MJJstudent said:

Emancipation89 said:

No way! MJJC is more like, "Everyone around Michael can go f themselves", "Poor Michael, never had anyone to fully trust", To a certain extend I do agree with these kind of statements and I don't think it's necessarily false but people there just go too far. Like during memorial service people gave so much shit to Brooke Shields for even being there... I find that MJ fans on Prince fan-site are much more logical and fair...kinda ironic lol

because in my experience of dealing with both the prince and michael communities; the prince community is far less judgmental and much more open-minded than many i have known in the michael community. prince people have been much more supportive of me, as a person who considers michael to be a teacher. michael people have been condescending to me. i can share many experiences...

Hmm that's definitely interesting. But I've also noticed that Prince diehard fans can be really harsh sometimes...even on Prince lol

Emancipation89 said:

MJJstudent said:

because in my experience of dealing with both the prince and michael communities; the prince community is far less judgmental and much more open-minded than many i have known in the michael community. prince people have been much more supportive of me, as a person who considers michael to be a teacher. michael people have been condescending to me. i can share many experiences...

Hmm that's definitely interesting. But I've also noticed that Prince diehard fans can be really harsh sometimes...even on Prince lol

i have definitely seen that. well, at least they crititique their favourite artist... in some circles, if you so much as critique michael, be careful, or you get a barrage of fans...

MickyDolenz said:

MJJstudent said:

wasn't there a time they ended up recording a whole album over, because they heard one mistake in a song or something?

I think that was Boston. I heard that the leader Tom Scholz once spent 6 months just to record a drum track on one song.

??????????????????????????????????

MJJstudent said:

in terms of off the wall, i see it more of a jazz album than a dance album. it's classic quincy jones. i don't ever recall people stating patti austin's work with jones around that time was disco-related.

with janet, again, i don't know much about her. granted, i stopped paying attention to her when she began to take off the clothes (after rhythm nation), but i do know she's seen as a shy person.

Off The Wall, even for its jazz influence/sound is the ultimate dance album. It is an essential post-disco album, that helped to shape the r&b of that time and then leading the way to what is known, today, as dance-pop. This is not a good or bad thing, it's just is what it is. At one point, people used to dance to jazz music. It's not a bad thing unless you think that any music that can be danced to is bad.

Unholyalliance said:

MJJstudent said:

in terms of off the wall, i see it more of a jazz album than a dance album. it's classic quincy jones. i don't ever recall people stating patti austin's work with jones around that time was disco-related.

with janet, again, i don't know much about her. granted, i stopped paying attention to her when she began to take off the clothes (after rhythm nation), but i do know she's seen as a shy person.

Off The Wall, even for its jazz influence/sound is the ultimate dance album. It is an essential post-disco album, that helped to shape the r&b of that time and then leading the way to what is known, today, as dance-pop. This is not a good or bad thing, it's just is what it is. At one point, people used to dance to jazz music. It's not a bad thing unless you think that any music that can be danced to is bad.

i personally don't see it in any way as a dance album... i see it for all intents and purposes, as a jazz album which had songs you could dance too. it had top-notch musicians like george duke... amazing. i see jazz and classical more in michael's music than anything else.

MJJstudent said:

i personally don't see it in any way as a dance album... i see it for all intents and purposes, as a jazz album which had songs you could dance too. it had top-notch musicians like george duke... amazing. i see jazz and classical more in michael's music than anything else.

I think it's because you may not like dance music and consider it to be something less than significant/artistic so you are assoicating it with music that you consider to have much more artistic weight. I, too, hear the classical and jazz influences in his work, but that doesn't take away from the fact it's still music to dance to. Didn't he even mention that one of his goals in life was to meld music and dancing together or something? I'm pretty sure he said something like that and considering how much he loved to dance and how he could barely sit still himself it wouldn't be too far off either. Accoriding to some that worked with him, dancing was a significant part of his songwriting process. Especially since he spent a good amount of his career doing dance orientated music even if it was of the soul/funk variety.

I think that, later, he was moving to other things though, but he still did a lot of dance-pop. He's one of the biggest, and most famous, dance-pop artists around. =/

Alas, it's still art that's up for interpretation...I guess.

[Edited 4/30/11 22:32pm]

MJJstudent said:

i personally don't see it in any way as a dance album... i see it for all intents and purposes, as a jazz album which had songs you could dance too. it had top-notch musicians like george duke... amazing. i see jazz and classical more in michael's music than anything else.

