Posted: Mon 06 Jul 2009 04:03 Post subject: Behind the Michael Jackson Facade
Quote:
July 4, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
NY Times
Behind the Facade
By BOB HERBERT
Meeting Michael Jackson in the mid-1980s was one of the creepier experiences of my life. I was an editor at The Daily News and had to present him with an award in a large room with just a handful of onlookers and a photographer at Madison Square Garden.
I wasn’t put off by the fact that Jackson, then in his mid-20s, couldn’t make small talk. Lots of people have trouble with that. There was something about his overall behavior that weirded me out. He seemed, even then, to be a person who was trying with all of his being to step outside of reality and leave it behind.
Emmanuel Lewis, the child star of the hit TV series “Webster,” was with Jackson that evening. The undersized Lewis was probably 13 at the time, but he looked much younger, maybe 7 or 8.
Jackson seemed to relate only to Lewis. He made faces at the tiny boy and giggled as Lewis hopped around and climbed over furniture, much to Jackson’s delight. I remember thinking as I left the Garden that Jackson had treated Lewis almost as a pet.
I’ve never heard any suggestion of anything improper about the relationship between Jackson and Lewis. But what I wish I had thought more about in those long-ago days of Michael-mania was the era of extreme immaturity and grotesque irresponsibility that was already well under way in America. The craziness played out on a shockingly broad front and Jackson’s life, among many others, would prove to be a shining and ultimately tragic example.
Ronald Reagan was president, making promises he couldn’t keep about taxes and deficits and allowing the readings of a West Coast astrologer to shape his public schedule. The movie “Wall Street” would soon appear, accurately reflecting the nation’s wholesale acceptance of unrestrained greed and other excesses of the rich and powerful.
In neighborhoods through much of black America, crack was taking a fearful toll. Young criminals were arming themselves with ever more powerful weapons, and prison garb was used to set fashion trends.
Motown was the label that gave us the Jackson 5. But when Michael and his brothers released their first album in 1969, the label had already reached its creative peak and most of the best work — the stunning originality of the Miracles, the Marvelettes, Mary Wells, Martha and the Vandellas, the Supremes, the Temptations, and others — had been done. Hip-hop would soon appear, and then the violence and misogyny of gangsta rap.
All kinds of restraints were coming off. It was almost as if the adults had gone into hiding. The deregulation that we were told would be great for the economy was being applied to the culture as a whole. Women could be treated as sex objects again as misogyny, hardly limited to hip-hop, went mainstream. (Have you looked at network television lately, or listened to the radio?) Astonishing numbers of men abandoned their children with impunity. Most of the nation seemed fine with the idea of going to war without a draft and without raising taxes.
In many ways we descended as a society into a fantasyland, trying to leave the limits and consequences and obligations of the real world behind. Politicians stopped talking about the poor. We built up staggering amounts of debt and called it an economic boom. We shipped jobs overseas by the millions without ever thinking seriously about how to replace them. We let New Orleans drown.
Jackson was the perfect star for the era, the embodiment of fantasy gone wild. He tried to carve himself up into another person, but, of course, there was the same Michael Jackson underneath — talented but psychologically disabled to the point where he was a danger to himself and others.
Reality is unforgiving. There is no escape. Behind the Jackson facade was the horror of child abuse. Court records and reams of well-documented media accounts contain a stream of serious allegations of child sex abuse and other inappropriate behavior with very young boys. Jackson, a multimillionaire megastar, was excused as an eccentric. Small children were delivered into his company, to spend the night in his bed, often by their parents.
One case of alleged pedophilia against Jackson, the details of which would make your hair stand on end, was settled for a reported $25 million. He beat another case in court.
The Michael-mania that has erupted since Jackson’s death — not just an appreciation of his music, but a giddy celebration of his life — is yet another spasm of the culture opting for fantasy over reality. We don’t want to look under the rock that was Jackson’s real life.
