Record Industry Gearing Up for a War of Words : Regulation: Amid cries for album warnings, executives are converging on L.A. for their annual meeting. The conference will offer a chance to forge a unified language policy.

An embattled record industry is circling its wagons to fight a multifront war over an issue that has parents’ groups and state legislatures up in arms, record retailers worried about stiff legal penalties and recording artists protesting assaults on their freedom of expression.

As the industry prepares to open one of its biggest annual meetings this weekend in Los Angeles, insiders acknowledge that increasing calls for some kind of regulation of the language of popular music has become one of the foremost issues facing performers, record distributors and store operators today.

Bills that would require record albums to carry some kind of stickers warning of explicit content are before legislatures in six states, with at least 15 others considering similar measures. Some bills would even require labeling of records that deal with topics such as adultery, murder, satanism or bestiality.

Some states’ bills propose fines and jail sentences for retailers who sell the questionable recordings without stickers or sell stickered material to minors.

On Saturday, 2,500 industry officials will descend on the Century Plaza Hotel for the four-day National Assn. of Recording Merchandisers convention. Some expect the meeting to provide an opportunity for the industry to forge a unified policy on the language issue, but others fear that this public meeting will show that the various elements of the record business are far from united.

“I wouldn’t say it’s approaching panic, but definitely a real grave concern,” said John Mitchell, legislative counsel for the association of record store owners. “Right now we’re seeing a diversity of viewpoints. We haven’t reached the point where the views would be debated and a consensus reached.”

The prevailing opinion throughout the record industry is that the current bills are unconstitutional, both due to broad wording and the historical unwillingness of the Supreme Court to set obscenity standards to artistic material.

But the debate over the language issue intensified this week as industry leaders quietly discussed possible strategies. Most controversial was talk of an industry-applied album ratings system similar to the G, PG, PG-13, R and X system that movie companies adopted years ago.

Word spread earlier in the week through recording-industry circles that officials of the huge West German-owned BMG distribution group were considering a ratings-system plan along with some other proposals. The company owns RCA Records and distributes several other labels.

But quick negative response to the firm’s apparent trial balloon brought a retreat from the notion. BMG president Pete Jones issued a broadly worded statement “against all forms of governmental censorship” but in support of “each record company unilaterally labeling product which in its determination it considers appropriate for labeling” and “the creation of uniform label language and placement” throughout the industry.

“People in the industry are afraid,” said Trish Heimers, Recording Industry Assn. of America vice president of public relations and a scheduled participant at a convention panel on Monday that is likely to be one of the meeting’s hottest sessions: “To Sticker . . . or Not to Sticker: The Censorship Issue.”

Heimers said that the situation has led to many “rash opinions” being proposed, but acknowledged industry discussion of a standardized voluntary labeling system. “I’m not saying there is a standardized system in the works, just talk about it.”

Whatever the industry comes up with at this week’s convention, it is not likely to appease the legislators. Arizona State Sen. Janice Drinkwine Brewer, who is sponsoring a strict stickering bill in her state, said she would not be willing to settle for the industry offering much less than a movie-style system. (The bill on Monday passed its first committee vote 8-1, despite testimony from singer Donny Osmond, who expressed concern about the government usurping parental responsibility and cautioned that a warning sticker could become a coveted selling tool for some acts.)

The voluntary plan is not enough, Brewer said, noting that the industry already voluntarily stickers releases.

“I’m glad they’re taking it seriously and would be glad to work with them in any way so we can address the issues,” Brewer said. “But I have no intent of putting my bill on hold.”

But the executive director of the Parents Music Resource Center says even the voluntary system that already exists would be enough--if all record companies abided by it uniformly.

“We don’t support any other system,” said Jennifer Norwood. “We’re opposed to mandatory labeling, anyone else stepping in and telling the industry what they can and can’t release. We, on the other hand, are an organization that hears from parents all over the country and hears a lot of dissatisfaction.”

Henry Droz, president of Time-Warner Inc.’s industry-leading Warner/Elektra/Atlantic (WEA), refused requests for a phone interview. A WEA spokesman referred all inquiries on the labeling issue to the recording industry association.

Russ Bach, president of the British-owned CEMA distribution group (Capitol Records and others) was willing to talk, stating his support of voluntary labeling, but offering no specific plan.

“I came out last summer in favor of labeling and a responsible look at the content of lyrics by the record companies,” Bach said. “I have not changed my mind and I support our customers (record retail outlets) on the need for uniform labeling.”

Why the sharp reaction against a movie-style ratings system?

“We’re dealing with 25,000 releases a year here as opposed to just 300 movies,” said Mike Greene, president of the National Academy of Recording Arts & Sciences, and another scheduled participant on Monday’s convention panel. “What we would see for this, unless there was a huge manpower budget, is a cookie cutter system.”

Greene and others also pointed out that rating movies, in which visual content and language use are easy to identify, is a different matter from songs, in which interpretation of content can be subjective.

Although most label executives and artists are not enthusiastic about a ratings system, many retailers are. They tend to view a ratings system as protection against potential prosecution.

The distributors are caught in the middle.

“What it basically comes down to is for a certain group, for NARM and the RIAA, a mercantile question,” said Greene. “But for the creative community it comes down to an artistic decision.”

But even some artists have found themselves on the fence about the issue. Paul McCartney, commenting backstage at last month’s Grammy awards show, said that though he opposes any kind of censorship, as a parent he understands the motivation behind the legislation.

Russ Solomon, president of the Tower Records chain, with 54 stores in the United States, said that he believes most retailers “don’t mind voluntary labeling” and are willing and able to make their own determinations of what is or is not appropriate to sell and to whom, as they already do with such magazines as Penthouse and Playboy, which are sold in some of his stores.

But, he added: “The last thing we want is some sheriff to come in and arrest a clerk. We went through that in the old days when we sold marijuana paraphernalia.”