Mengel - New Folk Music As Attempted Repatriation in Romania - 2019 PDF

New Folk Music as Attempted Repatriation in Romania

Maurice Mengel
The Oxford Handbook of Musical Repatriation
Edited by Frank Gunderson, Robert C. Lancefield, and Bret Woods
Print Publication Date: Oct 2019 Subject: Music, Ethnomusicology

Online Publication Date: Aug 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190659806.013.25
Abstract and Keywords
This chapter looks at cultural policy toward folk music (muzică populară) in socialist Ro
mania (1948–1989), covering three areas: first, the state including its intentions and ac
tions; second, ethnomusicologists as researchers of rural peasant music and employees of
the state, and, third, the public as reached by state institutions. The article argues that
Soviet-induced socialist cultural policy effectively constituted a repatriation of peasant
music that was systematically collected; documented and researched; intentionally trans
formed into new products, such as folk orchestras, to facilitate the construction of com
munism; and then distributed in its new form through a network of state institutions like
the mass media. Sources indicate that the socialist state was partially successful in con
vincing its citizens about the authenticity of the new product (that new folklore was real
folklore) while the original peasant music was to a large extent inaccessible to nonspe
cialist audiences.
Keywords: socialist realism, musical folklore, cultural policy, Romania, archive
Introduction
WHEN I was in Bucharest in the early 2000s, I interviewed several people, none of them
music specialists, about folk music (muzică populară)1 from the socialist2 period (1948–
1989). Pascal Troneci, an elementary teacher in his fifties, was one of several people who
told me that the folk music played in the state media was “real folk music” (muzică popu
lară adevărată). At the same time, I could hardly convince the ethnomusicologists from
the Institut de Etnografie și Folclor in Bucharest, one of the country’s most important folk
music archives, to talk about this music at all. My impression was that many Romanian
ethnomusicologists avoided my questions concerning folk music in the socialist media and
that they did not want to be associated in any way with this kind of music. Instead, they
insisted that they were specialists for traditional peasant music, which apparently had
nothing to do with the folk music of the media.
Page 1 of 17
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP); date: 30 May 2020

The observation that there were two separate domains of Romanian folk music is nothing
new (cf. Giurchescu 1987; Rădulescu 1997). Marian-Bălașa, for example, explains that for
many decades Romanian ethnomusicologists tended to use the expression muzică popu
lară (popular music) exclusively for commercial folk music in the media, and they re
served the term folclor muzical (musical folklore) for traditional peasant music (Marian-
Bălaşa 2011b, 6). In this chapter, I argue first that the emergence of these two related do
mains of folk music was the product of socialist cultural policies and second that these
policies attempted to repatriate Romanian folk music. My use of the term “repatriation”
to refer to socialist efforts to return a transformed folk music to the Romanian people
may seem somewhat surprising. Romanian communists did not typically employ the word
“repatriation,” and today it is not particularly obvious why the communists (p. 438)
thought it necessary and important to bring their version of folk music to the people, es
pecially given that traditional music was still alive and well in parts of Romania. Socialist
notions of what this music was and who constituted the people were indeed somewhat pe
culiar, as I will show. However, they affected many people—musicians, arrangers, com
posers, listeners, even those who attempted not to listen—and shaped the realities of mu
sic-making over many decades. Despite their importance, the cultural policies of the so
cialist state in Romania have largely been ignored by ethnomusicologists to this date.
The policy regime I describe in this chapter—including its central ideas, its means of le
gitimation, and the structures that enforced it—essentially remained unchanged from the
time it was first declared, just after the communists gained full control of the government
in early 1948, Nicolae until Ceaușescu was removed from power in December 1989. The
variations that did exist over this time span concerned mainly the enforcement of the poli
cy. For instance, there are two more liberal phases, from circa 1955 to circa 1958 and
from 1965 to circa 1971, in which the state permitted artists and intellectuals in general
a somewhat greater deviation from official positions. Another change concerned the poli
tics of identity and the notion of the nation that was implied in cultural policies. One finds
a shift from Marxist-style internationalism, whose adherents at least rhetorically used the
adjective “Romanian” to include the country’s minorities in the early socialist phase, to an
ultranationalist stance after Ceaușescu’s proclamation of the July thesis in 1971, when
“Romanian” tended to be interpreted more narrowly as an ethnic category, de facto ex
cluding minorities, a stance reminiscent of trends in the 1930s and 1940s.
In the case of socialist Romania, it is perhaps particularly obvious that policies (goals and
guidelines) can differ drastically from the realities they help to create. Thus, I not only
talk about official policies but also briefly cover related areas, such as the measures tak
en by the state to implement and enforce its policies, their reception among parts of the
population, and some of their effects on ethnomusicologists.
Throughout this chapter I refer to the Institut de Etnografie și Folclor “Constantin

Brăiloiu” (The “Constantin Brăiloiu” Institute for Ethnography and Folklore), as it is
known today, its ethnomusicologists, and their work as a case study to illustrate my argu
ments. The institute was initially founded in 1949 by the young communist government as
Institut de Folclor (Folklore Institute), which was based on two older archives including
Page 2 of 17

Constantin Brăiloiu’s Folklore Archive (Prezidiul Marii Adunări Naționale al Republicii

Populare Române 1998–1999, 22; Mengel 2007). Over the years, the institute changed its
name several times (cf. Marian-Bălaşa 2000b, 143–148). For simplicity, I refer to the insti
tute either with its original or its present-day name, omitting the official labels from the
1970s and 1980s.
Cultural Policy and Folk Music

