What is world music?

In my opinion ‘World Music’ describes a type of music genre which ‘belongs’ to a certain country or its origin of where the music started. For example Ireland with Irish folk music, and further a field to Aboriginal music in Australia. If you were to categorize these genre as a whole you would class them ‘World Music’ and you tend to take these genres of music exclusive to their part of the world.

However the modern day term can be used in a less forgiving way.

Take HMV for example they would include music from all different genres around the world in their store. Therefore there is going to be genres that do not sell as well as other genres from places such as America and England.

HMV decide to place these genres all together in a ‘World Music’ category so they condense and allow more space for popular music.

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

Art: "The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power"

When applying this definition to popular music it is not an art form.

The majority of “artists” of popular music don’t write the meaningful lyrics, come up with the dances routines (if applicable) or the riffs to the music.

The only creative skill of art to the performances is their ability to stand on stage and deliver the lyrics to the audience. Their songs have been created for them. They are merely part of the product of the song.

I believe when the performer creates the lyrics, choreography and music it is then to be classed as art.
This is rare to happen, which confirms the genuine art form because of it being so rare to witness.

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

Numerous facts and myths have explained the birth of rock and roll during the 1950s.
In particular Richard Peterson’s discussion explains how the economy, cultural and social, and technology factors produced the platform for the birth of something new.

His discussion has strengths and weaknesses due to certain parts not being addressed. For instance his technology factors do not go into the development of the electric guitar of amplification.

He does not go on to explain why rock and roll was successful.
There was not just rock and roll during the 50s. Jazz, blues and hillbilly emerged during this time. This gives the question. Why weren’t these genres the something new?

In my opinion Peterson’s discussion effectively explains how rock and roll became the something new.
However the discussion would improve if there was reasons addressing why it was successful.

Perhaps he wasn’t interested in the music he was addressing.

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

Rock music you listen to is dominated with males. However on the rare occasions you hear a band which includes a female. All these occasions the female included is the the lead singer, or other cases backing singers. When you hear a band consisting of females playing the instruments you tend to take it on board as a novelty or gimmick.

This is due to a number of reasons; Instruments tend to be associated with genders. For instance the guitar associated with males, and a flute or piano associated with females. This happens because its the way we are brought up into society.

“lead guitarists are made, not born. The reason for women’s absence are entirely social” (Bayton, 1997)

Females are simply not brought up to be playing the electric guitar, whereas males are. If females pick up the guitar they’re known as “One of the Boys” and not taking seriously.