Article: The Music In Me: Rap of History Backwards The

[DRB100]

21 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

He made the rock/R&B charts with "Hard Work" in 1976.

But that wasn't a "rock song" as it was a R&B song.  

[DRB100]

49 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Yes, and I'm very conscious of the history of course.  But I did not want to leave the impression I was thinking of any of the anti-Ebonics feeling expressed here as racist.  Often folks are just bothered by the feeling of being very intentionally left out of other folks' conversations (ironic in itself since these patois languages of ghettoized or colonized people develop in circumstances where they are very intentionally left out of things).

It would be wrong to think of someone that's Anti-Ebonics as a racist when the words commonly used in Ebonics are racist words and we don't want them using them.  See how that works?  

Look at Dr. Dre. he was part of the band NWA.  N With an Attitude.  Right off the bat, he and the others in that group are telling the world, THEY ARE N's.  Clear as day. Their lyrics have that word commonly used throughout their lyrics and it's their normal word they use to refer to each other. So how exactly would someone like me be racist when THEY are the ones perpetrating a racist word onto themselves? I just would like them to stop using that language, stop rapping and then learn the English language and instead of rapping a bunch of silly stuff, learn how to sing, learn how to play a musical instrument and figure out how to remove the negativity surrounding rap and become people that can play music with some actual musical talent.  Otherwise, it's never going to stop and it's going to be a bigger problem.

 

[DRB100]

37 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

OK, call me a cock-eyed optimist, but I think this can be made really clear without a lot of trouble.

 

A little story from my dad:  He and my mom were traveling by boat from Miami to their honeymoon in Cuba (yep, that long ago).  He hadn't been away from Bethlehem, PA much in his life except to serve in the Army Air Corps in WWII, and being on a military base isn't really like living out among the population of a foreign country.  Also, their families had very little money, and he'd really splurged on this trip.  So there he was among the high rollers and probably showing that he felt out of place, when the boat captain walked up to him and said "Was macht a yid?"  (Non-literal translation from the Yiddish: "Are you a Jew?")  Made him feel completely comfortable and right at home, and he remembered it fondly the rest of his life.

 

Now imagine me, hypothetically, walking around in Germany with my wife (we've been there, but neither the following or anything like it happened), and some skinhead says to me, "Bist du Jude?"  Exactly the same question in a closely related language.  But if that happened, I would not feel comfortable or right at home, and I might remember it the rest of my life, but not fondly.  And you know exactly why my reaction would be completely opposite to what my father felt.

 

Now is it really that hard to explain why the same language used by or toward different people has completely different implications and results?

 

 

I'm tapping out.  I have no more energy to continue this discussion because I see no point in trying to convince those that will not listen or understand the damage Ebonics is doing not just to the black community but other others as well from the constant marketing through music, TV, movies, etc.  I won't change my position on it since It's already set. Ebonics as a replacement for English is stupid, it shows others that they are just not yet mature people that have been educated in the English language.  Hopefully those that use it daily will learn to move away from it and use English, when they realize that they need to grow up and mature.  Hopefully those that listen to Rap will also eventually grow out of it and move to something more meaningful in terms of appreciating musicians rather than con artists.   

 

[DRB100]

1 minute ago, Ralf11 said:

Ebonics has some superior abilities over std. English - e.g the ability to indicate a state of being, which English lacks.

Ummm.  Really? OK.. Example?  

[DRB100]

5 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Ebonics has some superior abilities over std. English - e.g the ability to indicate a state of being, which English lacks.

Hooked on Phonics?  

 

 

[DRB100]

1 hour ago, wwaldmanfan said:

 

Right. Your kids will learn by observing your behavior, not what you tell them, especially if you are yelling. I see my parents in myself as an adult, but emulating how they lived, not what they told me to do.

That is why I think kids are like sponges absorbing cultural stimuli, including films, music, and social media. Rap and other styles of music can potentially influence kids in a negative way. Remember the outcry over heavy metal and satanic themes, how some stupid teenagers commited suicide, etc? Nowadays, all this bad lyrical contents seems socially acceptable, even celebrated. I don't get it.

