Comments

1. eric wrote:

   I’m writing a series of blog-like posts that I may or may not publish, but this is one of the topics/theories I address.

   My actual argument/explanation is much longer, but in a nutshell I think much of what you said is on point. White soul singers have no “image” to portray, and as such as are given considerable more freedom then black soul singers. The majority of CD buyers looking for black “r&b” (if it can be called that) want to buy a certain type of image, which the labels seek out, sign, and promote.

   Whats strange is that these days, 90% of the black musicians I work with are rocking the new Joss Stone, the new Amy Winehouse, assorted neo-soul artists, and some underground soul joints, and most of my white friends who like “black music” are the ones buying little jeezy, young tyrique, ‘lil soldier or whatever else garbage is out there.

   Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 9:39 am ¶

2. Kaywil wrote:

   If black people had their own country, there wouldn’t be this discussion. It would be “Can an Englander truly break into the American market?” type talk. They didn’t talk about “what is UK music? Is there such a thing?” They wouldn’t do that to the Beetles. There are very real cultural differences between black America and white America (and anyone else who has their own “America”). Black music becomes everyone’s music when ‘colourblind’ people won’t acknowledge the differences. It does not mean that we cannot have cross-cultural experiences, but we have to understand that should this be a nationality question, there would be no question. But because slaves, when freed, didn’t have the power to create a civil war to “mark” their own territory, they were not only denied ownership to the land, they were denied ownership to their culture. If it is not owned by those that create it and it is constantly being questioned “is there such a thing as black music?”, then we will continually see parts of the culture being sold off to corporations at the highest price and lowest standard, eg. hip hop and soul music (as seen here).

   Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 9:40 am ¶

3. LM wrote:

   My unscientific opinions:

   White soul singers ARE given more exposure by pop outlets that don’t tend to play much R&B… Robin Thicke and Joss Stone might get played, say, where Ne-Yo and Heather Headley won’t.

   R&B-heavy stations just play R&B, no matter the source (with whatever exceptions to that rule coming from music-industry intricacies about which I can’t speak).

   I found the Black Girls Like Us piece to be on the mark, and they’re particularly on point in noting the content difference between the JT and TI sections of “My Love.” But there ARE “love” songs by black artists that make it into heavy rotation — not with high frequency, but they’re there. My impression is that record executives “push” for more sexuality in these recordings is a reality, and it’s become self-fulfilling, too, to the point where they’re likely seeing more of it in demos, etc.

   As to the question/issue of cultural appropriation, I think we’re (mostly) past the days where Pat Boone “whitened” music by Little Richard and Fats Domino by comtemporaneously recording their songs right after their original release. Forget about the quality of his versions, or their lack of soulfulness compared to the originals — the fact is that ’50s America practically begged for that kind of stealing.

   Today new versions are recorded but the artistic marketplace is a lot broader and the blatant BS is usually — usually — called.

   So should Robin Thicke, Joss Stone, et al record whatever music they’d like? I think so, and found the L.A. Times review off-putting in its scrutiny of her whiteness. I don’t find Stone to be particularly compelling, but I do think she’s authentic in her artistic efforts.

   Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 9:45 am ¶

4. Kai wrote:

   Hey Carmen, is it just me or are you getting pretty edgy with these titles? I like it.

   To me, cultural appropriation depends upon the relationship between artist and subject. It’s something I sense more than I think about or know about, frankly.

   When Randy Newman sings “they tryin to wash us away” I feel his gravelly voice and his lyric in my organs and my bones. It’s not an act of artifice, it’s who he is and what he’s genuinely about.

   Joss Stone, while I admire her obvious vocal gifts, is mimicking a set of superficial flairs. It just doesn’t feel the same to me.

   In the martial arts we say that you start out mimicking and end up embodying, so maybe it’s part of a journey. But let’s be clear that these are two different stages of art that should not be confused for one another.

   Do white artists get more exposure? Do we really need to ask this question? I think of it simply as The Elvis Phenomenon. The list of artists to perform this feat, from Bernie Goodman to Eric Clapton to Eminem, goes on forever and is part of the reason for the saying that white folks have taken from black folks “everything but the burden”.

   Peace.

   Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 10:25 am ¶

5. Gandalf Mantooth wrote:

   1) Not really. Look at Robin Thicke. Who remembers when he was just “Thicke,” singing about Sprite and wearing long hair and a goatee? He had that commercial a year before his first record dropped (and flopped). He was not presented as a novelty, as Stone was. They wanted to present him as a “true artiste’.” What about Remy Shand? Ring any bells? His record came out at the same time as Thicke’s first, to about equal commerical reception (flop). Not a bad record, though.

