ISSN: 2158-7051 ==================== INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN STUDIES ==================== ISSUE NO. 2 ( 2013/1 ) |
RUSSIAN-LANGUAGE
REGGAE;
A STUDY OF MUSICAL APPROPRIATION AND ITS CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
MARIJA RIBA*
Summary
The
vast majority of research pertaining to contemporary popular music in the
Russian and Eastern European Studies academic disciplines has focused on the
rock genre. Minimal attention has been given to the study of genres such as
Russian-language reggae and its adjoining subculture(s), which provide a wealth
of material regarding musical appropriation, post-Soviet identity, and
political resonance in popular culture. This paper traces the development of
Russian-language reggae, its influence, and its correlation with the
counter-hegemonic resistance of post-Soviet youth.
Keywords: Russia, Eastern Europe, reggae, post-Soviet identity, subculture, underground reggae, mainstream reggae, 5’Nizza, Jah Division.
Introduction
Exclusively
Russian-language reggae arose following the dissolution of the Soviet Union,
although Soviet rock musicians did experiment with reggae sounds and embrace
certain aspects of Rastafarian thought. The subsequent subculture that grew out
of dedicated Russian-speaking reggae fans provided an alternate discourse to
both the former Soviet regime and to the post-Soviet landscape which followed –
a landscape of extreme poverty, abundant crime, and rampant corruption. Reggae
music was calming, relaxing, and uplifting, but retained the important message
of protest to its listeners.
Though
it never achieved mainstream success, Russian-language reggae did gain an
enormous following across Eastern Europe. Then, in the 2000s, as a new rhetoric
of patriotism and positivism entered the lexicon of Russian politics, one band
managed to break into the pop charts and reach listeners the world over.
5’Nizza became instantly successful – but in its catchy tunes was once again a
message which resonated amongst post-Soviet youth. It was a caution, a
critique, of this new-found optimism and pride. Youth could once again relate –
they were drawn to reggae as the symbiosis of a foreign music carrying a local
meaning – a balance they understood and desired.
Reggae
took on new meaning in the post-Soviet space – it was largely disassociated
from its Jamaican roots, instead symbolising the struggle against the
aforementioned poverty, crime, and the corruption of a distinctly post-Soviet
landscape.
This
is not to say, however, that Russian-language reggae was homogenous, or that
its listeners responded to it in identical ways. On the contrary, two distinct
strands emerge, which in the course of this paper shall be referred to as mainstream and underground. The mainstream is comprised of bands such as 5’Nizza –
bands which infuse rock and roll, soul, funk, and other genres of music into
their reggae songs. Though many musicians have experimented with reggae, especially
those known as classic Soviet or Russian rock groups (e.g. Akvarium, Chaif),
there are few which can be categorised as primarily reggae bands. The
underground, on the other hand, have a much broader variety of musicians, but
operate by mimicking as closely as possible their understanding of Jamaican
reggae and Rastafarian culture – perhaps why they have limited success in the
broader sphere, but are very popular within the Russian-language reggae
subculture.
Many
theorists have tackled the complex issues surrounding the concepts of context,
of authenticity, and of consumption, which some utilising examples of musical
genres such as blues or rock and roll to emphasise their arguments. This paper
will provide a glimpse into the post-Soviet landscape, and into the
opportunities reggae music provides for disillusioned Russian-speaking youth,
regardless of whether they subscribe to the mainstream or underground strands
of the genre.
History
A
thorough understanding of both the post-Soviet space and the Jamaican context
is required before approaching a topic which studies their cultural exchange
and appropriation. As reggae came through diluted channels into the Soviet
Union, it is first crucial to establish the environment which provided the
opportunity for reggae to develop within Russian-speaking musical communities.
Rock
music proved to be the precursor to many subcultures which later formed on the
basis of musical taste, and was itself appropriated, both into white popular
cultural from its African American origins, and into the underground culture of
the Soviet Union from the popular music of America and of the United Kingdom.
It is through Soviet rock music that the appropriation process occurring in
Russian culture is perhaps most visible. After the initial introduction of
rock, it can be argued that, behind the Iron Curtain, it developed quite
independently from Western influence. As explain Ramet et al., “when rock music
first sprouted in Soviet soil in the mid-1960s, it was largely imitative of Western
rock…but rock music provided the essential underpinning for an emergent youth
counterculture that has become stronger and much more heterogeneous over the
years” (1994). Polly McMichael adds that “Soviet rock songwriters were deeply
concerned with the difficulties involved in adapting rock music – a form they
perceived to be ‘foreign’ in its very essence – to the demands of their own
culture” (2008). This adaptation, however, is necessary in order to make a
musical genre appealing for a localised audience, and “Western technoculture is
not simply a culturally dominating or homogenising force…rather, it is almost
always being actively manipulated by local cultures and rearticulated for new
uses within these other cultural spaces” (Berry & Miller-Pogacar, 1995).
