Music in Cultural Constuction: Nationalisation, Popularisation and Commercialisation of Mongolian Music

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi �0.��63/��050�8-��340036

INNER ASIA �7 (�0�5) ��8–�40

brill.com/inas

Inner ASIA

Music in Cultural ConstructionNationalisation, Popularisation and Commercialisation of Mongolian Music

Baatarnarany TsetsentsolmonNational University of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

[email protected]

Abstract

The paper aims to examine the concept of ‘national’ or ‘folk’ music within the state culture-building process in both the socialist and post-socialist eras in Mongolia. By focusing on process of nationalisation, commercialisation and popularisation, the paper argues that musical culture was and has been politicised in both eras. Furthermore, it argues that musical culture in post-socialist Mongolia can be regarded as the continuation, transformation and, in some cases, the amplification of the state-socialist culture-building process, designed to be ‘national in form and socialist in con-tent’, so as to become nationalist in form and commercial in content.

Keywords

music culture – nationalisation – cultural construction – popularisation – commercialisation

Introduction

There have been myriad calls for ‘revival’ in ‘national’ and/or ‘traditional’ cul-ture (ündesnii soyolyn sergelt) along with the establishment of the democratic nation-state of Mongolia. Since the collapse of State Socialism, there has been widespread public debate over what has been described as the filling of an unbridgeable gap between pre-socialist and post-socialist times (cf. Humphrey 1992), reconstructing absent knowledge (Højer 2009) or regaining what was lost. The first attempts to restore ‘national culture’ included a debate about the ‘national script’ or ‘Mongolian script’ (mongol bichig), and whether it should be restored as the country’s official script, it having been eradicated during the

119Music In Cultural Construction

INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

Socialist regime. This was discussed in local daily newspapers by native lin-guists, writers, and journalists in the early 1990s. Some, like Choi. Lubsangjab (1992), L. Chuluunbaatar (1990) G. Mend-Ooyo (1990) and G. Akim (1990), con-demned the adoption of the Cyrillic script in the 1940s and actively promoted the ‘revival’ of the ‘Mongolian script’ as a ‘traditional’ and ‘classical’ writing form that should be adopted as the ‘state script’ (töriin bichig). This campaign resulted in a resolution issued by the Cabinet (Small State Khural) that the ‘Mongolian script’ should be adopted as the official script by 1994. Others, notably A. Lubsangdendev (1991), D. Tsendjav (1992), Sh. Gaadamba (1992), challenged the new policy on the grounds that the Cyrillic script was gener-ally accepted as ‘the new Mongolian national script’. Ultimately this position won out, and it was generally accepted that the Cyrillic script would not be replaced.1 Over the last two decades, there has been a growing number of cam-paigns with overtly nationalist sentiment calling for the ‘revival’, ‘preservation’ and ‘restoration’ of national and/or ‘traditional’ culture, mostly with regard to language, script, religion, clothing, national holidays and the arts. One should be careful about assuming that all traditional culture was repressed under state socialism and revived after its collapse, in a monolithic way. The tradi-tional script can certainly be considered to have been eradicated in favour of Cyrillic. For musical culture, there is a slightly diverse story.

The development of musical culture has coincided with a rise in state sponsorship and public awareness of the ‘revival of national culture’ and the ‘preservation of cultural heritage’ in popular culture. This has been reflected in policies oriented towards UNESCO-defined concepts of culture and its value. Mongolia ratified the 2003 UNESCO ‘Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage’ in 2005 and the 2005 UNESCO ‘Convention on

1 Debates over the proper status of the classical script have continued. The National Program for Mongolian Script, to be implemented 1995–2005, was developed by parliamentary resolu-tion #43 of 1995. As the program indicates that ‘Mongolian script should be taught as basic education’, it was made compulsory for schools to teach the classical writing form to children from 7 years of age. Before long, it ceased to be compulsory. In 2008, the government adopted the National Program for Mongolian Script II, to be implemented 2008–2015. The program does not clearly state the exact age to teach the script; this varies from 14 to 16. On 1 July 2011, the President of Mongolia, Tsahiagiin Elbegdorj, issued decree #155 on Some Steps to Intensify the Official Usage of Mongolian Script. By this decree, official documents to be sent abroad should be written in the Mongolian script and translated into any language recognised by UNESCO. Despite all the decrees and programs, public perception towards the traditional script is still in a state of suspicion. Recently, Members of Parliament strongly expressed their apprehensive attitudes whether to accept the script as ‘national’ or even ‘Mongolian’ during the debate on Law of Mongolian Language introduced on 6 February, 2015.

120 Tsetsentsolmon

INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions’ in 2007 (Yündenbat 2011). Since then, a number of government resolutions, national programmes, regulations and laws on the protection, promotion and preserva-tion of ‘cultural heritage’ have been issued. Examples of these resolutions are: the National Program to Support Traditional Folk Art (1999–2006) (Government Resolution #68, 21 April 1999); the National Program for The Horse-headed Fiddle and Long Song (Government Resolution #43, 9 March 2005) based on the presidential decrees On adoring and promoting the horse-headed fiddle in 2002 and On inheriting and developing long songs in 2004; along with many others such as the National Program for Mongolian Script (2008), Regulation for Genealogy Records (1997 and 2007) and the National Program on Protecting and Restoring of Historical and Cultural Immovable Heritages (1999–2005). Along with the numerous publications and reports on national heritage programs that have been written in terms of UNESCO’s definitions, the concept of cul-tural heritage in Mongolia has been reshaped. The socialist notion of cultural heritage, or ‘intellectual culture’ (oyuny/utga soyol) that included literature, paintings and folk music, has largely been replaced by ‘intangible cultural heri-tage’ (biyt bus soyolyn öv) (Tsetsentsolmon 2014: 433).

As one of the ‘traditional’ cultural elements of Mongolia’s heritage, ‘folk music’ was treated as an important element of the revival. There is no musi-cal instrument better placed to be raised to the status of ‘national icon’ than the morin khuur [horse-headed fiddle]. The first Mongolian ‘democratic’ President, Punsalmaagiin Ochirbat, issued a decree ordering the creation and exaltation of Töriin khan khuur [State Sovereign Fiddle] on 20 April 1992. This decree stated that: ‘on the basis of initiatives of the state commission to cel-ebrate the 830th anniversary of Chinggis Khaan’s birth, I order the creation of the Töriin khan khuur and its exaltation in the Töriin ürgüü [State Palace] to honour the morin khuur, which is an essential element of the cultural heri-tage of the Mongolian people’.2 In 2005, the Mongolian President nominated by the People’s Revolutionary Party, Natsagiin Bagabandi, issued another decree on the Töriin khan khuur where the description of the instrument, the procedures for its exaltation, blessing and praise are listed.3 The other decree issued by Bagabandi relates to the establishment of the Mongol töriin ündes-nii khögjmiin ikh nairal [Mongolian State National Great Orchestra]. As a result of this series of acts, the morin khuur became one of the key symbols of national identity in post-socialist Mongolia. Carole Pegg (2001: 287) identifies that ‘[t]he horse-head fiddle, first a symbol of ethnicity and then of a national

2 http://www.legalinfo.mn/law/details/778?lawid=778 3 http://www.president.mn/mongolian/node/1017


INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

socialist identity, has become an icon for newly independent, democratic Mongolia’. In his comprehensive monograph on institutionalisation and nation-alisation in Mongolian music culture, Peter Marsh (2009) claims that the morin khuur was reimagined and reshaped as a ‘popular nationalist icon’ and ‘iconic symbol of national identity’ after Socialism. The instrument was proclaimed for the registration of the UNESCO’s Representative List of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in 2003, being registered finally in 2008. The UNESCO inscription is perceived by the public as a ‘guarantee’ of international recogni-tion, or most importantly as a ‘licence’ for the ownership of cultural heritage by a nation-state (Tsetsentsolmon 2012: 1). The new democratic state of Mongolia elevated an already selected instrument as ‘national’ in the ‘revival’ of Mongol identities. To some extent, this continued what was constituted by the state socialist policy.

