filthyrichyuppie said:

skywalker said:

filthyrichyuppie said: First of all, what's with the insults? "Feeble minded", etc. Your analogy with sports is weak because sports are, by in large, national/regional interests. Music is less so especially in the internet age. Your comment about The Beatles actually is good evidence for my claim. - You are not on another planet, but there are plenty of "people of color" that play folk, rock, and AOR. Your Peabo Bryson comment suggests a wicked sense of humor and a completely misguided sense of R&B/Soul. Talk like that likely makes James Brown spin in his grave. [Edited 2/15/14 19:53pm]

I'll just have to repeat myself: Yes, sport is, by and large a national/regional interest. But there is also World Cup soccer (which is a global sport).

Your original quote:

-"It's a British magazine. Jeez. That's like saying Sports Illustrated is chauvinistic because it reports on American Football and basketball (none of which matters outside of America)."

-

Sports illustrated covers The World Cup.

-

Yes, Sports Illustrated is a American mag that covers American football and basketball. However, it is not limited to just covering American sports. It features sports around the globe much more comprehensively and diversely than Mojo covers different genres of music.

-

Mojo calls itself The World's Best Music Magazine, but is almost laughably limited in it's focus. Mojo is a niche mag that is genre specific, the fact that it is a British publication is not a good excuse as to why.

The Beatles could never come out of anywhere but England but is known the world over. See the similarity? Far from weak, the analogy could not be more perfect.

I'm not talking about R&B per se. I'm aware that plenty "people of color" (your quotes not mine) play folk and the rest of it. I merely mention the logistics of a magazine that focuses on a certain kind of music which, rightly or wrongly, has more practitioners of one race over another.

That's what I am saying.

-

Why does Mojo only cover "a certain kind of music which, rightly or wrongly, has more practitioners of one race over another"?

-

You say because it's a British Magazine. I think that's a bullshit reason. British people only like a certain kind of music? Only certain genres appeal to British people? They don't like hip hop? Jazz? Soul? Michael Jackson? James Brown?

Are you actually reading what I write, or just making stuff up?

I am wondering if you are reading what you write as well. The "people of color" was your quote.

-

Here is your quote:

-

"As for why the magazine doesn't delve further into people of color. I guess you'd have to ask them."

[Edited 2/16/14 9:00am]

I can't keep covering the same ground. Bottom line: I say that Mojo probably reports on a wide range of artists with in it's remit. You say it's probably racist because it dosn't cover enough black artists. I'll just have to refer you to the current issue where Al Green is on the cover and, of course, the upcoming issue with Prince on the cover. You can't fight logic, boy

skywalker said:

filthyrichyuppie said:

That's what I am saying.

-

Why does Mojo only cover "a certain kind of music which, rightly or wrongly, has more practitioners of one race over another"?

-

You say because it's a British Magazine. I think that's a bullshit reason. British people only like a certain kind of music? Only certain genres appeal to British people? They don't like hip hop? Jazz? Soul? Michael Jackson? James Brown?

Are you actually reading what I write, or just making stuff up?

I am wondering if you are reading what you write as well. The "people of color" was your quote.

-

Here is your quote:

-

"As for why the magazine doesn't delve further into people of color. I guess you'd have to ask them."

[Edited 2/16/14 9:00am]

filthyrichyuppie said:

I can't keep covering the same ground. Bottom line: I say that Mojo probably reports on a wide range of artists with in it's remit. You say it's probably racist because it dosn't cover enough black artists. I'll just have to refer you to the current issue where Al Green is on the cover and, of course, the upcoming issue with Prince on the cover. You can't fight logic, boy

Fair enough.

-

Answer one question for me and I'll be done: What is Mojo's remit?

-

Again, they claim to be "The World's Best Music Magazine" but are typically/historically very narrow in their focus. Yes, a black artist makes the cover now and again. I never said they were racist, just not varied. This is what Javi was getting at as well.

-

You argued that this was no different than Sports Illustrated focusing primarily on American Sports. SI has a wider variety of coverage in sports than Mojo has in music. Which, as I said before, is a shame because music crosses boundaries more than sports.

-

You compared The Beatles to The World Cup, but this only helps my argument: The Beatles have had much more influence/impact on world culture than The World Cup.

