Green Day may have one of the most popular CD’s in the country (21st Century Breakdown) but you wouldn’t know it if you walked through the music section of Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart was unhappy that Green Day would not censor some of their music for Wal-Mart stores. Never mind the fact most stores now publish warnings in the event some of the content may contain adult language.
It is up to the musicians or label to decide whether they want more than one version out there for distribution. Typically this process is reserved for radio tracks.
In any case, the Godfather supports Green Day’s decision to not modify their album. I do think Wal-Mart certainly made a decision that is within their right, but I also think it is a mistake.
My concern is where will it end? Blockbuster has already chosen to not carry some movies (no, I am not talking about adult films either). If Wal-Mart and other stores continue to censor what we can purchase we could find it a lot more difficult to “receive” free speech.
I agree with your position entirely but would like to add just one more thought. First of all let me say that I like Gren Day. They’ve had staying power in the business for a reason. They put good music into the marketplace. However, in these cases some of the responsibility lies with the artists themselves and not just Wal-Mart. Remember, there’s really only seven words that you can’t say on over the air TV and radio. (at least according to George Carlin)
A few years ago I did a home inspection for a young man in the group Gotti13. I don’t think they ever made it real big here in the U.S. – One of their attempts at stardom songs was called “I F***ED Your Girlfriend” (only not censored). My advice to him then is still what I believe today….
There’s a whole bunch of ways to say “I F***ED Your Girlfriend without saying I F***ED Your Girlfriend”. That’s where the creativity and the message of the artist can shine through. No one really wants to be hit over the head with a sledge hammer anyway
I understand your sentiment here. But, IMHO, you are off by just a bit. You are applying a technical term “censorship” to a situation that is not censorship at all. Censorship would be to tell the group that they cannot produce this material or after being produced, they cannot make it available for public consumption. The fact that Wal-Mart chooses not to sell their material is NOT censorship.
Using your logic, theoretically, if you distill it down, you would also have to consider it censorship if I was offended and chose not to buy it. Nothing is more absurd than that.
We still live, for the moment, in a free market society. We vote with our dollars in that marketplace. Wal-Mart has dollars and chooses not to vote for this particular thing. That is not censorship, just the free market (for the moment) doing what the free market is designed to do.
Thanks Warren, I understand your point (and use of the word “censorship”). The semantics really come down to the degree of exposure.
As I mentioned in my post, I think Wal-Mart is certainly well within their rights. It is a business decision. No issues there.
Thanks for the comment!