Graceland and Visibility

A question that consistently popped into my head while reading the Meintjes article was whether or not visibility trumped authenticity. There were multiple answers given within the article, but the one that stood out most prominently was on pages 55-56: “Simon ‘has filtered the [South African] sound with his own style, lyrics and Western influence to concoct a colorful collage which, while retaining its Afro elements, makes them less raw, more flowy, more gentle. And most pleasant.'” (Meintjes, 55-56). There’s a lot to unpack in this statement. By referring to South African musical traditions in this manner, the “filtering” of South African music is through a lens of palatability. Simon is extracting the “pleasant” bits of South African music in order to cater towards those that do not identify with this music tradition. I found this extremely problematic when applied to the section where Meintjes talks about white South Africans using Graceland as a portal into Black South African music culture. By using Graceland as the medium in which White South Africans entered into “their culture’s musical tradition”, this signifies that the interpreted version of Black South African music culture is what they identify with. Yet, as the article pointed out, many White South Africans would not have known that this musical tradition existed had it not been for Graceland. Which begs the question: was the visibility of Black South African music worth the inherent interpretation that had to occur for Graceland to exist?