There are very few guarantees in life however when people pull together as a community and set out to achieve common goals they can indeed change the world. Music can often be part of the catalyst for change with anthems developing a sense of belonging and helping to reiterate messages of solidarity, and narratives telling stories and educating people about events that have taken place. But the reception and use of these messages are dependent on exposure to them.
Music concerts are one forum in which music and community combine to create an environment and atmosphere where shared identity and purpose become paramount. The most famous of these was Woodstock held in the United States in 1969. This year has seen ongoing celebrations commemorating this festival. Forty years later it seems timely to ask what the ripple effect has been with some suggesting that little in the world has in fact changed for the better.
As a general observation it seems that society has long forgotten the messages of 1969. Artists and music that speak out about injustice, war, poverty, sexism and many other forms of political speech have drifted away from the forefront of our culture into the underground with the majority of the populous having little opportunity to access them. So was that sense of community merely a moment in time in which people felt the need to pull together?
The answer is No. In pockets of the world there remain people dedicated to the causes that were important at that time. While I have not had the pleasure of spending a lot of time in San Francisco, my understanding is that this is one place in which the values of Woodstock remain. I am very fortunate to reside in the Northern Rives region of NSW, Australia, where a similar perspective is taken
One local town, Nimbin, is in fact a sister city to Woodstock. Here, as in many other parts of the region, you will commonly find VW Combies (or the modern equivalent, the Subaru) with bumper stickers such as: “Think Globally, Act Locally”, “Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty” and “Magic Happens”.
I was reading in my local community newspaper (The Northern Rivers Echo) yesterday that a photo documentary on the alternative culture of the Northern Rivers, commonly referred to as the Rainbow Region, is being sent to the United States as part of the celebrations for the 40th anniversary of Woodstock. This cultural exchange is taking place to help illustrate the ripple effect of the festival in other parts of the world.
Complete with rainbow flags, colourful clothes and long hair, there is a spirit here that never dies. The community care for the environment, are passionate about art, speak out against injustice, look out for each other and mobilise at a moments notice when there is action to be taken. There are many vegans, vegetarians and a diverse range of religions and cultural practices. Some people live in Multiple Occupancies (Communes) where the sense of community is even stronger. Many of the services offered here are done by community groups who seek out opportunities for grants to provide them for the towns.
There is art everywhere with the local markets teeming with hand made creations and a sea of local musicians that often busk to support themselves. My local market, The Channon Market, is one such example - when you go in the gates, if you are lucky you will be given a free buskers token to place in the case of your favourite performer who can then exchange that for money from the market committee. If you haven’t eaten Jan’s Lemon Myrtle ice cream (not turtle), then you haven’t lived.*
There are number of small villages scattered around. My town has 400 beautiful people. I once thought to myself that the people that live here do so because they don’t fit in anywhere else. Here it is a collection of ‘others’ in the most magnificent sense. We are unique individuals where non conformity with the mainstream takes pride of place.
There are rolling green hills, sub tropical rainforest (albeit not as much old growth as we would have liked to keep), waterfalls, and pristine beaches. I have two waterfalls near my house – Whian Whian falls where we like to swim in summer (tragedy of the commons when the tourist bus visits though) and Protestors Falls, the site of a massive environmental protest. There are rock formations that tell the ancient history of the Bunjalung people, the local indigenous community, with Nimbin Rocks and Mount Warning (the names given by white settlers) just two examples of the land that they hold in their hearts. A postcard tells a million stories.
I climbed Mount Warning once. It is the highest most easterly point in Australia – the very first place in the country to see sunrise. From there you can see all around with breath taking views of the coastline (including Byron Bay, one of the most famous beaches where you can watch whales at the lighthouse but only at the right time of the year) and the hills that stretch almost all the way to the horizon. I was pretty unfit at the time and I struggled to get up to the top – the last part consists of a chain where you must pull yourself up with all your strength. Ironically enough though walking down, whilst significantly easier, still had some impact with sore knees and wobbly legs (combining with my natural lack of coordination) making the journey difficult at times.
