vainandy said:

Now, now. There's some killer opera and classical out there. What's more invigorating to hear? Ride of the Valkyrie, or Superman?

I rest my case.

bboy87 said:

OK.

Thinking about this a little more and reading someone's mention of Chicken Noodle Soup, the idea of a dance show is OUT!!!

I would like to see a performance show with a few stipulations:
1) All acts must play/sing live. NO EXCEPTIONS.
2) The idea of including unknown acts is a good one.
3) Taking an idea from one of the best TV performance shows (Night Music), it would be interesting to have members of each episode's bands get together and do a song at some point in the show.


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

Adults are still clubbing but they are the much older "down home blues" crowd that goes to the "hole in the wall" clubs. The ones that are around 60 with the gold teeth and a lot of them still have geri curls. They party all night long with the blues music. Their kids are all grown and they are divorced or either cheating on their spouse.

I'm in the "inbetween generation" that doesn't have anything for them. I'm too old for the shit hop crowd and too young for the down home blues crowd. Most folks my age are tied down to a ball and chain wife and kids right now. I'm hoping things get better when my generation gets a little older, more divorces occur, and those damn brats grow up and get out of their houses.

theAudience said:

It's funny how the States can't do a show like that but Japan has DOZENS of shows where artists do interviews and perform (live or lipsynch)

it's one of the few markets where you see plastic pop idols sit and perform next to well respected artists

vainandy said:

I have nothing against classical music or opera. It may be boring as hell but it is actual music and the entertainers in those genres do have actual talent. Actually, I would say they are more talented than any genre.

I always compare those genres to shit hop though because the tempo of shit hop is just as slow or slower than opera or classical. When I was growing up, people were stereotyped as sissies and dorks that listened to those genres and they still are today. It's only fair that shit hop gets the same stereotype since it's just as slow and dull (actually shit hop is duller). I use the comparison as an insult to shit hoppers because if sissies and dorks listen to only slow dull genres of music, then what does that make a shit hopper?

vainandy said:

Slow and boring?

I can't see clips on this computer. I'm assuming it must be something classical that is fast. I'm aware that there is some fast classical. I'm just using the overall general stereotype of how people perceive classical to use for the insult.

If it is something fast, then that just proves that shit hoppers are even bigger dorks than classical heads because even classical has rhythm and shit hop doesn't.
.
.
.
[Edited 3/11/09 13:55pm]

vainandy said:

I don't think people knock classical because it's slow because so much of it certainly isn't. I think people knock that genre because it's arty. It's seen as intellectual snob music, and EVERYONE knows that intellectuals are wimpy, wine-drinking effetes.

BTW, that clip I posted was Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries. It's the song used in Apocalypse Now. Definitely not slow or boring.

purplecam said:

The "change" will come in black music as soon as hip-hop AND r&b are finally divorce.

Honey, when it comes to shitting on shit hop, I just throw everything including the kitchen sink and hope that something sticks. You never know which comment might strike a nerve no matter how small or general sweeping it may be. Desperate times need desperate measures.

vainandy said:

See, this is what I was trying to explain on another thread a while back. There's an entire generation of people that have been "skipped" in a sense. If you are 30-something or 40-something, you've been told to either rock with the "old folks' shit" or roll with hip-hop/neo-soul/contemporary R&B but there are a lot of 30/40 somethings who grew up on FUNK and labels could sell them new music but they are far more interested in selling music to their children, which makes business sense but there's no reason to completely ignore a generation and their music.
VH-1 had an 80s show the other day that HAD NO MENTION OF PRINCE! NONE! WTF? Come on! You never hear about the music that was really going on in the clubs back then; you only hear about the music tailored to fit their marketing plan. They will talk about Run DMC and The Beastie Boys but not Prince, Cameo, Zapp, The Bar-Kays, S.O.S. Band, Midnight Star, Stacey Lattisaw, Glenn Jones, Klymaxx, The Time, Ready For The World, Midnight Star, Atlantic Starr, Cherrelle, Freddie Jackson, Shannon, Cheryl Lynn and that's just off the top of my head, but you get the message. We may talk about some of these artists on here but the general public never sees mention of them in the media. I find it offensive that they are trying to re-write our musical history to suit their needs. A lot of the media industry are trying to pretend that certain portions of the 80s didn't happen and I know why. We are living in a society that is pushing towards conformity and the 80s was the last stand of the free thinkers where being original and innovative held some relevance. You can't sell cheap jogging suits to people if they all want their own "individual style" and individual styles cost money. Music influences culture. Industries took an interest in the music business for a reason - so they could control peoples' choices. Corporations don't want people looking at the "outrageous 80s" and either feeling nostalgic and being reminded of what they've forgotten about individualistic thinking or the youth getting "inspired" by it because is counterproductive to what they are trying to do; keep people thinking in line.

