Critical Investigation[Intro]

There is often a debate given as to whether or not the violence which is commonly depicted within many music videos, has a negative effect on the audience who watch them, mainly concerning those considered to be youths; ageing between 12 and 24. Whilst I personally have no firm support for either side of the argument much of the research I have discovered has given me a greater knowledge of ways in which these violent videos can have an effect on young people, but also reasons to believe that they have no effect at all and the necessity of violence, music videos sometimes possess. Which side of the arguement is deemed to be true or ‘right’ may never be found out, but exploring this area provides a large mass of knowledge,useful for anyone to know.

Obviously different members of the public will hold varying views on this topic and I have attempted to capture as many as possible. A large capacity of those who I gained my research from felt that the violent natured videos of our time have had an effect on the young people of today. One public member, aged 21, who wishes to remain anonymous stated “When you’ve got artists talking about killing this and that and these other young people look up to them, they feel that it is the way to go” Another member of similar age supported this view, suggesting that music videos containing violence should be restricted to an older audience; “if the younger kids are not watching the videos with violence it must help to cut it down” The younger generation of today seem to have an opposing view to this though. One indie artist from the grime genre aged 13 defended the use of violence within videos, saying “To be honest I think that it aint really made a difference, because everyone knows its just a music video...if you feel to do something you’re going to do it, that’s your decision its not the videos” He also shares the view which is found amongst many areas of London that are considered to be ‘hood’, this being that what’s seen in the videos is the same as what they see everyday within their community, and so its not the videos that influence their behaviour but rather the area in which they live in.

With this being a valid point, it allows us to pose the arguement that a music video does not influence someones behaviour, but rather the other way around; art imitates life, life does not imitate art. The idea that life can imitate art is often deemed ridiculous, as life is needed to create art in the first place, therefore the art can only be an imitation of either the artists life, the life of someone he knows or the imagination which he holds. This though, does not entirely scrap the view that life may be an imitation of art, as it is sometimes considered that the ways in which art may influence a persons lifestyle is the same as the persons life being an imitation of the art, but can these ideas be applied specifically to that of a music video, the video obviously being that ‘art’? In an interview, one 29 year old male, an amatuer music video director, who wished to stay anonymous, said “I grew up in a south east london estate and what i saw on the roads was the closest i ever got to a tv. I didn’t never have one until after i moved out my dads house and i was going round doing everything i see on the t.v. beforehand. Now when I help an artist with their videos, if they’ve gone through a similar struggle i’d gone through, I try to bring both our experiences into it. What you see in videos today is because of how we live, not because of how we want others to live.”

One of the many videos which have been at the centre of these types of debates has been “Born Free” by UK artist M.I.A. The red-headed boy playing the victim of anti-redhead American soldiers in U.K. rapper M.I.A.'s censored video has come to its defence. Although apparently yanked from YouTube by Vivendi's Universal Music Group, M.I.A.'s record label, ostensibly because of its violent content, the nearly 10-minute long video "Born Free" has "gone viral" on the Internet. (The boy is one of several rounded up by the soldiers apparently for the "crime" of being redheaded.) In a posting on Stereogum.com and other websites on Wednesday, Ian Hamrick, who appears to be about 10 years old in the video, wrote that M.I.A. "was cool on set and it was a great chance to tell everyone that bully's [sic] suck no matter what country you are from or who you are picking on. Jewish, Black, Asian, Indian, yes even redheads. There are countries killing their own people! Their own relatives and families! Kids that get blown up in old landmines. I am proud to be a part of M.I.A.'s shout out to the world."