This paper does not attempt to trace the pathways in which the morin khuur appeared on the international stage as a national icon. Rather, my aim here is to explore a variety of framings expressed in ‘folk music’ performances during both the socialist and post-socialist eras. In what ways is the current under-standing of ‘traditional’ or ‘folk’ music related to the socialist cultural policy? How is it transformed with the emergence of diversity in the development of a contemporary music culture? These are the key questions addressed in this paper. I develop my argument by examining two case studies of morin khuur practitioners: the Morin Khuur Ensemble of the Mongolian State Philharmonics, and Altan Urag, a freelance folk-rock band. These two were chosen as representatives of successful state-funded musicians on the one hand and of the growing number of ‘folk’ music bands appearing in the past two decades on the other. The Morin Khuur Ensemble is a good example of a relatively new state-funded institution established within the movement for ‘national cultural revival’ after 1990, while Altan Urag represents groups that are ‘self-funded’ through performances in pubs and other private venues. This paper is also based on my critical reading of primary sources such as presi-dential decrees, government resolutions, and national programmes, interviews with key bodies and the observation of relevant events and performances.

State Socialist Cultural Construction and the Nationalisation of Music Culture

To understand recent musical developments it is helpful to start by examin-ing what ‘traditional folk music’ was in the socialist era. Ethnographic and ethnomusicological studies by native socialist scholars generally describe the

122 Tsetsentsolmon

INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

‘tradition’ of musical culture under the category of ‘folk music’ (ardyn khögjim) or ‘musical folklore’ (khögjmiin ardyn biligzui). This categorisation includes various musical types, from simple invocation melodies for animals and spirits to more elaborate forms such as urtyn duu [long songs] and khöömii [over-tone singing] (Badraa 1998),4 which were fitted into an evolutionist scheme of developmental stages. Labelling performances or types of music ‘traditional’ and ‘folkloric’ is not just simple description, but part of a process of developing strategic normative definitions of public culture.

I will contextualise the nationalisation and institutionalisation of musical tradition within socialist cultural settings by examining some of the resolutions issued by the Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party (MPRP), which until 1990 held supreme authority, headed by a Politburo of around 10 members.5 After consolidating power in the 1920s and 1930s, the MPR set out to radically redesign Mongolian society and launched a ‘cultural revolution’, aimed at over-coming ‘backwardness’ (Tsetsentsolmon 2014: 423). Its goal was to build a ‘new culture’, to train cadres, to introduce socialist ideology with a ‘national cultural content’ and to create new ‘advanced’ forms in the cultural sector (Natsagdorj 1986: 48). The regime aimed to promote a culture that was ‘national in form, socialist in content’ (ündesnii helbertei, sotsialist aguulgatai). ‘One of the main results of the transitional period in the progression from feudalism to social-ism was to construct a new culture that is national in form, socialist in con-tent, and international in characteristic’ (Dashdavaa 1989: 34). In the history of the MPR, the process of ‘cultural revolution’ was divided into three stages: the periods of 1921–1940; 1940–1960; and after 1960 (Shirendev & Sanjdorj 1969: 51–2). During the first stage, the MPRP attempted ‘to undertake revolutionary democratic change in the cultural sector, to build a new culture, and to elimi-nate the dominance of the religious ideology of Buddhist monks’ (Ibid: 51). The second stage proposed ‘genuine revolution’ ( jinkene khuvisgal)—described as a ‘socialist cultural revolution’. From 1961 onwards, the MPR attempted to intensify and to complete the process of building socialism and socialist culture (ibid: 681). The MPRP was gradually transformed into an imitation of the Soviet Communist Party (Atwood 2004: 380), strongly influenced by both

4 As Mendoz (1998: 183) notes in another context, the concept of ‘folklore’ is frequently applied to practices in order to validate them, and the concept of ‘folkloric performance’ is frequently used to refer to both promotional acts and ritual performances.

5 Although the Mongolian People’s Republic (MPR) was formally a ‘democratic’ republic in which the nation’s leadership was chosen through regular elections, in reality, the govern-ment structure oscillated between one-man rule and oligarchy (Atwood 2004: 377).


INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

the destructive and the constructive aspects of the Cultural Revolution, which also reflected the Soviet nationalities policy in the Soviet east. The destruc-tive part of the process was associated with the intensification of class war-fare against ‘bourgeois elements’, whereas the constructive aspect of Cultural Revolution aimed at the creation of a new socialist way of life (Martin 2001). Although the MPR was not part of the USSR, the Soviet Union moulded virtu-ally every aspect of Mongolian life (Atwood 2004: 513).

The effects of this cultural policy on musical practice can be described as nationalisation and modernist ‘advancement’. The process of construction entailed multiplication—the enrichment in numbers and types of institutions, art forms, instruments and professionals. Reflecting Lenin’s vision in which each nation had its own music that could be systematically collected, studied and used as a basis for composition, this understanding found a secure place in the views of Soviet ideologues (Nercessian 2004: 152). A state resolution issued by the Politburo on 17 February 1956 (entitled Mongolyn ündesnii högjmiig ser-geen högjüüleh tuhai [On reviving and developing Mongolian national music]: Zagdsüren & Tsend 1967) emphasised the ‘ancient tradition’ of ‘national music’ of the Mongol people and its decline as a result of Buddhist practitioners, who, it was claimed, used ‘folk’ musical works and instruments as tools to promote their ideology. The Central Commission of the Party stated that ‘it is essen-tial to inherit and apply the wealth of national music broadly and to imme-diately organise the campaign to study and to revitalise historical records, scores, images and other materials related to music used in ancient Mongolia’ (Zagdsüren & Tsend 1967: 141). The resolution also proposed increasing the use of instruments, such as the morin khuur (horse-headed fiddle) and the huuchir (two-string fiddle), with funding from the Ministry of Finance. At this time, the MPRP appears to have been dissatisfied with the limited number of forms for musical expression and wanted to enrich them by collecting, redefining and reconstructing musical instruments.

