add Historically, creative arts have been an object of control, manipulation and censorship. Why a work of art should be controlled, let alone censored, was, is and will be an issue of extensive discussions. Once one gets to understand how arts – creative arts in particular – influence how people think and act, however, little wonder is left. Yet, for all definitions and justifications, censorship remains an issue of constant debate. This paper examines examples on and provides an analysis for censorship as an act of “moral” correctness on part of Censor and as an act of political resistance on part of Creator.
The Ed Sullivan Show used to be a very popular American variety show from 1948 to 1971. Given Sullivan’s popularity, censorship acts by producers are clear illustrations of moral correctness where a Censor controls show content based on claims of public decency. That is, presenting Ed Sullivan Show to public viewers as a “family show” – notwithstanding introduction of rebellious rock and roll rising pop stars for profit reasons – is a clear example of big producers’ (and Establishment’s) control of what should and should not be viewed and/or heard in public.
On a Creator’s side, one can imagine all sort of responses from open denial of censorship (which is author’s adopted stance) as Bob Dylan did, passing through mild resistance (again accepted by author as a flexible strategy to counter Censor’s control) as rising, Los Angeles-based band The Doors did, or clear compromise as in The Rolling’ Stones’ acceptance to remove “night” from “Let’s Spend The Night Together”. We fought for the song [“Talkin John Birch Society Blues"] .
I said I couldnt understand why they [John Birch Society] were being given such protection. But the network [CBS, where Ed Sullivan Show is aired] turned us down. They told us they understood and sympathized . but insisted they had
...Download file to see next pages Read More