Censorship In Music

VS. 

Censorship is, even if we don't realise, affecting us every day of our lives. It controls what information we receive, the way we think and feel about certain matters and sets the ground for our morals. The definition of censorship is: ''The suppression or prohibition of any part of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.'' - (Oxforddictionaries.com, (n.d.). censorship - definition of censorship in English from the Oxford dictionary. [online] Available at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/censorship [Accessed 5 Mar. 2015]).
But who has the right to decide what is or is not acceptable, obscene or a threat to society? Even though we'd like to think that all the information given to us by the media is objectively true, the government controls a lot of what reaches us in the end. I think that in the long run, censorship has the power to form the ideals and values of a society. Because every society on it's own receives different information, perceives it in a different context, it therefor differs from other societies. We learn to accept things that other societies might find unacceptable as that is how it was presented to them and vice versa.

To get a better understanding of what kind of affect censorship and the suppression of the artistic industry/media has in other countries, I watched Afghan Star, a documentary made in 2008 about the first music talent show, broadcasted by Tolo TV in Afghanistan. This show caused a lot of excitement but also conflict as it was something they had never experienced before.
Since 1975, Afghanistan had been terrorised by civil war, Taliban rule and foreign invasions. In 1996 a law was reinforced that stated that it was a crime to dance, listen to music and to watch television as it was considered to be disrespectful and sacrilegious by the Taliban and the Mujahideen, alternatively called Jihadist, who were ruling the country at the time.
Because of this lack of technology and recourses, all their morals, views and ideals were solemnly based on their direct surroundings. They did not have the freedom to expand their knowledge like we can do with the internet, music and with television. We can choose what we want to watch and what to do with the information given to us, but they did not have the freedom nor the choice because they only had the values from the Taliban to live by, as that was the only thing they were taught.  This makes it a lot harder to form your own point of view thus it is likely that, in a society based on those standards, to have no voice at all.

People lived in fear, were forced to stay at home and if the Taliban would find anything related to music, computers or TVs they would kill you. This on it's own already shows how different the values of that country are compared to the UK. The Taliban justified killing people for things that I ought to be mundane to have around me, because it would supposedly be against their religion. I know for a fact that, in the UK, an act like that would be considered to be unacceptable and they would be punished for it, but as they are the people in charge, there is no one to punish them so it goes unnoticed. It is shocking how extreme they react to things we take for granted so much. Trying to imagine to live in a world where these things that seem so normal to us are forbidden and life threatening is almost impossible for me.

After the first elections in 2004 which were held after the formation of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in 2001, the restrictions on music, TV and dancing were lifted, but it was still frowned upon by most of society, especially the older generation.
2000 people from all over Afghanistan auditioned for the show, of which only 3 were women. I think this says a lot about the equality of men en women in that country(go into detail).
Only 10 people (8 men, 2 women) made it through to the actual show.
One of the reasons this program had such an impact on this country was because of the voting system.  Via text message, you could vote for your favourite candidate, but it did not matter whether you were rich, poor, man, woman, young or old. Everyone had an equal vote thus it was the first form of democracy they had witnessed in many years. It is not very surprising that such a small form of democracy has such an impact on these people as they have been

The documentary mainly follows 4 candidates throughout the show but also interviews fans and other people, which gives you an insight on the way their society thinks. There was a lot of mixed feelings about the show and the different ways of thinking between the older and the newer generation was very noticeable. The older generation did not always approve as it went against religion and therefor 'against what Afghanistan stands for'. According to them it is not right to encourage music as it puts people at risk. One man said to one of the contestants that he was crazy to enter the competition as he was leaving his people for democracy. This reflects that some people think that democracy is not something they need, while I think it is a right everyone should have as a human being within a society. It also shows that, even though we might think that everyone wants to have the same culture as we do, they might not be interested in that at all. I think it is important to be careful when trying to push your own opinion onto other people. Every individual has the right to think whatever they want, even if it is negative, as long as it does not affect other individuals.
The younger generation thinks this show is something that will help reconstruct a new Afghanistan. They are war-torn, tired of guns and want their country to become more like the West, where there is democracy, freedom of speech and individuality. Even though we see the system in Western countries often as corrupted and with lots of flaws, it is not even close to the damaged system they have got in Afghanistan.
Because the law on television, music etc. got lifted in 2004, the younger generation had to opportunity to have a glimpse at what it was like on this side of the world and I think that contributed to the fact that they did want a more modern and free society. Most of the content was still being censored as the government was against modernisation of their culture.
Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, which means that the rules and laws are based on the Islamic religion. They do not want the Western culture to interfere with their beliefs and that's why there is only limited amounts of information available. Yet I believe that this programme showed that their country was ready for more modernisation as it was such a success.

All four candidates came from different backgrounds and had different experiences throughout the show. It was interesting to see how the backgrounds of the contestants influenced their experiences within the show. Where, for example, Lima, a 25 year old woman from one of the most religious and traditional parts of Afghanistan called Kandahar, feared for her life every time she went back to her home where she got threatened on a daily basis, Hammeed from Hazara was considered a hero and was supported massively by his people.

