Music is classified into many genres (rock, pop, rap, etc.) and subgenres (classic rock, heavy metal, hiphop, soul, etc.). It has worked mainly to classify different tastes and musical movements. Recently, however, the upper echelon of the Western music industries have come up with a fancy term for anything else that doesn't fall into these categories: "world music," an umbrella phrase that shrouds Arabic, Latin, Hindi, Greek, Carribean, and other genres (sorry if I left anyone out, but I just included these for the sake of example).
The phrase "World music" is the biggest crock of BS I have ever come across as one who has a taste in a variety of musical genres (albeit admittedly over a limited scope of artists). It is a demeaning and racist term used to shove aside any and all interest in a wider spectrum of musical tastes, regardless of whether or not they conform to some standard of musical creation, such as classical or baroque music, or some form of diction like in rap... and are they supposed to?
There are genres and subgenres in "world" music as well. For example, you have Salsa, Merengue, Mambo, and others in Latin music, as well as Khaliji, Lebanese, Egyptian, and others in Arabic music. They are all different in their own respects, and to put them all in the same genre defies any sort of commonsense, and doesn't allow us to appreciate each one within its own sphere of creation and art. A true musical conoisseur, in my opinion, would not consider any such classification one that would allow eclecticism in taste. Neither does the term itself allow for any such innovation or genre from outside the Western music scene to pop into the world music market (i.e. the one that everyone can buy off the internet or in music stores worldwide).
I think Scottish-American musician David Byrne said it best in his October 3, 1999, New York Times article titled "I Hate World Music". He states, in his article, that "World Music"
Which brings us to the more spiritual aspects of rejecting music from around the world and other genres. David Byrne mentions that
After a discussion with one of my friends on the issue, however, I have also come to realize why the term was brought about: it is a "relative" term. If I was in Central or South America, I would be going to stores buying off not just Latin music, but Merengue, Salsa, Mambo, Reggaeton, Latin pop, etc. "World" music would be everything else, including Western music. One can only argue that given the Western hegemony over much of the musical and entertainment industries, the term "world" music is more used to define every other genre that doesn't make much sale on the market. Reggae and Latin were lucky, apparently. One will not find tribal music of another country or another place to give that vibe. Even worse is that some musicians from around the world are trying to conform to those standards by "sanitizing" their music for Western consumption, one that detracts from the original musical atmosphere.
Regardless, I will take Mr. Byrne's stance and never agree to the term "world" music. And you shouldn't, either. I can understand that people grow in different cultures and places and that they grow accustomed - perhaps too accustomed - to the genres of music present in the local market, but given the power music can have over us in understanding each other and "other" cultures, I don't think we should just shove aside African tribal music and Japanese pop music into the same melting pot now.
But what do you think? Do you think "world" music is an appropriate term? Or do you think that it's okay to shove aside any music that doesn't conform to your illusion of what you consider to be "true music"?
Salaam, from Saracen
The phrase "World music" is the biggest crock of BS I have ever come across as one who has a taste in a variety of musical genres (albeit admittedly over a limited scope of artists). It is a demeaning and racist term used to shove aside any and all interest in a wider spectrum of musical tastes, regardless of whether or not they conform to some standard of musical creation, such as classical or baroque music, or some form of diction like in rap... and are they supposed to?
There are genres and subgenres in "world" music as well. For example, you have Salsa, Merengue, Mambo, and others in Latin music, as well as Khaliji, Lebanese, Egyptian, and others in Arabic music. They are all different in their own respects, and to put them all in the same genre defies any sort of commonsense, and doesn't allow us to appreciate each one within its own sphere of creation and art. A true musical conoisseur, in my opinion, would not consider any such classification one that would allow eclecticism in taste. Neither does the term itself allow for any such innovation or genre from outside the Western music scene to pop into the world music market (i.e. the one that everyone can buy off the internet or in music stores worldwide).