As with so many other things, we don’t want to know.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1876 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Mon 06 Jul 2009 12:52 Post subject:
Quote:
Motown was the label that gave us the Jackson 5. But when Michael and his brothers released their first album in 1969, the label had already reached its creative peak and most of the best work — the stunning originality of the Miracles, the Marvelettes, Mary Wells, Martha and the Vandellas, the Supremes, the Temptations, and others — had been done. Hip-hop would soon appear, and then the violence and misogyny of gangsta rap.
Sounds like some old fart wrote this.
I hardly believe that anyone who was born in 1969 thinks their was no musical creativity in thier life time and "black music" went from Motown to gangsta rap in an instant lOL
The first 10 years of rap was not "gangsta" anything those people were a minority in hiphop until it went mainstream in the late 1980's and white owned record companies wanted to appeal to white suburban kids (the ones who buy the most hiphop since the early 1990s) with real and mythological "ghetto tales"...Corporate America killed the diversity of hiphop within 5 years and it has taken nearly 20 years for it to come back.
Now hip hop is diversifying again. Just last year, Kanye West (the son of an English Professor and a former college student although a drop out) out sold by far the Gangsta Rapper exdrug dealing 50 Cent. Rappers like Talib Kweli and Common have got a lot more fame than they did even 5 years ago. The tide is turning...
THis guy really has no clue...sorry.
He reminds me of those old white folks who said Elvis was singing "N@$*#* Jungle Music" or even before that, that "Jazz" was some type of "coloured corruption" decadent of culture, too sexual...
My how we forget...50 years from now, taken a long view of the genera people will likely think Hip Hop was also mostly harmless.
He reminds me of those old white folks who said Elvis was singing "N@$*#* Jungle Music" or even before that, that "Jazz" was some type of "coloured corruption" decadent of culture, too sexual...
Stephen Foster's "Oh! Susanna" is a polka. It was criticized in 1848 because polkas were seen as lascivious and sexual. And so, polkas were banned in polite company. A generation earlier, waltzes were criticized for being too sexy (dirty dancing). Generation after generation, I suspect that the pattern goes back to Paleolithic times. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Last edited by fwsweet on Mon 06 Jul 2009 21:14; edited 1 time in total
Motown was the label that gave us the Jackson 5. But when Michael and his brothers released their first album in 1969, the label had already reached its creative peak and most of the best work — the stunning originality of the Miracles, the Marvelettes, Mary Wells, Martha and the Vandellas, the Supremes, the Temptations, and others — had been done. Hip-hop would soon appear, and then the violence and misogyny of gangsta rap.
Sounds like some old fart wrote this.
I hardly believe that anyone who was born in 1969 thinks their was no musical creativity in thier life time and "black music" went from Motown to gangsta rap in an instant lOL
The first 10 years of rap was not "gangsta" anything those people were a minority in hiphop until it went mainstream in the late 1980's and white owned record companies wanted to appeal to white suburban kids (the ones who buy the most hiphop since the early 1990s) with real and mythological "ghetto tales"...Corporate America killed the diversity of hiphop within 5 years and it has taken nearly 20 years for it to come back.
Now hip hop is diversifying again. Just last year, Kanye West (the son of an English Professor and a former college student although a drop out) out sold by far the Gangsta Rapper exdrug dealing 50 Cent. Rappers like Talib Kweli and Common have got a lot more fame than they did even 5 years ago. The tide is turning...
THis guy really has no clue...sorry.
He reminds me of those old white folks who said Elvis was singing "N@$*#* Jungle Music" or even before that, that "Jazz" was some type of "coloured corruption" decadent of culture, too sexual...
My how we forget...50 years from now, taken a long view of the genera people will likely think Hip Hop was also mostly harmless.
Really? Do you have any evidence of this? (Just asking)
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1876 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Mon 06 Jul 2009 17:45 Post subject:
Cjohns:
Quote:
AlterNet
Is Hip-Hop Really Dead?
