Stephen Hager Cuba’s Revolution in Music

During the onset of the Cuban Revolution, Che Guevara, one of the leading forces in Fidel Castro’s revolutionary army, coined the catchphrase “Socialismo con Pachanga1,” or “socialism with the feel of a rousing party.” This inspired phrase signified Guevara’s vision of an equitable society of great vitality and spirited popular culture in which citizens of all races, social classes, and denominations could participate and express themselves. There is, however, some controversy over whether or not Che’s vision ever became a reality, as some argue that Castro’s policies have driven musicians to defect to the United States (Steward 80). Regardless, musical culture has certainly faced new challenges in the present economic situation of Cuba. For a multitude of reasons, including anti-communist sentiment and diplomatic conflict, information about Cuba in general is very limited in the U.S. and the information available about Cuba in the mainstream media is heavily biased against the Cuban government. How has Cuban music been affected and influenced by the revolution and the imposition of socialist policies? Many in the US and particularly in Miami believe that the so-called “Pachanga” left Cuba along with fleeing political dissidents. But contrary to the popular American belief, arts and music have flourished in the post-revolutionary period of 1959 to the present in spite of the society’s radical changes. Under one of the world’s few remaining communist regimes, Cuban society is an excellent testing ground for the effects of politics on culture. Despite the disadvantages to musical culture brought forth by the Cuban Revolution, such as the censorship of art in the 70s and economic problems resulting from the U.S. trade embargo and the fall of the Soviet Union, socialist policy has ultimately enriched and elevated Cuban musical culture by decreasing commercial influence and corruption, reducing cultural biases, improving the standard of living for musicians, providing substantial state financial support for the arts and free education for all citizens, and improving 1

Pachanga was the name of a popular dance rhythm in 1959, Eduardo Davidson’s variation of the Cha-cha.

ethnic diversity and representation in the arts. The main reason many people think that the Cuban Revolution was detrimental to its musical culture has to do with censorship and repression of artists. Without a doubt, the most common conception of the Cuban people in the United States is that they are repressed. In Charlie Gerard’s Music from Cuba: Mongo Santamaría, Chocolate Armenteros and Cuban Musicians in the United States, Paquito D’Rivera, a Cuban musician in exile, claims that the fact that music has thrived during the revolution has nothing to do with Castro’s policies. He, along with many other expatriates, believes that Castro has “destroyed the Cuban people mentally and made them become liars who cannot risk telling what they really think about Castro” (19). The American media has also played a part, creating an image of a repressive, violent, communist dictator. In Dancing with Fidel, Stephen Foehr argues that this is part of the American effort to destabilize the Cuban economy and ultimately force Fidel Castro’s socialist regime out of power (258). It is true that Cuba is a one-party state and the revolutionary government has seen music as a channel to reach the people and an important means for achieving ideological goals, but this does not necessarily indicate a culturally repressed society. Those aspects of culture seen to promote revolutionary ideals do generally receive more support, while expression of counterrevolutionary ideals is highly discouraged. As in most communist states, the goals of the revolution are expected to be the first priority for all workers, which leads some artists to feel that their freedom is, at times, sacrificed (Vélez 71). Many artists feel that their sacrifice is noble and necessary for the general well being of the people, while others remain virulently opposed. Though censorship and artistic repression did exist for a time in Cuba, it is misleading to think that this has always been and continues to be the case. Attitudes toward the arts in Cuba went through several distinct periods throughout the years of the revolution (Fuentes 178). The

early 60s were a time of great artistic freedom, lasting until the late 60s and early 70s, when the government believed that the revolution was too vulnerable to outside influences and responded with censorship and cultural repression. In 1976, with the establishment of the Ministry of Culture, government shifted more toward liberal policies (Velez 72). In the decade of the 1960s there was no single government position on the regulation of culture and music. There were only Castro’s words; “Inside the revolution, everything, against it, nothing” (Foehr 50). According to this exceptionally wide and somewhat vague policy, it was possible for basically anything to happen in music; permitting it was within the ideals of the revolution. Musicians were free to transform the culture musically any way they saw fit. These sentiments led to a period of intense artistic creativity and nationalistic sentiment all throughout the 1960s. The feeling lasted until 1971 with the establishment of the Congress of Education and Culture and the highly publicized prosecution of poet Heberto Padilla for writing “counterrevolutionary work” (Fuentes 178). In a relatively dogmatic and culturally repressed period in the 1970s, popular music like rock and roll was banned from radio air play. Many great artists and cultural icons were effectively marginalized by Cuban officials. But as Leonardo Padura Fuentes points out in “Living in Cuba - Risks and Challenges,” by the 80s, this was reformed with Campaigns of Rectification and the establishment of the Ministry of Culture. Government policies also became more open to all forms of music and accepted them as part of the culture. Policy makers came to realize that they had made serious errors which hurt the progress of culture and thus began to reform their attitude toward censorship (179). In Foehr’s book, he shows some evidence that attitudes toward censorship have changed. In Havana during a ceremony for the unveiling of the John Lennon statue, he indicates that Castro publicly admitted that it had been a mistake to ban Beatles music and rock and roll. He believed