As in other socialist countries, the Romanian communists3 periodically held party conven
tions to discuss their recent work and to determine the future course of the party. (p. 439)
Just as in other socialist countries, these congresses were largely orchestrated by the sec
retary general and the politburo, while other party members had only limited influence
(cf. Tismaneanu 2004, 193). Often the proceedings were later published. Today, these
texts are not particularly reliable if one reads them as they were originally intended: as
accurate reports on the party’s work and the country in general. Particularly in the
1980s, when the living conditions for most Romanians were extremely dire, it was obvi
ous that the ever bright and optimistic reports did not match reality. Nevertheless, these
reports are perhaps unsurpassed as sources on the official public policies of the times.
In Romanian party congresses, cultural policy never played a major role. The speeches at
the congresses were mostly concerned with economic issues and the organization and
history of the Communist Party. Even science and education in state institutions, as
means to improve economic productivity, received considerably more attention than cul
ture and the arts. If culture and the arts were discussed, then it was usually only very
generally, collectively as a facet of society (that whole that for Marxists forms the super
structure). Individual arts were only occasionally singled out. In these cases, literature
was the art most often mentioned; more rarely, music, musicians, and composers were. To
my knowledge, none of the reports ever explicitly discussed folklore or folk music; but
just as in Soviet cultural policy, it was understood that the guidelines elaborated for cul
ture and the arts, in general, were to be translated and transferred to all domains of cul
ture, including folklore and folk music. The task of translating general guidelines to spe
cific fields was left to lower-level state institutions. Thus, although the party congresses
did not discuss folk music explicitly, they defined the policy cornerstones for folk music.
Most importantly, perhaps, the party congresses left no doubt that the purpose of the par
ty, the state, and all its institutions was to create communism, the classless utopia origi
nally envisaged by Karl Marx (Partidul Comunist Român 1965, 134). Implicit in this as
sumption was the idea that current Romanian society was in a phase of drastic and ongo
ing change from an unjust capitalist past through an already significantly different
present to a still more different utopian future.
Indeed, Romania went through massive transformations after the Communists took con
trol. In 1948 a new constitution modeled after Soviet examples took effect (Deletant
2012, 410; cf. Tismaneanu 2004, 107). Nationalization of agriculture, forced industrializa
tion, and programs to intensify industry were begun. There were also forced resettle
Page 3 of 17

ments, usually from villages deemed archaic to cities conceived of as more modern. The
Securitate (Romanian secret police) was created in August 1948 and soon became infa
mous for its violence (Deletant 2012, 413). Thousands of political prisoners were sent to
labor camps, where many died (Deletant 2012, 418). Many Romanians remember this
early socialist period as especially tough, arbitrary, and terrifying (Giurchescu 2013; cf.
Tismaneanu 2004, 20; Deletant 2012, 413). In this as well, Romanian communists emulat
ed contemporary Stalinist policies (cf. Tismaneanu 2004, 107).
Meanwhile, the cultural sector was reconstructed (cf. Iacob 2009, 255, 257–260). Inde
pendent institutions became government institutions. For example, the Folklore (p. 440)
Archive (arhiva de folclor), which originally belonged to the private Society of Romanian
Composers (Societatea Compositor Român), became a state institution in 1949. As the In
stitut de Folklor, it reported directly to the Ministry of the Arts and Information (Minis
teriul Artelor și Informațiilor) (Prezidiul Marii Adunări Naționale al Republicii Populare
Române 1998–1999, 21). The Society of Romanian Composers was similarly transformed
into the Composers’ Union and later into the Composers’ and Musicologists’ Union, which
closely resembled its Soviet counterpart. After its reorganization, the union actively im
plemented the state’s cultural policy, especially under its first president, Matei Socor,
who favored a Soviet hard line similar to Andrei Zhdanov’s in the USSR (cf. Crotty 2007,
155).
As one can see in the congress reports, the Romanian communists saw themselves—just
like their Soviet counterparts—as the vanguard of the revolution, that is, as representa
tives of the people and as the motor of social change (Partidul Comunist Român 1965,
134). As such, they claimed leadership in all domains of life, including that of the arts and
culture. Put simply, the party reserved the right to determine what appropriate art was
and scholarship and what should be supported with state funding, and more generally to
judge and steer culture, organizing culture and arts much like the planned economy (cf.
Iacob 2009, 256).
Cristian Vasile (2009, 264) wonders why in general the Romanian intelligentsia did not re
sist more after the communists took control and instead submitted to the new regime
without too much resistance, even though the communists with their claim of leadership
in all domains of life severely curtailed artistic and intellectual freedom. It appears the
Stalinist cultural policy regime that the Romanian communists copied from the Soviet
Union had already “matured” to an extent where it ensured a relatively high level of com
pliance. After more than a decade of right-wing authoritarian regimes in Romania before
and during World War II, the authoritarian style of the communist politics may not have
looked all that new to many intellectuals.
It appears that roughly the same means of policy enforcement were employed in Romania
as in other contemporary Stalinist dictatorships. These measures ranged from actual
physical violence to censorship and self-censorship and the withdrawal of privileges nec
essary for a successful career, such as the possibility to publish or perform or the provi
sion of rewards for complicit behavior (Marian-Bălaşa 2013). Examples that illustrate the
Page 4 of 17

state’s treatment of intellectuals include Harry Brauner, the institute’s first director, who
was imprisoned in 1950 and placed in solitary confinement for many years, although he
never questioned the leadership of the party or their policies (Marian-Bălaşa 2000a).
Crotty and Sandu-Dediu discuss the case of the composer Mihail Andricu, who was publi
cally shamed in a show trial and stripped of economic and symbolic privileges in 1959 be
cause of his “cosmopolitan lifestyle” (Crotty 2007, 166). Sandu-Dediu (2007, 184) argues
Andricu was basically judged for listening to Western music with his students and for hav
ing friends in the French embassy. Marian-Bălașa remembers a case where his editor
changed his text without his approval, adding quotes from Ceaușescu to increase the like
lihood of getting the text through censorship (Marian-Bălaşa 2013). This last case under
lines the fact that intellectuals often anticipated political influence (p. 441) and adapted
their products in advance, while also suggesting that authors were not always entirely re
sponsible for the content of their publications.
If the publications of the Folklore Institute are any indication of cultural policy at large,
the state interfered massively with cultural institutions, especially in the early phase of
socialism in Romania (c. 1948–1954). Under these conditions, the Folklore Institute man
aged to publish only a limited number of publications, which all ostensibly complied with
the hard-line Soviet-style cultural policy of the day. A case in point is the institute’s first
folklore anthology, Din Folclorul Nostru (Beniuc 1953), which quotes Maxim Gorki on
page 1 and mixes classic folklore genres such as folk songs, colinde (carols), and ballads
with new genres (workers’ songs and songs praising socialism). During socialism, leading
folklorists, such as the institute’s second and third directors Sabin Drăgoi and Mihai Pop,
declared these new genres officially to be part of folklore (e.g., Drăgoi 1951, Pop 1956).
This new and enlarged notion of folklore was a radical break with previous folklore schol
arship, when folklore was nearly always limited to the folklife of Romanian peasants. Af
ter Joseph Stalin’s death, and after Romanian intellectuals had generally accepted the su
premacy of the communist state in cultural matters,4 the state allowed its intelligentsia
somewhat greater freedom as long as the socialist project was not questioned (cf. Crotty
2007, 165). In these years, the Folklore Institute published its own journal and dozens of
monographs on a much greater variety of topics than in the previous phase (cf. Raliade
1994).
Returning to the party congress, it is noteworthy that in public statements cultural policy
was typically described in vague terms. Only occasionally was a specific aesthetic agenda
alluded to, as in this quote from one of Ceaușescu’s speeches at the 1965 party congress:
There is no doubt that authors, painters, composers, and all art- and literature-
creating people will not stint with work and talent to create new, valuable works,
full of revolutionary humanism and powerful social optimism, which will reflect
the multifarious impulses and thoughts, wishes, and endeavors of our people, and
of their imperturbable trust in tomorrow, in the future of freedom and the inde
pendence of our nation in the communist future.
(Partidul Comunist Român 1965, 100; author’s translation)
Page 5 of 17

