|
View the H-Southern-Music Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-Southern-Music's January 2006 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in H-Southern-Music's January 2006 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the H-Southern-Music home page.
This go-'round on what makes Southern music quintessentially Southern has made references to a number of genres already - roots, country, blues - to which we can add "Southern rock," certain forms of gospel,spirituals, etc.. It seems that general exceptions can be made in each case that the genre transcends the region. If we consider the blues to be essentially southern, then what do we make of Chicago blues? If country is southern, then what about the fact that many of its early standards were taken from 1890s parlor tunes written by Tin Pan Alley hacks? If by "roots" we generally denote older, pre-commerical forms that "originated" in the South (or modern compositions stylistically derived from the originals), couldn't we make an equal claim that, for example, New England and Canadian sea shanties belong there as well? All of this begs a deeper question that looms beyond the current one: what exactly (if exactitude is even possible) is southern music? I tend to agree with Jeff Titon that "sound" as related to lived experience matters. But this in turn privileges the perspective of the scholar over that of either the performer or the audience. Furthermore, some of the genres in question (Southern rock, country) featured bands that explicitly evoked the South in symbolic form, while others were not so overt. What common characteristics then allow us to classify all of these disparate genres under some general framework? Perhaps we should avoid technical descriptions. In an influential article, Larry Levine described popular culture as "that which is popular," partially as a way of distinguishing it from the loaded term "mass culture." Could we then define southern music as "those styles whose performers were predominantly from or identified with the South,or whose major or intended audiences identified themselves in some way as Southern or with the South (or the idea of the South)?" I already see some problems with this characterization, but I offer it as a starting point. Finally, it seems to me that a historical time period is implied. In the age of globalization and shifting regional populations, the term Southern is less and less adequate. However we seem to agree that it works for earlier eras, even recent ones. Christopher J. Scott Ph.D. Student University of South Carolina
 Humanities & Social Sciences Online 
|