Though
Russian-language rock music grew to overshadow the popularity of its American
and British influences (in the Russian-speaking cultural sphere), it still
borrowed greatly from its Western rock counterpart. Indeed, through Western
rock, subgenres of rock were introduced – jazz rock, blues rock, reggae-infused
rock all followed.
The
context in which reggae initially arose is crucial for the understanding its
inherent traits, particularly when utilised in its original form – that of
protest music. Because reggae songs were largely political and vocalised
protest to the government in Jamaica, it would initially appear that there
wasn’t much of a market for them outside of Jamaica’s borders. However, as
argue Stephen A. King et al. in Reggae,
Rastafari, and the Rhetoric of Social Control, “U.S. record companies
successfully marketed reggae as a new ‘rebel music’ in hopes that it would
appeal to white American college students and European youth” (2002). The
success of marketing spread Jamaican reggae globally, with reggae groups being
formed all over the world. A certain set of stereotypes became associated with
reggae, and both foreign as well as local Jamaican groups exploited them to
attain a presumed authenticity. Due to the popularisation of reggae and the
Western rock groups which incorporated reggae into their sound, the genre
reached Russian-speaking countries, already laden with associations and
stereotypes, which nonetheless assisted in the construction of a recognisable
subculture.
It is
through the medium of music, particularly a music which offers a community,
that the quest for authenticity is most likely to occur. The formation of such
subcultures in Russian-speaking countries is described by Michael Urban as “one
effort to forge community amid the social debris littering the country’s
post-Communist landscape” (2004). In this landscape, underground
Russian-language reggae was born, and presented the public with what Urban
calls “new forms of social interaction”. When faced with two very different,
yet equally detested, political ideologies, some sought an escape, and found
solace in Rastafarian thought. Because music, as claims Timothy Rice, “can act
as both a critique of the existing world and as an imaginary construction of a
new and perhaps better world” (1996), reggae became the medium through which
such thought entered public consciousness.
It is
precisely the subculture, and that subculture’s positioning against the
political hegemony, that can create authenticity for its followers. As
emphasises Dick Hebdige in other examples of subculture, “The raw material of
history [can] be seen refracted, held and ‘handled’ in the line of a mod’s
jacket, in the soles on a teddy boy’s shoes” (2002 [1979]). Though Hebdige
limits his analysis to youth in the British working class, he nonetheless
illustrates an important feature of the reggae subculture: they are able to
recognise one another, and are recognisable to those outside of their
community. They symbolise, through style, their subversion to the societal
norms. After all, as claims Thomas Cushman, “Discussions about the authenticity
of culture often hinge on the issue of music’s relation to specific and
economic forces in society” (1995).
Music,
regardless of cultural origin, is a medium through which the youth of any race,
in any country, of any heritage or culture, are able to experiment, develop
their identities, and convey their own messages. Reggae is a genre which can be
transformed by youth in a context
other than the one in which it arose, in order to suit the needs of their own
specific communities, whether that be limited to smaller subcultures or on a
national scale. As explains Simon Jones, “For, time and time again, white youth
have found in black music a more realistic and resonant account of their own
experiences than established idioms of cultural expression could offer” (1988).
The
reggae subcultures which were formed in Russian-speaking countries relied on
this ability to reconstruct meaning in a musical idiom, and to reinterpret the
genre to resonate with their identity and social landscape. Reggae, entering
the Russian-language cultural sphere through diluted streams, was developed
into a culturally relevant product, and consumed by youth in different ways –
either as the basis for a community, or as a form of expression.
Mainstream Reggae – 5’Nizza
Arguably one of the contemporary Russian-speaking world’s most beloved
bands, 5’Nizza was also the first group to achieve mainstream success playing
almost exclusively reggae content. Though several of the classic Soviet rock
groups experimented with reggae sounds, the genre never attained much
mainstream airplay. 5’Nizza – formed by two young musicians from Kharkov, the
Ukraine – was able to break through the pop-dominated music charts, conquering
the hearts of pop-listeners, as well as simultaneously appeal to fans of
classic Russian-language rock.
The two musicians comprising the group, Andrei Zaporozhets and Sergei
Babkin, were both born in Kharkov, which, at the time of their birth and
childhood, was still a part of the Soviet Union. Although following the
dissolution of the USSR Ukraine attempted a revival of its national language –
Kharkov, close to the Russian border, remained largely Russian-speaking. Both
musicians pertain to the generation of post-Soviet youth, growing up in the
former territories and republics, attempting to define and distinguish
themselves in a post-Soviet landscape.
