The Effects of Globalisation on Music in Five Contrasting Countries: Australia, Germany, Nigeria, the Philippines and Uruguay Richard Letts Music Council of Australia Report of a research project for the ManyMusics program of the International Music Council October 2003 1 INTRODUCTION The ManyMusics program of the International Music Council is concerned with fostering musical diversity across the planet. There is not a lack of musical diversity. Every one of thousands of cultures has music that is distinctive and an important aspect of its identity. The ManyMusics program would not have been undertaken were there not a perceived threat to this diversity. The perceived threat comes from “globalisation” in its current manifestation. This study looks at the effects of globalisation on local musics. It especially examines the potential effects of free trade treaties that could deprive governments of the right to give special support to the cultural sector. Globalisation has been with us for centuries and in hindsight, we can see that musical cultures have been strengthened, altered, extinguished as military or commercial victors exerted their influence or more benignly, simply as one culture came into contact with another. The urgency felt in this present phase of globalisation probably results from its pace and pervasiveness. In music it is there for (nearly) all to hear in the market and share-of-mind dominance of international popular music promoted across the globe mainly by five transnational record companies based in Europe, the USA and Japan. This music is seen to spread at the cost of local musics -- although there are additional causes for a weakening of local musics perhaps not so directly attributable to globalisation. This is an enormous subject. What actually are the effects of globalisation on local musics? Despite the obvious fact that the effect of globalisation is the subject of this investigation, the Investigators volunteered relatively little evidence in their respective countries. Given the intensity of the concern, it is surprisingly difficult to produce clear examples. For instance, a lot of change results from urbanisation, and the most evident causes of urbanisation might appear to be local rather than global. This small project seeks to shed some light by looking at circumstances in five contrasting countries – not so much in order to compare them, but rather to see to what extent globalisation works differently in differing circumstances. Because it had to be allowed that musical life in such differing countries could itself be very different, it was thought wise not to force the investigation of each country into the mould of the structures of musical life as they are known in the country of the Principal Investigator (Australia). Investigators were engaged in each of the five countries and asked to answer general questions about the structures of musical life in their countries, the role of governments, international trade and exchange of music, and the effects of globalisation with special regard to the actual or potential effects of trade liberalisation treaties. A draft version of the Australian report was sent to the Investigators early in the process to give some indication of the type of information they might seek, but they were not asked to emulate it. The reports are very different from each other and show the aptness of the approach. As might be expected, we do not have a tidy set of comparable statistics from the participating countries. Were the resources available, this could have been a study to equip us to decide the research questions for a subsequent, more thorough inquiry. Such an inquiry could specify exactly the information and data we wish to collect. However, even then there are limitations because of varying capacity to collect statistics. The wealthier countries are more likely to have the resources to produce statistical data. A glance at the World Culture Report of UNESCO quickly demonstrates the absence of statistical data from many developing countries. So the study is a mixture of statistical data, as available, and factual and impressionistic information. Accepted in those terms, I believe it throws some interesting light on the effects of globalisation on music in the extraordinarily differing circumstances of these countries. I acknowledge that I bring bias to this study. While I accept that there are benefits of trade liberalisation and support free cultural exchange between countries, I believe that culture should be exempted from free trade agreements and that governments should retain all rights to support and assist local culture. The Investigators for the five participating countries were Australia: Dr Jock Given and Dr Richard Letts Germany: Hannes Gmelin Nigeria: O’Dyke Nzewi Philippines: Elmar Ingles Uruguay: Gustavo Goldman I am grateful to them for their efforts in producing the country reports and their willingness to respond to a long series of follow-up questions. In some instances, they faced great difficulties in securing data or in making do without data. Thanks, to each one. Richard Letts Principal Investigator 2 CONTRASTING COUNTRIES To establish briefly that these are indeed contrasting countries, here are some basic data. COUNTRY LOCATION POPULATION AREA GDP GDP/CAP CULTURE Millions Sq kms US$ US$ AUSTRALIA South Pacific 20 7,670,000 528bn 27,000 Anglo + multicultural + indigenous GERMANY Europe 82 350,000 2,184bn 26,600 European/German NIGERIA Africa 133 924,000 114bn 875 African tribal + English PHILIPPINES SE Asia 85 300,000 356bn 4,200 Filipino + Spanish + American URUGUAY S America 3.4 176,000 27bn 7,800 Mestizo Current situation Australia. One of the strongest performing economies in the world in recent years. Government interest in culture is modest, although it so far has taken an exemplary position in protecting culture from trade liberalisation. Germany. Reintegration of East and West Germany has brought economic difficulties, with reduced subsidies to cultures one effect. Strong position on protecting culture from trade liberalisation. Nigeria. This year, the first democratic transfer of government. Strongly dependent on oil exports. Difficulties with other sectors of the economy. Cultural policies developed but not adequately implemented. Philippines. Economy growing well and consistently, but high government debt. Continuing insurgency in the south. Uruguay. High levels of education, social spending. Exports to Argentina and Brazil, and affected by their economic difficulties. Collapse of currency in 2002 severely affected economy, cultural activity. STRUCTURES OF MUSICAL LIFE Australia. Musical diversity is a reality within Australia. Australians perform and listen to a plethora of musical styles. Participation is numerically greatest in styles promoted by the international popular music industry – e.g. rock music, hip hop, dance/electronica. Other styles include country music, including a stream identified with indigenous musicians; classical music in all its forms; jazz; Australian folk and bush music derived from Anglo-Celtic folk styles; ethnic styles, especially but not exclusively those associated with the cultures of immigrants; including "world music"; traditional indigenous musics; fusion musics that experiment with couplings of any of the above; experimental music/computer-generated music/multimedia. The structure of the music sector supports the normal progression for creation and dissemination: education system at primary secondary and tertiary levels, composition or other means of creation, performance, live presentation, recording, broadcast or other electronic delivery, retailing of recordings and other physical goods. Delivery is domestic or to a small extent international. The music world is divided into profit and non-profit sectors. The for-profit music sector produces or imports, and disseminates commercially popular music in the internationally popular styles. It is financially self-sustaining (although the income of many of the musicians is very low); there is some government regulation but little government subsidy. It includes most of the record companies, large or small; all of the commercial radio stations, and also some income from film and television sectors; touring organisations; festivals, and live commercial venues ranging from large entertainment centres to small clubs and pubs. It might also be thought to include unsubsidised activity in all the styles of minority interest, although this would comprise only a small percentage of the total activity and income generated. The non-profit sector includes professional activities depending on subsidy, such as the large-scale orchestras and opera companies where costs cannot be met from box office, the major festivals (usually multi-arts), the experimental, the best small performing groups in classical music, jazz, ethnic or fusion music, the composers and so on. Each of the styles tends informally to be vertically organised, with its own performers, customary live venues, record labels, broadcasters etc., although there is said to be increasing audience cross-over between styles. Some of the performers are self-presenting. Some depend on contracting their services to venues or to touring organisers. The non-profit sector also includes, of course, a great mosaic of amateur and community activity. Much of this is private and informal. It also is organised into ensembles, community bands, orchestras, music theatre companies, choirs. In some of these forms/styles,