Audible States: Socialist Politics and Popular Music in Albania

IF 0.6 1区 艺术学 0 MUSIC ETHNOMUSICOLOGY Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.5406/21567417.67.3.14
Matthew Knight
{"title":"Audible States: Socialist Politics and Popular Music in Albania","authors":"Matthew Knight","doi":"10.5406/21567417.67.3.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This sophisticated work of political theory and bureaucratic ethnography covers Albanian “light music” over six decades, particularly focusing on 1950–2010. In its sustained analysis of the Foucauldian governmentality underpinning socialist and capitalist cultural orders, Tochka's book is a valuable contribution to the anthropology of postsocialist states. The author focuses on the annual Festival of Song (Festivali i Këngës), a prestigious state competition that originated in the early socialist period and now determines which song Albania will send to the Eurovision Song Contest. The festival provides Tochka a stepping-off point for copious candid interviews with cultural administrators, composers, singers, and listeners. The author, who extensively perused state broadcast archives, notes that the Festival of Song's style of light music, comparable to Russian estrada pop, has received far less academic attention than socialist folkloric ensembles. Nevertheless, it too was subject to bureaucratic oversight within socialist cultural policy—a centrally “planned economy of symbolic production” (2)—and arguably appealed to a much wider audience.Albania was a political outlier, pursuing a policy of isolation even from other socialist regimes and resisting liberalizing “thaws” well into the 1980s—significantly longer than its neighbors; it also managed to keep a musical “gray economy” very miniscule, giving its government nearly complete control over musical consumption into the 1980s. But in line with other socialist countries, its “masses” were seen as uneducated, primitive, and in need of civilizing. This book devotes major attention to “social gardeners,” the music intellectuals and policy-makers responsible for guiding the masses toward the desired future. Tochka reminds the reader that states are not unitary actors but implement their policies through individuals in a multitude of localized contexts. While Albania was among the strictest of socialist regimes, it could not solely resort to coercion and also employed symbolic-ideological strategies in the realm of cultural production to buttress its legitimacy. The light music featured at the yearly festival promoted themes of national unity, the struggle against enemies, and the promises of socialism; winning selections tended to be serious epic lyrical works, but the runners-up would invariably be crowd-pleasing love songs.While Tochka acknowledges state repression, he also points out that composers and other musicians viewed themselves as creative actors, not simply cogs in an oppressive machine. The discourse of individual creativity was very important for light song composers in the socialist era, and the Festival of Song was a prized venue for them to display their work and build a reputation. Through the necessary collaboration between composers, lyricists, singers, and performers, even inadvertent challenges to state ideology would be ironed out in committee well before broadcasts. The author describes how the discourse of professionalism functioned effectively to cultivate internalized, disciplined aesthetic dispositions: “Highly developed field-specific artistic codes . . . did not mechanically police individuals’ conduct, but rather framed individual instances of potentially disruptive symbolic behavior (for instance, an aggressive vocal style, or a repetitive melody) as non-professional rather than subversive” (125). Tochka does not equate having a “voice” with speaking against power, arguing that the common understanding of art's role in antistate subversion is overstated. Rather, he asserts that “spectacular moments of repression” when artists directly challenged the system, or were punished for doing so, were “extremely rare” (89), even though they have disproportionately captured the imaginations of many commentators. He calls for greater examination of everyday musical creativity instead of searching all socialist creative work retroactively for signs of “hidden dissent” (152) or complicity.More than half of the volume is devoted to analysis of the socialist period, while the remainder traces its lingering effects into the early 2010s. Significant historical moments include the first Festival of Song, held in 1962 under the influence of a new Soviet-trained generation of bureaucratic elites; the 1972 festival, which attempted to liberalize the light music field by incorporating more foreign popular styles but instead led to a conservative backlash, firings, and even arrests; and the festivals of the late 1980s and early 1990s, during which themes of change and freedom heralded major political-economic shifts. Throughout, Tochka analyzes the texts and musical arrangements of some representative songs, showing how they reflected relevant debates over building socialism, the place of folk tradition in Albanian identity, winning over “the youth,” or European integration; however, scored examples are absent and musical theory jargon is kept to a minimum, making the book very accessible to nonmusicians. The book does not include a website or playlist, but Tochka notes that all the songs referenced in it are easily accessible online.The capitalist era has seen the emergence of new creative types: the amateur composer-producer and the would-be pop star. Accessible private recording studios entice many into a field marked much more obviously by self-promotion and individual entrepreneurialism. Despite this, some professionalized composers continue to be inspired by socialist-congruent ideals of artistic uplift, aesthetic complexity, and the superiority of conservatory training. For them, the Festival of Song remains an important venue to display their creative skill outside the whims of the market, but privately sponsored festivals often appeal to a wider and younger audience.In a brief epilogue that would be useful reading for any seminar on music and politics, Tochka restates his major arguments: “voice” and agency are not synonymous; the political oversight of music/sound necessarily requires the delegation of authority to sound specialists who have their own agendas; and we need to look carefully at discourses, infrastructures, and practices related to sound-making and consuming in any kind of state. Ultimately, Tochka warns us to listen carefully to the voices of interlocutors and to be suspicious of the lingering epistemological effects of dividing the world into the ideal political types of “free” and “unfree” societies. It is this last argument that may be the most challenging today, as left-leaning academics are forced to rethink their own understanding of the Soviet legacy during a “New Cold War.” Audible States offers a provocative analysis of musical political economy, and it will become essential reading on Eastern Europe and cultural policy.","PeriodicalId":51751,"journal":{"name":"ETHNOMUSICOLOGY","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ETHNOMUSICOLOGY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5406/21567417.67.3.14","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"MUSIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This sophisticated work of political theory and bureaucratic ethnography covers Albanian “light music” over six decades, particularly focusing on 1950–2010. In its sustained analysis of the Foucauldian governmentality underpinning socialist and capitalist cultural orders, Tochka's book is a valuable contribution to the anthropology of postsocialist states. The author focuses on the annual Festival of Song (Festivali i Këngës), a prestigious state competition that originated in the early socialist period and now determines which song Albania will send to the Eurovision Song Contest. The festival provides Tochka a stepping-off point for copious candid interviews with cultural administrators, composers, singers, and listeners. The author, who extensively perused state broadcast archives, notes that the Festival of Song's style of light music, comparable to Russian estrada pop, has received far less academic attention than socialist folkloric ensembles. Nevertheless, it too was subject to bureaucratic oversight within socialist cultural policy—a centrally “planned economy of symbolic production” (2)—and arguably appealed to a much wider audience.Albania was a political outlier, pursuing a policy of