Talk:World music/Archives/2015

Globalization?

The sentence "Globalization has facilitated the expansion of world music's audiences and scope." is too vague and general. There are particular modes of dissemination, technologies (both technical and social), and market forces that have created 'world music' as a category and that also facilitate its 'expansion'. I am nominating this sentence for deletion at some point soon. There are undoubtedly market forces, mediascapes, and colonial and neoliberal agendas (among myriad other forces) that have 'facilitated' things like world music, but this sentence doesn't add any helpful information about what those are or what they might have been doing. Morskyjezek (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Overlap

I should think that whatever is put on this page should also be put under "African music," "Indian music," or whatever regional classification is appropriate.

I've even seen Irish traditional music placed in the (to me, just silly) "world music" category. Of course, Afro-Celt Sound System (I think that's what it's called) is even more "world music" than Ir-trad because it is a fusion of two kinds of "world music." It seems that fusions are more "world" than the originals. --LMS

Well, Irish (traditional) music is certainly also part of world music. well, yeah, in a way it's a silly name, but then again, it does have a meaning of its own. wathiik

the term world music only has respectable meaning if you dont respect individual localized genres as fully fledged genres of music. And considering most of these have incredible history and depth, the only way to keep your argument respectable is to label rock, country, and classical as european music. Its insulting to oversimplify the culture of these people. How about instead of treating the world as a bunch of simpletons hitting boxes for my pleasure, you actually learn about the specific genres and cultures around the world. -MFG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.84.136.224 (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)