Major changes within the global music industry over the past decade have given Taiwan’s once thriving and Asia-leading music industry a nasty wake-up call. A slump in CD sales, rampant pirating and a rise in Internet music sharing has led to shrinking market share and plummeting profits.
In the 1990s, the production value of Taiwan’s pop music industry stood at roughly NT$12.3 billion (US$415.5 million), but has since trailed off to NT$6.28 billion. Further decline is certain to occur, especially with CDs likely to become obsolete at some point in the near future.
The ROC government plans to reverse this trend by injecting NT$2.13 billion into the local music industry through its Pop Music Flagship Project, which came into being under the Cultural and Creative Industries Development Act. The five-year project is expected to lift annual production to NT$10 billion.
A large portion of PMFP funding is earmarked for so-called indie bands—a musical field the government believes has the potential to spawn a new generation of exportable musical talent. Such backing has given rise to the Golden Indie Music Awards, an alternative to the mainstream Golden Melody Awards, and paid for albums and international festival appearances by over 60 local acts in 2010. This support also allowed 10 Taiwanese bands to play the just-concluded South by Southwest alternative music festival in Austin, Texas.
The government’s practice of bankrolling local indie acts to perform overseas deserves applause but questions need to be asked over how these outfits are selected and whether they truly represent Taiwan’s alternative music scene.
Although a handful of lesser-known indie acts have received PMFP funding to play at international festivals, the vast majority of bands are more conventional acts. Groups such as Fire Ex, Sodagreen and Tizzy Bac may be local fan favorites, but their styles are heavily influenced by big-name Western bands. It could be argued that outfits such as these have already achieved a level of success, while lesser-known acts remain on the sidelines without the support they need to break out.
A band sounding like Oasis that sings in Mandarin or Taiwanese may be considered unique the first time a crowd hears them. But this novelty quickly wears off, especially in an English-dominated market. Unless this music exhibits strong cultural and language influences, such as that of the Gypsy Kings or Ali Farka Toure, it will fail to generate lasting interest outside of Taiwan.
In a recent interview that appeared in the Taipei Times, Government Information Office Minister Johnny Chi-chen Chiang said PMFP funding of acts to play overseas was part of ROC President Ma Ying-jeou’s soft power policy. But the use of indie band funding to promote Taiwan overseas is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it allows greater exposure for local bands, but on the other, could be viewed as a cheap form of propaganda.
If the government wants to use such funding to promote Taiwan and the nation’s alternative music scene abroad, then the PMFP needs to ensure there is a ready supply of fresh and original talent capable of competing with the myriad of indie bands from around the world.
Simply sending bands out as envoys, while the domestic industry is absent a comprehensive and readily accessible funding program, is harmful, as it diverts funds for soft power use and lets the true creative heart of the industry wither. Funding should be available to help bands diversify and, if need be, alter their musical direction. These groups should be encouraged to be more creative and employ styles and instrumentation endemic to Taiwan. By focusing on outfits that draw mostly on foreign music influences, the government is turning a deaf ear to its most valuable musical resource: Taiwan’s cultural music artists.
The PMFP can be likened in part to the Foundation Assisting Canadian Talent on Recordings. Both programs are government backed, run by committees comprising industry figures, and offer financial subsidies to promote and develop independent recording industries. But unlike its Canadian counterpart, the PMFP offers neither funding for demos nor loans for commercial recordings.
Instead, the PMFP covers 45 percent of costs for a full recording, with bands under no obligation to repay this sum. In addition, there is no system for ensuring the promotion and distribution of finished products. FACTOR, on the other hand, provides grants for recording demos and offers loans only for recording albums. Recipients then have two years to repay this amount through the proceeds of sales.
The fact that the PMFP does not grant loans, which would force bands to make their recordings available to the wider public, means there is no safeguard against recipients using government funding solely for vanity productions. A recovery mechanism should be introduced to ensure projects are commercially viable, thus allowing funds to be used in other areas. Such a move would result in a support, rather than welfare program.
Covering 45 percent of recording costs has won the government kudos from local music companies and independent labels, who claim this measure is boosting the number of albums released by indie groups. This generous praise is understandable given that the funds are going straight into the pockets of recording studios.
Sadly, under its current format, the greatest value of the PMFP may be in exposing the absence of a single comprehensive support program from songwriting to touring, available to all genres, and accessible to artists and labels alike. Attempts to resurrect the local music industry through the PMFP are certainly commendable, yet the chances of its succeeding are doubtful.
Gavin Phipps is a Taipei-based journalist. These views are the author’s and not necessarily those of Taiwan Today. Copyright © 2011 by Gavin Phipps
Write to Taiwan Today at ttonline@mail.gio.got.tw