A hierarchical structure of cultural institutions, from ‘red yurts’ (ulaan ger) to ‘musical dramatic theatres’ (khögjimt dramatik teatr), appeared in urban and rural areas. Provincial ‘cultural palaces’ organised a ‘Ten Days of Culture and Arts’ (soyol urlagiin arav khonog) festival in Ulaanbaatar once every five years as part of each province’s five-year plan. These ten-day festivals of arts were modelled on the Dekada in the Soviet Union and were designed to moti-vate local theatres and performers to enrich their repertoires, as well as provid-ing them with financial support. They included competitions awarding titles such as ‘State Honored’ artists, ‘Musical Dramatic Theatres’ and so on. The pro-liferation of cultural organisations in the MPR can be indexed by the growth in

124 Tsetsentsolmon

INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

the number of theatres in the country from 9 in 1960 to 26 in 1988.6 In the 1980s, the last decade of Socialism, there was a significant intensification of these activities and in events and studies on the subject of ‘folk’ music; particularly, morin khuur, urtyn duu [long song] and khöömii [overtone singing]. Statistics indicate that the number of amateur groups and bands (including all musical art genres) increased from 3293 in 1980 to 4785 in 1988 (State Committee for Planning and Economics 1989: 101), and of amateur performers from 284,500 to 350,500 (Ibid: 101). It is clear, then, that these musical forms were enormously popular elements of public culture throughout the country, notwithstanding the fact that all the processes to do with amateur performance happened as a result of state campaigns that were successfully carried out within the larger context of Soviet ‘amateur activity’ (samodeiatel’nost’) (Lapasha 2004). There were numerous such cultural activities, such as nationwide ‘art examinations of the people’ (ard tümnii urlagiin üzleg). The national competition of 1960, like those held in 1936, 1946 and 1956, tested the abilities of musicians to play national instruments and read musical notation (Chuluunbat 1973: 12)

A crucial process of musical institutionalisation was the establishment of folk ensembles designed to generate the professionalisation, standardisa-tion, nationalisation as well as ‘advancement’ of certain musical forms. On 1 December 1950, the resolution to establish the State Folksong and Dance Ensemble was issued (Zagdsüren & Tsend 1967). Before this, national instru-ments were played by musicians of the Central Theatre (Töv teatr). A resolu-tion issued by the Politburo (28 April 1949) aimed ‘to establish a national music orchestra of which each musician should be mastered in both symphonic and national music . . . to train every trainee of school of musical drama (khögjimt dramatic surguul’) in national music’ (Cendorž 1983: 29). Another resolu-tion of the MPRP Politburo (23 October 1956) evaluated the work of the State Folksong and Dance Ensemble and criticised it for ‘not succeeding in study-ing and acquiring rich heritage of multiethnic art from all over the country’ (Cendorž 1983: 29). The resolution stated that art organisations did not work enough on ethnic forms of art and music which had to be collected, developed and enriched. As in other Soviet satellites such as Armenia (Nercessian 2004) and Kazakhstan (Rouland 2004), the MPR Ensemble intensified the work of collecting folk songs as ‘raw’ materials to be processed for stage productions and to promote the diversity of songs from different regions.

6 National Economy of the MPR for 65 years, 1966; Economic and Social Development of the MPR in 1988 (statistical compilation), 1989.


INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

Nadmid, a folk singer mostly known as ‘Nadmid of Khotgoid7 songs’ (khot-goid duuny Nadmid) recalls the strategy for ‘multiethnic’ (olon yastny) songs:

The ensemble used to send us to our hometowns or other parts of the country so that we could learn as many folk songs from the countryside as possible. Depending on their background, singers were asked to spe-cialise in songs of one yastan8 [ethnic group] such as buryiat, kazakh, and darkhad. Tsogzolmaa, artistic director of the ensemble, asked me to learn darkhad and khotgoid songs and I was sent to Khövsgöl province, my hometown. In this way, I started to sing khotgoid and darkhad songs. (Nadmid, interview, May 2009)

Nadmid’s colleague Khorolsuren was known for singing Kazakh songs, although she was not from Bayan-Ülgii province, where most Kazakhs lived. She sang two Kazakh songs for the first time in a concert called ‘Songs from Altai’ (Altain duu) and later went on to build a repertoire of 30 songs. She appeared on stage in Kazakh dress holding the dombra, an instrument considered distinc-tively Kazakh.

State policy was used to establish what counted as ‘tradition’. It was also required to make music that was considered ‘modern’. As the slogan implies, the aim was to create art that was ‘national in form’ by collecting ‘folk’ songs and instruments, and ‘socialist in content’ by ‘developing’ these genres using western classical models. One of the best examples of ‘national’ music that was considered developed in form was the Ündesnii ikh nairal khögjim [National Great Orchestra] of the State Ensemble of Folksong and Dance which cele-brated its 50th anniversary in 2012. The first national orchestra, consisting of 60 musicians (Cendorž 1983: 32), was arranged on stage in the manner of a western symphonic orchestra. Each instrument corresponds to European sym-phonic instrument, so that the morin khuur replaced the cello and khuuchir

7 The Khotgoid and Darkhad were classified as yastan (ethnic groups) that inhabited the Khövsgöl region of Northern Mongolia. Historians and ethnographers considered the Hotogoids to have moved from West Mongolia to the North and settled there, forming a ‘sep-arate ethnic group’ by the end of the sixteenth century (Nyambuu 1992).

8 The concept yastan (narodnosti’) has been recently critically re-examined as a category of Soviet ‘nationality policy’. Munkh-Erdene (2011) described the concept as ‘the system of eth-nicization’ for categorisation, diversification and allocation introduced to state policy, schol-arship, and education. As a result of this wider process, the concept of Mongolia changed from a political category to an ethnographic category, and earlier provinces or administrative units such as Khalkh, Dörvöd, Dariganga, and Darkhad became the names of communities or ethnic groups (Munkh-Erdene 2011).

126 Tsetsentsolmon

INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

the violin and so on. On a TV programme dedicated to the anniversary of the orchestra, Luvsansharav, People’s Artist and State Honoured composer and former artistic director of State Ensemble of Folksong and Dance explained:

When we were establishing the orchestra, it was really hard to find a unified harmony for the ensemble for folk instruments that all sounded different. Traditionally, they were quite independent, being used as solo instruments in gers. (Luvsansharav, TV programme, 2012)

Nercessian (2004) notes a similar Armenian experience, when the soviet republic introduced the ‘folk ensemble’. Musicians did not know how to play in such orchestras, because none of them had ever played with such a combi-nation of ‘folk’ instruments before. Both local musicians and the soviet special-ists faced hard moments to engage the process of the new form. Jantsannorov, two-time State Prize winner, composer and the former director of the Union of Mongolian Composers, recalls the first attempts at choir singing:

Soviet specialists sickened of teaching scales or songs in choir singing. They barely learnt their parts after practising all day. Unfortunately, none of them recalled what they learnt the day before. There was a letter by a soviet specialist saying that ‘it is impossible to introduce choir sing-ing when they still sing their urtyn duu (long-song)’. (Jantsannorov, pers. comm., November 2012)

Jantsannorov (2007: 64) identifies this as ‘a fascinating but difficult period dur-ing which national approaches to music, which were conceptually “Eastern”, were enriched through encounters with Western musical thinking.’ ‘Learning to read western scores contrasted with the Mongolian way of playing music’, he says (2007: 64). The Party’s policy of creating new ‘advanced’ musical forms and overcoming ‘backwardness’ had been implemented, in part, by introduc-ing western classical musical forms, compositional styles, and instruments. Marsh (2009: 54) claims the newly introduced form was ‘a syncretism of European and Mongolian musical elements’, fusing the ‘best’ elements from European classical music with ‘selected’ elements from Mongolian folk music. This process of ‘selection’ was politically driven by the state, but was also a profoundly deconstructive and constructive process reflecting enormous talent and dedication among the pioneering generation of Soviet-trained Mongolian musicians.