Yeah, kids are typically more susceptible to taking on behavior and other things from their favorite celebrities too.  Kids are more easily manipulated because their brains aren't fully developed and things like drugs (pot) and alcohol have been know to stunt one's brain development, ability to fully mature, etc. etc. etc. So if you start using drugs or alcohol, that makes things even worse.

 

Kids typically go through the monkey see monkey do phase.  and some adults still act like kids because their drug and alcohol consumption didn't all them to fully mature. So you'll see people like Snoop Dogg still act like a child, even though he's an adult. Hence why some people might call him a ManChild.  A child in a man's body.  For many, they start going through their mid life crisis In their 40's or 50's trying to figure out who they are since they took on a lot of bullshit during their younger years and they want to find themselves.

[DRB100]

Yamaha has had those Disklaviers, which is a modern player piano, for many years where it will play what a musician performed and digitized.   But what's the fun of that?  And?  Chesky brought it down to charging people money to buy a CD of a computerized orchestra performing a score? He must be hurting for business if he resorts to doing that.

 

Go have top classical experts compare the computer version to a top recordings of a great performance by a top orchestra and see what they say.  Make sure they're blindfolded.

 

I wouldn't want to pay money to hear a computer replay someone else's score or performance.  Maybe that's why I stick to listening to music that has a lot of improvisational aspects to it.  Computers can't do that.

 

if you like listening to a computerized version of something, then that's your thing. It's certainly not mine.  Maybe you are starting to lack a soul.  Maybe that's the first sign.  :-)

 

 

[DRB100]

They could tell it wasn't a human orchestra?  Well, then there's your answer.  They could tell.   And yes, I would infer that to be a criticism, but maybe you are just trying to validate that you like the computerized version for some reason.  I would prefer the human orchestra, sorry but that's how I am. I like the human element, especially since it was written for humans in the first place.

 

I know there is a place for computer sequencing.  One of my all time favorite recordings is Jan Hammer's No Fear from the early 70's and it still gives me goosebumps.    But he's performing an improvised solo on top of a sequencer part that he programmed.  But it's his performance that gives me goose bumps every time I hear it.  It's probably one of the best synthesizer solos of all time on a recording.  At least that I've heard.    Go check it out. The sequencer part is great, but not without his solo performance.  To me, that's a great example of synthesizers being used with a sequencer and it's all done by a classically trained jazz musician that has studied many different forms of music to create his own style.  

[DRB100]

18 minutes ago, wwaldmanfan said:

I watched an excellent documentary on Netfilx called, "Take Me To The River". It focused on the Memphis music scene during the heydey of Stax/Volt and Hi Records. The producers were the sons of legendary producer Jim Dickinson.

 

They rounded up some of the old guard for a modern recording session, including music icons Bobby "Blue" Bland, Otis Clay, and William Bell. The idea was to rework some of the old classic songs, but overdub rappers for a modern twist. They got Snoop Dogg, and Cedric Coleman, who won the songwriting Academy Award for his unforgettable, "It's Hard Out Here For A Pimp".

 

When they told Bobby Bland that they were going to overlay rapping on his vocal performance, you should have seen his face. He was... disturbed. Having dragged himself into the studio in his wheelchair, he tried to feign some enthusiasm, but to me he seemed insulted. He passed away shortly after the film was completed. I'm not saying that this incident contributed to his death, but it probably didn't help.

That reminds me of Miles Davis' last album Doo Bop.  Miles died during the making of that album and because there was rapping on the album, and the person Easy was just making samples and creating loops, Miles probably was embarrassed to death so he could never finish it or approve of it being released.  They ended up taking older recordings of him playing and put it on top.  yeah, it won a Grammy, but not for a Jazz album.  Surprise Surprise.  It was the ONLY Miles Davis album I would never buy as I can barely listen to a single song all the way through.   The hard core Jazz critics panned it and justifiably so.  

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised by old Blues greats not wanting to have rappers on their music.  It simply doesn't work. Rappers don't sing any melody, and it just detracts from the melody of the song.  Carlos Santana was kind of manipulated into putting a rapper on remakes of his classic hits to attract a younger audience and it didn't work either.  It just doesn't fit.  They do this to attract the younger audience that grew up listening to rap, which is why they do it. It might sell to that crowd, but it just distances their original audience.  That's why people like Carlos don't perform concerts with Rappers on their tours.    I think Aerosmith played a concert or two with Run DMC, but that was about it.  They certainly didn't make it a habit and tour with those guys and have them rap on every Aerosmith song because it would suck and the audience would not want to hear it.  It kinda worked on one song as a novelty, but that was about it and that's because the song was using nursery rhyming as part of the lyrics in the first place.

