Train Tracks in Calais

The video Calais, September 2015 – The Syrian poet – “Britaniya, Britanya” shows migrants walking along train tracks. Calais is a major hub for trains and industry, and its port used to be thriving. The Chunnel which is the train/tunnel from London to mainland Europe cuts right through Calais, and it has lowered the travel time between locations exponentially. Merging borders, the Chunnel connects the two localities and people. As the migrants walk along the train tracks, they bring attention to the fact that citizens of Europe can easily travel wherever they want, but because the migrants were driven from their homes, they do not have that freedom. The United Kingdom refused to accept migrants from Calais which is already struggling from a seasonal economy.

When the speaker narrates over the footage of the migrants, he has struggle in his voice, but laughter from the other men accompany it. He has pain and hurt in his voice. The refugee situation in Calais was not unusual, and most European cities are figuring out ways to provide asylum and support for refugees and migrants. The music that the refugees bring with them adds to the culture of the areas as they slowly assimilate and merge in the culture.

The Western Gaze – Kate Sullivan

As Louise Meintjes points out, “this idea of collaboration presented by the music is understood differently by various interpreters” (37). The concept of collaboration and how it ties in different people and styles and cultures illustrate the variability of any production and in this case, the variability of Graceland. Paul Simon’s Graceland was made in collaboration with many different American and South African artists, and the collaboration was on a large international scale. Paul Simon explicitly stressed that he created this album as a sort of cultural collaboration, “a cultural sociological point of view,” and not in fact as a political statement which his critics attempted to define the album by (39). Simon refused to say what political party he was supporting: “I cannot really endorse one in particular” (39). His inability to define his stand about South African politics allowed Graceland to be ambiguous and up to interpretation, and different groups used the album to their advantage.

            Liberal white South Africans saw it as a cultural bridge between South Africa and the United States even the world, while conservative white South Africans “embraced Graceland because of the changes (in their terms ‘improvements) Simon has introduced” to these traditionally African sounds (55). Black South Africans that supported Graceland saw it as an opportunity for South African culture to be spread around the world and allow South African artists to gain a foothold in the international music industry, but black South Africans that condemned the project saw it as cultural appropriation and saw Paul Simon as a “colonizer” of African sounds (50). Each group interpreted Graceland in their own fashion because their interpretations are shaped by their individual backgrounds and what they have been exposed to.

  1. In the song, “Homeless,” how is Ladysmith Black Mambazo’s sound mixed with Paul Simon’s?
  2. Do you think Paul Simon’s world tour organization was meant to be philanthropic or more for the image of Paul Simon himself?
  3. How did the album help white South Africans “construct a history for [their] local identity?
  4. How has peasant history and folk tradition helped mold national identity? How should white South Africans have used the peasant history and folk tradition to help mold their local identity?
  5. Why would the South African state support Graceland and play it on state radio?
  6. How was Graceland useful to conservative white South Africans?
  7. How did Paul Simon help the South African musicians that he collaborated with?
  8. What affect does the United States having control over the music industry have on music produced outside of the US?
  9. How does Graceland fit in with the rhetoric surrounding the cultural boycott of South Africa?
  10. Was Paul Simon a colonizer that exploited the South Africans that collaborated with him on the album?

Stalin’s Music Prize

Stalin’s Music Prize was more than just 100,000 roubles awards to the best compositions of that year. Frolova-Walker makes the point that “an elite was already in place” for the musicians and composers because they already could afford basic necessities and luxury goods which is a step over the masses (Frolova-Walker, 12). The most important aspect in historical terms of Stalin’s Music Prize is that the Stalin Prize Committee (KSP) by awarding these prizes clearly illustrated what fit the national agenda of the arts. Stalin’s saying, “national in form, but socialist in content” and the concept of socialist realism were the spoken instructions for what Stalin wanted, but the pieces awarded Stalin’s Music Prize were clear examples of what the KSP thought Stalin wanted.

            Yet, the KSP struggled with deciding between praising ideology and aesthetic. On the one hand, ideology was so easy to laud, but those compositions could easily lack aesthetic. On the other hand, aesthetic pieces were masterfully composed and beautiful to listen to, but those pieces if ideology was not shown through words or tone could easily be construed as “formalist” and “Western” and not Soviet enough. Initially the KSP emphasized aesthetic over ideology because they had more autonomy over their choices and most members were traditionalists (17). As the higher members of Soviet bureaucracy became involved including members of the Politburo, the KSP’s sovereignty was usurped because Stalin’s Music Prize could conveniently be used to send messages to artists and as a propaganda tool. When the KSP’s choices were widened to include music as far back as 1935 for their first awardees, they knew that “it would set in stone the canon of Soviet art, and thereby codify Socialist Realism” (48). It was a momentous task that could not be left up to the autonomy of conservative composers and artists.

  1. What criteria encouraged the KSP (and members of the Soviet bureaucracy) to pick certain pieces over others?
  2. How did the differences of Shostakovich’s pieces and the changing politics of each year affect his ability to be granted an award?
  3. Why did the national republics go from winning barely any awards to becoming a “reliable choice” in 1948? (Frolova-Walker, 180)
css.php