   The constant suggestion that Stone is a novelty has to do with her age and nationality. “She isn’t just White, she’s BRITISH! And 16!” That’s all you heard. Powers clearly
   agrees with me regarding Stone’s weaknesses as an artist, however the criticism is independent of race and has more to do with her artistic choices. I don’t know why Powers linked it to race, guess she doesn’t know the difference between race and culture.

   2)”Record executives” aren’t pushing Black artists to be more explicit sexually, record sales are. You can lay blame mostly at the success of R. Kelly. Moreover, Timberlake’s wack record is not all about flowers and Hallmark cards from some chaste, lovesick teenager. Isn’t the word “sex” right there in the title?

   3) Sigh.

   Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 10:49 am ¶

6. wendi wrote:

   i remember when i first heard amy winehouse on a sample album featuring new hip hop and r&b artists. this was back in her “Frank” lp days (before her new found international fame with the “Back to Black” lp) and initially thought she was black and american. her accent certainly is not revealed in her singing. SO with that said, i liked amy then and continued to like her after i found out she was white (and jewish…which has gone a little bit under the radar). i agree that white soul artists are often marketed as novelties, but that is not entirely their fault. i think that for me the bigger question revolves around stereotypes of talent. blacks are all good singers, right? and white have no soul, right? so whites with soul = amazing talent… women like amy winehouse and christina aguilera as phenotypic representations of whiteness are very very talented, and i think that in the end, these types of people, no matter their race (hello? mary j blige & aretha franklin as examples of black women whose music careers have endured the test of time) have long careers ahead of them and are not just 15 minute wonders.

   Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 11:20 am ¶

7. Koko wrote:

   Yea….I kinda noticed that when a “white” person in a genre that is considered “black’ that all of a sudden they become the savior of the who genre or like the greatest thing….I’m like what are you talking about. Joss Stone is a good singer but shes not the best R&B/soul singer out there. And she ain’t the only one. Cause I see that a lot too. I was reading reviews to her CD and people were all like “OMG FINALLY SOME REAL R&B” as if Maxwell, Leela James, and Amel Larrieux and others don’t exist…

   Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 12:49 pm ¶

8. Chris wrote:

   I think the black music label is an outdated label that came about during segregation and earlier time periods which came about because the society of times did not want to call music made by people of African decedent American music since American was a term meant almost exclusively for people of European decedent. In a way you can considered the labeling of music as a way to setup a type of racial system that mirrored the socially constructed race system of the time. In the past it was a lot easier to tell the difference between music that came from black artists, even when white artists ripped off their music line for line, Elvis and Pat Boone come to mind with those that came from white artists because the music reflected the environment that the artist lived in. How can you define black music today? Is it a style of music were the majority of the artists are black or where the majority of the listeners are black? I don’t think it is a right or wrong answer to that question. Personally I am really not concern with the black music or blue eyed soul labels, but I concern with the motivation of the creation of the music. Artists should be able to make money from their talent, but at the same time I question those artists who are in just for the money which will lead to them to make tracks that are exclusively design to sell music and not out of trying to express themselves. Honestly how many tracks can one artists make about the same thing over and over again with not even a hint of growth in the tracks over time.

   Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 1:11 pm ¶

9. thejoyprincess wrote:

   Co-sign with Kai.

   I’d be curious to get the awesome Teena Marie’s take on this though!

   Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 1:34 pm ¶

10. Kimi wrote:

    ‘Kaywil’ …. couldn’t have said it better!!! You made excellent points. My gripe is that an “average” sounding white person could break into the mainstream with their “soul-ish” sounding voice, but a black person who wants to break into the mainstream has to be excellent. I know that some of teh “eye candy” out there may not have golden voices, but for the most part blacks have to be on top of their game; but whites can simply dress their sound up in black aesthetic and get by….that sucks….not to mension the other people of color who probably sing better then these white artists, but they can’t get signed because their neither black nor white. The Latin market is getting better at this, but there’s still some way to go.

    Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 2:39 pm ¶

11. dcase wrote:

    Simple answer, yes. As consumers of music what do we really care about: the race of the artist or the talent of the artist? If the music that they make sounds good then you have received the value of of your purchase.

    Of course , if people’s preferences for music includes a component for the characteristics (race, for example) of the performer unrelated to the quality of the performance then this will inevitably lead to the problems discussed above. Simple economic theory tells us that when consumers sort across artists based on these preferences, the artists that are more appealing to the larger consumer base will win. Hence, artists like Joss Stone and JT will definitely are much more successful than Heather Headley will ever be.

    Thus, the immediate question is why aren’t black artists doing a better job at differentiating and improving their product? Larger questions include whether we should have these racial preferences for our musicians and given that these preferences exist,can we do anything about it?

    Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 3:20 pm ¶

12. Gandalf Mantooth wrote:

    Joss Stone isn’t more successful than Heather Headley, who has a Tony award on her mantle piece. It terms of US sales, both artists are in the same ball park, though Headley had a #1 R&B record, not Stone.