-

Anyways, thanks for the talk. Sorry if you thought I was trying to be snide with you.

[Edited 2/16/14 13:45pm]

skywalker said:

filthyrichyuppie said:

I can't keep covering the same ground. Bottom line: I say that Mojo probably reports on a wide range of artists with in it's remit. You say it's probably racist because it dosn't cover enough black artists. I'll just have to refer you to the current issue where Al Green is on the cover and, of course, the upcoming issue with Prince on the cover. You can't fight logic, boy

Fair enough.

-

Answer one question for me and I'll be done: What is Mojo's remit?

-

Again, they claim to be "The World's Best Music Magazine" but are typically/historically very narrow in their focus. Yes, a black artist makes the cover now and again. I never said they were racist, just not varied. This is what Javi was getting at as well.

-

You argued that this was no different than Sports Illustrated focusing primarily on American Sports. SI has a wider variety of coverage in sports than Mojo has in music. Which, as I said before, is a shame because music crosses boundaries more than sports.

-

You compared The Beatles to The World Cup, but this only helps my argument: The Beatles have had much more influence/impact on world culture than The World Cup.

-

Anyways, thanks for the talk. Sorry if you thought I was trying to be snide with you.

[Edited 2/16/14 13:45pm]

I don't work for Mojo, and never claimed to know their remit. You keep asking me questions about the magazine as if I work there. What I do know is that its sold in the UK (imported everywhere else) and focuses on music which is, by and large, British (duh!), and older, rockier, and folkier. I make the natural assumptions from that. Rightly or wrongly. Common sense has to be the dictum here.

Your questions have no merit because you're basing them on far bigger, more ignorant assumptions. For example:

- It's racist. You won't come out and say this, of course, but what other implication is there from your complaint? Be serious and say what you mean.

- You take it's byline ("World best...") literally. I can't help you if you think advertizing is truth.

- You say Mojo has been been very narrow, traditionally, in its focus. Actually, neither of us have any idea if that's true, do we? Still, you're the one making the accusation so show me the data?

- You think the World Cup has less influence culturally than The Beatles. This tells me you're American and, again, out of your depth. Again, do the research and see how wide reaching that competition, and soccer is, around the rest of the world. It's been going on a lot longer than the Beatles.

With respect, you don't deserve to ask questions.

filthyrichyuppie said:

skywalker said:

Fair enough.

-

Answer one question for me and I'll be done: What is Mojo's remit?

-

Again, they claim to be "The World's Best Music Magazine" but are typically/historically very narrow in their focus. Yes, a black artist makes the cover now and again. I never said they were racist, just not varied. This is what Javi was getting at as well.

-

You argued that this was no different than Sports Illustrated focusing primarily on American Sports. SI has a wider variety of coverage in sports than Mojo has in music. Which, as I said before, is a shame because music crosses boundaries more than sports.

-

You compared The Beatles to The World Cup, but this only helps my argument: The Beatles have had much more influence/impact on world culture than The World Cup.

-

Anyways, thanks for the talk. Sorry if you thought I was trying to be snide with you.

[Edited 2/16/14 13:45pm]

I don't work for Mojo, and never claimed to know their remit. You keep asking me questions about the magazine as if I work there. What I do know is that its sold in the UK (imported everywhere else) and focuses on music which is, by and large, British (duh!), and older, rockier, and folkier. I make the natural assumptions from that. Rightly or wrongly. Common sense has to be the dictum here.

Your questions have no merit because you're basing them on far bigger, more ignorant assumptions. For example:

- It's racist. You won't come out and say this, of course, but what other implication is there from your complaint? Be serious and say what you mean.

- You take it's byline ("World best...") literally. I can't help you if you think advertizing is truth.

- You say Mojo has been been very narrow, traditionally, in its focus. Actually, neither of us have any idea if that's true, do we? Still, you're the one making the accusation so show me the data?

- You think the World Cup has less influence culturally than The Beatles. This tells me you're American and, again, out of your depth. Again, do the research and see how wide reaching that competition, and soccer is, around the rest of the world. It's been going on a lot longer than the Beatles.

With respect, you don't deserve to ask questions.

Again, thanks for the conversation.

SuperSoulFighter said:

Guys, do you really have nothing better to do?

The voice of reason. Thanks for the input.