A NYT piece last week about the 1950s USIA program to have jazz musicians tour "hot spots" around the world to improve the image of the US prompted a lively email discussion among a group of friends, some frequent Sound Taste commenters.
One of the key questions was, if the govt. were to embark on a similar program today, what would it look like, given the diminished grab that jazz has?
We all agreed that hip hop is the equivalent globalized musical form that is nonetheless squarely identified with American cool. But how would it work?
Robert (aka Sovietiko) asked
Pero si es Hip Hop, que considero el mayor export de U.S.A ahora mismo, entonces quien seria? Los que estan rapeando de to'el billete q tienen? Taria duro enviar un artista a Iran a que le diga a ellos "Pana, nadamas el reloj mio vale mas que lo que tu vas a hacer en un ano !!"
o Black Eye Peas con "mi hump, mi hump" ?
If it's hip hop, which I think is the biggest US export right now, then who would it be? The ones rapping about all the money they have? It would be rough to send an artist to Iran to rap "Son, just the watch I'm wearing is worth more than what you make in a year" or Black Eyed Peas with their "my hump, my hump."
This recent piece about Nas made me think he'd be an intriguing choice.
Kiko didn't think it would work at all today.
Como intercambio cultural, cool. Pero NADA tiene ese tipo de relevancia hoy en dia. DONDEQUIERA tan haciendo jazz, rock, hip-hop, etc. Si ha de ir alguien a'pero--o por lo menos popular--el bulto se lo harian, pero de seguro ya ellos tienen su version criolla. Por ej, cuando Paul McCartney toca en Moscú, el bulto no es por el rock, sino porq el es un ex-Beatle.
As a cultural exchange, cool. But NOTHING has that sort of relevance these days. Jazz, rock, hip hop etc. is being made EVERYWHERE. If someone great -- or at least popular -- were to go, the public would love it, but surely they have their own local version. Eg, when Paul McCartney plays Moscow, the big deal is not that it's rock, but that he's an ex-Beatle.
We disagreed a bit on this point. To me, local versions do not entirely substitute for the "authenticity" still credited to, say, gangsta rap stars.
And I totally agreed with Jorge's musical osmosis via military invasion theory:
pensandolo bien, es muy posible ke esten mandando mas artistas de lo ke
pensamos ya ke a estas alturas hay tropas gringas en todas partes del
universo, or so it seems...
thinking it over, it's quite possible the US govt. is sending out more artists than we think, given that US troops are all over the universe, or so it seems...
American music has often been imported via military occupation (e.g. Dee Dee Ramone first heard rock n roll as an army brat in Germany, and Japan developed a strong jazz culture fed by the American military presence there post-WWII). A couple of folks have started looking at the playlists of soldiers in Iraq & Afghanistan. I wonder how much of that music is filtering locally.
Thinking about this the past couple of days, I guess that the more interesting cultural exchange can no longer be government-sponsored, not just because there's no one with decent taste left working in government, but because it was a pretty suspect endeavor in the first place.
I think the interesting stuff is happening more at the NGO/indy level. Jeff Chang argues here that although gangsta rap is the soundtrack of the world (especially in conflict zones) there might be some room for more "conscious" hip hop to spread grassroots to various non-Western locales.
Not to say I have a rose-colored vision of the possibilities of cultural exchange, given recent co-optations of anthropologists and other social scientists by the military. Michael at La Guayabita wondered whether ethno/musicologists are likewise being recruited. Seeing recent uses of music as a weapon, I woudn't doubt it.
[1958 pix of Dave Brubeck in Baghdad from Brubeck collection via NYT; pix of Nas by Justin Stephens via NY Mag; pix of soldier w iPod via weikhang.com]