In recent years I have thought a lot about leaving. It has proven to be one of the most difficult decisions I have never been allowed to make. While I don’t consider myself to be of the status of ‘community icon’ (we have a lot of those) it takes at least ten years to be considered a ‘local’ (I grew up in Melbourne and sea changers don’t count for a long time) – if I leave I may never get back in.
But it has been achingly obvious to me for some time that while I share many things with the magnificent people that live here, there are some things that are very important to me that I cannot share. Some of the freest thinkers, some of the smartest most connected people live here but for the things that I think about there are largely only analogies and there are little opportunities for conversations on a detailed or conceptual level. For a person that speaks in symbolism, living literally at a dead end proves to be a visionary challenge. The knowledge here is on wheels. Not motorcycles as such but the local library is in a ‘bus’ that travels around to the local public schools and towns. Although I have a network here, academics in my field don’t seem to stay long. The isolation is physical as well as mental.
In the past I have referred to Lismore, the largest town in the area, as a gold fish bowl – it is in the bottom of a volcanic crater. It is safe and secure but at times very limiting. Once I sent someone a groovy card with a picture of a goldfish with snorkel and goggles on it and its head stuck out of the bowl. A family friend showed it to me when I was in Los Angeles (on my way to Northern California) and I said: “ohhh.... that’s me.” (I wrote on the left of it). I was out of the bowl for that briefest moment in time and it reflects the way I like to think.
I actually love living here just as much as I get frustrated by it. It is the tyranny of the tangible.
A common phrase around here, part of the eco tourism scene, is leave nothing but foot prints and take nothing but pictures. Making the great leap forward for me however would mean taking everything this region has given me and propagating it for the future. Perhaps life is not too short to do somethings twice and if I go it will be with the will to return for my restful years when relaxing is much more of a priority.
As we here in the Northern Rivers reflect on the ripple effect of Woodstock we can only think of how to make it happen again in the size of a Tsunami for if the world were more like the people and the environment around here it would be a much better place. I hope to be at the Centre of Everything to make sure that happens. But the weather remains to be seen.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
IASPM ANZ
The Australia/New Zealand branch of the International Association for the Study of Popular Music is holding its annual conference in November in Auckland. The title this year is WHAT'S IT WORTH? with the theme of ‘Value’ and Popular Music. It will be held from 27-29 November 2009 in the Fale Pasifika Complex, Faculty of Arts at the University of Auckland, New Zealand. The organisers state:
The theme of this year's conference seeks to generate discussion and debate around the ‘value’ we ascribe to popular music(s). ‘Value’ relates to music as commodity and economic project, but social, cultural and aesthetic perspectives profoundly inform any measures or contentions of ‘value’. This theme is particularly timely given recent technological developments that are radically re-shaping the ways in which music is produced, distributed and consumed.
I will be attending and would recommend anyone else interested in this field to go as well. Papers will cover a whole range of topics including new technologies, copyright law, music in every day life including communities, subculture and politics as well as artistic and aesthetic value, authenticity, performance and many other areas.
You can find out more information about the conference here and here.
The theme of this year's conference seeks to generate discussion and debate around the ‘value’ we ascribe to popular music(s). ‘Value’ relates to music as commodity and economic project, but social, cultural and aesthetic perspectives profoundly inform any measures or contentions of ‘value’. This theme is particularly timely given recent technological developments that are radically re-shaping the ways in which music is produced, distributed and consumed.
I will be attending and would recommend anyone else interested in this field to go as well. Papers will cover a whole range of topics including new technologies, copyright law, music in every day life including communities, subculture and politics as well as artistic and aesthetic value, authenticity, performance and many other areas.
You can find out more information about the conference here and here.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Chinese Ministry of Cultural Censorship.