[DRB100]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

I'd say that most of the vocalists in popular music have a hard time singing. Hence, the use of autotune. 

It's because a lot of the producers working with these singers aren't trained musicians like they used to be.  The days of the George Martin's of the world producing records has almost gone completely away.  Now, they have producers that are too much into "Production" based music and not "Performance" based music.  Many of these producers aren't well trained or even trained musicians either.   Look at Jimmy Iovine, he wasn't a great musician, but he managed to finegle his way into the industry..  Dr Dre isn't much of a musician either. He couldn't even play a musical instrument in the beginning.    Other producers these days aren't classically trained musicians like many of the old time producers were.  Oh well.  

 

I think the computer, in many ways, has screwed up the music industry as it's being used far too much to replace musicians or modify those that can't play or sing.  I had a fiend that became an editor for Sony Records many years ago as he was VERY proficient in Pro Tools editing.  He was called into take recordings and FIX errors in the playing. What he told me is they were producing albums so fast that they would get top session drummers in the studio, they would quickly record the basic tracks, but since the producer wanted PERFECT recordings, they would get guys like my friend that would fix all of the subtle errors, so they would place every single stroke perfectly so it would be "perfect", but it took the heart out along with it.   There were no mistakes, but it was "too perfect".   Even today, more and more bands are going away from using Pro Tools to track and going back to analog tape and just playing live in the studio and not really messing with the tracks once they get a good take.

 

The use of Autotune is one thing, but they are also using Melodyne which is much harder to detect when they are using it.  Justin Bieber apparently had his vocals modified with Melodyne on his earlier albums so it sounded like he could sing.  Now he uses a lot of Autotune, which is cheaper to use as it's either on or off, and Melodyne requires a lot of painstaking labor to fix a vocal track.  The music industry is more into how cheap and fast they can produce a record vs how well they can make one.  It's sad, but that's the downfall of the music industry.

[DRB100]

13 minutes ago, firedog said:

No, that's uninformed speculation by someone who hasn't heard the record or read what the musicians said about it, and is just projecting preconceptions onto it. The actual context of the comments was quite positive, more along the lines of - "it was so good I knew it couldn't be a real orchestra", not the opposite. The simple truth is that the actual classical musicians didn't react the way you assumed they would have - they liked the record.

And the record wasn't written for humans in the first place. It was planned to be played by a sampling computer. 

 

Oh, I thought they took a classical piece of music and fed it through a computer to replicate a human orchestra.

 

Either way, I prefer Human's being involved. I don't mind if a human programmed a sequencer and plays on top of it, but to replace musicians entirely?  Nope. Sorry.  I don't want to poison my ears that much.  

 

Either way, how well did the album sell?  And how often do people actually play it?  My guess is that it wasn't a big seller and it's not getting played all that much by those that did buy it.  Just a hunch.

[DRB100]

1 minute ago, DRB100 said:

 

Oh, I thought they took a classical piece of music and fed it through a computer to replicate a human orchestra.

 

Either way, I prefer Human's being involved. I don't mind if a human programmed a sequencer and plays on top of it, but to replace musicians entirely?  Nope. Sorry.  I don't want to poison my ears that much.  

 

Either way, how well did the album sell?  And how often do people actually play it?  My guess is that it wasn't a big seller and it's not getting played all that much by those that did buy it.  Just a hunch.

What album is it?  I'll listen to a track, just to see what the big deal is.  

[DRB100]

32 minutes ago, firedog said:

No, that's uninformed speculation by someone who hasn't heard the record or read what the musicians said about it, and is just projecting preconceptions onto it. The actual context of the comments was quite positive, more along the lines of - "it was so good I knew it couldn't be a real orchestra", not the opposite. The simple truth is that the actual classical musicians didn't react the way you assumed they would have - they liked the record.

And the record wasn't written for humans in the first place. It was planned to be played by a sampling computer. 