the revolution, at that time, was too vulnerable to outside influences. “We overreacted,” Castro said in retrospect of his decision (12). To celebrate Castro’s 74th birthday party, he invited members of the Buena Vista Social Club, a traditional Cuban son group that had recently become an international sensation, to perform. At the party, the late guitarist and leading force in the group, Compay Segundo, said, “I’ve been to parties with Fidel . . . I don’t know if he dances or sings, but I do know he likes songs. He wants the people to be cultured. It’s a word everybody likes, and the people love him. If they stop caring for him, they’ll topple him. But until then, he’s in” (Bravo). Paquito D’Rivera, as quoted above, and many anti-Castro expatriates, would fervently disagree with Segundo’s opinion. This is a common conflict of opinions expressed by musicians on the island and those living in exile. But according to Stephen Foehr, a neutral journalist visiting the island, songwriters in Cuba who write songs with lyrics that are antirevolutionary don’t receive the harsh treatment that one would expect from an “oppressive regime.” He argues that (especially in the last decade) government policy toward them has been rather passively resistant. No musician has been held prisoner or killed for writing or performing anti-government songs, as mass-media propaganda would like us to believe. He does, however, assert certain repercussions for writing “counter-revolutionary works”: the song won’t get radio and television air play, be promoted or backed financially by the Ministry of Culture, and the artist may not have access to public venues (14). Even though the cultural policies in Cuba aren’t perfect and government oligarchy does have the potential to culturally devastate through censorship, communist states by nature have cultural advantage over capitalist states like the U.S., where corporate interest determines culture. The marginalizaton of Cuban artists in the 70s shows that politics and government policy can, at times, be a hindrance to the progression of music. However, it is also evident that reforms have

been made to reverse the effects of this negative trend, showing that the Cuban government’s actions regarding music are essentially positive. In his essay, The “Global Music Industry: Contradictions in the Commodification of the Sublime,” John Lovering asserts that this is not so in the capitalist world. In America, he argues, popular music has been subjected to certain tendencies that are typical of capitalism; musical culture and capitalism have become completely interlinked to the point that they are impossible to separate (33). One of these inherent tendencies of capitalism, he asserts, is the commodification of art. In a capitalist society, music is treated like a product and systematically exchanged for money for the gain of capital profit. The selling of CDs and concert tickets as commodities has made their consumption much more convenient than ever before, but while doing so, led to a blurred history of important early musical purposes and forms. In regards to the music industry, Lovering says that commodification has imposed economic pressures that have caused the industry to distribute financial resources to different types of music unequally. This, he concludes, means that the capitalist music industry will yield a more deficient output, producing album after album of highly derivative, mediocre music because it sounds similar to something that happened to sell well to the mass market (34). All one needs to do is flip on the radio to realize that this is true. On commercial radio stations, at peak audience times of the day, you will hear nothing but a predetermined mix of “chart hits” within a narrow genre intended to be listened to by a specific consumer demographic. Fundamentally, socialist policy in Cuba has benefited musical culture by reversing this trend of cultural demographic biases seen throughout the world. In “¿Revolución Con Pachanga? Dance Music in Socialist Cuba,” Robin Moore notes that unlike in a capitalist system, there is more of a tendency to endorse forms of expression that are truly popular, instead of “cultural products” controlled by media tycoons (174). The capitalist music industry, in effect, neglects