I was reading with despondency today an article by Digital Music News which states that the Chinese government is going to require that all music hosted off shore but accessible from within China be approved by the Chinese Ministry of Culture before beign digitally distributed.
According to MacWorld (quoting the Wall Street Journal): "Online music providers will have to submit to the Ministry of Culture the lyrics of each foreign song, translated into Chinese, along with evidence proving they have permission from the copyright owners to sell and distribute the songs..."
This does not reconcile well with USA calls for strong piracy controls from within the country and indeed smells a lot like using piracy as an opportunity to further control the messages conveyed to the people.
Whilst one cannot second guess what criteria will be applied in determining the suitability of songs, it may be questioned that such a scheme could be used to prevent the reception of songs with overt political characteristics. Other songs may nonetheless be used in a political way but songs with clear political sentiments may be directly at risk.
In August last year, the Art of Peace Foundation released an album titled Songs of Tibet with its release coinciding with the Beijing Olympic Games. The Chinese government responded by blocking access to iTunes for a short period of time.
Similarly, it was reported in March 2008 that following a Bjork concert in which she made a direct link between her song ‘Declare Independence’ and the struggle for freedom in Tibet, Chinese officials suggested that in the future all foreign artists would be screened prior to gaining entry to the country.
This essentially opens the door to the further regulation of free speech in China. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression, whilst not exactly the same, are arguably so closely related as to come within the ambit of the same fundamental human right. Expression concerns not that which is simply spoken but that which is expressed in other ways – in this case music – but in other examples recognised by western legal systems, expression has been seen to encompass a wide range of communicative activities including those taking a physical form.
In Levy v Victoria [1997] HCA 31 Brennan CJ stated (at page 5):
Speech is the chief vehicle by which ideas about government and political are communicated. Hence it is natural to regard the freedom of communication about government and political implied in the constitution as a freedom of speech. But actions as well as words can communicate ideas. In the United States where “freedom of speech” is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, non-verbal activity which expresses ideas may be protected as a form of speech. Thus a “protest by silent and reproachful presence” or by a burning of the flag of the United States have been held to be protected by the First Amendment....
The freedom of discussion implied in the Constitution of the Commonwealth, unlike the subject of protection under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, does not require consideration of the connotation of “speech” or of the conduct which might be thought to constitute a form of speech. The implication denies legislative or executive power to restrict the freedom of communication about the government or politics of the Commonwealth, whatever be the form of communication, unless the restriction is imposed to fulfil a legitimate purpose and the restriction is appropriate and adapted to the fulfilment of that purpose. In principle, therefore, non-verbal conduct which is capable of communicating an idea about the government or politics of the Commonwealth and which is intended to do so may be immune from legislative or executive restriction so far as that immunity is needed to preserve the system of representative and responsible government that the Constitution prescribes.
Music with overt political characteristics is clearly a form of speech or expression that comes within the globally recognised standard of human rights and yet in this case the Chinese government appear to be restricting the opportunities for its reception by attempting to control what comes into the country. Music of this nature has the ability to empower, educate and mobilise citizens often to address injustices and to create awareness of the potential for, and prevent, future disasters. However, here the Chinese government is seeking to restrict access to music, under the guise of piracy prevention, for its own political purposes which include restricting the access of its citizens to information about current events.
As I wrote in the paper I presented to the International Association for the Study of Popular Music in Liverpool earlier this year, ‘moral progress is a part of social progress and refers to changing attitudes to concepts such as freedom, equality, justice and truth. Social and moral progress depend heavily on knowledge and are affected (and effected) by the production and reception of information.’ (Bierstedt, 282). If China censors music by limiting the messages that citizens can receive, there will inevitably be a restriction to social progress and perhaps even retrogression.