By DaveyD , San Jose Mercury News
Posted on March 3, 2007, Printed on July 6, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/48693/
Hip-hop icon Nas made the provocative statement, "Hip-hop is dead,'' in September and set off a firestorm of controversy. It was intensified by the January release of his album bearing the same title.
Many questioned why Nas would say hip-hop -- a worldwide phenomenon that has generated billions of dollars -- could be "dead.'' After all, more hip-hop albums are being released then ever before, and the music's influence extends to movies, corporate marketing and theater. That it's dead seems absurd -- until you realize Nas was looking beneath the surface.
He was speaking of the corporate side of the music and the mentality of executives more interested in turning a quick buck than nurturing rap culture. Nas realized sex, violence and bling, as themes for the music, had pretty much run their course. Album sales had plummeted, and ratings at hip-hop radio stations in New York, Los Angeles and elsewhere had hit all-time lows.
A number of people, including this writer, also had spoken out about mediocre product coming from some of the genre's biggest stars. Yet such talk was rebuffed by so-called industry experts, who blamed digital downloading and satellite radio.
We critics, however, were vindicated by a study published earlier this year by the University of Chicago. Data from the "Black Youth Project'' indicated that while 58 percent of blacks between ages 15 and 25 listen to hip-hop daily, most are dissatisfied with it. They find the subject matter is too violent, and women too often portrayed in offensive ways.
Such feelings hint at a dirty little secret of the music business: Blacks are used largely to validate musical themes being marketed to the white mainstream. In other words, while 90 percent of commercial rap artists on TV and radio are black, the target audience lies outside the black community.
Paul Porter, a longtime industry veteran and former music programmer at BET and Radio One, is now with the watchdog organization Industryears.com. He says the University of Chicago findings offer proof positive that commercial hip-hop has become the ultimate minstrel show, and rap artists are pushed by the industry to remain perpetual adolescents.
As a result, we watch Diddy, Cam'ron, DMX and others brag about wealth and throw bills at a camera while bikini-clad women gyrate in the background. Should these artists attempt to break out of the mold, they'd risk having their work questioned by record and radio executives.
In our conversation, Porter also pointed to something more sinister: payola. He claimed hip-hop is dead only because payola is rampant at labels intent on investing in songs with sexual and violent themes.
During a separate conversation, Questlove of the Roots supported Porter's allegation with his own story about the process behind the group's Grammy-winning hit with Erykah Badu, "You Got Me.'' He said the Roots had to pony up close to "a million dollars'' to a middle man who "worked his magic'' at radio stations.
Initially, the overtly positive song had been rejected, he explained, so palms were greased with the promise that key stations countrywide would get hot "summer jam'' concert acts in exchange for airplay. According to Questlove, more than $1 million in cash and resources were eventually laid out for the success of that single song.
In the documentary "Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes,'' shown recently on the PBS series "Independent Lens,'' filmmaker Byron Hurt confronts Stephen Hill, BET's senior vice president for programming, to ask why the cable network plays so many videos with misogynist and otherwise degrading themes. The fortysomething Hill walks away without answering. This is the same executive who refused to broadcast videos by the group Little Brother, because he considered their material "too intelligent'' for the BET audience.
With thinking like that, no wonder commercial hip-hop appears dead. It's the ideas of the gatekeepers that are dead.
Do you think it is a coincidence that when rap started getting play on pop stations in the very late 1980's and early 1990's that very few other generas of rap could get record contracts and the diversity dried up. Is it odd to you that the Roots and Erykah Badu could barely get a track played on the radio that won a Grammy??
Record companies have very large marketing departments and they know how to market things.
They knew that the more vial the music the more they could sell it and they were targeting the suburbs, because that is where the money was. Black folks back in they day were buying bootlegs, copying tapes, etc. Blacks are only 12% of the population and of those I doubt even 30% listened to rap in the early 1990's, it was mostly young people under 25.