Ceaușescu’s reference to strength and his decidedly optimistic outlook on the future are
reminiscent of classic Soviet socialist realism. The fact that he explicitly recognized cul
tural diversity here illustrates the extent of the relaxation in this period: diversity was al
lowed as long as it complied with the state’s general doctrines. Although this thaw did not
change the basic distribution of power, which remained in the hands of a few, many Ro
manians to this day remember Ceaușescu’s first years as a more liberal phase.5 Also, this
quote leaves no doubt that the regime believed Romanian culture should be national,
rather than international.
In this section, I used reports from Romanian party congresses to outline basic elements
of public cultural policy in socialist Romania. I highlighted that the state (p. 442) con
sciously aimed to transform society, that the Communist Party claimed the right to decide
the course of this transition, and that according to Stalin’s dictum of the writers as engi
neers of the soul, intellectuals were encouraged to collaborate in the task of creating a
more socialist society—or in the lingo of the Stalinist period, to aid in the creation of the
new man (cf. Sandu-Dediu 2007, 179). How folk musicians and ethnomusicologists could
contribute to this task was left open in public-policy discourse, but judging by the quote
discussed earlier, it should have quickly become clear to everyone involved that the state
desired a socialist realist position from its intellectuals.
Socialist Realism and Folk Music

Recently, several observers have argued that the Soviet socialist realism influenced the
arts in Romania in general (Cucu et al. 2013), and musical compositions during the early
socialist period specifically (Crotty 2007; Sandu-Dediu 2007). However, these observers
do not explain several peculiarities in application of socialist realism to Romania folk mu
sic: first, although the concept of socialist realism clearly influenced Romanian musical
life, the expression itself was rarely if ever used in Romanian discourse. For example, in a
discussion between composers about a proposed resolution that would mirror Zhdanov’s
resolution on music, the term is not used a single time (cf. reprints in Cosma 1995a,
1995b), even though the discussion revolved around the very criteria that make up musi
cal socialist realism. Among these were the rejection of formalism and Western influences
in favor of accessibility, the embrace of an optimistic outlook celebrating the proletariat
and socialism’s achievements, and a generally heroic tone (cf. Zhdanov 2003, 427–428).
In my interpretation, Romanian discourse often, although not always, camouflaged

Romania’s dependence on the Soviet Union as the quasi-colonizer. This camouflage ac
counts for discourse in the early period, before the Soviet Union withdrew its army from
Romania in the 1950s, but also for later times, when nationalist sentiments were on the
rise and Romanians did not like to be reminded of Soviet domination. Accordingly, Soviet
names, quotes, and key terms were routinely avoided in large parts of the discourse—for
example, in many scholarly articles—while other parts, especially editorials or introduc
tions, often made clear references to Soviet models.
Page 6 of 17

A second peculiarity not yet sufficiently explored in the literature is how the concept of
socialist realism applied to the practice of folk music. Perhaps the most evident new trend
in Romanian folk music in the early socialist period were the folk orchestras and folk
dance ensembles that often performed together and were often organized as a single
large ensemble (Popescu-Județ 1995). There had been folk ensembles in Romania since
long before the 1940s, such as the taraf (pl. tarafuri), an ensemble type which in the nine
teenth century often featured several violins, nai (panflute), cobza (a short-neck lute), and
in the twentieth century several violins, țambal (cimbalom, a stick-struck board (p. 443)
zither), accordion, and double bass. However, these older ensemble types, often with a
dozen or fewer musicians, were considerably smaller than the new folk orchestras, which
in the early socialist period sometimes boasted a membership of over a hundred musi
cians (Alexandru 2007).
Making the new folk orchestras the central showcase for new folk music was a significant
break with earlier traditions in representing Romanian folklore. Up to the socialist peri
od, there had been hardly any Romanian scholarship on ensembles such as tarafuri, indi
cating that they were not perceived as a particularly important part of Romanian folk mu
sic. Perhaps the relative omission of tarafuri from scholarship was because in the twenti
eth century they often performed in urban contexts, while Romanian scholarship focused
on rural settings. Alternatively, perhaps tarafuri were not intensively studied because
their musicians—usually referred to as lăutari (sing. lăutar)—were often Roma, while Ro
manian scholarship tended to focus on non-Roma Romanian peasants. In any case, around
1950 the folk orchestras were so new that even the most basic questions still had to be
debated. Composers, for example, still discussed in 1952 whether Romanian folk music
could and should be accompanied using harmony or with instruments at all (Cosma
1995b, 85–86). Similarly, in 1954 the institute’s director still had to cite recent research
to argue that the music played by lăutari could be considered Romanian folk music at all:
A problem that has occupied and still occupies our musicians is that of the lăutari
folklore (folclor lăutăresc) that is often used in the creations of our composers and
[also] broadcasted with preference on our radio stations. To clarify this issue the
[Folklore] Institute has intensively researched an important group of lăutari from
near Bucharest. From this research it was found that the musicians performed
folk music (muzică populară).
(Drăgoi 1954, 7; author’s translation)6
Barbu Lăutaru, one of the first folk orchestras in the country, was created during this ear
ly experimental phase. Named after a famous nineteenth-century Moldovian lăutar who
possibly performed for Franz Liszt (Ciobanu 1958, 101–102), the orchestra officially be
longed to the Folklore Institute until 1952–1953 (Marian-Bălaşa 2000b, 144). Later it was
relocated to a different state institution (Drăgoi 1954, 5; cf. Marian-Bălaşa 1999, 12).
Listening to recordings of the Barbu Lăutaru orchestra, such as Rapsodia Romina: Moni
tor Presents the Barbu Lautaru Orchestra (2007), one can argue that this new style of
folk music took an optimistic stance, rather than presenting sentimental, gloomy, or criti
Page 7 of 17

