Reviewing Reggae from a percussion perspective

I am a fan of Reggae since my early teens (since I was about 11), starting with Peter Tosh, Bob Marley, and soon less-known but real Roots Reggae artists like the Wailing Souls, Burning Spear, the Itals, Ijahman Levi, and Gregory Isaacs.

This means it clearly preceded my later passion for “percussion”, as I would become a percussionist later in life.

TOWARD PERCUSSION

My trajectory toward percussion is in itself interesting, especially in relation to other musical instruments around me. My (Italian) father played accordion in his youth, but had a few harmonicas in the house, my Spanish mother small percussion instruments, including the Spanish castanets. Listening to music, my brothers got interested in guitars, the oldest acoustic Spanish ones, the other bass guitar. They took lessons in time. A friend of the family (son of Italian parents, friends of my parents) played fanatically the drum kit since young, somehow intriguing me.

Seeing a keyboard somewhere, that interested me a bit more, seeming also more practical to me than the stringed guitars. When my brother obtained music software, a MIDI keyboard came in the picture, which I also used. So the first real instrument was a “toy” keyboard and soon after a more serious MIDI keyboard - connected to computer software for music making, which had many interesting, “faux” sampled instruments on it, at least allowing to make music (basic bass and drum, other instruments, piano, trumpet, etcetera). Not “the real thing”, MIDI imitations, but still.. arousing interest to all kinds of instruments. I made compositions with bass, drums, piano, added percussive sounds I liked, or horns, etcetera.

Yet, in a concrete sense, “percussion instruments” were not yet as much on my radar, rather subconsciously and indirectly, even if shaping aspects of songs I liked (scrapers, rattles, hand drums on Reggae songs).

Interesting, therefore, to examine how I became so concretely interested in percussion instruments, after this “keyboard” and MIDI period up to my 30s.

To not make this introduction too long, - and knowing my life of course well - , I resume my trajectory “toward concrete percussion interest” analytically, into some main sources/causes:

1) Liking rhythmical music and dancing to it from young: dancing felt natural to me, as was listening to the drum-based groove, including in Reggae. I’m a dancer, at heart, and my sense of rhythm strong.

2) Making songs with MIDI, having “faux”, sampled percussion instrument sounds also available, using them in songs I made, through computer software. I mentioned this already. Think scrapers, rattles, hand drum sounds on MIDI (conga, bongo, timbales): awakening my interest for real, actual percussion.

3) My interest in learning and reading about Africa and it’s relatively “percussive” culture, including traditional music, and the African Diaspora: African retentions in the Caribbean and Americas. I liked reading also as a child, also about Africa. I studied the African diaspora also professionally a period, and personally. Soon after Reggae I also started to listen to African music, intrigued by sounds of (often percussion) instruments (as part of the whole), then unknown to me.

4) Trips to Cuba I made in the period 2001-2006, having also close personal friends there, especially in Santiago de Cuba, having been to Havana and elsewhere in Cuba too. Like Jamaica, Cuba has a rich musical culture, but one with many acoustic bands, not so much electric, playing live in many places, often in intimate contexts. I sat often close to musicians in Santiago de Cuba, who played percussion instruments, with hand drums like the conga and bongo having the “drum” function, which the drum kit has elsewhere (most Western modern “pop” music, in fact). Cuba however still used mainly “acoustic” hand drums, and other percussion instruments, like cowbells, scrapers, shakers. I enjoyed such live acoustic shows in Cuba, danced to this, and got since then more interested in “concrete”, actual percussion instruments.

Put these causes together, and especially after trips to Cuba, I started to notice the “scraper” or other percussive sounds more in Reggae songs I listened to then before, considering it also part of an Afro-Caribbean connection I now learned about. I began to listen more and more “specifically” to percussion instruments.

Speaking with more musicians, and with interest in black music and Reggae, I got advice to get drumming lessons (the drum kit), seeming to fit my rhythmic interests. The producer of my first officially released single (Rastafari Live On, in 2012), Robert Curiel, was a drummer, as well as studio owner, and hinted at that idea too.

I played with that thought, but found it both expensive and too “robotic” and technical. Too formal perhaps too, taking lessons on a drum kit, step by step, counting

Instead my free mind preferred the “hand drum” vibes I remembered from Cuba, just feeling the groove, intuitively. Rhythmical, yet also giving an extra “sauce” and embellishments to sound, and around the rhythm, often adding swing and polyrhythm to the drum kit. I liked that.

PERCUSSION LESSONS

I therefore bought my first Bongo (Afro-Cuban attached smaller drums), played with it freely on music (mostly Reggae), fitting the groove..

This felt good, and after some years, I decided to take formal lessons for Bongo and Conga with well-known percussionist in the Netherlands (from Curaçao), Vernon Chatlein, in 2014. To give some structure to what I really like.

The - mainly Bongo and Conga drum - lessons were certainly instructive and fruitful, - it gave “structure” - and I learned timing, keeping a steady pattern, and specific Afro-Cuban hand drum patterns (and some Puerto Rican Bomba ones), salsa, son, Rumba, also cowbell patterns, learning about both 4/4 and 6/8 rhythms, the “clave”, different uses of “straight” and “swing” time.

Later. I also took some Djembe and Talking Drum lessons (from an African).

These formal lessons definitely cemented my specific listening to “percussion instruments” within songs from then, in Reggae and other genres: hand drum patterns (more the kete drums in Reggae), scrapers, woodblocks, bells, etcetera.

JAMMING

After these formal percussion lessons in 2014, and some “technical base”, I would play along with jam sessions in various music clubs in Amsterdam (Netherlands, where I live) and around, and it went well, and my rhythmic sense seemed well enough to improvise as well, knowing when to add and when to stop, adapting to other musicians, and different genres. Getting in the groove.

Since I liked jamming with percussion, and it went well, I kept on doing this, up to today. It is definitely a learning experience, a kind of practical schooling about the nuances of rhythm and percussion in a wider musical piece. For years I am jamming now.

More importantly, people liked what I added to those jam sessions with percussion (they told me so, and it showed: it was for changing, international audiences), and this goes against prejudices about “jam sessions” that I note exist: “just ego trips”, I heard some say about those jam sessions in some clubs, as well as “anyone can participate”, as just a social activity. Of course this can be disguised jealousy.

None of these prejudices are true. As in the original Jazz traditions: when playing improvisational, musicians have to respect and listen to each other, give each other space: no hierarchy or superiority. Interestingly, this is according to many a historical response to the “dehumanization” and “infantilization” Black people in the US had to face for centuries. It also explains the much-used word “man” among Jazz “cats”: as opposed to the “boy” White racists in the US South often said to adult Black men.

In practice, jams function the same as bands aiming at a musical piece to please an audience, only more improvised, less strict and formal. People (the audience) enjoy it, beyond the musicians enjoying togetherness (which also is valuable in itself). In fact, it is “purer” as music, more than the composed songs written down to practice and get as tight as possible for some concert or recording. That is less natural.

Neither can “anyone” participate in those jam sessions: you have to have a certain level and feel, and the times when a musician with too little knowledge or skills on stage disturbs the whole quality, this is tactically and diplomatically told, and a song ended sooner, so the musician can be (politely) replaced. Maybe my “haters” hope this, but this never happened to me: I mainly played whole sets, and my additions were appreciated.

My bass-playing brother jammed a few times too, but said that mistakes are more a source for stress for guitarists than for percussion players: a wrong note or chord on bass cannot be occulted, it sounds off-key or “false”, while with percussion you can act like you just started a new pattern, he supposed. This is not entirely untrue, I must admit, but sometimes I just stop a bar or two, and then come in again.

COMPOSING

I further still make my own musical compositions via computer software, - now with more attention to percussion (and having more percussion instruments) than before -, and then I like to “structure” more technically and strict than at free jam sessions, like a band does: tighter, dosed, coordinated, toward a recognizable song, with repeated aspects and tight grooves, of about 3 or 4 minutes long, as the standard goes. This composing and recording for me is, however, is the “end”-point of free creativity, not the starting point: a crucial difference.

Inevitably, I obtained more and more percussion instruments (and some guitars, and wind instruments), and like other percussionists, my house became like a “percussion museum”. For jamming, composing, and recording.

This is where I am at now.

In the remainder of this post I would like to show how my later “specific” attention to percussion instruments in music and songs,- grown organically over time as I just explained – manifests itself when reviewing music, specifically in my favourite genre Reggae.

PERCUSSION-MINDED REVIEWS

I already studied the percussion (somewhat subdued, I found) in Bob Marley songs for another post on this blog, but now I am going to review it on other Reggae albums, ones that I already enjoyed before I “took up” percussion, and started to have more that focus.

I liked those albums and songs on them as whole musical pieces, as of course you have to start when listening music: you have to feel the whole, before checking details.

Yet, now in my life I focus more on percussion, as said, also because of my activities as percussionist. Reviewing songs/albums thus from a percussion perspective. I choose some (a mere, but representative selection) of my favourite albums.

GREGORY ISAACS – SOON FORWARD

This 1979 Reggae album is great, almost from begin to end. The “smooth” lovers title track is best known among Reggae fans, but it contains several good songs (also with “conscious” lyrics), having the involvement of top musicians in Jamaica of the time (Sly & Robbie, among others).

Someone I know said that the tambourine is very important in Reggae. This is not true. It is used at times, but a bit less than in other genres. Not more than in Soul or Pop, for instance. Motown was very “tambourine-heavy”, perhaps an echo of Gospel and Black churches.

The percussion instruments used on Soon Forward show this: a few songs indeed include a tambourine throughout songs, but most not. Recurring are the shakers or maracas (several songs), the Cabasa shaker (the Brazilian shaker with metal beads) – on Down The Line -, woodblocks (several songs, such as the opener), bells (sometimes soft in the mix), and hand drums (kete,a.o.) – e.g. on Slave Market. Mr Brown has the “flex-a-tone” ( a metal, “singing saw” like idiophone), a rattle here and there. The title track has an important role for the guiro scraper.

All these instruments I now play myself, so I notice them. Plus I notice how crucial they are in the whole.

The tambourine is present on about 3 songs on this album, played mostly quite loose, and not as tight “timekeeper” as sometimes in other genres. So hardly “the most important percussion instrument” on this album.

The extensive “hi-hat” use in the Jamaican drumming style (still common in current New Roots from Jamaica), probably in part replaces an eventual “tambourine” need or function. It simply would not add that much, while a shaker sounds more different from the hi-hat, thus enriching the whole sound more than a tambourine would.

I noticed all this already jamming, and making my own songs: you live and learn.

Songs:

(Percussion between bars):

1. Universal Tribulation (shakers, bells)

2. Mr. Brown (flex-a-tone, hand drums)

3 Down The Line (cabasa shaker, woodblock)

4. Lonely Girl (hand drums)

5. Bumping And Boring (woodblock, hand drums)

6. My Relationship (tambourine, woodblock, hand drums)

7. Slave Market (hand drums),

8. Black Liberation Struggle (tambourine)

9. Jah Music (tambourine)

10. Soon Forward (scraper (guiro), shakers, bells/blocks)

WAILING SOULS – FIRE HOUSE ROCK

Another favourite of mine, this great album from 1981. Real Reggae music, from a Roots harmony group, with more good albums. Backed by the great Roots Radics band. It does not even have the tambourine in it, but other percussion instruments, like the cabasa shaker, and the scraper (guiro) recurring on several songs (4 of them even), quite prominent – read: relatively audible or loud – in the mix. The album’s relatively “sparse” sound brings that percussion more to the fore. In fact, the songs would not be the same without them.

Tracklist

A1 Fire House Rock (shaker)

A2 Run Dem Down (scraper)

A3 Oh What A Feeling (triangle(s), shaker(s))

A4 Kingdom Rise Kingdom Fall (scraper, woodblock)

A5 Act Of Affection (shaker)

B1 Busnah (shaker (cabasa))

B2 A Fool Will Fall (triangle/bells, scraper)

B3 Bandits Taking Over (rattle, scraper)

B4 Who Lives It (cabasa shaker)

B5 See Baba Joe (flex-a-tone, cabasa shaker)

BURNING SPEAR – HAIL H.I.M.