There was more money to be made with a more affluent population that was larger in size.
This was not coincidence, Chuck D of Public Enemy and KRS1 have been saying this for 20 years!!! They literally got pushed out in favor of groups like 2 Live Crew and NWA...that was a gateway for a lot more gangster groups...
Just now in 2009, 20 years later is hip hop recovering from that nonsense.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1842 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Tue 07 Jul 2009 15:04 Post subject:
I do not think anyone will ever achieve the stature of Michael Jackson again. Since Rap and hip hop were brought up, I have to say that nobody of that genre will ever compare to a Michael Jackson. This is not a put down. Just as in Rock 'n' Roll, no current group will ever achieve the stature of the Beatles.
Folks like the Beatles, the Jacksons and others were pioneers to an extent for music that when the Beatles came out, was only about 10 years old, and when the Jacksons came out perhaps not more than 15 years old. Rap/hip hop is its own art form and there were pioneers, but the times are much different. It is much harder today to become "big" than it was 40 years ago and more. It is also harder to sustain. So hence being that the Jacksons came out when they did, the death of Michael is the end of one of the chapters in the entertainment industry. If Michael Jackson came out within the last 20 years or so, he might have been big for a while, and still known today, but nothing like he was. An end of an era. Not to be seen again, I think.
Greatest rock n'roll/pop entertainers- Elvis, The Beatles , Micheal Jackson.They all had that 'it factor. It was talent,times,and giving the public something new or reworked new with some new additons.
Elvis-great entertainer.Flawed and tormented man personally.
Micheal Jackson- great entertainer.Flawed and tormented man personally.
John Lennon-great talent with The Beatles and alone but John had personal problems-ditched his son Julian, irrational thinking,theYoko thing.
RingoStarr(Richarad Starkey),Deceased George Harrison,and Paul McCartney,great talents with The Beatles and alone,but they were normal in their personal lives.They all lived in n REALITY! Even Ringo and George did not have as much success as Paul McCartney and Wings and then he went solo again,Ringo and George stilll had their own thing and lived in REALITY!
I think the writer of this article was bringing out that MJ,even then was losing REALITY!
The writer mentioned N.O. drowned,but that was not until 8/28/05.
His article was about losing reality 1980's and then he threw in N.O. Wrong date. I mostly agree with his article. 1980's ,live and let live.Whatever goes.Smoke and mirrors. The writer used his own account of meeting MJ. That was onbe sad and "off"meeting.the writer took a hit at Nancy Reagan and her astrology too.
Greatest rock n'roll/pop entertainers- Elvis, The Beatles , Micheal Jackson.They all had that 'it factor. It was talent,times,and giving the public something new or reworked new with some new additons.
The Beatles stopped publicly performing in '67 I believe, so the listening public had to content themselves with Beatle records after that.
Elvis may have been a great entertainer when he switched to lounge singer mode in the late 60s and 70s, but he spent a fair amount of the 60s making cheesy movies. He never put out new musical material and his act, though very popular, remained the same from one performance to the next.
Michael Jackson had the two beat. Even I have to admit that he was a phenomenal performer and entertainer, and though I stopped listening to his music after "Thriller", he was still putting out music that many people liked and was touring/entertaining to support that music.
I really don't think we'll see another like him as far as singing, dancing, and all around entertaining are concerned, and no one comes close in comparison IMO.
Having said that, I found him to be a nutter, and his funeral (what I saw of it) was like a concert as opposed to a solemn event. Each of his brothers wearing one glove almost made me laugh.....I know I'm bad for reacting that way but I couldn't help myself.
I do not think anyone will ever achieve the stature of Michael Jackson again. Since Rap and hip hop were brought up, I have to say that nobody of that genre will ever compare to a Michael Jackson. This is not a put down. Just as in Rock 'n' Roll, no current group will ever achieve the stature of the Beatles.