cal reflection. Correspondingly, ritual folk music including laments or the often sad or
sentimental genre of doine (a type of sung folk music that in Romania is not usually re
garded as song although it is sung) were not often performed in socialist Romania, espe
cially in the early period. Instead, the happier folk songs and dance tunes stood in the
center of the repertoire, often enriched by newly created genres that would (p. 444) not
previously have been regarded as folklore. These included patriotic songs (such as the
composition “Hora Unirii”) and those that praise the achievements of socialism, as illus
trated in the already mentioned collection Din Folclorul Nostru.
On socialist stages, folk orchestras were often accompanied by dance ensembles that per
formed elaborate choreography, typically joining different dances from a particular re
gion together into a single suite (Forner 1995). Gheorghe Popescu-Județ and his wife, Eu
genia, were among the most successful choreographers for state-run folk dance ensem
bles in the period between 1949 and 1970. As dancers, they won an international prize
for character dance in Prague in 1950, a category sometimes associated with the Soviet
choreographer Igor Moiseyev and his fusion of ballet with folk dance elements (Forner
1995; cf. Shay 2002, 57–67). In Romania, Gheorghe Popescu-Județ choreographed primar
ily for the Ciocîrlia ensemble, which officially belonged to the Ministry of the Interior,
while his wife, Eugenia, primarily choreographed for the Perinița ensemble (Popescu-
Județ 1995). There are no detailed analyses of staged Romanian folk music and folk dance
from the early socialist period, but it seems that in Romania—as in other countries that
were under the influence of the Soviet Union at the time—a Soviet aesthetic was import
ed that provided a framework for bringing rural traditions to big stages (cf. Silverman
1983, 56, 59; Rice 1994, 176; Buchanan 2006, 244–245).
To give one example of how the Soviet model influenced Romanian staged folk dance, Eu
genia recounts how the Russian choreographer Ivan Korilov suggested changes to
Gheorghe’s dance notation system on a visit to Bucharest in 1950. Specifically, the chore
ographer wanted them to also notate the work of the passive foot and not only the active
one, emphasizing a tendency to more accurate transcriptions (Popescu-Județ 1995). It
seems likely that this interaction illustrates not only the migration of a single technicality
in a specific notation system but also the larger importation of an aesthetic system for
staged performances. Anca Giurchescu characterizes Gheorghe Popescu-Județ’s choreo
graphies as an imitation of Moiseyev’s style and recalls that Gheorghe treated folklore as
“raw material that had to be collected, selected, and reworked (re-created) to raise its
artistic level” (Giurchescu 2013).
Overall, the new style—both in dance and music—featured accessibility for the audience
while performers show great technical virtuosity (e.g., relatively simple and symmetrical
melodies and dance moves, but at extremely high tempo). Other characteristics include
the use of large ensembles in which the performers play or dance together with extreme
precision and facility, as well as a fusion of musical material from oral culture with com
positional techniques and performance practices from the written culture of art music
and ballet dance.
Page 8 of 17

If socialist realism in music meant “all that is heroic, bright, and beautiful” and “musical
images full of beauty and strength” (Gorodinsky quoted by Schwarz 1973, 114), then Ro
manian communists tried hard to create a new folk music tradition that mirrored these
features.
(p. 445) Reactions

While in the early days the new style of folk music was pioneered mostly by professional
folk orchestras (alone or accompanied by a vocalist) and their dance ensembles, the new
optimistic and uncritical performance style later spread to other genres of folk music in
socialist Romania, transported and promoted by a wide range of state institutions such as
the state-run ensembles, the state-run media, and Electrecord, the country’s state-owned
and only record label. The state also provided facilities for amateurs who wanted to en
gage in folk music and dance, primarily through community centers (cămine culturale)
and houses of culture (case de cultura), as well as festivals and competitions (cf. Giurch
escu 1987, 163–171).
Examples discussed by Paul Nixon (1998, 14–16) and the Romanian ethnomusicologist
Speranța Rădulescu (1997, 107–108) suggest that most performances—especially those
that reached a large audience—occurred within state institutions (state-run ensembles,
concert halls, festivals, competitions, houses of culture, the radio, TV) and that for prizes,
for broadcasting, or for bigger stages the state nearly always actively selected those per
formances that embodied the new style, rather than the more traditional forms of peasant
culture.
Rădulescu, born in 1949 and graduated in 1973, remembers that she never heard “tradi
tional peasant music” until she was already employed as a researcher at the Institute for
Folklore and Ethnography. Even as a researcher at the institute, she found recordings of
such music only after several months of “determined digging in the archives” (Rădulescu
1997, 9). According to her, intellectuals other than ethnomusicologists in general did not
know or remember traditional peasant music. Her account suggests that the policies of
the socialist state by and large replaced the old traditions of folk music with their new so
cialist realist counterparts. Rădulescu also leaves no doubt that most intellectuals hated
this new folk music that was propagated by the media:
[T]hese radio stations, eventually joined by television, used [ . . . ] to submit us to

impressive infusions of “Romanian popular music” and “folklore.” Every time I
heard this folklore, I turned my set off; I disliked it to the point of nausea. More
over, nobody in the group that I frequented, made up of musicians and modest in
tellectuals, showed for it anything but a mixture of disdain and disgust.
(Rădulescu 1997, 8)
Even considering that retrospective recollection is not necessarily a reliable indicator of

musical taste, my interviews confirm that Romanian intellectuals nearly always disassoci
Page 9 of 17