    Headley is more of an adult contemporary artist, so the comparison isn’t that good.

    Also, what’s this “a Black person has to be excellent” to break into the pop charts? No one has heard Usher. No one?

    Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 4:09 pm ¶

13. Anna wrote:

    The main fault is the mainstream gatekeepers(white and black) at major label record and media companies that have chosen these roles for black and white artists. The style and musical limits for major label black artists is especially rigid right now, reinforced by black media(owned of course by white corporations) like BET or Vibe. They simply wouldn’t sponsor or promote a black woman who made an album retro sounds or features lyrics like Stone’s or Winehouse’s.

    Obviously smart, adventurous listeners, like those reading and commenting on this site, know where to find music other than the artists shoveled at us from the mainstream. But most people don’t want to do that much work. Just look at all the indie rock fans who consider themselves discerning, critical listeners but run out and buy Arcade Fire the first day because Pitchfork told them too. (It is a good album though)

    If you have to buy Amy Winehouse, buy Sharon Jones as well. Same band and sound with a better voice and sexier attitude. However she’s black and in her 40s(I think), therefore she might as well be dead to the major labels.

    Where does TV on the Radio fit in this discussion?

    Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 4:42 pm ¶

14. eric daniels wrote:

    I have posted this on another section here about Hip- Hop’s influence on modern black music and frankly it’s not too positive because as a musican ( I play bass guitar) Modern Black Music suffers from a Nazi- like pereference for slow jams and hip- hop tracks. I think there are too many guests on albums in the states. If you listen to Amy Winehouse or Joss Stone’s albums there are no rappers and I think that’s important.

    Nelson Geroge wrote 20 years ago for a need to have a ‘Black Music Chart’, he felt that the term Soul, R&B, Hip- Hop and Funk were too limiting to express the broad range of music that Black Americans make. He suggested that by using terms like these it only puts black musicans in a stylistic ghetto and does not allow for innovation, 20 years have proven him right. Billboard did take his suggestion of an ethnic chart with the World Music and Latin charts and there are diverse sounds from rock, rap, and their indegious musics.

    There are Black American Punk, Metal, Alternative, Rock, Soul, Funk , Jazz, Fusion Country and pop bands. and to think that there is only ballads and Hip- Hop cheapens the black experience in music. I think Hip- Hop should have it’s own chart and the term “Black Music Chart” be broadened to include all these styles of music.

    Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 6:58 pm ¶

15. Lori wrote:

    I think everyone here is making really good points. Personally, I chose my music based on what sounds good to my ears. I like Justin Timberlake and Joss Stone, but I admit I’m also influenced by their whiteness. I fall for that “ohmigod can you believe that’s a white girl/boy singing?” They’re kind of novelty acts in a way.

    On the other hand, some part of my inner race-woman feels like I’m betraying my people when I praise someone like JT for basically copying other Black musicians (Michael Jackson, Prince, Usher…). What’s more, while JT seems to have no problem singing “Black”music, collaborating with Black artists and landing on the Black music charts, he doesn’t really have any real connection with Black folks. And that’s when i feel the appropriation comes in. Besides using “our” style and sound how does he or any other of these blue-eyed soul singers give back or even give thanks for that matter, to the Black community.

    Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 9:45 pm ¶

16. T.M.I. wrote:

    I agree somewhat with the letter writer who said the difference is not just related to race, but nationality…British vs. American. I very rarely listen to commercial music stations. Since the mid-1990s, I’ve listened to R&B/Soul/Broken Beat/House and similar music by underground artists. I’ve found that British artists tend to make better quality music in comparison to that made by most mainstream artists in the states. And some of these artists are white Britons (such as Lewis Taylor, Alice Russell, and most recently Amy Winehouse).

    White Britons who make “black” or “soul” music not only seem to be better artists, but they also appear to respect the source of the musical style in which they work, namely black Americans. I find that much of the “black” or “R&B” music made by white Americans like Joss Stone or Christina Aguiliera sounds contrived…it lacks a certain soulfulness (which to me is an unquantifiable quality-it’s there or it isn’t). Therefore, I’m very turned off when the media tries to push someone like Joss Stone as a bona-fide soul singer. She’s not. There are just so many other artists, American and British, who are better. I really believe it’s more about her being an attractive, thin, young white woman.

    And that’s related to another issue…the very important role image/appearance plays in current American mainstream music. I wasn’t surpised to hear that Sharon Jones’ band, the Dap-tones, are currently playing for Joss Stone. The record label executives probably figured that Americans weren’t interested in watching (and purchasing music by) a mature, not rail thin, untraditionally attractive African-American woman sing “black” music…no matter how talented or “black” she is.

    Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 9:51 pm ¶

17. merq wrote:

    LM:
    “I think so, and found the L.A. Times review off-putting in its scrutiny of her whiteness. I don’t find Stone to be particularly compelling, but I do think she’s authentic in her artistic efforts.”

    Actually, no. I seriously doubt the girl’s sincerity. She’s one of those “contrived Soul” artists that boil my blood and make things harder for the truly gifted white artists.

    Many of us are listing Robin Thicke as an example of a successful white Soul artist, but few realize his album did terribly when it first came out — not even cracking the Billboard 200 until “Lost Without You” became a hit.

    One of the reasons he didn’t sell well, despite releasing what I believe to be the best Soul album of 2006, was the fact that he was constantly being compared to Timberlake by a lazy posse of music critics. Why? Well, he was a white guy who sometimes sang in falsetto and did a song with Pharrell Williams.

    So yeah, I agree with whomever spoke upthread about whiteness not being a guaranteed blessing or curse.

    Like I said, Aguilera and Stone = contrived soul
    Winehouse, in my opinion (until I hear her first album) = grossly overrated flavor-of-the-month they insist on cramming down our throats.

    Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 10:07 pm ¶

18. Stef wrote:

    I don’t know about having separate charts for black musicians (would the integrated bands be on the black music chart? One drop rule?). But I agree that there is so much more to music created by blacks than R&B and hip-hop, which is what is usually all that is implied by use of the term “black music”, which is why I dislike the term as it is so often euphamistically used. What the term implies in so many contexts that it’s used in limits the truth about music made by black people.

    I would like for blacks and all americans to know the history and realize that black people in america and around the world have been touching and shaping just about every type of music throughout history, as each genre has given rise to others. So much of american music has been created out of aftican traditions mixing with european traditions. Music created here is not racially pure. Everyone adds something to the tapestry.

    There is a cool timeline in the current issue of National Geographic that maps out the contributions of blacks to music here and around the world.

    Posted 04 Apr 2007 at 10:50 pm ¶

19. deb wrote:

    You know, I thought Pink was going to be the new Tina Marie when she came out with “There You Go” (on LaFace Records). Then she turned…white!

    Posted 05 Apr 2007 at 10:33 am ¶

20. Kaywil wrote:

    You guys should read http://www.raceintheworkplace.com/2007/04/05/the-business-of-selling-and-consuming-blackness/#more-30

    It may help you all to get a better picture of why it’s so easy for whites to replicate black music and be accepted. Hey, some of you might even stop saying “black music” and start saying Black Music…

    Posted 05 Apr 2007 at 2:19 pm ¶

21. LM wrote:

    Merq,

    Good point about Thicke’s album… and for the record, no pun intended, he caught my ear his first time around a handful of years ago, but I’d practically forgotten about that time. Bottom line, the music industry and record sales is a trippy topic.

    On Joss Stone — she’s not yet out of her teens. I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt. I suspect she’s the latest Anna Kournikova — getting attention from people who otherwise wouldn’t pay attention but for her looks.

    Posted 06 Apr 2007 at 12:04 am ¶

22. merq wrote:

    Stef
    “I don’t know about having separate charts for black musicians ”

    See, but that’s the THING! In one of her few sane moments, Debra Dickerson put it best when she said something along the lines of (paraphrasing:) “whites worshipped at the temple of race for centuries, but as soon as it became less acceptable to be openly racist, they blame POC for holding on to that ‘race’ paradigm they had drummed into their heads (sometimes literally) for centuries.”

    My point? I don’t know if you know this already, but up until the mid-’80s, there was a Billboard “Black Singles Chart.” To put it even more plainly, we’re not just talking Ray Charles here, JANET JACKSON has a few Black Chart hits under her belt.

    So it’s all cool and cute to now attack POC for questioning legitimacy of modern-day Pat Boones, but when it worked for the White-run music industry, Rock-n-Roll was still being described as “the debbil’s music, designed to reduce us to the level of the negra.”

    Posted 06 Apr 2007 at 7:20 am ¶

23. Lisa B wrote:

    I’m an American musician of half-Asian, half-European ancestry. What sort of music am I supposed to make?

    Posted 06 Apr 2007 at 11:40 am ¶

24. Ananse wrote:

    Not should, but can– and what types of “white” people exactly did you have in mind?

    -1-
    Tired of the distorted narrative in which there was such a thing as “white artists”, “black music”, “theft” etc. along a one-way street.

