Broadcasting Commission’s music ban is Einstein’s definition of madness
Dear Editor,
I remember when I was a student at St Mary High School in Highgate my favourite male dancehall artistes were Papa San, Admiral Bailey, Johnny P, Admiral Tibet, Ninjaman, Tiger, Johnny Osbourne, Daddy Lizard, Red Dragon, Flourgon — jeezam, the list long!
The music being made then was, at worst, tame compared to today’s fare. The Broadcast Commission found more than enough material which it considered regressive, taboo, filthy, and unfit for human ears. Back then the major route to our ears was mainstream or traditional media, so when those guys spoke it was an enforceable law, even if unrealistic.
They had measurable muscles, and to us children it felt like they flexed them for sport. It didn’t stop us listening to Lecturer’s chart topping Too Sweet or later Grindsman’s Benz. In fact, the more they banned, the more innovative we became and we ended up listening to even more of those songs.
They were cassetted together, so obviously searching for one led us to others we otherwise would never have heard of. Although he mostly made “clean”, feel-good party songs, Admiral Bailey was banned from the airwaves so many times that he made a song called NFFAP Man. NFFAP was the acronym for not fit for airplay. When I look back, and especially when I’m holding a vibes and listening to my faves, including Bailey’s extensive and entertaining catalogue, I struggle to figure out which songs were banned.
You would think, since banning songs was a decision arrived at by the meeting of very brilliant minds, any era which followed the 80s would produce only the most sterile music. If you thought that, you would be terribly wrong, though. Every single time there is great pressure to curb crime or antisocial behaviour some of these very same unchanging heads meet again and roll out the same archaic ban as a “measure”.
If banning worked, why is there so much more music designated to be banned now? How did we go from banning the almost pristine Admiral Bailey to the existence of all this so-called degenerate music right now? How can these young artistes who ruffle some of my peers’ feathers exist? Who raised them? How did they manage to be born and bred despite the great lengths gone into restoring and preserving our musical chastity?
Back in my day we had few options. Right now there is no shortage of outlets for music. When I was in third form sneaking around listening to Lecturer I couldn’t imagine one day I would be walking with a phone in my pocket which has the capacity to hold gigs of music and accommodate me making video calls and typing articles on it. Right now these children cannot imagine any part of my former life. Now, think about this long and hard. In my former life banning songs did not work. Anyone who thinks it did needs to be institutionalised.
In my very dunce opinion these shallow and superficial measures have no other value than to validate the ego, budget, and scrotum of the implementors. This is a “half-anused” attempt to look like a bigger problem is being tackled. What’s the problem? Crime. What’s the measure? Ban some topics in music from the airwaves, although we listen to music on streaming platforms and personal gadgets, although we barely listen to the airwaves. It makes me wonder: If we obviously don’t care about feasibility of process, does it even make sense to speak about outcome?
Einstein’s definition of madness is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome. I know many would prefer if I were mute; however, this calls for critical thinking and honest conversation. Let us really talk!
Tanya Stephens
@iamtanyastephens