Pegg (2001) produced one of the first works on Mongolian music in American and European ethnomusicology, outstanding in its scope, depth and detail,


INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

which aimed at describing diverse identities in musical performance and their transformation. In the chapter ‘A socialist national identity’ (2001: 253), she illustrates how music tradition was ‘neutralized’, ‘stabilized’, and ‘refash-ioned’ under the socialist control. She claims, ‘anything that represented past traditions or difference, anything symbolizing separate ethnic or group identi-ties, was forbidden and where possible confiscated and destroyed’ (2001: 256). She argues that ‘the communist regime repressed, assimilated, and refash-ioned performance traditions, as well as introducing new European art forms, as it attempted to create a socialist national identity’ (2001: 284–5). The eth-nographic records I explored earlier in this section demonstrate that the ide-ology of the Soviet-style state was not entirely totalitarian. A certain amount of celebration of edited and approved categories of ‘national tradition’ were permitted, indeed were expected, within the wider culture of what we might call Soviet cosmology, which was always somewhat broader than the particu-larities of the Party policy of the moment.

We have seen that ‘folk music’ emerged as ‘national’ music as a result of a series of policies that the MPR implemented. I have focused on the Party’s policies of nationalisation and modernisation. Through this we have seen that state and public understanding of ‘national music’ in post-socialist Mongolia has been heavily influenced by socialist cultural policy. Furthermore, forms that in post-socialist Mongolia were perceived as ‘lost’ or ‘suppressed’ and ‘in need of revival’ had, in fact, been processed and re-processed during the previous regime. Now I turn to focus on examples of post-socialist prac-tices by examining two cases of morin khuur practitioners; the Morin Khuur Ensemble of the Mongolian State Philharmonics, and Altan Urag, a freelance folk-rock band.

Post-Socialist Nationalisation and Popularisation of Music Culture

After the Democratic Revolution, the State of Mongolia (Mongol Uls) adopted a new Constitution in 1992 which launched a new strategy for nation-building and modernisation, along with the introduction of ‘democracy, justice, liberty, equality, national solidarity, and the rule of law and order’ (Constitution of Mongolia, Article 1, Paragraph 2). Nationalism became the chief ideological way of deconstructing the past socialist identity and of constructing a new identity (Munkh-Erdene 2008). The state set out to ‘strengthen the indepen-dence and sovereignty of the nation, respect the national solidarity, and cher-ish the tradition of the nationhood, history and culture’ (2008: 38). Matching these nationalistic sentiments, there has been a tremendous resurgence of

128 Tsetsentsolmon

INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

interest in Chinggis Khaan, Chinggisid legacies and the Mongolian Empire (Kaplonski 2005; Campi 2006; Munkh-Erdene 2008; Bulag 2010; Shimamura 2012). Bulag (2010: 57) characterised this rehabilitation as a burning enthusi-asm for Chinggis Khaan at every level of Mongolian society, invoking Chinggis Khan’s historic feat to bolster ‘Mongolian’ national pride against both the Chinese and Russian.

Some, like Gaadamba, a linguist and former student of Ts. Damdinsuren—the author of the Mongolian Cyrillic script—, opposed the restoration of old concepts and terms proposed by the state. Gaadamba (1992) attacked the Cabinet’s (Small State Khural) resolution to reintroduce the ‘Mongolian script’ as the official script, as well as opposing the wider movement ‘to revive national historical and cultural heritage’. For instance, he strongly criticised the ‘new democratic government’ for changing the state name from the Mongolian People’s Republic to Mongolia (Mongol Ulus), something, he argued, that was reminiscent of the Great Mongol Empire (Yeke Mongqol Ulus) and damaging to relations with the nation’s two neighbouring states, since they included certain Mongol populations. Gaadamba also challenged attempts being made to restore old terms such as ‘Great Jasaq’ (Yeke Jasaq), ‘Head of Government’ (zasgiin gazryn tergüün), ‘Deputy Minister’ (shadar said), ‘Aimag Governor’ (aimgyn zahiragch); old symbols such as the state stamp, state emblem, state fiddle (khuur), and ceremonial costumes for the President and army; and the reintroduction of old rituals such as the President’s oath-taking ceremony and ‘white standard’ (tsagaan sülde), rites that invoked Chinggisid imagery. For Gaadamba, the process described as revival (mostly in the celebration of Chinggis Khaan and the Great Mongol Empire) actually represents the destruc-tion of ‘a newly-built culture’ created in the twentieth century. He called for the recognition and transmission of what had been constructed in the last several decades of Socialism. Gaadamba’s position may have differed from his oppo-nents with respect to what constituted ‘revival’, but they all perceived the need for the preservation of ‘traditional’ and ‘national’ culture in the newly estab-lished democratic nation-state.

The State Morin Khuur EnsembleOne of the new institutions to emerge within the campaign for cultural ‘revival’ by the democratic state is the State Morin Khuur Ensemble. The Government issued resolution number 123 to establish the Morin Khuur Ensemble on 9 July 1992. This Ensemble was formed as a western-style chamber orchestra; instrument designs, techniques and tuning were assimilated to western cellos; and the musicians were trained in the Music and Dance School. ‘It is signifi-cant that our Ensemble was established at the same time as the Constitution


INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

of Mongolia. We take it as a good omen’, Batchuluun, conductor and artistic director of the ensemble and People’s Artist, remarked. The First Deputy Chief of the Cabinet Office, D. Ganbold, and then Chair of Art’s Committee and later became the 3rd President of Mongolia, N. Enkhbayar, took particular inter-est in the ensemble and both were centrally involved in its establishment. The ensemble delivered their first performance in the Academic Theatre of Opera and Ballet. According to Batchuluun, they chose the Academic Theatre because Marshal Kh. Choibalsan, the Communist leader of the Mongolian People’s Republic and commander-in-chief of the Mongolian armed forces from the 1930s until his death in 1952, buried a morin khuur, a khadag [a blue scarf made of silk] and a block of tea under the theatre building. It is interest-ing to note that this new institution of the democratic nation-state, or at least its artistic director, included the communist leader in his account of ‘cultural revival’—a process that could be seen as the deconstruction of socialist ideol-ogy. Choibalsan is a contradictory leader whose political actions in the Great Purge have been condemned, but whose later policies, which led to the safe-guarding of Mongolian independence, were widely praised. Moreover, the ensemble was designed to be a continuation of socialist policies of modernisa-tion, since the political, intellectual and cultural elites of the new democratic state were themselves late socialist elites, steeped in the culture that the MPR had constructed, despite the strength of their nationalistic sentiments.

