What is World Music?

To understand ‘world music’ is it is important to understand the difference between the terms 'local' and 'global' in terms of their relevance to music.

'Local' could mean, undiscovered and authentic, whereas 'Global' could mean trans-national products, recieving what Frith, Straw and Street describe as global media attention. When we think of ‘global’ music we think of major stadium bands like U2, we certainly don't think of "world music" - generally unfamiliar styles which go against the anglo-american.

This could be because of the cultural imperialism enforced by UK and USA artists, who generally gain"high market penetration" (Shuker 2002 pg 70) in all foreign nations, but who's charts are devoid of imported music.

‘World music’ may never meet the criteria to make it saleable worldwide but can still be appreciated through ease of recording music which make genres (that may never be heard live) available for sale worldwide.

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

The dictionary defines art as "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."

Using this as a basis, it is arguable that popular music is art, but only in some instances. There are certain mercenary aspects, the X Factor, for example, in its yearly creation of generic pop. However, raw talent and inspiration can still be found.

Though artists may still use their art to make money, their music is (as Bernard Gendron claims) the text, the universal and the copies they has no effect on the art which was originally created.

Taking the part of the definition which claimed art has "more than ordinary significance," this is essential to the nature of pop music, no-one could argue that people like Elvis and The Beatles were not significant in the development of culture in modern society.

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

The ideas expressed within Peterson's article are effective in explaining the emergence of rock and roll. In particular his use of, what he calls, the six key factors do go some way to explaining this key development in popular music

However, while the changes in law, technology and the industry do explain how it was possible for rock and roll to emerge, they do not explain why.

The rock and roll genre is a complex mix of the genres of the time and the reason this mix became popular is not explained by this perspective, neither can it explain why it has had such an effect on all subsequent musical genres. Also, while Peterson discusses ideas of Showmen and Entrepreneurs, I feel more needs to be looked at performers such as Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis as this perspective overlooks their ability to make classic pop and capture cultural feeling.

Is it Reasonable to Consider that Rock Music is Gendered Male?

Rock is dominated by male performers, In the Rolling Stone 100 greatest guitarists , 98 are male. Bayton claims, "women performers have been more prominent in commercial pop and 'folk.’"

This could be because, as Bayton observed, because women are ostracized in magazines and guitar shops. Also, the electric guitar - a staple of rock, is considered a 'masculine' instrument and one that girls may avoid due to their cultural socialisation. Similarly Rock lyrics typically are what Frith and McRobbie describe as an "aggressive expression of male sexuality," Something that women may not be able to relate to.

However, Greig notices that female performers have developed different styles in order to express feminine issues. Kurt Cobain claimed in a 1993 interview that "The future of rock belongs to women," and when we observe strong female rock stars like Courtney Love and Janis Joplin it is fair to assume that this could be true.