Sins in Blue is my novel about an old, Depression-era bluesman. The story explores themes involving the problem of cultural appropriation—the inappropriate adoption of customs or ideas of one people by members of a more dominant people.
The 1987 Grammy Award for best album of the year went to Paul Simon for Graceland. The album was a departure for Simon, who had slipped in popularity. Simon had a relatively free hand in the project. Original tracks were recorded in Johannesburg at the height of apartheid. Simon wrote lyrics later, jamming with the original tracks. When the finished songs were rerecorded, Simon flew South African musicians to New York to complete the project. Simon’s music introduced Ladysmith Black Mambazo, a South African group, to a wider audience.
The initial controversy over the album had to do with breaking the cultural boycott against an apartheid regime. Simon sought the advice of other American artists like Harry Belafonte—advice he subsequently ignored. Simon felt that the cooperation between black and white musicians made a more powerful anti-apartheid statement, adding that “when there are radical transfers of power on either the left or the right, the artists always get screwed.”[i] The finished album was supported by the United Nations Anti-Apartheid Committee for promoting South African artists without supporting the South African regime.
But additional controversies plagued the album, possibly because it became a high-profile commercial success. For the duet “Under African Skies,” Simon enlisted the aid of longtime friend Linda Ronstadt. The choice was criticized because Ronstadt had performed in South Africa three years earlier. (In live concerts, Ronstadt was replaced by Miriam Makeba, one of a number of black South African musicians who toured with Simon.)
Some criticized the album for being “colonial,” accusing Simon of appropriating music to market to a global audience. As Tris Mccall asked in the Star-Ledger:
Does it complicate matters to realize that these musicians were second-class citizens in their own country, one groaning under the weight of apartheid? How could Simon approach them as equal partners when their own government demanded that they treat him as a superior?[ii]
It’s worth noting that Simon paid South African musicians as much as triple the union wage, offering songwriting royalties to those who made a contribution to his songs—something a number of modern artists would never consider.
South African jazz artist Joseph Gwangwa criticized the notion that Simon’s album had helped popularize South African music, stating, “So, it has taken another white man to discover my people?”[iii]
And here is where I will leave the argument. Those looking for a quick and definitive answer to the questions raised should listen to the album. (I’ve provided a video of one live performance.) For a more detailed response, read Sins in Blue.
(This post features original art from Wade Dillon.)
_________________________________________________
[i] Denselow, Robin. “Paul Simon’s Graceland: The acclaim and the outrage.” The Guardian. 19 Apr. 2012. Guardian News and Media. 10 Oct. 2019 <https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/apr/19/paul-simon-graceland-acclaim-outrage>.
[ii] Mccall, Tris. “Paul Simon’s ‘Graceland’ boxed set revisits controversial and brilliant album.” Nj. 03 June 2012. 10 Oct. 2019 <https://www.nj.com/entertainment/music/2012/06/graceland_paul_simon_25th_anni.html>.
[iii] Denselow, Robin. “Paul Simon’s Graceland: The acclaim and the outrage.” The Guardian. 19 Apr. 2012. Guardian News and Media. 10 Oct. 2019 <https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/apr/19/paul-simon-graceland-acclaim-outrage>.
It’s a hard one isn’t it?
Exploitation, or support?
I grew up in the UK in the sixties with Paul Simon’s early music in my ears. To me, he outshone and outclassed even the Beatles, who at the time, were making two-minute teenage love songs – melodic, certainly, but so, so shallow.
Twenty five years later, with kids of my own, and struggling to make a living in a very broken Britain, Graceland burst upon us, and shone like a beacon of joy.
Of course, we knew about apartheid in South Africa (how could we not?) and we hated that people suffered and died under a repressive regime.
But it was remote, ephemeral, and hard to relate to our everyday lives.
Graceland changed that, and suddenly Africa was real and immediate and important. We knew more, we found out more and we cared more.
Graceland didn’t change the world, but it did make more people aware of a very bad situation, and that can only be a good thing, surely?
I still love to listen to that album, and all of Paul’s other great stuff. For myself, I believe that Graceland increased general awareness of apartheid, and if it didn’t contribute to the debate, it at least brought significant attention to it. On balance, worth the controversy, I think.
Thanks for an interesting blog.