I heard it on Muchmusic, Toronto's MTV. (I'm in Montreal and we have "MusiquePlus" but fuck that)
I tried some (weak) googling and found a post on a forum mentioning this being done on Radio 1 also, just wondering what possible reason there could be for this.
ApexMirage on
I'd love to be the one disappoint you when I don't fall down
Everlast's "What it's Like" has some great censorship, including, "gun ("gun fight")", "Green" (re: pot), "drugs", "Chrome-45". Also, the "god" in "god-damn" but not the "god" in "god-forbid"
Then again, if you sit back and listen to the song, you'll see that the artist is not promoting these things. Another example of censoring words regardless of the message.
For the most part, it's the record label that edits the track and decides what to leave in. It's stupid and complex, but goes something like this.
Pressure placed on record companies by broadcasters creates these "edits". Depending on the song, more then one version is released with difference censorship. It's up to the broadcaster to decide which one they will play. Radio stations (and TV broadcasters) want to play to the lowest common denominator so that the most people are listening. They also must avoid any and all complaints that would risk losing advertisers. In Canada, the CRTC is actually quite lenient on the usage of "swear" words and violent lyrics. DJs and Newscasters can also say "shit" on live broadcasts given a suitable situation. Explaining the usage of the word in a debate for instance.
The problem is not the CRTC, but the advertisers. It will cost the broadcaster much more then any fine if they lose a profitable advertiser because "Charmin" doesn't want to be associated with their content.
It comes down to pleasing the people who are providing the money to the broadcaster. Although MuchMusic's advertisers may have no problem promoting alcohol usage (Pina Coladas), it's the edit they've chosen to play due to it's censorship as a whole.
Alan Cross did an 'Ongoing History of New Music' on censorship not long ago, I'll try to find the podcast, it's really interesting stuff.
EDIT:
The Ongoing History of New Music is a radio show out of Toronto that covers a huge variety of music and music industry information. Most of them are excellent, and available on-line. They're an hour long, apparently you can only download snipits of the episodes, but all of them are streamed for listening while you're online.
The Ongoing History rocks. I listen to it all the time.
On topic: It's messed up what gets censored and what doesn't. On a classic rock radio station in Winnipeg whenever they play "Who Are You" by The Who the "Who the fuck are you" line is in it.
I always love hearing REM's "What's the Frequency, Kenneth?" on the radio/MTV because they never, ever seemed to catch on that the "F-word" is said pretty obviously.
Posts
I tried some (weak) googling and found a post on a forum mentioning this being done on Radio 1 also, just wondering what possible reason there could be for this.
Then again, if you sit back and listen to the song, you'll see that the artist is not promoting these things. Another example of censoring words regardless of the message.
For the most part, it's the record label that edits the track and decides what to leave in. It's stupid and complex, but goes something like this.
Pressure placed on record companies by broadcasters creates these "edits". Depending on the song, more then one version is released with difference censorship. It's up to the broadcaster to decide which one they will play. Radio stations (and TV broadcasters) want to play to the lowest common denominator so that the most people are listening. They also must avoid any and all complaints that would risk losing advertisers. In Canada, the CRTC is actually quite lenient on the usage of "swear" words and violent lyrics. DJs and Newscasters can also say "shit" on live broadcasts given a suitable situation. Explaining the usage of the word in a debate for instance.
The problem is not the CRTC, but the advertisers. It will cost the broadcaster much more then any fine if they lose a profitable advertiser because "Charmin" doesn't want to be associated with their content.
It comes down to pleasing the people who are providing the money to the broadcaster. Although MuchMusic's advertisers may have no problem promoting alcohol usage (Pina Coladas), it's the edit they've chosen to play due to it's censorship as a whole.
Alan Cross did an 'Ongoing History of New Music' on censorship not long ago, I'll try to find the podcast, it's really interesting stuff.
EDIT:
The Ongoing History of New Music is a radio show out of Toronto that covers a huge variety of music and music industry information. Most of them are excellent, and available on-line. They're an hour long, apparently you can only download snipits of the episodes, but all of them are streamed for listening while you're online.
I would suggest,
page 16 'Music Industry Checkup'
page 19 'What's wrong with the Music Industry'
page 20 'Why performers hate their labels'
On topic: It's messed up what gets censored and what doesn't. On a classic rock radio station in Winnipeg whenever they play "Who Are You" by The Who the "Who the fuck are you" line is in it.