Jump to content

Talk:World music/Archives/2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Adjectives to nouns and British music

I have redirect adjectives to nouns (as in Norwegian music redirecting to Music of Norway). I want to redirect British music and American music to Music of the United Kingdom and Music of the United States, respectively. I can foresee problems, though. I think both terms deserve to exist since someone might search for such a thing, and I could live with a disambig page if someone wants to make that instead. However, barring any complaints, I will make these two redirects soon. Tuf-Kat

I almost think that "British Music" is a better title than "Music of the United Kingdom", since music from Northern Ireland has more in common with music from the Republic of Ireland than it does with music from Great Britain. But it's probably not a very big deal (I can't be bothered to do the necessary fiddling around to make it work, anyway). --Camembert
My original idea was to make Music of the United Kingdom a disambiguation page, pointing users towards Music of Scotland, Music of Wales, Music of England and Music of Ireland, with the last explicity including Northern Ireland. I thought people wouldn't like that because it isn't consistent and would lead to others citing it as an example to separate Saami music from Music of Finland, Music of Norway and Music of Sweden, for example, or Ainu in Japan, Hawaiians, Inuits and Native Americans in US/Canada, etc, and that would make everything confusing.
Anyway, anyone who wants to change the organization of the UK music article should feel free. I'll scream and shout petulantly if I don't like it. Tuf-Kat
I see what you mean - maybe having Music of Ireland (including both the Republic and Northern Ireland) and Music of Great Britain (including Scotland, England, Wales and the various little islands) would be the best way of going about it, using geographical divisions rather than relatively modern political ones. I'll probably sort things out this way one day soon, when I feel a bit more up to it. --Camembert
I'm now updated Music of the United Kingdom, and I will make it all about relatively recent developments in music that affects the whole of the country, with prominent links in the first paragraph to music of Scotland, music of England, music of Wales and music of Ireland. Tuf-Kat 06:27, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

List of artists

I removed the list of artists because they bother me. What styles of music must one play to be added to this list? Is there any meaning besides that their genre is foreign to the person who added the artist in question? I reproduce it here for historical purposes.

Tuf-Kat

HI TUFKAT- all of artists listed above would be found in the 'World Music' section of any of the record shops around where I live, but it's always a problematic term I agree... Perhaps the lst should be titled "List of artists likely to be listed under the World music category"... I dunno. quercus robur 12:15, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's probably where I would find them too. I suppose there are two meanings of the term:
  • An actual, specific genre of music that fuses Western genres with others -- David Byrne, Brian Eno, Paul Simon
  • Any culturally foreign music that isn't part of the mainstream

Using the second definition, which this list uses, would not be helpful because it lumps together hundreds of different kinds of artists with only a tenuous thread connecting them. If they were divided into list of marrabenta musicians, list of Indian classical musicians, etc, it could be useful, but I don't see how the list would be useful as it is. Tuf-Kat 17:12, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

    • Funnily enough I've just had a friend round and we were discussing the inherent racsism (though that might be putting it a bit strongly...) and patronising nature of the term 'world music'. Best summed up, we were listening to the new Terry Hall/Mushtaq album which has various sections sung in exotic eastern foriegn languages. My friend said, "she could be singing anything", I replied, "she's probably singing "You trendy Gaurdian reading patronising world music fans are all a bunch of wankers who are looking for a bit of exotica to enhance you ethnic tolerant credibility"... Proabaly not, but we wouldn't have been any the wiser and she would have had a point... But it's a good album anyway... ;-) quercus robur 21:03, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • LOL! If I were Tuareg or Kazakh or something, that's probably what I'd do. I'd sing about how the audience is probably wearing Old Navy and bought my CD on Amazon, because the mall was too far away but Kazakhstan isn't, if it's a trendy enough country at the moment. One book I have describes some world fusion group's image (forget which one) as the Benetton of marketing concepts (you may not get that, since I dunno if you have Benneton stores your way, but you can probably get the gist of what it is like). Tuf-Kat 23:55, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

historical note

Instead of changing the article, I just copied a bit here for discussion (in case anyone is watching this page--hasn't been edited for a while):

This is a double-edged sword: whereas creation of original works and cross-fertilizing are going on at an unprecedented rate, there is also the danger of "all types of music becoming more or less the same." The artists' competence should, ideally, be able to ward off the latter phenomenon from happening, although commercial and marketing pressure works against this.

