While the World Cup brings the planet together like no other sporting event, the vuvuzela is creating its own global buzz for better and sadly, for worse. It's a global trending topic on Twitter. Check out these screen grabs (taken at different times) to see for yourself:
The venerable New York Times even has a story today about the controversy created by the noise. According to the story, World Cup organizers are debating what to do about it, but have decided the horns stay for now, and "Sepp Blatter, the president of FIFA, soccer’s world governing body, has supported the trumpets, saying Europeans must adjust to African traditions."
Here is what a stadium full of vuvuzela noise sounds like:
But alas, the vuvuzela controversy has taken an ugly turn. Fans annoyed by the constant buzzing noise (which drowns out all the normal crowd sounds) have gone beyond complaining. It goes like this: Vuvuzela = I don't like that sound = the sound is the ruining the World Cup = here is how soccer matches sound everywhere else = here is how soccer matches should sound = what is wrong with those South Africans = [a whole bunch of racist comments and You Tube videos].
Sigh.
You can dislike the sound (I do), or even hate it, but why you gotta go there, people?
You. Are right. It does sound bad, but racist comments are uncalled for.
ReplyDeleteFew belated comments . . .
ReplyDelete1) Sound has long been used to mark and define space. From medieval church bells to contemporary Islamic calls to worship, sound is employed to designate who belongs to a community of hearers within a specific locale, and, as important, who does not. Contestation over sound, then, is nothing new. Sometimes, as in the case of some British citizenry attempts to do away with pre-canned music in public settings, it gets a little news coverage. What's interesting in this case is just how global the conversation is. The vehemence behind comments doesn't surprise me that much. Again, we're not just talking about sound, here. We're also talking about space and the ways in which one group is making specific claims to that space.
2) The sound of the racial and socio-economic other is most usually defined in terms of "noise," as something chaotic and undesirable. It's how everything from musical genres (jazz, hip hop, and many others) to speech and speech volume have been cordoned off historically from what is otherwise assumed to be acceptable and "normal." Such labeling approaches tend to undermine the subjective value of the sound to the community of hearers, degrading both the sound, and by extension, those who create or consume it. That's why criticisms of someone else's favorite music can quickly lead to hostility. It's not simply a criticism of the music; it's also a criticism, in a specific way, of the person who listens.
3. The comment by FIFA--"Europeans must adjust to African traditions"--is a nice bit of patronizing liberalism. As far as I've heard from specialists of African music, there's nothing "traditional" about the instrument. One could stretch an argument to fit certain properties of the vuvuzela within presumed African sonic "traditions"--an embrace, for example, of non-tonal sounds--but that's, as I've said, a stretch. What's interesting, though, is that, as usual, Africans (and what a hugely diverse and heterogenous group that is!) are explained away through an appeal to "tradition." The word itself, like concepts of "authenticity," are fraught with notions of primordialsim. Again, as in the case of "noise," "traditions" are one of those terms usually applied to the racial other. WE are modern, cosmopolitan, contemporary. THEY are traditional.
OK, that's it for now.
mms
"You can dislike the sound (I do), or even hate it, but why you gotta go there, people?"
ReplyDeleteBecause you go all the way to stop something annoying. That's why.