Also gender plays a massive role in this documentary. Setara, a 21 year old, modern woman from Herat described herself as open-minded and wanted to change the world, but expressed her difficulties with being a woman living in this country. 'quote the hardly go outside'.
When on the show, she moved around a little bit during her performance, which, by the public was considered dancing. This act had not done her any favours as in the next show she was voted out by them. In her last performance, she did something that shook the entire country: she danced around and her head scarf fell off her head. A lot of people were outraged by this act. Dancing was still a massive taboo in Afghanistan, especially for woman. Some quotes of the people interviewed were: 'A woman shouldn't be liberal', 'She brought shame to her people and deserves to be killed' and 'Her act will make society collapse and war will return'. Setara had to go into hiding as the Taliban had send her multiple death threads and she was not favoured by society.
It blows my mind thinking of how a slight movement on a stage and a mistake as little as a slip of a head scarf can be a bigger crime than killing a person. Where in our society killing is a thing that is considered to be against what society stands for, in Afghanistan it is apparently dancing, which again proves my point of how all societies are build on different morals and values.
At the end of the documentary there were some shots of men dancing around which made me realise that the same rules do not apply to men. They are definitely hegemony in this country and equality is far to be found. It enrages me to see women being treated worse than men are, but that is because I have been brought up in a society where that is not acceptable and, I, as a woman and as an individual have the right to speak my mind about these matters and I can, without feeling unsafe of endangered afterwards. I know a lot of these women do not have a choice but to bow down to men because if they will not, they will be abused, or even worse, killed. Some of the women, however, say they do not mind the situation that they are in and are not seeking equality. They do not mind being restricted and having to wear a veil as they say they have no business outside their homes and a veil makes them feel safe. But I think that the reason they feel like that because they do not know better than to live that way and they are afraid of standing up for their rights.
But for some women Setara was an inspiration. On the next show, there was a mother with her three daughters sitting in the audience, without wearing a head scarf. She said: 'Setara Inspired me, and I am not scared of the Taliban.'

I think the main thought behind this documentary is that the young people in Afghanistan are ready for a change. As I said before, they want freedom and peace, they want to learn and experience life in a different way than in fear. It was a real eye opener for me to see Setara, a young, beautiful and talented woman struggling to fulfil her passion and being spat out by society for doing something that we consider to be so innocent. I wonder how it can be possible that dancing is a bigger crime than killing a human being and it makes me wonder even more how these things happen without lots of people being aware of how woman are treated in these countries. When we compare, for example, Miley Cyrus, who has been on the news for acting obscenely, which is not even censored, and then Setara, who has horrified an entire country whilst being fully clothed, almost from head to toe, shuffling for a few second, it shows how different our perspectives are. Even though I do not agree with Miley Cyrus using her body to sell her music, at least it is her own choice to do so and we should all have that right without feeling afraid or threatened by others in our society.

-Afghan Star: The Documentary. (2008). [film] Afghanistan: Havana Marking.
-Afghanstardocumentary.com, (n.d.). Afghan Star - The documentary. [online] Available at:  http://www.afghanstardocumentary.com/ [Accessed 5 Mar. 2015].
-BBC News, (2013). Who are the Taliban?. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11451718  [Accessed 5 Mar. 2015].

Similarly, Vice Films made a documentary called 'Heavy Metal in Bagdad' in 2006 following the only Iraqian Heavy Metal Band called Acrassicauda. They had been following this band for the last three years but the reason for filming this documentary was to see whether they were still alive and under what circumstances they were living.

They had learned English from watching American movies and listening to tapes of, for example, the band Slayer. This indicates that they had no access to a proper learning system in their country nor to descent recourses where they could learn from. Everything was shut down and controlled by the government. 

In Iraq, it was only aloud to play songs that had some sort of worshipping element towards Saddam Hussein in them. I think this could be considered a form of censorship as well, as it restricted musicians to write whatever they desire to write about, which meant that the audience only received what the government wanted them to receive. 

When  asked whether they would ever write an anti-Saddam song, one of the band members stated: ''We are not a political band. We're not like System of a Down or something. We gotta, like, stay away from the politics. Cause, like, for me, if I was like watching some, like, series or something or a movie, and some guy showed up and tried, like, say news or something, I'd turn off the channel. Cause, like, for me, I don't give a fuck about the news. We guys just want to rock'. I think this quote gives quite a lot of insight of how they felt about both the politics and making music in Iraq. They did not want to make a statement through there music, nor attack the government and start some sort of uprising. They wanted to play music because it was their form of relief and forgetting about all the fear and misery they were living in, even if it was just for a moment. When asked what inspired them to start a heavy metal band, the lead singer of the band stated: ''Well, if you really want to know the answer, have a look around. We are living in a Heavy Metal world.'' 

The band also knew that it had the same effect on their fans, they all came down just to have some fun.  

So initially, they did write songs containing positive messages about Hussein, just because they did not want any trouble. 