I think this is a bit POV, or perhaps just needs a bit of bigger-picture historical context. If, for example, you look at the vastly different cultures that form Western Europe, and study the history of the musical interaction of those cultures, you see three separate periods where an international style developed: 1) around 800, with the codification of Gregorian chant: a lot of music suddenly was the same everywhere (with the exception, probably, of some popular or folk music which is quite irretrievably lost); 2) around 1450, during the epoch of the Burgundian school, before which there were a lot of distinct national styles, and after which styles once again exploded into completely different national characters; 3) in the Classical era, the time of Mozart and Haydn, when yet another international style developed, during which composers again sounded a lot alike whether they were Italian, English, Czech, French or whatever --and then the whole thing exploded again into a riot of national styles during the 19th century. Music history seems to be cyclical in this way, and now with the entire world unified by communication and technology, it is certainly possible that a new international style period is developing yet again in "world music" --my point is this is not necessarily a bad thing. So I'm not sure it is a "danger of all types of music becoming more or less the same"--it may just be something that periodically happens in music history. Just a thought, from a music history geek. Antandrus 04:29, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The note is part of what I call the "things are completely different now" myth, specifically the, "things aren't like they were in the good ol' days when nothing changed," so I don't buy it. You comment, however, while providing perspective, is history according to the winners, and not too convincing. We obviously need a better discussion of this in the article. Hyacinth 22:35, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There seems to be no reference to WOMAD, which started in 1982, or indeed anything before 1987; the terms 'world music' and 'world beat' were being bandied around artists such as Talking Heads and Peter Gabriel in the very early 1980s, and what about Ravi Shankar, George Harrison and so forth from the 1960s/1970s?

The history section seems to have been adapted from this source:

http://www.frootsmag.com/content/features/world_music_history/minutes/page03.html

and this article, which is in turn adapted from the above source and seems to have been the basis for Wikipedia's writeup:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A2526815

It seems to me that the whole issue with the record company meeting in June 1987 is a footnote at most (the majority of the article could be shortened to "The term 'world music' was formalised in June 1987, at a meeting of record company executives held in (location). Concerned that the genre lacked its own space in record stores, the executives - amongst them (name, name, name) - agreed to adopt a common label and packaging system. World music took off as a commercial force after that time, (example), helped greatly by the foundation of Peter Gabriel's 'Real World' label in 1989."

I believe there needs to be more about 'world music' and less about 'World Music', and less philosophy about the inevitable elimination of diversity in a multicultural world.Ashley Pomeroy 12:44, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Cleanup and experts

This article is awaiting help from experts and cleanup folks; in the meantime I've removed the list, which was recently added and included a bunch of highly dubious entries. Until the definition of the term gets cleaned up, better not to have a misleading/misguided list. . . Jgm 23:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I just made some changes to the introduction. For the cleanup tag: What needed to be cleaned or improved in the definition? Hyacinth 12:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, what should the experts do? Hyacinth 12:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Definition, scope

I think there are at least two articles at odds with one another struggling to get out of here, maybe three. One would be on academic ethnomusicology (a topic on which we have little more than a stub) and its evolution away from anthropology departments into music departments, as this became less a study of musics from the outside and more a matter of bringing "artists in residence" into the academy and training students in non-western musics. Another would be the music that I think is most deserving of the name "world music": mixing of music that deliberately draws on more than one tradition, as in the work of Ry Cooder, Afro-Celt Sound System, or (arguably) a generation or two earlier The Weavers. The third topic, where the article seems focused now, seems to me to have the least encyclopedic potential of the three: "world music" in the sense of music that seems exotic to urban Western Europeans and North Americans is a marketing phenomenon, a music industry phenomenon, not a musical phenomenon.