Their unique positioning of being both within the Russian context and
simultaneously outside of it provides them with the opportunity of being able
to – even encouraged to – critique it freely. 5’Nizza came into existence in
2000, a timeframe which, in Russia, correlates to Vladimir Putin’s rise to
power, continuing terrorist attacks in response to the wars in the Caucasus
region, and an unprecedented growth of well-being. It is perhaps due to their
external stance that the band was able, during this time, to provide a critical
voice of the patriotism sweeping the Russian nation, appealing to a new
generation of young Russians equally skeptical of the new government and the
ongoing conflicts they were forced to endure. Indeed, it appealed to this
generation of post-Soviet youth – those unable to make sense of the rapid
changes occurring in their countries, and turning to music – to words, to
styles, to feeling – in order to more accurately express their emotions, and
their identities.
The band’s biggest and most well-known hit, is, arguably, the song Ja Soldat (I am a Soldier). It was
released as a single in 2002 and, as claims Kharkov native Ruslan Solomyaniy,
23, “conquered the hearts of many – even those who did not listen to reggae
bands began to listen to Ja Soldat”.
Scrolling through the comments section of its fan-posted Youtube video, it is
evident that the song has spread throughout the world. In fact, the amount of
comments left by Polish listeners exceeds even that of the Russian or Ukrainian
speakers, and fans from destinations as far as Australia, China, Brazil, and
Algeria show their appreciation. Many admit to not understanding the words, yet
enjoy the melody and charisma of the musicians.
Simon Jones argues that “reggae’s unique effectiveness, however,
lies in the dynamic interplay between both
these, verbal and non-verbal, modes of communication and their distinctive
fusion into an organic musical whole” (1988). It is 5’Nizza, in Ja Soldat, which conforms to the demands
of reggae in this sense, in the ability to appeal to a global audience based on
the song’s melody and their own appeal as performers, and to a more localised
audience based on these same factors in combination with relevant lyrics.
Those
who understand the words are more likely to understand the context – mandatory
military service was still required by both Russia and the Ukraine.
Additionally, at the time of the song’s release, Russia was reeling from the
effects of its Second Chechen War – a war which claimed the lives of thousands.
It is therefore unsurprising that the young generation of Russians, Ukrainians,
and their close neighbours, could identify with the lyrics – words about the
difficulties, the futility, the pain – of warfare. Comments on the video
included several from Eastern European soldiers, all begging to stop the
fighting.
Another
of 5’Nizza’s popular songs, Jamayka (Jamaica),
invokes a mythical Jamaica – one of happiness and a carefree life. A listener
on the song’s Youtube video page analysed the text as “a satirical song about
Communist realities”, in which Jamaica represents the dream of freedom, of
escape. In the years that followed the break-up of the Soviet Union, it could
be argued that life was far worse than under the old regime – even more
corruption, violence, and poverty were commonplace as countries sought to come
to terms with their new capitalist system. Therefore, even into the 2000s,
listeners could identify with such a song – one in which there is a dream of a
better life, a better future – away from the harsh realities of either the
Soviet Union or the post-Soviet spaces. It is symbolic that a song like this
should come in 2001, a year after Vladimir Putin assumed presidency, pledging
to restore order, and beginning a campaign of reviving Russian nationalism. As
an external voice, 5’Nizza was able to see through this patriotism and appeal
to a young audience who remained dissatisfied with their living conditions and
yearned for a happier, peaceful, and relaxed future. These young fans could
empathise with the protagonist of Jamayka,
who has no past, no belongings, and is alone – searching for a home. They,
likewise, were deprived of their Soviet past, starting almost anew in a new
political regime and system.
It
would hence appear that 5’Nizza’s songs, in addition to their catchy rhythms
and melodies, contain a deeper meaning for their local audiences. As writes
Sabrina Petra Ramet of Soviet rock, “in the republics of the former USSR both
the rock musicians and their listeners seem to place a greater premium on the
words” (1994). Though a lot of Russian-language pop songs seem to be devoid of
a real, deep, collective meaning, the songs of 5’Nizza differ – which is
perhaps why they were not only popular amongst the fans of popular music, but
also attained a classic status amongst listeners of the rock genre, typically
considered more serious. The sentiment of lyrics having a deep imprint on their
listeners is summed up by Ramet: “Music brings people together and evokes for
them collective emotional experiences to which common meanings are assigned”
(1994).