    Really liked reading a while back:

    B. Lee Cooper of Olivet College (MI) one of the best scholars of American popular culture when it comes to music history, wrote a great essay called “Promoting Social Change Through Audio Repetition: Black Musicians as Creators and Revivalists 1953-1978″ first published in the Journal on Media Culture in 1989:

    http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/TRA/Promoting_social_change.shtml

    Using extensive archival info, Cooper examined the most vital period in American popular music history in terms of the acknowledged start of the integration of black composers and artists and their works into the “canon” and onto the charts. What he discovered was a whole mix of dynamics that eventually laid the base for the labels, arguments, assumptions, and charges above– but there’s a framework and pattern to it which says as much about social, economic and artistic life and identity within communities as it does across communities. Hopefully it will add to the discussion and illuminate and clarify the limited narrative that’s generally offered in this context– for those who take time to read and digest it.

    -2-
    Representation is not the same as participation, and participation is not a guarantee of quality in any style or genre. Further, just having one of “yours” represented doesn’t mean your community will support or appreciate that talent in its time.

    Some years ago, while overseas, I had the amazing experience to hear stories from club owners and record store proprietors who recounted their stories and exploits of artists we think of as mainstream now, but who weren’t embraced as such commercially or artistically by their respective communities of color back in the 50s, 60s, or 70s and had to play overseas; or who were so tightly embraced by their communities of color that they actually felt constrained artistically and by their labels and companies and that they felt like they had no choice but to blow the States for other territory.

    It wasn’t just rock, jazz, and blues, but also classical, country, folk, avant garde what not in various arts. Many would not be appreciated for their efforts at all or for many years at home by the communities or circles in which they called home, but overseas, they became legendary. Appropriation was common, musicians stole from each other openly, some killed because of. Oh, and Elvis wasn’t a racist (some of his black musician friends assured me).

    Knowing this and learning from that perspective, at least, this wave of “race labels” is bemusing, while sales and audience support would be more interesting. Billboard matters less these days than SoundScan in my book, which matters less than anything thanks to downloads, so all this labeling can hopefully stop soon enough.

    Posted 06 Apr 2007 at 1:50 pm ¶

25. Stef wrote:

    merq-

    People of all groups are clinging to those old race paradigms. I know it’s hard to shake off that way of thiking if it was drummed into your head. I was not actually aware of the “Black Music Chart” you mentioned, having been a young child by the time it was done away with in the mid-80’s. Was the Black Music Chart helpful or hindering to black artists? Intuitively, it seems so limiting. One Black Music chart for however-many (non-Black, by implication) other charts? But maybe it had benefits for Black artists I am not seeing. Should we return to segregated music charts then?

    Sometimes, in addition to my racial and class status, I think that my age and the transitioning zeitgeist I grew up in in the 80’s and 90’s , with schools and other institutions moving to such an optimistic, pro-change message of race (at least what was told to us kids -I’m not speaking of structural realities of the time for adults) has landed me in an awkward place of racial understanding. It’s like, though things weren’t perfect, still I wasn’t growing up in the same climate as my parents did, having to see all the things that they saw. Messages of diversity and acceptance were seemingly crammed down the throats of us kids, taught to us as social norms (again, even if it was only lip service). A rainbow of kids, holding hands and singing, spanning the globe. That is the image of race relations that was given to us. And, it was like, “Of course! Why shouldn’t we all live in beautiful harmony?” I think this continues to be taught still to the younger generations today. Hell, Angelina Jolie could very well be the poster-girl for this sort of “propoganda”, she was probably taught the same things.

    Now, as an adult, I have to realize that not every other person in the world believes Santa Clause . I come here to learn and shed this naïveté and gain a more balanced perspective. I know so many people had those old racial paradigms hammered into their heads. And I try to respectfully understand things from their perspectives as best as I can, having probably been raised so differently from how they have been (while I saw racism and prejudice when I was growing up, it wasn’t hammered to me as hard as alternate views were).

    Sometimes, though, I get a feeling of, “Damnit, where’s that Utopia I was made to expect? Why aren’t we there already? I’m ready!” When it comes to perspectives on race, I’m like a horse chomping at the bit to fulfill all those pretty dreams and expectations, yet tied to the hitching post of the ugly realities of previous generations. Trying to strike a balance between honoring the past and moving toward a better future.

    Relating all this to the topic at hand, it’s like, “Ok, there were Black Music charts–in the past. To return to that seems like moving backwards. Shouldn’t we be moving away from segregation?” That’s the superficial take, at least, but maybe Black Music charts could be benneficial to some musicians…I dunno. Do you think it’d be better that way?

    My issue with the black music label or sorting music into racial boxes might seem trifling, an effort to get the semantics right. But I think the language we use *can* affect our worldviews subconciously, and, I don’t know, reality seems too complex for these tidy, reductive labels.

    Thanks

    Posted 06 Apr 2007 at 3:51 pm ¶

26. merq wrote:

    Stef,

    By no means am I saying we should return to segregated charts

    Posted 07 Apr 2007 at 10:27 am ¶

27. merq wrote:

    Stef,

    By no means am I saying we should return to segregated charts. I’m just irritated by all the “there’s no such THING as ‘black music’ — your music is my music” rhetoric in mainstream music today, because, as I stated earlier, it was a different story when “black music” wasn’t the economic juggernaut it is today.

