For centuries music has been associated as the liberating factor, a factor whose status and practice shows the stance and stage of liberty at which a society stands!
For instance, ‘Rock music was severely restricted in Communist dictatorships, just as jazz was in Nazi Germany, for all the Platonic reasons: uncontrolled passions were seen as a threat to the perfect order of the state. Precisely because of this, “forbidden” music was politicized. Subversive youths in Hitler’s Germany – the “Swing Jugend” – secretly listened to jazz,’ as posted by Ian Buruma (project syndicate, 2008).
Therefore, to practically address the relationship, one needs to understand the underlying reason for such to exist, primarily based on curbing the passion, hopes and aspirations of individuals which are triggered by music, leading to an eventual upturn or a change is status-quo (revolution), regardless of how indirect and gradual the impact maybe. Therefore, once we consider for the strength of music in shaping our lives, it is probably one of the most under-rated mediums of social change, let alone daily life. A similar case can be drawn in terms of the impact and influence of theatre and film on the human mind.
However, does this relationship stand once we consider the modern era, where a country such as Pakistan under a military leadership expanded its music base to its prime without a reverse in sight. This all took place under a regime viewed from a negative through many spheres. However, probably was the most liberating in terms of music (measured through the increase in music channels, musicians and social image of the profession). Never before has music been given so much liberty to establish its ground in the country.
Further, let’s consider the case of India, considering liberty and music as a snap shot- you can surely draw a positive correlation between the two. However, was it the existing liberty and means of use which gave rise to music, or did music trigger the initial hope- which streamed economic and social dividends through bollywood and in return produced greater social acceptability and so-forth greater liberty, which came first?
Therefore, although music and liberty may have a relationship, causality is unknown. Further, there seems to be mixed evidence with reference to dictatorships and music empowerment. An interesting idea for future research could be based on drawing a relationship between music and dictatorships across a pool of countries put together such as North Korea, South Korea (1960-1980), Pakistan, Singapore,China, Thailand and Zimbabwe.
Download Wallpaper: 
April 19th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
wid ppl like salman ahmed supportin mush here .. media at one time was mush’s biggest strength .. and particularly the music industry .. today things are differnt and thts where excess of evrythng becomes bad !!
April 20th, 2008 at 7:43 am
There is no ‘Music Boom’ as such in Pakistan as yet. Yes we see alot of artists emerging new talent coming up, but only interms of Music Videos being on aired. Which most of the artists invest from their own pocket. No royalty is given as such by any record companies still. I dont think the music industry has still flourished as its own. Yes the music channels perhaps but not music itself.
April 20th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Haider,
Although I agree with your facts, I do not necessarily think they replicate into concluding that the music industry has no boomed. Boom has certainly taken place, however its degree, nature and support system are a question of reality and doubt.
For instance, certainly- funding has been an issue for musicians and other art performers over the years. However, such a shortcoming exemplifies the level of risk aversion or lack of business/money opportunity perceived by private lenders (bank, lending houses) in funding such projects. Hence, it projects the shortcoming of our financial system (market economy) and the institutional environment, rather than the music industry itself.
Interms of state funding, given our budget constraints and wave of market (privatisation) orientation over the last 9 years, we would not expect state money backing music videos or the industry in hindsight, at-best it would provide an un-interrupted/ non-intervening working environment.
The link to music liberty is driven by the environment or perceived environment as an outcome of the interaction between the society (govt) and a set of communities (the music drivers and its people). Such an interactions seems to have provided positive dividends interms of music, however the level and stage of development of the industry is a separate issue.
On a different note, the divide between the informal and formal part of music economy and its complementing industries, coupled with inconsistent professionalism and soft plate at which the sector stands is a result of the weak institutional base on which the industry stands. However such would be the reality of any industry at the time of inception in the Pakistan relative environment. This is given the lack of appropriate (given the stage) and effective (evolving) industry regulation provided by our societal framework (rules/ norms). Further if such non regulation persists the music economy will follow pursuit of other sectors of our environment and will eventually foster bottlenecks leading to monopoly power/renk seeking etc. Hence, a ceiling to the current competitive and booming environment, with short lived positive economy wide returns.