How is that when it has songs called Get On The Floor and Burn This Disco Out? The only song on the album that is jazzy to me is I Can't Help It. Just because jazz musicians play on a record doesn't make it jazz. George Benson, Herbie Hancock, Nat King Cole, and others made many songs in different genres. Some of The Funk Brothers were jazz players, but I wouldn't call the "Motown Sound" jazz. As far as dancing goes, people dance to all kinds of music, such as country. You've never seen a square dance before?

Unholyalliance said:

MJJstudent said:

i personally don't see it in any way as a dance album... i see it for all intents and purposes, as a jazz album which had songs you could dance too. it had top-notch musicians like george duke... amazing. i see jazz and classical more in michael's music than anything else.

I think it's because you may not like dance music and consider it to be something less than significant/artistic so you are assoicating it with music that you consider to have much more artistic weight. I, too, hear the classical and jazz influences in his work, but that doesn't take away from the fact it's still music to dance to. Didn't he even mention that one of his goals in life was to meld music and dancing together or something? I'm pretty sure he said something like that and considering how much he loved to dance and how he could barely sit still himself it wouldn't be too far off either. Accoriding to some that worked with him, dancing was a significant part of his songwriting process. Especially since he spent a good amount of his career doing dance orientated music even if it was of the soul/funk variety.

I think that, later, he was moving to other things though, but he still did a lot of dance-pop. He's one of the biggest, and most famous, dance-pop artists around. =/

Alas, it's still art that's up for interpretation...I guess.

[Edited 4/30/11 22:32pm]

hmmm... i love house music; i like some things considered disco... i just don't see 'off the wall' as being associated with disco. it's got not much to do with artistic weight. for me, it's got more to do with production value and associations. to me, it's a classic jones production. i don't see other jones productions which have 'danceable' music on it as 'disco' or 'dance' either... like 'the dude'... to me that's a jazz album as well. to call 'off the wall' a 'dance' album to me limits the frame of what an album it was. to me, it's a phenomenal popular jazz album.

of course it's still music to dance to, but i am speaking about what i feel are the main inspirations and sources... and i'm just not hearing traditional dance or disco, in terms of genre. jazz is such a varied style of music, which includes popular and danceable sounds. look at mid-to late 70s blue note... the mizell brothers did lots of dance-oriented jazz, as did patrice rushen.

i see michael as a popular artist, but i don't see him as a pop artist, in terms of genre. 'king of pop' was too limiting of a title, since he dipped his creative hand in art that wasn't always so popular.

i mean, everything from anita baker to STEVIE WONDER (beginning in the early 70s- on) to me is jazz-based. i mean, listen to 'contusion'... it's jazz-fusion, which is inspired by rock. steely dan; it's jazz. barry white- it's classical. i think calling this stuff 'pop' as a genre is too limiting.

music and dancing is one thing; i'm talking about genre... and dance music is actually QUITE significant, because it's got its roots in gospel, rock 'n roll, and blues. i don't see anything as being insignificant, as long as it's got light energy attached to it.

MickyDolenz said:

MJJstudent said:

i personally don't see it in any way as a dance album... i see it for all intents and purposes, as a jazz album which had songs you could dance too. it had top-notch musicians like george duke... amazing. i see jazz and classical more in michael's music than anything else.

How is that when it has songs called Get On The Floor and Burn This Disco Out? The only song on the album that is jazzy to me is I Can't Help It. Just because jazz musicians play on a record doesn't make it jazz. George Benson, Herbie Hancock, Nat King Cole, and others made many songs in different genres. Some of The Funk Brothers were jazz players, but I wouldn't call the "Motown Sound" jazz. As far as dancing goes, people dance to all kinds of music, such as country. You've never seen a square dance before?

the titles have nothing to do with the genre for me... to me, all that stuff is rooted in jazz, traditionally. there were also jazz musicians on 'thriller' and 'bad'. to me a song like 'human nature' is a jazz song, influenced by rock. and 'bad' has jimmy smith on it... traditionally, some of the stuff on michael's albums are not jazz. but to me 'off the wall' IS a jazz album. as is HIStory in some ways. 'earth song' is a jazz/classical song to me as well. 'stranger in moscow' is a classical piece. 'i can't let her get away' (off dangerous) is a straight up dance genre song. i'm thinking more about structures than the artist who makes the songs.

