Mason discusses Abdullah Ibrahim's [Dollar Brand] composition of "Mannenberg" as a success due to it's "authentically South African mode of expression within the jazz tradition. . ." "Mannenberg" is celebrated by the South African couloured community because it is perceived as iconic to their culture and, through the efforts of musicians Coetzee and Jansen, is an important symbol of the anti-apartheid struggle.
In New York city, Ibrahim questioned his own identity and nationalism as the black nationalist movement was in motion in the United States. Although he had some success in the U.S. with his unique style of jazz, blending American jazz and "his native musical heritage," he returned to Cape Town to encourage the coloured community to seize their identity. Instead, they rejected Ibrahim's "Cape Town jazz" and continued to support American and European music. Eventually Ibrahim changed his style to create a jazz-rock fusion so that he could "make music 'which the people understand.'" This music appealed to the coloured community of Cape Town and became even more popular as the American black nationalist movement influenced the people of Cape Town. This led me to wonder, do even the most stubborn musicians feel pressure to change their style based on appealing to what "the people understand?" Do the audience always seek what is most cosmopolitan? Are international influences too strong to support local musicians seeking to appeal to a wide audience?