What's the album you are speaking of?   There are musicians that don't want to say anything bad because they don't want to upset others.  It's called being politically correct.  How do the critics think?  Are they putting it high on this list of "must have" recordings?

 

I heard the Urban Orchestra thing that Chesky did. I thought it was just a load of garbage.  It was unlistenable to my ears.  

[DRB100]

3 minutes ago, prerich said:

Most of today's rap has absolutely nothing to say.  You ask any of the God-Fathers of Hip-hop and most of them will say that these artist today are just part of the production puppy mill.  Many believe that the only ones saying anything happens to be the current crop of gospel rappers (think Lecrae, old school Cross Movement, ect). 

 

I actually believe rap has been around for a long time. Just listen to early George Clinton and Parliament Funkadelic (and you can't say those guys weren't musical at all). 

 

Here's what the music industry boils down to now... its in a hook, and yes it's a rap song

 

"Just because the whips done stopped  - don't mean that you're free boy - pick them crops

I mean hip that hop, make them tracks - say something that's gon' make that cash. 

Take that advance - but pay that back, you're under contract - you gotta come back 

Don't you know you're culture's for sale....ain't your culture for sale?"  

 

There's a lot of creativity out there, but the industry only want what will make a dollar. I love all genre's of music to include rap ( depending on what you're saying). I will say this about rap that says something, its causes you to think....isn't that where the word music comes from...muse...to think about?  Most music today is a form of amusement or to get you to stop thinking. I like any music that makes me think whether if it's something you did during the performance, or if its something you said. 

 

P.S. i have experience with many forms of music, to include classical, choral, jazz, inspirational/gospel, as well as rap.   As an aside - I part of making of a Boy Band (new competitive series) and they wondered a young man that was a church worship leader, if he could make the transition to pop/r&b......funny - that teacher needs to go back into history - because the R&B sound and a lot of Pop today came from ....gospel and blues. 

 

 

Actually, Gospel didn't have any blues influences originally as it was choir with an organ and a Tamborine, then Blues came along and it started other forms of music.  it created Jazz, it influenced country, R&B (rhythm and Blues), rock, Gospel (as they started to use rhythm sections).  Pop was originally jazz.  The big pop names back in the early days of recordings was some blues, but a lot of jazz singers were the pop artists. Now they just get kids that stylize themselves after their favorite singers and these kids growing up today couldn't sing a blues standard to save their life.  I saw the BBKing memorial and they had guys like Pharrell and he couldn't sing a BB King classic.  It's a shame that the current generation of kids have no clue as to the roots of "pop" music as it goes back to Blues.

 

All of the best guitarists know blues and have mastered it.   Eric Clapton, Carlos Santana, John McLaughlin, Hendrix, Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page, etc. all have mastered the blues and really understand it.  The latest gen guitar players barely know how to play Blues.  That's why a lot of metal has no "swing" to the rhythm and the guitar players are more technical and just abuse the whammy bar and they overuse distortion to the point where one can't tell what notes or chords they are playing.   Drummers tend to be more technical, mechanical and less musical than the drummers that were big in the 60's and 70's.  It's a shame how much the current generation simply lacks.

Songwriting these days has taken a downturn.  No one seems to write great melodies anymore. Everything now is so generic, computerized, overly produced, loops oriented. 

 

I almost fell off my chair when I ran into some kid that was way into RAP, and I started a discussion and I asked him what R&B stood for.  He said it stands for RAP AND BEATS.   At that point, I gave up all hope for this person.  Every time I run into someone that listens to Rap, I ask them to sing or hum the melody line.  At that point, their eyes glaze over and they are dumbfounded.  They don't know what the term "melody" even means.

[DRB100]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

 

What a perfect opportunity to educate this person. You can't blame someone for not learning what R&B stands for. 

 

My younger cousin, who is well traveled and well educated, said one time, "...like anyone knows what CD stands for anyway." This of course was in the context of a music discussion. 

I tried to explain what R&B meant and the history of popular music of the US stemming back in the days when blues began and how it also created and is the basis for many of other forms of contemporary music including Jazz, R&B, Rock, influenced Gospel, etc.  But this person simply didn't care.  He just cared about his Rap music and acted like it's the best and ONLY type of music to learn.   It's amazing how much the music industry has conditioned and brainwashed these kids.   It's all some of these kids want to know about.  It's just sad.

