Table Of ContentDance of Life
Dance of Life
Popular Music and Politics
in Southeast Asia
Craig A. Lockard
University of Hawai‘i Press
Honolulu
©1998 University of Hawai‘i Press
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
03 02 01 00 99 98 5 4 3 2 1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Lockard, Craig A.
Dance of life: popular music and politics in Southeast Asia / Craig A.
Lockard.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
ISBN 0–8248–1848–2 (alk. paper)—
ISBN 0–8248–1918–7 (pbk.: alk. paper)
1. Popular music—Asia, Southeastern—History and criticism. 2. Music
and state—Asia, Southeastern. I. Title. ML3502.A785L6 1997
306.4’84—dc21 96–39802
CIP
MN
University of Hawai‘i Press books are printed on acid-free paper and meet the
guidelines for permanence and durability of the Council on Library Resources
Designed by Jennifer Osborn
Contents
INTRODUCTION ix
1. Popular Culture and Music
in the Modern World 1
Popular Culture and Modern Society 2
Mass Mediation and
the Meaning of Popular Culture 10
The Scope and Significance of Popular Music 17
Popular Music and Sociocultural Affirmation 22
The Political Role of Music 27
Patterns of Cultural Imperialism
and Interaction 41
Intercultural Patterns of Popular Music Change 49
Conclusions 53
v
2. Indonesia: Many Fields, Many Songs 54
The Roots of Politics and Music 55
Nationalism, Popular Culture, and
the Emergence of Kroncong 60
The Changing Context of the “New Order” 69
Mass Mediation, Censorship, and
the Evolving Popular Culture 74
The Rise of Pop Indonesia 83
Pop Indonesia and Social Change 87
Pop Indonesia and Regional Identity 91
Rhoma Irama and the Dangdut Challenge 94
Contemporary Indonesian Politics and
Popular Music 105
Conclusions 112
3. Philippines: Pinoy, Protest, and People Power 114
The Roots of Politics and Music 115
The Marcos Dictatorship 121
Problems of National Identity and
Cultural Nationalism 125
The Emergence of Postcolonial
Popular Music and Culture 129
The Rise of Pinoy 135
Music, Protest, and Political Movements 140
Freddie Aguilar and the Politicization of Pinoy 144
Aguilar, Pinoy, and People Power 146
Politics and Popular Music in
the Post-Marcos Era 151
Conclusions 160
4. Thailand: Songs for Life, Songs for Struggle 162
The Roots of Politics and Music 163
Postwar Society and Politics 167
The Brief Mid-1970s Cultural and
Political “Blossoming” 171
The Development of Popular
Music and Culture 178
Varieties of Popular Music and
Political Discourse 183
Caravan and the Florescence of “Songs of Life” 192
Contemporary Thai Politics and Popular Music 199
Conclusions 206
vi CONTENTS
5. Malaysia and Singapore: Pluralism
and Popular Music 207
The Roots of Politics and Music 209
The Flowering of Popular Music 217
Malaysian Popular Culture and
the Plural Society 222
Popular Music in the 1960s and
Malaysia-Singapore Separation 224
Politics and Society in Change 228
Popular Music in the 1970s 235
Popular Music and Political Change
in the 1980s 238
Popular Music and Sociopolitical Criticism 248
Contemporary Malaysian Popular Music 256
Conclusions 260
6. Conclusions 262
NOTES 273
BIBLIOGRAPHY 315
General and Regional Works 315
Indonesia 335
Philippines 349
Thailand 359
Malaysia and Singapore 367
INDEX 375
General 375
Pop Stars and Musicians 388
CONTENTS vii
Introduction
You have made your home
In the streets of life
You’ll take whatever ... will come ...
Then you put on your shoes of blue
And you immediately dance
Dance of life ...
So you follow this song.
Malaysian rock group Kembara, 19841
This book explores the connection between popular music and politics in
Southeast Asia over the past five decades, with particular emphasis on
Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Malaysia/Singapore. An examination
of Southeast Asia constitutes part of a larger analysis of the relationship between
popular music and politics throughout what is often rather imprecisely termed
the “Third World.” In another study I address the subject matter in non-Asian
contexts such as Jamaica, Trinidad, Chile, Brazil, Nigeria, and South Africa.2
Considerable attention is devoted in both works to the relationship between
popular music and politics generally (including the expression of political
protest and commentary), the role of the singer or musician as a political actor,
and the way certain of these performers have used music as a weapon or tool—
even sometimes as a call to arms—with the goal of changing, challenging, or
overthrowing governments or socioeconomic systems that they consider
unjust. The studies also examine their songs to determine the sort of messages
they are trying to convey and the specific issues that preoccupy them.
ix
In recent years anthropologists have been encouraged to more sys-
tematically address issues of popular and mass culture.3Historians, including
those specialized on Southeast Asia, have generally neglected popular music
and other mass-mediated cultural developments, even perhaps the crucial
role of mass communications generally, in their writings on the twentieth
century. The scholarship on sociopolitical change in Southeast Asia also tends
to ignore the role of popular music and culture—unlike the literature on
countries such as Jamaica, Trinidad, and Brazil.4A major goal of this study is
to rectify that lacuna.
Popular music can generally be distinguished from other types of
music by two essential features: It is disseminated largely by the mass
media, and it is the by-product of the mass basis for marketing commodi-
ties. But the role that popular music plays in the modern world is a subject
of considerable debate. There is no agreement as to who ultimately con-
trols the production of popular music, and consequently, depending on
your answer, whether it can actually play a significant role in society. A
study focused on Southeast Asia can help to answer several relevant ques-
tions in this hitherto essentially Western debate. For example, does popular
music have (or possess the capacity for) a potentially revolutionary and
liberating influence, empowering or stimulating or educating people
to reflection or action? Or, contrarily, does it largely play a conservative,
institution-maintaining role in the sociopolitical order, diverting or pacify-
ing them so that they accept the status quo? Does popular music chiefly
challenge or reaffirm the social order? Or is it simultaneously challenging
and supportive? Is heavily commodified and commercialized popular music
essentially a matter of pure resistance by the people or of clear super-
imposition by corporate and other elites? Or do both the elites and the
public influence the music? Should it perhaps be seen as an arena for nego-
tiation and expression of societal conflicts and patterns? Is music a double-
edged sword, both escapist and dynamic?5These questions are challenging
and not easily answered, even if some themes are becoming clearer.
Various students of mass-mediated culture have analyzed its role as
a mirror of society. For example, sociologist I.C. Jarvie wrote that the
Hong Kong film industry “is not of interest because of contributions to the
art of film. Its interest is sociological: what the films and their industry tell
us about the society in, and for which, they are made.”6 Cinema has also
been viewed as a major vehicle for the creative expression of cultural iden-
tity, not the least in major filmmaking Asian nations like China, India, and
Japan.7 Likewise, literature is the product of social process and hence can-
not be separated from society and politics; perhaps the same claim can be
made for music. Most popular music also derives from déclassé origins and
consequently offers a proletarian appeal, allowing us to use it as a vehicle in
studying “history from the bottom up.”
x INTRODUCTION