Folks like the Beatles, the Jacksons and others were pioneers to an extent for music that when the Beatles came out, was only about 10 years old, and when the Jacksons came out perhaps not more than 15 years old. Rap/hip hop is its own art form and there were pioneers, but the times are much different. It is much harder today to become "big" than it was 40 years ago and more. It is also harder to sustain. So hence being that the Jacksons came out when they did, the death of Michael is the end of one of the chapters in the entertainment industry. If Michael Jackson came out within the last 20 years or so, he might have been big for a while, and still known today, but nothing like he was. An end of an era. Not to be seen again, I think.
The beatles pioneers??? When they were covering the Isley Brothers. What about Muddy Waters?? The Jacksons pioneers??? What about Johnny Guitar Watson, New Birth , Parliament/Funkadelic, Curtis Mayfield, Isaac Hayes , Buddy Guy, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, Solomon Burke, Fats Domino, Little Richard. It's a wonder why they put the Jacksons under so much scrutiny - these are black artists that got the music, the fame, and the money and they unapologetic about it.
I also dislike how people jump from the 60s all the way to hiphop, like nothing happened in between, hello 'Funk and Soul'. These were the true godfathers of hiphop, but of course, they didnt get their recognition as more attention was paid to the rock artists, and their music got relegated to disco recordings in the late seventies, much like hiphop is getting relegated now. All throughout, history, as I find, and I'm 21 years of age and have studied this, that black artists provide the music, white artists copy and make more dollars of it. Artists today, like Jimmy Castor, who plenty of hiphop artists have sampled off of, are not held in the same respect as a mediocre seventies rock artists (my subjectivity). In this sense, I can't respect industry standards and I believe they went after Michael Jackson because he was successful, black, and was not unapologetic about it. Michael Jackson changed himself so he could deal with the problems of the industry - the racial industry. Now he was white, so it made 'sense' now why he had so much money and fame. Argue with me about it, but look at the artists I've mentioned. They clearly defined new genres but still haven't gotten the rightful recognition today.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1842 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Thu 09 Jul 2009 17:07 Post subject:
gs56ca wrote:
DChapman wrote:
I do not think anyone will ever achieve the stature of Michael Jackson again. Since Rap and hip hop were brought up, I have to say that nobody of that genre will ever compare to a Michael Jackson. This is not a put down. Just as in Rock 'n' Roll, no current group will ever achieve the stature of the Beatles.
Folks like the Beatles, the Jacksons and others were pioneers to an extent for music that when the Beatles came out, was only about 10 years old, and when the Jacksons came out perhaps not more than 15 years old. Rap/hip hop is its own art form and there were pioneers, but the times are much different. It is much harder today to become "big" than it was 40 years ago and more. It is also harder to sustain. So hence being that the Jacksons came out when they did, the death of Michael is the end of one of the chapters in the entertainment industry. If Michael Jackson came out within the last 20 years or so, he might have been big for a while, and still known today, but nothing like he was. An end of an era. Not to be seen again, I think.
The beatles pioneers??? When they were covering the Isley Brothers. What about Muddy Waters?? The Jacksons pioneers??? What about Johnny Guitar Watson, New Birth , Parliament/Funkadelic, Curtis Mayfield, Isaac Hayes , Buddy Guy, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, Solomon Burke, Fats Domino, Little Richard. It's a wonder why they put the Jacksons under so much scrutiny - these are black artists that got the music, the fame, and the money and they unapologetic about it.
I also dislike how people jump from the 60s all the way to hiphop, like nothing happened in between, hello 'Funk and Soul'. These were the true godfathers of hiphop, but of course, they didnt get their recognition as more attention was paid to the rock artists, and their music got relegated to disco recordings in the late seventies, much like hiphop is getting relegated now. All throughout, history, as I find, and I'm 21 years of age and have studied this, that black artists provide the music, white artists copy and make more dollars of it. Artists today, like Jimmy Castor, who plenty of hiphop artists have sampled off of, are not held in the same respect as a mediocre seventies rock artists (my subjectivity). In this sense, I can't respect industry standards and I believe they went after Michael Jackson because he was successful, black, and was not unapologetic about it. Michael Jackson changed himself so he could deal with the problems of the industry - the racial industry. Now he was white, so it made 'sense' now why he had so much money and fame. Argue with me about it, but look at the artists I've mentioned. They clearly defined new genres but still haven't gotten the rightful recognition today.
