I think that the punk genre is really fascinating because it gives freedom to its artist to express themselves completely unfiltered, in a way in which I think other genres do not. Pussy Riot is a perfect example of a punk group who catered to the fan base in Russia who wanted to see a change in their oppressive homeland. The Pussy Riot was an integral part of the protests happening in the country. I think that their group, in particular, brought people together, and helped to facilitate change by bringing music together with songs that were obviously provoking. The song “Putin Will Teach You How to Love” is a perfect example of a politically provoking song. The lyrics describe how Russian people are mistreated, mentioning the LGBTQ+ community especially, and how they are conditioned to “love” the motherland through fear and punishment. I think that “love” here is being used as synonymous with obeying. In the video, for the song, we can clearly see that Russian police officers are brutalizing the people, but in other shots, the singers are standing by the Olympic symbol and dancing with people in animal costumes. I think it would be interesting to discuss the significance of this artistic choice in class. Although I use the term artistic here cautiously because critics still debate whether Pussy Riot is an authentic punk band. I would like to get back to our discussion of authenticity but now in relation to Pussy Riot. Also, I think it would be fun to discuss what David Bowie would think of them.
Bulgarian Music
When watching both videos of the Bulgarian Women’s Choir I thought there were some interesting similarities and differences. In the performance of 1990 on the Tonight Show, the women seemed less polished as a whole, and their sound was much more traditional and folky. Also, the host of the show was polite in welcoming his guest, but he didn’t seem to be too interested or well versed in their music. Comparatively the 2017 performance seemed more seasoned, and the music was more upbeat. The host of the show also seemed to be personally familiar and interested in the group. He even stated that he had been waiting for quite a bit of time to see this group perform (0:11). In both performances though the women’s voices are so powerful and they blend beautifully together. I was quite surprised at how strong the Bulgarian Women’s Choir was when they sang. I also found this group to be fascinating because I believe this is our first all-female group. I’m hoping that in class we are able to foster a meaningful discussion on gender and its place in this topic. Specifically, the Bulgarian Women’s Choir is interesting because they are an all-female group that have also won a Grammy for their album. Not only is this group interesting because of its all-female make-up, but it also has political importance. Bulgarian musical groups like this began to be beacons of democracy. As Bulgaria was finding its identity and sense of nationalism after being occupied so many times in the past the countries musical identity was fostered as well. Musical performances occurred at many political events and youth music programs were created. With a country that has a history like Bulgaria’s the impact that music had on them was enormous. They went from being a very poor country to having groups like the Bulgarian Women’s Choir performing internationally. These developments are all part of the transitions that are discussed in “Performing Democracy: Bulgarian Music and Musicians in Transitions”. In class, I would like to discuss if these transitions are clear in the difference from the 1990 performance to the 2017 performance? And if so how?
Paul Simon’s Graceland
The Apartheid was a political ideology that was backed by the National Party in South Africa. Though the original idea was for it to be a way for races to develop separately in an equal manner, in its implementation it can be more appropriately described as a hierarchy structure where races were grossly unequal. At a time where the rest of the world was starting to desegregate these laws appeared regressive to many other countries internationally, and a lot of backlash and controversy surround the Apartheid. During the 1980s around the same period as when Graceland was released some “reform” was happening to the laws in South Africa, but little actually changed. Also, this time period became the most brutal under the Apartheid because the government wanted to keep their power and ideology. Although Paul Simon found a connection to African inspired music, the influence of the Apartheid in South Africa is not directly referenced in the album Graceland that he wrote. Simon himself states in the article “Paul Simon’s Graceland, South Africa, and the Mediation of Musical Meaning” that he didn’t necessarily seek out the role of humanitarian trying to unite the races in South Africa. Louise Meintjes argues in the article that the power of his collaboration with African artists is impactful enough in combating social normatives that keep interracial and international collaboration from happening in music. However, my critique of this is that artists should have a certain level of responsibility to use their notoriety for social change whenever possible. In class, we discussed what level of responsibility artist should be required to have, if any, when we talked about Coldplay and the Clash. I personally think that Paul Simon could have done more to combat the social climate at the time, and the ambiguity of the album left something to be desired in my opinion. While I understand the limitations of the time, as mentioned by Meintjes, I still feel like the music isn’t inherently political to me. While listening to the music on the album I did hear subtle African influences in the sound. But, I wonder if anyone else in the class felt like the influence wasn’t as impactful as it could have been.