Another “classic” album within the Reggae world is Burning Spear’s 1980 album Hail H.I.M, with several great songs, of which Columbus is best known, perhaps.

Some interesting differences regarding percussion, compared to the two discussed above. There is much more use of hand drums added in the mix, partly not very loud, yet “gluing” the rhythm together on several of the album’s songs. Burning Spear (Winston Rodney) being a percussionist and conga player might have something to do with this (playing percussion on this album, along with bass-man Aston "Familyman" Barret), and indeed the drums sounds often more like the (orig. Afro-Cuban) “Conga” (lower, cowskin), than the higher-pitched, cylindrical, smaller “kete” drum, as also used in Rastafari nyabinghi sessions. In the last 4 songs, incl. the “African” songs, the hand drums are a bit more prominent in the mix, both the kete and what sounds like the conga.

The bassline of Jah A Guh Raid – by the way – I translated to percussion, i.e. to a conga drum pattern. I play that one, among others of course, on jam sessions.

Tracklist:

A1 Hail H.I.M. (hand drums)

A2 Columbus (tambourine, hand drums, (cow)bell)

A3 Road Foggy (chimes, triangle, hand drums, rattle/vibraslap)

A4 Follow Marcus Garvey (cabasa shaker, hand drums)

A5 Jah See And Know (tambourine)

B1 African Teacher (woodblock, hand drums)

B2 African Postman (bells, hand drums, wood-/jamblock, cuica (friction drum))

B3 Cry Blood Africa (tambourine, cabasa shaker, hand drums)

B4 Jah A Go Raid (tambourine, hand drums)

RICHIE SPICE – SPICE IN YOUR LIFE

These are somewhat older albums, and perhaps it is good to compare with an example of New Roots (Reggae), an album that I enjoyed very much, namely Richie Spice’s Spice In Your Life from 2004, with “big tunes” (Reggae club hits), Earth A Run Red being the biggest hit, but groovy and catchy songs like Righteous Youths, Black Like A Tar, and Marijuana are also favourites in some Reggae places. Essentially, it is (as more New Roots albums) a collection of recent singles, recorded in different studio’s and (partly) different musicians. Now I am going to look at it from a percussion perspective:

TRACK LIST:

1. Intro

2.Sometimes (Spice In Your Life) (hand drums, shaker (cabasa), rattle/vibraslap)

3. Identity

4. Black Like Tar (woodblock/jamblock, tambourine)

5. Little Elements

6. Crying Out For Love (shaker (cabasa), rattle/vibraslap)

7. Righteous Youths (shaker, hand drums)

8. Run Red Intro 0:21

9.Earth A Run Red (rattle, hand drums, shaker (cabasa), scraper)

10.More Terrible (AKA 911) (none)

11.Folly Living (AKA Blood Again) (hand drums, shakers)

12.Check Yourself (none)

13.Move Dem Out (rattle/vibraslap)

14.Chalwa

15.Marijuana (none)

16.Outta The Blue (hand drums, rattle/vibraslap)

17.Prime Time Girl ((cow)bell, cabasa shaker)

18. Holiday (none)

19.Fake Smile (scraper)

20.Reggae's A Fire (hand drums)

21.Spinning Around (cajón (or guitar case), shaker)

22.Ghetto Girl (none)

What can be concluded regarding this Richie Spice album is that percussion is a bit “modest” – also often soft in the mix – yet present throughout, often “gluing” rhythms together, other times “decorating/embellishing” and “saucing up”, songs, in line with the “seasoning” function of percussion, as some see it. Buried in the mix, yet recognizable. The shaker – especially the “cabasa” is relatively common, adding to its gluing function, while more militant, protest songs – interestingly – have the “sharper” scraper (or guiro) sound, such as the big hit Earth A Run Red, and the song with Chuck Fender.

This is all no coincidence: hand drums recur in more “meditational”, or reflective tunes, and shakers more in “love” songs. This distinction is not clear-cut, but it is an overall tendency, related to the characteristic sounds of the instrument. The art of percussion, is the art of sound.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

Good to point out that I see these albums I chose to review seem fairly representative of Reggae from the periods (including from other labels as Perry's Black Ark, or Augustus Pablo's Rockers), and the artists (other albums of theirs often having similar percussion instrument choices).

It’s of course not just what percussion instruments are played, but how. Still, overall on these albums (and in my estimation based on what else I know) the shaker – especially the Afro Brazilian Cabasa one – is more commonly used than the most “mainstream” percussion instrument of all: the tambourine. The tambourine recurs here and there, sometimes even pumping – but overall more often the “sharper” shake sound of the Cabasa is heard. I think it is because that Cabasa sound fits the hi-hat pattern more, and the Jamaican drumming style is “hi-hat heavy”. Its sharpness befits in addition rhythmic “closedness” as eventual counter-rhythm.

Hand drums are further common, and the scraper and rattle recur also, as does the friction drum (cuica), with the animal-type sound (known also from Bob Marley’s Could You Be Loved). Also the metal, glissando "flex-a-tone" can be heard

Then, the woodblock/jamblock sharp sound also recur as “driving” many grooves, used well and audibly, often “spicing up” the grooves. The same applies to the cowbell.

On some albums, the percussion instruments fit the lyrics, though never that fixed, as the cabasa can be played “poignant” and short, thus appearing in protest or "conscious” songs as well, and as fitting, only perhaps in a bit more "reflective” songs, as the excellent Busnah on the Wailing Souls album. Other, more militant or “battle” songs on that album have the sharper scraper (called “guiro” in Cuba). Probably no coincidence, but sound-related. On the other hand, the “smooth love” and sexy song “par excellence” – Gregory Isaacs’ Soon Forward, also has a prominent role for the scraper.

The triangle occurs here and there even, such as on Burning Spear’s Road Foggy, and in intro’s of Wailing Souls’ songs.

NEW ROOTS AND PERCUSSION

Percussion remained also enduring enough to remain important in newer post-1990s New Roots Reggae (by Sizzla, Richie Spice, Tarrus Riley, Luciano, Lutan Fyah, Fantan Mojah, a.o.). It is not just an “old-time” outdated thing, but percussion remains being considered crucial to the Jamaican Reggae feel, by Jamaicans themselves. The sound is with modern means now fuller, more instruments, and digital additions/aids, and less sparse than some (somewhat) “emptier” sounding Reggae from earlier decades, making percussions now drown more often in the whole, though in some songs made more prominent to good effect, like on Black Like Tar (the groovy woodblock pattern). Burning Spear has a bit a “full” sound too, yet still has the woodblock audibly crucial in songs like African Teacher, and also in Gregory Isaacs’ great Down The Line: the woodblock helps to make that song unique and appealing rhythmically.

AFRO-AMERICAN CONNECTION?

Well, the guiro scraper remembered me of my Cuban experiences, and live music I heard there, often even “driving” rhythms, which is less the case in Reggae, as already drum-and bass-based, yet still the scraper can be "driving”, as in the Wailing Soul’s Run Dem Down. Elsewhere it adds nice counter-rhythms.

Most hand drums seem the Kete drum from Nyabinghi, higher sounding than the Afro-Cuban conga, which is present here and there, predictably more in Burning Spear songs, who plays conga. The Kete drum may seem more “rootical” and Rasta, yet the Conga, while internationalized, has Afro-Cuban origins, with Congo region presedents. A relatively high percentage of African/Black Cubans have roots in Central Africa, Congo, especially in the music-rich East of Cuba.

The well known double Bongos come from Eastern Cuba, and resembles more the Kete drum in sound, but less deep. Different musical cultures of course, although the “heart beat” pattern of Congo drum traditions can be found in both Cuban and Jamaican music (Nyahbinghi, Reggae), though fitted differently. A part of Africans in Jamaica had roots in the Congo region, though the Ghana and Igbo connections are a bit stronger, also leaving indirect legacies/retentions.

The Cabasa shaker is much used in Reggae (in general) and has Afro-Brazilian origins, providing an interesting link within the African diaspora. Equally interesting are its origins as invention: namely as a modern, more durable “upgrade” of the age-old Shekere shaker of Yoruba culture – and in Afro-Brazilian Yoruba-based music - , but then with metal beads and plastic, replacing the old shekere’s beads and calabash, proven vulnerable. In Cuba that old Shekere is also still used, by the way. The Cabasa modern variant was a Brazilian invention, with eventual international influence (via Samba), also in the West (sold by LP and other big percussion companies). Relatively often used in Reggae, but also in Jazz, Funk, Pop, and non-Brazilian Latin music.

It might well be – though – that Jamaica is the place where the Cabasa shaker is used most in local music, outside of Brazil itself.

The Jamaican (trap) drumming style is “hi-hat heavy”, and requires perhaps a study all by itself. The creative yet steady hi-hat patterns often are engaging (and extra-percussive) enough. The added percussions have naturally to adapt and relate to this. Interestingly, it adds polyrhythm echoes as African retentions, spread over different instruments, drum, percussions, but also bass and rhythm guitar, moving thus between “straight” and “swing” rhythms, combining quite uniquely in Jamaican Reggae: Salsa (about 70% of Cuban origin) is “straight” rhythm (as in Central Africa, Yorubaland), as is traditional music in parts of Africa where most Jamaicans have their roots (like Ghana). On the other hand, Jazz, R&B, and Blues, historically influencing Reggae, are “swing” and “shuffle” based (with roots in Islamic-influenced Senegambian and Guinea/Mande-speaking areas of Africa). It’s that “swing”/shuffle part of reggae that connects more with the “tambourine” (with resonating cymbals, crossing the beat), if one chooses to use it. On some songs, though, the tambourine played counter-patterns, rather than “gluing” all in a shuffle, showing flexible creativity..

Many of the songs on these albums, I enjoyed as a whole from the start, only later in life as percussionist focusing on details. This is natural and human. The percussion, though, offered a kind of extra layer to unpeel in songs, adding even more beauty and “depth” to the music, in later stages.

That is after all another way how some musicians – even veteran Reggae percussionists themselves, like Sticky, Skully, Sky Juice, and Bongo Herman (who plays percussion on Richie Spice’s Earth A Run Red, for instance) – describe the function of percussion (added to trap drums/the drum kit) within Reggae: as a seasoning, extra “spice”, embellishing, but also as adding “depth” to songs, and their rhythms, like some hi-hat patterns, hinting at ancestral Africa’s polyrhythm musical traditions.

The way Jamaican percussionists choose to play – some call it “between the bass and drums” – on and around the main beat, or “filling spaces”, show this polyrhythmic creativity.

Fonko and soul definition

I recently saw the quite recent documentary film ‘Fonko’ (2016), which was about the “new” Africa told through its current music. Its screening was organized at Café the Zen in Amsterdam (the Netherlands), on the initiative of the organization Soul Definition: a platform with real-life films for a better society (https://souldefinition.net).

Whatever the context of its screening, I found it an engaging documentary. It was narrated by Fela Anikulapo Kuti, of course a well-known Nigerian musician, who died in 1997.

Fonko was in fact more about the new Africa, socially and politically, than about music as such. Sure, newly developed modern music genres – combining traditional and modern (foreign) influences – in several African countries, Ghana, Nigeria, Angola, Senegal, Burkina Faso, South Africa, got some attention, for instance certain hip-hop artists, and some artists involved in what is called Afro-House, similarly mixing influences.

The lyrics and messages of the musicians seemed of more relevance, though. This was in line with Fela Kuti’s narrations throughout the documentary, about the need for Africa to find her own answers and identity and get united, away from Western colonialism and its legacies, capitalist neocolonialism still dividing Africa today, or from Islam, wanting to turn Africans into Arabs, just like Christianity wants to turn Africans into White Americans or Britons/Europeans.

The musicians and others in the documentary expressed their views, and certainly had an idea of an own African identity, albeit modernized in this computer age, through digital equipment. This modern, by definition Western, technology, was used by these African musicians for their own musical explorations, but using African musical idioms, departing in that sense from “traditional African music”, yet still maintaining an Africanness, even in Techno/Digital or House-like music forms.

IRONY

There is an inherent irony in this, of course, but the history of Black music – also in the African Diaspora – is full of such ironies. Western technology, modern instruments, might mostly be Western inventions – or dominated by Western companies –, but played all central roles in the development of genres, and in spreading Black music. It was a welcome means made use of for self-expression, in that sense a case of “fighting them with their own weapons”.

