1. I've heard a lot of music that purported to be "world" music that sounded a whole lot like what I have come to know as "new age" music. I came to the conclusion that "world music" is a poorly-defined genre that serves musicians poorly, as well as potential listeners.

2. The term does NOT include 'new age' or 'fusion', the first of which is absolutely not tradition-based and the second is by definition a combination of two or more traditions.


I have to say that #1 pretty well describes what I often hear being played as "World Music" around here, presumably because a lot of New Age-ish stuff pretends to borrow from Celtic themes. I'm not saying that's good, bad, or otherwise, just that that's my observation.

Obviously, I then have to disagree with #2 because, whatever the definition of "World Music" should be, or is formally, that's not always how it is used.

All I know is that if the radio says it's World Music hour, I have to change the station because I'm not going to like it. It's not that I don't like non-European/American traditions, it's that the stuff they play is very often not traditional, no matter what the tradition. I don't think that was the original intent of the category, but it kind of snowballed.

I don't have a problem with using "World Music" as a category since it at least helps us in the CD store when we need a gamelan fix. I also don't mind finding U.S. regional music in "World Music" because, after all, it's SOMEBODY'S international music even if it's not ours.

By the same token, I don't mind "Americana" because some stuff just isn't quite rock, isn't really country, isn't really bluegrass, and sure as Hell ain't blues or old-time.