What is World Music?

Word music is generally viewed as indigenous music, or music that uses the sounds or instrumentation of indigenous people as opposed to Anglo-American music. The transmission of products from dominant nations creates a kind of cultural imperialism were the views, ideas and practices of the origin are endorsed (Shuker, 2002). It could be for this reason that the term world music has emerged, people trying to retain their original culture as Anglo-American culture is imported. However the term world music is quite ridiculous as all music is from the world, and it only seems to be given to music that can’t be categorised easily. For example Celine Dion’s music which is sung in French is still considered to be a pop music and not world music.  The label ‘World Music’ could simply be a way for the record companies to categorise and market music that would otherwise be hard to sell.

Blog 5 – Is popular music a mass produced commodity or a genuine art form?

Adorno (1941) said “The popular music industry is an all consuming production line that churns out mass produced, inferior commodities”. He also talked about part inter-changeability and a pseudo individualization of popular music. 

We can definitely see this in cover versions however this does not always detract from the art and it completely depends on the artist. An example is the song hallelujah – by Leonard Cohen. "Cohen murmured the original like a dirge” and in 1993 it was covered by Jeff Buckley who used John Cale’s arrangement. Buckley’s version has been described as "as near to perfect as music can get".

In 2008 it was covered by x factor winner Alexandra Burke who broke sales records with her cover which in my opinion was rubbish and had all emotion removed. This is an example of one popular song being art and being a money making commodity.

So to conclude, Pop music can be art, but it can also be mass produced rubbish!

How useful is a production of culture perspective in understanding the birth of Rock ‘n’ Roll

In his production of culture perspective Peterson (1990) looked to explain the emergence of rock ‘n’ roll in 1955. He looks at how law, technology, industry structures, organisational structures, occupational career and market impacted the breakthrough of rock ‘n’ roll.

One major flaw in Peterson’s discussion is that he fails to recognise why it was rock ‘n’ roll that broke through. It could have been any genre of music that emerged in 1955. Also he mentions technology but only concentrates on consumption rather than production, he ignores the technology that made rock ‘n’ roll sound the way it did, be it the electric guitar, amplification etc.

I feel Peterson’s production of culture perspective gives a good outline of the reasons there was space for a new genre to break through. However his exclusion of why it was rock ‘n’ roll weakens it slightly.

Is it reasonable to consider rock music gendered male?

In Rolling Stone magazine’s list of the top 100 guitarists of all time only two women appear, and in the top 50 there are no women at all. Why is this? There are no predetermined laws that say men are better guitarists than women. Bayton (1997) said “lead guitarists are made, not born. The reasons for women’s absence are entirely social”. So the issue becomes more about gender stereotypes.

Within music women are more often vocalists than instrumentalists and this may be because certain instruments have masculinity associated with them such as the electric guitar. For women to become rockers it is necessary for them to become one of the boys.

I feel that rock music is definitely gendered male, from the often derogatory lyrics to the euphemistic uses of the guitar. One quote that sums it up is “male fans buy a guitar, female fans buy a poster”.