BlaqueKnight said:

That's real unfortunate. It's a shame a lot of the artists you and Andy grew up on never gets mentioned nor is there music by these acts to satisfy you in a sense of going to a club where it's "grown & sexy" when you got music that's "grown and stupid", you know what I mean? I'm actually disappointed in my generation. I DO end up listening (and enjoying) music like "Hole in the Wall" tho. My mom and dad got me into that stuff.

bboy87 said:

Speaking of other countries pulling this kind of thing off.
This, unfortunately, was a one time event that occured in the UK (1969).
It combined diverse artists on one stage (Buddy Guy, Eric Clapton, Roland Kirk, Buddy Miles, etc)
If i'm not mistaken, Led Zeppelin also appeared but didn't make it to the DVD.

A clip...



...Buddy Guy - Mary Had A Little Lamb




...Buddy shows Eric how it's done.


It was called Supershow and you can pick it up on Amazon for about $15.



tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

Those shows worked because there were fewer outlets back in the day, and if artists wanted to be seen (outside of concerts and the occasional video), they had to go through these 2 shows. Does the tired "Old-school vs. New-school" rant always have to come into play with these kinda threads? Let it go. 10 years ago, people were saying 'nobody dances no more". Today, kids create steps that everyone can get down to, and now it's not "real dancing"?

Timmy84 said:

I enjoy a lot of today's music as well. Its just that I resent the agenda going on. Here's a generational difference:
If I say something needs more BASS - if you're 30/40 something, you should be thinking bass guitar. Nowadays, people think kick drum. That's because that's one of the things hip-hop re-defined. You don't really hear a lot of real bass guitar in songs much these days but the bass guitar defined the groove. Another example of the elimination of a vital part of musical instrumentation. West Coast hip-hop cats like Snoop have tried to keep that element alive as well as some of the down South hip-hop artists like T.I., Scarface and Luda but overall, there's a strong push towards lazy MPC-made grooves and tracks produced by one person rather than a group of musicians coming together and sharing ideas. Isn't it a little odd that there have been no R&B bands to arise from the entire music industry in 15 years or so?

BlaqueKnight said:

Not odd, really. But I think with the inclusion of synthesized instruments into the full realm of R&B, it has made being in a band useless. It's only odd because it produces laziness. I guess if you wanna be a band and you're black, you have to find an audience that likes that music because you know the brainwashed urban audience will not be able to understand it.

You hit the nail right dead on the head. I bet the show you are referring to on VH1 was "Black To The Future" (the 80s episode). I called it "White To The Future". VH1 knew what they were doing. That show was catered to the largest audience possible but under the disguise that it was to a "black" audience that would have been around during that era. Actually, it was catered to the young and also the white. If you noticed, most of the people that were talking during the segments were young shit hoppers that would have been too young to remember anything from that era. A lot of that show was focused on the rap in the later years of the 1980s because that eventually led to the music of today's generation. Also, the younger generation has heard of those rap groups because of the references that the young shit hop artists have made to them. All that was geared toward the young audience.

It was also geared to the white audience even though it was called "Black To The Future". Every single artist they mentioned was Shitney Houston, Lionel Richie, a very small mention of Prince's name, and Michael Jackson. What were all those artists? They were not only crossover artists, but huge highly successful crossover artists that were extremely well known in the white community. A true representation of "Black To The Future" (80s version) would have featured folks like Rick James, Cameo, Zapp, Midnight Star, The Gap Band, Con Funk Shun, The Dazz Band, One Way, Bill Summmers and Summers Heat, D Train, Yarbrough and Peoples, Shalamar, The Whispers, Dynasty, and endless others. Why weren't any groups like those featured on "Black To The Future"? It's because they were so "black" that white folks had never heard of them and VH1, as well as the other corporations these days, want to cater to the largest audience available regardless as to whether it's actually an entertaining product or not.

vainandy said:

I saw the 1980s episode and said "fuck this", lol. It definitely was "White to the Future".

