The Stones and the Great Firewall

Has the Rolling Stones breached the infamous Great Firewall of China, or has the symbol of rock and roll been compromised by the authoritarian Chinese government? Neither is true, although both may claim otherwise.

In was in fact a compromise for the two seemingly opposing sides. The Stones would really love to get new fans from China, a country with 1.3 billion people, the fastest growing economy in the world and the most populous in the world, more than four times the population of the United States, the biggest consumer of rock and roll in the world.

And the Stones playing in China is a sign that can be presented as many things by the Chinese government. The most important would be a symbol of an easing up of the notorious restrictions that have befallen the country's population.

It is too easy to see that business was the major reason for the Stones' coming to China. But their concert has highlighted income disparity in the country, and critics were not so sure if the rock stars succeeded in winning over new fans. One critic reportedly said that it was only "comfort music for expats."

One of the reasons were the very high price of tickets, way beyond the means of most people in China. The cheapest was about US$40, the reason why most of the 8,000 people who attended were Western expatriates. And even if the Stones managed to win over some new fans, the economic reality of China may not be on their side, as a huge bulk of Western popular culture products sold in China are pirated.

Another minus point for the Stones was the fact that the Chinese government banned four of their songs from the concert, something clearly against what Mick Jagger and friends stand for. In a nutshell, it was so not rock and roll.

And it was not a new band trying to woo impressionable and naive Asian fans because they are not known where they come from, it was the Rolling Stones, purportedly "the world's greatest rock and roll band."

Clearly, the ban made a louder sound than the music that the rock and roll icon played.

But then, the censorship may have been as big a deal as China's market. Perhaps this was the so not rock and roll part of the compromise.

For the Chinese government, the high profile concert may be the clearest sign to show the lighter side of the authoritarian government, which endeavors to control everything including the internet. By allowing the Rolling Stones concert, the government may appear to have loosened up and a little populist to some.

But the reality is clear to all. The Chinese government is more than willing to go to great lengths to restrict the people's freedom. And Western popular culture, which was what the Rolling Stones represents, is one element that the government is wary of. The government is worried about the influence of imported popular culture on the country's population, especially the young, although local popular culture is not free of such social impact.

The Rolling Stones concert may have presented one thing, but a more important symbol emanating from the concert was the appearance of Chinese rock star Cui Jian, the "father of Chinese rock and roll."

The Stones may be seen as an icon coming to start some sort of cultural revolution in the country, but a more real symbol of freedom at the concert was Cui, who also played in Tiananmen Square during the famous protests in 1989. He played his song Nothing to My Name, which eventually emerged as an anthem of the struggle for freedom for the protesters.

Cui was also part of the reason for the government's move in shutting down the China's edition of American pop culture magazine, Rolling Stone. The popular Chinese rock star was featured in the country's first issue of the popular magazine. As a result, the magazine was shut down only after one issue. At the same time, the Chinese government also moved to limit the number of foreign magazines marketed in China, much to the chagrin of foreign publishers eyeing the country's vast media market.

We may not be really sure who gets what and who gets the most through this compromise. But what is clear is only that politics is a game of symbols, where libertarian values and authoritarianism may seem to meet harmoniously.