“A History of Apartheid in South Africa.” South African History Online. Accessed November 14, 2019. https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/history-apartheid-south-africa.
Meintjes, Louise. “Paul Simon’s Graceland, South Africa, and the Mediation of Musical Meaning.” Ethnomusicology 34, no. 1 (1990): 37-73. doi:10.2307/852356.
David Bowie and Glam Rock
David Bowie and Glam Rock created a platform for music to be experienced in a different way than had been previously seen within “mainstream” music. He believed that every performance was a way to express himself, and he relied on various personas to make his music come alive, rather than solely performing as himself to an audience. As we saw in the video “Ziggy Stardust” he experiments with various makeup looks and costuming for his musical performances. I found it interesting that Bowie’s Glam Rock performances seemed to be so well received by the audience in the “Ziggy Stardust” video. I think my surprise came from the fact that my understanding of Rock and Roll was always that it was for younger generations of people who wanted to “stick it to the man”, to use a colloquial phrase. However musical theater, at least to me, was always perceived to be for wealthy people of an older generation. In the book Performing Glam Rock, the author Auslander states that musical theater and Rock and Roll had a tepid relationship beginning in the 1960s. As we had discussed in class before, Rock and Roll became an outlet for expression regarding the problems in the world, especially for the younger generations. Whereas, like Auslander states, the musical theater had longtime reflection a conservative political view that often aligned with political leaders’ ideological propaganda. So, for me to see these two things come together and be so popular it was very interesting. Now Bowie did gain some criticism because people from the rock scene didn’t buy his authenticity as a rock artist. Reading that people critiqued his music because they didn’t believe that he was dedicated enough to Rock and Roll music is where the connection to the other content from class solidified for me. Throughout our discussions, we have been trying to pinpoint how these different genres of music resonate with people politically, and even in some cases try to decide what “good” music is. Where Bowie is concerned I feel like people were trying to do the same thing to his music, but he wanted to create a piece of artwork that wasn’t supposed to be anything but entertaining. He even says that “what I’m doing is theater and only theater,” meaning it was meant to entertain an audience and allow him to take on other personas that weren’t is own. This does not mean that his music did not elicit any sort of political ideals. Bowie’s music, as well as his interactions with the media, spark discussions about sexuality, gender norms, and self-identity, unlike anything that was really seen before. In his interview with Playboy that is quoted in “I Have No Message Whatsoever,” Bowie discusses his sexuality, and how people have these many misconceptions about bisexuality. He also discusses how gender norms became apparent when he went to the U.S. and everyone just assumed he was gay because he had makeup on. I found this particularly interesting because in class we have seen gender appear before, but it was only in terms of binary genders and their corresponding gender norms. Where Bowie uses the term androgynous alluding to the possibility of gender as a spectrum. He even states that he was really the first person to start these conversations with an open dialog. It was fascinating to see the progression music has made from where we began to this current time period circa the late 1900s. I think it would be interesting to discuss these ideas that Bowie raises about gender and sexuality. Also, I’m curious to see if others in the class had any thoughts on the role of media and technology in Bowie’s Rock and Roll career.