ate themselves from folk music of the state, sometimes even to this day. Correspondingly,
these observations indicate that the people who did enjoy the socialist folk music tended
to be less-educated listeners who looked back to the countryside with nostalgia.
As Giurchescu already observed many years ago, the socialist state attempted to
(p. 446)
use folk music because of its association with the Romanian nation, to make itself appear
to be the legitimate Romanian state (1987, 169). This need for legitimation explains the
nearly ubiquitous use of folk culture and folk music by the socialist state: for example, the
massive competition and festival Cîntarea României, which involved millions of Romani
ans every year from the event’s inception in 1975 until its termination in 1989 (Giurches
cu 1987, 164). Another example is the frequent presence of socialist realist folk music in
the newspaper Scînteia as the communist mouthpiece, where one finds articles on folk
music every few issues. It seems that especially in the last decade of socialist Romania,
the association of the socialist state with the nation was rejected by growing parts of the
population. People increasingly identified the folk music of the media with the contempo
rary political system, which lost even more credibility when living standards plummeted
during the 1980s.
It is evident that in a Stalinist dictatorship like Ceaușescu’s Romania there was little
room for resisting official policies without risking drastic punishments. It is perhaps less
obvious that in such situations even quite small symbolic actions often became acts of re
sistance. Sabina Paula Pieslak discusses a musical example of resistance when she ana
lyzes colinde (carol) performances by Madrigal, the leading early-music ensemble in so
cialist Romania. Like other ensembles, Madrigal was controlled by the state. For exam
ple, the ensemble was accompanied by Securitate officers on tours outside Romania, and
the concert programs had to be approved by state officials (Pieslak 2007b, 225). Usually,
the ensemble was not allowed to perform colinde because the genre was considered too
religious—or, perhaps, because the performance would have been considered too tradi
tional and not socialist realist enough. For a performance outside Romania, however, col
inde were approved, and recordings of this performance made their way to Romania. Lis
tening to these recordings of colinde was illegal and consequently signified resisting the
state. Eventually, Madrigal’s colinde were played during the so-called revolution of 1989
to signify the end of the Ceaușescu regime (Pieslak 2007a, 178; 2007b, 227–232).
Viewed within this context, the Romanian ethnomusicologists did not have much leeway
for resistance without the risk of losing their careers or spending time in jail. Many of
them occasionally also “serviced” the state in their applied work—for example, by review
ing new recordings in the socialist realist style or participating in folk music juries (cf. Ră
dulescu 1997, 10; Nixon 1998, figure 1). The institute’s ethnomusicologists typically at
tempted to resist the state by carving out research topics that would pass censorship, but
which their colleagues would not associate too much with socialist policies. Such topics
included the history of folk music scholarship in Romania—for example, highlighting An
ton Pann’s and Béla Bartók’s contributions (e.g., Pann 1955; Alexandru 1958). Other rela
tively inconspicuous topics were the study of folk music instruments (Alexandru 1956), al
though this topic also found practical use in the creation of folk orchestras at the time.
Page 10 of 17

Perhaps the most esteemed text genre, and the one with the least obvious political conno
tations for its perceived objectivity, was the ethnographic monograph, a descriptive an
thology that typically would focus on traditional peasant (p. 447) music and cover one or
several genres of folk music for a small region (e.g., Comişel 1959). Another strategy of
emphasizing relative independence from the state for many ethnomusicologists was to
create links to Brăiloiu and prewar folklore scholarship in general, since it was of preso
cialist origin. I believe that in this context Romanian ethnomusicologists began to inter
pret adherence to old prewar topics and methods as resisting socialist pressures and
hence as a marker of good scholarship, a habit that is still visible in present-day Romania.
After an initial innovative period in which ethnomusicologists found new topics that were
meaningful to both the new socialist research framework and the presocialist research
traditions (mostly from the 1950s and 1960s), conceptual or methodological innovation
became rare in Romanian ethnomusicology, while Brăiloiu and other classics in Romanian
folkloristics remained continually in fashion.
Conclusions
From the perspective of the communists, traditional folk music as it had developed over
generations was not particularly well suited for the transformation of socialist society. As
a product of a capitalist period, it was thought to mirror an undesirable economic system
and did not in itself deserve any preservation efforts. In fact, there were no significant ef
forts to preserve traditional culture and folk music in socialist Romania, except perhaps
for the passive documentation of traditions by ethnomusicologists and other academics.
Nonetheless, as Groys (1992, 37–38) emphasizes for the Soviet Union, within socialist re
alism artists were encouraged to mine the artistic and cultural traditions of previous cen
turies to produce new socialist art. True to this idea, in Romania the communists encour
aged the same quasi-colonial process: local raw material—here rural Romanian folk music
—was “exported” to the cities; “processed” by scholars, composers, and arrangers, and
others according to the foreign ideology of a socialist realism; and then finally “reimport
ed” to the Romanian population through state institutions. For the state, the sole value of
traditional peasant music, then, was as a resource in the process of making new socialist
art.
Essentially, this process is one of repatriation: the socialists removed folk music from its
home contexts, “updated” it to reflect the ideals of socialist realism, and then returned it
to the Romanian population—and not only to the peasants who had made the presocialist
folk music, but to every citizen.
It is not uncommon that the process of musical repatriation changes some of the music’s
earlier qualities. For instance, socialist repatriation in Romania changed traditions when
they were put on stage and broadcast via the media. Since this repatriation was typically
organized by the state, dictated from above, and sometimes acted out against the will of
communities that still lived the traditions in question, the introduction of the new social
ist realist policy regime sometimes destroyed existing traditions. Thus, if the Romanian
Page 11 of 17

case is different from other musical repatriations, then perhaps (p. 448) it is because the
new socialist folk music sometimes replaced older traditions almost entirely. Another dif
ference is that here the state, as the main agent, used immense resources to make repa
triation happen; practically all state institutions, even the secret police, participated in
the process.
Despite these resources, the repatriation was clearly not completely successful.
Socialism’s high expectations of making society more equal and just failed; socialist real
ist folk music did not gain a substantial audience over time. In the long term, the general
appreciation of folk culture even decreased, especially in the final years of the regime. To
this day, folk music in Romania is sometimes perceived in political and nationalist ways
that resemble the communist and other nationalist periods. This phenomenon becomes
perhaps most obvious in the xenophobic reactions to manele, a genre of popular music of
ten associated with Roma musicians, in which the old racist ideas of a mono-ethnic Roma
nia resurface (cf. Marian-Bălaşa 2011a, 316). However, perhaps it is noteworthy that the
effects of socialist realist folk music—especially in the first few decades—could have been
considered a success in a different context. The new policy regime increased access to
music education for many Romanians and over the years a substantial number of people
enjoyed the state-supported folk music, even finding a musical “home” in this music.
It is noteworthy that ethnomusicologists and music archives had a significant position in