 

 

[DRB100]

1 hour ago, usblues said:

Gil-Scott has a voice almost like Lou Rawls.....deep,many levels of pitch etc....you know what I mean.....check out "The bottle"...." Winter in America".......his best stuff is from the mid 70's.......he's much more a poet,singer than a rapper.......I guesstimate 1 of 5 here will dig him.....cheers men,James

Gil Scott actually had a Master's Degree in Creative Writing, so he's got a firm education in English, which is why he's more of a poet than a rapper.   He also studied jazz and blues being an accomplished pianist.  So he's an honest musician.      The other early "rapper" was The Last Poets.  But the kids growing up can't relate to these people because they just want to listen to foul language, Ebonics, trash talking, sexist etc. etc.  He very much was concerned about the preservation of blues, and he also taught English, creative writing, etc. So I wouldn't put him anywhere near the same category as these "rappers' that came out years later.  I may not like all of his lyrics, but I can't say anything bad about his playing and the musicians he worked with.

[DRB100]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

You make me laugh with your "honest musician" thing. 

 

I loved the foul language of NWA when I was a kid and still love it. Perhaps I'm not an "honest listener."

That's what I mean. Immature people buy music because of the foul language and you still love it?   Sounds like you have haven't matured a day since you were a kid.

 

Do you know what a ManChild?  it's a grown man with the mentality of an immature child.  That's what these rappers are.  They are grown men that never grew up maturity wise and they promote the same mentality.  You've just been brainwashed as they were your baby sitters, in a way.

[DRB100]

2 hours ago, findog3103 said:

 

Many comments in this thread have my wondering "what?!" 

 

Ice-T said an interesting comment, and I have read similar articles about this topic, about the N word and how the black community wanted to take the word back from the white community using it as a term to demean. I don't always agree how rap uses the word but I understand this particular purpose. 

I'm sorry but the white community, for the most part, stopped using that word a long freaking time ago.  In fact, I don't believe I heard it from a white person since the early 70's, but it was already being frowned upon where I lived.

 

It came back into vogue the rappers, THEY were the dumb ones that brought it back.  If they didn't, then  eventually people would just forget about the word entirely.  The only time I heard people say the N word that are white are those that try to emulate their favorite rappers because they are trying to "act black" and then many white rappers (Eminem) and other rappers that aren't black started saying it because they are trying to act all ghetto.  It's just really stupid..  I see high school students using the term because they listen to rap music all day/night long and they are trying to socialize as they think that acting gangsta is hip and cool.   It just looks STUPID.

So, Ice-T is just trying to manipulate people into thinking they had to take the word back.  If they had ANY respect for ANYONE, they would just not use the word, and not act like illiterate gangsters and just became educated, learned how to speak English, dress like they want to fit in with society and get a freaking job instead of deal drugs/guns/prostitution and then we wouldn't have the kinds of racist nonsense that is cropping up.   

 

As far as I'm concerned, the rapper community are class A con artists, and they get away with manipulating people into their own line of nonsense.   

 

I think Chris Rock was right.  There are blacks and there are "N".  Unfortunately, we have to figure out which one is which. I already determined that these stupid rappers aren't blacks and it's because they are stupid by perpetuating racism, sexism, degrading trash talk lyrics, etc etc. etc. in their so-called music.  Sorry, but I choose the music I listen to carefully, I don't want to get brainwashed by the pop culture media/music machine.   

 

IF anyone listens to rap music, do yourself a favor and spend 1 year cold turkey from listening to it, and just listen to instrumental Jazz (not smooth jazz), 70's fusion, classical and simply stay away from anything the has lyrics in it.  It's kind of a re-programming.   See how you feel after a year of cold turkey.  Just a suggestion.

 

For those that like reading books.  Check out the book series by Dr. David R Hawkins PhD.   He has some quick reading books on consciousness within society and he discusses music/art.    He has sections where he covers music.  It's quite interesting and I find it to be a pretty accurate assessment of reality.

 

[DRB100]

3 hours ago, findog3103 said:

 

Many comments in this thread have my wondering "what?!" 