I came over here because recently Wayland added Category:World music to Taraful Haiducilor. I don't think that label says anything about the Haidouks or their music. except how they were marketed and how they found an audience outside of their native Romania. Their music is specifically not a fusion music, except insofar as Eastern European gypsy music has always been a fusion music, incorporating music from all of the cultures of the region as well as specifically Roma traditions. But it is specifically a local music, not a world music, and in the 15 or so years in which they have had broad, international exposure, the Haidouks music has successfully resisted influences that are not local to their native Clejani. This is essential to the strong sense of authenticity that is so much of their appeal. Ry Cooder of the Afro-Celts may reference a strong sense of place, but it is an entirely different phenomenon to actually instantiate it, and, as I said, the conflation of the two is largely a marketing phenomenon, almost like confusing musical tourist Jimmy Buffet with the actual native cultures of the Caribbean and Gulf. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:22, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, in the academic sense of the expression, Wesleyan University has had a World Music Program since 1963. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
I think this article should primarily be about the latter two uses you give -- to some extent, however, the first use overlaps with the third -- it doesn't make any sense, but Haidouks are probably going to be located under the "world music" section of a record store, and we have an obligation to inform the reader about what that means in that context. Basically, "world music" is a marketing category. There is music in the world, and the study of it is called musicology. The first paragraph of this article should prominently explain how the term world music is used and link liberally to various useful articles. Tuf-Kat 07:42, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Kat on the necessary focus on the article. Discussions of musical fusions are always interesting, but only a subset of those have been marketed or classified as "world music"; I think we'd be making up our own definitions to use this article to talk about such combinations in general. It does make sense to note the rather parochial and Western-centric nature of the term. Beyond that, I came into this because of the recent addition of a bunch of alt.country and Americana artists to the list (and the category to their articles), which seems simply wrong to me. Perhaps this is a US-centric position (I understand that these musics are to a guy in Kenya as Ladysmith Black Mambazo is to me) but unless there is provably a place in the world where they use "world music" to describe Lucinda Williams, I'm sticking to it. Jgm 12:16, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
And, you see, having lived in Romania I come with the same perspective on Taraful Haiducilor. "They're not world music. They're Romanian Gypsy music." But, yes, as a marketing category, this term has passed into widespread use, and I guess that, incoherent as it may be, we need an article about it. Still, we should keep our eyes and ears on the fact that this is a grouping that has almost nothing in common as music other than perhaps its exoticism to the Western European/non-African Anglophone ear. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:27, September 13, 2005 (UTC)
Right after I wrote that, I thought of a passage from Borges; happily I found it on line, which spared me trying to grep a bookshelf. It's from his lecture series Siete Noches:
…ningún individuo se siente oriental. Supongo que un hombre se siente persa, se siente hindú, se siente malayo, pero no oriental. Del mismo modo, nadie se siente latinoamericano: nos sentimos argentinos, chilenos, orientales (uruguayos).
Translation: …No individual feels himself to be Oriental. I suppose that a man feels Persian, he feels Hindu, he feels Malay, but not Oriental. In the same way, no one feels Latin American: we feel Argentine, Chilean, Oriental (from Oriente Province in Uruguay)."
Apropos and ending with a wonderful cheap pun. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:47, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

"and arguably, Western"

In the lead sentence: the parenthetical remark "and arguably, Western" makes no sense to me. I can't even parse what is supposed to be arguably Western, let alone tell who is supposed to be making the argument. Any problem with removing this? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Given no response in about 24 hours, I am removing. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Brian Jones and Joujouka

"…generally regarded as being the first "World Music" album." Only if we take "world music" as meaning international fusion/crossover musics, which I believe we agreed above was not what this article is about. Clearly many folk musics that would now be regarded commercially as "world music" long predate this. The Folkways Records catalogue was already well under way, and the commercial-quality Nonesuch Explorer Series (now there is an article we ought to have and don't) had launched in 1967 with the Balinese Music from the morning of the world. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Defining world music

Getting a more accepted definition might help with other problems such as scope, history, examples and other such.

World music includes musical elements from different parts of the world. This includes music that is foreign to the listening audience and music that mixes elements of music from different parts of the world together. In world music elements of music from many different areas may be mixed together, in some cases in order to create music that can appeal to a global audience.

With such a definition it would make sense to break up information about the history and contributors based on their nationality, the kinds of source forms they integrated, and the audiences they appeal to.

References are noble things, but in this cases most of the cited references seem to have major flaws including a narrow focus, limited point of view, and small historical breadth. Referencing specific artistic works and editorials about them might be a more robust approach.

Some general time line might be good, but 1987 seems like a poor choice of major milestones. Some more about related musics and how world music functions as an umbrella term might also be appropriate. Arguably Reggae is a form of music that could be considered world music, for example.

