User:Jason Garske/sandbox

=Globalization= Through technological advances of the late twentieth century, recordings of music from around the world began to enter the Euro-American music industry. Timothy Taylor discusses the arrival and development of new terminology in the face of Globalization. The term “World Music” was developed and popularized as a way to categorize and sell “non-Western” music. The term “world music” began in the 1990s as a marketing term to classify and sell records from other parts of the world under a unified label, and world music was introduced as a category in the Grammys shortly thereafter. The term “world beat” was also employed in the 90s to refer specifically to pop music, but it has fallen out of use. The issue that these terms present is that they perpetuate an “us” vs. “them” dichotomy, effectively “othering” and combining musical categories outside of the Western tradition for the sake of marketing.

Turino proposes the use of the term "cosmopolitanism" rather than "globalization" to refer to contact between world musical cultures, since this term suggests a more equitable sharing of music traditions and acknowledges that multiple cultures can productively share influence and ownership of particular musical styles.

The issue of cultural appropriation has come to the forefront in discussions of music’s globalization, since many Western European and North American artists have participated in “revitalization through appropriation,” claiming sounds and techniques from other cultures as their own and adding them to their work without properly crediting the origins of this music. Steven Feld explores this issue further, putting it in the context of colonialism: admiration alone of another culture’s music does not constitute appropriation, but in combination with power and domination (economic or otherwise), insufficient value is placed on the music’s origin and appropriation has taken place. If the originators of a piece of music are given due credit and recognition, this problem can be avoided.

Feld criticizes the claim to ownership of culturally appropriated music through his examination of Paul Simon’s collaboration with South African musicians. Simon payed the South African musicians for their work, but he was given all of the legal copyrights to the music. Although it was characterized by what seems to be fair compensation and mutual respect, Feld suggests that Simon shouldn’t be able to claim complete ownership of the music. Feld holds the music industry accountable for this phenomenon, because the system gives legal and artistic credit to major contract artists, who hire musicians like wage workers. This system rewards the creativity of bringing the musical components of a song together, rather than rewarding the actual creators of the music. As Globalization continues, this system allows Capitalist cultures to absorb and appropriate other musical cultures while receiving full credit for its musical arrangement.

Feld also discusses the subjective nature of appropriation, and how society’s evaluation of each case determines the severity of the offense. When American singer James Brown borrowed African rhythms, and when the African musician Fela Anikulapo Kuti borrowed style from James Brown, their common roots of culture made the connection more acceptable to society. However, when the Talking heads borrow style from James Brown, the distancing between the artist and the appropriated music is more overt to the public eye, and the instance becomes more controversial from an ethical standpoint.

Dr. Gibb Shreffler examines the changing function of Punjabi music over time as increasing migration and globalization creates the desire for the assertion of the Punjabi identity. In the 1930s, music in the regions considered “Punjab” was mainly valuable for its entertainment, and musicians focused less on their “Punjabi” identity in comparison to later times. The 1940s and 1950s brought a Punjabi nationalism that took the place of regionalist ideals of earlier times. The music began to form a specific genteel Punjabi identity in the 1960s that was relatable even to its people living abroad. The Punjabi diaspora led to more of an incorporation of cosmopolitanism in the music during the 1970s-80s, and an indexically more “authentic” Punjabi identity for those who didn’t live in the “Punjab” region. The geographic and cultural location of the music became a primary theme, reflecting a strong relationship to globalization and the music’s dynamic cultural identity.

=Identity= Lipsitz describes the weakening effect that the dominant (Los Angeles) culture imposes on marginalized identities. He suggests that the mass media dilutes minority culture by representing the dominant culture as the most natural and normal. Lipsitz also proposes that Capitalism turns historical traditions of minority groups into superficial icons and images in order to profit on their perception as “exotic” or different. Therefore, the commodification of these icons and images results in the loss of their original meaning. Minorities, according to Lipsitz, cannot fully assimilate nor can they completely separate themselves from dominant groups. Their cultural marginality and misrepresentation in the media makes them aware of society’s skewed perception of them.

Antonio Gramsci suggests that there are “experts in legitimization” of dominant culture, who attempt to legitimize it by making it look like it is consented by the people who live under it. He also proposes that the oppressed groups have their own “organic intellectuals” who provide counter-oppressive imagery in order to resist this legitimization. For example, Low riders used irony to poke fun at popular culture’s perception of desirable vehicles, and bands like Los Illegals provided their listening communities with a useful vocabulary to talk about oppression and injustice.

Lipsitz suggests that Mexican community in Los Angeles reoriented their traditions in order to fit the postmodern present. Seeking a “unity of disunity”, minority groups can attempt to find solidarity by presenting themselves as sharing experience with other oppressed groups. By incorporating Mexican folk music and modern-day barrio influences, Mexican rock-and-roll musicians in LA made commercially successful postmodern records that included content about their community, history, and identity.

Michael M.J. Fisher breaks down the following main components of postmodern sensibility: “bifocality or reciprocity of perspectives, juxtaposition of multiple realities-intertextuality, inter-referentiality, and comparisons through families of resemblance.” A reciprocity of perspectives makes music accessible inside and outside of a specific community. Chicano musicians exemplified this and juxtaposed multiple realities by combining different genres, styles, and languages in their music. This can widen the music’s reception by allowing it to mesh within its cultural setting, while incorporating Mexican history and tradition. Inter-referentiality, or referencing relatable experiences, can further widen the music’s demographic and help to shape its creators’ cultural identities. In doing so, Chicano artists were able to connect their music to “community subcultures and institutions oriented around speech, dress, car customizing, art, theater, and politics.” Finally, drawing comparisons through families of resemblance can highlight similarities between cultural styles. Chicano musicians were able to incorporate elements of R&B, Soul, and Rock n’ Roll in their music.