wait? herbie hancock made an album that wasn't jazz? when? even 'future shock', 'sound system' and 'future2future' to me were still jazz albums... again, jazz is so varied, which is something mr. hancock proved, for sure. traditionally, michael is not a jazz artist, but i also don't consider him a pop artist (nether do i consider prince or STEVIE pop artists). to me, popular and 'pop' are two different things. michael did everything from jazz to classical to traditional dance and everything in between.

i agree, just because jazz musicians play on it doesn't make it jazz... however, i am hearing the roots in those songs. i don't hear the same sounds i hear when i, say, listen to madonna. she is a straight up dance genre artist.

i also consider a lot of early motown to be rooted in jazz. songs like 'my guy' or even 'you keep me hanging on' to me, were jazz tunes. which is probably why i liked them so much.

i realize most people aren't gonna agree with me, and that's okay.

to me, the songs on off the wall which carry the traditional jazz traits (translated to 'modern' times) are:

-it's the falling in love

-i can't help it

-she's out of my life

-girlfriend

-get on the floor

-rock with you

if off the wall were a traditional dance album, with all songs sounding like 'don't stop til you get enough' (despite the end vamp of that song being one of the most brilliant pieces of music) i would have hated the album. i happen to be a bigger fan of michael's ballads (as well as the 'sappy' faster songs like 'just good friends'). it shows his range as an artist more than the traditional dance songs. if he did 'billie jean' the whole album, his art would suffer.

MickyDolenz said:

MJJstudent said:

i personally don't see it in any way as a dance album... i see it for all intents and purposes, as a jazz album which had songs you could dance too. it had top-notch musicians like george duke... amazing. i see jazz and classical more in michael's music than anything else.

How is that when it has songs called Get On The Floor and Burn This Disco Out? The only song on the album that is jazzy to me is I Can't Help It. Just because jazz musicians play on a record doesn't make it jazz. George Benson, Herbie Hancock, Nat King Cole, and others made many songs in different genres. Some of The Funk Brothers were jazz players, but I wouldn't call the "Motown Sound" jazz. As far as dancing goes, people dance to all kinds of music, such as country. You've never seen a square dance before?

It's jazz-emulated. No one said OTW was a jazz album.

ViintageJunkiie said:

gunner82 said:

OOPs! I was reffering to Soulalive'e tracklist [my bad]. With your tracklist, I'd take off 'WAHTCTW' & 'SOTM'. But honestly, some of the songs you have up here we've never heard, so therefore, we have no clue if they are good songs....

The tracks that SoulAlive posted were tracks recorded FOR Thriller, 1981-82 outtakes. The songs Bboy, along with myself, posted, these were songs that were recorded IN 1985.

Wow,I didn't realize that he recorded so many tunes in 1985.I assumed that was a 'quiet' year for him,but it looks like he stayed busy.

SoulAlive said:

ViintageJunkiie said:

The tracks that SoulAlive posted were tracks recorded FOR Thriller, 1981-82 outtakes. The songs Bboy, along with myself, posted, these were songs that were recorded IN 1985.

Wow,I didn't realize that he recorded so many tunes in 1985.I assumed that was a 'quiet' year for him,but it looks like he stayed busy.

Yep. "Dirty Diana" was recorded in 1983 along with "Liberian Girl", so you can just about imagine how early he began working on Bad

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

How is that when it has songs called Get On The Floor and Burn This Disco Out? The only song on the album that is jazzy to me is I Can't Help It. Just because jazz musicians play on a record doesn't make it jazz. George Benson, Herbie Hancock, Nat King Cole, and others made many songs in different genres. Some of The Funk Brothers were jazz players, but I wouldn't call the "Motown Sound" jazz. As far as dancing goes, people dance to all kinds of music, such as country. You've never seen a square dance before?

It's jazz-emulated. No one said OTW was a jazz album.

i am saying that... i actually DO think it's a jazz album. jazz has such a wide rage, and i feel off the wall is a major part of that range. i see most people dis-agree with me. that's fine.

MJJstudent said:

Timmy84 said:

It's jazz-emulated. No one said OTW was a jazz album.

i am saying that... i actually DO think it's a jazz album. jazz has such a wide rage, and i feel off the wall is a major part of that range. i see most people dis-agree with me. that's fine.

