|
Post by Sto on May 8, 2004 20:19:27 GMT
I just saw Britney Spears's new video for the first time ("Everytime") and it shows her being harrassed by the press, having an argument with her boyfriend, getting into the bath and drowning herself. Apparently it was moderately cencored, and hence the part at the end where we see her alive, well and smiling in the bath after the drowning incident, although it's pretty obvious that she's at least tried to drown herself. That led me to wonder what you guys thought about the whole role model idea where music's concered. Do you think that it's more important to create music videos for drama and as powerful viewing, or to be a good role model for children and fans? There's some concern that the drowning part of the video could cause an increase in teen suicides because if Britney does it, we all can too. Anyone got any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on May 8, 2004 21:45:00 GMT
Do you think that it's more important to create music videos for drama and as powerful viewing, or to be a good role model for children and fans? Good question Sto'. I believe that knowing your audience is vital to the success of an artist. Is art the message here? Is she bringing attention to a problem, or exploiting the emotions of her demographic? Ultimately artists have almost no culpability for the intepretations of their work. However, responsibility should intercede when the consequences could be grave. If an artist is calculating enough to let profit overshadow risk, then there shoud be a public outcry. However, I guess, she could argue that she hasn't inspired any girls to french kiss any old women ( Madonna )
|
|
|
Post by Sto on May 8, 2004 22:09:24 GMT
Where's your proof about the old women point? I agree with you though. I personally think the video's quite powerful and that it works. I can see why people object to it though: it could be interpreted as suggesting that if things go wrong, there's a way out. I'm sure it would have been banned if it had been released when the "Running Up That Hill" video was banned on MTV. But that's a good point about bringing things to the public's attention. Was that Kate's aim with the sort-of-controversial "Breathing" video I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by Xanadu on May 8, 2004 22:46:53 GMT
I'm sure it would have been banned if it had been released when the "Running Up That Hill" video was banned on MTV. RUTH was banned? Why? I can't think of any reason? Really? Good question Sto. I have some thoughts here, but I'll have to get back later. You might want to check out some of our thoughts, I think under Other Topics, Sayings of Substance? It's the one where we discussed Mel Gibson's responsibility for The Passion of Mad Max (sorry, you know what I mean). We covered something similar. By the way, nice picture Sto. It's not Kate is it? If it is, I haven't seen it, but I like it.
|
|
|
Post by Sto on May 8, 2004 22:51:28 GMT
Oh, sorry Zan, I didn't mean to repeat an earlier topic I never saw that film and the discussion there got a little too deep for me so I didn't try to join in! Yes the pic is of Kate - look at those eyes, you can tell it's her! I think she looks great, kind of Egyptian Queen-esque! Although you can't see that because the pic space is too small And I believe the "RUTH" video was banned olluding to too many raunchy things (a man and a woman mustn't have been within three feet of each other in 1985, you see) and they played the Terry Wogan live version instead I think. All that despite Madonna's videos being aired and not banned at the same time! I reckon someone at the MTV censoring department didn't like Kate much...
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on May 8, 2004 23:01:00 GMT
Hopefully you will not shy away from any of our 'deep discussions Sto'. We ( well I, since speaking for others got me in hot water. ) value your opinion and intellect. Also, your point is not exactly repetitive, since we were talking historical perspectives not necessarilly direct impact in life or death terms. However, that arguement could have been made. Besides, we are bound to cover topics here more than once when they become relevant.
|
|
|
Post by Xanadu on May 8, 2004 23:04:29 GMT
Oh, sorry Zan, I didn't mean to repeat an earlier topic I never saw that film and the discussion there got a little too deep for me so I didn't try to join in! No, I'm sorry, I didn't want to correct you by any means! And please, some of us may go overboard with the discussion, but never feel like you wouldn't have something valuable to add! This is a good thought and pertains to pop music. We just scratched the surface there in terms of history, politics and religion. Role models are different, but I think we made some good points. Yes the pic is of Kate - look at those eyes, you can tell it's her! I think she looks great, kind of Egyptian Queen-esque! Although you can't see that because the pic space is too small I had just never seen it before, but you're right, very regal! And I believe the "RUTH" video was banned olluding to too many raunchy things (a man and a woman mustn't have been within three feet of each other in 1985, you see) and they played the Terry Wogan live version instead I think. All that despite Madonna's videos being aired and not banned at the same time! I reckon someone at the MTV censoring department didn't like Kate much... Are you serious? Raunchy?! Well, I have some knowlegde and information about early film censorship, and that's pretty amazing too! You'd be surprised at what was censored in Hollywood in the late 30's.
|
|
|
Post by Xanadu on May 8, 2004 23:12:54 GMT
We ( well I, since speaking for others got me in hot water. ) Al.... for the above... ;D Anyway, I agree with Al like I said, only a moment later. (and if you can't tell what the little green man is doing... it's raspberries to you. ;D)
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on May 8, 2004 23:14:35 GMT
RUTH was banned? Why? I can't think of any reason? Really? For being 'uppity' I guess. Of course, shaking her butt would have kept her in her place, right?
|
|
|
Post by Al Truest on May 8, 2004 23:17:15 GMT
Al.... for the above... ;D Anyway, I agree with Al like I said, only a moment later. (and if you can't tell what the little green man is doing... it's raspberries to you. ;D) ;D I'm glad you can read me. Just like a radio...
|
|
|
Post by brillo69 on May 8, 2004 23:22:15 GMT
RUTH was banned? Why? I can't think of any reason? Really? MTV thought the video was 'Too Erotic'. But you already knew that
|
|
|
Post by Sto on May 9, 2004 19:19:41 GMT
Hopefully you will not shy away from any of our 'deep discussions Sto'. We ( well I, since speaking for others got me in hot water. ) value your opinion and intellect. Thanks Al' and Zan! As always, I'll have more time to get involved in the discussions after exams
|
|
|
Post by ~ Rocket's Tail ~ on May 11, 2004 20:47:36 GMT
The title of this thread reminded me about one of my own songs which I haven't looked at in quite a while - "Drowning Ruth." It's actually a similar concept as that video, in which a girl contemplates drowning herself and eventually convinces her best friend to do it for her. Very cheery indeed It's much less along the "I'm so stressed even though I actually don't do any work and just want to pretend that I'm stressed to breaknig point in my music videos" route though
|
|
Sven Golly
Moving
"In the night you hide from the madman you're longing to be"
Posts: 800
|
Post by Sven Golly on May 12, 2004 3:01:13 GMT
She's a hack - prostituting herself to keep her dream of being the new Madonna alive.
|
|
|
Post by Sto on May 12, 2004 20:25:03 GMT
The title of this thread reminded me about one of my own songs which I haven't looked at in quite a while - "Drowning Ruth." It's actually a similar concept as that video, in which a girl contemplates drowning herself and eventually convinces her best friend to do it for her. Very cheery indeed I actually think I was subconsciously influenced in titling this thread by your song Dan, 'cos I checked your site out again a few days ago!
|
|