World Music Awards already has its own page, so that content should probably all move there with some links from this page. There are some other World Music related pages that should be linked with minimal mention here for most effective presentation. -- M0llusk 21:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you think is a more accepted definition? I'm not sure how you can claim that the sources cited are narrow as two of them define it is "all the music in the world". Hyacinth 10:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Zamfir

What is the basis for describing Gheorge Zamfir's Flutes De Pan et Orgue as "a 1971 recording of traditional Hungarian pan flute music"? Zamfir is Romanian, and the pan flute is certainly a common Romanian instrument. I'm not aware of his music being in any sense Hungarian. Is this based on something, or is it a solecism? - Jmabel | Talk 04:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

from an anglo-saxon point of view to others

As this article being written in English, it seems that important things are lacking. We don't see anything about Breton music. Would it be because of a lack of communication from Brittany? If you look closer at the more popular Breton artist, Alan Stivell, you see that he has dedicated all his work on a modern form of world music mixing Breton roots mainly with Gaelic, Rock, and influences from all over the world. He wrote on his first album in 1970 a manifesto for an "ethnomodern music".

E2 19h40 10th March 2006

title

The article title, currently "world music", doesn't match with the content. Western music (and only Western music) is specifically excluded. If not the world, then where does Western music come from? Heaven? The artical seems to be more about non-western music, which would thus be the appropriate title. AlbertCahalan 14:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As illogical as it is, that's the meaning of the term "world music" (more or less). Tuf-Kat 15:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
See #Definition, scope above. - Jmabel | Talk 16:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

the term world music

the term "world music" in most of the shops includes (it is logical) Celtic artists (as Alan Stivell, for exemple); the contrary would be surprising; kej 9 may 2006

That's true, and also French or Italian folk music and the like. "World music" really means "music of the non-Western world and the non-North American and non-African-or-European-derived-North American folk music of the Western world, and non-English language popular music of the Western world, and English language popular music of the Western world not primarily derived from African American folk traditions, and other musics of the Western world that are derived from musics of the non-Western world, excepting African American derived musics". That's the most succinct and precise definition IMO. Tuf-Kat 17:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Wait, that's still not good enough. Tejano music, Cape Breton fiddling and Cajun music are "world music" but wouldn't meet that definition. Hmmm... Tuf-Kat 18:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Music of the non-Western world and the non-North American folk music of the Western world, and non-African-or-European-derived-North American folk music of the Western world, and African-and-European-derived folk musics of the Western world where European influences are primarily not English, Irish or Scottish, or where European influences are primarily English, Irish or Scottish and other European or African influences are limited to nonexistent, and non-English language popular music of the Western world, and English language popular music of the Western world not primarily derived from African American folk traditions, and other musics of the Western world that are derived from musics of the non-Western world, excepting African American derived musics Tuf-Kat 18:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

The article contains no picture at all. Could you please help? Cheers -- Szvest 18:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Split proposal for "Awards for world music"

The article is a bit larger than the recommended size. I suggest to create a fork World Music Awards and link to it from here. -- Szvest 20:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

Any suggestion for another title? World Music Awards already exists! -- Szvest 22:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. World music (Awards). -- Szvest 00:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Western POV

The whole concept of "World music" as opposed to "Western music" appears to be rather POV or "them and us". Some traditions classified as "World music" have nothing in common with each other apart from not being "Western", and might be closer in some cases to "Western music" than to each other. --Grammatical error 20:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that but thanks for bringing it up. The total use of the word western is 53. That includes 15 mentions of non-western. I'll try to fix that once i have enough time. Cheers -- Szvest 20:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
LOL. I didn't mean the actual article - I was criticising the whole concept of "Western" and "World/non-Western music" (Western is one tradition or a group of related traditions whereas "World" includes many completely unrelated traditions, so it seems a rather ethnocentric classification). --Grammatical error 20:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. It's like "invertebrate". See my remarks above at #Definition, scope. - Jmabel | Talk 04:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
The term "World music" was specifically designed to include English and Celtic folk music, so all this "Non-Western" stuff is rubbish. See this link for example.
-- TimNelson 11:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Condescending Quotes

There is no need for "" around "Oriental", as it simply meant "eastern" at the time. Its insufficiently PC connotation is a more contemporary phenomenon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.22.200.200 (talk • contribs) 27 July 2006.