    Posted 07 Apr 2007 at 10:29 am ¶

28. Yori Kim wrote:

    I think people should play whatever music they want to play, music should not be about the race, but about the music itself. As for the blue eyed soul singers getting more attention then black soul singers……………..I’m not actually positive what to say on that…………but I know that if its 100% true then all types of musicians (no matter the race) should get attention and not just white singers.

    Please to not be offended, as to I did not mean to offend.

    Posted 07 Apr 2007 at 1:51 pm ¶

29. Anase wrote:

    Setting the record straight on the “Black Singles Chart”, courtesy of the man who would best know– Joel Whitburn of Record Research, who’s been monitoring the history and industry of American charted for some 40 years:

    Billboard launched a “Harlem Hit Parade” chart 10/24/42 for singles on black urban radio. Name changed to “Best Sellers” 5/22/48; “Rhythm & Blues” 6/25/49; “R&B” 6/30/56; “Soul Singles” 8/23/69; “Black Singles” 6/26/82; and then slowly morphing back to “R&B” and eventually “R&B/Hip-Hip”.

    BUT: From 2/17/45 to 6/17/57, there was also a *second* chart called “Juke Box Race Records” to track sales, not airplay, in black off-radio venues.

    AND: There was a *third* chart from 1/22/55 to 6/13/58 called “Jockeys” tracking the popularity of black DJ song preferences/popularity.

    On 10/20/58, Biilboard officially condensed its three “black” charts into one,only suspending publication from 11/30/63 to 1/23/65– when Cash Box magazine ran the only chart during 1964.

    FWIW: Timeline mirrors social developments in an interesting way. If the charts, radio stations, labels, and artists were in a fog for what to call their music, what’s the consumer going to call it? See how the pattern repeats itself…

    I’m left wondering if that segregated system created an outlet for artists that would not have enjoyed the sales/visibility on the general pop charts at that time, given social conditions. Much different story given the artists that actually want listing *on* that chart for the credibility…

    Posted 07 Apr 2007 at 8:46 pm ¶

30. eric daniels wrote:

    What I am aruging that Black Music is no longer just Hip-Hop /crossover R&B but a diverse patische of sounds from Metal, Punk, retro soul/funk, Neosuoul, Blues, Jazz/Fusion, World Music, Reggae and Alternative sounds. Nelson George argued that a R&B and Soul chart were limiting because they define stylistic genres not what black musicians actually play today.

    It is not separtist to have a black music chart, there is a latin music chart and I never hear the compliants of racial segregation. The latin charts have Tejano, traditonal , latin rock, reggaeton, latin pop, hip- hop etc.. That’s what I am arguing a R&B/Soul chart was approriate between 1965- 1980 when the majority of black music was R&B, Funk, Soul and Blues. In 2007 there are all- black punk bands like Sistas in the Pit, Whole Wheat, metal bands like Wicked Wisdom and alternative bands like Bad Brains, Living Colour and Fishbone along with black -led intergrated bands. It makes sense, Black Music is more than two genres

    Black American Music suffers from a creative malaise and record labels signing only singers and rappers instead of bands, singer- songwriters and the dominant west coast rap sound and Black A&R people pushing sexist, mainstream rap and R.Kelly -type hip- hop R&B, while our white counterparts like Amy Winehouse, Christine Aguleria, Justin Timberlake Joss Stone and Thicke can explore the full range and beauty of black music or explore other styles of music and sell it to the widest possible auidence.

    But a Black musician or band is forced to sell either sex or violence to get played on a radio station or sell the lowest common denominator to cross-over to the pop charts or toil as an ‘alternative act’ while the music suffers in the U.S. or should we look at the top ten in 1987 and 2007. A Black Music chart would do what the Latin charts has done expose people to the widest possible music played by Black Musicians in this country and worldwide.

    Posted 08 Apr 2007 at 12:46 am ¶

31. Stef wrote:

    merq-
    OK, I think I get what you were saying, like, what was once termed “black music” is now up for grabs since it has proven it’s profitability. Now race labels don’t matter–how conveeeenient.

    Anase-
    Thanks for all the info! Wow. It seems from the early days that “R&B” or “Soul” was used as a euphamism for “black music”, which may not have been as big a problem back then in terms of accuracy as the genres of music being produced all stylistically fit under those umbrellas (maybe?). But then, when they changed the name to “Black Singles”, was that to reflect the broadening line of musical styles being produced by black musicians as time went on? Because if it was still only R&B and Soul getting on the “Black Singles” chart, well, that could have started this whole “black music=R&B, Soul” and “R&B, Soul=black music” paradigm that is so prevalent nowadays.

