It's been 25 years since the term "world music" came into vogue. It was created by a group of British indie record company reps and other interested parties back in 1987, with the stated purpose to “broaden the appeal of our repertoire.” At that meeting, they determined that the term "world music" would be used for a short-term marketing campaign. But then it stuck.
Some find it useful, because otherwise how would you be able to market and promote such a vast sea of different musical styles? Others find it colonial and therefore offensive, or ghettoizing.
I should go on the record that, in 2005, I wrote a feature article for The Walrus magazine on the topic, which leaned towards the latter perspective. ("Off Beat" – how world music went from something new and wonderful to a generic branding exercise.)
But there are some good arguments in favour of the term. Or at least one good argument in favour, an argument eloquently made in this debate from CBC's Q by Derek Andrews, who, among other things, heads up the Juno Awards committee that decides on the award for world music album of the year. It's countered by Ian Birrell, who wrote an article not long ago for The Guardian, titled "The Term 'World Music' is Outdated and Offensive."
PLAYListen to CBC Q's debate: should we retire the term world music?
What do you think? Is the term "world music" outdated, or even offensive? Let us know below.
Related:
World music fusions 2.0, beyond ‘worldbeat’
GlobalFEST goes to Bonnaroo, world music infiltrates the mainstream