Hey, NBC. Scared of thunder?

The thoughts leading to this article were spurred by a polo shirt, memories of music, the deceitful thrills of talking stages and the utter uselessness of romantic relationships with a sprinkle of Yoruba demonism here and there. I will not go into details on these.

So, NBC banned Ric Hassani’s “Thunder Fire You” song. I’m sure the song is great, but this is not an article analysing the song. I’m not much of a music fan — the last time I consciously updated my playlist was 2016. These days, I hardly ever seek out new music. What I’m interested in is the ban.

Frankly, I don’t know what the commission was thinking, banning the song. I didn’t find any official statement from them stating their reasons for the ban, so I’ll just assume, like everyone else, that it was banned for some reason supposedly hinged on morality. Looking at the lyrics of the song, however, it’s hard to imagine where the supposed immorality stems from. How is a heartbroken young man “swearing for” the woman who broke his heart contrary to public policy?

What I found most interesting about the situation was the reactions to the ban. So many people commented on the fact that before the ban, they hadn’t heard or wouldn’t have even heard the song. The situation got me thinking about human beings and our innate desire to do what we were told not to do, what I call the Coconut Head Phenomenon.

Coconut head, or psychological reactance, is the unpleasant motivational arousal that emerges when people experience a threat to or loss of their free behaviours. It’s the urge to spank the walls left and right after seeing a sign that says to keep your hands off the wall, the urge to overload yourself with sugary stuff mid-menses, the urge to open something after being expressly instructed to leave it closed. It’s what was displayed by young Nigerians in October 2020. It’s the stubbornness we all have within us, it being more active in some people than in others. It’s rebellious, dangerous and exciting.

Recent events show, however, that the coconut head phenomenon is something the current powers-that-be do not quite grasp. You don’t ban something (baselessly) and expect free-thinking, independent-minded people to conform without questions. They may be powerless to reverse the ban or even outrightly challenge it, but questions will be asked. When those questions are asked, I think it’s the duty of the “Banner” to “shalaye” to the “Bannee” and rationalise such decisions. The recent trend of crass decision taking and subsequent shoddy damage controlling for problems that could have been prevented if someone was just a little smarter is terrible and it needs to stop. The music industry does not need it. Matter of fact, absolutely nobody needs it.

I’m not saying bans are bad. Regulatory bodies have regulatory duties to carry out and they must be seen to be performing their duties. Some songs (like songs promoting crime and illicit behaviour) have to be banned by NBC because it’s a part of their job description.

However, what purpose does the recent and seemingly arbitrary ban on “Thunder fire you” intend to achieve? You’ll probably think deterrence; to stop people from listening. I think it’s obvious that barely works because first, human beings are coconut headed and second, the song does not contain the type of content anyone should even be deterred from consuming. The next argument for the ban you’re likely to come up with is the sanitisation of the public space. While this seems like a good argument theoretically, practical consideration of the current dynamics of music distribution will show that banning a song will not prevent its circulation. It may reduce it, but it will not — cannot — totally prevent it. On this particular ban, NBC needs to step back for a moment and think: this thing I just did, what’s the point, really?

Banning a song which — from all indications — deserved to be banned already angers the populace, not to talk of banning a song (like Ric Hassani’s) causing no apparent damage. If the Commission keeps up with that behaviour, it will probably sink to levels of redundancy that could previously only be imagined.