OK, 'cher is back. Sorry, was away from the Net. So, class how are we doing? RoRK please sit down and behave yourself. dir, stop eating school paste.
[/JOSHING]
Let me say something first about definition of "making it" and "what genres" and related questions/issues. I was really intrigued by sage's suggested docu film, and what it says about one small country's musical output and impact. So, my "come-from" on this issue is really music in all forms, languages, and genres (i.e. it's not specific). Impact-wise, I am thinking along the lines of brand/product recall such that when you say Jamaican music, someone instantly recalls reggae, and if you say Icelandic music, someone responds with Bjork/Sugarcubes.
There are valid and interesting points/arguments raised earlier. But my point with the Icelandic (or indeed any other) comparison is that one can always argue why Iceland (or Jamaica or South Africa) should not be so music mad, so successful, so impactful. And conversely we can argue why indeed Singapore should be more successful:
- Good education
- Command of English
- Relatively rich
- Good availability of products, and relatively cheap
- Plugged into the world- digitally and physically (travel-wise)
- Good brand internationally
- Wonderful mash of cultures to tap into
- Small and therefore easy to mobilise people/resources
and so on and so on
I note that for each of the above, there's a reverse argument, for example, Singapore is small, so market is small. But that is exactly the nub of the argument - something can be both plus or minus.
If we just look at things as only minuses (Iceland has a lot of "minuses"; Jamaica, oh man their English is even less intelligible than Singlish), we will not get anywhere, and fast. But if we get rocking within our island, people (especially from outside our little isle) will be drawn to the fun and want to be part of it. Then we will be successful (whatever that may mean to various people).