Soviet Rock and Roll
Leading up to the Soviet Union’s political and social climate in the 1970s there were many historical events that lead to the separation of the Soviet Union from the rest of the world, especially the United States. After World War Ⅱ the Soviet Union feared another takeover as they incurred with Germany, so they sought to protect their communist ideals at all costs. They also heavily rejected any Western influence. Politically they were also trying to show their dominance. This combination of factors made them a political pariah, even with other communist nations like China. Paralleling the Soviet Union’s political alienation, the Soviet population also felt this divide from the rest of the world. In the readings for today, Yurchak mentions this elusive “Imaginary West”. This concept is all about how the Soviet population almost fetishized what the West is because they don’t have physical access to them. The Soviet’s find the West’s celebration of the class system and capitalism unappealing but praised them for their internationalism. Mainly though we see that the Soviet Union black and white thoughts on Western culture restrict its own countries’ cultural growth and diversity. Through the critics that emerge during this time from people like Khruschev and Zhdanov, it easy to assume that while Communist leaders tried to assert what cosmopolitanism was, they didn’t truly have a clear sense of what “bad” music or art was. This vague definition of what music should and should not be was seen before in the Soviet Union when discussing social realism. It’s difficult for lasting music to emerge from regimes like this where even the artist is confused about what kinds of music they are allowed to make. I found it interesting that academic Western input was considered okay, but more criticism came of art, film, and music. I think this criticism comes from what we know about music as a political tool, and that’s backed up by the Soviet’s criticism of Rock and Roll as a capitalist tool in the fight of capitalism versus communism. I personally think that Rock and Roll was a perfect outlet for the people of the Soviet Union who had gone through these politically challenging times and felt oppressed. Ultimately I believe that the spread of Rock and Roll and its subculture contributed to the dissolve of the Soviet Union.
1) How do you feel the Soviet Union’s political climate affected the citizens socially?
2)What issues do you find with the Soviet Union’s lack of cosmopolitanism, and how did this impact artistic production?
3) Can you relate the idea of cosmopolitanism to social realism? If so how?
4)Why do you think the Soviet Union was more critical of artistic Western works and less so of academic ones?
5) What motivations do you think the Communist party had for trying to learn more about Rock and Roll?
6) What appeal do you think Rock and Roll had to the youth in the Soviet Union?
7) How did modernized technology impact rock music and its subculture?
8) What was the role of the Komsomol, and what impact if any did they have on the Soviet youth’s thoughts on Rock and Roll?
9) Do you think the lyrics “Dolls are so tough controlled by him, and we believe naively
that a doll can speak.” have a deeper political meaning? What is it?
10) What contributions do you think Rock and Roll music had to the fall of the Soviet Union? What implications does this genre of music have?
Yurchak, Alexei. 2006. Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More : The Last Soviet Generation. In-Formation Series. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=612563&site=eds-live.
Blog Post 09/12
The one idea that I found interesting in both readings for Thursdays class was how nations can be manipulated and molded into exactly what the leader, Stalin in this case, wants. In the article “National in Form, Socialist in Content” the author comments on Stalin’s influence on music by saying “Had he remained in obscurity, his interpretation would have been of no consequence, but he had every intention of seeing his definition reflected in the republics of the Soviet Union. And Stalin, unlike other men, had the power to adjust the world to match his words,” (Frolova-Walker, Marina. “”National in Form, Socialist in Content”: Musical Nation-Building in the Soviet Republics.”). I found this quote interesting, and very telling of Stalin’s power because if he could control the music in this way then he could easily control the nation as well. Especially because as we had already discussed in class music is a powerful tool for human control. We see this idea of using culture as a way to control and amass nations again in the article “Soviet Music and Society Under Lenin and Stalin”. This article discusses the creation and perpetuation of socialist nation states, but the key point that I found related to my earlier point, and the bulk of the class, was why culture and music were the ways Stalin’s government choose to control its nation. In the paragraph entitled “Why Culture, Why Music” the author tells us that culture and music were the preferred way to spread ideology because they allowed a message to be widespread, but it also then became inherent to society and a part of one’s identity (Edmunds, Neil. “Soviet Music and Society Under Lenin and Stalin.”). For class we should discuss if others found this interesting as well. We also prepared for class by watching the “Dance of the Kurds and Sabre Dance”. I found that this was one of the more interesting pieces that we have been assigned so far. The music wasn’t too repetitive, like “Life is Better Now”, but it was also simple enough that the average everyday person could enjoy it. I think this piece shows the balance of nationalism versus socialism that was discussed in the articles we read. I felt that is was a happy medium compared to other things we watched and listened to. One question I have is does everyone else think that this is a balanced musical and performance piece?