Further Reading
Digital Music News, Instead of Anti-Piracy, China Offers Music Censorship... (9 September 2009) <http://digitalmusicnews.com/stories/090809china> at 10 September 2009
MacWorldUK, China tightens rules for online music providers (7 September 2009) <http://www.macworld.co.uk/digitallifestyle/news/index.cfm?newsid=27099> at 10 September 2009
The Register, iTunes, and Sting, banned from China (22 August 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/22/itunes_blocked_china_tibet/> at 28 August 2008
The Register, China pardons iTunes (but not Sting) (26 August 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/26/china_pardons_itunes/> at 28 August 2008
TechDirt, China Realizes It Doesn't Need To Block All Of iTunes (26 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080825/2219562089.shtml> at 28 August 2008
Digital Music News, iTunes Reinstated In China... Tibet Album Now Included (27 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082608ituneschina> at 28 August 2008
TechDirt, China Blocks iTunes After Olympic Athletes Download Pro-Tibetan Music (21 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080821/0312442052.shtml> at 25 August 2008
guardian.co.uk, China blocks iTunes music store (21 August 2008) <http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/aug/21/china.blocks.itunes> at 25 August 2008
Digital Music News, Will the Ban Boost Sales? Tibet Album Pushes Past 10,000 (22 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082108tibet> at 25 August 2008
Digital Music News, Great Firewall Growls: China Blocks iTunes Access (21 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082008itunes> at 22 August 2008
The Age, iTunes blocked in China after protest stunt (21 August 2008) <http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/itunes-blocked-in-china-after-protest-stunt/2008/08/20/1219262358153.html> at 22 August 2008
OpenContentAustralia, Bjork in China (11 March 2008) http://ocarr.blogspot.com/2008/03/bjork-in-china.html> at 10 September 2009
Bierstedt, Robert. 1974. Power and Progress McGraw Hill, New York
According to MacWorld (quoting the Wall Street Journal): "Online music providers will have to submit to the Ministry of Culture the lyrics of each foreign song, translated into Chinese, along with evidence proving they have permission from the copyright owners to sell and distribute the songs..."
This does not reconcile well with USA calls for strong piracy controls from within the country and indeed smells a lot like using piracy as an opportunity to further control the messages conveyed to the people.
Whilst one cannot second guess what criteria will be applied in determining the suitability of songs, it may be questioned that such a scheme could be used to prevent the reception of songs with overt political characteristics. Other songs may nonetheless be used in a political way but songs with clear political sentiments may be directly at risk.
In August last year, the Art of Peace Foundation released an album titled Songs of Tibet with its release coinciding with the Beijing Olympic Games. The Chinese government responded by blocking access to iTunes for a short period of time.
Similarly, it was reported in March 2008 that following a Bjork concert in which she made a direct link between her song ‘Declare Independence’ and the struggle for freedom in Tibet, Chinese officials suggested that in the future all foreign artists would be screened prior to gaining entry to the country.
This essentially opens the door to the further regulation of free speech in China. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression, whilst not exactly the same, are arguably so closely related as to come within the ambit of the same fundamental human right. Expression concerns not that which is simply spoken but that which is expressed in other ways – in this case music – but in other examples recognised by western legal systems, expression has been seen to encompass a wide range of communicative activities including those taking a physical form.
In Levy v Victoria [1997] HCA 31 Brennan CJ stated (at page 5):
Speech is the chief vehicle by which ideas about government and political are communicated. Hence it is natural to regard the freedom of communication about government and political implied in the constitution as a freedom of speech. But actions as well as words can communicate ideas. In the United States where “freedom of speech” is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, non-verbal activity which expresses ideas may be protected as a form of speech. Thus a “protest by silent and reproachful presence” or by a burning of the flag of the United States have been held to be protected by the First Amendment....
