Dasein said:

NorthC said:

Dasein said: Okay... Marvin Gaye used to do this too: just mumbling and doodling into a microphone and work out lyrics from there. In the case of the Jackson/Jones collaboration: who wrote the lyrics?

214 is right. And I think Gaye had more ability in this area than Jackson did as if I remember
correctly, Gaye was adequately efficient at playing piano, where I think Jackson was not so much
efficient at playing anything.

As usual.

[Edited 5/18/17 16:11pm]

MotownSubdivision said:

The closest thing UF has that would make it a Prince rip-off is the inclusion of synths that may or may not be from "Jungle Love". Otherwise, the song borrows far too much from far too many sources to be simply labeled a Prince rip off.

Also, is that song popular for the sound only or because it's Bruno Mars, a popular singer? I'd imagine that if Bruno sang over a 1980s dance or R&B hit with the exact same music, not re-recorded, but with the original vocals removed, it would be a hit just because it's him. He can do Conga or Wham! Rap or All She Wants To Do Is Dance and it'll get hundreds of million views. But I don't think the same would happen for the Don Henley, Miami Sound Machine, & Wham! versions. It's like Sensual Seduction was a popular song, but it got airplay and lots of Youtube views because it was Snoop Dogg. Those acts are big current mainstream names that will attract attention for new music, no matter what it is. Miley Cyrus just put out a new video and it already is close to 50 million views. So that is part of it. There's a singer called Amalia Townshend who does 1980s style R&B music. But she doesn't get anywhere near the same amount of views as she's little known.

MickyDolenz said:

Scorp said:

the primary reason why this is the case, why the white audience are more prone to support those traditional acts is because those acts didn't have to crossover, or ever encouraged to cross over.

They didn't have to crossover because they're white already, the default race in the US. MTV showed way more white acts than non-white, and the Top 40 played more whites. People tend to buy their own race/ethnicity. If I go to my relatives house, most of the music they listen to is by black performers because they're black. When I went to school, most of them were 99% black students, and many considered rock "white boy music" and made fun of people who listened to it or say things like "why you wanna be white". That's the reason Pat Boone sold more than Little Richard & Fats Domino with the same songs. Vicente Fernandez & Selena sold primarily to Mexicans. It has nothing to do with the music business, it's society in general. Whites are more likely to buy the music by other races, than vice versa. White people buy music from other countries and call it "world music". They record with said acts (Paul Simon, Sting, Peter Gabriel, etc). You don't see many black R&B performers doing Irish, Russian, or Samoan based music in the same way. Not that many blacks go into the classical & opera field or buy records of it either. There haven't been many blacks going into country or folk music either. Some have made country songs like Lionel Richie & Pointer Sisters, but not doing it exclusively like Charley Pride.

and that's the whole crux of the situation......that's the whole problem...there should not be any default race, there is no equality or I should say balance when there's already an inherit defeault reality in place.....the default position creates a host of contradictions that are very difficult to correct.

because of the default mode of thinking, a person like Pat Boone was in position to benefit from that realm...whereas if true equality or I should say balance stood, he would have been in a position to where he would have had to generate his own mark and his own talent to succeed

this things occurs in stages...Pat Boone was able to thrive in the manner that he did during the time that he did it that shunned the artists who originated what he recorded to the background, and when the people spoke out against, and when the default position no longer worked, they had to scrap that formula and come up w/a new one, they by the 60s, when mock artists could no longer grace the cover of albums of those who was really providing the voice and the music, black artists were then brought to the forefront (during the years of Motown), but even that came with a condition that those artists contort their image and their look to appeal to the mainstream, that brought forth another layer of hostility and division within realm of society, but the music was so rich and influential, the music was able to withstand that tide until black music through the grace of the grace within was brought forth exponientially during the 70s, and when the default provocateurs saw how viable the music was, at that moment, they looked to incorporate that vaibility into the pop realm to generate massive sales commercially, the sales within itself wasn't the problem, it's the manner in which it all came to be that was the problem, because the premier artists they sought to promote was subtlely encourage to contort their look and image to achieve this goal, drawing a many of artists away from their center.......

