Are blackness and whiteness useful concepts in the study of popular music?

To a certain degree, the concepts of blackness and whiteness are useful when studying popular music. They allow music theorists to identify where music is from and how it originates, and in turn how this music influences black and white culture. It is, however, only useful as a starting point. From these starting points, we can see how music is then further divided by and influenced by class, heritage and cultural background. However, these dividing terms can sometimes lead to discrimination and unreasonable division of audiences. More often than not we are cultured into thinking that so-called ‘Black’ music is Rap, R'n'B and Hip Hop and conventional ‘White’ music is Indie, Rock and Roll and Opera. When looking at music in the 1940s though, when 'Black' music needed artists to sing their songs, it took white musicians to make the music mainstream. Hence I do not believe that these labels are definate and instead they are more guidelines which help to address underlying social issues and heritage of genres of music.

Can music ever achieve genuine political change?

I do not believe music itself can change politics. However, it does not mean that music and artists have not tried to. Live Aid and Live 8 garnered some of the highest viewing figures in television history and together they rose over £200 million. This was achieved through a concert of music; therefore music can make a difference in the world and influence political leaders to make changes.

In 1994, trance music/raves led to the introduction of special legal provisions, however this was not intentional political change, but as a result of music influencing the masses in a negative way and evoking change as a result.

If popular music ever does create any kind of political change, more often than not it is only a temporary fix e.g. Band Aid – its very name concedes the limitations of the project given the scale of the problem. It’s unrealistic to think that one song could end world poverty, however it does raise awareness, but this does not ensure change. All in all I would say that music shouldn’t be considered a force for political change as it quite rare for a song to cause any kind of political conflict.

Does the emergence of the digital download signal the end of the music industry?

In a monetary sense of the word, digital downloads have definitely had their toll on the music industry. When just 10 years ago a CD-single would have usually cost around £4 on the week of its release, it would now cost just 75p to have the same song; simply downloaded instead of shop-bought. Therefore, there would be an obvious hit to the industry’s income.

However, in an artistic sense, the ability to hear any song at any time, along with the capability to send songs across the world with the click of a button enables artists and record labels to spread music worldwide within seconds.

Obviously along with this simplicity comes the clear temptation of consumers to download this music illegally. The music industry is still thriving off of the digital-download craze – with iTunes selling its 10 billionth song in February 2010 – there will always be a legal demand for digital songs, even if the presence of illegal downloading is there.

What is 'world music'?

I believe the term has two meanings. The first accumulates all popular music of the time and labels it ‘world music’ – as the majority of the world favours that music at that one specific time. Put simply, it is the music that the world likes. For example, the album that ranks #1 in worldwide sales at the end of each year could be seen as the world’s most popular album, making it ‘world music’.

However, this is a very literal way of interpreting the term. A more culturally-aware way of explaining the term (which is also the way I see it too) is that ‘world music’ is music originating from each individual country – Bhangra from India, Irish folk from Ireland and Aboriginal from Australia. These genres may not be enormous sellers in the music charts, nor very profitable, but they relate to each country they originate from.

Is popular music a mass-produced commodity or genuine art form?

I do not believe that either of these assessments can ever truly be 100% correct. Adorno argued that all popular music is standardized - a mass-produced commodity. He stated that all popular music involves ‘part interchangeabilty’. ‘Part interchangeabilty’ refers to the way in which different parts of popular songs can be taken and put into other songs and therefore there is no uniqueness to any song.

However, some people may argue that any song that has been written by a person will contain some of that person's creativity - and I believe any expression of creativity can be considered art. Indeed Gendron argued that, although popular music is mass produced, you cannot mass produce one man's single moment of inspiration.

Adorno compares popular music to what he classes as ‘serious’ (classical) music. Again, here his theory focuses solely on what he believes is 'good' music. He would not class a Beatles song or the winner of the X Factor's song as artistic in anyway - but many do. Music as an art form is just like any other form of art - forever subjective.

How useful is a production of culture perspective in understanding the birth of rock and roll?

Without knowing the effects that the world as a whole had on the music industry in the 1950s, the birth of rock and roll may seem to have exploded completely out of the blue. However what Peterson's theory does is link the changes that the world was going through to the birth of rock and roll. So, in this respect, the theory is extremely useful in defining what factors played their parts in allowing this new genre of music to become what it was.

Demonstrating the social and economic factors and how cultural pillars such as music law (ASCAP) and music occupations (Radio presenters) were changing - combining to produce a platform for something new (rock and roll) - the theory stands up as workable idea that goes a long way to explaining how rock and roll came about. However, the theory is very much that - simply a theory. Complicated terminology and statistics may explain in figures why it was likely for rock and roll as a business to be successful - it does not explain why the music itself was successful.

Is it reasonable to consider that rock music is gendered male?

Yes and no. I believe that there are two aspects to this statement. If you take rock music literally and look at the male to female ratio of rock musicians and songwriters - then the genre is clearly dominated by men.

However, if you look at the content and connotations of rock music, females have a very obvious influence; whether that be the androgynous blurring of gender lines by Bowie or the content of a typical Prince song - women were/are referenced to in rock music all the time (albeit sometimes in a misogynistic way).

Stereotypically, rock and roll is angry, aggressive, expressive – all masculine traits - and whilst it can be argued that women that do make it in the genre, such as Joni Mitchell and Janis Joplin, display very masculine traits, as Ani Difranco said “Men make angry music and it's called rock-and-roll; women include anger in their music and suddenly they're angry and militant.”