Hi, thanks for the replying. I’ll be addressing some of the points.
I’ve actually answered the question, why do we need a great scene. (see the section “great scene vs great artists”) We don’t. We can keep on sending our guys overseas and hope that we make it there. We can hope that people like Stefanie Sun, Corrine May or Dick Ree show us some of that Singaporean-ness (to a small extent yes but not bloody likely). No – I think in the end if we really want to talk about “Singapore music” it’s down to “what’s a great scene”. I purposely set out to address the “Singapore Scene” because I know it’s a different (and probably smaller) question from “Singapore Music”.
As for what makes a great scene a great scene, one simple question (although not the only one) is “show me what you got”. Therefore suppose somebody were to say “this is not a great scene” you could repudiate it by asking “what do you mean by great”, or “define scene” or “define great”. Doesn’t cut it with me. I want names. That’s the only counterargument that I’ll accept.
The questions you raise about a great scene are relevant. I don’t put everything here to be the definitive answer to everything. What I hope to have shown is that it is further broken down into 12 or more questions that need to be looked at. We don’t just look at Singapore: we look at other places which have great music traditions and we’re actively asking, how are we similar and how are we different.
You don’t really have to accept the judgement of outsiders. But you must accept that you will be judged. Putting your stuff out – it means that you’ll be judged. For me – to the extent that we are talking about more than just background music or muzak – judgement and appreciation of music are inseparable. It cannot possibly be the case that nobody is judging.
Judgement of Singapore music
When I said “Singaporeans have a long way to go” – you could read that again. I was referring to lyric writing. I could think of people like Dylan or Morrissey who have taken lyric writing to another level. Suppose you were to say that judgement of the quality of lyrics is subjective – that’s OK, I will not hide behind that here, I’m the one who’s judging. Yes I said that a certain someone’s not good at lyrics. No, I’m not going to embarrass him by quoting his work at length and trashing it in a public forum. You could champion somebody’s work here, though. Ling86. I think Ling86 can write decent lyrics but not decent tunes.
Regarding what I wrote about original culture, perhaps it’s clearer if I were to split the question up into two. First question: does Singapore have something to offer the world. Yes, definitely yes. We’re at the crossroads of so many major cultures. I’ve mentioned our cultural heritage earlier on. Second question: has Singapore actually offerered anything to the world through music? No. Not much. I have compared Singapore to Jamaica, Mali, South Africa. Case in point – somebody mentioned that Johnny Marr’s guitar work on “This Charming Man” sounds like Timbuktu guitar. Sounds about right. (Listen to “Nothing But Flowers” for more Marr-does-Timbuktu stuff). Chalk that up to music making a real impact in the world. These other places have borrowed much from the rest of the world, put their own spin of things, remixed things and pumped it back out. Reggae is influenced by soul. Fela Kuti is influenced by James Brown. We’re still in the process of grasping music produced by westerners.
I don’t insist that I am right, but remember what I said about counterarguments: name names. In a way, this is good news. It means that there is a long road ahead of us, but we are not in thrall to anybody. Anybody can still do what they want. Anybody from Jamaica will make music in the shadow of Bob Marley. Anybody in Nigeria will make music in the shadow of Fela Kuti. Anybody in Pakistan will be compared to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. We got no shadow. For far too long, in our Confucian mindset, we equate “culture” with something handed down to us. Culture is also about what we are handing over to the next generation. Kuo Pao Kun’s comment about us being “cultural orphans” is correct but not a great deal. Leslie Low named an album “Ghostfather” and I think he’s alluding to the same thing. The ingredients are there, but somebody has to put it together.
Anybody fusing angklong with rock? Anybody putting gamelan with drum and bass? Anybody commissioned a funeral band to play on their indie rock music? Everybody still operating in their own silos, as far as I can see. Everybody wants to play inoffensive soft jazz listening music.
Financial matters
There’s this curious comment: “we should start casting aside the idea of doing music as a hobby or professional” Because to me there are 3 possibilities. 1. Doing music as a professional. 2, doing music as a hobby. 3, not doing music. Everything else is a mix of the three. No, this does not really affect the quality of the work. Yes, this distinction matters.