It is widely assumed that music videos with violent content are most likely to be a product of the black hip hop industry, however the study of M.I.A.'s 'Born Free' video shows how this violent theme can spread further throughout the music industry. The reason behind the public mostly assuming that violent themed videos are mostly seen within the hip hop culture, and the reason why this statement may very well be true could be partially due to the need for artist to maintain a particular social status within the music industry, to their fans, and possibly to the 'streets.' Artists may purposely ignore the possibility of youths mimicing their behaviours in a video, or may be unaware or just not believe, in the chances of this happening, and so do what they can in order to maintain a particular status with their target audience or fellow artist. Within the Hip Hop and Grime industries, having what may be considered a gangster or 'hood' related background is often a boost in an artists reputation, and as they rise to fame they may be seen to leave this life behind, eventually harming their integrity. In order to gain this back, and also any fans that may have been lost in the process, an artists may resort to making a song and a video to fit how they were once viewed by the public, which is likely to incorporate the violent theme associated with a gangster or 'hood' lifestyle. A recent example of this occurance may be in the case of one Uk Grime artist 'Ghetts' (formerly known as 'Ghetto'). Ghetto served a prison sentence and started his music career after incarseration, within which he ended up in beef with another Uk Grime artist 'Bashy' who took it upon himself to accuse Ghetto of being 'Bummed in the showers' whilst serving his prison sentence. Ghetto did not take to this nicely stating he 'was a bad boy in pent, ask Carlos' obviously fearing his reputation had gone down the drain. Further into his career Ghetts was accused again of being bummed whilst in prison, this time by another Uk Grime artist, 'P. Money'. This was soon followed by two new releases from Ghetts; Trained To Kill[Ft. Dot Rotten], and Artillery. From the title it is obvious to point out the nature of each of these songs, and this is backed up by the supporting videos that soon followed them. Although Ghetts claimed that each title was a metaphor for his music and lyrical ability, the videos suggested something else, particularly that of 'Trained To Kill.' The video used to accompany the audio for this song made no attempt to make a metaphor out of the song title. Within seconds the audience is presented with a blacked out figure pointing a gun towards the camera. A shot appears to be fired and from there on we see the long and painful road to the death of the victim whilst the paramedics' attempts to save him, fail. The video has been made as realistic as possible and there is no attempts to hide the violent nature within it. This video may be viewed in two ways though, in terms of how the target audience may interpret the message put across by the artist. The first interpretation, and the one I see to make the most sense, is that this video is not a celebration, an encouragement of, or a promotion of violence, but rather that it is the complete opposite to this. Within this video the use of the gun, and the after effects of it are not glamourised in any way what so ever, but instead we are presented with the harsh realities of gun violence, and that is that it always leads to death. The use of a young male as the victim in the video may have been a way to ensure this occurs, as it allows those of the target audience to directly relate to those within the video, giving them the reality check that this same thing can occur to them. The second reading of this, and one that I struggle to believe many would agree with, is that the use of a gun by a person who we can't identify, and the fact that this person is never seen being caught or identified within the video, will give the targeted audience the idea that the use of guns is not so bad if it is done in similar conditions; night time whilst wearing blacked out clothing. This may be seen as an extremely subtle promotion of violence, if anything, when directly compared to the video made for the song 'Many Men (Wish Death)' by American rap artist 50Cent. The storyline for this video may be seen as the story behind the violence revolving around 50Cent. From the opening credits the use of violence is involved in the video, with the SFX of gunshots, and this violent nature tends to carry on throughout the music video. The way in which violence is presented to the audience is very different to how it is given in Ghetts' video 'Trained To Kill.' 50Cent's way of showing violence is both direct and indirect; sometimes we see the violence occurring and sometimes we see the before and after, and are left to assume what happens in between. The audience is also given the view of a crime scene investigation team for each shooting that occurs, with them seemingly being unable to solve the murders. As with Ghetts' video, it denotes that killers will not be caught, which is putting the wrong message across to youths. In addition to this the use of violence appears to be rewarded with glamour and money and power, in accordance to the typical Hip Hop/Rap industry views. This portrayal of money and power, in addition to the use of violence may be seen as a way of promoting a violent lifestyle to the target audience, suggesting that with use of violence, the good things will follow after. However it may be considered that the video shows these to happen in reverse order; with money and power, comes the risk of violence too. Another way in which these two videos differ is the time in which they were created, 'Many Men' in 2003, and 'Trained To Kill' in 2010. The differences in the level of violence in each video and the way in which it is used may be representative of the time in which they were created, and the views of Hip Hop/Rap/Grime at those times. It appears that over the course of the last seven years or so, the use of violence has become more limited, not by choice of artists and/or video producers, but by the public and media condemning the violent side to these genres of music. Although they may not be considered HIp Hop/Rap/Grime songs or videos in themselves, M.I.A.'s 'Born Free'[2010] video and Prodigy's 'Smack My Bitch Up'[1997] video are prime examples of how attitudes towards what should and shouldn't been shown to the public through mainstream media. Whilst 'Smack My Bitch Up' has been free to air on Tv since its release, it has been debated as to whether or not it should be allowed to be aired on tv, but has survived all attempts to ban it. M.I.A.'s 'Born Free' however has been banned from the Youtube website and mainstream television too, due to its raw nature and content. It may be assumed that had M.I.A.'s video been produced back in 1997, the year in which 'Smack My Bitch Up' was released, it would have survived any attempts to ban its showing up to this day.