The state support for, and public perception of, the musical instrument as well as the Morin Khuur Ensemble were visible after the 1 July 2008 riots, trig-gered by allegations of electoral fraud. Five people died in the riots and a state of emergency was declared. Along with particular complaints about the con-duct of the election, there was a wider frustration with the political process and a suspicion that those in power were more concerned with lining their own pockets than serving the public good (Sneath 2010: 255). Rioters set fire to the headquarters of the MPRP and the Cultural Palace, where the National Modern Art Gallery and State Philharmonic and other artistic and cultural organisations were located. All the instruments and costumes of the Morin Khuur Ensemble were burnt. The public spectacle of Batchuluun and his musi-cians lamenting this loss on TV reignited nationalistic sentiment toward the instrument as the iconic symbol of national identity. A number of private com-panies and individuals contributed to the reconstruction of the ensemble: for example, Erel Bank paid for new concert costumes. Batchuluun recalls:

We cannot forget all the people who helped us sincerely; an old couple who brought their pension and hardly found their way home and a little boy who gave the money he collected by singing in the street. Of course

130 Tsetsentsolmon

INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

some people were saying for political reasons: ‘what an exaggeration! The morin khuur are being overvalued while the lives of the five people are not’. However, we got back on our feet in a very short time thanks to generous people (Interview by B. Gunj, on public page).9

Previously most of the instruments had been owned by individual musi-cians. After the riots, new instruments were purchased from a government fund, thereby becoming state property in the process. As well as public dona-tions, the state attached great importance to the restoration of the ensemble. However, the personal loss of individual musicians, according to the manager, has not yet been compensated.

Along with processes that ‘nationalise’ art performance, other changes reveal the emergence of a ‘market-oriented’ sector. The transition Mongolia has made was not only from Soviet-style communism to a democratic and pluralistic society, but also from a centrally planned to a market economy in a way that could be considered ‘a shift from the extreme left of this politico-economic continuum to the extreme right’ (Munkh-Erdene 2011: 63). The resolution of the Minister of Culture to establish the Morin Khuur Ensemble mentions market forces by stating in its fourth section that ‘the quality of artistic production and its financial activities are controlled by the head of the ensemble (Ts. Batchuluun) in accordance with needs and requirements of the market’ (Batchuluun 2007). As a part of the State Philharmonic Orchestra with a state budget and a small audience hall, it is difficult to see how the ensemble could realistically operate in accordance with ‘needs and requirements in the market’. As the manager points out:

We are not a profit-oriented organisation. We have an artistic approach which is distinct from commercial performances. Most of our works are dedicated to the artistic education of the audience. However, as the econ-omy is getting worse we have become interested in organising commer-cial concerts. Having a hall with 250 seats, it is impossible for us to make a profit. When composers produce their albums, they pay the musicians and give away some copies of CDs. The ensemble produced only one CD commercially. As CDs are not sold very well in Mongolia most of them were sold when we performed abroad. (J. Uugantuya, manager of the ensemble, interview, 5 May 2009)

9 http://www.sonin.mn/news/culture/8198


INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

There are three different groups within the State Philharmonic Orchestra; the Symphonic Orchestra, the Morin Khuur Ensemble and the Bayanmongol [Rich Mongolia] jazz ensemble. Each group has a distinct artistic policy. The artistic board of the Morin Khuur Ensemble consists of the artistic director, conduc-tors, manager and a class leader. Although it is the Board that makes decisions regarding new performances, artists may organise individual recitals, produce albums and make additional income. In these cases, artists should pay all the expenses for such new pieces themselves.

Recently, the ensemble arranged and performed several commercial con-certs. The recital called Novel Melody (performed December 2011) included Latin American and American repertoires by artists such as Astor Piazolla, George Gershwin, Michael Jackson, and Louis Armstrong. Jantsannorov, one of the founders of the ensemble, made a speech at the beginning of the concert:

. . . Apart from George Gershwin, most of the composers to be heard tonight have not been played in Mongolia before because of the previ-ous social system. The question is frequently asked why we played world classical music on national instruments. The Morin Khuur Ensemble has experimented for 20 years since it was established. This kind of experi-ence is not new. Jamyan, the well-known morin khuur player, played pieces by Shubert, Schumann and others in the 1960s. We do not aim at outperforming the symphonic orchestra as its instruments are perfectly adapted to its needs. . . . The morin khuur has less speed and impulse than the violin, cello and viola. This experiment is to seek out possibilities for Mongol instruments to play more complex international music. It was initiated by the musicians themselves rather than directed by the Board. (Jantsannorov, 2 December 2011)

The standardisation of the morin khuur and its juxtaposition to western stringed instruments—the violin, viola and cello—is taken for granted in this narrative. Moreover, the attempt to tie in with socialist practice of Jamyan, who contributed in modernisation of the instrument and establishment of the Morin Khuur Ensemble, represents that the performance somehow concludes the socialist concept of modernisation. The general acoustics and design of the morin khuur was ‘improved’ with European instrument-making techniques by a Russian specialist named Denis Vladimirovich Yarovoi, who was sent to Ulaanbaatar two or three times between 1966 and 1968 to conduct workshops for students in the department of musical instrument construction and repair at the Music & Dance College (Marsh 2009: 67). The morin khuur had always been compared with, and aligned to, the western cello, in particular. The

132 Tsetsentsolmon

INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

enhancement and upgrading of the instrument provided the means to play foreign pieces; largely from Russia and Eastern Europe during the socialist era, and from West Europe and America in the post-socialist era. It is interesting that Jantsannorov justifies the ‘experiment’ or ‘search’ to play ‘international’ pieces on ‘national’ instruments by linking these activities with practices from the socialist era. Furthermore, the interests of young musicians in playing pop-ular music are clearly apparent from their creative initiatives. Another popu-lar music project is a series of performances entitled ‘Playing Love—I, II, III’ in which pieces have been selected from the soundtracks of Mongolian and Hollywood films.

The popularisation and commercialisation of the ‘national’ musical ensem-bles involves not only the Morin Khuur Ensemble, but also other groups such as the State Ensemble of Folksong and Dance. For the 50th anniversary of the State Ensemble of Folksong and Dance a concert was organised by the State National Great Orchestra (Töriin ündesnii ikh nairal khögjim) on 25 August 2012. The State Orchestra was established by presidential decree as ‘the rep-resentative of the independence of the Mongolian Empire’, the ‘musical art of Mongolian statehood’ which represents a ‘transmission from the period of Hsiung-nu via the Mongolian Empire’, and is to be considered ‘the inspiration of the dignity of the state’. The concert was an ironic combination of ‘national’ and popular music, as indicated by its title ‘The Great Assembly of Rock and Pop Stars’ (Rock, pop oddyn Ikh Quriltai). The adoption of the name of the polit-ical and military council of the ‘Great Mongol Empire’, the Ikh Quriltai or Great Assembly, was intended to expressly and profoundly link the State National Orchestra with the history of the Hsiung-nu and Mongolian Empire by empha-sising ‘the tradition of 1000 years’ (myangan jiliin ulamjlal). At the same time, the ensemble performed both Mongolian and foreign popular music. Queen, Michael Jackson, and the Bee Gees were played during the concert with sub-titled videos in the background, much like a karaoke. Musicians interviewed on TV expressed their satisfaction at playing international music on national instruments, a challenge both for them and their instruments. For them, it was a chance to upgrade their skills as musicians as well as showcase the acoustic capabilities of their instruments.