isolation even from other socialist regimes and resisting liberalizing “thaws” well into the 1980s—significantly longer than its neighbors; it also managed to keep a musical “gray economy” very miniscule, giving its government nearly complete control over musical consumption into the 1980s. But in line with other socialist countries, its “masses” were seen as uneducated, primitive, and in need of civilizing. This book devotes major attention to “social gardeners,” the music intellectuals and policy-makers responsible for guiding the masses toward the desired future. Tochka reminds the reader that states are not unitary actors but implement their policies through individuals in a multitude of localized contexts. While Albania was among the strictest of socialist regimes, it could not solely resort to coercion and also employed symbolic-ideological strategies in the realm of cultural production to buttress its legitimacy. The light music featured at the yearly festival promoted themes of national unity, the struggle against enemies, and the promises of socialism; winning selections tended to be serious epic lyrical works, but the runners-up would invariably be crowd-pleasing love songs.While Tochka acknowledges state repression, he also points out that composers and other musicians viewed themselves as creative actors, not simply cogs in an oppressive machine. The discourse of individual creativity was very important for light song composers in the socialist era, and the Festival of Song was a prized venue for them to display their work and build a reputation. Through the necessary collaboration between composers, lyricists, singers, and performers, even inadvertent challenges to state ideology would be ironed out in committee well before broadcasts. The author describes how the discourse of professionalism functioned effectively to cultivate internalized, disciplined aesthetic dispositions: “Highly developed field-specific artistic codes . . . did not mechanically police individuals’ conduct, but rather framed individual instances of potentially disruptive symbolic behavior (for instance, an aggressive vocal style, or a repetitive melody) as non-professional rather than subversive” (125). Tochka does not equate having a “voice” with speaking against power, arguing that the common understanding of art's role in antistate subversion is overstated. Rather, he asserts that “spectacular moments of repression” when artists directly challenged the system, or were punished for doing so, were “extremely rare” (89), even though they have disproportionately captured the imaginations of many commentators. He calls for greater examination of everyday musical creativity instead of searching all socialist creative work retroactively for signs of “hidden dissent” (152) or complicity.More than half of the volume is devoted to analysis of the socialist period, while the remainder traces its lingering effects into the early 2010s. Significant historical moments include the first Festival of Song, held in 1962 under the influence of a new Soviet-trained generation of bureaucratic elites; the 1972 festival, which attempted to liberalize the light music field by incorporating more foreign popular styles but instead led to a conservative backlash, firings, and even arrests; and the festivals of the late 1980s and early 1990s, during which themes of change and freedom heralded major political-economic shifts. Throughout, Tochka analyzes the texts and musical arrangements of some representative songs, showing how they reflected relevant debates over building socialism, the place of folk tradition in Albanian identity, winning over “the youth,” or European integration; however, scored examples are absent and musical theory jargon is kept to a minimum, making the book very accessible to nonmusicians. The book does not include a website or playlist, but Tochka notes that all the songs referenced in it are easily accessible online.The capitalist era has seen the emergence of new creative types: the amateur composer-producer and the would-be pop star. Accessible private recording studios entice many into a field marked much more obviously by self-promotion and individual entrepreneurialism. Despite this, some professionalized composers continue to be inspired by socialist-congruent ideals of artistic uplift, aesthetic