IDK about all of that. It's kinda like the pop-R&B records jazz artists were making, much like the Patrice Rushen albums of the same era. But I can't outright say it was totally jazz. Mickey did have some points. It was definitely more jazz-influenced than an actual jazz album.

Timmy84 said:

MJJstudent said:

i am saying that... i actually DO think it's a jazz album. jazz has such a wide rage, and i feel off the wall is a major part of that range. i see most people dis-agree with me. that's fine.

IDK about all of that. It's kinda like the pop-R&B records jazz artists were making, much like the Patrice Rushen albums of the same era. But I can't outright say it was totally jazz. Mickey did have some points. It was definitely more jazz-influenced than an actual jazz album.

but yeah, george duke, patrice rushen, herbie hancock... they made albums that were not 'traditional' jazz, but they were still jazz albums. and the mizell brothers did straight up funk tracks which jazz artists did... for me, i'd say off the wall was a jazz album inspired by disco and the R&B/soul genres. i personally don't see it as an R&B album.

i guess i'm just more partial to jazz than traditional R&B. again, if off the wall was all 'don't stop til you get enough', i would have hated the album. i prefer michael's ballads to the dance stuff, for the most part.

MJJstudent said:

Timmy84 said:

IDK about all of that. It's kinda like the pop-R&B records jazz artists were making, much like the Patrice Rushen albums of the same era. But I can't outright say it was totally jazz. Mickey did have some points. It was definitely more jazz-influenced than an actual jazz album.

but yeah, george duke, patrice rushen, herbie hancock... they made albums that were not 'traditional' jazz, but they were still jazz albums. and the mizell brothers did straight up funk tracks which jazz artists did... for me, i'd say off the wall was a jazz album inspired by disco and the R&B/soul genres. i personally don't see it as an R&B album.

i guess i'm just more partial to jazz than traditional R&B. again, if off the wall was all 'don't stop til you get enough', i would have hated the album. i prefer michael's ballads to the dance stuff, for the most part.

IDK though, I definitely wouldn't have called those albums "jazz" in the purest sense but I can see why they were jazz albums because the music in those albums didn't totally veer away from it. They were just accused of "selling out" because all of them "had the galls" to sing on them (Herbie singing on the vocoder). They would never give that respect to Michael despite his work with Quincy considering they were trashing Quincy for working with pop artists.

Timmy84 said:

MJJstudent said:

but yeah, george duke, patrice rushen, herbie hancock... they made albums that were not 'traditional' jazz, but they were still jazz albums. and the mizell brothers did straight up funk tracks which jazz artists did... for me, i'd say off the wall was a jazz album inspired by disco and the R&B/soul genres. i personally don't see it as an R&B album.

i guess i'm just more partial to jazz than traditional R&B. again, if off the wall was all 'don't stop til you get enough', i would have hated the album. i prefer michael's ballads to the dance stuff, for the most part.

IDK though, I definitely wouldn't have called those albums "jazz" in the purest sense but I can see why they were jazz albums because the music in those albums didn't totally veer away from it. They were just accused of "selling out" because all of them "had the galls" to sing on them (Herbie singing on the vocoder). They would never give that respect to Michael despite his work with Quincy considering they were trashing Quincy for working with pop artists.

yeah... michael never really got credit for doing jazz or classical, or even rock... he was always, in a funny way, stuck as an 'R&B' artist, despite being called 'the king of pop'.

MJJstudent said:

Timmy84 said:

IDK though, I definitely wouldn't have called those albums "jazz" in the purest sense but I can see why they were jazz albums because the music in those albums didn't totally veer away from it. They were just accused of "selling out" because all of them "had the galls" to sing on them (Herbie singing on the vocoder). They would never give that respect to Michael despite his work with Quincy considering they were trashing Quincy for working with pop artists.

yeah... michael never really got credit for doing jazz or classical, or even rock... he was always, in a funny way, stuck as an 'R&B' artist, despite being called 'the king of pop'.

Actually he was considered "pop" after Thriller...and nothing more than that. It undermined his entire catalog either way anyways.

Timmy84 said:

MJJstudent said:

yeah... michael never really got credit for doing jazz or classical, or even rock... he was always, in a funny way, stuck as an 'R&B' artist, despite being called 'the king of pop'.