The freedom of discussion implied in the Constitution of the Commonwealth, unlike the subject of protection under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, does not require consideration of the connotation of “speech” or of the conduct which might be thought to constitute a form of speech. The implication denies legislative or executive power to restrict the freedom of communication about the government or politics of the Commonwealth, whatever be the form of communication, unless the restriction is imposed to fulfil a legitimate purpose and the restriction is appropriate and adapted to the fulfilment of that purpose. In principle, therefore, non-verbal conduct which is capable of communicating an idea about the government or politics of the Commonwealth and which is intended to do so may be immune from legislative or executive restriction so far as that immunity is needed to preserve the system of representative and responsible government that the Constitution prescribes.
Music with overt political characteristics is clearly a form of speech or expression that comes within the globally recognised standard of human rights and yet in this case the Chinese government appear to be restricting the opportunities for its reception by attempting to control what comes into the country. Music of this nature has the ability to empower, educate and mobilise citizens often to address injustices and to create awareness of the potential for, and prevent, future disasters. However, here the Chinese government is seeking to restrict access to music, under the guise of piracy prevention, for its own political purposes which include restricting the access of its citizens to information about current events.
As I wrote in the paper I presented to the International Association for the Study of Popular Music in Liverpool earlier this year, ‘moral progress is a part of social progress and refers to changing attitudes to concepts such as freedom, equality, justice and truth. Social and moral progress depend heavily on knowledge and are affected (and effected) by the production and reception of information.’ (Bierstedt, 282). If China censors music by limiting the messages that citizens can receive, there will inevitably be a restriction to social progress and perhaps even retrogression.
Further Reading
Digital Music News, Instead of Anti-Piracy, China Offers Music Censorship... (9 September 2009) <http://digitalmusicnews.com/stories/090809china> at 10 September 2009
MacWorldUK, China tightens rules for online music providers (7 September 2009) <http://www.macworld.co.uk/digitallifestyle/news/index.cfm?newsid=27099> at 10 September 2009
The Register, iTunes, and Sting, banned from China (22 August 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/22/itunes_blocked_china_tibet/> at 28 August 2008
The Register, China pardons iTunes (but not Sting) (26 August 2008) <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/26/china_pardons_itunes/> at 28 August 2008
TechDirt, China Realizes It Doesn't Need To Block All Of iTunes (26 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080825/2219562089.shtml> at 28 August 2008
Digital Music News, iTunes Reinstated In China... Tibet Album Now Included (27 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082608ituneschina> at 28 August 2008
TechDirt, China Blocks iTunes After Olympic Athletes Download Pro-Tibetan Music (21 August 2008) <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080821/0312442052.shtml> at 25 August 2008
guardian.co.uk, China blocks iTunes music store (21 August 2008) <http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/aug/21/china.blocks.itunes> at 25 August 2008
Digital Music News, Will the Ban Boost Sales? Tibet Album Pushes Past 10,000 (22 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082108tibet> at 25 August 2008
Digital Music News, Great Firewall Growls: China Blocks iTunes Access (21 August 2008) <http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/082008itunes> at 22 August 2008
The Age, iTunes blocked in China after protest stunt (21 August 2008) <http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/itunes-blocked-in-china-after-protest-stunt/2008/08/20/1219262358153.html> at 22 August 2008
OpenContentAustralia, Bjork in China (11 March 2008) http://ocarr.blogspot.com/2008/03/bjork-in-china.html> at 10 September 2009
Bierstedt, Robert. 1974. Power and Progress McGraw Hill, New York
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The Age: The Herd
Just a note to suggest that you check out this recent article by the Melbourne newspaper, The Age. The article writes about the 40th Anniversary of Woodstock, the lack of protest music today and the changes in technology that effect/affect they way that political messages are presented and received. Interesting article and well worth taking a look at:
The Age, Spirit of Protest is Alive, Just Different (15 August 2009) <http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/spirit-of-protest-is-alive-just-different-20090814-el5e.html> 2 September 2009
The Age, Spirit of Protest is Alive, Just Different (15 August 2009) <http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/spirit-of-protest-is-alive-just-different-20090814-el5e.html> 2 September 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
