[FA Worldmusic] categorically labelled

[Steve Hochman]

and some of the technical terms that are floated here for discussing  
music really only have meaning in context. and what is that context?  
it's reference points, be they comparisons to other music ("the band  
had a Stones-like sound") or a category.

The problem is that the term "world music" really means nothing.  
"Blues"? sure, we can identify some essential characteristics that  
apply. "Reggae"? ditto. "Jazz" has become more complicated, but still  
by and large gives some sense of what's being talked about, at least  
as a starting point. But what are the essential characteristics of  
"world music"?



-----------------------------------
Check out my column:
http://www.spinner.com/category/around-the-world/
-----------------------------------

On Aug 15, 2007, at 2:00 PM, Paul Harding wrote:

>>> So in the end, if we eliminate labels and categories,
>>> how do we talk about music?
>>
>> Easy: talk about _music_. Rhythm, harmony, melody,
>> instrumentation,
>> arrangement, composition, structure, timbre,
>> functionality, etc.  etc.
>
> Most people don't have the background/knowledge to talk
> about music in these terms.  Many music writers don't even
> use this sort of academic language well, if at all. (maybe
> they don't trust their audience to understand it?)
>
> I look forward to a year where this topic doesn't come up.
>
> Labels/categories suck, but it's a huge part of how people
> communicate.  Whether it be the dualistic "music is either
> good or bad", the geographic category of nation, stylistic
> category of genre, or something that doesn't have a
> literal meaning but a reasonably understood meaning like
> "world music", we categorize to communicate.
>
> -Paul
> _______________________________________________
> FA-Worldmusic mailing list
> FA-Worldmusic at folk.org
> http://www.folkserv.net/mailman/listinfo/fa-worldmusic