iTunes thinks that http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=9741 is explicit.
Um….?
This entry was posted
on Friday, February 23rd, 2007 at 6:06 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
There have been some cases of unusual use of the label. After Frank Zappa campaigned against music censorship in 1985, a “parental advisory” sticker was attached to his next album, Jazz from Hell, because of the title of one track, “G-Spot Tornado”, although the album is entirely instrumental and contains no lyrics that could be “explicit lyrics”. The designation of instrumentals as taboo, however, is nothing new; in the 1960s, the “Rumble” instrumental by Link Wray was banned from some radio stations because it could supposedly incite “juvenile violence.”
March 10th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
link doesn’t work at the moment, but “explicit lyrics” is an RIAA thing…
For your amusement, a clip from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_advisory :
There have been some cases of unusual use of the label. After Frank Zappa campaigned against music censorship in 1985, a “parental advisory” sticker was attached to his next album, Jazz from Hell, because of the title of one track, “G-Spot Tornado”, although the album is entirely instrumental and contains no lyrics that could be “explicit lyrics”. The designation of instrumentals as taboo, however, is nothing new; in the 1960s, the “Rumble” instrumental by Link Wray was banned from some radio stations because it could supposedly incite “juvenile violence.”
March 27th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
The term explicit is frequenty distorted in a much untrue to its definition way for the subjective benefit of those who can apply them.
How about this album art that no one wants to print for the band:
http://ebm-radio.com/news.php?readmore=39