what is world music?

To understand what world music is we should look at ‘local’ and ‘global’ music. It seems that both ‘local’ and ‘global’ music depend on their market. Frith explains how local music comes with ‘multinationals investing in local talent so as to thoroughly exploit local markets’. Where as ‘global’ music is explained to be ‘the expansion of major labels into an increasing number of world markets’.

However these two concepts can blur when we look to define world music. World music I think is music in every language and from every country. It’s a genre of music that reflects different popular cultures. This does however make it ‘local’ yet draws it further away from ‘global’ due to the lack of media and entertainment corporations trying to market the product.

It seems that it’s the only genre of music that doesn’t feel the need to buckle under the pressure of technology and media corporations.

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

‘Art is the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance’ (oxford dictionary). This would suggest that popular music is an art form. Popular music is, of more than ordinary significance, otherwise it would not be ‘popular’ music. Behind pop music and sometimes on the front line there are genuine creative people who get lost in the unfortunate illusion that pop music isn’t an art form.

However Adrono would argue that ‘The popular music industry is an all consuming production line’. The industry has one purpose and that is to churn out the next big thing make money and drop it as soon as the next fad comes along.

It seems like the creative minds of artists such as Dylan, Ian Curtis and Elvis have been replaced with money-making robots such as JLS created by pop mogul Simon Cowell.

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

As a theory it works well in explaining how economic, cultural and social factors produce a platform for something new. Peterson discusses how technology plays a huge role by looking at the Transistor and Vinyl. However the theory crumbles when it doesn’t go further than this. It doesn’t look at other and arguably more relevant technology such as the base guitar and amp.

It seems that this theory has one massive floor. It doesn’t take into account the music. It shows how a platform was built for something new but doesn’t explain why this new fad was Rock ‘n’ Roll. Therefore it is hard to understand how Peterson’s theory improves our understanding of its birth.

For me it is hard to accept a theory to do with music which in fact have very little to do with the music itself. Why wasn’t there a Jazz boom with Miles Davis instead of Elvis and Rock ‘n’ roll??

Is it reasonable to consider that rock music is gendered male?

'Rolling Stone' magazine produced a list of the top 50 guitarists of all time, none of which are female. Bayton explains how "Lead guitarists are made,not born. The reason for women's absence are entirely social".

Bayton also goes on to explain how 'femininity involves a socially manufactured physical, mechanical and technical helplessness'. So therefore rock music is male gendered due to socially manufactured labels that stick to the classic male/female stereotypes. It seems that the electric guitar is an extension of the male body and this is due to labels society produces which are exclusive to men. If women do use an electric guitar it is seen in more of a gimmick and becomes far more mainstream, for example Avril Lavine.

Unfortunately this has a knock on effect with fans who more or less conform to the stereotype. "male fans buy a guitar, female fans buy a poster"(Bayton)