Actually he was considered "pop" after Thriller...and nothing more than that. It undermined his entire catalog either way anyways.

yes, i think 'pop' is too limiting. to me, jennifer lopez is a 'pop' artist. she was bred for that or something. beyonce is a pop artist, despite having jazz musicians in her live band. as far as i know, she does not stray from 'pop'... calling michael pop or otherwise is limiting. i don't think michael is a pop, jazz, R&B or otherwise artist... like STEVIE, he is just an artist.

i don't know why he gave himself that 'king of pop' titile. he limited himself. you can play michael on a jazz station... you can play him on classical. you can play him on the soul station... you can't do that with timberlake. this is what i mean. very few artists break out of these molds. it's sad that michael was "nothing more than" a pop artist to people. it's sad that many don't explore his art beyond thriller.

i mean, look at someone like elvis costello, another artist. he does rock, jazz, classical, pop, stuff with a. toussaint, etc. this is what ALL artists should strive for, not some genre ghetto. why strive fr just 'pop', when there are no limitations to what you can do? bjork as well... i see michael and STEVIE in the same league as them.

Pop stands for “popular” which indeed he was so I see nothing wrong with the title. He was doing way more than typical R&B after thriller , pop turned into a negative thing for people over the years though.

MJJstudent said:

Timmy84 said:

IDK about all of that. It's kinda like the pop-R&B records jazz artists were making, much like the Patrice Rushen albums of the same era. But I can't outright say it was totally jazz. Mickey did have some points. It was definitely more jazz-influenced than an actual jazz album.

but yeah, george duke, patrice rushen, herbie hancock... they made albums that were not 'traditional' jazz, but they were still jazz albums. and the mizell brothers did straight up funk tracks which jazz artists did... for me, i'd say off the wall was a jazz album inspired by disco and the R&B/soul genres. i personally don't see it as an R&B album.

This is like calling the smooth jazz record Slash made "heavy metal", Tammy Wynette a dance singer because she recorded a song with KLF, or Nelly a country singer because he did a duet with Tim McGraw. Stevie Wonder played harmonica on a N*Sync song. Does that make him a teen pop performer? Just because a person is known for one genre, doesn't make everything they release that. Black Sabbath has songs like Laguna Sunrise, which is almost easy listening.

babybugz said:

Pop stands for “popular” which indeed he was so I see nothing wrong with the title. He was doing way more than typical R&B after thriller , pop turned into a negative thing for people over the years though.

i personally see a distinction between 'popular' and 'pop'... 'pop' has turned into a limiting genre by default... i'd say john coltrane is popular, but he's not a 'pop' artist... to me, 'pop' music has been defined by what clear channel, etc. deems acceptable to rotate on commerical channels. 'pop' artists aren't always popular (people like glenn lewis)...

artists like michael and STEVIE are certainly popular, but they to me do not fit into genres. same as, elvis costello or bjork, as i mentioned earlier.

MJJstudent said:

i personally see a distinction between 'popular' and 'pop'... 'pop' has turned into a limiting genre by default... i'd say john coltrane is popular, but he's not a 'pop' artist... to me, 'pop' music has been defined by what clear channel, etc. deems acceptable to rotate on commerical channels. 'pop' artists aren't always popular (people like glenn lewis)...

artists like michael and STEVIE are certainly popular, but they to me do not fit into genres. same as, elvis costello or bjork, as i mentioned earlier.

It is said that pop(ular) music is categorized as modern music. Classical is art music and then there's traditional which is the native music from everywhere else.

Yet...what is the native music from America? Blues and gospel? Yet, people keep telling me that gospel is based on European folk music, but the call and response aspect of black gospel music as well as modern music originated in West Africa. Yet, American music is the combination of European and West African traditions though. Also, ultimately, barring the music from the original inhabitants...isn't the native music for the US is...pop music?

babybugz said:

Pop stands for “popular” which indeed he was so I see nothing wrong with the title. He was doing way more than typical R&B after thriller , pop turned into a negative thing for people over the years though.

The media always played a part in the negative reaction to "pop music", calling it "not really music". Sure there was some stuff that can be considered noise but if done right it can be a piece of art to someone. I don't see nothing wrong with Michael being called a pop artist. Just hated how the media perceives - and continues to perceive pop music.

MickyDolenz said:

MJJstudent said:

but yeah, george duke, patrice rushen, herbie hancock... they made albums that were not 'traditional' jazz, but they were still jazz albums. and the mizell brothers did straight up funk tracks which jazz artists did... for me, i'd say off the wall was a jazz album inspired by disco and the R&B/soul genres. i personally don't see it as an R&B album.

