Warning Labels by Record Companies

           Warning Labels became mandatory on music containing controversial or risky lyrical material in 1985. Why were they originally created? What effect did they have on the industry? Should they still be mandatory on music?  Who should be responsible for issuing these warning labels? Are the requirements for these labels effective?
            Warning Labels were originally put into effect in hopes of turning people away from certain music that was said to be improper in nature or inappropriate for certain ages. The main rubric used was the use of curse words in the lyrics of the songs. It was also to warn parents of the nature of the music their child could be listening to. It's purpose was to push "bad words" and inappropriate subject manner out of the popular, mainstream music scene. It was intended to bring a divide in the music you "should" listen to and the music that was condemned by the older generations of society. The warning labels were to turn people away, but the opposite occurred.
           When the warning labels started to be issued on records the younger generations turned this into a way to tell if music was cool or not. Instead of turning people away, it intrigued America's youth. Many saw it as a way to rebel and act out against conforming to their parents "uncool" ways. Album sales sky rocketed for those that had a warning label. This proved in a very loud way that sex sells, as does risky subject matter in songs.
          In today's scene, much of the music purchased is online. There are clean versions and "explicit" versions of almost every song. The clean versions are those that are able to be played on the radio. That explicit "warning" is always the one I personally buy and that is because I feel that that is the way the song was originally intended by the writer and for an fellow artist, that matters. I always want to hear a song the way it was originally meant to be heard and cussing doesn't bother me.
           Although the "warning" doesn't turn me away from the music, or any other people for that matter, I do think that it is important for the record companies to do. Signs like those on an album or on a song give the listener an idea of what kind of song it is or what kind of album it is. It is the record companies responsibility to represent the music in the true way on the cover or "digital booklet." It is just a way of preparing the listener for what they are going to hear.
           One thing I would change would be what calls for these labels on music. I find a lot of the time the warning labels are only issued for a word that is considered inappropriate instead of the overall message of the song. I think the radio should be a free airway and should be allowed to play songs the way they were intended but I think there should be more strict rules in what calls for a warning and what doesn't. One bad word isn't as important to be mindful of as an entire song about the glories of drug dealing or the glamor of prostituting yourself for rap stars. Many songs that are considered a "clean" version still have the same message as the "explicit" version and that is of a provocative nature. Though I don't mind listening and singing along to a song with an "inappropriate" message, I wouldn't want my 4 year old cousin listening to it and I would like to be warned of its nature before playing it with a little one around.
           In conclusion, I think that the warning labels are important and should be issued by the record companies. I also thing the what constitutes as "explicit" should be re-examined and changed based on the message not a single word in the lyrics.