During
the Soviet Union, Western culture – and particularly music – was able to
infiltrate the Iron Curtain and become popular amongst the youth, who viewed it
as a means of protest against the Communist regime. When the USSR collapsed,
Western culture was often held up on a pedestal, as something for which to
strive – but, over time (and possibly under the influence of Vladimir Putin’s
nationalism-revival agenda), this became more of a synthesis of existing
influence of the post-Soviet space and contemporary post-Soviet structures with
the interpretations of this Western culture. Russia and her close neighbours
developed their own popular culture, which, as claims Adele Marie Barker, “like
Russia itself...finds itself torn between its own heritage and that of the
West” (1999).
Mainstream
reggae is the embodiment of this new popular culture – able to infuse elements
of reggae into existing musical practices with which the audience can identify
(ie. the lyrics). Therefore, a song of peace and protest against war becomes a reggae song of peace and protest against
the war, becomes a Russian-language reggae
song of peace and protest against the war – a song which can be played the
world over and enjoyed, yet a song which resonates in the hearts and minds of
its local audience.
Thomas
Cushman argues that ““Culture is an externalization of internal feelings,
thoughts, and states of consciousness in objective forms which are then shared
by other individuals” (1995). Russian-language reggae emerged, as a cultural
object, from the contested and renegotiated identities of the post-Soviet era.
It is important to emphasise that though the Soviet Union was transformed into
the post-Soviet space, it itself played a large role in the production of new
popular culture. Soviet signs, symbols, themes, histories, and culture were
reinterpreted in order to provide a means by which to understand the hectic
surroundings of post-Soviet life.
5’Nizza played a role in this process by performing a reggae version of
the infamous anthem of the Soviet Union, a version which was hailed by fans
(from all countries formerly behind the Iron Curtain) as brilliant – several
going as far to declare that all the atrocities of the Soviet regime could have
been forgiven had 5’Nizza’s song been the official version of the anthem. Numerous
listeners who left comments on the Youtube video highlight that it is the easy
flow of the melody, the reggae sound, which is responsible for the sense of
peace they derive from the song.
5’Nizza’s whole persona reflects a carefree, relaxed attitude typically
associated with global reggae. If one was to mute the sound and merely watch
5’Nizza’s performance in any of the videos of the three songs mentioned in this
chapter, it would be difficult to ascertain which genre they were singing in.
5’Nizza’s manner of performance and their style of dress is not that which is
commonly perceived to be reggae – they very rarely even reference the symbols
purported to be benchmarks of any reggae performer, instead dressing fairly
casually (if a little eccentrically), and forgo dreadlocks for shorter
haircuts. It would be inaccurate to accuse 5’Nizza of cultural assemblage in
their selection of the more eccentric outfits as they are undoubtedly aware of
the stereotypes prevailing in reggae music, and consciously choose to avoid
them. It is perhaps this unwillingness to conform to any standards or norms in
their chosen genre that pushed 5’Nizza into the mainstream.
Underground Reggae – Jah Division
At
the forefront of the underground Russian-language reggae movement is undoubtedly
the Cuban-born Gera Morales, front-man of Jah Division, who claims to have been
fathered by a Cuban revolutionary – a comrade of Che Guevara himself. Though
Morales could not initially play reggae, and admits he was assisted by several
African students, he has become something of a cult figure in the
Russian-speaking reggae subculture. Active since 1991, Jah Division are also
one of the oldest Russian-language reggae bands on the scene. It would be wrong
to claim that the band completely shied away from or was ignored by the
mainstream media, but they are much more well-known and respected within their
own subculture.
Morales
performed his first reggae concert in 1988, though only established Jah
Division after the collapse of the Communist regime. He became the inspiration
for others to follow. Like the Russian blues community described by Michael
Urban, the Russian reggae subculture has “found in the music a set of coded
responses to its turbulent surroundings, amounting to a stance that puts distance
between itself and an inhospitable world” (2004). Indeed, preaching
Rastafarianism, praying for peace and kindness, the Russian reggae movement was
the antithesis to the post-Soviet landscape – a scene of violence and chaos.
Yet
it is in this acceptance of Rastafarianism, in the appropriation and
reinterpretation of Rastafarian thought, that Russian reggae musicians often go
astray. As claims Viktor Sorokin, a reggae enthusiast who has travelled to
Jamaica and is aware of both Jamaican and Russian-language forms of reggae, “It
is difficult to translate music, because essentially what you are trying to
achieve is the translation of culture”. He is suggesting that, as music is
invariably linked, through its history, with the culture from which it arose, an
accurate appropriation of the music is based on the accurate understanding of
and engagement with its cultural sphere.