However, as long as we keep our markets open and compete on international boundaries (interms of music), such an reality may be prolonged.
April 20th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Anas,
Thank you for writing.
Surely that is one way of looking at it. However, I personally, would look at it from an differing point of view.
I would argue that as societies(rules and codified norms) and communities (informal/ uncodified laws) interact they produce different results depending upon their stage of development. And mind you, they are always interacting.
A few years ago, the society and community stance was at a different rather dismal stage, hence producing a different outcome. In recent years, the community component has gained impetus and power whereas society has stagnated in development. Hence, given their different stages, their interaction is producing different results today.
I know this seems extremely academic, but this is something I have been reading and researching on- I will write a piece with the specific relevance (to the above paragraph) by the end of June. It might draw your interest then.
April 21st, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Banks financing Music Videos?
The answer to your question is simple; it is just how markets work.
Yes the music industry is growing in terms of the number of videos and things are becoming more streamlined but does it show promise of revenues? Banks are not interested in promoting the arts, or any single industry for that matter, Bank’s like all other PLCs are interested in maximizing shareholder wealth. So there is no cultural/religious factor influencing the financing. As for depth of our financial sector, currently I believe that it is not an issue; Banks have enough money to give and the financial sector is capable of providing services to any sector of the economy.
Let us elucidate a little bit so that things may be clearer. When deciding whether to forward a certain debt facility to the customer, we take into account numerous factors, these factors include inter alia the financial strength of the client, the future prospects of the business and the security that the client is willing to provide (please be aware that this is a very basic, in fact obscenely simplistic view that I am providing). Now, if you take a music video, there is absolutely no surety that the music video will generate revenues. In other countries musicians are paid royalties for air time, this is not yet the case in Pakistan, and it is only after the video is a hit that some revenues may be generated, so there are no immediate or guaranteed future cash flows. Similarly, probability of a song being a hit and leading to a record contract is also a matter that is not quantifiable.
Financial Institutions may be good with numbers but judging the next idol is not exactly our cup of tea. And no, it is not profitable enough for us to do so either. So as far as financing an individual video goes, the risk-reward pay-off is just not enough. The same goes for financing for cutting a new record. But here’s a thing, established bands like Junoon that are registered companies in their own rights and can show regular revenues will have no trouble getting financing from the banking sector, nor will recording companies etc. Even a new artist with a record contract of sufficient value will be facilitated. So the music and entertainment industry is viable, and financing has been provided, but financing a new artist, a new song or a new album means we make a very subjective judgment on people’s tastes.
April 21st, 2008 at 1:04 pm
On another note, can you tell me how much a music video cost? Rs. 10 Million tops? The thing is that because the project (video/album) does not show any cash flows with a reasonable degree of certainty, it becomes necessary for FIs to ask for collateral. This amount of loan can be raised through consumer finance by mortgaging ones house etc and there is no need for a budding musician to go through the more extensive procedural requirements of wholesale debt. So you never know, there might be people out there who have financed their videos etc through personal loans.
I noted below, that you talk about shortcomings of our financial system and risk aversion. Please be aware that this has nothing to do with “shortcomings” , even if we were the most robust system in the world, what a music video or album requires is blind financing, it’s a shot in the dark( a flop means no money, a hit means bucket loads??). There is no way to evaluate how a certain song/album might do in the market and as mentioned above it is not the Bank’s job to do so, we finance the production houses, labels etc and they decide who is worth investing in. So it works out. Mind you, we do finance cinema houses and TV channels, anything that can show feasible projections. When it comes to matters of taste, the gauntlet goes to individual investors or people with the know-how to take that risk. Unfortunately in Pakistan, music and entertainment is still somewhat of a taboo and therefore people are still staying away. (Corporate sponsors however, have taken a keen interest)
Here’s a case you might like to read on, Banks do offer financing to movie productions in India. I really am not sure, and then there is the alleged underworld financing. Also all is not lost in our entertainment industry, there are alternate sources of financing that have taken place and include government grants, a very interesting mode comes through tax schemes(I am not explaining it here but it involves selling tax deductions to investors), pre sales distribution and TV rights etc. Oh and amman ahmed has apparently done a video for Karavan for Rs. 3000! Go figure!