this repatriation. Ethnomusicologists were one of the very few groups the socialist state
allowed and even encouraged to access and contribute to both domains, the old traditions
and the new folk music. Only through this position—which was achieved through exper
tise gained in the field and in the archive—did they have the authority to authenticate the
new traditions for the socialist state, as they did for instance when acting as jurors or
writing LP cover texts for popular artists. Although the state was powerful and the dicta
torship threatened uncooperative ethnomusicologists with drastic penalties, they did have
some freedom to decide their own level of cooperation with the state.
Often when I tried to talk with Romanian ethnomusicologists, musicologists, or musicians

about socialist cultural policy in the late 1990s and the early 2000s, I got only vague re
sponses. It was often implied that socialist policies were absurd, that the representatives
of the communist state were incompetent in musical matters, and that the whole political
talk that was required during the socialist period was limba de lemn—literally, “wooden
tongue or speech.” I took this expression to mean a required, rhetorical, but essentially
meaningless bureaucratic exercise. Hence I was surprised when I discovered that the offi
cial socialist discourse on folklore and folk music was in itself consistent; that many of the
state’s measures, which in the accounts of participants seemed arbitrary, were in fact de
rived from more general policies; and that even these general policies were often ground
ed in a socialist worldview. In these respects, the socialist cultural policy regime is no dif
ferent from policy regimes in other political contexts. Socialist cultural policy was not the
arbitrary product of a mad ruler; it inherited more from the modern state and the modern
mode of governmentality than many people like to hear.
Page 12 of 17

I do not argue in favor of socialist policies, their goals, or the means employed;
(p. 449)
rather I argue that if one tries to understand folk music in socialist Romania—even the
more traditional peasant music in many rural settings—one simply cannot ignore the
state without significantly distorting cultural history. Not only was the state the most
powerful actor in the cultural domain (via its institutions and their employees), but it also
consciously attempted to radically transform society, including the spheres of folklore and
folk music, and it invested considerable resources to this end. Outside of Romania, this
conclusion may be old hat, given that the state is an important topic in landmark publica
tions of early postsocialist ethnomusicology (e.g., Rice 1994; Slobin 1996). However, until
recently there was not a lot of data available to make a similar case for Romania. Unsur
prisingly, perhaps, the picture that does emerge for Romania shows parallels to other
countries, particularly in Eastern Europe, but also elsewhere in the socialist world. If one
focuses less on sound and more on policy, it is obvious that many countries experienced
similar trends originating from the Soviet Union, particularly at the beginning of the Cold
War.
There is a lesson here that may apply to other musical repatriations. Repatriation often
happens within larger ideological frameworks. In Romania, the socialists tried to profit
from the people’s identification of folk music with the Romanian nation, but ultimately
they attained nearly the opposite effect: many people identified new folk music with the
socialist state they rejected. Other musical repatriations are similarly embedded in con
ceptual frameworks—for example, a postcolonial impetus to compensate for the wrongs
of the past. The Romanian example suggests that musical repatriations succeed, perhaps
even without expensive publicity efforts, when the parties involved in the exchange and
the communities they represent share the underlying values of the project’s larger ethical
dimension and can openly communicate those values to their constituents.
References
Alexandru, Tiberiu. 1956. Instrumentele muzicale ale popurului romîn. Bucharest: Editu
ra de stat pentru literatură şi artă (ESPLA).
Alexandru, Tiberiu. 1958. Bela Bartok despre folclorul romînesc. Bucharest: Editura Muzi
cală.
Alexandru, Tiberiu. 2007 (reissue). “About the orchestra (liner notes).” In Rapsodia Romi
na: Monitor Presents the Barbu Lautaru Orchestra. Monitor MFS 377. http://
media.smithsonianfolkways.org/liner_notes/monitor/MON00377.pdf.
Beniuc, Mihail. 1953. Din folclorul nostru: Culegere de texte şi melodii. [Bucharest:] Edi
tura de Stat pentru Literatură şi Artă.
Buchanan, Donna A. 2006. Performing Democracy: Bulgarian Music and Musicians in

Transition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ciobanu, Gheorghe. 1958. “Barbu Lăutarul.” Revista de Folclor 3 (4): 99–133.
Page 13 of 17

Comişel, Emilia, ed. 1959. Antologie folclorică din ţinutul Pădurenilor (Hunedoara).
[Bucharest]: Editura Muzicală. Alcătuită de un grup de folclorişti din cadrul Institului de
Folclor, condus de Emilia Comişel.
Cosma, Octavian L. 1995a. “Uniunea compozitorilor şi muzicologilor din România—75 de

ani: Arhiva Societăţii Compozitorilor Români.” Şedinţa Comitetului din 18 februarie 1934.
Muzica, n.s., 6 (1): 111–133.
Cosma, Octavian L. 1995b. “Uniunea Compozitorilor şi Muzicologilor din România—75 de

ani: Arhiva Uniunii (2).” Rezoluţia din 1952. Muzica 6 (3): 73–99.
Crotty, Joel. 2007. “A Preliminary Investigation of Music, Socialist Realism, and the Ro
manian Experience, 1948–1959: (Re)reading, (Re)listening, and (Re)writing Music Histo
ry for a Different Audience.” Journal of Musicological Research 26 (2–3): 156–176.
Cucu, Vasile S., Keith A. Hitchins, Ernest Latham Jr., and David Turnock. 2013. “Roma
nia.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. Online Academic Edition. http://www.britannica.com/
EBchecked/topic/508461/Romania (accessed December 6, 2013).
(p. 451) Deletant, Dennis. 2012. “România sub regimul comunist (Decembrie 1947–De
cembrie 1989).” In Istoria României, edited by Mihaiș D. D. Bărbulescu, Keith Hitchins,
Șerban Papacostea, and Pompiliu Teodor, 407–480. Bucharest: Grupul Editorial Corint.
Drăgoi, Sabin V. 1951. “Noua creaţie populară.” Muzica 2 (2): 15–19.
Drăgoi, Sabin V. 1954. “Cinci ani de activitate a Institutului de Folclor: O sărbătoare a fol
cloriştilor noştri.” Muzica 5 (6): 5–9.
Giurchescu, Anca. 1987. “The National Festival ‘Song in Romania’: Manipulations of Sym
bols in the Political Discourse.” In Symbols of Power: The Aesthetics of Political Legitima
tion in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, edited by Claes Arvidsson and Lars E.
Blomqvist, 163–171. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksele.
Giurchescu, Anca. 2013. Interview by Maurice Mengel. Electronic communication. Octo

ber 2013.
Groys, Boris. 1992. The Total Art of Stalinism: Avant-garde, Aesthetic Dictatorship, and
Beyond. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Iacob, Bogdan C. 2009. “Avatars of the Romanian Academy and the Historical Front: 1948
versus 1955.” In Stalinism Revisited: The Establishment of Communist Regimes in East-
Central Europe, edited by Vladimir Tismaneanu, 255–281. Budapest and New York: Cen
tral European University Press.
Marian-Bălaşa, Marin. 1999. “Institutul ‘Brăiloiu’ în contextul evoluţiei etnologiei