Lack of money often inhibited and inhibits poor people – certainly also in Africa – from buying these modern studio equipment and instruments. Yet, this was circumvented in various, creative ways, though not always in the interest of companies wanting to sell their products. For instance, through illegal copying. A musician in the documentary Fonko funnily turned it around: he argues that those companies should consider it a “privilege” for them, that their computers and other equipment got used in developing modern African music. An interesting way to look at it: culture over money.

That self-expression as an African, remained the most important theme in the documentary, indeed through current music genres, and accompanying dances, especially among the poorer people in several countries, like Ghana, Burkina Faso, or Angola. Also in South Africa, after all, as musician Hugh Masakela pointed out, after Apartheid’s end and the arrival of democracy, the poor Black South Africans remained just as poor and limited, only with a bit less police harassment, and now with the ability to vote.

Music became thus a main vehicle for rebellion, and the expression of an African identity, and not just a way to copy Western culture, which was a positive aspect of pride and self-expression in the documentary.

Again, there is nothing new under the sun here. Looking at Black music in the Americas, one notes throughout history a similar trajectory, in Blues, Rhythm & Blues, Reggae, Funk, Hip-hop, and other genres musical instruments and equipment were used, that were all – in those forms at least – Western inventions and products, part of a capitalist system to make profit out of other people’s hobbies or professions.

This is, however, purely the material aspect of it. The “soul” of the music is something else of course. When a cooking pit is made in Germany, for instance, it does not mean one must only prepare German food, or if one drives a Fiat car one must not by necessity “drive as an Italian” (whatever that may be). No one makes that ridiculous assumption. As Bob Marley once eloquently said: “the White man has the technology, the Black man has the wisdom..” combining it thus in producing current music.

Relatedly, in a Reggae lyric of the Gladiators, in their song Looks Is Deceiving, there is the line: “don’t watch the tool the work it can do, watch the man that behind it..”

SOUND

An aspect that me, as a percussionist, intrigues me overall most, though, touches on the very essence of music: sound.

Actually, I myself have got to known MIDI - simply said digital “samples” of real instruments -, quite early on in my life, mostly through music software, in my early adolescence. We are talking about the later 1980s and Early 1990s, now..

In fact, I remember even using it (with my brother) on an “old-time” Atari computer, before the PC and Internet days. On the PC I continued with it, making songs with instruments that were copied sonically in MIDI. Standard "band instruments" like bass, guitar, and drum, or piano, but also instruments regarding which I did not know yet what “the real thing” looked like (Shamisen?), from different cultures in Asia, Africa, the Americas, and elsewhere, also beyond known European instruments (At least more known to me, growing up in the Netherlands).

I have always been quite rhythmically focused, and paid quite some attention to drum patterns, in Reggae and other genres, and also when I tried to make songs myself. I even added an occasional MIDI-sampled bongo, conga, scraper, bell or other percussion sounds to the “groove”.

REAL PERCUSSION

Years later, especially after some Cuban trips, I expanded my latent interest in “real-life” (acoustic, natural) percussion. I think those Cuban trips of mine (I took these, also having friends Cuba, between 2001 and 2006) played a role because Cuba has a rich musical culture and life – as some may imagine – but with the added distinction that mainly “acoustic” regarding instruments were – and still are – used in Cuba. These included the conga’s and bongo’s, timbales, scrapers, bells, maracas, and other percussion instruments – being quite prominent in (Afro-)Cuban music after all – but also different types of guitars, and an occasional trumpet, flute, or old piano.

Elsewhere on this blog, I remarked that I do not recall having seen much “drum kits”, as we know them from Western pop groups, in Cuba: mostly percussion had their function there. Yet, neither do I recall having seen many electric guitars in Cuba.. only a few times a semi-acoustic – or semi-electric - (standing) bass or guitar. Since the norm was acoustic in Cuba, maybe there it is better to say “semi-electric”, than “semi-acoustic” as said in Europe and North America with so many electrical instruments, seeming thus the norm. In some special centers, there were also electronic keyboards, alongside the acoustic instruments.

Anyhow.. experiencing many live performances in Cuba with real percussion instruments – not the “faux-MIDI” hand drum or percussion sounds I already knew –, I developed a love for acoustic drums/instruments, sensing it as “realer”, more natural music somehow.. “Purer” music, perhaps even..

Not long after these experiences, I started actually playing percussion instruments – including taking lessons -, starting with hand drums like the bongos, and conga’s. Soon after this I started to play also djembe, ashiko, talking drum, and “small” percussion like shakers, scrapers, bells, rattles, woodblocks, flexatone etcetera.

I make my own compositions (including percussive-based ones) and play with other people now (as a percussionist), resulting from this trajectory. This can often be found on my YouTube channel, like this video.

I had before that of course also my acoustic “fix” during live concerts, with actual drum kits by live drummers, and often added percussion sets, such as during many Reggae concerts I visited. I enjoyed that very much. Even Dancehall of the more digital kind got played at times with a live drummer and drum kit.

DIGITAL

I heard about drum machines, synth drum, or MIDI drum, and heard what some did with it, such as in Hip Hop, House, Drum & Bass, Techno, and even some modern Reggae and Dancehall. Some digital drums were used in Caribbean genres like Zouk and Reggae and Dancehall, creating a somewhat disorienting – or experimental – feel. Sometimes I thought it was okay, especially when rhythmically creative and groovy, and sometimes I missed “the real thing” (the acoustic, natural drum sound). There are catchy, groovy Digital Dancehall riddims/instrumental, even if sounding “bleepy” and unnatural, or with digital drums, as long as it is rhythmically strong. I still enjoyed them, or could appreciate the creativity, despite my personal interest in (and, in many cases, preference for) acoustic drums and percussion.

Something of that I saw and heard in the documentary Fonko, mostly focused on young Africans in different African countries making this mostly digital music (easier to make after all: needing less equipment and instruments), derived in part from local music genres. The digital, nontraditional sound might at first be disconcerting and slightly artificial – especially when one, like me, knows and is inspired by the rich percussive legacy in traditional African music. Still, a good rhythm is a good rhythm, being thus the African “soul” remaining stronger that a mere “computerized”/digital sound, however “bleepy” or technological and unnatural it superficially sounds.

CULTURAL IDENTITY

In that sense, it represents a good metaphor for Africa’s also social and political development in these modern times, using more and more modern technology, having to keep up with the Europeans and Asians.. but in an own way, and with an own cultural legacy, identity, and pride.. That need not be betrayed, as had occurred too often before, during colonialism, and as outside forces, as Fela and others pointed out, tried to Europeanize or Arabize Black Africans culturally and religiously.

As someone in Burkina Faso said in the documentary: “know your history, even if it is your misery”.. One of several memorable phrases and oneliners uttered in the documentary.

Technology is in that sense like money: useful as a means, if used well and intelligently, but in the end with negative effects when it becomes an” ideology” by itself. Then one is selling one’s soul. An ideology, moreover, of power differences, as of course the Western world, and places like Saudi Arabia, Japan and China, have obvious advantages over a continent like Africa, in both money and technology. This results in, besides a false sense of superiority, also in more and continued exploitation.

COMPARISON TO CUBA

This has to do – of course – with international capitalism (or: neoliberalism) reaching (and exploiting) Africa, explaining also some differences with the situation in Cuba, I discussed before. Cuba remains formally Communist, and with relatively limited connection to international capitalism or the market place, but also limited access to some of its few advantages, such as modern technology, or the Internet: Internet access is even limited when compared to the poorer parts of Latin America.

Failed or oppressive states/governments in parts of Africa, especially after the leaving of inspiring political leaders like Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana) or Thomas Sankara (Burkina Faso), led to the necessity of popular rebellion and inventiveness, whereas the very strong, but overly present and authoritarian (censorship, lack of free speech, etcetera), state/government in Cuba at least formally supports local musicians educationally, albeit with more meager funds than could be applied. Plus, the added disadvantage of being censored or otherwise controlled.

Inequality between a rich elite and the poor masses, is unfortunately also a reality in Cuba, despite idealist images of the Cuban reality some may hold. A Dutchman from Brabant I spoke in Cuba summarized it well, I think, when he said (something to the effect that): “the bottom is a bit less low than elsewhere in the developing world – with some, if scarce, state-funded securities - , but that bottom is much more broad..”

COMPARISON TO JAMAICA

I am a Reggae fan, and have also visited Jamaica a few times. I love mainly “live-band” Roots Reggae, and got overall less into the Digital Dancehall or Ragga. Only over time I can say that I got to appreciate some Digital Dancehall, especially rhythmically, combined with a certain energy. The modern technology entered Jamaica too, and more than in Cuba, due to its connection to the capitalist world. Electric bass guitars helped shape Rocksteady and Reggae in a sense, as with amplification it could make bass lines more dominant in music pieces. Electric guitars or electronic keyboards also came to Jamaica since the 1960s, and later also synthesizers, and synth drums, especially since the 1980s. So came digital innovations. One of the first Digital Dancehall Riddims was “Sleng Teng” for the song Under Mi Sleng Teng by Wayne Smith in 1984. This was actually based on a pre-programmed pattern in Casio keyboards, thus creatively used or “upgraded”, one might say.

The rhythms that developed since then in Dancehall – also the digital ones – departed from existing rhythmical structures (a faster version of the Rockers drum pattern for instance), and included further influences older folk traditions, and even some added polyrhythmic aspects, making it closer to the African roots of Afro-Jamaican culture than one might think. This later mixed with modern, foreign influences (such as from hip-hop or R&B).

In that sense, there is a strong parallel with the musical expressions in Fonko, as capitalist influences in both Jamaica and parts of Africa included this access – albeit troubled – to new technologies, music software, and other equipment sold as products on capitalist markets. Products that for that reason do not reach communist Cuba so much.

CONCLUDING

Musical and rhythmical – or broader cultural – characteristics are all shared throughout Afro-Cuban, Afro-Jamaican, and African music, as part of the African Diaspora. Polyrhythm and “call-and-response” as basic recurring components, with added variations in different countries. Many enslaved Africans ending up in Africa, also came from the countries featured in the documentary Fonko: relatively many Africans in Cuba came from the Congo region and the South of Nigeria, and relatively many in Jamaica from the Ghana region, albeit with also a sizable percentage of African slaves from the Congo region in Jamaica historically too: estimated at about 25%, compared to about 40% in Cuba. As slaves from the Congo/Angola region were quite widespread throughout the Americas, by the way, the “Congo” influence on the music in the African Diaspora, or Black music, should not be underestimated.

The musical characteristics travelled with these enslaved Africans, when they were forcibly brought to the West. These remain at the “soul” of the music, through whatever instruments expressed (acoustic, electric, or digital).

Perhaps that was what the engaging documentary film Fonko was essentially about: the strength of music itself – as culture and art – or specifically: as way for poor people to express an own (African) cultural identity - to maintain that in the current, modern global arena, despite global Western-led, exploitative capitalism, mass inequality and poverty, or (capitalist or communist) oppression.

SOUL DEFINITION

This positive, motivational messages expressed in documentaries, seems to fit the wider purpose of the (Dutch-based, but internationally oriented) organization Soul Definition, responsible for Fonko’s public screening, when I saw it last 24th of February 2019 in Café the Zen in Amsterdam. It has as motto, after all, ‘Edutainment for a better society’. The specific documentary Fonko even had as a theme, in a sense, "soul definition", like the organization's name.

Soul Definition – founded and led by Dutch-residing Greek Dimitris Meletis - has for those interested its own website, and on it you will find more information about the international documentaries it screens and promotes, and its goals (the latter under the Join section). See: souldefinition.net.

As of the 1st of March of 2019 (just before I wrote this!) these documentaries will be available worldwide through Soul Definition and its site (souldefinition.net). I saw a few of them, including thus Fonko, and enjoyed them and learned from them: it was truly “edutainment”.

Motown (and the Jamaican one?)