 

Ice-T said an interesting comment, and I have read similar articles about this topic, about the N word and how the black community wanted to take the word back from the white community using it as a term to demean. I don't always agree how rap uses the word but I understand this particular purpose. 

They use it because they are ignorant.  They use it in lyrics in a rap song because it sells.  If you have a rap song and there are two versions, the foul language version and the clean version. which one do kids want to listen to if they didn't have their parental control?   The found language version. Why?  Because kids want to listen to foul language in songs and that's what sells.   

[DRB100]

9 hours ago, firedog said:

And that isn't new. Popular music has mostly been like that for it's entire history.

 

In the golden age of jazz, the most popular artists weren't the ones we revere today - Ellington, Parker, etc. A lot of the most popular music was made by secondary artists just out to make a buck. 

 

In the late 50's and early 60's popular music was again mostly junk. Ever hear "Polka Dot Bikini"?

 

In the US, an actual artist like Buddy Holly didn't sell that well and after his death was mostly forgotten. A lot of American kids had no idea who he or other American performers (like Motown and other blues and R&B artists) were until the Beatles and the rest of the British invasion groups popularized their music in the US. 

 

And where do you think the idea of "june and spoon" lyrics came from? Not from the rap era. Most writers of popular lyrics haven't been Cole Porter like or even Dylanesque.

 

Even in the mid-60's to mid 70's, when popular music was supposedly "serious": the Monkees outsold the Beatles in 67, the animated Archies (many of the same players as the first Monkees album, I believe) were big sellers, and who can forget the deep and meaningful music made by groups like "Three Dog Night"?

 

I actually like some of that music, but let's stop pretending that popular music has mostly been some high level art form until rap and hip-hop came along. 

 

by Definition, art music is music that's not intended to be commercially marketed to sell albums.   Pop music is created to be commercially successful.  Those are the two extremes and then there is different levels in between.  To sell albums they have to figure out what sells.  With Rap, it's vulgar lyrics is what sells.  Two Live Crew started that trend In the beginning with their rap version of Doo Wah Diddy.  

[DRB100]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Keep digging that hole. 

 

Yeah right.  You are the one that's clueless.   

[DRB100]

23 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I used to read Shakespeare because of the foul language and I still love it

 

Foul language?   So, how many times are the words "nigga, Bitch, and motherfucker used"?  Maybe you're reading the Ebonics version.  :-)

 

It's also using a form of English that's not really spoken in daily conversations anymore.   It's using basically a dead version of English.   Hopefully Ebonics will become a dead language, unfortunately it's becoming popular amongst the kids that are being brainwashed by Rappers as these kids idolize them.  Some of these kids will grow out of it, some won't. but many will end up probably getting into gangs, dealing drugs, guns or becoming a pimp like Snoop Dogg,  and many will end up going to jail.  Isn't that what gives these rappers street credibility?

 

 

[DRB100]

16 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

he appears unacquainted with Shakespeare (or the christian bible)

 

maybe we can move on to more devil music.... like Funk

 

I studied Shakespeare in college and high school. It's been a while since that was a long time ago. But the so-called bad language aren't the modern swear words that people associate.  They might have been foul language to those of that period of time.  Most, if not all, of the foul language in Shakespeare aren't even commonly used words today.  So you're comparison isn't really holding much water to me.

 

Name the bad words in Shakespeare since you are so familiar with it and let's see if they are even used in modern English.

 

what's the Christian Bible got to do with anything?  It's just a useless book used to brainwash people into a religious cult.   Not my thing.   Religions were originally meant to control people and they tend to promote racism and they many times lead to wars. 

 

And isn't alcohol the Devil's milk and isn't alcoholic beverages used in many religions like Christianity?  They do drink red wine to represent the blood of Christ. Right? 

Funk is the devil's music?  I haven't heard that one.  And I"m hoping you can show some valid proof to that. Right?

 

The music itself isn't. Maybe some of the lyrics but then again it would depend on what lyrics you are speaking of.  That's why one has to be careful what they listen 

 

[DRB100]

8 hours ago, firedog said:

You are quite mistaken if you think Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington and the Beatles weren't trying to be commercial. They were trying as hard as they could to make music they liked and that would sell -and sell big. They freely talked about it, and admitted freely that their recording decisions -material, arrangements - were often dictated by commercial considerations. 