types of music that may be loved by many people too poor to represent themselves through commodity consumption. Industrialized nations represent 96% of the world’s CD sales; even the cheapest industry-manufactured CDs don’t sell significantly in nations like Cuba, where lessexpensive black-market CDs or cassettes are the most that the average person can afford (Lovering 34). Globally, this results in an unfair bias toward the tastes of the wealthy. It can thus be argued that the capitalist music business causes problems for society as a whole. Foehr argues that culture is effectively exploited when music is made for the profit of corporations, as it is in the United States. The result is that popular music can no longer be a means for achieving the betterment of society. Music that is genuinely popular can be a great vehicle of expression for society and can help to liberate people from social restraints, while commercial music ultimately serves to perpetuate the greed of capitalism, catering to the tastes of the wealthy while oppressing the poor (22). In post-revolutionary Cuba, another serious obstacle to the progression of musical culture came in the form of economic problems. In accordance with the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, which grants the power to prohibit financial transactions in time of war, the U.S. government imposed an economic embargo on Cuba in 1961. Enacted under the justification of national security concerns, the embargo has been crippling to Cuba’s economy. The situation is so dire that Castro has said he would give his life to put an end to the economic blockade; however, doing so would effectively undermine the revolutionary cause (Bravo). In 1998, at a WTO meeting, Castro estimated that the blockade had cost Cuba about $60 billion to date (Foehr 143). In 2006, the price has reached at least $82 billion (Rumbaut). For musicians, the embargo means that Americans and Puerto Ricans are essentially cut off from musical activity in Cuba. But more importantly, Cuban groups and their records are banned from the United States, the biggest

consumer market for music in the world (Manuel 46). It is now practically impossible for Cuban musicians to get visas to perform in the United States. But even several years ago when they were granted visas, they could not profit from performances, get radio air play, or sell recordings of their music. Only travel expenses could be covered for performances and appearances in the U.S. It is very important to establish a name here, where the most powerful entertainment distribution companies are based. To gain international success or fame without the support of these companies’ distribution power is a very difficult task. Cuban distribution companies don’t have the means necessary to promote their artists internationally (Foehr 196). Castro has been criticized for his stubbornness regarding his revolutionary ideals, given that the Northern opposition is effectively impoverishing the country. Currently this is so, but the world is questioning the validity of the embargo on Cuba. Nearly every country in the United Nations has called for an end to the embargo, while the U.S. stubbornly continues to keep the policy in order to force the Castro government out of power. This reasoning isn’t very convincing since the embargo has been in effect for over 45 years, and Castro is still in power. In fact, he has survived nine U.S. presidents to date. The embargo is also negative for U.S.-based companies because competition in other countries like Spain, Mexico, and France benefit from Cuban business instead (Foehr 200). A devastating blow to the Cuban economy and musical culture came in 1992 with the collapse of their only economic benefactor, the Soviet Union. Castro said the “biggest mistake” he ever made was not foreseeing the Soviet crash. This era of economic crisis has been termed the “Special Period,” a time when socialist ideals had to be placed on the back burner (Bravo). For example: during the Batista regime, much of musicians’ income was generated through the tourist industry and casinos. When Castro came into power, the tourist industry was greatly

decreased, and casinos were outlawed because Cubans felt that they were the epitome of capitalist greed (Foehr 258). Masses of people wanted the decadent mafia-run casinos shut down because they flaunted wealth, including that of foreigners, in the face of their poverty. Out of economic desperation, Castro had to reenact many policies that he initially criticized of the Batista regime (Moore 170). A mixed economy, instead of pure socialism, had to be established. However, it should be noted that tourism and investment under Batista were much different from the policies of the Special Period. The state retains control, direction and, most often, ownership of tourist operations under central planning. Also, tourism has been distributed throughout the island, not just in Havana, and has become a means of regional development (Rumbaut). However, the tourist economy has created shameful economic injustices in Cuba. In effect, those involved in the tourist industry earning foreign currency in tips from tourists may very well earn more than a doctor who is paid in Cuban pesos by the government (Bravo). Musicians are concerned that the increase in tourism will corrupt their music and culture. Pedro Monzón, Director of International Relations at the Ministry of Culture, says they are “trying to ensure that musicians will not work only for commerce.” The Castro government understands the problems that increased tourism brings, such as the homogenization of the country’s culture, and is working to combat them (256). Under the influence of Fidel Castro’s socialist regime, the lifestyle of musicians and Cuba’s music industry in general has undoubtedly experienced great change since 1959. One of the key changes that benefited musicians of the revolution came in the form of improving their standard of living. In Caribbean Currents: Caribbean Music from Rumba to Reggae, Peter Manuel argues that until the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 90s, most of Cuba’s professional musicians enjoyed benefits that were relatively high when compared to those of capitalist