Româneşti: O istorie prescurtată.” Revista de Etnografie şi Folclor 44 (1): 9–18.
Page 14 of 17

Marian-Bălaşa, Marin. 2000a. “Harry Brauner: Field Collector, Director, Victim, and
Love.” European Meetings in Ethnomusicology 7:83–192.
Marian-Bălaşa, Marin. 2000b. “Romanian Traditional Identity as Searched by the Brăiloiu

Institute.” European Meetings in Ethnomusicology 7: 127–182.
Marian-Bălaşa, Marin. 2011a. “Maneliști și antimaneliști (sau despre muzică și segregare

în cultura și societatea românească).” In Muzicologii, etnologii, subiectivități, politici,
edited by Marin Marian-Bălaşa, 302–322. Bucharest: Editura Muzicală.
Marian-Bălaşa, Marin. 2011b. “Sistematic și aleator în antologiile și monografiile etno

muzicale.” In Muzicologii, etnologii, subiectivități, politici, edited by Marin Marian-
Bălaşa, 12–47. Bucharest: Editura Muzicală.
Marian-Bălaşa, Marin. 2013. Interview by Maurice Mengel. Electronic communication,

November 26.
Mengel, Maurice. 2007. “The Age of Archives in Early Romanian Ethnomusicology: To
wards a Paradigm of the Archive between 1927 and 1943.” European Meetings in Ethno
musicology 12: 146–168.
Nixon, Paul. 1998. Sociality, Music, Dance: Human Figurations in a Transylvanian Valley.
Göteborg: Göteborg University.
Pann, Anton. 1955. Cîntece de lume: Transcrise din psaltică în notaţia modernă. With the
assistance of G. Ciobanu. Bucharest: Editura de stat pentru literatură şi artă (ESPLA). Cu
un studiu introductiv de Gh. Ciobanu.
Partidul Comunist Român. 1965. “IX. Parteitag der Rumänischen Kommunistischen

Partei, 19–24.” July 1965. Berlin: Dietz.
Pieslak, Sabina P. 2007a. “A Political History of Romanian Colinde (Carols).” PhD diss.,
University of Michigan.
Pieslak, Sabina P. 2007b. “Romania’s Madrigal Choir and the Politics of Prestige.” Journal
of Musicological Research 26 (2): 215–240.
Popescu-Județ, Eugenia. 1995. Interview by Michelle Forner. Archive of Folk Cul

(p. 452)
ture, American Folklife Center, Library of Congress. Gheorghe and Eugenia Popescu-
Judetz Collection (AFC1990/022-57). Washington, DC, March 28.
Pop, Mihai. 1956. “Problemele şi perspectivele folcloristicii noastre.” Revista de Folclor 1

(1–2): 9–35.
Prezidiul Marii Adunări Naționale al Republicii Populare Române. 1998–99. “Decretul nr.
136 din 6 aprilie 1949” (reprint). Anuar Institutului De Etnografie şi Folclor “Constantin
Brăiloiu” 9–10: 31–32.
Page 15 of 17

Rădulescu, Speranţa 1997. “Traditional Musics and Ethnomusicology: Under Political

Pressure: The Romanian Case.” Anthropology Today 13 (6): 8–12.
Raliade, Rodica 1994. “Bibliografiei ‘Revistei de Etnografie şi Folclor (1981–1993).’ ” Re

vista de Etnografie şi Folclor 39 (3–4): 329–380.
Rapsodia Romina: Monitor Presents the Barbu Lautaru Orchestra in Hora Staccato and
Other Romanian Dances. Monitor; Smithsonian Folkways, 2007 (reissue), CD.
Rice, Timothy. 1994. May It Fill Your Soul: Experiencing Bulgarian Music. Chicago: Uni
versity of Chicago Press.
Sandu-Dediu, Valentina. 2007. “Dodecaphonic Composition in 1950s and 1960s Europe:

The Ideological Issue of Rightist or Leftist Orientation.” Journal of Musicological Re
search 26 (2–3): 177–192.
Schwarz, Boris. 1973. Music and Musical Life in Soviet Russia, 1917–1970. New York:
Norton.
Shay, Anthony. 2002. Choreographic Politics: State Folk Dance Companies, Representa
tion and Power. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Silverman, Carol. 1983. “The Politics of Folklore in Bulgaria.” Anthropological Quarterly

56 (2): 55–61.
Slobin, Mark, ed. 1996. Retuning Culture: Musical Changes in Central and Eastern Eu
rope. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Tismaneanu, Vladimir. 2004. Stalinism for All Seasons: A Political History of Romanian
Communism. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Vasile, Cristian. 2009. “Propaganda and Culture in Romania at the Beginning of the Com
munist Regime.” In Stalinism Revisited: The Establishment of Communist Regimes in
East-Central Europe, edited by Vladimir Tismaneanu, 367–385. Budapest and New York
Central European University Press.
Zhdanov, Andrei. 2003. “Speech to the Congress of Soviet Writers [1934].” In Art in Theo
ry, 1900–2000: An Anthology of Changing Ideas, edited by Charles Harrison and Paul
Wood, 426–429. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Notes:
(1.) In this chapter I use the English term “folk music” as the translation of Romanian
muzică populară (lit. popular music) and semantically related terms such as folclor muzi
cal (musical folklore) to refer to things that sometimes are described as folk music.
Page 16 of 17