Underground
Russian-language reggae seeks to emulate what they perceive to be both the
musical style and the lifestyle of Rastafarian reggae artists. That is, they
discuss the concept of Babylon in interviews, reject consumerist superficiality
and the current political system, and attempt to stay as true as possible to
what they consider to be “authentic” reggae, albeit making it accessible for a
Russian-speaking audience. The problem is that such claims and behaviours rely
on certain assumptions and presumptions about Jamaica, Rastafarians, and reggae
itself. For example, how precisely is the concept of Babylon interpreted by the
Russian-speaking reggae milieu? From interviews given by prominent underground
bands such as Jah Division, the most popular interpretation is that which is
most common world-wide: Babylon as the police.
Russian
police, as well as the police forces in other former Soviet republics, have a
reputation for being harsh and corrupt, which solidifies their mentality as
being in opposition to the Russian Rastafarians. However, this particular
interpretation is very limited in scope of what Babylon represents to, for example,
religious Rastafarian groups in Jamaica. This is just one instance of how
Russian-speaking artists appropriate a specific cultural understanding of terms
unfamiliar to them, then restructure them to suit their own needs and purposes.
In
addition to being selective about the terms which they appropriate, underground
Russian-language reggae artists and fans are also selective in regards to the
discussion of what constitutes “authentic” reggae – in fact a far broader
debate hinged on reggae’s position as one of Jamaica’s chief exports. It is
perhaps for this desire of authenticity that musicians within the subculture,
such as Morales, need to establish their roots as Cuban, need to make claims of
being related to a Russian Rastafarian theorist – in order to justify
themselves and to appear as genuine as possible. It is undoubtedly with this in
mind that Jah Division’s website’s homepage proclaims Morales a “Russian Bob
Marley”.
Though
oftentimes trying to remain relevant to their particular local context, many of
the underground Russian-language reggae bands still fall under the category
which Stephen A. King et al. define as “pseudo-Rastafarian groups, who
[imitate] the cultural trappings of Rastafari – the dreadlocks, the ganja
smoking, and the lingo – without embracing its larger religious and ideological
tenets” (2002).
Even
if some members of the communities centred around reggae music and Rastafarian
culture in Russian-speaking countries did attempt to mimic their chosen genre
“authentically”, their perception of what constitutes authenticity remains
contested. Viktor Sorokin claims that Jamaican reggae, originally, “...was
about war, the war that must occur to fight for equality”. He continues that,
“Reggae is the music of Jamaican poverty and of religious fundamentalism. The
main idea of reggae is repatriation – the desire to rejoin Africa. Such black
radicalism has no equivalent and no context in Russian realities.” However,
this is a purist view, based entirely on the origins of reggae, and fails to take into account the
transformation that the musical idiom has undergone – reggae which is not tied
to Rastafarian fundamentalism, which is separated from its religious roots and
is instead reflective of other shared experiences is not necessarily inauthentic.
It
can, however, be argued that even the music currently being produced in Jamaica
is not authentic, as after this musical genre became popular outside of
Jamaica, it became the country’s largest export and is often unrelated to these
shared experiences of the local populace – instead intended to find an audience
globally. Viktor Sorokin argues that “popular reggae (outside of Jamaica) is
when reggae loses touch with its roots – it becomes a tourist industry”. But if
this is the music that Russian-language reggae artists listen to, and believe
to be authentic, their own music, inspired by this popular reggae, becomes
inauthentic in regards to the original intentions of Jamaican reggae.
Numerous
non-Jamaican musicians, including Eastern European reggae fans and artists,
come to Jamaica to record reggae songs, and Jamaican reggae spreads globally.
In this scenario, the production processes involved in creating reggae are now
exploiting a musical expression previously intended only as a form of protest,
as a form of mass information – except instead of being a music of protest or
of information, it becomes commercial, and is hence altered, given a more
global message which can appeal to a wider audience. Since a large portion of
reggae music is specifically manipulated with the intention of export and
profit, its authenticity, and by relation, the authenticity of those who seek
to emulate it, is undermined.
Yet,
regardless of what Russian-speaking musicians consider authentic reggae and the
styles they associate with it, the process of selection is always present in
their appropriation. More importantly, the emphasis placed on the motifs
outlined by King et al. is far greater than any concepts relating to ideology
or religion, unless they are mentioned in passing as another stake on
authenticity.
Marijuana,
dreadlocks, and the colours of the Ethiopian flag immediately come to mind when
thinking of reggae. These are the predominant symbols which are associated with
both reggae and Rastafari around the world, having been given such symbolic
status by production companies marketing reggae to a largely white,
middle-class, Western youth. As the musical appropriation spread to countries
of the former Eastern European Communist Bloc, these symbols were, in turn, taken
up by Russian-speaking musicians interested in this new musical genre. Watching
Konstantin Borr’s documentary film entitled Raduga
(2004), which displays key groups within the underground Russian-language
reggae scene at concerts, and includes interviews with prominent figures
associated with the movement, it is evident that these are precisely the
elements most musicians and their followers have appropriated.