These examples are indicative of the importance that has been attached to the popularisation of the State Ensemble and the need to enhance the contem-porary relevance of an iconic national instrument. The Morin Khuur Ensemble and the State Ensemble of Folksong and Dance claim a greater purity and authenticity of musical form; however, they are not immune to the processes of popularisation and nationalisation—that is, adaptation designed to meet


INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

perceived consumer demand on the one hand, and an explicit identification of their music with nationalist imagination on the other.

Altan UragAnother example of an attempt to bring western-inspired creative change to Mongolian ‘folk’ music, and to sell it on the market, is a folk-rock band named Altan Urag, who strikingly replaced the head of the morin khuur with an alien-head, electrified the instrument and named it the mangas khuur (the monster-headed fiddle). Bearing the name of the Great Emperor, Chinggis Khaan’s lineage, the band, whose performances particularly attract the youth by combining western-inspired rock timbre and rhythms with traditional ones, aims to introduce Mongolian ‘national music’ not only to a local, but to a global audience. Describing their music as ‘folk rock’, ‘ethno rock’ or ‘ethnic contem-porary’, they burst onto the music scene in 2004, wearing traditional costumes in black and long hair. In their first performances they used the alien-headed electric mangas khuur, with a heavy beat and a traditional rhythm of one eighth and two sixteenth, imitating the gait of a horse. Although inspired by European rock bands and artists such as the Finnish cello rock band Apocalyptica and the American heavy metal Slipknot, they sought to create and market a new musical voice that they feel is particularly well suited to the cultural and social landscape of their homeland.

According to Erdenebat, the leader and yochin [dulcimer] player of the band, in the process of exploring a new style of performance that combines rock and folk music, Altan Urag decided to find a way to change the timbre and image of the traditional instrument and considered having a snake-head, goat-head or monster-head carved on the top. When they introduced their ideas to Lhagvasuren Bavuu, State Prize Winner and People’s Writer, whom they call the ‘father’ of the band, he advised them not to use the head of a snake or goat because traditionally the former is cold-blooded and the latter cold-muzzled. Lhagvasuren was at the time director of the Puppet Theatre and supported the band with a free studio in the theatre. Lhagvasuren recommended choosing a monster-head, since there was an ancient Mongolian legend about a black monster called Inderma who plays a fiddle called the Inder müngün khuur [Tribunitial Silver Fiddle] in front of his Great Gate. Hence, he decided that it would not have been entirely outside tradition to have a monster-headed fiddle, because there might have been a historical tie, according to the legend (Erdenebat, interview, 3 May 2009).

Both Altan Urag and their consultant tried to link their new creation to accepted views of the ancient past, while at the same time cultivating a western

134 Tsetsentsolmon

INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

rock image. For Altan Urag, the monster-headed fiddle combines the evoca-tion of ‘national cultural identity’ with the global influence of western rock. In order to have the rock timbre and create a guitar-like sound, they introduced an electric pick-up for amplification. They had no wish to electrify all the instru-ments in this way, but selected only the monster-head fiddle, great fiddle, dulcimer and drum. They retained the original acoustic timbre of the morin khuur in the other fiddle and the bishgüür [traditional flute]. According to Erdenebat, they felt that they had to retain the basic pitches, melodic structures and timbre of these national forms, since they make use of ‘folk instruments’ and describe their work as ‘folk rock’. If all instruments become electronic, he claimed, the resulting sound would not constitute ‘folk music’ at all. The most important reason to save the original timbre of the morin khuur was, he said, to bring the ‘authentic energy’ and ‘sound of the traditional instrument’ to the audience. In performances, the electric and acoustic fiddles can be used as either solo instruments or in accompaniment. This stance is reminiscent of Marsh’s characterisation of Mongolian popular music:

. . . most say that Mongolian audiences prefer their artists to create uniquely Mongolian forms of these Western genres. For the artists, this means finding a stylistic balance between the two. As in the socialist era, songs about finding love and happiness have continued to draw upon traditional themes, such as love for one’s parents, the beauty of the Mongolian landscape, or the wonders of the Mongolian horse. (Marsh 2006: 134)

It has been noted that hip-hop culture and music has been skilfully appro-priated by young Mongolians and adapted to specific local conditions (Marsh 2006). In the same way, new forms and genres of Mongolian music are being developed through an uninterrupted creative link with the past.

Altan Urag express nationalistic sentiments in their repertoire, as well as attempts to preserve the ‘authenticity’ of morin khuur with the original timbre, rhythms and melodic structure. Almost half of the tracks in their two albums, The Birth of a Foal 10 and Made in Altan Urag have themes with nationalis-tic sentiments like Native Mongolia, the People of Mongolia, Great Mongolia, Mother Mongolia, Blue Mark11 and Abroad. Moreover, they arrange melodies of folk songs as well as tatlaga [arrangements performed on the morin khuur

10 All titles of albums and tracks in English are adopted from CD covers of Altan Urag.11 This title appears to refer to the ‘Mongolian Blue Spot’ on newly born infants, using the

term as a national sign or symbol, since the Mongols are referred to as ‘The Blue Marked’.


INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

illustrating legendary themes]. The ‘uniqueness’ of Mongolian forms of west-ern rock is seen not only in the themes of Altan Urag’s performances, but in the images, symbols, acoustic characteristics and expressions they use, which are based on old pitches, rhythms and the timbre of the instrument.

Altan Urag is a freelance group whose main source of income is perform-ing in pubs and restaurants. They have earned a livelihood for several years by performing weekly at Ikh Mongol pub and Mongolians’ restaurant, which are known for their ‘Mongol’ food, ‘Mongol’ interior and Chinggis beer and haunted mostly by tourists. Although Erdenebat claims that the band is con-cerned with creativity rather than commercial success, their CDs have been in the top ten best sellers in the album chart of Hi-Fi Records, the biggest CD store in Ulaanbaatar, for two years. Altan Urag prices their albums at US$5–10 each, and Erdenebat is highly critical of other folk bands who sell their amateurish albums for US$20, the same sort of prices as those charged for albums by inter-national stars such as Michael Jackson and Beyonce. Altan Urag’s strategy has been to avoid the niche ‘folk music’ market and instead target the wider popu-lar and youth culture consumers. Altan Urag launched contracts for interna-tional production for music of Mongol: The Rise to Power of Chinggis Khaan, a 2007 Russian film directed by Sergei Bodrov which earned $26,527,51012 in gross revenue through international releases. Recently, Altan Urag succeeded their ‘second Hollywood licensing deal’13 for a Netflix’s 10-part TV drama “Marco Polo” launched 12 December, 2014, where a Mongolian actor starred. Despite their commercial success, however, the band sees its work as promoting ‘folk music’, rather than western rock or pop, among the Mongolian youth. The case of Altan Urag, a commercially and artistically successful freelance group, then, is an example of both the nationalist orientation and the successful populari-sation of Mongolian ‘folk’ music in the post-socialist era.