Ancient Future

I seriously doubt that "world music changed immensely when the group Ancient Future was formed by guitarist Matthew Montfort." In any event, it seems a rather POV statement to be made without citation in Wikipedia's narrative voice. - Jmabel | Talk 05:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Incredible String Band

I think The Incredible String Band were important in creating the concept of "World Music". They thankfully had nothing to do with the phrase but being one of the most influential musical groups of the 60s, they were very enthusiastic over instruments such as the Sitar, bowed Gimbri and Morrocan flute so it would seem they helped pioneer the characteristic watered-down fusion of various musical traditions that the term 'world music' suggests. Unsigned comment by IP 82.69.106.4

Feel free to contribute. -- Szvest 18:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Colonisation

The following was cut as POV: "Like any other colonising activity, the main thrust of this process was undoubtedly exploitative, and in general it merely 'westernised' exotic music forms and transformed them into fashionable cultural products for European and American audiences, without attempting to foster a broader understanding the true nature and scope of the source musics or the cultures and communities that created them." It is, indeed, POV. I think it is basically on the mark, though. Can someone suggest a work from which we can cite more or less this sentiment? - Jmabel | Talk 02:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why does "roots music" redirect to "world music"??

Just got redirected here when I clicked on "roots music" ("American roots music" was the actual context) over on the Ry Cooder page. Hard to imagine that these terms are in any way synonymous. In fact what we call "World Music" is often very far from roots music indeed, ie often heavily produced and slick. I like both, but what is the connection? Thanks. Leeborkman 05:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that redirection. Now Roots Music needs an article of its own.... Thanks. Leeborkman 05:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are there any external links to sites about individual bands? - Jmabel | Talk 22:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is a frequent target of spam (like most of the music genre articles). shotwell 23:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Page too long, and too anti-Western

Hi all. Unless there are complaints, I'll edit this page in the following two ways (I hope):

  • The section on "Cultural appropriation in Western Music" is good, but should be its own separate article, with only a short bit here. I'll do that
  • Since eg. Celtic music is part of World music, I'll remove anything that implies that Celtic music isn't part of World music (such as saying that World music is "Non-western" or "Third world").