    Eric Daniels-
    I feel that the term “Latin” in a musical context, refers a genre of music (with sub-genres) describing the musical styles indiginous to the Latin region. “Latin” does not refer to a race of people, as Latinos come in many races (on Latin charts you could find, say, Celia Cruz as well as Shakira) . So I don’t feel the Latin chart is sorting accoding to race as I guess the black music chart would.

    I definately agree that blacks can (and should, and do) make music in any genre, which is why I don’t see using a race label as a musical genre label. I like music charts separated by musical genre, like Soul and R&B, because it seems more inclusive that way. Soul artists of anyrace can chart on the Soul chart; R&B artists of any race can chart on the R&B chart. Putting Bad Brains on the same chart as Anita Baker just doesn’t make sense to me. It’s apples to oranges, stylistically, even though they do have race in common. To treat them as comprable to each other is to wash over all of their unique charachteristics and lump them together simply because they both happen to be black.

    Why couldn’t a Bad Brains exist today and just chart on the rock chart with similar acts? Why do they need a separate chart in order to exist as a black punk band? This would reinforce the idea that “rock” cant be “black” unless explicitly stated, that the default for rock is non-black. I know that there have not been lots of black rock acts in the mainstream for the past few decades (for whatever reason), but not putting Bad Brains on the regular rock chart seems to treat them as some sort of musical freak, and doesn’t honor the fact that from the earliest days of rock there were black rockers (Chuck Berry et al).

    I also feel that there is a lot of “sex and violence” stuff coming from mainstream black artists (although there are many black musicians doing other than this too, though probably are not as mainstream). And, as a consumer, I think that the mainstream music scene is suffering from lack of creativity now across the board. I honestly don’t know enough about the music industry to point to the cause of this as stemming from the record labels, the artists themselves, or the current chart situation. I guess a lot of it is that the labels are just less likely to take a risk today on an unproven formula, and are just emphasizing making money over art, but I dont know. Maybe it’s a combination of things.

    Posted 09 Apr 2007 at 2:00 pm ¶

32. Ananse wrote:

    Stef: You just made the overall point I wanted to, in a much better fashion than I could. It actually leads to this item…

    Carmen: Just finished my new favorite book addressing your original post and subsequent discussion which has followed. Titled “Faking It: The Quest for Authenticity in Popular Music” by Hugh Barker and Yuval Taylor . I’d been putting off reading it when it came out couple of months ago, but I’m glad I gave it a chance in light of what’s been posed and said now.

    The authors do something very simple and yet very smart: they make a key distinction between “style” and “lifestyle” in terms of music and artists and the proceed to juxtapose examinations of broad categories of American popular music since there’s been a means to track it as an industry, identifying the very notion of “authenticity” in different forms as variations of a myth developed and perpetuated by various social, political, and economic interests over time.

    They posit why, for example, “good” music equals “simple, real, plain, truth” while “bad” music equals “fantasy and complexity” regardless of genre. They also go further to explain the “primitivism” double standard that makes black artists (and by extension artists of color) less popular within their root communities compared to white audiences, despite an artist’s own desires to expand their repetoire; and the “classist” streak permeating anything that’s “inauthentic”in punk among white male standard bearers despite the supposed anything goes aesthetic.

    Among things I learned: Leadbelly really wanted to always sing more “white” country music, but was denied that privilege by his handlers; and Elvis wanted more than anything to be a Hollywood icon, not a rocker or mimicker/interpreter of “black” music.

    The chapter deconstructing The Beatles vs. The Monkees actually left me wondering which group was more “legitimate” in the end. The Neil Young chapter is painful, and the Ry Cooder/Buena Vista Social Club chapter depressing when you ponder whether anything is truly “culturally authentic” when a public and industry craves/demands that it be so.

    My big beef: Hip hop, of all things, is missing entirely from the discussion. And their discussion of country music is given way to facile a read, as if they ran out of steam on everything else. Still, they make solid points that hadn’t stuck with me before.

    Their point: All of this stuff, regardless of genre, style, artist, or time– is based on some measure of artifice and “truthiness”, a paradox of making it without selling out, and wanting to be embraced/recognized/acknowledged by the larger society but not necessarily having everyone participate in “what’s yours”.

    All this doesn’t happen without industry and audience complicity, namely expectations, biases, values, etc. commodified and writ large into the marketplace. Things have to be both saleable and sell, meeting the demands of a fickle base which, for better or worse, determines the very labels under which music will be heard until it’s played out. It’s not a selfless business and it’s a selfish art, but everyone who cracks up from the tension winds up a bitter, lonely, self-hating, failure.

    So much better to just know who and what you are and break free of the constraints and labels so you don’t get stuck, and avoid the game all together…

    Posted 09 Apr 2007 at 8:00 pm ¶

33. eric daniels wrote:

    Stef, the latin music charts celebrates the diversity in which latin acts where these acts can sing Tejano, traditional latin pop, modern latin pop (J. Lo, Mark Anthony etc) Latin rock and it’s subgenres, it’s acknowledging that Latin Music by extension is different genres unto itself and if you see the Latin Grammys every year it awards music latins play in those genres openly . I do not hear complaints about this chart only when a Black Person bring up celebrating all the styles that black people play does it become a problem because it’s separating the races.

    Stef, R&B and Soul music are genres within black music, it may mean the Black Chart to most eyes ,but that’s racist because it does not celebrate the diversity styles of music black people play in 2007. On the mainstream white charts, there is rock, metal, punk, r&b, soul, alternative, pop and every other deveriative and we all know it means ‘white people buying black music’. What you are doing is denying that black people play any other style of music outside of soul and r&b (now cosinged to retro music)

    Bad Brains, Living Colour and Fishbone should have a chance to compete on an open genre black music chart just like Latin artists do, and this complaint that it’s segregating people is balderdash, Jewish and White American record execs created the concept of a race chart nearly 100 ago when they took control of the entertainment industry and now in 2007 when the lines between genres is blurring now you want to keep black musicians constricted to a R&B and Soul chart?

    R&B AND Soul music are genres so is Funk and Disco. If 50 Cent can be on the ‘white’ charts why can’t TVOTR be played on black stations and chart on an (let me say it again) open genre Black Music chart, It’s an idea whose time has come and to say it’s racist is condesending to say the least. We all can’t be like you Stef, all colorblind and believing in some upotia like that Coke commerical lyric “I like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony”.

    Posted 10 Apr 2007 at 4:18 am ¶

34. Proud Jewish Female wrote:

    I’m not certain what Mr. Daniels is trying to imply, but I definitely didn’t appreciate the condescension in his response to “Stef”; nor his tired, baseless charges that Jews and Whites in the record industry are behind the lack of chart success for his favorite artists, much less black artists.

    I’d love to see this list of “Jews and Whites” circulated, and suggest a boycott all their company products– assuming one can also prove, beyond all doubt, that black radio doesn’t pose a barrier to non-traditional black artists; and that artists themselves don’t contribute to their own lack of success by refusing to conform to industry standards.

    Prove this, then know you can spew such racist bile and hate filled rage with justification. But know the groups Mr. Daniels cited and claims to like take the opposite stance on racism to my people, and would openly denounce the offensive statements he has made here.

    I will not start a war, but I’m shocked by the silence here…

    Posted 11 Apr 2007 at 12:25 am ¶

35. Kaywil wrote:

    PJF - Industry standards? Who determines those and why? Shouldn’t that be questioned? What’s with the ‘conformist’ posturing? She we have to conform in order to be accepted? Isn’t that an argument used by ‘racists’?

    Eric - BTW, if you haven’t noticed, Jewish people come in all colors! What’s the difference if it’s Christian white or Jewish white? I know that America is not up to speed on Jewish history but it has long been a racially diverse religion. We just see it as monolithic because of European Jewish migration in the post-holocaust era.

    Posted 11 Apr 2007 at 12:13 pm ¶

36. Proud Jewish Female wrote:

    Kaywil, Thank you for the measure of respect in your reply.

    I think “Ananse” above pointed to what you are asking. “Pop” demands conformity, but the expectations are set by the audience that actually accepts, rejects, and opts to buy product. Both forces influence and shape the other, but it makes it hard for something original to sell and last– unless they understand and can manipulate those relationships and rules to their benefit– gender, class, ethnicity, or race, etc. in the industry.

    Can’t deny “racism”, but it’s the same prejudice that preempts people from enjoying *any* artist not of their own race; or solely because of one’s race. “You” (i.e. audience) play just as much a part in any artist’s success– why deny your own power & responsibility in the marketplace?

    With respect….

    Posted 11 Apr 2007 at 4:40 pm ¶

37. goober_pistachio wrote:

    Look y’all this stuff don’t matter much to me, especially about the blue eyed/brown skin stuff… who cares as long as those singing can deliver the goods– I like ‘em all.

    Im digging RObin Thicke too, who you have to respect as *the* first white act since George Michaels to top the R&B charts in, what, 20 years? so good stuff, it means it’s all about what you do, not who’s doing.

    And hey, look, Thicke’s daddy’s that dude from “Growing Pains”, that man who also wrote *and* sang that damn “Diff’rent Strokes” theme song! So wouldn’t that be enough to make you want to hang out and be friends with Usher, John Legend, Keyshia Cole, and India.Arie? Give all the quality acts exposure, and I’ll buy what they’ll be selling…

    Posted 11 Apr 2007 at 7:04 pm ¶

Post a Comment