Under African Skies

 

PAUL SIMON: Apartheid South Africa

Paul Simon’s album placed South African music centre stage in western culture for the first time – and would also land the musician in the eye of a political storm that would result in violence and assassination threats. Mark Beaumont explores the album’s tempestuous journey

Weekends in Soweto, South Africa, circa 1985, were the best time to be a musician. The police stayed home for a few days, so they weren’t out patrolling, following the sounds of music to unlicensed rehearsal sessions to confiscate instruments and throw them in the sea. 

There was no need for black artists to hide under blankets in the back of cars to get to gigs with white players in Johannesburg; the township itself came alive with music and colour. Bands struck up in every corner. Church choirs would gather in neighbours’ homes. Tribes would parade the streets singing the songs of their native tongues.

“From Zulu to Sotho to Xhosa to Shangaan…every weekend everybody dressed up with some colourful clothes,” remembers Bakithi Kumalo, a local session bassist at the time, who’d grown up learning how to mimic the tribes’ melodies on his bass. “They pass by, they sing the language and that was a good time to relax, the weekend, because there’s no government control.”

Between sessions for South African singers, recording 20 songs a day for a $5 fee, Kumalo was working as a mechanic to help buy medicine for his sick mother – one of the 16 family members sharing his four-bedroom house – when the call came from the unknown American. 

His boss relayed a message from his regular producer Hendrick Lebone that an out-of-towner was coming to Johannesburg for “a big project” and his playing was requested. At first, Kumalo was nervous, an almost perpetual state for the people of Soweto under apartheid.   READ MORE

Just A Footnote

Paul Simon will be a forgotten name in the history books when scholars look back on 20th-century music and see only Bob Dylan and The Beatles standing tall -- that's the polarizing take of one NBC writer, anyway.

Jeff Slate -- a NYC-based songwriter and journalist -- penned a controversial piece for NBC Think ... titled, "Paul Simon sold his catalog to Sony for millions. He'll still end up a historical footnote to Dylan." Indeed ... it is triggering.

His subheading reads, "He was a prolific songwriter with a lucrative catalog any corporation would happily monetize. But there are only a few names our descendants will ever learn."

We know, we know ... you're fuming already. That's exactly what the internet is doing as well as it jumps to PS's defense.

You can read Slate's take in full for the big picture -- which is all about how Dylan recently sold his catalog of music and the rights to it to UMG for a reported $400 million, and how Simon followed in his footsteps by doing the same with Sony for his rights -- but the gist here is ... Paul Simon will be an "also-ran" compared to BD when it's all said and done.

In Slate's view, Dylan will perhaps be alone with John, Paul, George and Ringo and as the standout folk/rock acts of the '60s/'70s -- and that artists like Bruce Springsteen, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young and others will fall by the wayside, especially among younger, average-Joe listeners.

That seems to be what Slate's getting at -- and of course, A LOT of people disagree ... with some arguing Simon is just as prolific and culturally impactful as Dylan ever was. We don't have to get into a pissing contest ... both guys have scores of songwriting credits and hits under their belts. Of course, you could argue Dylan is perhaps the better-known of the two.  READ MORE