In
the music video to what is arguably Jah Division’s most famous and most
well-known song, Cubana, all the
motifs mentioned are referenced. Cannabis leaves, red, black, gold, green,
dreadlocks, Bob Marley, smoking marijuana – it appears as if each symbol was
thrown into the video at random, attempting some sort of unity, some sort of
authentication, justification, for its chosen musical genre. Though the lyrics
hold a deeper meaning, a vocalised protest against the socialist regime in
Cuba, the refrain interrupts to sing, “Cuba-Cuba-Cubana, legalise marijuana”.
Another point of interest in the lyrics is the reference to an imagined
Jamaica, a land in which, supposedly, everyone dances, smokes cannabis, is a
Rastafarian, and sings reggae – all contrasted against the miserable portrayal
of Communist Cuba.
Though
many divisions and conflicts have formed between Jamaican Rastafari since their
emergence on the world arena, the most grounded, religious, and traditional
Rastafari have come to view the reggae phenomenon as a distortion of their
beliefs and intentions. As write King et al., “according to the sociologist
Yoshiko S. Nagashima, some Rastafarians found it ‘intolerable’ that the
‘distorted artificiality’ of international reggae was ‘accepted as genuine’ by
so many listeners’” (2002).
Comparative Account
Though
the underground reggae scene continuously invokes concepts such as Babylon, it
is arguably bands like 5’Nizza which prove to be more conspicuously political,
challenging the ideologies they witness being popularised in their own local
landscape. Mainstream reggae manages to successfully blend western sounds with
a post-Soviet understanding, and offer in the post-Soviet context what Thomas
Cushman attributed to Soviet rock music – the act of being “not simply a static
cultural object […] produced and consumed, but an active code of resistance and
a template which [is] used for the formation of new forms of individual and
collective identity in the Soviet environment” (1995).
Mainstream
and underground reggae, though diverse strands and quite separate from one
another, still maintain a relationship based on a mutual regard for reggae –
however differing their views may be. After having been introduced to reggae by
the mainstream version popularised by widespread radio play, if a listener is
sufficiently intrigued, they may continue to discover the genre and subculture
through less well-known, more underground musicians. Yet it is precisely the
underground reggae which originally provided a platform for the development of
that which would later become mainstream reggae.
Both
streams likewise have similar goals, arising in environments when an
alternative, or at the very least a critique, is demanded by youth dissatisfied
with their current way of life and in opposition to the ideologies circulating
the political sphere. Underground reggae, which arose immediately after the
dissolution of the USSR, parallels the reception of blues, which Urban
describes as “...performers, fans, and promoters who have adopted this
particular foreign musical idiom and found in it a template for fashioning and
making sense of their lives during a period of certain convulsion and
routinised uncertainty” (2004). The Russian-language underground reggae
subculture community, like the Russian blues community described by Urban, have
created a culture – a culture in that it is “an externalisation of internal
feelings, thoughts, and states of consciousness in objective forms [then]
shared by other individuals” (Cushman, 1995). Joining a subculture became an
escape from the mundane and unsatisfactory reality of post-Soviet life for the
many young musicians and listeners who subscribed to reggae.
Likewise,
mainstream reggae appeared on the music scene at yet another turning point of
social circumstances, one in which life was supposedly improving and the former
Soviet republics could once again be proud – proud of their individual and
combined histories, achievements, and cultures. Yet in Russia, the new
president’s rhetoric of optimism and patriotism evoked suspicion in many
critics. Critique came in numerous forms: independent newspapers, art,
literature, music. Musicians began to
criticise the country’s new rhetoric, which they felt was obscuring the real
issues facing Russia and, due to Russia’s proximity, her neighbours.
The
parallel of reggae and blues in Russian-speaking environments is not limited to
their growth during changing social circumstances and conditions, but rather
extends into the very essence of the music’s development and the subcultures
formulated around it. Reggae, like blues, must, when appropriated by Russian-language
musicians and translated or re-imagined for a Russian-speaking public, go
through a process of selection. This selection requires “seizing on some
features of the music while neglecting or screening out others” (Urban, 2004).
This begs the question: what attracts Russian-speaking musicians to reggae in
the first place? Some researchers have argued that Jamaican reggae represents
the essential human struggle – the expression of opposition – which resonates
internationally. However, Russian-language artists cannot take Jamaican reggae
and expect it to accurately express the exact same messages they feel are
relevant to their protest and to their country of origin, so reggae must
undergo a transformation.
However,
it is imperative to stress that reggae is not being appropriated in its
“original” or “authentic” form, one which is rumoured to exist if sought with
dedication, but rather has again, like blues, “crossed the country’s frontiers
with considerable baggage in tow...within the imported music a certain
statement on authenticity has already been inserted, one acquired during the
music’s travel through American and British youth cultures decades prior to its
arrival in Russia” (Urban, 2004).
Those
reggae groups which are more overt in their demonstration of this cultural
baggage, groups which mould and fuse a variety of genres into catchy songs –
songs which appeal to a mass audience – are often viewed by their underground
counterparts as being inauthentic, or, more dramatically, as not being reggae at
all – as being “hippie music”. Fans subscribing to the reggae subculture are
more likely to seek authenticity in their musical genre of choice, making
judgements on what does or does not constitute this authenticity – embodying
Cushman’s assessment that “a major site of struggle both between societies and
within societies is the arena of competing definitions over the identities of a
whole range of cultural products” (1995).
Urban
highlights the division of Russian blues in a way similar to the division of
mainstream and underground reggae present in this paper, claiming that
“[Russian blues musicians] who have developed repertoires that include a few
crowd-pleasing rock or pop songs often experience the censure of others in the
community who regard their efforts as a vulgarisation of musical standards”
(2004). It is evident that while groups such as 5’Nizza, who enjoy mainstream
success, occasionally collaborate with other musicians, these musicians come
from a distinctly different background than the underground reggae artists who
have instead formed their own close-knit community, and would undoubtedly
debate whether or not 5’Nizza can be defined as reggae.
Mainstream
and underground reggae, though operating in separate cultural spheres, often
with separate production and fans, do still share a number of important
characteristics. Developed on the basis of exchange and indirect influence, the
two distinct strands approach similar issues in different ways. Yet the
necessity of confronting these issues – issues concerning the post-Soviet
space, of the alienation felt by their fans and by the musicians themselves,
issues of critique and protest and a perceived alternative to the post-Soviet
cultural and political hegemony – are shared.
Conclusion
This
paper has traced the origins of Russian-language reggae – from its tentative
roots in Soviet rock, to an established subculture following the collapse of
the Soviet Union, and finally to a hybrid of popular music and reggae. It has
identified two distinct strands of Russian-language reggae – the underground
and the mainstream – who differ in their perspectives regarding reggae,
appealing to different audiences, and utilising the genre for individual
purposes. Because the two strands diverse and approach reggae in separate ways,
they are faced with their own complex engagements with audience, context, and
authenticity.
In
the study of the appropriation of Jamaican reggae by Russian-speaking
musicians, the paper focused predominantly on the methods by which these artists
have attempted to translate reggae for a Russian-speaking audience, and how
they perceive certain cultural motifs and reinterpret them in their own
context. It would appear that the mainstream place a greater emphasis on the meaning of their words – meanings which
are related to their context, as
opposed to the Jamaican context numerous underground reggae musicians are
occupied with invoking. The underground, on the other hand, hold a greater
regard for the cultural symbolism of the music they are producing –
familiarising themselves with the histories of the reggae and Rastafarian
motifs.
Whilst
both the underground and the mainstream do engage with their local and national
contexts – whether that be intentionally or as a by-product of where they are
situated – they differ in the audience they actively attract. Mainstream
musicians such as 5’Nizza produce and perform music which is accessible to
everyone – their songs, while imitating reggae to a degree, cannot always be
categorised exclusively as reggae music. Underground, on the other hand, appeal
to a far more niche audience – an audience which recognises the cultural objects – the appropriated reggae symbols:
cannabis, dreadlocks, etc. – and can actively engage with them, forming a
subculture of like-minded individuals, constructed on the foundation of mutual
interest. However, regardless of how closely Russian-speaking musicians attempt
to mimic reggae, there remains the question of authenticity.
One
of the reggae fans interviewed for this paper, Viktor Sorokin, argued that
Russian-speaking reggae musicians and the Russian-language reggae subculture
cannot possibly understand reggae – “there is a lack of context as to why they
choose the reggae form – most Russian reggae does not contain the original function
of reggae, that of political information being conveyed through song because
the official government media is not to be trusted – Russian reggae is
infantile, it is hippie music, it is mere escapism”. He rejects
Russian-language reggae entirely, believing it incapable of authentically
translating Jamaican reggae.
