, sex, sticking knives down people's throats (*2), and squeezing lemons until the juice runs down your leg (*3) (which has the intriguing possibility of being either violent, sexual or drug-related). Much of this music comes from the proud Blues tradition of angry, uncensored, but passionate writing, combined with the rebellion and angst of youth culture, yet the writer could still perceive that the music was primarily about love. If this is the case, maybe we are not arguing at all, and that the arguments for the affirmative are simply recognizing that not all music is fine art like that of these particular musicians.

In conclusion, good art is what it is regardless of coarse lyrics or unsavoury subject-matter; and bad art as what it is, even if the lyrics are impeccably clean and the song is about something as sacred as love. The sentimental classics of the past have disappeared with time, as those of today will too, but the music we remember is the beautiful, clever, meaningful or provocative. To young and old alike, the spectre of swearing or rudeness is only with us briefly, and it is the other aspects of the music that really influence us.

To return to Oscar Wilde:
"Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.
"Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope."

*1 (Cash, 1955)

*2 (Jagger & Richards, 1969)

*3 (Dixon & Lenoir, 1969), (Jagger & Richards, 1969)

-WORKS CITED-
Burgess, A. (1962). A Clockwork Orange. William Heineman Ltd.
Cash, J. (Composer). (1955). Folsom Prison Blues. [J. Cash, Performer] On "With His Hot and Blue Guitar.
Dixon, W., & Lenoir, J. B. (Composers). (1969). You Shook Me. [Led Zeppelin, Performer] On "Led Zeppelin.
Jagger, M., & Richards, K. (Composers). (1969). Midnight Rambler. [The Rolling Stones, Performer] On "Let It Bleed.
Jagger, M., & Richards, K. (Composers). (1969). Monkey Man. [The Rolling Stones, Performer] On "Let It Bleed".
Wilde, O. (1890). The Picture of Dorian Gray. Lippincott's Monthly Magazine.

Learn more about this author, Smith Smith.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.