>  > No.  In this day and age, what the Beatles did back then seems so very tame
>  > in comparison.  :)

> I meant where were ou as in when in the era & where in the attutudes. . .

I was not around yet.  :)

> I considered the music mellow, mainstream, & as inoffensive as you get, but I
> guess just one or two trilling riffs is all it took to get certain parents all
> afluster!

Maybe they didn't like the later, psychedelic stuff the Beatles did but my
understanding is that they were up in arms about them long before then.

> Likely there was parental banning of innovations in classical, too, back then
> when it was new & current. . .

I cannot remember his name now, but there was a very controversial
violinist back in the day.  I forget the story now, but he supposedly had
women fainting in the aisles.  This would have been sometime before 1900
(maybe before 1800!).

> I'm fine with lookikng out for what young people are exposed to, as it can lea
> to them losing their cuildhood/youth too early. . .

A lot of it can.  I feel like today, most parents do little to keep them
from being exposed.

> The ratings thing was never helpful in limiting exposure, as everyone(includin
> children) started buying those marked R most!
>
> My theory is the industries (film & music) wanted those ratings in lace, but
> were happy to make it seem as if the censors did it!

Yes, the explicit lyrics labels.  I am certain they sold a few records.

Mike


 * SLMR 2.1a * Politically incorrect...and proud of it!!!
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux