A few years ago, in recognition of what was going on around them in the charts and concert halls, the Brit awards organisers rather belatedly tacked on a "Best Urban" category to its annual love-in, writes Brian Boyd.

Such has been the commercial impact of "urban" music that even the MOBO (Music of Black Origin) awards can no longer cater to the totality of urban acts. Thus, last year the first Urban Music Awards was staged.

In a rather neat reversal, the organisers of the UMAs have decided to tack on two new categories, rock and jazz, to this year's ceremony, which will be held later in the year. One suspects a bit of mischief-making on the organisers' part - just as rock-based award ceremonies had come to realise that people listened to and bought "urban" music, now the urban award ceremonies are putting rock music into the same "minority interest" category.

It has all reignited an interesting debate, which actually began a few decades ago when music by black artists was bluntly referred to (and acceptably so, at the time) as "race music". The divisions may have blurred over the years, but not significantly.

The term "urban" in itself has always carried racial baggage. It was first used as a code word in the US for music made by black people, and it reflected the growth in hip-hop and r 'n' b. There's always been something a bit nasty about the term, with the implication that these two particular genres are produced solely by people who inhabit inner-city areas. No mention ever of "suburban", "rural" or "bloody big mansion in the Hollywood Hills" music.

To use another loaded phrase, the term was only allowed pass because of the continued segregation of US radio stations, where the implicit understanding is that rock music radio is for white people and hip-hop/r 'n' b radio is for black people. Thus, few if any black people listen to Saxon or AC/DC, with the reverse logic applying to the listening habits of whites. It's all nonsense, but try telling that to the people who control these stations.

The debate has thrown up a few interesting pointers. There are those who believe that the first real urban genre of music was jazz, way back when it was seen as arty and musically transgressive. Others point to the fact that "urban", if applied to music in the 1970s and 1980s, would have included bands such as The Clash and The Jam, acts who took their musical inspiration from cityscapes.

"Of or belonging to a city - cultivated, polite, urbane." This is the dictionary definition of "urban", but definitions are elastic and protean. "Garage" now means something very different in musical terms than it did in the late 1960s, as does r 'n' b.

Another argument has it that rock is more about instrument playing whereas urban is more about a performer in front of electronically generated sounds. This argument is too inflexible - at best. Back when rock was Slayer and hip-hop was Public Enemy, there may have been a case for judging within categories. But the nomenclature is now redundant. Otherwise you're backed into a corner where McFly are up against Queens of the Stone Age and Norah Jones is up against Snoop Dogg.

On this side of the Atlantic, maybe it's time to bring in an all-reaching Grammy-style award system. As ridiculous as the many categories are within the Grammys - "Best supporting vocal on a teen-punk (non- hardcore) song" - at least they're a bit more all-encompassing.

As it stands, you have ridiculous situations where the organisers of this year's Urban Music Awards first get them- selves into knots about whether they should include a "jazz" category and then get themselves into double knots over whether Jamie Callum is a "jazz" artist or a "pop-jazz" artist or nothing to do with jazz in the first place. And what happens if a Miles Davis re-issue is up against Jamie Callum in the "best jazz album" category? It's madness.

Speaking of which, was Suggs more "ska" than "punk"?