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

It is difficult to define what makes black music 'black', and what makes white music 'white'. Both have their stereotypes, however there have been artists which break the racial mould, like Eminem, a very successful white rapper.

According to Hatch & Milward, "pop music has always depended upon the interaction between white and black traditions". This can be seen to be true, as much of popular music can be traced back to having black origins. Arguably the greatest performer of all time, Elvis Presley, was influence by gospel music, which undoubtedly shaped him into the "white man who had the Negro sound and the Negro feel".

Blackness and whiteness may have had more of an effect as a concept in the study of popular music decades ago when race may have created a problem in music consumption. However this could also be disproved when looking at Marnie Smith's 'Crazy Blues', which was promoted openly as being by a black artist in 1920 and exceeded all expectation by becoming the first million selling single.

Can popular music achieve genuine political change?

If "music has symbolic force" as John Street once described, then surely it would be more than possible for popular music to influence and maybe even cause political change. Street later goes on to say that "pop becomes the expression of it's political and social context." What can be assumed from this is that popular music can be influenced by politics and socio-cultural atmosphere of the time, so it cannot be ruled out that this could be turned on it's head and the pop music actually influences politics etc.

However Shuker suggests that pop music can be a "means of raising both consciousness about, and funds for, political causes."

An example of an unsuccessful political pop music message is that of Red Wedge, formed in 1985. They used music to try and promote the Labour party, however they were unsuccessful. 

It is hard to measure how much music actually influences political opinions of people, however, with examples such as Live Aid to look back on, we can be pretty sure that it can go towards change.

What is world music?

As Jan Fairley stated, "the relationship of the 'local' and the 'global' in popular music is one of the most complex, controversial and significant issues of the new millenium". It is difficult to define and see the moment where local music becomes global. Global music could be seen as music which has achieved world success, or even music from another part of the world.

It is important to try and distinguish between 'world' music and 'global' music, is it the same thing? And if 'global' music is equal to world success, does this mean that world music is generally sung in English? Shuler looked at the idea that Anglo-American music has been the adoptive sound of world youth since the 50's, which does lead to them, as Shuler believed, to rebel against "parental 'national' culture".

This 'national' culture, and no doubt indiginous music, is not always a true reflection of national cultural identity due to the nature of imported Anglo-American culture in many countries, which naturally infiltrates into the native or more traditional sounds, thus being influenced by what is globally popular.

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

It is as difficult to define 'art', as it is to define what can be considered to be 'popular' music. Popular music is difficult to place both within the 'art' bracket, and also outside of it. 

Adorno believed that popular music should be left out of the arts bracket, as he deemed it to be repetitive (or standardised) and a mass-produced commodity.

Whether popular music can be considered as 'art' also is dependent on the factor of creativity. Art, after all, is based on creativity and so this should be reflected in what is considered 'art'. Some popular music of today is definitely money-making commodities, especially anything which comes out of a Simon Cowell talent show and later becomes his puppet, (ironically shown by JLS, hanging from the ceiling from strings during a perfectly over-choreographed routine at the Brits.) However, popular music can be shown to be inspired, with artists such as Florence and The Machine, who are proving to be very popular at the moment, and are clearly passionate about what they do; it's their art.

How useful is a production of culture perspective in understanding the birth of Rock & Roll?

The birth of rock and roll culturally changed music forever, and helped pave the way for the original teenage rebel, so it would seem important to look at what was happening culturally at this time. Richard A. Peterson noted a few myths which did NOT, in his opinion, give rise to the rock and roll movement; i.e. supply and demand. 

Peterson also looked at 6 factors, which he believed produced the cultural environment from which rock and roll was born, and also thrived. These 6 factors were law, technology, industry structure, organisation structure, occupational career and the market. This was obviously all well researched and relevant to his point but it only looked at HOW rock and roll music COULD rise, however, what appears to be missing from this theory completely is the heart of the matter; the music that inspired the masses. There is no mention of the stars and artists and without them, admittedly, there would be no rock and roll.

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

I think it's sad that there were only two females in the poll of the 100 Greatest Guitar players of all time. Today, there are plenty of female rock icons, like Karen O and Debbie Harry, however they are usually the vocalists in the band. Mavis Bayton believed that "Male fans buy a guitar; female fans buy a poster", meaning that men and women react and are inspired differently. I can relate to this, my walls are covered in posters. Not that I didn't try to play the guitar, my hands are just too small!

Is it a physical reason why there aren't many female guitarists? I think not, despite my small hands.

If you look a bit deeper, there are (lesser-known) bands with female guitarists; Blood Red Shoes, The Long Blondes and Los Campesinos!, who just haven't made it to the mainstream, but prove that girls CAN play guitars, and maybe in the future, rock may be considered a bit less male, and a bit more female.

Can popular music ever truly be unplugged?

Without a doubt, technology shapes the music which we listen to and are exposed to, as Paul Theberge recognised in 2001, when he said that "without electric technology, popular music in the 21st century is unthinkable." This is true, as without technology, there would no such thing as popular music, just music made up from singing and non-amplified instruments.

Without the technology we have, popular music simply could not exist, due to the lack of promotion, recording and, also the ability to play concerts would be lost because of the technology required to amplify and play to a large crowd. 

This leads to the popular MTV Unplugged specials actually not being unplugged because of the microphones and recording technology used, rather than just being wrongly thought of as 'unplugged' due to the acoustic instruments used. It could also be argued that the famous house gigs that The Libertines hosted were unplugged, however the internet promotion for the gig overrides this fact.