Juan Arturo Brennan: Apology for censorship

AND

n 1975, Paul Simon's song, originally titled "50 Ways to Lose Your Lover," became famous. It was announced and disseminated here chastely and cross-signally as " 50 Ways to Lose Your Love." How awful that " lover " sounds! A decade later, in 1985, a song by the Spanish group Hombres G received enormous radio airplay in these parts, the chorus of which goes: "Suffer, asshole / Give me back my girl / Or you'll writhe / Between itchy powders ." It had to be disseminated because it sold a lot, but... it was certainly contrary to morality and good customs, and it was broadcast massively with the word "asshole" modestly removed by electronic means. What's more, if we're going to get down to it, this song clearly invites vengeful violence. These are just a couple of examples; there are thousands.

I bring them up because in recent months a cacophony (not a debate) has erupted regarding the content and intention of the lyrics of certain songs from popular genres like the narcocorrido and the corrido tumbado, as well as the characters who perpetrate them and the way they are presented. Ninety percent of what has been said is utter nonsense, and the commentators and pseudo-critics continue their incessant verbosity, flailing around like headless chickens. And alongside all this empty rhetoric, there have been cancellations of gigs, court summonses, fines, media and state harassment, kidnappings, and murders of musicians and singers involved in these genres, among other things. And what's the key phrase in all this rhetorical garbage? "Apology for violence ," which serves equally well for sweeping the floor or cleaning the floor.

Beyond the sometimes execrable content of many songs in these genres, those who tear their clothes and demand justice with unhinged cries should understand (if they could) that ever since humanity learned to sing, its songs have always reflected the Zeitgeist, the spirit of its time. And since our time and place is one of absolute and unstoppable violence, the songs must necessarily reflect it; attempting to silence these sung visions of contemporary reality is not only absurd but also dangerous, because it opens the door to possible official and pro-government control of artistic content.

It's now become fashionable to hold songwriting contests for songs that highlight patriotic, moral, civic, and human values , and any number of similar nonsense. What's the point? Is it creating soft, good-natured rock? Is it composing easy jazz? Is it singing family- friendly Alvarado coplas? Is it neutering the tango to strip it of its sensuality, and the danzón of its playfulness? From there to trying to supervise and control the social and political affirmations of all kinds of music is only a short step. And it seems we're very close to taking it. It doesn't take long for one of our brilliant legislators, experts in the current situation, obfuscation, and smokescreens, and not particularly well-versed in music and culture, to propose the creation and implementation of the CCCCCCCCCCC (Joint Citizens' Chamber Coordinating Commission for the Qualification and Certification of the Correction of Songs and Corridos), which will report, of course, to the Ministry of the Interior. And will only narcocorridos and corridos tumbados be supervised? And what about reggaeton, for example? There is no genre that promotes and apologises for sexist and machista violence, classist revenge, misogyny, and aspirational ideology more than reggaeton. For these and other reasons, I abhor reggaeton, and I detest reggaeton players, their texts filled with "mami, mami, culo, culo, puta, puta ," their repellent videos, and their petulant antisocial behavior. But I will be the first to speak out against any attempt to silence or repress the perpetrators of reggaeton or any other genre, no matter how despicable it may seem to me. The moment we passively accept the first act of suppression against any artistic expression, we will be on the brink of the abyss. It's clear that behind all these diatribes about condoning violence lies a latent condoning of censorship. How dangerous!