Of course I have heard early on about Motown, and gotten some general knowledge about it. Since I was a child I was interested in music; in various genres. I recall how Stevie Wonder songs were one of the first works in “Black music” I got to like. We are talking about the late 1970s, growing up in the Netherlands. By 1984 I really started getting more into Reggae, a Jamaican genre, starting with artists like Bob Marley, the Wailing Souls, Burning Spear, or Peter Tosh. My musical interests remained quite broad though, even seeking background information about artists, genres etcetera. Maybe this seeking more information differed according to whether I liked a song or style more or less – I am only human - , though I always tried to keep an open mind. I find some joy too in comparing musical genres and cultures, across the globe.

Be that as it may: Motown was known widely as a Black American “Soul” label and record company, and therefore somehow associated – or related - with genres I became fan of (Reggae), or of which some songs I liked (could be funk, soul, R&B). I learned about the name Berry Gordy as Motown’s founder, and that the record company was based in Detroit. Some artists associated with the label I heard of - or from - too: Smokey Robinson, the Temptations, the Supremes, Marvin Gaye, and Stevie Wonder..

Beyond that, to be honest, my knowledge about Motown as a company never became overly extensive or detailed. For that reason, it was perhaps good and fulfilling that I read recently a book about it: to get to learn more about the history of Motown. It is a work titled ‘Motown : music, money, sex, and power’ (Random House, 2002), written by Gerald Posner. It was published in 2002, and with over 300 pages “medium-voluminous”, I would say.

Its somewhat sensationalistic, almost “cliché” subtitle did not appeal to me so much. After all: so much is “money, sex, and power” in this world. Often combined and (thus) not always rendering pleasant or equal environments. From loveless marriages, to big capitalist companies, or histories of colonialism and exploitation. Also, for instance, slavery in the Americas was besides about exploitation (money), power (and its abuse), also about sex, as many slave owners and overseers were free to sexually abuse and rape their female slaves, and did so on a daily basis. On occasion female slaves gave in only hoping to get some perks out of the forced intimacy by the white man. Money, sex, and power, allright..

So, in my opinion, the subtitle was not particularly promising, but it must be said: the 2002 book by Gerald Posner turned out to be a good read, and informative to me. I found it to be well-written and engaging from the start. In the remainder of this post follows a review of the book, as well as some comparative analyses.

BERRY GORDY

Almost inevitably, the story of Motown is also a semi-biography of its founder Berry Gordy, who started it in 1959. I knew not much about him, but heard somewhere he was family-focussed, strict, organized, and discipline-minded as Motown’s president. That might be functional, but sounds at the same time rigid and conservative to me. And, well, boring and unimaginative, especially for the music industry derived from a creative spirit.

In the first part of Posner’s book, however, about a young Gordy before Motown, it became clear that there was more to Berry Gordy. This concerns especially his trajectory. His family was quite tight, disciplined, and work-focussed, yet for a while the youth Berry Gordy got known as the “lazy bum” among his siblings, living off others, and avoiding jobs and work. His parents tried at times in vain to arrange some more steady jobs for him. In time, Berry Gordy “got to know the streets”, so to speak, and caught the habit of gambling in dubious areas and locales. In part he lived a life close to, or even in, crime. At one point he had a few prostitutes working for him, making him effectively a pimp. He wanted to stop that, though, and changed his ways toward an own business, aided by his tight and supportive family..

His interest in music, and artists like Jackie Wilson he met at a club where he worked, put him on the music industry path, including useful connections. He wrote songs that became hits. That made him money to start producing and in time the recording company that would become known as Motown.

His sisters and brothers would achieve important functions in it, under Berry Gordy.

That focus on Gordy remained throughout the rest of the book. In many instances it even seems mainly written from Gordy’s perspective, although Posner as author stays quite objective.

I guess it is undeniable that Gordy as a person – but with his family - is dominant in Motown, at least as a company. That is the main focus: the Motown company and its profits. The creative process of hired songwriters, weekly meetings discussing songs to record or release, and whether songs became hits, receives a lot of attention in this book. Also, how the company was run by Gordy.

DISCIPLINED AND ORGANIZED

That was the thing with Motown: it was very disciplined and organized, just like “regular” companies, so to speak. The famed Holland-Dozier-Holland songwriter trio were paid to deliver songs to artist Gordy wanted to be promoted.

Songs with hit potential, and aimed toward a “pop appeal”. Definitely a commercial choice, although the music was largely based on Black, African American traditions (soul, with Gospel influences a.o.). This music was “watered down” as Gordy aimed to reach a White audience too, besides a Black one. This made commercial sense. It was also part of his life view, though. He hired several White people at some crucial posts in the Motown corporation, also helping this cross-over.

The first million-selling hit for Motown – early in its existence – was Shop Around (1960) by the Miracles (including Smokey Robinson).

The bulk of the book is thus about Gordy’s perspective. It is to writer Gerald Posner’s credit, though, that he still keeps this engaging throughout. His dealings with some artists and groups in promoting them, from his long-time friend Smokey Robinson, to later connections with the Temptations, Marvin Gaye, and the Supremes with Diana Ross. The latter, Ross, gets quite a lot of attention in this book, also because Gordy was supposedly in love with her. Diana Ross, though, does not always come off well in this book. Not so much her artistic qualities, as her “diva”-like arrogance. This was quoted from other artists at Motown, though they also felt sidelined by her. Her on/off affair with Gordy made her also more important for Motown, besides her popularity and hits as part - and lead singer - of the Supremes. The Supremes would have several big hits.

Gordy being the main focus, others become also “extras”, and passing “supportive roles” in the way this book is told. The singer Marvin Gaye is also quite present in the book, as a somewhat looser one in the tighter Motown setting, smoking early on also regularly marijuana for instance, that was not appreciated so much at the disciplined Motown.

TOO FLAT

A point of critique I can give is that some of these non-Berry Gordy characters remain too “flat”, sometimes hardly mentioned. Whereas popular “hit makers” as the Temptations, the Supremes, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, and some others, are recurringly mentioned, lesser known artists or musicians are rarely mentioned. “Songs were recorded”, is often said in the book, often mentioning who wrote the song (Holland-Dozier-Holland), or who produced it. What musicians he used, how he found them, how regular they were? Those questions remain unanswered. At least in this book: elsewhere I understood that Gordy gathered top musicians from the local Jazz and Blues scenes in Detroit in 1959, to help him record the songs. These group of musicians – calling themselves the Funk Brothers – were talented, but remained relatively little known, or little acknowledged . They helped make the Motown sound. This book however does not mention them much.

Unfortunately, this entire musical creative process is simply not the focus of Posner’s book, that focuses on Gordy’s general hope for “commercial hits” that a wide public liked. It is in that sense more from a business than from a musicians’ perspective.

Okay, but even the general artistic choices for songs put out for the market get too little attention, in my opinion. “Motown Soul” was known as smoother and more polished – “poppier” than more “rough-edged”, or “Blacker” Soul or R&B (or upcoming Funk) in the US. In what musical ways, I ask myself then? That is perhaps the musician in me, and shows my personal fields of interest. I am a percussionist, and I note the extensive use of the tambourine, generally on the “off-beat”, as part of the Motown sound. A bit too much tambourine, and too little other percussion (e.g. more conga’s, scrapers, or bells), at least in my opinion..

As I said, that’s the percussionist in me, and is a side path to the focus of the book, at least a detail, however crucial. Gerald Posner discusses Motown more in broad lines “as a company”, and still mentions successful hit songs and artists, meetings evaluating songs, with a “creative team” at Motown, deciding what music to release. This was interesting to me, because I did not know it went in such a structured, company-like way, with formal meetings that were recorded, registered in administrative procedures etcetera. That differs from what I heard about other recording companies, where haphazard and chaotic “personal whims” seemed more decisive in what got recorded or released for the market.

SEX

Gordy’s various intimate relationships with women, some he worked with or worked for him, get quite some attention, as do such relations between other artists at Motown. Especially his crush on Diana Ross gets much attention. Interestingly, even this becomes at the end secondary to Motown as company, pointing at a discipline. This books makes that company focus of Gordy clear, showing how this “drive” outweighs other personal and intimate relationships. A mostly commercial drive, but with cultural aspects, at least. Comparably, though even more interesting, also the famous painter Pablo Picasso tended to make personal relationships (intimate/romantic, friends etcetera) secondary to his “art”. The difference is that Picasso was the creative artist himself, whereas Gordy facilitated and organized it only, allowing for himself a, say, “colder”, materialistic distance.

MONEY

As part of this, also financial and payment issues get relatively much attention in this work. Artists complained about not getting their financial due, or too little, within the company’s framework. Royalty percentages were for instance lower than in other companies, causing dissatisfaction. An income was however secured (unlike elsewhere, where one-time payments for artists were the norm), but for some too low.

Again, the fact the Gerald Posner knows how to describe Gordy’s financial considerations in an entertaining manner, shows he knows how to write. His writing style is in that sense dynamic and engaging.

Financial issues tend not to interest me so much, even if inevitable in the system we live in, and the focus of Posner on it in this book almost puts me off. Luckily, Posner knows how to tell a story dynamically and engagingly, thus maintaining enough of my attention.

OFFICE POLITICS

The same applies to another phenomenon I personally find unpleasant and prefer to avoid: office politics. Power games at the workplace or the office: from sucking up to the boss, using connections to that boss to demean and “put in place” – according to them - uppity lower colleagues. Brrr.. This in my experience often comes down to bullying, and even structural, fascist-like mental abuse.

Motown was a company of a close family and friends, for a part at least, diminishing too much of such negative excesses. There are still some harsh confrontations and humiliating actions described as part of work processes – office politics -, in this book. Again, Posner keeps this dynamic and proportionate, so that the book remains a good read. Not a great read, but at least a good one.

LATER PERIOD

The later part of the book deals with the slow demise of Motown. Gordy moving the operations to Los Angeles in 1971 was sudden and unwelcome for several workers, musicians, and artists and Motown, though several of them followed him. There were some ups and downs since then, yet it was, as Posner quotes, “the beginning of the end” for Motown. In time Gordy wanted to expand Motown’s activities with movies/films, only partly successful. His passionate yet troubled relationship with ex-Supreme Diana Ross continued meanwhile in California, and elsewhere, after 1971. Posner continues to pay much attention to the Gordy-Ross relationship.

Some new artists joined the label that became quite successful, notably the Jackson 5 and the Commodores, resulting in world famous artists Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie. These were commercial highpoints in an otherwise decaying company, of which the peak period was more and more in the past. That is the main line of reasoning of Posner in the final part of this book.

Gordy seems by then also to have lost in part interest in Motown as music company, and obtained new hobbies notably the film industry. He remained a distant boss, but hired new presidents. These include Ewart Abner, president of Motown since 1973 up to 1975. Abner was an unsuccessful president, at least according to this book. He was relatively more pro-Black and race-conscious than Gordy and others in the company, and objected to the many white people at important positions in Motown: the number of whites had even increased when Motown went to Los Angeles after 1971. The racial “purging” he attempted was seen as problematic, and some called him even a “racist” toward white people, despite a diplomatic image he upheld of having friendly relations with whites. Besides this racial stance, Abner was also an alcoholic, making his leadership ineffective and inefficient.

Like Diana Ross, Ewart Abner does not exactly come off well in this book, at least according to the opinions stated in this book. Another president for a period, the white man of Italian (Sicilian) heritage Barney Ales, did not too well either, though economically and financially more effective and efficient, people described him as only self-interested and a money shark..

Despite these organizational issues, some of the early Motown artists also are discussed in the last part of the book. The commonly held stereotype that drugs – notably cocaine – was and is rife among artists and musicians seems unfortunately confirmed. Marvin Gaye began using coke more and more, making him unstable and problematic. Even Smokey Robinson – known as a clean and healthy example at Motown – got for a period hooked on it. Gaye lost all his money, and in fact got a large debt, and lived the final months of his life with his parents, continuing his wild, cocaine-based life nonetheless. A fight with his also unstable and alcoholic father, as may be known, cost Marvin Gaye his life: his own father shot him with a gun, supposedly after Marvin hit his father, as the fight got out of hand.. This was in 1984.

