What is world music, and why do we have such a category?

World music as a genre is quite interesting in the fact that it contains music that often has little musical similarity, but it is sold to us in the same category. When we speak of Global Music, we talk of music that is sold all over the world, heavily marketed, and is often anglo-american in language, the “accepted standard global template”.

World music is often traditional indigenous local music from around the world, which has been marketed to us as world music; in other words it is music of non anglo-american language, it is music that doesn't fit into any of the other categories.

The cultural imperialist theory discusses the idea that multinational companies will 'buy up' many of these small indigenous musicians in an attempt to continue their monopoly on the sector. It could be said that world music has emerged because of this monopolisation.

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

Marxist theorist Theodor Adorno discusses the concept of popular music as “mass produced, inferior commodity”. He also discusses the role of “standardisation” within popular music, through “part interchangeability” and “pseudo individuality”. A good example of this would be the way in which TV programmes like 'The X Factor' “churn” out music, which in many cases is often something which has previously been released within a relatively short timeframe. The music in some cases sounds almost no different to the original material.

One way in which popular music cannot be considered mass produced is through its consumption, unlike other 'commodities' we don't consume popular music in quite the same way, we don't buy the same track repeatedly but we do buy similar music or material by similar artists.

It is difficult to state whether it is one or the other but sometimes it does sway towards Adorno's argument.

How useful is a production of cultural perspective in understanding the birth of rock and roll?

Looking at Peterson's cultural perspective “Why 1955?” he discusses six elements which came together in what some believe to be the birth of rock and roll. His work also dismisses some common myths attributed to the rise of rock and roll, the impact of the post war baby boom or that it was sparked by artists; but it fails to consider many other significant social factors, and why in particular it was rock and roll that was born.

One of the major factors Peterson does not discuss is sex, the term 'rock and roll' is a synonym for sex and a relaxing social attitude towards sex in the 50s amongst teenagers surely must have had an impact.

He does discuss the technologies involved in distributing the music but does not consider those such as the microphone and amplifier, without which any of this movement would be possible.

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

With men far outnumbering women as rock performers and musicians it is easy to consider the idea that rock is male orientated. In a Rolling Stones magazine list of the top 100 guitarists only 2 female guitarists made it into the list, and were placed no higher than 72. There is no physical reason why a woman cannot play the guitar as well as or better than a man, it therefore cannot be due to an apparent lack of talent and Bayton discusses the idea that “female absence is entirely social”.

Female guitarists are often seen playing acoustic guitars, this could be due to the “encoded phallocentric message” attached to the electric guitar, where the guitar is held low down suggesting the guitar is an extension of the mans penis (Bayton). With this in mind it is very reasonable to consider the idea that rock is gendered male.