Harbour Fest encore a matter for review
As soon as the World Health Organisation lifted its Sars travel advisory for Hong Kong in May, attention turned to stimulating the economy and conveying the message abroad that Hong Kong was a safe place to visit. The agenda quickly came to include inviting international music acts that had been forced to cancel planned concerts, including the Rolling Stones and Santana. For good measure, former US president Bill Clinton was added to the wish list. It was a great idea. This past weekend, that vision was realised, as the Stones played to a near-capacity crowd at Tamar - with Mr Clinton in the audience.
The spectacular Stones concerts came at the end of weeks of political wrangling and controversy over how the Harbour Fest was conducted. Yet none of this should be allowed to detract from the positive aspects of the event. Chiefly, the shows were crowd-pleasers, even if some of them failed to fill all the seats.
Now that the festival is over, the most important question is whether it would be worth doing again - even as an annual event. The independent inquiry the government has announced into the organisation of Harbour Fest - as well as the audited accounts that the organiser, the American Chamber of Commerce, will deliver to the government - should provide some answers.
The four-weekend festival was an ambitious undertaking, making it a formula for controversy. The organisers wanted to cater for all tastes but because the local and regional acts looked as though they were booked as an afterthought, there was criticism that the event appealed only to the expat community.
Public money was earmarked to underwrite up to $100 million of the festival's losses, with little transparency about the arrangements. Plus, the festival was overseen by a private group with no experience of organising such an event. The short lead time did not help matters. The inquiry and the government's examination of the Harbour Fest accounts should be neither a witch-hunt nor an exercise aimed at exonerating officials involved.
To be useful, the assessments have to look at the state of the live music industry in Hong Kong and how Harbour Fest would best fit into that scene. Should a future Harbour Fest, for instance, concentrate on bringing spectacular international acts to Hong Kong, leaving other promoters to organise concerts featuring local talent?
There could be room for one or more annual music festival here. Events such as Japan's Fuji Rock Fest and England's Glastonbury Festival draw more than 100,000 and have proven to be big boons to their respective travel industries. These festivals work because their briefs are clear and details are handled by promoters who know the industry.
In looking at whether it wants to pursue Harbour Fest as an annual event, Hong Kong will need to consider the perennial question of appropriate venues. Ibrahim Ferrer, the legendary Cuban singer, recently held his concert in the Great Hall of the Convention Centre. That Ferrer, who has sold out concert halls from London to Tokyo, was playing on a glorified convention stage is less than satisfactory for a city that aspires to be the entertainment capital of the region.
By contrast, most concert-goers were happy with the sound quality at Harbour Fest - and many were impressed with the dramatic setting. Should the government consider turning the Tamar site into a permanent staging ground for concerts and other public events?
This question and others should be entertained now that we have the experience of the Harbour Fest behind us. And if we choose to do it again, there should be clarity beforehand on the festival's concept, organisation and governance.
