You see, it's really easy to write a title or post that is sensational.
So, when it comes to diversity alt-media site Shanghaiist had all but died an un-PC slasher movie death. But recently they've got a new editor, Elaine Chow, who is writing about local music.
The main thrust of the articles is that Chinese rock and punk bands are not overtly political and the implication is that they are therefor missing something. This is one of the big two double standards in scene reporting. The first one is that Chinese bands are better if they are more Chinese, whatever that means. This one is that Chinese punk bands should all be complaining about the government.
I'd love to give some commentary on the AFP article but I can't really detect any sort of real through point to it. The only interesting thing is that Elaine Chow throws in the line:
So much for actually being punk, eh?
Of course, it's a complete myth that all punk and rock bands in 'The West' are political - that is, singing overtly about about activism and government policy. For every Propagandhi (my faves) there's a Ramones. And how political are the Rolling Stones? What do these writers think political actually means anyway?
The Subs sing about resisting authority and songs like Ha from We Haven't Entered The 21st Century talk about failed development policy and environmental damage. The music scene in Shanghai is full of bands whose lifestyles, visual styles and music are completely unacceptable by the Xinhua standard for national TV and distribution. The problem here is the AFP source article which is just writing to fulfill a common shallow type or double standard that crops up all the time. Not to mention writing up a commentary basically writing off all Chinese rock and punk bands as being shallow.