in regards of black people saying another person is trying to act white for listening to something they aren't used to listening to, that's not a good thing to say and people should feel free to enjoy whatever it is that they gravitate towards in the grand scheme of things........BUT, there's a reason why those type of comments are made, there is always cause and effect, those words are spoken out of hostility because they know what the default position is going to lead to sooner or later.....and society has travelled down this road a many of time....if things were truly in balance, people would be able to see that it is, and those type of comments wouldn't be said and regarding the music world, the term crossover wouldn't exist.....the word itself implies to something antagonistic because someone is going to be left out of the equation, it's like the moment you cross over that threshold, it's the point of no return........

with all that being said, I believe there are tons of albums/songs/records made in the 80s that would thrive today just as it did during the actual time of its origin...the comments I read on the regular by people watching those clips of classic songs on YouTube, they are loving that time

[Edited 5/19/17 4:48am]

I think "Careless Whisper" could be a huge hit single today.The song has a timeless quality and it has aged remarkably well compared to many 80s songs that are 'stuck' in that time.

MickyDolenz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

The closest thing UF has that would make it a Prince rip-off is the inclusion of synths that may or may not be from "Jungle Love". Otherwise, the song borrows far too much from far too many sources to be simply labeled a Prince rip off.

Also, is that song popular for the sound only or because it's Bruno Mars, a popular singer? I'd imagine that if Bruno sang over a 1980s dance or R&B hit with the exact same music, not re-recorded, but with the original vocals removed, it would be a hit just because it's him. He can do Conga or Wham! Rap or All She Wants To Do Is Dance and it'll get hundreds of million views. But I don't think the same would happen for the Don Henley, Miami Sound Machine, & Wham! versions. It's like Sensual Seduction was a popular song, but it got airplay and lots of Youtube views because it was Snoop Dogg. Those acts are big current mainstream names that will attract attention for new music, no matter what it is. Miley Cyrus just put out a new video and it already is close to 50 million views. So that is part of it. There's a singer called Amalia Townshend who does 1980s style R&B music. But she odoesn't get anywhere near the same amount of views as she's little known.

I'm a firm believer in the theory that with or without Bruno, Uptown Funk would've been a hit.

Yes, Bruno, the choreography, his vocals, contributed to the song reaching stratospheric success, but if it was another artist, with relatively "cool, smooth" vocals like Bruno, the song would've been a hit at least in America.

Shawy89 said:

I'm a firm believer in the theory that with or without Bruno, Uptown Funk would've been a hit.

Yes, Bruno, the choreography, his vocals, contributed to the song reaching stratospheric success, but if it was another artist, with relatively "cool, smooth" vocals like Bruno, the song would've been a hit at least in America.

I don't know about that. The song with Mystikal Feel Right didn't get the same amount of popularity. I think it would if Bruno did the vocals. Let's say The Time/Original 7ven or Charlie Wilson did Uptown Funk instead, it wouldn't be a big mainstream hit at all. At most it would get Adult R&B radio airplay, not many other people would be checking for it. Nor would it get the media attention like Bruno. Uptown Funk might be a big hit with Robin Thicke, John Legend, or Justin Timberlake because they're really popular now too. It would not be a mainstream hit with Leon Bridges, Vintage Trouble, or Eric Benet doing it.

MickyDolenz said:

Scorp said:

This proves to be and r&b artist and achieve mainstream success, that person cant be black anymore, especially if you're a black male artist The black male artist has been primarily restrited and relegated to performing hip hop It shouldn't be that way but it is lollll

Bruno is Filipino though. How many Filipinos (or Asians period) had any major music success in American music or Hollywood? There's Apl.de.ap from Black Eyed Peas and Japanese singer Kyu Sakamoto had a hit single in the 1960s. The only one I can think of that had some popularity as a singer himself is Don Ho and that was mostly in the 1960s & 1970s. He was kind of more popular on TV shows than on the charts. Maybe you can count smooth jazz band Hiroshima.

MickyDolenz said:

MickyDolenz said:

Scorp said:

This proves to be and r&b artist and achieve mainstream success, that person cant be black anymore, especially if you're a black male artist The black male artist has been primarily restrited and relegated to performing hip hop It shouldn't be that way but it is lollll

Bruno is Filipino though. How many Filipinos (or Asians period) had any major music success in American music or Hollywood? There's Apl.de.ap from Black Eyed Peas and Japanese singer Kyu Sakamoto had a hit single in the 1960s. The only one I can think of that had some popularity as a singer himself is Don Ho and that was mostly in the 1960s & 1970s. He was kind of more popular on TV shows than on the charts. Maybe you can count smooth jazz band Hiroshima.