Another point supporting the fact their music was purely meant for recreation, was that they were not making any money from it. Because the internet was so heavily censored, there was no such thing as Google, Youtube, Facebook or any other social media platform created by the West. They could not access Soundcloud or Itunes, so there was no place to advertise or sell their music, nor create a proper fan base. They did not ask any money for the very few concerts that they did either. 

As I am a musician myself I realised how precious these platforms are for my career. It is so easy for me to reach an audience and to share my work with people in lots of different countries. The content of my music can be based on any grounds and can contain whatever I want them to, which means that I could influence people and make a difference within my society, which they do not have the right to. Even though they say that they only play music for their amusement, they should still have the ability to write about whatever they find interesting or what they want to represent, rather than having to pretend to be someone else because they risk being executed if they disobey.

Heavy Metal in Baghdad. (2006). [film] Baghdad: Vice Films.

Kaveh is a musician from Iran who was forced to flee his country as he was being prosecuted for playing music. After already being arrested once and having spent several months in prison on the same grounds, he continued to make music anyway. He believes that art can be used to effect politics and should be used to make a statement. But it was because art had such an influence on society that it got censored, as the state did not want the artists to inform the audience with the problems of their country, scared that it would provoke an uprising. 

He says that in Iran the people had no power, no voice and religion suppressed everything. It felt like there are huge walls around their country and they did not know anything about what went on in the rest of the world. 

Iran does not have things such as Facebook, Youtube, Google, Wikipedia etc. either. All the resources are cut off to prevent any contact with the Western world. He mentioned that, before he had moved to London, he had never heard of Disco music before, something that has been around for years and something we can access at any moment, he had never come across. 

Since the Iranian revolution in 1979, there is no record of music created in Iran. I do not exactly recall how, but Kaveh explained how he and his band had managed to set up some sort of recording device that allowed them to record some of their music, but there are no such things as recording studios over there, let alone being able to make CD's or sell them.

It is debatable, but I think it is fair to say that there is a lot more value attached to being a musician in a country where it is so difficult to be one. Hearing and seeing all these stories of people who are being threatened, imprisoned, silenced and suppressed because they want to do what they love, makes me realise how incredible lucky I am living in a country where I have freedom of speech and have access to lots of recourses that are not always influenced by censorship. This allows me to take in information from whatever resource and apply it to my life and to my music in whatever way I want, but it shocks me how much I have taken that right for granted. 

In my opinion, not only artists, but everyone should have that right, to receive all the information they think is worth for them to receive and to create their own perspective on life. And to turn it around, everyone should also have the right to express themselves in whatever way they want, as long as it is not affecting other human beings negatively. Of course, you can upset someone with a statement that they may not agree to, but as long as it stays with an opinion and there is no mental or physical harm involved everyone should have freedom of speech. 

As I have mentioned before, in some ways we are lucky as censorship is a lot more flexible on this side of the world and we can create some of our perspectives ourselves, but we will always carry the stereotypes with us that we have been told by media and society. In a way it could be assumed that, because we are given so much access, we are being deceived into believing that we have control over all information we choose to read because, but that it is not considered often enough that we can only access the information that the higher power wants us to access. We blindly follow and believe everything we read and do not research the validity nor where it actually came from.  We are also bombarded with information that has no value but that we have been thought to believe is worthy information. One example is that the news is often filled with stories about, for example, celebrities: where they have been out clubbing the night before or some scandal they have committed. I take absolutely no interest in this, but we have seemed to have created a society where being an individual does not seem to be enough and you and your surroundings do not have much meaning anymore. It seems that you need to be part of a group and have the same beliefs as everyone else, and often people think it is more interesting to read about other people they do not even know rather than having a conversation with a friend or a relative. I think this is done to keep the attention away from things that are actually wrong with this world so that people don't start asking questions that should not be answered. The government keeps bombarding us with useless information to keep us occupied, but it is up to ourselves to ignore that, research what is really going on and pass it on to your surroundings. 

In contradiction to my earlier statements, I do agree that there should be censorship up to a certain extend, but it is an endless debate to where to draw the line. I personally think that the information available to us should be presented in an either educational or recreational way, and that anything that encourages violence, abuse, racism, sexism etc. should be detained, but it entirely depends on the message that lies behind it. If the content is used in a way to point out that it is wrong to do those kind of things and what the effects can be, than I think it is okay to use this content, as it can make you more aware of your surroundings. For example, if you have never seen violence before, you would not know whether it was wrong or right.

But that is completely subjective and every individual should be able to decide for themselves, though what if you are not in a position to do so? Children get in contact with the internet at such a young age where they have access to all kinds of information, but I do not think that they can correctly choose what content will positively benefit them in their upbringing. In this situation, their parents should be censoring for them, but they can not be too subjective when decided what and what not to show, because children should still have the opportunity to form themselves and to educate themselves with the things they want to educate themselves with. As long as gaining the information does not have a negative influence on the child, it should be within it's reach.

In the end, being part of a society does not mean you have to be exactly the same as everyone else. As an individual, you should apply your own experiences and ideals and be someone who you think will contribute positively to the society that you are living in.