Roots music
I was writing a review on Shtetl Superstars, when I realised that I really don’t like the term ‘World Music’. Surely, all music should be world music, since we’re all part of the same world? The unspoken implication of ‘World Music’ is often Music from somewhere that isn’t the U.S. or the better known parts of Europe. ‘Roots Music’ is a little better, but it’s still not right. It implies a a kind of museum music, something stuck in the past, reproducing and preserving what’s gone. There’s nothing wrong with that, in its way, but a lot of Roots Music is vibrantly situated in the present. It’s as much about leaves and flowers as it is about roots. It’s about the present and future as well as the past, about growing up in a new environment, incorporating the musical culture around you into the culture of your parents or grandparents, and transforming it into something new which expresses your own unique situation.
Music isn’t just entertainment; it’s an expression of life and identity, and a part of human nature which is as unique and essential as language.
1
17 comments about pens, none about music. So, just to show that I was paying attention at the back, World Music ranks alongside Fusion Music as an indefinable, amorphous, entity that means little to many. It offends the musical sensitivities of occidentals drilled in the Doh Reh Me musical scale, and is not sung in English, which is the generally accepted second language of "popular" music, so is often destined not to be listened to on principle.
by Jonathan Briggs @ 12/04/2007 12:17 am • Permalink •
2
I understand your discomfort with the term "world music" but like so many terms to encompass something it´s truly hard to replace. I know what I mean by "world music" and it covers pretty much the whole planet including the U.S. of A. and europe and pretty much any style of music including rock and roll, jazz and tranced out tribals pounding on flint. I´ve spent much of my life liking "rock and roll" and "country" to name 2 music styles which encompass a whole bunch of different things depending on person, place and time. I may not be able to clearly define "world music" but I know it when I hear it. Of course I´m also a person that still feels comfortable using the term "modern art" as an encompassing description... Like you I´ve struggled with the inadequacies of the term "world music", especially when I try to tell people about a "type" of music that I truly like. I´ve come to acceptence and I think I know what you mean by world music and I bet you know what I mean by it. I can´t find a better term.
by jc. @ 12/04/2007 6:05 pm • Permalink •
3
I see the title "World Music" and I know I'll hear something I like. So it inspires me. Just as inadequate as the word "Pop" really.
Fwiw wanted to add that as a fellow female audiophile, enjoyed your tech ramblings about audio equipment few tho they are. I have much to learn about hifi as I am a studio soundie. My home speakers are a pair of Rogers nearfields that I don't use in the studio anymore. A bit old but ok in my small flat (apartment). Your other posts are interesting reading too. Cheers.
by Cate @ 14/04/2007 4:57 am • Permalink •
4
I wholeheartedly agree. "World music" implies that it's from 'out there'; that there's a clear distinction between THIS and THAT. It's all music. But the real problem I have is with "roots" music - it's a bit of an elitist term, sort of implying that it's rock and roll, modern stuff that really counts, and the old stuff is just what it's built on. It puts modern stuff on a higher plane, so to speak. And I don't agree with that at all, I think old music stands up on its own just fine without being merely an inspiration for some Ryan Adams song or a Led Zeppelin rip-off. And as far as calling modern stuff 'roots music', it's those artists who are the museum pieces, IMHO.
by Jason @ 13/05/2007 11:18 pm • Permalink •
Page 1 of 1 pages