bboy87 said:

it was hip hop that ended talented black musicians from being hired and desired.because hip hop is a form of music where playing instruments is not required.nor is talent,.just the ability to speak rhythmic poetry{rap}so u c prince didnt ruin it.the industry forced rap down our throats,whatever is played on radio is what sells.therefore becoming the new sound of the era.they ,{record exc},.no we buy what we hear,giving us no chance to purchase what we want.because its not played

WaterInYourBath said:

I wouldn't condemn the entire genre but the current trend of producing and saturating the airwaves with substandard hip hop and r&b to the exclusion of everything else is depressing. Consumers who settle for it bear some responsibility also.

I thought about you when I read that post. I said to myself, "this person is fissen to get it".

But it all depends on how you look at it, but just remember, you have to look even deeper before you assume. Just like someone could look at Prince doing everything himself inspiring the labels to do away with bands, you could also look at Michael Jackson's concerts as giving today's artists an excuse for doing shitty shows. Michael had a lot of choreographed dancers in his concerts. The artists of today do also. But like I said earlier, you have to look deeper. Michael also had a band on that stage with those dancers. A lot of artists of today don't and they have a stage full of dancers so the stage won't look so empty and the dancers also distract the audience to the fact that there is no band and they are singing along with a pre-recorded track.

Basically, any artist of the past that made a huge impact could be blamed in some form if people conveniently leave out the fact that those artists actually had talent to go along with their gimmicks. The problem is, the artists of today have little or no talent and they rely on the gimmicks only to be distractions for their lack of talent. They don't even have the imagination to come up with their own gimmicks either. Then, when they are cornered, they can always come out swinging saying "Well, Michael did the same thing" or "Prince has been using drum machines for years". See...they conveniently leave out the fact that Prince also used real drums underneath those drum machines and that Michael had a band on that stage with the dancers.

I thought about you when I read that post. I said to myself, "this person is fissen to get it".

But it all depends on how you look at it, but just remember, you have to look even deeper before you assume. Just like someone could look at Prince doing everything himself inspiring the labels to do away with bands, you could also look at Michael Jackson's concerts as giving today's artists an excuse for doing shitty shows. Michael had a lot of choreographed dancers in his concerts. The artists of today do also. But like I said earlier, you have to look deeper. Michael also had a band on that stage with those dancers. A lot of artists of today don't and they have a stage full of dancers so the stage won't look so empty and the dancers also distract the audience to the fact that there is no band and they are singing along with a pre-recorded track.

Basically, any artist of the past that made a huge impact could be blamed in some form if people conveniently leave out the fact that those artists actually had talent to go along with their gimmicks. The problem is, the artists of today have little or no talent and they rely on the gimmicks only to be distractions for their lack of talent. They don't even have the imagination to come up with their own gimmicks either. Then, when they are cornered, they can always come out swinging saying "Well, Michael did the same thing" or "Prince has been using drum machines for years". See...they conveniently leave out the fact that Prince also used real drums underneath those drum machines and that Michael had a band on that stage with the dancers.

vainandy said:

That's all good vain, but the fact is, Prince did not destroy black music. That would be impossible, regardless of what computerized methods are being used to produce some of these artists music today. The problem is, record companies aren't promoting talented black musicians with real intrumental skills. Everything is manufactured today, with little or no creativity or unique talent.

there are many black artists that are far more deserving of this title.

MJ actually comes to mind. could he play an instrument/write his own stuff? (by that i mean fully produce his own recordings? - no.).

he was as much a product of the music industry as Milli Vanilli really - he was told what to do when and where - unlike prince who i believe has been in control of his own musical destiny.

Prince has also given a lot of other musical people a big helping hand up the ladder. MJ hasn't. except his own family LOL.

Conclusion - MJ destroyed black music.


....

WaterInYourBath said:

the question should be "Is Hip Hop really music?" I say not really. Techno shouldn't be considered music either.

IDontBelieveYouHeardMe said:

(bolded part) Excellent point. I cannot see for the life of me how the author of that article can claim Prince destroyed Black music. Here we have an artist who dared to challenge the music industry at a time they marketed black artists basically in one category, and sold their music to the public in that way. Prince came out and showed them there was more to a black artist's creativity than what the record labels assumed or expected of them, and Prince showed them that you just can't limit an artist's creativity. He proved that a black musician/artist's creativity in music has no limits and cannot be forced to classified in one particular or "expected" category because one is Black, and he apparently proved that. His longstanding career speaks for itself.
[Edited 12/26/09 7:35am]

So...Prince is somehow responsible for the entirety of "black" music?

2elijah said:

Truth is, Prince has fought harder than almost any artist to preserve real music.

2elijah said:

After the first sentence, I just inserted Stevie Wonder in place of Prince.

That's why whoever wrote the post that started this thread thinks that Prince (unknowingly) may have contributed a lot to the decline of black music....because he came before shit hop. Prince could do everything all by himself without the help of anyone else. Shit hoppers can do the same thing. The difference is, Prince did everything himself with instruments and the shit hoppers can do everything by themselves by punching buttons on a computer.