Actually, there are a few of the "grown and sexy" type clubs you are referring to but they are all for the elite goodie two shoes type crowd who just stand around all prim and proper while duller mellower music like Shitney Houston, Freddie Jackson, or Anita Baker plays in the background. There's none of the get down, raunchy, ass shaking music playing like we used to actually party to when we were growing up. The older down home blues crowd does get down, dirty, and raunchy in their clubs with their blues though. The problem is, the R&B radio stations that cater to my age group are all a "soft soul" format. Since radio influences clubs, it influences the type of clubs that open for us.
.
.
.
[Edited 3/11/09 14:44pm]

vainandy said:

"Grown and slow". I love the down home blues crowd! They don't give a fuck!
[Edited 3/11/09 14:44pm]

Timmy84 said:

[/b]Being in a band is never useless. Being in a band is a meeting of musical minds. Everyone brings something to the table. Its a form of sharing as well. R&B music didn't HAVE to go the way it did; it was directed that way. Execs saw a perfect business model - low cost to make - high cost to sell. The cultivated the current musical culture deliberately. If technology were the issue, you'd have to say the same for rock music. You can make all of the parts to a rock song on keyboards and samplers as well. Rock bands would consist of a lead singer and probably a guitarist if technology were the real issue. Its not. The current state of music was cultivated; it didn't just happen.
Producers started sequencing songs and edging out other musicians and delivering finished product to labels and it grew simpler and simpler. It went from the Teddy Riley types in the early 90s to the Lil Jon's of today. Less and less musical knowledge and proficiency was needed to produce "hits". The individualistic mindset was developed by labels and the quality of music has suffered greatly for it.[/b]

BlaqueKnight said:

I see what you mean.

vainandy said:

Yep, that was it. You nailed it.

Right again. Drums are also missing. Real drums and bass are what give a song rhythm and also make it sound powerful rather than cheap sounding like a Fisher Price keyboard. You can add almost any other real or fake instrument you like but if you keep those real drums and bass on a song and keep the tempo up to a good speed, the song is going to sound good.

That's why I absolutely hate and despise shit hop. No hope of rhythm (which means fun) will ever come back as long as they dominate with those fake weak sounding drum machines and bass they use. And that slow tempo they use makes it sound even worse.

Being cheap was definately a factor but the biggest downfall of R&B was when the young white boys got into rap in the extreme late 80s/early 90s. Then, it spilled over to the young white girls. When those record labels saw that not only was this music cheap, but it also could draw huge sales from white kids also like Prince, Michael Jackson, Shitney Houston, or Lionel Richie had done previously at a higher cost, the labels were thrilled and sure were going to press this "new" genre even if it meant keeping others out.

And all that slow tempoed shit that eventually went along with it. Remember when the majority of R&B was listened to by a mostly black audience. What was it? It was fast, full of rhythm, and funky. Whenever a white person stumbled upon someone listening to it, what was the first thing they called it? I can't tell you how many countless times I've heard the term "jungle music". When it came to R&B beginning in the 1990s when these labels saw that white kids were getting into it, I'm sure the labels probably wanted to keep it as far away from "jungle music" as possible to keep those white kids aboard.
.
.
.
[Edited 3/11/09 15:06pm]

vainandy said:

You'll be lucky to get the bass, guitar and drum-driven R&B today.

vainandy said:

This is so true!

scorp84 said:

With sites like YouTube and MySpace, (and the internet in general) good music programming on TV is becoming obsolete.

On a side note, I was just thinking recently about how great TV shows were when I was little (the numerous family series, sitcoms, cartoons, etc). Now, even those are terrible, or nonexistent. Got nothing now but non-funny shows that are described as being sitcoms, too many police dramas, several versions of Dateline, and boring recurring reality shows.

BlaqueKnight said:

Thank you for that point.
One of the ultimate forms of non-verbal communication when done properly.



When the technology allowed everybody and his brother (not necessarily a bad thing) to put out product, many felt they could go the one-man band route (ala Stevie, Todd, Prince, etc).
The problem, in too many cases, was that the talent factor wasn't on par with those cats.


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431