Critical Review - Steven Feld, "Notes on 'World Beat'"

In this article, Steven Feld discusses the appropriation of African music, particularly in the Paul Simon album Graceland. In short, he questions the amount of credit given to African and African-American musicians who play on the album, and the balance of power in the music industry in general.

Feld starts the discussion with the example of Mick Jagger, who recorded songs by Muddy Waters with the Rolling Stones. Jagger says he loved Waters and wanted to draw attention to his music, and Waters in turn approved of the versions. Feld first points out that the Stones' use of his material led to increased record sales, concert tours, etc., for Waters, but then turns to the negative: "However, it is clear that the economic rewards and recognition of artistic status that accrued to the Rolling Stones greatly outweigh those that accrued to Muddy Waters for the original recording." This sentence ignores the fact that the Rolling Stones recorded plenty of their own compositions - it's not like they succeeded solely on the basis of playing Muddy Waters tunes. What does "recognition of artistic status" even mean - how well-known they were, or how highly they were regarded? If the former, sure the Stones are known by more people, but it's not like Muddy Waters is written off by those who are familiar with both. I don't want to downplay his influence on the Rolling Stones - I just don't think that Feld has evidence that it was specifically music taken from Waters that brought them more fame. What if it was their other material that made people by the records that included Waters covers? Is it still exploitative then? And Feld doesn't really consider the notion that the Stones might have transformed the music in a way that might have made it more appealing to a broader audience. Also, he notes that "there is considerable cultural arrogance in the notion that it takes a recording by the Rolling Stones to bring recognition to the artistic contributions of a Muddy Waters." What? Who are you suggesting has this notion? Mick Jagger did bring wider recognition to Waters' artistic contribution. It might be a shame that it wasn't as widely recognized when originally released, but I'm confused about who's being arrogant here. It's hard for me to see Jagger crediting Waters in interviews as a bad thing.

"How then does one evaluate this type of trade, where original creative product by primary tradition bearers is appropriated in exchange for symbolic respect and possibly [money]?" This question totally ignores the fact that Muddy Waters was also influenced by artists. He did not invent the blues by any means, so I don't see why his music is the "original creative product." The idea of a "primary tradition bearer" is just silly. It's hard not to read a "blackness = authenticity" correlation in the wording here.

Skipping to later in the article (242), Feld suggests that Paul Simon downplays the African influences on the album because his name is at the top, it's produced by him, etc. My initial response to this is that this is practical 1) commercially, because people will buy Paul Simon records, not African groups they've never heard of, and 2) because there are so many different groups involved that it's hard to imagine a compromise for the album cover. That said, I think it's an important point Feld makes about drawing "the boundary line between participation and collaboration at ownership" ("Whose music? Paul Simon's music"). What would a fairer way to sort out the credit given to contributions?

This ties into the discussion about who gets songwriting credit. Feld cites a member Los Lobos talking about how Simon just asking the band to play and "that he eventually got a song out of [what they played]." In a situation like that, it's unclear exactly who is responsible...maybe we can discuss this in class...