This is like calling the smooth jazz record Slash made "heavy metal", Tammy Wynette a dance singer because she recorded a song with KLF, or Nelly a country singer because he did a duet with Tim McGraw. Stevie Wonder played harmonica on a N*Sync song. Does that make him a teen pop performer? Just because a person is known for one genre, doesn't make everything they release that. Black Sabbath has songs like Laguna Sunrise, which is almost easy listening.

Emancipation89 said:

Don't they get technical with the pop genre? Like Britney is "bubblegum pop", and even some techno is considered "dance pop"...I personally think it's kind of meaningless to get too technical with genre anyway .like what can be only called "rock" and what's pop... In my country "Pop" usually includes all western music that goes on billboard chart lol [Edited 5/8/11 20:49pm] [Edited 5/8/11 20:50pm]

this is essentially what i am saying... it's like they are breeding folks to stay in this genre. i think the genre is meaningless. artists should work towards eliminating it.

Timmy84 said:

babybugz said:

Pop stands for “popular” which indeed he was so I see nothing wrong with the title. He was doing way more than typical R&B after thriller , pop turned into a negative thing for people over the years though.

The media always played a part in the negative reaction to "pop music", calling it "not really music". Sure there was some stuff that can be considered noise but if done right it can be a piece of art to someone. I don't see nothing wrong with Michael being called a pop artist. Just hated how the media perceives - and continues to perceive pop music.

I see nothing wrong with pop music like you said if its done right I’m going to listen. I don’t listen by genre anyway if it sounds good I can care less if it’s pop , rock whatever it doesn’t matter. The media dont influence me that's for sure.

MJJstudent said:

babybugz said:

Pop stands for “popular” which indeed he was so I see nothing wrong with the title. He was doing way more than typical R&B after thriller , pop turned into a negative thing for people over the years though.

i personally see a distinction between 'popular' and 'pop'... 'pop' has turned into a limiting genre by default... i'd say john coltrane is popular, but he's not a 'pop' artist... to me, 'pop' music has been defined by what clear channel, etc. deems acceptable to rotate on commerical channels. 'pop' artists aren't always popular (people like glenn lewis)...

artists like michael and STEVIE are certainly popular, but they to me do not fit into genres. same as, elvis costello or bjork, as i mentioned earlier.

glenn lewis wasn't pop or "popular"

Unholyalliance said:

MJJstudent said:

i personally see a distinction between 'popular' and 'pop'... 'pop' has turned into a limiting genre by default... i'd say john coltrane is popular, but he's not a 'pop' artist... to me, 'pop' music has been defined by what clear channel, etc. deems acceptable to rotate on commerical channels. 'pop' artists aren't always popular (people like glenn lewis)...

artists like michael and STEVIE are certainly popular, but they to me do not fit into genres. same as, elvis costello or bjork, as i mentioned earlier.

It is said that pop(ular) music is categorized as modern music. Classical is art music and then there's traditional which is the native music from everywhere else.

Yet...what is the native music from America? Blues and gospel? Yet, people keep telling me that gospel is based on European folk music, but the call and response aspect of black gospel music as well as modern music originated in West Africa. Yet, American music is the combination of European and West African traditions though. Also, ultimately, barring the music from the original inhabitants...isn't the native music for the US is...pop music?

as a friend of muine says, 'jazz is america's classical music'. classical music is also popular music. so is jazz. so is country. but they are not in the 'pop' genre. to me, again, 'pop' was created to sell to the masses, so they will blindly buy it. if britney spears was to make a jazz album, would people buy it? i don't know.

like with 'secret life of plants'... people bought it in droves thinking STEVIE was making another album like the last--- and he switched it up on people, and they didn't know what to do. this is a true artist to me... he was more about creativity than some corporation telling him how to create sounds. 'pop' music is a corporate fabrication. it is different than 'popular' music. 'popular' is not a genre.

rock n' roll (when the industry finally recognized it) became fabricated too... they created all these weak knockoffs, watering it down. it ended up being 'pop' music. all the beach boys knockoffs- 'pop' music... and then the beach boys switched it up. same with the kinks, the beatles, etc.

i've never heard of gospel stemming from european influences... hmmmmmmmm... some jazz did, sure... but gospel? never heard of that.