Yet
both forms of Russian-language reggae, the mainstream and the underground, can
be either political or escapist – they operate in their cultural context, like
the punks Dick Hebdige describes – the ones who “appropriated the rhetoric of
crisis which had filled the airwaves and the editorials throughout the period
and translated it into tangible (and visible) terms” (2002 [1979]). Underground
reggae in the Russian cultural context became a reflection of the post-Soviet
space – it provided both an escape for those who sought it, and appeared as a
manifestation of the political and cultural crises experienced by the
post-Soviet youth. Likewise, the mainstream reggae arose to critique the positivist
rhetoric of Vladimir Putin’s Russia – or, once again, to provide an alternate
universe – an escape.
As
claims Abraam Iusfin, “The understanding of music mainly as an aesthetic factor
must be replaced by a qualitatively different one – that of an environmentally formative force” (1995).
Russian-language reggae, in either of its strands, provided its listeners with
that which they desired, be that escapism or a political critique – that very
same translation of political information which is intended for authentic
Jamaican reggae to contain and convey to its audience.
Like
Soviet and Russian rock musicians, who took a foreign idiom and re-interpreted
it, restructured it, made it their own, suitable to their personal requirements
– Russian-language reggae musicians have created a genre. It is not simply
reggae in Russian-speaking countries, it is Russian-language
reggae, a distinction which, with all of its own problems of authenticity
or lack of authenticity, has nevertheless pervaded the Russian-speaking
cultural sphere and provided a number of disillusioned post-Soviet youth with
an identity and a voice.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
5’Nizza
(performers) & RenTV (producer), 2003, Gimn
USSR [concert footage]. Accessed:
March 27, 2011 from www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOKG3m8Z_Rg.
5’Nizza
(performers) & Drobjazko, B. (producer), 2002, Ja Soldat [music video]. Accessed:
March 27, 2011 from www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB9sxqPN1o4.
5’Nizza
(performers), 2001, Jamayka [music
video]. Accessed: March 27, 2011 from
www.youtube.com/watch=BIN6gXqZKbM.
Borr,
K. (dir), Raduga: Rasta-movement in
Russia [documentary], 2004.
Jah
Division (performer), 2004, Cubana
[music video]. Accessed: March 27, 2011 from
www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2BHZmZYHVO.
Jah
Division, 2009, Official website.
Accessed: March 27, 2011 from www.jahdivision.ru.
Secondary Sources
Barker,
A. (ed), Consuming Russia: Popular Culture, Sex, and Society since Gorbachev,
Durham, Duke University Press,
1999.
Berry,
E. & Miller-Pogacar, A. (eds), Re-entering the Sign: Perspectives on New
Russian
Culture, Ann Arbor, The
University of Michigan Press, 1995.
Clarke,
J. ‘Language and the Construction of Identity in Russia’, CERC Working Papers
Series, Vol. 1 (2005), 44-44.
Cushman,
T., Notes from Underground: Rock Music Counterculture in Russia, Albany,
State
University of New York Press,
1995.
Hebdige,
D., Subculture: The Meaning of Style, London, Routledge, 2002 [1979].
Jones,
S., Black Culture, White Youth: The Reggae Tradition from Jamaica to U.K.,
Basingstoke, Palgrave
Macmillan, 1988.
Marsh,
R., ‘The Nature of Russia’s Identity: The Theme of ‘Russia and the West’ in
Post-
Soviet Culture’, Nationalities
Papers, Vol. 35, No. 3 (2007), 559-582.
McMichael,
P. ‘Translation, Authorship, and Authenticity in Soviet Rock Songwriting’, The
Translator, Vol. 14, No. 2
(2008), 201-228.
Ramet,
S. (ed), Rocking the State: Rock Music and Politics in Eastern Europe and
Russia,
New York, Westview Press,
1994.
Ryback,
T. Rock around the Bloc: A History of Rock Music in Eastern Europe and the
Soviet
Union, Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 1989.
Shepard,
J. et al (eds), Continuum Encyclopedia of Popular Music of the World: Volume
1:
Media, Industry, and
Society, London, Continuum, 2003.
Shuker,
R., Popular Music: The Key Concepts, London, Routledge, 2005.
Slobin,
M. (ed), Returning Culture: Musical Changes in Central and Eastern Europe,
Durham, Duke University Press,
1996.
Urban,
M., Russia Gets the Blues, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2004.
Yoffe,
M. & Collins, A. (eds), Rock n Roll and Nationalism: A Multinational
Perspective,
Cambridge, Cambridge Scholars
Publishing, 2005.
Young,
J. Cultural Appropriation and the Arts, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing,
2010.
*Marija Riba - Ph.D., Cambridge University, Department
of Slavonic Studies, e-mail: mr567@cam.ac.uk
© 2010, IJORS - INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN STUDIES