He was born in USA. He is american.

214 said:

He was born in USA. He is american.

American is not a race/ethnicity. If you fill out a job application it asks for your race.

MickyDolenz said:

214 said:

He was born in USA. He is american.

American is not a race/ethnicity. If you fill out a job application it asks for your race.

Well then, he is Puerto Rican as well.

8675309

.

SoulAlive said:

I think "Careless Whisper" could be a huge hit single today.The song has a timeless quality and it has aged remarkably well compared to many 80s songs that are 'stuck' in that time.

How about Faith, and I Want Your Sex?

MickyDolenz said:

namepeace said:

And I think your reference to "Billie Jean" actually reinforces the point -- many if not most 80's hits may not translate well to 2010's audiences. But there are those few standout, iconic songs that would. And it's no accident most of them were made by the biggest stars of the time.

Yeah, but like I mentioned with Elvis, they put out remixes with currently popular acts to get new audiences to buy it.

The entire Michael & Xscape albums are another sign of this. They didn't release the original mixes as the albums, but Xscape has a deluxe version that does have the original versions. As a single, a duet (and music video) with Justin Timberlake was released and that is what I heard played on the radio. Michael has been accused of having 3 songs that are not even sung by Mike. Motown also released a remix album of Jackson 5 era stuff a few years ago.

They took signature songs from one of the 80's greatest stars and calibrated the production values for modern audiences.

Which was my point -- certain songs translate well from any era, even with some tinkering. behind the boards.

namepeace said:

They took signature songs from one of the 80's greatest stars and calibrated the production values for modern audiences.

Which was my point -- certain songs translate well from any era, even with some tinkering. behind the boards.

If you have to change something, it's not the original song that would make it popular. Anything can be remixed to make it appealing to a particular audience.

Never Tear Us Apart sounds unlike the 80's. Actually it sounds late 90's.

Someone can remake this, but change the topic from Boy George to Jaden Smith.

Obsession (1984) by Animotion could have been included in the 50 Shades of Grey soundtrack or its sequel.

Goddess4Real said:

Obsession (1984) by Animotion could have been included in the 50 Shades of Grey soundtrack or its sequel.

That's a good one Goddess! It would've been perfect.

PennyPurple said:

Goddess4Real said:

Obsession (1984) by Animotion could have been included in the 50 Shades of Grey soundtrack or its sequel.

That's a good one Goddess! It would've been perfect.

I also remember there was a version of this song that used in the trailer for 9 and 1/2 Weeks (1986) I wished the original had been included in the soundtrack.....and Mickey Rourke was so the OG Christian Grey

^^I'm not sure that song would be a radio hit today without a remix or a guest rapper on it. Old songs are often used in movies, commercials, and video games. That's not really the same as becoming a hit as a new release.

MickyDolenz said:

Metallica got on the Grammy broadcast because they did a duet with Lady Gaga and then their mike didn't work. I doubt they would have been shown on the TV broadcast by themselves.

I have to disagree. While rock music certainly isn't nearly as popular as it was in the past, awards shows such as the Grammys will showcase each music genre with at least one performance.

Why Metallica this year?

1) Just a couple months earlier they released their first studio album in 8 years

2) They had just started a world tour a few months earlier

3) The new album was met with critical acclaim and selling well

4) They are still among the most relevant rock bands in the world, as evidenced by their winning Billboard's Top Rock Album award

So I think it was a case of Metallica really wanting to promote their new album and world tour, and the Grammys wanting to capitalize on the band's name recognition with few other rock band options available to them.

Pour Some Sugar on Me - Def Leppard

.

Here I Go Again - Whitesnake

.

Little Red Corvette

.

When Doves Cry

.

Beat It - MJ

Oh Sheila by Ready For The World!!!

[Edited 6/1/17 21:04pm]

Pokeno4Money said:

I have to disagree. While rock music certainly isn't nearly as popular as it was in the past, awards shows such as the Grammys will showcase each music genre with at least one performance.

I said the TV broadcast, not the awards itself. The Grammy ceremony has always been much longer than what is shown on TV. Most of the awards and performances happened before the broadcast. Like they generally don't show polka acts on the TV broadcast even though there was a category for it, usually won by Jimmy Sturr.

Maybe this, but some might think it's from Puff Daddy. The lyrics kinda fit with today's social media culture and tabloid TV like TMZ & Wendy Williams.