-- TimNelson 11:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your comments and am interested in seeing your edits. World Music is a big subject and needs some "forking" articles like the one you mentioned.
There is an inherent problem in the subject as a whole that I hope we can eventually address in the lead paragraph - that is, there are two (or more) meanings to the term. As the article starts out now, it says World Music is all the music in the world". I suppose that has some validity, but aside from "political correctness," the practical aspect is that as a music genre the term usually refers to either music that comes from a non-western part of the world, (and for some reason, Celtic is included even though it's from part of Europe), or music that includes cross-cultural influences from those other parts of the world.
One of the strange things about how this term is used is that while it includes much indigenous music from around the world, oddly, indigenous music from the Americas is often excluded. For example, Native American music or Hawaiin music is usually not displayed in the World music section of retailers. I'm not sure how that should be addressed in the article. Maybe we need to organize into sections to separate the "common marketing usages" from the "musicology".
Anyway, there's a lot to do in this article... your ideas sound like a good start. --Parzival418 Hello 20:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the "Roots music" page expresses pretty well what the original intent of the "World music" label was. It says "Roots music is any music that follows pre-commercial musical traditions". In my opinion, it missed one thing -- Art music isn't considered world music either. I think the person who disambiguated "Roots music" and "World music" was wrong, but OTOH, the current article makes it "all very confusing, really" (as the Goons would say). -- TimNelson 03:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, in followup to my previous comments, I'm wondering whether it may be more useful to do things this way:
  • Change Roots music to include non-Western "roots music" (but not non-Western classical or non-Western pop/rock); this way it would end up being a set of links out to the folk musics of the world
  • Move the following sections to Cultural appropriation in western music:
    • Cultural appropriation in western music
    • The 1900s
    • The early Sixties: Folk meets Pop
    • 1965–1967: from "Norwegian Wood" to Monterey Pop
    • 1968–1986: Jajouka to Graceland
    • Bits and pieces of "After 1987: WOMAD and beyond", but keep most of that here
I think the basic problem of World music is that AFAICT it was intended by its originators to mean "Roots music", but has since been expanded to include non-Western music, and is now useful only as a marketing device.
  • Add some links to non-Western Art music and non-Western popular music
-- TimNelson 04:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You've clearly put some good thought into this and you make some good points. I had not reviewed the other pages you mentioned and will head on over there and take a look soon. Meanwhile, I like the changes you made so far and I think it's a good idea to tighten up the structure of the article as you outlined (... hope you don't mind, I edited your note above to correct the link that was coming up red). [oops, that was a goof on my part... re-edited now to undo that change - see my "Oops" note below.]
One other element - I wonder where this should go... How do you view music that uses multi-cultural elements in creations that overall fit within Western pop music? This is done both with live recordings and with computers, especially in electronic music (such as Deep Forest, Enigma, Tya, Achillea, Moby, Thievery Corporation, etc... and even some mainstream pop music like Madonna on Ray of Light, or Paul Simon, etc)? I think there are another two overlapping forms there that could be mentioned in this regard - the "jam with people of the world" method, that I guess would fit in the WOMAD section, and then also the "use recorded samples of other cultures as inspiration or to create something unique in combination" method. Well, OK, that was a pretty awkward way to write it but I hope you can see what I'm asking... ? --Parzival418 Hello 05:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about multi-cultural, but the genre that brought me here in the first place was what I call, for want of a better word, "Anglo roots revival"; groups like Steeleye Span and Broadside Electric. I guess I see all this as part of Roots revival type stuff; even if there's not a whole movement. In this, I'd include things like Paul Simon's recording of El Condor Pasa, but also stuff like Led Zeppelin's Battle of Evermore, which uses a somewhat traditional style, but isn't actual traditional music.
Does this answer your question?
I think most of your other comments are covered in the link in the next section.
-- TimNelson 08:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Oops! I just re-read this and I see I was wrong to fix that link in your comment, sorry about that! I've changed it back again to the way you had it. I had thought you meant to put those sections in as subsections and just had the link wrong, but apparently I'm editing while tired and should knock off for tonight.
I prefer your idea of making a separate article on "Cultural appropriation in western music" - that section is long already anyway and there is a lot to say about it. The main article could have just a paragraph and a link to the forked article. --Parzival418 Hello 05:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I've separated out the Cultural appropriation section; I'll leave the rest until we've sorted out the discussion below. -- TimNelson 04:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Major changes to World, Folk, Roots, and Traditional music pages

Hi all. I think the pages for World music, Roots music, Folk music, and Traditional music need some changes. I've documented the ideas at Wikipedia:WikiProject World music/Definitions; if you could all respond on the talk page, that would be great!

-- TimNelson 04:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi again - didn't see this until after I replied above. The subpage looks like it's off to a good start. I'll make some comments over there when I have a chance. --Parzival418 Hello 05:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Error

"Fête de la Musique" in french doesnt mean "world music day" but "music party", or "music festival". Moreover, in "world music day", "world" is not linked with "music" but with "day"...Boeb'is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.27.187 (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

strange quote

the quote from the press release of 'world music month' from October 1987 mentions BBC 1xtra and the BBC Asian Network, neither were around in 87. the wrong quote perhaps?

90.210.172.26 (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Womadlogo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Politically Correct Term?

Seems the Illuminati wanna-bes globalists are trying to supplant "folk" with "world" again. Been there before! Please! Delete this nonsense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.8.82 (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that it is basically creating and applying a new name to other forms of music which already have names. But since the term is significantly used, as a minimum, the term needs to be explained / covered. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that the definition in the article "somebody else's local music" best describes that it is a relative term rather than a genre or set of genres. North8000 (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Article up for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese music ensembles in the United States, and comment if you wish. Badagnani (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

World music uses "samples" from other songs more often then any other EDM genre

Please, note the following things I wrote on this discussion page. [1] After viewing www.whosampled.com site I came with the conclusion that "Enigma musical project" uses lot of samples from other songs and Music Libraries. The same thing must happen to most of the World music composers because it is hard to get "face2face" contact with great traditional music and musician, so it seems it is much easier to look for recordings and not for musicians. This tendency of using samples for composing World music must be written in the main article, it's a technical issue and but for that wikipedia is. --TudorTulok (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have the time but I think it would be wise to remove the links to world fusion etc. since those articles link back to this page. 83.117.132.51 (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph in "Evolving terminology" section

