Parental advisory stickers
Identification Warnings of potentially
objectionable content, affixed to recorded
music
In response to pressure from the Parents’ Music Resource
Center and Congress, the Recording Industr y Association of
America agreed to label recorded materials that contained ex-
cessive violence, strong language, or sexually explicit lyrics.
In 1984, Tipper Gore, the wife of Senator Al Gore of
Tennessee, purchased Prince’sPurple Rainsound
track for the couple’s daughter Karenna. Upon lis-
tening to the sexually explicit lyrics to “Darling
Nikki,” which included references to masturbation,
Tipper Gore decided that parents should be pro-
vided with tools that would help them in making in-
formed decisions about the music they purchased
for their children.
Gore enlisted the help of Susan Baker (wife of
Treasury Secretary James Baker), Pam Hower (wife
of Washington Realtor Raymond Hower), and Sally
Nevius (wife of Washington City Council Chairman
John Nevius). Together, the four women founded
the Parents’ Music Resource Center (PMRC) in May
of 1985. They also became known as the Washington
Wives. Feeling that lyrics that promoted drug abuse,
sexual promiscuity, and violence were contributing
factors in the increase in violence and drug addic-
tion that was facing the United States, the PMRC
sought to work with the recording industry to create
and implement a rating system for music similar to
that adopted by the Motion Picture Association of
America (MPAA) for feature films. The PMRC
wanted any album that contained offensive lyrics or
graphic cover art to be labeled as such with a paren-
tal advisory warning sticker, so parents would have
the tools necessary to make educated choices as to
what their children listened to and purchased.
The PMRC tried working with the Recording In-
dustry Association of America (RIAA) to establish a
voluntary rating system to use for the parental advi-
sory stickers, but at first it received little coopera-
tion. The Washington Wives published a manifesto
inThe Washington Postlisting their demands. In addi-
tion to demanding a rating system, the manifesto
stated that warnings and song lyrics should be
printed directly on album covers, albums with sug-
gestive covers should kept under counters, televi-
sion and cable broadcasters should stop airing sexu-
ally explicit or violent music videos, the contracts of
artists who were found to be “offensive” should be re-
viewed by their record labels, and an independent
panel should be created to enact and enforce all
these requirements.
The Senate Hearing On September 19, 1985, the
PMRC and representatives of the music industry tes-
tified in front of the Senate Committee on Com-
merce, Science, and Transportation about the po-
tential benefits and dangers a rating system could
have on society and music. Paula Hawkins, Tipper
Gore, Senator Al Gore, Susan Baker, Millie Water-
man (vice president for legislative activities of the
National Parent Teacher Association), Professor Joe
Stuessy of the University of Texas at San Antonio,
and child and adolescent psychiatrist Paul King
urged the committee to take seriously the dangers
they believed to be posed by modern rock music, es-
pecially rap and heavy metal. They cited explicit cov-
ers and lyrics and expanded on the effects that music
referring to violence, drug usage, and sex had upon
children and society, arguing that the increased oc-
currence and acceptance of these themes was linked
with rises in actual violence.
Among those arguing against the PMRC were
avant-garde musician Frank Zappa, folk musician
John Denver, and heavy metal front man Dee Snider
of Twisted Sister. They asserted that the goal of
the PMRC was censorship, which they maintained
should not be tolerated in the United States or any
other country. They questioned the causal nature of
the link the PMRC asserted between children hearing
descriptions of violence and then acting violently.
Further, they connected the goals of the PMRC to the
passage of other bills, including H.R. 2911, a pro-
posed tax on blank audiocassettes. They also pointed
out a conflict of interest, as many of the PMRC’s hus-
bands were involved in the committee overseeing the
hearing. Finally, the opposition insisted that the pro-
posed federally mandated parental advisory stickers
would infringe upon the civil liberties of Americans
who were not minors. They also claimed that any type
of censorship or rating system would ultimately have
the opposite effect of its intended purpose; warning
stickers would increase children’s desire to hear or
view the forbidden material.
Outcome On November 1, 1985, before the Senate
hearings were completed, the RIAA agreed to place
voluntary stickers on albums it deemed indecent, or748 Parental advisory stickers The Eighties in America