countries (46). Professional musicians became salaried government employees, paid in the same manner as doctors, carpenters, scientists and other professionals. However, a hierarchy does exist in that musicians are paid according to their level of experience (Steward 78). There are two different statuses for musicians in Cuba: those who work by contract and those in the plantilla (workforce). Musicians with less experience work for contracts and are generally paid less, lack stability and receive fewer benefits, such as vacation and retirement. Plantilla musicians are in the more prestigious position, enjoying steady pay (if not work) and full benefits. For them, playing music is essentially a full-time job (Vélez 73). Castro’s policies show a respect for the arts through the generous state financial backing that they are afforded. Unlike in capitalist countries, where the majority of professional musicians have to work full-time jobs on top of their musical careers to make a living wage, plantilla musicians have no need to supplement their income or work an extra job. Even contracted musicians can earn enough to live and eventually raise their status. In Cuba’s fruitful economic years, there is a lot of work available and musicians are able to completely focus on making music. In the 1980s, a time of relative economic stability, a dance band pianist was quoted, “I play 3 hours a day, and for that I get full salary, a month’s vacation, and of course free health care. The rest of the time, I practice, hang out, and watch American TV, which I pick up via my homemade antenna” (Manuel 47). Unfortunately, due to economic problems, plantilla positions are not nearly as plentiful as they once were, leaving many musicians of the younger generation out of well-paying positions (Vélez 75). The people’s cultural education is undeniably a concern held in high priority by the Cuban government, which believes that education is a right that everyone deserves. Musical culture has especially benefited from Castro’s education policies such as his literacy campaign, which

replaced the previous system that provided an education that was unevenly accessible to the wealthy with one that entitles all citizens to free education (Hernandez 117). National arts schools have been free since 1961, and since 1962 the government has sponsored national music festivals and kept the price of admission low so anyone could afford to attend (Moore 154). Along with the many new music schools and venues for performance, the government organized the Centro de Investigación y Desarrollo de la Música Cubana (CIDMUC) to coordinate and nationalize all music institutions (Vélez 72). The Cuban education system has been recognized internationally for its excellence in many areas of study, including its departments of music. The Escuela Nacional de Arte and Instituto Superior de Arte are two of the country’s most acclaimed art schools (Moore 160). In the years following 1959, Cuba saw a huge increase not only in the population and ethnic diversity of formally educated musicians, but also in the educated audience. This had an impact on the music in several ways. In her article, “Dancing with the Enemy,” Deborah Pacini Hernandez argues that the Castro government’s education policies have strengthened musical culture. Equitable state subsidies and free music education have produced a number of virtuosi musicians and bands because of policies that allowed musicians to develop their art without being concerned with making a profit (119). In Dancing with Fidel, Stephen Foehr agrees with Hernandez, but adds to this point. He says that the revolution has created an overpopulation of professional musicians, essentially flooding the market. However, the new agenda has certainly benefited musicians and the quality of music produced in many concrete ways, such as raising the standards of music on a national level (59). The average Cuban performer acquires a greater technical facility and understanding of music. Not only do young musicians entering school benefit from the education program, but older musicians who were already performing before the

revolution are also given the opportunity to improve by furthering their studies in school. Few people believe that the education system actually damaged musical culture in any way, though some have linked it with the decline of indigenous musical traditions in Cuba. Even though the Cuban education system brought with it no unique institutionalized racial discrimination, some argue that racist/elitist ideas of European classical music education crept in along with the establishment of new music schools. Though he recognizes that the literacy campaign has benefited musicians in many ways, Robin Moore makes the argument that the emphasis of Western classical music tradition in schools has created certain problems for musical culture. He claims that for a time, the new music schools all but ignored popular and traditional Cuban styles while over-emphasizing European classical music and completely neglecting the island’s unique, characteristic styles that emphasize its African roots, such as the son, rumba, and mambo (160). Others, such as Luis Rumbaut, discount this theory, citing the abundance of studies, festivals, and presentations of traditional genres in Cuba today. Moore does, however, recognize that this tendency to forsake national traditions is exhibited on a more extreme level in North American music institutions (161). For example, it has only been fairly recently that jazz, one of the U.S.’s indigenous art forms, was offered in schools as an academic idiom. It should be noted that, over the years, the tendency to ignore indigenous music traditions in schools has been exhibited to a much lesser extent in Cuba, thanks to the efforts of certain professors. Chucho Valdés, possibly the island’s most famous jazz pianist, was classically trained in a Cuban conservatory in the 60s. In addition, he was taught jazz improvisation at home by his father, famous pianist Bebo Valdés, while supplementing the classical studies of the conservatory with his own intensive research on his country’s Afro-Cuban musical heritage. Now a professor of popular music, Valdés includes both jazz improvisation and Cuban musical studies in his