I noticed that folks deleted and then put back in the first paragraph in the "Evolving terminology" section. That paragraph is unsourced, incoherent, confusing flowery opinionated gobbeldygook. I didn't take it back out yet (and could even overlook the "unsourced" part if it were otherwise taken care of) because I think that there is a good thought in there somewhere if it were rewritten. North8000 (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Festivals list needs pruning, I fear

I'm thinking we need to implement a rule similar to that employed at (for example) List of science fiction conventions: if there is no article on a festival, it comes off the list. If you feel a festival is notable enough to be in this article, first write an article about that festival, then add it to the list. If the article is deleted as non-notable, then it comes off the list. How does that sound? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that that is a good plan. Or, for a very few exceptions, convince the folks in talk here. If the edit summary is true on that last addition(the largest one in Sweden) it might have flown here. I tried searching on it and it appears to have some prominence. North8000 (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

really?

man this is the stupidest article on wikipedia, world music, ?!? how can there be typical instruments and subgenres.

this is just a stupid word for non-western music that's it. you cannot say the music in cuba and in vietnam are subgenres of world music, they have completely different pasts.

I know its not wikipedias fault, but I just had to complain, western mind can be very stupid. though I would write, world music is how stores name everything that is not western pop/rock/hiphip or classical music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.149.221 (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox says that the genre (presumably the term, rather) was coined in the 1980s, but then goes on to list just about every conceivable form of music, no matter how old, under "derivative forms" and "Subgenres". This is clearly nonsense. An article titled "world music" – and with it the infobox – should focus on the fusion of popular music with "ethnic"/"exotic" traditional music designated by the term in its proper, meaningful sense, instead of trying to claim as part, (theoretically) include, appropriate or cannibalise the articles Traditional music, Folk music, Popular music, Pop music (especially various more "exotic" sub-forms from the Anglo-American vantage point), New Age music, Ambient music, every other music genre article (with a few interesting exceptions), and therefore, Music, which ultimately renders the term arbitrary and meaningless. Also, "steadily increasing" under "Popularity" smacks of POV. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Addressing ongoing posts to the effect that it is not really a genre

I think that those criticisms are valid. Two of my previous posts on these were:

  • I think that it is basically creating and applying a new name to other forms of music which already have names. But since the term is significantly used, as a minimum, the term needs to be explained / covered.
  • I think that the definition in the article "somebody else's local music" best describes that it is a relative term rather than a genre or set of genres.

Although many musical genres are cases where the name is applied to music that has other genre names, I think the "world music", unlike the others, has far less useful or accepted definition. So, rather than being about a set of music that goes by that name, it is about something which exists (by that name) only in the eye of the beholder, and which will change fundamentally with different beholders.

What do you all think about addressing the above by evolving this article to sort of acknowledge the above. I.E. more about the term "world music" covered as being a term. It's meanings, uses including uses such as awards, marketing terms, use by the industry, media etc.  ? North8000 (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do – anything to clean up this mess. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, lets roll.North8000 (talk) 16:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I did a bunch of small items as a start. Including cleaning up a lot of "referencing" that wasn't really referencing, so that we can see what the sourcing actually looks like. North8000 (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Form for "World Music" in body text

The way of writing "world music" i n body text inconsistent in the article check a lot of places, the following are common in non-tile text:

World Music world music world music

About the only thing not used is Wikipedia title case (World music)

First, confirming, since uncapitalized "world music" is commonly used, then I think that shows that "World music" (vs. "World Music") as the title of the article is fine.

For body text (and in-line use in titles) I think that it's a tossup between the three. I was think that Word Music get distracting, and the world music gets lost as a title, and I'm think that world music would be a good choice and plan to use that for those cases. North8000 (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Status, what's next

I've been doing a lot of work on this article, but to go significantly further this could benefit from involvement by one or more other editors who have more expertise and perspective in world music than myself. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't have the expertise, but in my opinion the Hybrid section should be expanded to describe the influence of world music on American/British pop culture. Starting with experiments with traditional Indian instrumentation in pop music as far back as the Beatles, the popularity of musicians such as Ravi Shankar in the 1960s, all the way to the appropriation of African rhythms by acts such as the Talking Heads and Brian Eno, Peter Gabriel and so forth in the 1980s. 66.190.93.241 (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_music/Archives/2012&oldid=1137332314"