In the last decade several other groups have appeared, who attempt to com-bine traditional music with Western style. They are Domog [Legend], Jonon [Viceroy of the Mongol Emperor], Khüsügtün [Those with a Cart], Arga Bileg [Yin and Yang] and Börte, Tenger Ayalguu [Heavenly Melody], who have pro-claimed themselves to represent ‘ethno jazz’, or ‘ethnic ballad’. Some of the groups differ from Altan Urag in their sources of income. The members of Khüsügtün work for the National Song and Dance Ensemble, Arga Bileg for the State Morin Khuur Ensemble and Tenger Ayalguu for the State University of Culture and Arts. A project to promote folk art in public was initiated by D. Sosorbaram, an actor, State Prize Winner and Honoured Artist. Sosorbaram

12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_%28film%29 13 http://www.altanurag.mn/#/news/

136 Tsetsentsolmon

INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

is a representative of the post-socialist cultural elite who presented himself as an activist for the democratic movement and the Conference of Young Creative Artists on 2–3 December 1989. He set up a socialist Ard Cinema during the pri-vatisation wave after the 1990s and established a one-man theatre named after R. Choinom. Sosorbaram won the State Prize from President Elbegdorj in 2010, for playing the role of Chinggis Khaan in Atga Nöj [A Blood Clot] and pro-ducing the Ülemjiin Chanar [Extraordinary Qualities] album.14 After playing the role of Danzanravjaa in the film Dogshin Khutugtyn Sakhius [The Deity of Dogshin Khutugtu] in 1998, Sosorbaram continued his role in public for a while, singing the song of Ülemjiin Chanar. He has appeared in traditional cos-tumes in public for the last couple of years. Just before the traditional New Year Celebration, Tsagaan Sar, Sosorbaram organised a concert called Mongol with five folk music bands (Altan Urag, Arga Bileg, Domog, Jonong, and Khüsügtün) under the auspices of the President in 2012. Later, in 2013, two other bands, Börte and Tenger Ayalguu, joined in a concert entitled Mongol Tögsöshgui [The Age-Long Mongol]. According to a volunteer manager of Altan Urag, O. Enkhmandakh (pers. comm., 10 March 2013), all the technical equipment including microphones was provided and each member of the five bands was paid 500,000 tükrüks (approximately US$353) in 2012. For the 2013 recital, all of the bands received new stage costumes. A DVD of the concert is planned to be produced. An ethnic DVD entitled Mongol is sold for 39,000 tükrüks (US$28) and Blue Ray for 49,000 tükrüks (US$35), Enkhmandakh says.

Sosorbaram promoted the folk band Domog to win the title ‘Absolute World Champion of Folklore’ at the Third World Championship ‘World Folk 2013’ which was held 22 August—1 September in Austria. He received the ‘Golden Orpheus’ award, a diploma for Maestro and a symbolic cheque for 1000 Euro15 from the Director of the Championship and Chairman of the World Association of Folklore Festivals (WAFF), Kaloyan Nikolov.

We have seen that ‘national’ or ‘folk’ music produced under state socialism has undergone a process that could be described as re-nationalisation. During the transition to a market economy, musical culture has been commercialised and popularised. Altan Urag, and other folk music groups, attempt to incor-porate elements drawn from the reprocessed national/folk genre into ‘inter-national’ rock/pop forms and to generate new forms of musical synthesis for national and international consumption.

14 http://www.president.mn/mongolian/node/1353 15 http://www.eaff.eu/en/news/2013-09-01-the-folklore-ensemble-domog-from-ulan-

bator-mongolia-won-the-title-absolute-world-champio


INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

Conclusion

‘Folk music’ emerged as an explicitly ‘national’ musical tradition as a result of a series of policies implemented by the MPR state. During the socialist era, policies of musical nationalisation and modernisation reflected the slogan ‘national in form and socialist in content’. Since the construction of Mongolian ‘national folk’ music in the 1930s–1950s, the genre has been considered essen-tially ‘traditional’. Soviet-style socialist cultural policy heavily influenced both state and public understandings of what ‘national music’ was and should be in post-socialist Mongolia. Fearing the loss of their unique cultural identity, many Mongolians sought to ‘reconnect’ contemporary culture with images of the ancient or pre-Revolutionary past, in particular with the Hsiung-nu and Chinggisid Empires.

In the free market economy the music sector has been commercialised, but it is still politically charged. While music is produced and distributed in a profit-driven industry motivated by economic interests, we also see more explicit political musical projects of cultural promotion. None of these is more striking than the active popularisation of self-consciously ‘national’ musical forms by both state and freelance ensembles. This reflects the dominant position that the nationalist imagery now holds in contemporary Mongolian political cul-ture and the way in which the post-socialist state has promoted campaigns of ‘national cultural revival’. The notion of ‘the national’ was central to musi-cal production in both the state-socialist and the post-socialist eras; however, its current place in popular culture has changed in important ways. In Soviet ideology the national character of music was seen as a vehicle for the delivery of the political agenda of socialism. In post-socialist Mongolia, it is a national-ist celebration that has become the message to be delivered by new musical creations. In short, we can regard musical culture in post-socialist Mongolia as the continuation, transformation and, in some cases, the amplification of the state-socialist culture-building process so as to become nationalist in form and commercial in content.

References

Akim, G. 1990. Bichig mini—Qüleg mini [Script of mine—steed of mine]. Utga zohiol, urlag newspaper 9/2: 4. Ulaanbaatar: State Publishing.

Atwood, C. 2004. Encyclopaedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire. New York: Facts on File Inc.

138 Tsetsentsolmon

INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

Badraa, J. 1998. Mongol ardyn khögjim [Mongolian Folk Music]. Ulaanbaatar: T&U Printing.

Batchuluun, Ts. (ed.). 2007. Crescendo. Dedicated for 15th Anniversary of the Morin Khuur Ensemble. Ulaanbaatar: Admon Press Publishing.

――― 2012. Manai quulga shine ündsen khuulitai nas qacuu yum [Our Ensemble Is as Old as a New Constitution]. Interview by B.Gunj Ganzam online newspaper retrived at http://www.sonin.mn/news/culture/8198.

Bulag, U.E. 2010. Collaborative Nationalism. The Politics of Friendship on China’s Mongolian Frontier. Lanham (MD): Rowman & Littlefield.

Campi, A.J. 2006. Globalization’s Impact on Mongolian Identity Issues and the Image of Chinggis Khaan. In Henry G. Schwarz (ed.) Mongolian Culture and Society in the Age of Globalization. Studies on East Asia Vol. 26: 67–99. Bellingham: Western Washington University.

Cendorž, G. 1983. BNMAU-yn mergejliin khögjmiin khamtlaguud üüsch khögjsön n’ [Establishing and Developing Professional Musical Groups in the MPR]. Ulaanbaatar: State Publishing.