So for some instances at the end of Posner’s book, other people than Gordy are treated with more detail, but by then Gordy was less interested in the company, had less of his heart in it. The success of some new artists, e.g. Lionel Richie, The Jacksons, and Rick James, gave some temporary respite, as did some hits by those longer associated with Motown, such as Stevie Wonder.

Some nostalgic concerts looking back at Motown were also well-received. The peak period was however largely over, and Gordy agreed finally to sell what remained of Motown to PolyGram in the 1990s. This book ends in 2002, but today Motown does still exist, only as part of the Universal Music Group, into which PolyGram and Motown were absorbed, albeit still as separate entity. No longer independent, though.

CONCLUSION

Though the attention changes a bit in the final parts of Posner’s book, Berry Gordy remained the main personality described in this story of Motown. Fair enough, since Gordy started it all and remained influential throughout. It is, in my opinion, too much from his perspective too, however. I find it furthermore hard to tell whether the author Gerald Posner has an own bias or agenda, as he is relatively mild about Gordy, but presents a largely negative image of Diana Ross, albeit via others, as well as of some other artists. Some of these felt short-changed and robbed of their rightful money. Posner presents this as neutral, though repeatedly adds a tone of irritation with this: as Gordy would have had. Emphasizing drug or alcohol habits – resulting in some of these artists’ early deaths – is also a bit dubious, even if true. This because also these artists remain flat characters, and the real reasons for their problems are ignored. Maybe they were really duped, who knows. A bit more distance from Gordy’s interests taken by Posner – especially as some artist had lawsuits against him for money - would be better.

Also some other “secondary characters” or “extras” in the book, such as Ewart Abner, do not come off well. Admittedly, Abner died years before this book appeared, but Diana Ross was still well alive, and the author could have asked her about her side of the story. That would make the book more balanced, and journalistically correct, in my opinion.

In conclusion, I found the book engagingly written and it turned out to be in part insightful to me. I learned things I did not know before. It was indeed about “power, sex, and music” as its subtitle suggests. Posner is better in “broad strokes” than in detail or even interesting anecdotes. This book is , however, entertaining and dynamic to read.

A main critique I nonetheless maintain about it, is that the book was too much about money and how to run a company financially, and too little about musical creativity as such. The songwriting, musicians, and recording are only mentioned in general terms..in their function of making money. Though Posner paints a sympathetic portrayal of Gordy, the “money shark” in Gordy did not always make him come over as pleasant in some instances in this book. Sometimes even as cruelly selfish. Kind of uneven – and slightly hypocritical - in relation to the critique and ridicule of Diana Ross for having a big ego, a lavish lifestyle, and big money-spending habits.

So, a recommendable book to read in and by itself, but for a more balanced view from different perspectives one should look elsewhere. Also, those interested in the process of creating and making music – as myself - should look elsewhere. It’s indeed more about “money, sex, and power” (the company), “office politics” and such, than about music as cultural or artistic phenomenon. That is a pity. Only the superficial fact that songs became “big hits” gets enough attention.

JAMAICAN MOTOWN

I am more a Reggae fan. I appreciate (songs by) some artists who recorded for Motown, notably Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye, along with a few others, but found the “Motown sound” overall a bit too poppy and polished to my taste. I liked the call-and-response vocals that characterized that sound, though: a beautiful African retention in a Soul context. Also, the musicians of the house band up to 1971 – the Funk Brothers – had some nice flourishes here and there..

Reggae I like much more though, since my teens already. I soon found out, however, that an important early music label in Jamaica since the 1950s, Studio One, was called “the Jamaican Motown”. Its founder – Clement “Coxsone” Dodd: the first black record company owner in Jamaica – is even compared by some to Berry Gordy, regarding his role in Jamaican music.

Studio One was indeed crucial in Jamaican music, also in genres preceding Reggae (that developed around 1968), such as Ska (appearing around 1959) and Rocksteady (developed around 1966). It helped develop the Jamaican music industry, but also genres.

Motown in the US also helped develop the career of several in time well-known and successful Black US artists, just like in Jamaica many artists – including “big reggae names” like Bob Marley, Dennis Brown, Burning Spear, Bob Andy, Alton Ellis, Sugar Minott, Lee Perry, and many more, started at Studio One.

GOOD COMPARISON?

Having read the book on Motown, I would like to dedicate the final part of this post/essay to analyse whether this comparison in fact makes sense, according to my knowledge of both Motown and Studio One. Is Studio One really “the Jamaican Motown”, or is it merely a figure of speech?

I know quite something about Jamaica’s Studio One by now, from several works. Now I know more about Motown. I conclude that there are similarities, but also crucial differences.

The parallel that many local artists started their career there is certainly there. Historically, there is also a parallel. Studio One was founded in 1954, but started having an own recording studio in 1963. Motown started in 1959. Both labels “peaked” in the 1960s, so to speak, and ended (more or less) since the 1980s (very roughly speaking)..

Motown was an actual company with separate formal departments and administrative structures. Studio One was, on the other hand, simply said, the person Clement “Coxsone” Dodd. That is in some way funny, but also unfortunate. It had no accounting department for instance, or a marketing department. It was all much more informal than that. Musicians and artists were very busy recording at and pressing records through Studio One though, all throughout the week and during whole workdays. Much music was released, and work has certainly been done. Just like at Motown.

Lacking such formal structures, the weekly, Friday meetings about what songs to put out, at Motown, seems a far cry from the ways in Studio One. Some musicians, songwriters, artists/singers themselves, or Dodd, might expect or have the hunch that certain songs that were being recorded might do well and become hits “in the dancehalls”, but this was never formalized in meetings. No “marketing” professionals or staff were involved. Often their feelings were justified as Studio One put out many successful songs.

This shows how Dodd had gathered some good, talented musicians, songwriters, and singers around him, and had a good “ear” for what is a good song or a potential hit. Dodd could not even play an instrument himself, which makes it even more special. Some instrumentalists joked that he (Dodd) did not even notice when a guitar clearly needed tuning. Dodd had a good “ear” for recognizing good songs and hits, though, being a thing he had in common with Berry Gordy, as well as his capability to gather talented musicians around him and useful recording equipment. As a former sound system (mobile discotheque) owner, Coxsone Dood also was well in touch with the local public tastes, increasing Studio One’s commercial successes. This also applied in a way to Gordy.

The Jamaican music industry was, and still is, however different from the one in the US. There is a more direct connection with popular taste and the public through the said Sound Systems and the public dancehalls. New releases were often immediately tested there for an audience. In the US, songs were released for an abstract “market” with a monetary aim. Also by Motown. The audience and public had their say therefore at the end of the product in the US, while in Jamaica more in early stages. This audience reception at dancehalls then helped shape and direct artistic and recording choices at Studio One.

This is an interesting, and actually more “democratic”, aspect of the Jamaican music industry. A good song is a good song, but a good and balanced - earlier - connection with the actual public is also necessary or at least more “real”. It avoids at least in part that big companies try to shape or manipulate our tastes. This has become of course a common, and degenerated, aspect of capitalism in Western societies, affecting all products, including cultural ones.

Despite these positive points, Coxsone Dodd also had some conflicts with artists. Like in Gordy’s case it related to money. Many artists felt they were underpaid or robbed of royalties for their work and music by Coxsone. Most artists at Studio One came from poor, ghetto backgrounds, and were initially not even knowledgeable about such rights. Some objected against Coxsone Dodd, or recurringly asked Dodd for more money or a better deal, hoping to eventually get out of the cycle of poverty of ghetto living.

Several Jamaican artists complained about how hard it was to simply approach Dodd, as he always had some “tough guys” around him, guarding him. Dodd thus seemed not to be generous financially, comparable to Berry Gordy in that sense. Again, Gordy faced several lawsuits by his former artists, in Jamaica it went more informally: some Jamaican artists once at Studio One at the end simply left disgruntled, or acquired means to start their own recording company..

So, there seem to be similarities as well as differences, between Motown and Studio One, and their founders Berry Gordy and Coxsone Dodd, but either way: they were definitely both musically influential, in their respective genres (Soul for Motown, Ska, Rocksteady, and Reggae for Studio One), in their national contexts, but eventually also internationally. This accomplishment is perhaps the main similarity..

Kafka 100 years later

The name of the writer Franz Kafka is in European culture associated with a literary view on bureaucracy. Kafka’s relative unicity and distinctiveness within European culture – or more specifically literature – lies in his depiction of an excessive, megalomaniacal bureaucracy. Such a bureaucracy developed in modern Western societies over time, perhaps also in states outside of the Western world.

The “juridification”, detailed rules and procedures related with state affairs, forms indeed an interesting theme, but especially in its interrelation with human nature. Do such detailed, codified rules, laws, and legal processes dehumanize, “mechanize” humans, and necessarily turn them into uncritical robots? This can result in an unnatural, even evil state, where human empathy and human lives become secondary (“befehl ist befehl”). People potentially become a link in a wider chain, with those at lower levels not knowing what goes on and is decided at higher levels.

Even before I actually read anything by Kafka, I knew that Kafka was known for this theme, and I also already sensed that such a thematic would lend itself very well for a literary examination.

THE TRIAL

I read Kafka’s ‘The Trial’, one of his best-known novels, written in 1914 and 1915 (officially released later), which deals with bureaucracy. Kafka was from Prague, Czech Republic, and from a German-speaking Jewish family. So, a specific background, one context/country, and an earlier period. What I find interesting to examine, however, is the following: how “universal” is this novel? and: is it still relevant today, in 2015? It is now exactly 100 years after it was originally written.

Of course, human character and nature are not bound to time or place, and literary works are almost by definition about the universality of human character, especially (ideally) those considered "classic". Yet, such works – and also the novel ‘The Trial’ – contain an interaction with a specific social context, in a specific time and place, making it inherently topical. Is it in that sense only relevant for European or Western societies? And then of the time of writing?

I enjoyed reading the novel ‘The Trial’, I should say on forehand. It is a type of literary work/novel that I like. While Kafka’s writing style is a bit formal and to-the-point, it also is imaginative and appealing in some way. There’s a good balance, I opine. It engaged me. Human interactions, as well as the locations and places (mostly indoors) are depicted vividly, transporting me as if I were really there, which is the mark of a good writer. Perhaps it was readable for me, because the settings and contexts were always very clear, and the main character, Josef K., had a perspective that was at least clear and understandable. Reading it I thus came to look through this main character’s eyes, also because the somewhat “formal” writing style ironically made identification easier.

That’s an irony I encounter in several cultural expressions: literary works, as well as films, plays, musical pieces a.o.: the more - though not a total - “rational distance” is taken by the creator (author, story-teller or artist), the easier I identify with it, can get into it. Some may prefer more irrational emotional “outbursts”, captured in art, but I often find these too particular and personal. Too self-involved, maybe.

‘The Trial’ is about a man of about 30 years old, having a steady mid-level job in an office, at a bank. He suddenly ends up in a fight with the legal system in a very absurd way. He is arrested temporarily, summoned to come to court, followed and constantly “kept in check” by people around him. It is not made clear to this main character, Josef K., of what crimes he is actually accused/guilty, nor is this explained to the reader. He is prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, and tries to fight this by seeking help at lower legal levels, seeking lawyers to aid him, and attending and preparing for trials. It all is very non-transparent and absurd, yet at the same time bureaucratic, formalized, and with many specific rules. Via via, he gets to know people “who know important, powerful people” that indirectly might help him during this trial.

The precise reason for this trial, all the while, remains unclear. The main character just knows: I am a suspect in a trial set up by powerful people. Everyone around him: at his job, clergymen at the cathedral, his friends and neighbours, get to know this, and treat him accordingly. A large part of the novel consists of him trying to work the system in his favour at the lower legal, judicial levels. This may not seem to be a very spectacular story line, but actually was described engagingly by Kafka..at least in my opinion.

The book was finished, as I mentioned, in 1915. The genius of it lied not just in its accurate description of an existing reality. Moreover, it lied in its predictive value: Communism would start arising in Russia not long after (1917), while Fascism, Nazism or related dictatorships would also come up in Europe. Those all consist of state-led oppression, hidden in complex bureaucracies, intentionally set up to avert or “fragmentize” away blame for actions against individuals, to other levels or “departments”. Not just states, but also big companies know of course this type of bureaucracy and division of tasks, deliberately dividing - and obscuring - responsibility. Dictatorships or big companies do not aim at democratic transparency, but also democratic states have elements of bureaucracy undermining the transparency. All this exists today, and makes Kafka’s ‘The Process’ by definition, I find, “universal”, and still relevant in this day and age.

