Crammed in a van loaded with guitars, a drum kit and a couple of Fender amplifiers, and driving from one US gig to the next, the four scruffy musicians in the indie-rock band the Figurines tried mightily to enjoy themselves. They snapped pictures of one another, ate junk food and drank Red Bull, which is barred from sale back home in Denmark.
Sometimes they drink it spiked with vodka. But on a recent trip through Idaho, on a desolate road outside Boise, one band member was drinking it straight from the can.
Catching a glimpse through the van's window, a passing trucker saw the shiny can and mistook it, somehow, for a gun.
PHOTO: NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE
Within minutes, the police were ordering the band out of the vehicle. "We had to get down on our knees on the highway," Christian Hjelm, the lead singer and guitarist, said, and they then found themselves handcuffed and sitting in the back of a squad car.
It might be a typical war story for a rumpled rock band on the road. But the Figurines, who played at the recent CMJ Music Marathon in New York, aren't just a rumpled rock band on the road. They're part of an unusual class of cultural ambassadors and trade envoys, hand-picked by their government to represent their nation to the rest of the world.
The Figurines, who received more than US$18,000 in financing through Denmark's export agency this year, are just one of hundreds of bands that occupy this odd dual status: on the one hand, road-weary independent musicians; on the other, appointed emissaries of their homelands.
In a little-understood chapter in the history of cultural exchange, nations from around the world have been choosing musical outfits and sending them to the biggest music markets abroad in hopes of raising their international profile and generating export sales. In a way, it makes perfect sense.
In a global economy that is blurring geographic borders, more and more nations view intellectual property — films, software and the like — as valuable commodities, easily transferred exports that can sell in previously inaccessible markets. That includes intellectual property like pop-punk or death metal. Digitally distributed, music is easier to export than ever. And the artists, many of whom have long dreamed of taking a shot at the Billboard chart, are mostly happy to play along.
But even viewed as a product, rock 'n' roll might not seem ready-made for government promotion. The diplomatic corps and, say, college radio darlings don't have much experience speaking each other's languages. (In the US, where acts like Green Day and Pearl Jam have been racking up radio hits with songs that attack the administration, musicians aren't accustomed to speaking to the government at all.) And the efforts don't lend themselves to easy analysis. What white-paper policy report could quantify the value of an upbeat review in Spin? And how reliable is an export that might have a taste for trashing hotel rooms and wearing perilously tight pants?
Can would-be music stars really be put to this new use?
"It ultimately comes down to what one thinks of activity of the state on behalf of art or commerce," said Brent Grulke, creative director of the annual Austin festival South by Southwest, which along with CMJ has emerged as a bazaar of internationally financed talent. "Clearly one of the more inexpensive things that we can produce that potentially has great financial rewards is our culture. For nations that have any kind of forethought into the future of their economies, it's a no-brainer."
One way or another, between the musicians who are representing their countries abroad and the government officials who are seeking out and signing new talent, the international trend has forced all parties to invent new rules, and new roles, in situations that none of them could have anticipated.
In 2002 the Hives, an immaculately tailored garage-rock band from Fagersta, Sweden, seized the spotlight with the US release of the album Veni Vidi Vicious, and before long Swedish acts like Division of Laura Lee and Sahara Hotnights were having their moment, too. They got the gigs, but to a large degree their home country got the credit: "Sweden Rocks," declared Rolling Stone.
The Hives' second major US release flopped. But by then talent scouts had been booking trans-Pacific flights to see rock acts like the Datsuns and the D4 in New Zealand, which some described as "the new Sweden." The year 2004 unquestionably belonged to Canada, which bred indie-rock bands like the Arcade Fire, Stars and Broken Social Scene just in time to draw praise from the emerging music blogosphere.
From outward appearances, it might seem that the cultural compass just spins at random from one country to the next. But more and more the "next big thing" title may reflect the deliberate efforts of government trade and culture officials, who routinely attend US music festivals, organize junkets for critics and record executives, and arrange coaching and subsidies for their homegrown acts. In Canada, which has one of the most established programs, artists can apply for an array of grants or loans to finance up to 75 percent of recording costs, advertising, marketing or touring expenses.
Heather Ostertag, chief executive of Factor, the public-private Canadian agency that oversees music funds, said it controls a budget of roughly US$12.4 million and handed out awards to one-third or more of the 3,800 applicants who sought support last year. Broken Social Scene and its label, for example, have been offered more than US$140,000, she said. The Arcade Fire and Stars were also beneficiaries.
