What is world music?

Firstly we’re given local music which can be native to its country of origin or a representation of the culture in which it is produced. Or Global music, a phenomenon that sees the likes of Michael Jackson being sold as a trans-national product but can also manifest itself as local/indigenous music being bought up by major music labels who then market it globally. From globalisation we are given the idea of cultural imperialism- that dominant states will enforce their culture onto dependent nations meaning that Anglo-American pop music becomes established as the accepted global music ‘blueprint’. The introduction of global music to dependent states traditionally focused on local music has been argued to cause the phasing out of indigenous music however case studies have proved that musical ‘cloning’ is not happening but rather both global and local sounds are being amalgamated into a new type of world music that transcends nationality.

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

What is art? Whatever definition you find, ask yourself, does popular music fit into this classification? Some will argue that popular music is an all consuming production line that churns out mass produced inferior commodities and that it is inherently standardised. Popular music is subject to part interchangeability and pseudo-individualisation; these both streamline production costs and create an illusion of uniqueness. Many pop songs will use music and even lyrics from previous songs; this will then be marketed and labelled as a completely different product thus generating new income. However the counterargument says that not only do we consume music in a completely unique way and that interpretation will alter between individuals but also that you must separate the text (the music/art) from the particular (the CD). The particular can be reproduced a million times however the music cannot, it will differ between recording sessions or vocalists etc.

How useful is Petersons 'production of culture

The production of culture perspective, devised by Richard Peterson, is not only useful in dispelling any myths as to the origins of Rock and Roll; but also gives us several socio-economic factors he attributes to the birth of the genre. Whilst these are helpful in understanding the context in which we were given Rock and Roll, Peterson maintains that we can’t properly understand it unless we ‘analyse it in the context in which it was produced’ and so he solely concentrates on these socio-economic factors and doesn’t once address the music. Why Rock and Roll? What is so special about this type of music that made it stand out from all the others? Here Peterson’s theory lets us down and it becomes unclear as to the reasons behind the birth of a genre that changed music forever. Rock and Roll becomes a socially constructed commodity rather than a musical revolution.

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

In a 2003 poll showing the top 100 greatest guitarists of all time one thing notable was the lack of women making the list. This could be down to a whole number of reasons, one of which being that traditionally rock music (of which the phallocentric electric guitar is a primary element) has particularly masculine connotations with its lyrical content and its technical acuteness; however these restraints are socially constructed rather than born out of biological constraints. The genre is also heavily male dominated with any successful women like Janis Joplin, for instance, usually having to give up their femininity in order to be accepted. Even the adopting of supposed femininity by rock bands with hair perms and eyeliner is still a seduction technique used to seduce the female and control her desire. Rock is also inherently sexual; however the misogynistic tone is more about control rather than sexual expression.