I think Scottish-American musician David Byrne said it best in his October 3, 1999, New York Times article titled "I Hate World Music". He states, in his article, that "World Music"
is a catchall that commonly refers to non-Western music of any and all sorts, popular music, traditional music and even classical music. It’s a marketing as well as a pseudomusical term — and a name for a bin in the record store signifying stuff that doesn’t belong anywhere else in the store. What’s in that bin ranges from the most blatantly commercial music produced by a country, like Hindi film music (the singer Asha Bhosle being the best well known example), to the ultra-sophisticated, super-cosmopolitan art-pop of Brazil (Caetano Veloso, Tom Zé, Carlinhos Brown); from the somewhat bizarre and surreal concept of a former Bulgarian state-run folkloric choir being arranged by classically trained, Soviet-era composers (Le Mystére des Voix Bulgares) to Norteño songs from Texas and northern Mexico glorifying the exploits of drug dealers (Los Tigres del Norte). Albums by Selena, Ricky Martin and Los Del Rio (the Macarena kings), artists who sell millions of records in the United States alone, are racked next to field recordings of Thai hill tribes. Equating apples and oranges indeed. So, from a purely democratic standpoint, one in which all music is equal, regardless of sales and slickness of production, this is a musical utopia.Sounds good and all, but his strongest point, and I think the focal point of his piece, is that
is a way of dismissing artists or their music as irrelevant to one’s own life. It’s a way of relegating this “thing” into the realm of something exotic and therefore cute, weird but safe, because exotica is beautiful but irrelevant; they are, by definition, not like us. Maybe that’s why I hate the term. It groups everything and anything that isn’t “us” into “them.” This grouping is a convenient way of not seeing a band or artist as a creative individual, albeit from a culture somewhat different from that seen on American television. It’s a label for anything at all that is not sung in English or anything that doesn’t fit into the Anglo-Western pop universe this year. (So Ricky Martin is allowed out of the world music ghetto — for a while, anyway. Next year, who knows? If he makes a plena record, he might have to go back to the salsa bins and the Latin mom and pop record stores.) It’s a none too subtle way of reasserting the hegemony of Western pop culture. It ghettoizes most of the world’s music.[...]In considering these points, one has to realize that indeed the categorization of much of this world's music into this particular dustbin is in effect severely limiting the musical capacities the human race as a whole can offer on the fast-developing music market. To limit the music market to one particular genre or a set of particular genres emanating from a single culture or a small handful of cultures would effectively be discoloring and severely limiting of the creative capabilities of not just this generation of artists, but also the next.
There is some terrific music being made all over the world. In fact, there is more music, in sheer quantity, currently defined as world music, than any other kind. Not just kinds of music, but volume of recordings as well. When we talk about world music we find ourselves talking about 99 percent of the music on this planet. It would be strange to imagine, as many multinational corporations seem to, that Western pop holds the copyright on musical creativity.
Which brings us to the more spiritual aspects of rejecting music from around the world and other genres. David Byrne mentions that
I would love to believe that once you grow to love some aspect of a culture — its music, for instance — you can never again think of the people of that culture as less than yourself. I would like to believe that if I am deeply moved by a song originating from some place other than my own hometown, then I have in some way shared an experience with the people of that culture. I have been pleasantly contaminated. I can identify in some small way with it and its people. Not that I will ever experience music exactly the same way as those who make it. I am not Hank Williams, or even Hank Jr., but I can still love his music and be moved by it. Doesn’t mean I have to live like him. Or take as many drugs as he did, or, for that matter, as much as the great flamenco singer Cameron de la Isla did.And I agree wholeheartedly. I think music is a universal language that can bring us together and convey to us differring message, regardless of whether we understand the lyrics or not. This only adds more ammunition against the fallacious term "world music"... unless you include ALL music as world music, no exceptions.
That’s what art does; it communicates the vibe, the feeling, the attitude toward our lives, in a way that is personal and universal at the same time. And we don’t have to go through all the personal torment that the artist went through to get it. I would like to think that if you love a piece of music, how can you help but love, or at least respect, the producers of it? On the other hand, I know plenty of racists who love “soul” music, rap and rhthym-and-blues, so dream on, Dave.
After a discussion with one of my friends on the issue, however, I have also come to realize why the term was brought about: it is a "relative" term. If I was in Central or South America, I would be going to stores buying off not just Latin music, but Merengue, Salsa, Mambo, Reggaeton, Latin pop, etc. "World" music would be everything else, including Western music. One can only argue that given the Western hegemony over much of the musical and entertainment industries, the term "world" music is more used to define every other genre that doesn't make much sale on the market. Reggae and Latin were lucky, apparently. One will not find tribal music of another country or another place to give that vibe. Even worse is that some musicians from around the world are trying to conform to those standards by "sanitizing" their music for Western consumption, one that detracts from the original musical atmosphere.
Regardless, I will take Mr. Byrne's stance and never agree to the term "world" music. And you shouldn't, either. I can understand that people grow in different cultures and places and that they grow accustomed - perhaps too accustomed - to the genres of music present in the local market, but given the power music can have over us in understanding each other and "other" cultures, I don't think we should just shove aside African tribal music and Japanese pop music into the same melting pot now.
But what do you think? Do you think "world" music is an appropriate term? Or do you think that it's okay to shove aside any music that doesn't conform to your illusion of what you consider to be "true music"?
Salaam, from Saracen
Comments
Post a Comment