(2.) I use “socialism” to refer to the political system that existed in Romania from 1948 to
1989 and to label this period. I use “communist” for members of a communist party and
anybody officially representing a communist-led state.
(3.) After a fusion with another party, the Romanian Communist Party (Partidul Comunist
Român) was renamed the Romanian Workers’ Party (Partidul Muncitoresc Român) in
1948. In 1965 the old name was restored (Tismaneanu 2004, 93, 194).
(4.) It is not clear whether Stalin’s death in 1953 caused any direct changes in Romanian
politics. When Nikita Khrushchev announced his program of de-Stalinization in 1956 at
the twentieth convention of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in Moscow, Gheo
rghe Gheorghiu-Dej, the Romanian secretary general who was present at the meeting,
was appalled by Khrushchev’s reforms and prevented Romania from taking a similar
course (Tismaneanu 2004, 143–148), so that one cannot simply attribute the relative cul
tural relaxation from the early 1950s in Romania to Stalin’s death. However,
Khrushchev’s reforms limited the Soviet Union’s influence over Romania, as exemplified
by the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Romania under his reign. In this respect the first
Soviet thaw did change the political climate in Romania significantly, and it allowed Ro
manian politicians to take a more nationalist position (cf. Tismaneanu 2004, 167).
(5.) The thaw around Ceaușescu’s early years in power in the mid-1960s was both real
and superficial. It never limited Ceaușescu’s power (Tismaneanu 2004, 193), generally
Stalinist policies remained in place, but there were noticeable shifts particularly in the
cultural domain and in the connections with Western countries. For example, I remember
seeing Rolling Stones albums from this period in record collections in Bucharest. Also, US
folklorists visited Romania and Romanian folklorists were allowed to travel to the United
States. And only in this period of socialism, Romanian ethnomusicologists published book-
length anthologies on some of Romania’s minorities (Roma, Tartars).
(6.) “O problemă care a preocupat și mai preocupă încă pe muzicienii noștri este aceea a
folklorului [sic] lăutăresc folosit adesea în creațiile compozitorilor noștri și difuzat cu
preferință la posturile noastre de radio. Pentru a lămuri această problemă Institutul a fă
cut o cercetare aprofundată unui important grup de lăutari din apropierea Bucureștilor.
Din această cercetare s-a constatat că muzica executata de lăutari este muzica populară.”
Maurice Mengel
Department of Music, St. Lawrence University
Page 17 of 17

Mengel - New Folk Music As Attempted Repatriation in Romania - 2019 PDF

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Mengel - New Folk Music As Attempted Repatriation in Romania - 2019 PDF

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

New Folk Music as Attempted Repatriation in Romania

New Folk Music as Attempted Repatriation in Romania

Print Publication Date: Oct 2019 Subject: Music, Ethnomusicology

Abstract and Keywords

Keywords: socialist realism, musical folklore, cultural policy, Romania, archive

Subscriber: Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP); date: 30 May 2020

Throughout this chapter I refer to the Institut de Etnografie și Folclor “Constantin

Subscriber: Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP); date: 30 May 2020

Constantin Brăiloiu’s Folklore Archive (Prezidiul Marii Adunări Naționale al Republicii

Cultural Policy and Folk Music

Subscriber: Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP); date: 30 May 2020

Subscriber: Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP); date: 30 May 2020

(Partidul Comunist Român 1965, 100; author’s translation)

Subscriber: Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP); date: 30 May 2020

Socialist Realism and Folk Music

In my interpretation, Romanian discourse often, although not always, camouflaged

Subscriber: Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP); date: 30 May 2020

(Drăgoi 1954, 7; author’s translation)6

Subscriber: Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP); date: 30 May 2020

Subscriber: Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP); date: 30 May 2020

(p. 445) Reactions

[T]hese radio stations, eventually joined by television, used [ . . . ] to submit us to

Even considering that retrospective recollection is not necessarily a reliable indicator of

Subscriber: Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP); date: 30 May 2020

Subscriber: Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP); date: 30 May 2020

Subscriber: Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP); date: 30 May 2020

It is noteworthy that ethnomusicologists and music archives had a significant position in

Often when I tried to talk with Romanian ethnomusicologists, musicologists, or musicians

Subscriber: Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP); date: 30 May 2020

Buchanan, Donna A. 2006. Performing Democracy: Bulgarian Music and Musicians in

Ciobanu, Gheorghe. 1958. “Barbu Lăutarul.” Revista de Folclor 3 (4): 99–133.

Subscriber: Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP); date: 30 May 2020

Cosma, Octavian L. 1995a. “Uniunea compozitorilor şi muzicologilor din România—75 de

Cosma, Octavian L. 1995b. “Uniunea Compozitorilor şi Muzicologilor din România—75 de

Drăgoi, Sabin V. 1951. “Noua creaţie populară.” Muzica 2 (2): 15–19.

Giurchescu, Anca. 2013. Interview by Maurice Mengel. Electronic communication. Octo­

Marian-Bălaşa, Marin. 1999. “Institutul ‘Brăiloiu’ în contextul evoluţiei etnologiei

Subscriber: Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP); date: 30 May 2020

Marian-Bălaşa, Marin. 2000b. “Romanian Traditional Identity as Searched by the Brăiloiu

Marian-Bălaşa, Marin. 2011a. “Maneliști și antimaneliști (sau despre muzică și segregare

Marian-Bălaşa, Marin. 2011b. “Sistematic și aleator în antologiile și monografiile etno­

Marian-Bălaşa, Marin. 2013. Interview by Maurice Mengel. Electronic communication,

Partidul Comunist Român. 1965. “IX. Parteitag der Rumänischen Kommunistischen

Popescu-Județ, Eugenia. 1995. Interview by Michelle Forner. Archive of Folk Cul­

Pop, Mihai. 1956. “Problemele şi perspectivele folcloristicii noastre.” Revista de Folclor 1

Subscriber: Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP); date: 30 May 2020

Rădulescu, Speranţa 1997. “Traditional Musics and Ethnomusicology: Under Political

Raliade, Rodica 1994. “Bibliografiei ‘Revistei de Etnografie şi Folclor (1981–1993).’ ” Re­

Sandu-Dediu, Valentina. 2007. “Dodecaphonic Composition in 1950s and 1960s Europe:

Silverman, Carol. 1983. “The Politics of Folklore in Bulgaria.” Anthropological Quarterly

Subscriber: Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP); date: 30 May 2020

Department of Music, St. Lawrence University

Subscriber: Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP); date: 30 May 2020

También podría gustarte

Giurchescu, Anca. 2013. Interview by Maurice Mengel. Electronic communication. Octo

Marian-Bălaşa, Marin. 2011b. “Sistematic și aleator în antologiile și monografiile etno

Popescu-Județ, Eugenia. 1995. Interview by Michelle Forner. Archive of Folk Cul

Raliade, Rodica 1994. “Bibliografiei ‘Revistei de Etnografie şi Folclor (1981–1993).’ ” Re