TRANSPARENCY AND POWER

‘Transparency’ is a key word here, I think. Bureaucracy and transparency are at odds. I would add another “key word”, though: power. Power differences are what enable oppression through bureaucracy, limiting transparency deliberately. This is not absent in Kafka’s novel, in fact it is a main line in the book. More concretely, the main character Josef K. seeks to “work within the system” and with the powers to be, to get out of his prosecution, only finding that it is not enough to get him out of his situation, save him. His dealings with bureaucracy are adaptive on his part, just because he wants to maintain his bourgeois life style and obtained status: a middle-level job at a bank, reporting to superiors, the unavoidable “kissing up” to bosses..all to eventually be able to pay the bills. Despite his quite complacent attitude, the system still sees him as a suspect, as someone who is guilty, and thus to be controlled,..not someone to be respected or even left alone. Even though he is not put in detention as such in the novel.

Here we come to deeper dimensions behind Kafka’s depictions, which I think extends even beyond excessive bureaucratic systems known as such: Communism, Nazism, Fascism, police states, dictatorships, multinational companies, and people who work in them. A bigger system above this – at a higher level – is the Western economic system with global influence.

BABYLON

Adherents of Rastafari – basically a Black Power movement with a spiritual dimension (dixit Mutabaruka) - , which originated in Jamaica in the 1930s, call this global Western economic system “Babylon”. It includes a specified semantic dimension, of course, of historical colonialism and slavery, oppression of Blacks, neo-colonialism, and the rape and pillaging of Africa. Babylon oppresses the poor. Poor Black people and other people. That is mostly how “Babylon” is described by Rastafari adherents in Jamaica and elsewhere. At the same time, “Babylon” is also seen by Rastas as a non-transparent “system”, an evil force, dehumanizing individual people, degrading our human essence. A wicked, devilish system. It is here that Kafka’s writings can be related to this Rasta concept of Babylon, making the novel even more universal and “classic”..

Especially also the term “mystery Babylon”, used by many Rastas (in reggae songs and elsewhere) alludes to this “nontransparency” aligned with oppression.

A main difference is that Rastafari-adherents mostly aim at “being separate” from this system, and do, unlike the main character in ‘The Trial’, not work within it, as he does. At least not to the same degree. They do not want to be part of the same system, Josef K. in Kafka’s novel does, albeit sometimes reluctantly, as a type of “uncle Tom”.

CARIBBEAN MOVIES

To stay within the same Caribbean setting as where Rastafari first arose, I recently (August, 2015) saw two recently released feature films/movies – both released in 2013 – in a cinema in Amsterdam, as part of a World Cinema festival: one from Trinidad and Tobago, set in its capital Port of Spain, one set in Kingston, Jamaica. Both films were set in what can be called “ghetto areas”, poor or working-class areas in the respective capitals. They both deal with the present times (i.e. around 2013).

The one in Port-of-Spain was set in the neighbourhood Laventille in the East part of town, a quarter known also for its contribution to local culture: calypso music and Pan. Calypsonian David Rudder stops short of calling Laventille a real “ghetto” in all senses, because he notes the presence of “hope” and “light” in Laventille..it nonetheless is still a poor neighbourhood with social problems. People in it need to survive, and criminality is rampant, including gangs. The Trinidadian movie, which was called ‘God Loves The Fighter’, had this crime and criminal life as theme, in a quite cynical way. The multiracial main characters (being criminals) were involved in gun crime, and prostitution, at one point even protistuting a minor to a pervert, such as organized by a “pimp” of Chinese descent. Like other criminals, they lived a life of partying, trickery, and created an illusion around them, rationalizing their cynical and essentially parasitic lifestyle, as if they’re not just essentially hurting/using other poor people. This serves to "drown" their conscience, so to speak. One such rationalization became the film’s title, taken from a conversation in it: it is asserted that criminals are the real “fighters”, unlike people with “normal” low-wage jobs or those unemployed who are not involved in crime and guns, but stay poor and powerless.

The Jamaican movie was called ‘Kingston Paradise’ and was set in likewise crime- and violence-ridden ghetto areas of Kingston (“Downtown”), and had as main characters a couple who with associates made a living with prostitution or by stealing valuable things and scams, such as by stealing an expensive, “fancy” car owned by a middle-class Jamaican of Lebanese (Arab) descent. The scheme of stealing the fancy car seems not well thought out, and likely doomed to fail. The overall tone in the Jamaican movie was less cynical when compared to the Trinidadian film ‘God Loves the Fighter’. It had more humour and was more light-hearted in tone than this last. The relationship between the main character and his girlfriend annex business partner (he is also more or less her pimp) was not without tension, insults and screams, or violent threats, but also was in some way “cute”. In some way the opportunistic criminal seemed to feel affection for his female partner, though showing it in strange ways. The “car scheme”, by the way, cost an involved friend of this main character his life (murdered by other criminals).

Okay, I considered the films to be entertaining, and also to a degree educational and instructive about ghetto life and criminality in respectively Trinidad and Jamaica. But do these films also relate to Kafka’s notion of an absurdly excessive bureaucracy? Is a Kafkaesque (European-based?) interpretation of these Caribbean films not too far-fetched to try to apply here?

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

I think, philosophically or even sociologically, a comparison is not far-fetched, and can certainly be made. With all his aims of seeking favours (via others) of “higher judges” and his consulting of lawyers and others to favour his trial - what would we call today “networking” - the main character Josef K. in Kafka’s ‘The Trial’ remains still lower than them, and is still oppressed and disempowered by them. He cannot free himself from this organized trial against him, and remains a “suspect” and bound.

The same way, I argue, that criminals in poor areas are, despite their self-delusion, part of the negative system, part of what the Rastas call “Babylon”. Their exclusion from normal society, and thus from ordinary jobs, eventually made them turn to do illegal things to make money. As a criminal in the movie ‘God Loves the Fighter’ cynically stated, in discussion with a partner in crime who wanted to have a better, non-criminal life.. (in my own words): ”You think you send your resumé to apply for a job and get it?..this (my gun) is my resumé..”..

Their efforts to live outside the law are not dissimilar to how Josef K. seeks a way out of the trial hanging over his head, through contacts within the system: the more powerful system still determines their life and actions: it creates wealth differences, ghettos, social problems, keeps the poor in poverty, alienated from wealthy society, with no enduring positive source of income, only what seems a temporary relief through cynical means (i.e. crime).

I think therefore that Kafka’s relevance should not be reduced to just one society (Prague? Europe?), or one bureaucratic system and legal proceedings or buildings in one specific place. I think it also applies to a similarly non-transparent and repressive global economic system, determining from afar inequalities in this world, creating underdeveloped countries, keeping for instance the African continent poor, favouring Western multinationals, neo-colonialism, racial inequality (which is intertwined with social inequality in the Caribbean, with its history of slavery.. the ghettos are mostly inhabited by Black people), etcetera. In that sense those criminals who think they found a smart way out, as those portrayed in the said movies/films, result from that system as well. Thus they are part of the system, even if they would deny it.

FINAL SCENE

Tellingly tragic is in this regard the final scene of Kafka’s work ‘The Trial’. Kafka has written several parts of novels which he did not finish – writing was his loved hobby and relief from his office job, he stated -, but at least ‘The Trial’ has a clear “final” scene. I found the ending scene strong and impressive from a literary and dramatic perspective. The main character Josef K. is taken, as if detained, by force by two men to a remote place, where he is eventually murdered. This seemingly as an end-result of the said “trial” against him. In the final scenes there is a beautiful “Cervantes/Don Quijote-like” phrase Kafka lets the main character Josef K. think: “The logic may be irrefutable, but cannot compete with a person’s will to live”.. In the same final scene, in his final thoughts before dying, the main character concludes that he never got to see the judge, those higher in the hierarchy..that he never reached the higher court, setting up this whole trial against him...

In some way like some criminals in the said movies lose their lives in poor, disadvantaged areas, mainly after being killed by other criminals.. They never got out of the ghetto - not even the one in their minds -, and remained figuratively bound to it.

Reviews reviewed: the "aura of neutrality" and Colin Grant's biography 'Negro with a hat' on Marcus Garvey

Reviewing work by others is a multifaceted, complex issue. In this day and age, with mass media, broadly developed publishing and journalism, extensively developed cultural sectors and industries - especially in wealthy societies -, it is perhaps unavoidable that new works - be it biographical books, fictional and nonfictional books, music albums, films, or concerts - are scanned and discussed (opinionatedly). This is typically done by experts (or self-declared experts) on certain matters and fields, through mass media.

I guess this has – like so much in this world – pros and cons. Pros: there is much being published and offered, with new releases regularly, that even aficionado’s with relatively narrow interests cannot keep up. A review might just stimulate a choice to check out a book, writer, or artist. It can make curious and trigger interest. The simple fact is that you don’t have the time in one lifetime to check everything yourself that somehow interests you. The plethora of reviews might give you a hint what to choose/select from the bunch of cultural offers.

A main con of reviews, on the other hand, is that they are exactly that: “reviews”. That is: by definition opinionated; else it would be a summary or “abstract”. No, a review is an opinion by a person who for some reason got “authority” in a specific field, recognized by others around him/her, including his/her employers. This is especially the case when these reviewers work for big, well-known newspapers like the New York Times, or other big newspapers, journals, or journals with smaller, but demanding readerships, such as academic journals. Even this seems reasonable in some sense: if – by way of example – someone has studied and researched for over 20 years the Irish-British author Oscar Wilde, in a scholarly, profound manner, even including field work, and has read all previous biographies on Wilde, it is perhaps not a bad choice to let this person give an opinion on a new biography that appeared on Oscar Wilde. His opinions would then be well-informed.

However, at a deeper level even this can be problematic as well, because reviews are, again, opinionated. Academic researchers – and reviewers among them – might have the aura of neutrality. They have a purely rational, balanced, yet opinionated focus. The problem with this is that this is humanly impossible. In the whole wide world there is not one – not one! – human being who is fully able to detach oneself from oneself, so to speak. To have a rational, neutral analysis separate from one’s own personality, history, and biases. The selection of facts, and way to interpret these facts can only partly (if at all) be separated from deeply entrenched personal biases. One can – admirably – strive for balance or neutrality, that can be reached only to a degree.

I myself read reviews of music, albums, books (fictional and nonfictional), concerts, theatre plays, films, or television programmes. Besides this, I actually write reviews myself: for my blog (music, films, and books) and for other sites (of reggae albums mostly). So, I have to face these pros and cons of reviewing as well. I like to write, and in writing I also try to cultivate humbleness. This can be solved in writing by adding words indicating that it is “my” opinion, and with what I (with my knowledge and history) am able and willing to compare works. Terms like “In my opinion..” or “I find..” and “I think..” are very useful in this regard.

Not all reviews seem to have this overt humility, and I admit that I also have enjoyed reviews that are very humorous, though not seemingly modest or humble. I then find them “over the top” in a funny way. A reggae reviewer once said about a song on an album he found overall mediocre (and which he found less in quality than others by that artist): “the less said about this song, the better..”. This appears to be a harsh, arrogant, personal opinion about other people’s artistic effort, but is at the same time a funny way to put it. That compensates somehow.

NEGRO WITH A HAT

I delve into this theme of “reviewing”, because I got curious about the critiques or “reception” of a book I personally appreciated very much. A pleasant and informative read, I found it to be. I am talking about ‘Negro with a hat : the rise and fall of Marcus Garvey’, a biography of Marcus Garvey – the Jamaican-born Black Power thinker and activist -, written by Colin Grant – a Briton of Jamaican parentage -, and published in 2008.

I understood quite some research for this biographical book has been carried out (secondary and primary research), resulting in a quite voluminous book of about 530 pages. I also liked its quite humorous writing style. Besides this I felt I learned a lot more about the nuances of Marcus Garvey and his movement. The author Grant had proper attention to social, political, and historical contexts, while I felt I got to know the person Marcus Garvey better as well, through his life story.

