Jump to content

Hot and Touchy Topic - Cultural Appropriation in the Arts


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Two articles, from opposite sides of the issue. Recommended reading for serious thought on a difficult and complicated issue.

 

The first from the NYTimes, "In Defense of Cultural Appropriation" by Kenan Malik.

 

The second from NPR, "Cultural Appropriation Is, In Fact, Indefensible" by K. Tempest Bradford.

 

I can't put more than one link on a post (or at least I can't figure out how to do so) so, in the order the articles appeared, this post has the Malik article linked, and see the subsequent post for Bradford's direct rejoinder to Malik.

 

Man, this is a touchy, touchy topic and eyes widen and tones harden at the first timid mention of discussing the conflicting views. Yikes!

 

Myself, I am simply at sea on this - on my left swims the shark labeled "black guy creates the vibe but goes broke - white guy steals the vibe and makes a million". On my right swims the shark labeled "if you are white, you must ask permission to use the following list of chords, rhythms, notes, phrasings, etc etc etc or you will be eaten alive".

 

This topic might be too touchy for the Forum - I won't complain if it gets shut down. I'll just say "too bad, because I need some light in this current dark, foggy, dangerous artistic landscape." But if we can all just behave and discuss respectfully and thoughtfully - now there's a radical idea!

 

nat

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

<<Even Malik's example involving rock and roll isn't as simple as Elvis "stealing" from black artists. Before he even came along, systematic oppression and segregation in America meant black musicians didn't have access to the same opportunities for mainstream exposure, income, or success as white ones. >>

 

Breaking news!! Black people have historically been exploited in the United States!!! Wow, never knew that. But it was musicians like Elvis who turned white people on to rhythm and blues (as well as country and rockabilly)...and it was skinny white guitarists from England who, in the 60s, shined a light on American blues artists and in many cases, gave them second (and far more profitable) careers.

 

Sure, there's the disclaimer based on the following definition of cultural appropriation: <<"power dynamic in which members of a dominant culture take elements from a culture of people who have been systematically oppressed by that dominant group."

 

So are King Sunny Ade, Kassav, and other "black" groups (gee, I always thought they were music groups...I'm sooo ignorant!) are appropriating white culture because white people invented synthesizers? After all, King Sunny Ade IS part of the "dominant group" in Africa. If a white gay person moves to Nigeria, can he say Ade should stop using synthesizers because where Ade lives, he's in the dominant group and gay white people aren't? And what about Liberia, where you can be a citizen only if you're black? I guess I should go there and demand they stop playing anything with even-tempered tuning, since it was popularized by white Europeans.

 

Earth to K. Tempest Bradford: White executives at record companies were just as happy to exploit white "hicks" from the South, or white kids who didn't know any better. Exploiters tend to be equal opportunity exploiters. The implication is that it's okay for oppressed people to take cultural elements from a dominant culture, but not the other way around. I object to making the issue about "cultural appropriation" when the real issue is exploitation, which is NOT a racial phenomenon.

 

Nor is it a neat, clean, "yes or no" world. It was white musicians publicizing reggae that helped launch Bob Marley into superstardom beyond the third world. Yet reggae was rooted in black Jamaicans listening to white pop music stations from the US in the 50s, and putting their own twist on it. Oh, and Bob Marley was half white, half black and called "white boy" in Kingston when he was growing up. Which part would I be appropriating if I play a Marley-style rhythm guitar lick? I'm going to incorporate whatever elements inspire me in my music, in any way that I want, whenever I want. If I hear something that "sings" to me, I'll be damned if the first thing I have to do is check up on the artist's "racial purity." Is it okay to play a Bob Marley lick if he's 55% white, but not if he's 55% black? It gets really silly, really fast.

 

Here we have music, a universal language, that mutates and grows in large part because of cross-fertilization. Look at what Paul Simon did for highlife music...and look what highlife music did for Paul Simon. The blues came out of Africa, traveled to the USA, then went to England where it was revitalized by white musicians like Eric Clapton AND black musicians like Jimmy Hendrix. Pink Floyd started as a blues band, but look where they ended up.

 

Now, I do object if artists don't give credit to their roots, or try to get out of paying royalties. But that's not appropriating, that's stealing...and that has nothing to do with race, but morality. Instead of creating artificial barriers based on race, it would be vastly more productive to encourage an atmosphere where artists are upfront with "credit where credit is due."

 

Wow. Just wow. The world needs less racism, not more of it. I get that the author is probably well-meaning, but what he proposes would promote more divisions, not fewer divisions. (And as it says in the article for which Mr. Bradford was too timid to provide a link, "Seventy years ago, racist radio stations refused to play 'race music' for a white audience. Today, antiracist activists insist that white painters should not portray black subjects. To appropriate a phrase from a culture not my own: Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.")

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Understood, Craig. I share your views pretty much. But what I can't quite get past is this - how it has to feel, for a member of a cultural minority, to see it happen over and over again, the same old "them who has gets, them who has not gets not". I don't want to be the guy who profits greatly by making an acceptable upper class artwork out of "primitive materials", while the "primitives" remain faceless, profitless, unknown. I mean I would know if I were doing this, right? It would bother me, a lot.

 

Nor do I want the implicit segregation and rule-making that would result from trying to come up with some sort of one-size-fits-all concept of trademarking artistic methods or styles as the exclusive property of any particular race or group. But even so, these difficulties are no final reason to shrug off the entire issue.