complexity, and the superiority of conservatory training. For them, the Festival of Song remains an important venue to display their creative skill outside the whims of the market, but privately sponsored festivals often appeal to a wider and younger audience.In a brief epilogue that would be useful reading for any seminar on music and politics, Tochka restates his major arguments: “voice” and agency are not synonymous; the political oversight of music/sound necessarily requires the delegation of authority to sound specialists who have their own agendas; and we need to look carefully at discourses, infrastructures, and practices related to sound-making and consuming in any kind of state. Ultimately, Tochka warns us to listen carefully to the voices of interlocutors and to be suspicious of the lingering epistemological effects of dividing the world into the ideal political types of “free” and “unfree” societies. It is this last argument that may be the most challenging today, as left-leaning academics are forced to rethink their own understanding of the Soviet legacy during a “New Cold War.” Audible States offers a provocative analysis of musical political economy, and it will become essential reading on Eastern Europe and cultural policy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
听得见的国家:阿尔巴尼亚的社会主义政治和流行音乐
这本复杂的政治理论和官僚民族志著作涵盖了阿尔巴尼亚60多年的“轻音乐”,特别关注1950-2010年。托奇卡的书持续分析了支撑社会主义和资本主义文化秩序的福柯式治理,对后社会主义国家的人类学做出了宝贵贡献。作者关注的是每年一度的歌曲节(Festivali i Këngës),这是一项起源于社会主义早期的著名国家比赛,现在决定阿尔巴尼亚将向欧洲歌唱大赛提交哪首歌。音乐节为托奇卡提供了一个与文化管理者、作曲家、歌手和听众进行大量坦诚访谈的跳板。作者广泛阅读了国家广播档案,注意到宋节的轻音乐风格,与俄罗斯埃斯特拉达流行音乐相媲美,受到的学术关注远远少于社会主义民俗合奏。然而,它也受制于社会主义文化政策的官僚监督——一种集中的“象征性生产的计划经济”(2)——可以说它吸引了更广泛的受众。阿尔巴尼亚在政治上是一个异类,它奉行孤立政策,甚至与其他社会主义政权隔离,直到20世纪80年代,它一直抵制自由化的“解冻”——比邻国要长得多;它还设法将音乐“灰色经济”保持在非常小的规模,使其政府几乎完全控制了20世纪80年代的音乐消费。但与其他社会主义国家一样,它的“大众”被视为未受教育、原始、需要教化。这本书主要关注“社会园丁”,即那些负责引导大众走向理想未来的音乐知识分子和政策制定者。Tochka提醒读者,国家不是单一的行为体,而是通过个体在众多的局部环境中实现其政策。虽然阿尔巴尼亚是最严格的社会主义政权之一,但它不能仅仅诉诸强制,而且还在文化生产领域采用象征-意识形态战略来支持其合法性。一年一度的节日上播放的轻音乐宣扬了民族团结、与敌人斗争和社会主义承诺的主题;获奖作品往往是严肃的史诗抒情作品,但亚军总是令人喜爱的情歌。虽然托奇卡承认国家的压迫,但他也指出,作曲家和其他音乐家将自己视为有创造力的演员,而不仅仅是压迫机器中的齿轮。在社会主义时代,个人创作的话语对轻歌作曲家来说是非常重要的,歌会是他们展示作品和建立声誉的重要场所。通过作曲家、作词人、歌手和表演者之间必要的合作,即使是无意中对国家意识形态的挑战,也会在广播之前在委员会中得到解决。作者描述了专业主义话语如何有效地培养内化的、有纪律的审美倾向:“高度发展的特定领域的艺术规范……不要机械地监督个人的行为,而是将潜在的破坏性象征性行为(例如,侵略性的声乐风格,或重复的旋律)的个体实例视为非专业而不是颠覆性的”(125)。托奇卡并没有将“发声”等同于反对权力,他认为对艺术在反国家颠覆中的作用的普遍理解被夸大了。相反,他断言,艺术家直接挑战体制或因此受到惩罚的“壮观的镇压时刻”是“极其罕见的”(89),尽管它们不成比例地抓住了许多评论家的想象力。他呼吁对日常音乐创作进行更深入的考察,而不是追溯所有社会主义创作作品,寻找“隐藏的异议”(152)或共谋的迹象。书中有超过一半的篇幅是对社会主义时期的分析,而其余的篇幅则追溯了社会主义对2010年代早期的影响。重要的历史时刻包括1962年在苏联培养的新一代官僚精英的影响下举行的第一届宋节;1972年的音乐节,试图通过吸收更多的外国流行风格来解放轻音乐领域,但却导致了保守派的强烈反对,解雇,甚至逮捕;以及20世纪80年代末和90年代初的节日,在这期间,变革和自由的主题预示着重大的政治经济转变。 在整个过程中,托奇卡分析了一些代表性歌曲的文本和音乐编曲,展示了它们如何反映了有关建设社会主义、民间传统在阿尔巴尼亚身份中的地位、赢得“青年”或欧洲一体化的相关辩论;然而,没有得分的例子,音乐理论术语被保持在最低限度,使这本书非常适合非音乐家。这本书没有网站或播放列表,但托奇卡指出,书中提到的所有歌曲都可以很容易地在网上找到。资本主义时代出现了新的创造性类型:业余作曲家兼制作人和未来的流行歌星。便利的私人录音室吸引了许多人进入一个以自我推销和个人创业精神为明显标志的领域。尽管如此,一些专业作曲家继续受到社会主义理想的艺术提升,审美复杂性和音乐学院训练的优越性的启发。对他们来说,歌会仍然是一个重要的场所,可以在市场之外展示他们的创作技巧,但私人赞助的节日往往吸引更广泛、更年轻的观众。在简短的结语中,托奇卡重申了他的主要论点:“声音”和能动性不是同义词;对音乐/声音的政治监督必然要求将权力下放给有自己议程的声音专家;我们需要仔细观察任何一种状态下与声音制造和消费相关的话语、基础设施和实践。最后,托奇卡警告我们要仔细倾听对话者的声音,并对将世界划分为“自由”和“不自由”社会的理想政治类型的认识论影响持怀疑态度。随着左倾学者们被迫重新思考他们对“新冷战”时期苏联遗产的理解,这最后一个论点可能是当今最具挑战性的。Audible States对音乐政治经济进行了颇具争议的分析,它将成为了解东欧和文化政策的必读读物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: As the official journal of the Society for Ethnomusicology, Ethnomusicology is the premier publication in the field. Its scholarly articles represent current theoretical perspectives and research in ethnomusicology and related fields, while playing a central role in expanding the discipline in the United States and abroad. Aimed at a diverse audience of musicologists, anthropologists, folklorists, cultural studies scholars, musicians, and others, this inclusive journal also features book, recording, film, video, and multimedia reviews. Peer-reviewed by the Society’s international membership, Ethnomusicology has been published three times a year since the 1950s.
期刊最新文献
Postwar Europe and the Eurovision Song Contest Ugly Publics Government-Mandated Coolness: Education Policy, the Koto, and Music Teacher Retraining in Japan A Season of Singing: Creating Feminist Jewish Music in the United States Audible States: Socialist Politics and Popular Music in Albania
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1