Relax please. You do not need to educate me on music of the 60s, 70s, and 80s. I am a huge Isley Brothers fan and have been since the early 70s. Same with all the FUNK from the 70s, including the Jimmy Castor Bunch.
The Beatles were pioneers in that they were one of the groups who made available American music that many Americans (White) were not exposed to. Not only them, but many of the 60s British groups. They did in fact copy the music, but theu also expanded upon it. Let me tell you something. Guys like BB King are thankful for the 60s groups. They say without them, tey would not be where they are today. How's that you say? Because by the 60s, the blues was dying out in the Black community. So White kids were introduced to music being made in their backyards by foreigners. Go to a BB King or Buddy Guy show, both of whom I have seen several times, and you will mostly see White Baby Boomers. Go to a Hendrix show in 1969 and you would have seen the same thing.
When John Lennon was asked by a reporter who his influences were in 1964, he said, "Muddy Waters". The reporter asked, "Muddy Waters, where's that?" To which Lennon replied, "Don't you know your own famous people here?"
You are right that funk and soul did not get the recognition they deserved and were relegated to the "disco" category in the later '70s. This was my high school days so I remember vividly.
Hip hop can not even begin to compare with the funk and soul they "sample". My older cousin who is a professional jazz musician argues that hip hop is not music, I disagree with him, but it will never produce an artist the stature of Michael Jackson.
They went after Michael Jackson because he was a successful Black. Oh come on please!!! Really.
The beatles pioneers??? When they were covering the Isley Brothers. What about Muddy Waters??
Initially the Beatles covered African American Blues and Rhythm and Blues artists' songs. Eventually, though, they moved beyond that. Much of their music after '66 or so has very little to do with African American music.
The Animals and the Rolling Stones reflected more Blues influence in their music than the Beatles.
Many British acts were inspired by Black American music. However, with a few exceptions, they eventually ceased copying or playing in that style and used that inspiration to create their own sound.
Also, the Beatles were indeed pioneers in the use of studio technology to create new sounds, something that wasn't done before them.
gs56ca wrote:
It's a wonder why they put the Jacksons under so much scrutiny - these are black artists that got the music, the fame, and the money and they unapologetic about it.
Which they are you referring to and what sort of scrutiny did the Jacksons as a group undergo?
gs56ca wrote:
I also dislike how people jump from the 60s all the way to hiphop, like nothing happened in between, hello 'Funk and Soul'. These were the true godfathers of hiphop, but of course, they didnt get their recognition as more attention was paid to the rock artists, and their music got relegated to disco recordings in the late seventies, much like hiphop is getting relegated now.
From whom did they not get recognition? The hip hop artists who sample their music or the fans that appear to not know from whence the samples came? And how is hip hop getting relegated (to the margins) today? If anything, the popularity of hip hop has crowded out other styles of black popular music.
gs56ca wrote:
All throughout, history, as I find, and I'm 21 years of age and have studied this, that black artists provide the music, white artists copy and make more dollars of it. Artists today, like Jimmy Castor, who plenty of hiphop artists have sampled off of, are not held in the same respect as a mediocre seventies rock artists (my subjectivity).
By the time the 70s came around, black musical tastes and white musical tastes were diverging. White rock artists were playing music that was totally unlike what black artists were playing at that time. There are no white rock artists from that era that sound like Jimmy Castor, and even in the black music circles of that time Jimmy Castor couldn't compare to EWF, Mandrill, The Commodores, or Kool and the Gang (pre-J.T. Taylor).
