by Leighton Smith

Created on: July 16, 2009

At first glance, the fundamental question surrounding the Graceland controversy appears to be, "Did Paul Simon do the right thing?" It would be quite difficult, however, to take one side of the controversy. The implications surrounding it veer off into the realms of politics and music - two quite different entities, to be sure - creating a complex situation. Therefore, the initial question must be expanded into two questions, one concerning the politics and one concerning the music.

The most readily available explanation for why Simon broke the ANC/UNESCO boycott is ignorance. A quick look at the possible motivations for doing so yields a very short list. Clearly, with his reputation in the music world Simon could have explored any number of musical avenues and did not need to collaborate with South African musicians. Nor were his motivations economically or politically driven. Simon simply heard music that sparked his interest, and he pursued it. If he had fully understood the type of response that breaking the cultural boycott would elicit, he would have foregone his aspirations until the boycott ended.

Along with the actual release of Graceland came several other controversies. Simon's critics state that he received a disproportionate amount of money and attention for the album. Moreover, they assert that the album reinforced stereotypical racial roles in the recording business: that blacks are only suited for backing white artists. On Graceland, the all-black South African close harmony a cappella group Ladysmith Black Mambazo backed Simon.

Criticisms regarding the production of Graceland hold little water. In the music world, it is normal for the better known artist in a collaborative effort to garner most of the attention. The record company that put out the album obviously used Simon as the focus of their marketing because they wanted to sell as copies many as possible. Due to his stature, it also makes sense that Simon would have received more of the profits. Worth mentioning, though, is that he did pay the Ladysmith Black Mambazo singers well for their services, and did not exploit them like some critics would have you believe.

The charge that the album perpetuated racial roles is more valid, though still not totally fair. The Ladysmith Black Mambazo singers are a group. They sing together. As a group working with a solo artist, it is natural that they would back him up. It really wouldn't make a lot of sense to have Paul Simon sing back-up for a group of singers. Listening to the tracks that contain the Ladysmith Black Mambazos, in fact, reveals that their presence is quite essential to the effectiveness of the album, and "back-up singers" is perhaps a misnomer.

If you believe that Simon went and "discovered" the Ladysmith Black Mambazo singers, then you should have no problem with these defenses. Many people would contend, however, that they were a well-established group before Simon came along, and that Simon did not discover them. To these people I say, "Would we be listening to the harmonies of the Ladysmith Black Mambazo if not for Paul Simon?" Most likely not. While his methods for the Graceland collaboration were definitely lacking in some areas, Simon's intentions were grounded in the music itself. Therefore, we should be able to look past the political tangle and see the music for what it is: a rich blend of different music cultures, conveniently rolled into one package for mass consumption.

Learn more about this author, Leighton Smith.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.