You are welcome to argue with me on this, we may be making more music, we aren’t exactly doing a lot of quality music. Just watch any music channel. Seriously the sheer quantity of work and lack of quality makes me wonder why you even thought that it was difficult to finance a video in the first place!
April 21st, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I think Hammad went a bit overboard with that one lol…
But the lack of some degree of certainty in cashflows to pay off the debt makes financing music videos a very risk proposition. It is like venture capital (has a very low probability of success and a good chance of failure), in my opinion… and even if (like hammad said) your video is a hit and the video makes bucket loads, the Bank is only getting back the face value of debt and none of the EXTRA rewards. So it bears all the risk and gets very little of the reward.
April 25th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
…obviously the essays could not undermine your fascination with writing…:-)
Sad that you don’t understand German. There are some good songs that were written in the Former German Democratic Republic that kind of said the same in a very funny way because they had to use weird metaphors to cover their messages from the State censorship….As music and the degree of liberty is concerned, however, I dont know whether I really agree with you. You say that music might be “a factor whose status and practice shows the stance and stage of liberty at which a society stands”… This sounds as if this relationship could be linearly incasing from dictatorship to democracy and even from a bad to a good democracy. Once, a country is “democratic” (or whatever the opposite of dictatorship might be), I don’t think there is a relationship between music and the “stage of liberty” anymore….and as we know….democracy can have many stages. But this might be nitpicking in the context of your argument or I understood it wrong…:-)
Now, I am already interested in your elaboration on societies and communities…
May 1st, 2008 at 5:19 am
Hammad, Thanks for the indepth response.
Risk is a measure of perception. Hence, its definition is based on your interest and outlook. I am glad you spoke about risk and the collateral measure in an indiret sense, because music videos do not have the traditional definition of an asset, hence risky in one sense.
However, in another sense, have an interesting nature which should give them some positive premium. Firstly, in general (on average) songs are released and aired on the radio (etc) before the video is made or aired on tv (atleast in pakistan), hence the success of the song can be measured through avenues such as radio air time/ number of times played requests etc. This is especially important because many (not all) watch the video for the song, not merely the quality of video production. However, yes times are changing.
Secondly, given the lively yet underdeveloped nature of the video inudstry, it is very likely that most videos will be aired from time to time, to fill the rising number of channels and empty spaces, hence another security measure for financing.
Thirdly, once the banks or formal lenders intervene into the market, television stations and other royality houses will be forced to pick up their game, in light of professionalism and the competitive juice coming into the industry.
And finally, yes surely we can play the game of quantification and its mechanics, however we dont live in the fordist age anymore (atleast not worldover aneway), where objective quantity is the norm of thumb. We live in an age of flexibility, diversity and complementation ( post fordism) where the subjective niche with a quantifiable bridge is the norm of success and trait. The sooner we realize that, the better it shall be.
Yes, I agree, banks are not interesed and should not be either (like any other platform) in developing any specific industry per say, especially as there is no need for charity rather a business opportunity.
Lending houses are more to make their own game prosper (and rightly so- the beauty of the maket economy) which is far more than simple mechanics, hence in their own hope, spirit and success; upon establishing specific analyst for the field of music and its related industries, they will be able to tap into a market which is full of potent, durability and profits, yet unseen. It is merely a first mover advantage.
However, the big daddy tone : ) exemplifies, the cartel like behaviour with lack of competition to stir the industry.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:24 am
Dani,
It is surely not nitpicking, your comment has added intellectual depth and outlook to the argument : ) Hence,for the interested a greater need to study, research and evaluate the field.
Thanks for writing.