Rock artists were huge back then because their sounds appealed to more (white) people. Even the biggest black groups of the 70s did not have the popularity or audience share that, say, a Cheap Trick, Bruce Springsteen, Yes, or KISS had back then.
gs56ca wrote:
In this sense, I can't respect industry standards and I believe they went after Michael Jackson because he was successful, black, and was not unapologetic about it.
Michael Jackson changed himself so he could deal with the problems of the industry - the racial industry. Now he was white, so it made 'sense' now why he had so much money and fame. Argue with me about it, but look at the artists I've mentioned. They clearly defined new genres but still haven't gotten the rightful recognition today.
And isn’t this more the fault of the modern hip hop music industry and the black music listening public than those who are attracted to rock music?
Who went after Michael and in what industry? The record industry? Law enforcement? Are you referring to investigations into claims he molested children? Are you suggesting he was set up as the result of some kind of conspiracy?
What gives you the impression that Michael Jackson ver. 2.0, complete with pale skin, and raisin size nose was unapologetically black and therefore they had to get him?
The beatles pioneers??? When they were covering the Isley Brothers. What about Muddy Waters??
Initially the Beatles covered African American Blues and Rhythm and Blues artists' songs. Eventually, though, they moved beyond that. Much of their music after '66 or so has very little to do with African American music.
The Animals and the Rolling Stones reflected more Blues influence in their music than the Beatles.
Many British acts were inspired by Black American music. However, with a few exceptions, they eventually ceased copying or playing in that style and used that inspiration to create their own sound.
Also, the Beatles were indeed pioneers in the use of studio technology to create new sounds, something that wasn't done before them.
gs56ca wrote:
It's a wonder why they put the Jacksons under so much scrutiny - these are black artists that got the music, the fame, and the money and they unapologetic about it.
Which they are you referring to and what sort of scrutiny did the Jacksons as a group undergo?
gs56ca wrote:
I also dislike how people jump from the 60s all the way to hiphop, like nothing happened in between, hello 'Funk and Soul'. These were the true godfathers of hiphop, but of course, they didnt get their recognition as more attention was paid to the rock artists, and their music got relegated to disco recordings in the late seventies, much like hiphop is getting relegated now.
From whom did they not get recognition? The hip hop artists who sample their music or the fans that appear to not know from whence the samples came? And how is hip hop getting relegated (to the margins) today? If anything, the popularity of hip hop has crowded out other styles of black popular music.
gs56ca wrote:
All throughout, history, as I find, and I'm 21 years of age and have studied this, that black artists provide the music, white artists copy and make more dollars of it. Artists today, like Jimmy Castor, who plenty of hiphop artists have sampled off of, are not held in the same respect as a mediocre seventies rock artists (my subjectivity).
By the time the 70s came around, black musical tastes and white musical tastes were diverging. White rock artists were playing music that was totally unlike what black artists were playing at that time. There are no white rock artists from that era that sound like Jimmy Castor, and even in the black music circles of that time Jimmy Castor couldn't compare to EWF, Mandrill, The Commodores, or Kool and the Gang (pre-J.T. Taylor).
Rock artists were huge back then because their sounds appealed to more (white) people. Even the biggest black groups of the 70s did not have the popularity or audience share that, say, a Cheap Trick, Bruce Springsteen, Yes, or KISS had back then.
gs56ca wrote:
In this sense, I can't respect industry standards and I believe they went after Michael Jackson because he was successful, black, and was not unapologetic about it.
Michael Jackson changed himself so he could deal with the problems of the industry - the racial industry. Now he was white, so it made 'sense' now why he had so much money and fame. Argue with me about it, but look at the artists I've mentioned. They clearly defined new genres but still haven't gotten the rightful recognition today.
And isn’t this more the fault of the modern hip hop music industry and the black music listening public than those who are attracted to rock music?