Specifically, Grant addressed Garvey’s personality, including his contradictions, good character traits, as well as flaws. This made the biography in my opinion all the more “real”. Of course he was a (pro-black) thinker and ideologist, as well as activist – and pioneering and influential at that -, but separating that from his personality is so functionalistic that it becomes artificial and absurd. Thus unconvincing. I know.. many such biographies – called “intellectual biographies” – on the ideas but with only superficial sketches of the person who had them - have appeared, and some I read, but most of these failed to convince me fully. There are, however, interesting philosophies and ideas independent of persons who formulated them, but they did not arise in a vacuum. I think Colin Grant in his 2008 biography on Garvey shows he grasps this unavoidable connection between person and ideas. A matter of credibility, in essence.

It also eases sympathy, at least in my case. Eventual “blind spots”, flaws, contradictions, irresponsibility of Garvey as a person or leader Grant describes as well, alongside “positive” character traits and actions, and certainly his noble goal of uplifting an oppressed people. Realistic, because no human is perfect. In essence it shows Garvey’s humanity: at times irresponsible, spiteful, paranoid, distrustful, even unreasonable.. it is all there.. but are those flaws not latently present in all of us, depending on circumstances? The importance is that you learn from your mistakes to improve yourself, and Garvey - as the “self-made man” par excellence, wanting to help downtrodden Black people forward - did just that: learn to then improve, as he recommended as well to his followers. In that sense he – despite that he was criticized for having a too big ego - showed more self-reflection than other leaders the world has known.

The flaws in his character further did not seem of the truly “wicked” kind to me. Maybe because he was a very honest and direct person, he lost the avenues to really fool or hurt people consciously. Though Garvey himself advised leaders to present themselves well in public and keep certain things private, his talent for hypocrisy proved overall too small. His rotund opinions on some issues could sound harsh in some ears, but inspiring to others: the same is the case with all “innovative” leaders and thinkers: including people like Rousseau, Kant, or Mahatma Ghandi. Or Buddha and Jesus Christ for that matter.

I think it is useful to give my opinion on the work with some argumentation, but before this part turns in a review of Colin Grant’s book (by me, this time), I think it is time to focus on how reviewers in the press and media, the US, Britain and elsewhere responded and discussed this book.

The biography has appeared in English in 2008, and a French translation, by Hélène Lee, has appeared under the title ‘Le Nègre au chapeau’ in October, 2012. The same Lee also wrote the biography on Leonard Howell ‘The first Rasta’. Also Garvey was of course very important for the Afro-centric Rastafari movement, as main inspirer, including of Leonard Howell and all early Rastas of course. Some describe this as a John the Baptist-like function that Garvey had for the Rastafari movement, that first arose in Jamaica in the 1930s.. not long before Garvey’s death in London in 1940 (after a stroke) at the age of 52.

So a French translation has appeared, and not yet in other languages as far as I know, however..the bulk of reviews of ‘Negro with a hat’ I could find were in English, and appeared in US-based, Britain-based, or (Anglophone) Caribbean newspapers and journals. These include the big newspapers Chicago Tribune, New York Times, and the larger British newspapers.

How did these reviewers read the same biography I read? What recurs or differs throughout these reviews, what is remarkable, what is emphasized or ignored? In the remainder of this post I will try to answer such questions..

THE REVIEWS

“Las comparaciones son odiosas” – meaning “comparisons are hateful” - is an interesting Spanish expression, I did not hear yet in other languages. This is interesting, because not just reviews, but all analytical and scholarly work rely partly on comparison. Are all these analysts therefore hateful, or do they simply weigh pros and cons? Either way, I pointed out before that biases are ALWAYS there, even among known scholars who have (and cultivate) an “aura of neutrality”. This is an illusion, though recommendable as a goal.

That the person Garvey, as well as his social ideas and movement, all get attention in Colin Grant’s biography reflects in the reviews I read. Both Garvey as man, and Garvey’s ideas and movement get attention, also in these reviews. Balanced, it seems, but the aspects of his person and his movement that get emphasized at times surprise me somewhat. In some reviews they also annoy me.

The “authoritative” New York Times review (2008) states that the Garvey movement had Fascist characteristics. Inappropriate, I think, not just because I do not want to hear that, but because I read Marcus Garvey’s own writings as well. The recurring humanity in them, his espousal of equality among man kind (beyond racial conflicts), the nuances, despite radical aspects and indeed “collectivistic” aspects of his movement, sets it apart from the basic tenets of Fascism, first developed by Benito Mussolini in 1920s Italy. The context was also different: Italy was then an independent, if relatively young, nation and state. It wanted to make its mark, and perhaps was jealous of the imperial power and pasts of other European countries. Blacks in the time of Garvey, on the other hand, were – simply put – not even free in their own lands of origin in Africa: apart from Ethiopia, and a few other regions, most of Africa was subdivided among and controlled by European colonial powers. Blacks/Africans outside Africa were generally in a dependent and oppressed position. The Garvey movement was therefore an emancipation movement, aimed at acquiring basic human rights. It lacked the cynical (some would say; “male”) power and conquest rationale of Fascism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/books/review/Devlin-t.html?_r=0

This and other parts of the New York Times review – that was overall quite positive on the biography as book, by the way – made me doubt whether the reviewer Paul Devlin has read also ‘The philosophy and opinions of Marcus Garvey’, wherein Garvey relates his own views, and adds some biographical aspects. He might have, I don’t know. Some parts of his review describes the biography well, though his focussing on Garvey’s dealings with the Ku Klux Klan borders on the sensationalistic. It was perhaps an odd move by Garvey, but explainable in some way. Even some African-Americans today prefer the direct, overt racism of white supremacists or less organized “rednecks” over the hidden, hypocritical racism – or “white dominance” equally present among many white Americans, and covertly/hidden present in social and organizational structures. “Better the devil you know and see coming”, so to speak. Instead of this KKK episode, Devlin could have emphasized more Garvey’s pioneering role in giving Black people pride. He somewhat neglects Garvey’s historical significance and legacy.

Another authoritative newspaper, Britain’s The Guardian reviewed the biography a few months before, in February 2008. Maybe because Colin Grant is British himself, reviews appeared earlier in Britain than in the US. The reviewer for the Guardian, Margaret Busby, justly emphasizes Garvey’s pioneering role in black pride, more than Devlin. She summarizes also in a well-balanced way, on the whole. Busby, on the other hand, also mentions some aspects that seem a bit sensationalistic. That he had two wives, and married another one after separating from the first, is not that extraordinary nor immoral. The contributions of these women are more relevant, yet discussed little. Busby – as do other reviews – also mentions the odd circumstance that, after one stroke, some thought mistakenly Garvey had died, while Garvey still could read the premature obituary on himself. Not long after that the fatal stroke came.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2008/feb/09/featuresreviews.guardianreview6

Some say that irony/humour and death do exclude one another, yet some of these reviewers – perhaps unwillingly – seek to combine irony/humour and death. It is an anecdote worth telling, perhaps an interesting one, but not a very amusing, or even relevant one. The cause of death was a stroke: why this, and what could have caused this (hereditary, stress, health problems, poverty)? This seems more relevant to me. In the biography his mother died of a stroke as well (or “apoplexy” as it was called), also relatively young. The fun fact of someone reading his own obituary outweighed this crucial biographical detail, apparently.

I must point out, in all fairness, that Busby does not emphasize sensationalism or irrelevant anecdotes too much, and overall I found her review well-written and quite accurate and balanced.

I am also positive about Kevin Le Gendre’s review in The Independent, also published in February 2008. He gives a well-balanced description of the biography, and points – more than other reviewers – to Garvey’s lasting legacy, albeit in abstract terms. Not much I disagree with here, further, and Le Gendre points at the paradoxes in a good way, the opposition against him – note especially the second paragraph of this review.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/negro-with-a-hat-the-rise-and-fall-of-marcus-garvey-by-colin-grant-779373.html

I think Le Gendre has read Garvey’s own writings, including ‘The philosophy and opinions of Marcus Garvey’. A minor flaw is what became a cliché in reviews on Garvey’s biography: his dealings with the Ku Klux Klan, but I mentioned that already. At least the “obituary-anecdote” is refreshingly absent.

In the short review by Kirkus Reviews (anonymous?) both these clichés recur, but at least Garvey’s “genuine commitment to bettering the lives of blacks” was recognized. It argues, though, or worse: “states”, that this was compromised by Garvey’s outsized ego. As I mentioned elsewhere on this blog (e.g. regarding the biography of James Brown) sometimes things like “bluffing” or “an outsized ego” are nothing more or less than the only way of “survival” in an hostile world.

http://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/colin-grant/negro-with-a-hat/

The extensive review by Eric Arnesen in the Chicago Tribune is actually quite critical, and partly negative. Both regarding Grant’s book as on its subject: Marcus Garvey. I think Arnesen exaggerates Garvey’s character flaws. I do admit Arnesen has some good points of weaknesses in the book, as well as of Garvey and his movement. With some of his conclusions I do not agree, however. I do not think Garvey treated his wives as servants: they were for their times quite independent already, and Garvey respected that. If anything, compared to other intellectuals and leaders from his time (white and black) – or even later times – Garvey seemed relatively more to favour female equality. The later Nation of Islam (partly influenced by the Garvey movement) in the US, had at times a barely disguised “(Black) women should be servants and get out of men’s way” focus – though differing per Nation of Islam-member. Even Malcolm X – whom I overall consider to be intelligent and open-minded – in his own writings showed here and there this expectation of female obedience (to Allah/God, and then to men), probably derived from conservative Islam and conservative Christianity. Garvey had this much less.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2008-03-22/entertainment/0803200314_1_marcus-garvey-colin-grant-admired

At most, Garvey tried too much to be rational and practical, neglecting complex and strictly speaking “weakening” and “paralyzing” personal things like affection, emotions, relationships, love, and friendship. That is unfortunate, but understandable with a certain life history : Garvey soon – in his early teens - had to become independent, and in time he developed broader goals for his people, the world, and not just himself. A rational focus seems required for that.

ACADEMIC REVIEWS

Then there are reviews more aimed at a scholarly and academic public, in more scientific and academic journals. These tend to be more extensive and detailed – as can be expected. The scientific and scholarly world cultivates its “aura of neutrality”, which as I pointed out is in fact an illusion. Yet, many journalists do the same. At least some scholars strive for objective analysis, and that in itself can lead to new, valuable insights.

Huon Wardle of the University of St Andrews wrote a thorough and in itself fine review of Grant’s ‘Negro with a hat’. I find it only unfortunate that Garvey’s lasting legacy is sidelined in it a bit, and that Wardle focuses on his mass support at the time itself. He does not say this, but like that mass support depended more on circumstance or “magic” than on content. I think maybe the message itself was necessary, explaining the mass support, and not just Garvey’s good oratory skills or organizational and promotion capacities. Also, Wardle cannot avoid to go down almost sensationalistic side-paths too: his negotiation with the Ku Klux Klan, or the extraordinary uniforms he wore. Wardle pays much attention to the fact that Garvey was a Jamaican migrant in the US, and that his support included at first many other West Indians. This is only partly relevant, I would say. He soon got much support among African-Americans/US Blacks as well, making his Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA), by the early 1920s, the biggest mass organization of Blacks the world had yet seen. The attention he pays to the extravagant uniforms UNIA members and Garvey himself does not seem that relevant to me, but I do find interesting how Wardle (unlike other reviewers) draws the connection with the Caribbean carnival tradition of “inverting the order”, not to mimic but to rebel in a playful way.

http://openanthcoop.ning.com/group/oacbookreviews/forum/topics/book-review-negro-with-a-hat-the-rise-and-fall-of-marcus-garvey

I do not agree with Wardle at the end of his review, seemingly a conclusion. He wrote: “The sudden explosive growth of the UNIA is an instance where a submerged nexus of utopian ideas and values briefly pierce the membrane of what actually exists and acquire a reality of their own”. This is even derogatory in some sense, and ignores the deeper message and significance of the Garvey movement: black self-determination, a self-determination other races and nations already had. From that line of reasoning “nation” ideas like Netherlands, Italy, Spain, France, United Kingdom, China, USA, India and so on, are likewise “utopian”, as well as political parties or interest groups. Some ideas seemed once temporarily utopian because they were too progressive, different from the status-quo. They remain utopian because they are repressed by the powers that be.