You can say what you want about lack of money being a cheap excuse to not pursue music making. But I don’t believe it doesn’t have a chilling effect on the scene. I have looked at it from a macro perspective (somebody called this a “white paper”). Why? Because when you look at it from an individual, you could always say “this guy, Mr X is lazy because he could have jumped through this hoop and that hoop but he didn’t”. So I turned the question in another way – suppose we had 5 million people. And you have this hoop and that hoop. How many people are going to jump through all these hoops? And when you are done eliminating all those people, do you still have a scene left?
Ultimately, the question is not so much “can I make a living out of this”. For the most part the answer is no. The real question is “can I do this and still make a living”. The idea is: music is competing with my time for other things. If I can be employed elsewhere doing other things, it will take me away from music. If I cannot afford to be making music, it will take me away from music. You have listed Scandinavia, Canada, Japan as places where indie musicians can thrive. That Scandinavia and Canada are also examples of functioning welfare states – that should tell you something. Finances is not a definitive factor, but it will play a large role.
Take the example of jazz. You realize why the development of jazz stopped somewhere around 1965? That’s around the time when a large part of the audience moved up and went into rock music. CTI got into trouble. Blue Note got into trouble. After 1965, there was fusion, and after that, same shit over and over. To a large extent, the art goes where the money goes.
Audience vs market
OK, let’s for a moment put aside the “importance” of making it big, or having a large market for your music. Let’s pretend for a moment that it isn’t really significant whether or not you’re reaching a large audience. The fact is that all music that is produced is meant for an audience. For me, that is what a “scene” is all about. It is the interaction between the artist and the audience. The audience either being the people who pay for the music, or listen to the music, or slag off their bands. The journalists who help to define and contextualize the music. One half of the Beatles is the Beatles. The other half of the Beatles is everybody around chattering, “what’s this thing all about”. Beatles is not Beatles without the Beatlemania.
What is the name of Bob Marley’s first Island record? “Catch a Fire”. Culture can be thought of as something that has “caught fire”. So it is alright to slag off Ken Lim and his old mass marketing ideas. It is alright to say that having “stars” is unimportant. But at the same time it cannot possibly be that you are making your music for no one. You can turn your back on mass marketing, you can ignore the “market” aspect of your listeners. But you cannot ignore the “audience” part. You can ignore the part of “buzz” which is about racking up a lot of sales. But you cannot ignore the aspect of it which is people getting excited about your music.
If you say that “proximity to market” is unimportant, I’ll say that being able to interact with an audience is the key essence of a scene. That is crucial. “Proximity to market” facilitates this. Doesn’t have to be “angmohs from angmohland listen to this” or “mass market listens to this”. But if nobody listens, you’re kaput.
Regarding my statement on “Singaporeans are adverse to recognizing their own music”, your point is that there is a small number of Singaporeans listening, rather than none. My point is that there is a small number of Singaporeans listening, rather than a larger number. There is not much disagreement here.
Local audience still matters. To counter your example in jazz – yes, a lot of jazz is appreciated in Europe. In fact, jazz borrow so much from Debussy, Stravinsky and a lot of the modernists that there’s no way jazz didn’t catch on in Europe. But the real soul of jazz is the Mississippi. Its birth in New Orleans, in Chicago, St Louis. In jazz clubs like Birdland, Five Spot. If music is a religion, performing venues are the temples. The Apollo. Harlem. Hammersmith. Club 54. CBGB’s. These days it is music festivals: Coachella, All Tomorrow’s Parties, Knebworth, SXSW. Maybe even Baybeats. There is no religion without the laity, and there is no “music scene” without the audience.
I want to say something about “scenes”. In one sense, a “scene” is rooted in a place. In another sense, via the internet, we have transcended “space”. All the “great” “music scenes” I have described were from the pre-internet era. I don’t profess to understand how the internet changes things.