curriculum (Steward 79). Musicians like Chucho Valdés and Rogelio Martinez Furé of the National Folkloric Ensemble have helped to preserve the tradition of Afro-Cuban folk music. Even with the aforementioned criticism, Castro’s policies have enriched musical culture by giving everyone an equal chance to participate and contribute to the level they desire, regardless of race or wealth. Furthermore, the effects of Castro’s policies demonstrate the extent to which socialist policies can alleviate race issues. Prior to the revolution, Cuba was considered to be one of the most racist countries in Latin America (Bravo). Steward, along with the majority of scholars, believes that the revolution has immensely diminished past problems of racial discrimination. She notes that before the revolution, there was extreme bigotry in the music community; Cuban musicians of African descent could play at all-white clubs or private parties, but they were not to mingle socially (82). Luis Rumbaut states, “…practically all famous popular musicians in Cuba were black or mulatto, so a strict separation would have meant that the wealthy would never see them play. White musicians learned from black musicians, not on a parallel plane.” Peter Manuel quotes the scholar Rogelio Martinez Furé’s opinion that the greatest achievement of Castro’s revolution had to do with the racial equality of Afro-Cubans and the promotion of their culture. Afro-Cuban culture, especially music, received a great deal of state support and it became a significant part of mainstream society. Both he and Furé agree that the racial discrimination existent in pre-revolutionary society was diminished. Through the influence of socialist policies, Afro-Cubans’ standard of living was raised and they were no longer restricted as much to a lower socio-economic class. For the first time, Afro-Cuban culture became part of the mainstream society (47). In this way, the revolution has benefited music in Cuba by giving respect and equal recognition to all of its people as valuable parts of the national heritage. Lack of commercialism and corruption, improved standard of living for musicians,

generous state financial support, a more just music business, free higher education, increased ethnic diversity in music, and fervent nationalism are all reasons why the effects of Castro’s revolution in Cuba have positively influenced its musical culture in spite of the challenges presented. Though censorship issues and economic problems have faced post-revolutionary musical culture, we can still look at music during the revolution as successful because there have been far more benefits to overshadow the detriments. The implications of this say much about the potential for communist states to engender a culturally sophisticated society which could transcend that of capitalist states. Though inside and outside forces have presented some significant challenges, music has remained a powerful and influential force in post-revolutionary Cuba. For a country that already had such an inviolable, unique culture before the revolution, government support and the imposition of socialist policies of social justice have only made Cuba’s music more potent, diverse, and sophisticated. In spite of the inevitable shortcomings, Che Guevara’s goal of “Socialismo con Pachanga” was, in many ways, a success.

Works Cited

Bravo, Estrela. Fidel: The Untold Story. Mongrel Media. First Run Features Distribution, 2002. Foehr, Stephen. Dancing with Fidel. London: Sanctuary, 2001. Fuentes, Leonardo Padura. “Living in Cuba - Risks and Challenges.” Culture and the Cuban Revolution. Ed. John M. Kirk and Leonardo Padura Fuentes. Miami: University Press of Florida, 2001. Gerard, Charlie. Music from Cuba: Mongo Santamaría, Chocolate Armenteros and Cuban Musicians in the United States. London: Praeger, 2001. Hernandez, Deborah Pacini. “Dancing with the Enemy: Cuban Popular Music, Race, Authenticity, and the World-Music Landscape.” Latin American Perspectives. 100.25.3 (1998): 110125. Lovering, John. “The Global Music Industry: Contradictions in the Commodification of the Sublime.” The Place of Music. Ed raising the standards of music on a national level (59). Leyshon, Andrew & Matless, David & Reville, George. New York: The Guilford Press, 1998. 31-56. Manuel, Peter. “Cuba.” Caribbean Currents: Caribbean Music from Rumba to Reggae. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995. 17-44. Moore, Robin. “¿Revolución Con Pachanga? Dance Music in Socialist Cuba.” Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 26.52 (2001): 151-77. Rumbaut, Luis E. Email to the author. 17 Oct. 2006. Steward, Sue. “Cuba: Salsa in Revolution.” ¡Música! San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1999. 20-43.

Vélez, María Teresa. Drumming for the Gods: The Life and Times of Felipe García Villamil, Santero, Palero, and Abakuá. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000.

16

--