 

I'm pretty sure that when: a) Charlie Parker made a single called "Romance Without Finance" with a lead singer and lyrics about a guy pimping his girlfriend; or ( b) the Beatles wrote a song called "From Me to You"  - that commercial success was their main consideration. Not high levels of art and sophistication. 

 

Again, your argument that Rap is somehow unique in the history of popular music because it is appealing to a low common denominator (by your definition) has no basis in history or facts. 

 

As Chris said, keep digging that hole for your position that has little to do with the history of popular music, or any facts, unless you subscribe to that universe of "alternate facts". 

 

I was just mentioning the definition of Art based music and pop based music based on one definition that I have read.  So, I didn't make up the definition.  I also did NOT mention Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington, or the Beatles as not trying to be commercial.  I also mentioned that there are varying levels in between these two extremes because there are going to be some bands that are trying to put some artistic integrity AND to be commercially successful at the same time, but they will lean more towards one side vs the other. 

Duke Ellington, in his peak years he was pop music back then, but by today's standards? NO.  the kids aren't lining up to buy his music.  His music doesn't sell that well and it doesn't get a lot of radio attention because there aren't exactly a lot of jazz stations around anymore to play it.  

 

Charlie Parker?  most of the kids growing up never even heard of Charlie Parker either.  Only the kids that study/listen to jazz are the ones that have heard of him.  I wouldn't say that Be Bop was commercial pop music, it's definitely more artistic in nature.  But If you are one of these argumentative types and you want to argue this, go right ahead.  I just personally feel that most of Charlie Parker's stuff leaned far more towards the artistic side than "pop".  There might be one or two examples of more "Pop" oriented, but those would be anomalies. 

 

The Beatles?  Their first few albums were totally commercial pop when they were REMAKING other rock hits and songs like I Wanna Hold Your Hand.   As they aged and matured, they leaned more "artistic" in their approach, especially with Sargent Pepper's, but George Martin was the reason for Sargent Pepper's being what it was since he wrote the scores for the brass, woodwind, stringed and reed instruments.  He, I believe, played some obscure instruments and it was his production techniques he was experimenting with.  So, George Martin was the artistic one from that sense.  Yes, the Beatles ware also trying to be more artistic rather than singing some teeny bobber song I Wanna Hold Your Hand music.

 

Instrumental music, by nature is TYPICALLY more artistic than "POP".  Only a couple of instrumentals have ever hit the top Ten on the "POP" charts.   

 

 

 

 

[DRB100]

9 hours ago, firedog said:

You are quite mistaken if you think Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington and the Beatles weren't trying to be commercial. They were trying as hard as they could to make music they liked and that would sell -and sell big. They freely talked about it, and admitted freely that their recording decisions -material, arrangements - were often dictated by commercial considerations. 

 

I'm pretty sure that when: a) Charlie Parker made a single called "Romance Without Finance" with a lead singer and lyrics about a guy pimping his girlfriend; or ( b) the Beatles wrote a song called "From Me to You"  - that commercial success was their main consideration. Not high levels of art and sophistication. 

 

Again, your argument that Rap is somehow unique in the history of popular music because it is appealing to a low common denominator (by your definition) has no basis in history or facts. 

 

As Chris said, keep digging that hole for your position that has little to do with the history of popular music, or any facts, unless you subscribe to that universe of "alternate facts". 

You and Chris have the same problem. You don't read my comments very well.  Re-READ my comment word for word and see where you completely screwed up and dug your own hole in the ground.  Now, if you want to be a man and apologize, I might accept that, if your apology is sincere, if not, then that's because you aren't man enough to apologize.

 

I didn't mention those three names specifically. did I?   

 

I wrote that there is ART music and POP music and a brief definition.  Now, if you want a more complete definition, then got to WikiPedia which has a VERY lengthy discussion on the differences.  Or you can go to another site that you feel has a better definition of ART music vs POP music.    They site jazz as being Art music, however there are some forms of jazz that fall into the POP category.

 

But again, I didn't mention anyone specifically, however I did mention that for the rap industry, foul language is what helps them sell albums.  If you look up most of the rappers that have BOTH a clean version AND an explicit language version, the clean version typically doesn't sell as well as the foul language version.