Paul M. Heideman, writing a review on the biography in 2009 for the African-American Review, has some interesting points, I think. Like me, Heideman opined that the contradictions/complexities of Garvey come well to the fore in Grant’s biography, and that it is well- documented, -written and accessible. In addition, Heideman states that Grant “lets these contradictions speak for themselves”, by simply relating Garvey’s actions and reproducing Garvey’s own writings. This lack of authorial explanation has its advantages, but can also be a flaw at times, Heideman states. I agree partly. I also found some explanation lacking in Grant’s book regarding Garvey’s choices; not just regarding Garvey’s distancing from Marxism and the Left over time, but also his enigmatic religious choices. Garvey became Roman Catholic – while raised Methodist - , called himself even Catholic, despite his own critique that religious sculptures of Jesus and others in Catholic churches looked white and European. The irony is that Roots Reggae lyrics by Rastafari-adhering artists mention Garvey a lot positively, but also often criticize Rome and Catholicism (or mainstream Christianity). Some Rastafari-adherents might deplore Garvey’s adherence to Catholicism, others may explain it historically, but Grant unfortunately does not pay much attention to Garvey’s religious choices. Maybe, no information or sources were available on it, that is also possible.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/african_american_review/summary/v043/43.1.heideman.html

Anyhow, I found Heideman’s review all in all okay and balanced, albeit a bit limited in scope.

In the Caribbean Reviews of Books journal, Jeremy Taylor reviewed the biography in 2008. Quite critically, and not in all aspects positively. I do appreciate how Taylor does pay sufficient attention to Garvey’s historical influence and legacy, especially in the final part of his review.

http://caribbeanreviewofbooks.com/crb-archive/17-august-2008/hail-to-the-chief/

Some aspects he found missing in Grant’s biography, I found missing as well, such as religious issues. The pop song Garvey wrote while imprisoned in Atlanta (1923-1927) could further equally receive more attention in Grant’s book.

http://geoffreyphilp.blogspot.nl/2011/06/keep-cool-by-marcus-mosiah-garvey.html

It would recur partly in lyrics of some reggae songs, such as this one by the Twinkle Brothers (‘Give Rasta Praise’ from 1975): a few lines are taken from this pop song Garvey wrote (and named ‘Keep Cool’).

Jacob Dorman, at the University of Kansas, wrote a review of ‘Negro with a hat’ that was critical and even more negative. He even made me doubt if I read the biography that well, and if Dorman might indeed be right, if I look at the book in another way. I think this is only partly the case, because Dorman failed to note a main theme in the biography: the idea of the “self-made man” that Garvey represented. I think Colin Grant with his biography really aimed at showing contradictions and complexities of Garvey, and did not aim at a negative portrayal.

http://www.academia.edu/544208/Negro_with_a_Hat_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_Marcus_Garvey_review_

Certainly, Garvey could be harsh, right-wing in some issues, sided sometimes with the wrong persons, was at times insensitive, inconsistent even theoretically, or mistaken. He was human and could make mistakes. Another glorified and influential self-made man, Henry Ford, also had inhumane, harsh, right-wing, and even anti-Semitic ideas, if one checks it out. Worse than the worst statements of Garvey, who overall at least seemed to believe in equality of races and people, despite criticizing some ethnic groups generally at times during moments of frustration.

Dorman misses the deeper layer: the story of someone starting with nothing, belonging to a poor oppressed race in a poor, marginal land, working himself up to lead a Black mass movement in the US by the late 1910s. A pioneer that inspired other, later Black leaders, influenced partly by his ideas, but going beyond that.

The Rastafari movement – a “Black Power movement with a theological nucleus” (dixit Mutabaruka) - is described as “using Garvey to go beyond Garvey”. After all, Garvey was Catholic, more European/British influenced in his cultural tastes, even colonially influenced, and Garvey even became critical of Haile Selassie, the main, revered person within Rastafari. Garvey applauded the coronation of Selassie in 1930, but later criticized in harsh terms as “cowardice” the strategy of Selassie in dealing with the invasion by Fascist Italy (i.e. by allying with other European powers against Italy), instead of organizing African unity at that time (later Selassie did help shape African unity, by the way). Garvey should have been more diplomatic, I think, but he was only partly wrong: the British, in hindsight, had a dubious, double role during Italy’s invasion, eventually favouring Italy and other imperial powers over Ethiopia’s (or Africa’s) interests. However, Selassie might not have known this neither at that time, and was then naïve rather than cowardice.. Besides this, Selassie’s strategy had some wisdom from a geopolitical perspective.

Similarly, also Kwame Nkrumah, other African independence fighters, like Kwame Nkrumah, initially also Nelson Mandela, several Black Power movements and intellectuals in the Caribbean and the US, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King.. all have been influenced by Garvey, without copying him in every single thing. The positive and necessary essence of Garvey’s Black emancipation and African redemption and repatriation ideas lived and live on. A good example of how “the good you do lives after you..”. Bad or nonsensical things one did or said stay behind, since they do not inspire.

Like some other (academic) reviewers Dorman describes Grant’s biography as a good, and readable introduction, but not much more than that, lacking according to him proper use of research and scholarly methods, and lacking also attention to aspects about Garvey himself, or the motivations of his followers. With the last aspect I agree: Grant could have paid more attention to why different Black people chose to follow Garvey and his movement..

CONCLUSIONS

Dorman’s reviews differs strongly from other ones I discussed, but had similarities with others. Reviewers even say the opposite from each other: some find that Grant wrote a sympathetic portrayal, some say a a balanced one, while – like just mentioned – Dorman characterizes Grant’s portrayal of Garvey as a negative one. Some reviewers called Grant’s biography “definitive”, others (especially in academic circles) as merely introductory.

It goes to show how perspectives on the same phenomenon differ from person to person, from reviewer to reviewer in this case.

Some things recur through all these reviews, though. They all seem to agree that the social and historical contexts of the Garvey movement were related well by Grant in ‘Negro with a hat’. Most agreed that Garvey as a person was in some aspects described too little in it, though not everyone found this. Likewise, more than one review noted that Garvey’s followers got too little attention, but several did not mention this as a flaw.

I criticized before the recurrence in reviews of sensationalistic anecdotes over relevant facts. The meeting with the KKK by Garvey, and the fact that he read his own (premature) obituary is remarkable enough to mention somewhere in a biography, but not in every single review of it (as is nearly the case). These became clichés. Another recurrent anecdote or description was on the, some find, extravagant “imperial” hats and clothes Garvey and other UNIA members wore. That does not seem the most relevant thing to me. Maybe it can be related with the “inverting order” notion of Caribbean carnival traditions, and some reviewers relate it to this. An interesting analysis would I think consist also of a psychological explanation: regaining dignity in a public way. In a few reviews something like this is hinted at.

Unfortunately, this clothing is used in most reviews to illustrate how egotistic, or megalomaniac (not always formulated in such words) Garvey according to some was. This ultimately devalues his importance and his movement’s. The same “school yard” insults due to appearance as a thick-spectacled, red-haired, or otherwise “different” child hears from the vane, bullying “cool kids”. This is meant to exclude such strange or nerdy people from their circle. That this sarcasm aimed at Garvey’s clothing or trivial aspects – apart from the content and goals - is also found in academic journals by scholars is not really surprising. The same exclusion through ridicule as nerdy kids in a school yard endure.

That is what Garvey and the author of this biography on him, Colin Grant, share. They stepped on privileged toes: such biographies are often written by respected academics, not by a journalist like Grant. The condescending “nice try, but we can do this better” message is barely disguised in some of these academic reviews.

Also, as discussed in the biography, WEB Du Bois was an academically schooled Black leader with some influence in the US at the time that Marcus Garvey arrived, and developed and broadened his movement, but with a different message for the same people. Du Bois and others saw this as unwelcome competition for Black support. Privileged positions are disturbed and threatened, making ridicule and repression a final recourse for these privileged people: they have the power and connections to do this. Another, even more privileged group – the White establishment – eventually invented a “mail/post fraud” charge to be able to incarcerate and later expel Garvey to Jamaica (he did not have the US nationality, but a British one).

Several sources – and also recurring in reggae lyrics – point at betrayal of Garvey by other Black people, in the US, Jamaica, and Britain.

Some of the reviewers I mentioned are themselves Black persons. It is good that they remain critical and try to be as neutral as possible on the subject: worshipping is different from reviewing, even if Garvey is seen as a hero by many. That being said, I still find it unfortunate and exaggerated to put the emphasis that much on mistakes, organization flaws, and supposed character flaws of a man like Marcus Garvey.

Garvey has inspired many people and was historically influential. He maybe had flaws, but nothing really came across to me as calculatedly wicked or evil. The FBI at one point even asked his wives, and other people close to Garvey, private questions, hoping to find some “hidden sins”, in order to put him away. Yet they could not find anything illegal in even his private activities. If he were an abusive husband or father (he had two sons), had buried people he killed somewhere, raped women (which for instance Benito Mussolini has done, as a youth, but still became a popular dictator in Italy), or made enslaved people work for free – to name just something – it would have been known at that time. Neither was he involved in financial fraud, extortion, robbery, or violent reprisals against people. Any such things or crimes the FBI hoped to find, but was unable to.

So why this ridicule and critique as a way to downplay Garvey’s influence, among many reviewers?
Attacking the person instead of his/her message or what he/she says is a common distraction tool from what needs for some to be overshadowed or obfuscated: an unwelcome consciousness.

Are some of these reviewers really not open to hear his message and recognize its significance, even today?

That would be ignoring the fact that the world is still unequal today, in 2014. Racially and economically. In 2014 Africa still has less control over its own resources and economy than Europe. Black people in the Americas and elsewhere are overall still on the lower levels socioeconomically, and racism still exists, in daily life and in policies. Slavery as a historical crime against humanity is still only limitedly recognized until today by European nations.

Or, as the reggae group the Mighty Diamonds sing eloquently in their song on Garvey, ‘Them Never Love Poor Marcus’ (1976): “Now the human race in such a squeeze..”

Apparently, people in privileged positions - as part of this same racial and economic order - are not too keen to really ponder on the essence of Garvey’s message: they might feel, well, a bit ashamed or guilty.

That is the hidden bias I found in many – though not all- of these seemingly neutral reviews. Talking about being egotistic.. The complexity of Garvey as an individual can be seen as intriguing as well, and other biographies – on other persons – actually embrace such complexity to give depth to a person. I guess to embrace some one’s complexity you must respect or love that person, else you would not care about his or her various traits. That is basic psychology. On Facebook nowadays many “life lessons” and philosophical quotes are shared, too much and too cheap some say, but some I like: like this one I read: “We judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions”. Seems relevant here.. Besides, anyone can test for themselves through this thought experiment; think about this: do you want to know how your mother – or grandmother - lived when young?, or how she felt about certain crucial choices she had to make, even long before you were born? Many would say..yes I am interested in that. Yet..are you equally intrigued about the younger life of, not your (grand)mother, but another woman who you do not even know and who is not related to you?
The same I think applies to symbolical “mothers” and “children”..

Admittedly, other reviews were more balanced, quite neutral, with good argumentation, and also had attention to positive aspects and legacies of Garvey. Both among scholarly and non-scholarly reviews positive opinions were found on Garvey and this biography by Grant.

It’s a pity though that, from the reviews combined, the overall image that remains of Garvey and his movement is of a megalomaniac failure that mainly through some magic and slick propaganda skills got mass support. The overall image of the biography/book that remains is that it is an accessible, well-written work - not without humour - giving good historical contexts and some information on the complexities of Garvey. On the other hand..also that it is not much more than introductory and should have been written by an established scholar/academic. Not all reviewers say this last thing so directly, but if these reviewers can exaggerate or simplify complexity in such much read newspapers and journals – and several do -, I can do the same regarding them..

Negro with a hat: the rise and fall of Marcus Garvey: Colin Grant . – 530 p. – Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2008. ISBN: 0-19-536794-4, 978-0-19-536794-2