I think a lot of folks around here get bent out of shape because they think it's a personal attack on Prince. I don't see it that way at all but see it simply as the poster's observation. For instance, if you come to work and one of your co-workers quits, their work is going to be thrown on you until the boss hires someone else. The smart thing to do would be to do some of the work but purposely let some of it remain unfinished. If you complete all the work, the boss is going to notice that and he's not going to reward you with two salaries. Instead, he's not going to hire someone else and expect you to do the work of two people on the salary of one person. Then, all those tasks that you are doing are going to be considered the norm in your job and if you ever quit, the person they hire in your place will be expected to do all those duties also. Then the person that comes after you may complete all those duties but may cut corners and take shortcuts to complete them by using cheaper supplies or things needed to complete them. This will eventually lead to a shitty product but as long as the customers don't complain, the boss is happy because he has got all the work he can get out of someone at the cheapest cost possible for the biggest profit.

The technology was already being invented so even if Prince had never done everything himself, some shit hopper would still have found a way to do their little thing all by themselves so the decline still would have happened.
.
.
.
[Edited 12/26/09 8:53am]

WaterInYourBath said:

I wouldn't condemn the entire genre but the current trend of producing and saturating the airwaves with substandard hip hop and r&b to the exclusion of everything else is depressing. Consumers who settle for it bear some responsibility also.

2elijah said:

That's true and I don't think Prince ruined black music at all. But people do use him as a scapegoat on this very board when they are defending shit hop by saying...."I find it ironic how Prince fans of all people could down a genre for using drum machines when Prince had a booming career using them". They know damn well themselves that the type of drum machines that Prince used didn't sound weak and cheap sounding like the ones the shit hoppers use. And they conveniently leave out the fact that he had real drums pounding hard underneath those drum machines which gave the songs life rather than just a mindless machine tapping.

vainandy said:

You're making an apples and oranges comparison. Yes, Prince may have pushed the technology - but that has nothing to do with the art.

I work as a writer. The fact that someone else knows how to type and use InDesign doesn't mean they can write on my level or that they can do my job. They can try - but the results won't be the same.

If I quit my current job and leave behind samples of my writing and my sheet of InDesign keyboard shortcuts, does that mean I'm responsible for the quality of the work of anyone who comes after me?

I think not.

That has nothing to do with it whatsoever. The problem with shit hop isn't because they are rapping. The problem is, they don't have no music behind the rapping. Music can be great and have no singing, rapping, or lyrics whatsoever. This jam doesn't have one single lyric and is funky as hell....



And as far as rap goes, no one is shitting on something like this....



Once again, not one lyric that is sung but it is still funky as hell. Why? Because it's got music behind it. That's the difference between HIP hop and SHIT hop.

babynoz said:

Black artists influenced a WILD spectrum of musical styles that covered almost everything you hear today, be it mainstream or underground(good & bad), YES universally speaking.

Alot of artists(and their fans) don't realize that the music they made/listen to are directly or indirectly influenced by black muiscians. Folks can agree/disagree all they want, but I know THEY KNOW its true.

So,,,I can understand their frustration when they read the term "black music" because it kills any sense of ownership(OH YES, people do own their music contrary to popular belief,,,since we're talking about the cultural perspective) The thing that gets me though, is when some folks deem it too "limiting",,,,,selective memory is a funny thing

lotusflw3r said:

More drivel

Harlepolis said:

But aren't people who deem it too limiting seeing it that way because of the influence of Black artists across the spectrum of music in America?
What about music by Black musicians in Latin America and Brasil? It would correct to call that Black music also.I don't see the term as limiting but as a very broad brush.
I'd have to ask what type of Black music is being discussed?

Let's also not overlook the fact that industry charts were segregated so Black music and musicians appeared on the R & B chart ( and for the longest-stayed there).

SUPRMAN said:

...and your point??
[Edited 12/26/09 13:47pm]

SUPRMAN said:

Thats why I said, universally speaking.

And there's no past tense when it comes to the segregation of charts(or radio stations), its still happening.

2elijah said:

That it reminded me of what Stevie went through with Berry Gordy at Motown. Stevie wanted to be an artist, not just a cog in the Motown R & B machine. Stevie being just an artist led to his recognition as an artist with back to back Album of the Year Grammy's.

The original premise is just too short sighted and poorly thought out to really dwell on.

What I don't see in any of the complaints is any blame placed on the consumer. The recording industry delivers what sells, if people didn't buy the shit, they would move on to something else.

Do you think any recording exec wants do do business with a moron like Lil Wayne? They do it because people will lap it up.

In the early days of rap and even now how were people getting discovered? Mix tapes. No record execs were out there selling out of their trunk, forcing people to buy the tapes. The record execs saw that it sold and took the natural step any industry would take. Pump out what the people want to buy.

I agree Andy. The guy was making an observation of the unintended consequences that followed a standard set by Prince. There's a vast difference between technology in the hands of a master musician like Prince and those of much lesser talent who have tried to follow his example. The industry bean counters lapped up this model simply because it was a cheaper way to produce music. Then, with the help of video, the proceeded to sell this inferior product to the masses. I also agree that the decline would have happened anyway. Some no talent hack would have stumbled upon the method eventually.

If people could get past their defensiveness about Prince, it's actually an interesting discussion.

NONSENSE said:

Fair enough, and I respect your opinion.

But at the same time you have jazz purists who STILL swear up & down that the 70s Jazz scene(fusion and what have you) is not music.

So whether we agree/disagree with Rap/Techno getting labeled as "music",,,I think the fact that it resonated with MILLIONS of people says otherwise.