 

On the other hand, I can't help but notice that the musical examples that get trotted out for this debate are typically from a bygone era. As far as the black roots of blues being harvested by white musicians, that boat sailed almost a lifetime ago - it's been over and dead as an issue for many a long year. What's the most recent flap in music of this sort? Are people complaining about white neo-soul performers like Robin Thicke? St. Paul and the Broken Bones? Remember the not-so-recent comments about Deep Forest? Deep Forest does make me cringe a bit, although I fully recognize their innovative skill. Did the aboriginal contributors to Deep Forest tracks profit fairly? Did the brush with fame and fortune ruin their lives? Were their cultures helped or harmed? I have no idea....

 

(by the way, if you haven't heard St. Paul and the Broken Bones....mercy, mercy, they have something hot going IMHO.)

 

The only way I can see, myself, to navigate this is to follow Clapton's example. He made himself an evangelist of black blues and never hesitated to give credit where credit was due, and to help promote the careers of some of the brilliant musicians he borrows so heavily from. It would have been a shame if the black blues had been locked in the ghetto, never to bless the world at large. It's also a shame that the imitators took the prize basically while the innovators for the most part took whatever they could scrape together. Clapton's taken a lot of flak for not being original enough - of being something of a one-man tribute band to a genre. I think he can live with that - he strikes me as humble enough, at least according to what I've gleaned from interviews and articles.

 

The real damage is done I don't think at the artistic level, it's at the business end, the marketing level. Jagger admitted that young British girls would not buy R&B records by black Americans, but they would buy basically the same material if it came with a white British bloke's face they liked to look at. Why would any record producer go broke trying to sell the one when the other would make the company zillions?

 

The free market...sigh. As they say, knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

 

nat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Going back in time from the 1950's when white rock & roll became the rage, there were black artists like Jelly Roll Morton, Charlie Parker, Art Tatum and of course many others. They appropriated the late 19th century harmonic language of western European musicians such as Richard Wagner, Claude Debussy, Beethoven and others. These black artists absorbed the harmonic tools and put them to use as it suited their musical styles. They gave things their personal stamp. But they did not invent the passing diminished 7th chords, the 9th and 13th chords etc. that were at the core of the language of jazz.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
If the artists acknowledge their roots and give credit where credit is due' date=' I don't see a problem. If they claim ownership, I see a problem.[/quote']

 

It is a known fact that publishing companies and record labels, collaborate to steal music rights from Artists.

Tom Petty and Tom Schultz ( Boston ) had to fight the industry and won their rights for their own music .

When I wasa travelling musician, I was doing a sound check at a club. I had a break and talked with the janitor, he was in a popular 1950's group and both the publishing company and the label, ganged up on him during hard economic time and under financial diress, forced him to sign his rights to his own music.

 

And they say that we Natives, are the only ones who get the Indian Treatment ....

 

Who said Rock n Roll never forgets ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

King Sunny Ade:

 

 

Anderton, you are a true cosmopolitan but be careful, you are beginning to sound and come across like me. :D

I like to also think of Alpha Blondy, the Solar System album.

 

You make a compelling point.

 

I also like to add that sometimes people are accused of stealing music because a note sound the same but how can music not sound the same?

Imagine the possibility of people making music that has absolutely no resemblance to what has existed before?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Often forgotten is that minority cultures borrow as much artistic influence from the majority culture as vice versa. African American music is quite distinct from African music, largely due to the influence of European people's music. I listen to music from all over the world and can hear the influence of western styles on nearly every modern artist playing the music of their culture.

 

The racist practices of record companies, radio stations etc. hurt(s) many minority musicians financially and otherwise, and the current division of the music market into rigid genre/demographic categories is also harmful to many artists.

 

Elvis was not the problem, because his music sounded original and was not a mere imitation of African American music. Cultural appropriation can be problematic when the motive is purely financial and the underdog status of the imitated musicians is intentionally exploited. An artist like Pat Boone, who did covers of R&B hits without adding anything good and unique to his versions, was a better example of cultural appropriation and a symptom of music industry bigotry.

 

Elvis, the Stones, Beatles etc. introduced many of us to black music and expanded the market for it. They also failed (if they were trying) to accurately imitate their influences. I find that some of the best music is "mis-interpretive music," when the artist tries to incorporate other cultural influences into their music and fail to get it quite right, creating a new music style. Examples include Elvis, Beatles, Stones etc. or more recently, hip-hop/funk influenced rock bands such as Rage Against the Machine. Similarly I enjoy the collage of international influences that appear in Bollywood music and Hindi Pop or the incorporation of hip hop and electronic dance rhythms by Balkan Gypsy brass bands.

 

The world is too small to keep influences from creeping into our music. Music genres that never change with the times and/or incorporate new influences are doomed to fade away as living music.

 

(by the way King Sunny Ade's band had a steel guitarist due to the influence of American country western music)

bc0064ea656b886dc233cd63d8f45735.jpg.e86efd5a3cdfccb821d865d884fcc865.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I find that some of the best music is "mis-interpretive music' date='" when the artist tries to incorporate other cultural influences into their music and fail to get it quite right, creating a new music style.[/quote']

 

There have been a lot of thoughtful posts in this thread and yours is one of them, but I had to single out that phrase as being spot-on. I think some of my best songs were just that - I heard something new that I really liked, but couldn't "get it right" and ended up with something different but influenced in a unique way.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...