Hometowns: Who cares?

Maybe in the 60s, everybody wanted desperately to be homogenized (eg, British invaders trying to "sing American"), and ever since, we've been trying to get "back to our roots"?

Oddly, I'd have said the opposite is true. I used to have a very clear idea of the area of origin of almost everything I listened to. That's still true in rock, and if a reggae artist comes from anywhere but Jamaica we'll hear about it, but so much music now is international and anonymous: by that I don't mean lacking in character, just that I often have no idea if the tune was made by a person or group, male or female, black or white, or some mixture, let alone where they live. There are nationally characteristic sounds, but while you can say that something sounds like Detroit techno, that doesn't mean it's been anywhere near Detroit. Even drum & bass, for so long a Brit form, is internationalised. The information is there if you want it, I guess, but identity is less prominent than it was, including a regional identity.

At the risk of appearing overtly literal-minded (ha!) I think hacks talk up the geographical backgrounds of the artists they write about out of desire to string some cheap copy out of the supposed contrast between this and the type of music they're making.

i would think it's more the journalists' doing than the bands. the NME and their ilk are ever eager to pronounce the latest hip Scene - Seattle, Manchester, Bristol, Cleveland. it's convenient for them, makes it easier to create clever little segues and create hype.

Many proponents of Flying Nun's so-called 'Dunedin Sound' were based in Auckland or Christchurch [e.g. The Bats] or had emigrated to big smoke early in their careers [Straitjacket Fits]. the shared, though sometimes tenuous, links with Dunedin made a convenient currency for hacks here and overseas.

What makes it particularly vexing is that every place seems more and more like every other all the time.