Chuluunbat, Ts. 1973. Sain duryn uran saikhanchdad tuslamj [Assistance to Amateur Artists]. Ulaanbaatar: State Publishing.

Chuluunbaatar, L. 1990. Mongol bichgee yah ve? [What Shall We Do to Our Mongolian Script?] Utga zohiol, urlag newspaper 9/2: 4. Ulaanbaatar: State Publishing.

Dashdavaa, Ch. 1989. BNMAU dahi soyolyn khuvisgal: Tüühen turshlaga, orchin üyiin asuudal [Cultural Revolution in MPR: Historical Experiences and Modern Issues]. Ulaanbaatar: State Publishing.

Gaadamba, Sh. 1992. ‘Sergeeh’, ‘ustgahyn’ tuhaid setgel tügshüürleh uchir [Reasons to Worry about ‘Revival’ and ‘Destruction’]. Ünen newspaper. 5/8. No. 83 [18116]: 2. Ulaanbaatar: State Publishing.

Højer, L. 2009. Absent power: magic and loss in Post-Socialist Mongolia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 15: 575–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9655.2009.01574.x.

Humphrey, C. 1992. The moral authority of the past in post-socialist Mongolia. Religion, State and Society 20: 375–89.

Jantsannorov, N. 2007. Mongol khögjmiin arvan hoyor khörög [The Twelve Portraits of Mongolian Music (Sonata Allegro)]. Ulaanbaatar: Admon Press Publishing.

Kaplonski, C. 2005. The Case of the Disappearing Chinggis Khaan: Dismembering the Remembering Ab Imperio 4: 147–73.

Lapasha, R. 2004. Amateurs and enthusiasts: folk music and the Soviet state on stage in the 1930s, in N. Edmunds (ed.), Soviet Music and Society under Lenin and Stalin: The Baton and Sickle: 123–148. Abingdon: RoutledgeCurzon.

Lubsangdendev, A. 1991. Anglichuud, germanchuud, ispanichuud öörsdöö üseg bichig zohiogoogui [Neither the English, the German nor the Spanish created their


INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

scripts]. Bodlyn solbitsol newspaper. 3/8. No.3 [17932, 17933]: 6. Ulaanbaatar: State Publishing.

Lubsangjab, Choi. 1992. Minii mör, nomyn mör [My path is the academic path]. Bagsh newspaper. 1–10/11: 2. Ulaanbaatar: Sonin Company.

Marsh, P.K. 2006. Global hip-hop and youth cultural politics in urban Mongolia, in H.G. Schwarz (ed.), Mongolian Culture and Society in the Age of Globalization: 127–60. (Studies on East Asia 26.) Bellingham (WA): Center for East Asian Studies, Western Washington University.

――― 2009. The Horse-headed Fiddle and the Cosmopolitan Reimagination of Tradition of Mongolia. New York (NY): Routledge.

Martin, T. 2001. The Affirmative Action of Empire. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press.Mend-Ooyo, G. 1990. Songodog ulamjlalaa üguilseer [Missing classic tradition]. Utga

zohiol, urlag newspaper 9/2: 4. Ulaanbaatar: State Publishing Company.Mendoz, Z.S. 1998. Defining folklore: Mestizo and indigenous identities on the move.

Bulletin of Latin American Research 17(2): 165–83.Munkh-Erdene, L. 2008. Commemoration of Chinggis Khaan. Human Culture Bulletin

24: 35–46. School of Human Cultures, University of Shiga Prefecture.――― 2012. Mongolia’s post-socialist transition: a great neoliberal transformation, in

B.M. Knauft & R. Taupier (eds.), Mongolians after Socialism: Politics, Economy, and Religion: 61–6. Ulaanbaatar: Admon Press Publishing.

Natsagdorj, Sh. 1986. BNMAU-yn Soyolyn Tüükh [Cultural History of the MPR] Vol. 1: 48. Ulaanbaatar: State Publishing.

Nercessian, A. 2004. National identity, cultural policy and the Soviet Folk Ensemble in Armenia, in N. Edmunds (ed.), Soviet Music and Society under Lenin and Stalin: The Baton and Sickle: 148–63. Abingdon: RoutledgeCurzon.

Nyambuu, H. 1992. Mongolyn ugsaatny züin udirtgal [Introduction to Mongolian Ethnography]. Ulaanbaatar: Publishing for Children’s books.

Pegg, C. 2001. Mongolian Music, Dance, and Oral Narrative: Performing Diverse Identities: 169–235. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Rouland, M. 2004. A Nation on Stage: Music and the 1936 Festival of Kazak Arts, in N. Edmunds (ed.), Soviet Music and Society under Lenin and Stalin: The Baton and Sickle: 181–209. Abingdon: RoutledgeCurzon.

Shimamura, I. 2012. Chinggis Khaan khenii baatar ve? [Whose hero is Chinggis Khaan]. Ulaanbaatar: Admon Press Publishing.

Shirendev, B. & Sanjdorj, M. 1969. BNMAU-yn tüükh [History of the MPR] Vol. 3: 51–2; 51; 681. Ulaanbaatar: State Publishing.

Sneath, D. 2010. Constructing socialist and post-socialist identities in Mongolia, in B.M. Knauft & R. Taupier (eds.), Mongolians after Socialism: Politics, Economy, and Religion: 147–64. Ulaanbaatar: Admon Press Publishing.

140 Tsetsentsolmon

INNER ASIA 17 (2015) 118–140

State Committee for Planning and Economics. 1989. Economic and Social Development of the MPR in 1988 (statistic compilation). Ulaanbaatar.

The MPR’s Economy in 65 years [BNMAU-yn uls ardyn aj ahui 65 jild]. 1966. Ulaanbaatar: State Publishing Company

Tsendjav, D. 1992. Dalaig qölööröö tuuldaggui yum [You cannot cross an ocean on foot]. Bodlyn Solbitsol newspaper. 22–28/2. No. 6 [28]: 4. Ulaanbaatar: State Publishing.

Tsetsentsolmon, B. 2012. To Share or not to Share: Intra-Mongol Dispute over “Intangible Cultural Heritage” paper presented at the OTASIE Mongolian Space and Heritage Conference. May 7–13, Paris, France.

――― 2014. The ‘Gong Beat’ against the ‘Uncultured’: Contested Notions of Culture and Civilization in Mongolia. Asian Ethnicity 15, 4: 422–438. London: Routledge.

Yundenbat, S. (ed.). 2011. Important Intangible Cultural Heritage of the Mongols. Ulaanbaatar: Munkhiin Useg LLC.

Zagdsüren, U. & D. Tsend (eds.). 1967. MAHN-aas urlag utga zohiolyn talaar gargasan togtool SHIIDVERÜÜD (1921–1966) [Resolutions and Decrees on Art and Literature Issued by People’s Revolutionary Party (1921–1966)]. Ulaanbaatar: Publishing of Academy of Sciences.

Music in Cultural Constuction: Nationalisation, Popularisation and Commercialisation of Mongolian Music

Documents