Who went after Michael and in what industry? The record industry? Law enforcement? Are you referring to investigations into claims he molested children? Are you suggesting he was set up as the result of some kind of conspiracy?
What gives you the impression that Michael Jackson ver. 2.0, complete with pale skin, and raisin size nose was unapologetically black and therefore they had to get him?
shutup idiot. What the hell do you mean by the Beatles did their own thing. Everyone knows the soul was in it, all the time, fucking faggot. lol. Michael Jackson said he was black, what else do you want ,pale whitey?? He was a black artist to the media and people know the family, what do you think fucker? Blame hiphop for Michael Jackson, ARE YOU SERIOUS, or just playing stupid lol. You ask questions with obvious answers. How does hiphop get relegated, you allow onl y one type of it on the radio and televisoin , promotion, and pay people who poorly represent that type. The same happened with funk and its change to disco. dumbass. If Rock artists appealed to more white people, WHY THE FUCK ARE MOST OF THE AUDIENCE FOR THE SOUL MUSIC TODAY IS WHITE OLD HAGS LIKE YOU? I've been to soul concert's. ITS CALLED PROMOTION, DUMBASS. They got more promotion, more finances. They even separated record companies into a black division and a 'rock/pop' division. What the hell are you talking ABOUT? Your ass knows that funk didnt get the promotion it deserved Jackass. I only respond like this, because questions like that pissed me off. Ok.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1842 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Sun 12 Jul 2009 16:27 Post subject:
gs56ca wrote:
shutup idiot. What the hell do you mean by the Beatles did their own thing. Everyone knows the soul was in it, all the time, fucking faggot. lol. Michael Jackson said he was black, what else do you want ,pale whitey?? He was a black artist to the media and people know the family, what do you think fucker? Blame hiphop for Michael Jackson, ARE YOU SERIOUS, or just playing stupid lol. You ask questions with obvious answers. How does hiphop get relegated, you allow onl y one type of it on the radio and televisoin , promotion, and pay people who poorly represent that type. The same happened with funk and its change to disco. dumbass. If Rock artists appealed to more white people, WHY THE FUCK ARE MOST OF THE AUDIENCE FOR THE SOUL MUSIC TODAY IS WHITE OLD HAGS LIKE YOU? I've been to soul concert's. ITS CALLED PROMOTION, DUMBASS. They got more promotion, more finances. They even separated record companies into a black division and a 'rock/pop' division. What the hell are you talking ABOUT? Your ass knows that funk didnt get the promotion it deserved Jackass. I only respond like this, because questions like that pissed me off. Ok.
That's it, you're too young and immature to participate in this forum. You are hearby suspended. This forum is not a typical internet dicussion forum. If you come back, you need to read the Rules, and grow up.
I'm suspended because I responded to someone who kept asking questions. I understand now what this forum is all about. I don't apologize for what I did, but I won't swear again.
Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 1842 } Location: Hudson Valley, NY
Posted: Fri 24 Jul 2009 13:20 Post subject:
gs56ca wrote:
I'm suspended because I responded to someone who kept asking questions. I understand now what this forum is all about. I don't apologize for what I did, but I won't swear again.
No, that's not the reason why you were suspended. Someone cannot ask you questions to clearify a point??? The person whom you responded to in the way you did is a forum moderator, which does not matter. If you cannot be respectful to any posters here, please leave and do not come back. It's that simple.
I'm suspended because I responded to someone who kept asking questions. I understand now what this forum is all about. I don't apologize for what I did, but I won't swear again.
No, that's not the reason why you were suspended. Someone cannot ask you questions to clearify a point??? The person whom you responded to in the way you did is a forum moderator, which does not matter. If you cannot be respectful to any posters here, please leave and do not come back. It's that simple.
I think I know why I was suspended and I don't need people like you to tell me why. Thankyou. As far as asking questions, he asked them in order to confuse my point , not to clarify it. Thankyou.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