Why does the government of the world's second biggest land area bother? "The government recognizes the importance of a cultural spend for a cultural identity," Ostertag said. "I think that we struggle as Canadians for our own Canadian identity. American dominance is so prevalent wherever you go." Part of maintaining the nation's place on the cultural map, she added, "is happening through identifying ourselves through the success of other Canadians."
In Australia state and federal governments offer a series of programs. The country's main export program offers to cover up to 50 percent of an act's costs above the equivalent of US$11,600. Over the last year trade officials provided roughly US$1.8 million in grants to 80 recipients aimed at exporting their music. Past recipients included the Wiggles, the phenomenally popular music group catering to children.
New Zealand has for several years helped cover recording costs, and recently created subsidies, overseen by music and broadcasting professionals, for artists and labels aiming to sell overseas. One recent grant went to Michael Tucker, who wanted to open a US office for his independent label and marketing company, Loop Recordings. A fast-talking former hairdresser and fashion photographer, Tucker recently oversaw a show by one of his bands, the funk-reggae outfit the Black Seeds, at a swanky Los Angeles lounge. But not long ago he found himself at a government function hobnobbing with his government's top ministers. "I can shave," he laughed. "I can play that game."
To many artists, even to many bands involved in these programs, federal financing may not initially seem very rock 'n' roll. After the Hives took Sweden's money, the band's lead singer, Pelle Almqvist, fumed that tax-financed rock was "like working for the Man."
"Plus," he added, "we were" — well, they weren't very good — "at filling in all the paperwork."
Samuel Scott, a singer and guitarist in a New Zealand rock band called the Phoenix Foundation, sympathizes. "I think that image, that rock 'n' roll is a thing of rebellion and that you should be flipping the bird to the government, is prevalent," he said. "In most parts of the world it's a situation where you might give up for the sake of not starving to death. In New Zealand I think you have a bit longer to look at it before you have to make that choice."
And in the US, it seems, you have to look at it longest of all. "People over here are shocked when we tell them you can get economical support from the government," said Hjelm of the Figurines. "It's not because of the money that people know us over here. It's because of the music. But you need that financial support to do those tours. We know we have the support, and it makes us concentrate 100 percent on the music."
Last week Joseph Nye, the well-known China scholar, wrote on the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s website about how war over Taiwan might be averted. He noted that years ago he was on a team that met with then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), “whose previous ‘unofficial’ visit to the US had caused a crisis in which China fired missiles into the sea and the US deployed carriers off the coast of Taiwan.” Yes, that’s right, mighty Chen caused that crisis all by himself. Neither the US nor the People’s Republic of China (PRC) exercised any agency. Nye then nostalgically invoked the comical specter
Relations between Taiwan and the Czech Republic have flourished in recent years. However, not everyone is pleased about the growing friendship between the two countries. Last month, an incident involving a Chinese diplomat tailing the car of vice president-elect Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) in Prague, drew public attention to the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) operations to undermine Taiwan overseas. The trip was not Hsiao’s first visit to the Central European country. It was meant to be low-key, a chance to meet with local academics and politicians, until her police escort noticed a car was tailing her through the Czech capital. The
April 15 to April 21 Yang Kui (楊逵) was horrified as he drove past trucks, oxcarts and trolleys loaded with coffins on his way to Tuntzechiao (屯子腳), which he heard had been completely destroyed. The friend he came to check on was safe, but most residents were suffering in the town hit the hardest by the 7.1-magnitude Hsinchu-Taichung Earthquake on April 21, 1935. It remains the deadliest in Taiwan’s recorded history, claiming around 3,300 lives and injuring nearly 12,000. The disaster completely flattened roughly 18,000 houses and damaged countless more. The social activist and
Over the course of former President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) 11-day trip to China that included a meeting with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leader Xi Jinping (習近平) a surprising number of people commented that the former president was now “irrelevant.” Upon reflection, it became apparent that these comments were coming from pro-Taiwan, pan-green supporters and they were expressing what they hoped was the case, rather than the reality. Ma’s ideology is so pro-China (read: deep blue) and controversial that many in his own Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hope he retires quickly, or at least refrains from speaking on some subjects. Regardless