3rdeyedude said:

isn't it funny that when a black artist crosses over they get praise

Not necessarily. I recall people saying Lionel Richie, Michael Jackson, Tina Turner, Prince, Kool & The Gang, MC Hammer, Jazzy Jeff & Fresh Prince, etc. "sold out" or watered down their music to appeal to the mainstream. Whitney Houston got booed at a Soul Train Awards one year as some considered her "whitebread". Maybe Vainandy was in the audience.

Not better than Rahsaan, no way.

2freaky4church1 said:

Not better than Rahsaan, no way.

Rahsaan Roland Kirk? Isn't he jazz?

MickyDolenz said:

3rdeyedude said:

isn't it funny that when a black artist crosses over they get praise

Not necessarily. I recall people saying Lionel Richie, Michael Jackson, Tina Turner, Prince, Kool & The Gang, MC Hammer, Jazzy Jeff & Fresh Prince, etc. "sold out" or watered down their music to appeal to the mainstream. Whitney Houston got booed at a Soul Train Awards one year as some considered her "whitebread". Maybe Vainandy was in the audience.

I dont know how to put this up, but whenever I hear Ne-Yo, or John Legend, or Usher or any R&B artist I thought was decent in the past decade singing bad lyrics over EDM courses I just feel bad... Is it really that hard to put a good song on the radio? Do they lack the right producers? Are they too lazy to write good hooks? Catchy is not always good but then you can make catchy good.

lastdecember said:

I think his WE is pretty much every RB male that is out there right now. 99% sing the same way, same themes, partys girls vip bullshit bullshit bullshit. Cats like Trey Songz and nonsense like that needs to be put down.

99% of the ones YOU listen to. Speak for yourself. Its ain't like Justin and Robin are making strides in substance, either. Justin is no better than Trey to me; in fact, in some ways, he's worse.

BlaqueKnight said:

lastdecember said:

I think his WE is pretty much every RB male that is out there right now. 99% sing the same way, same themes, partys girls vip bullshit bullshit bullshit. Cats like Trey Songz and nonsense like that needs to be put down.

99% of the ones YOU listen to. Speak for yourself. Its ain't like Justin and Robin are making strides in substance, either. Justin is no better than Trey to me; in fact, in some ways, he's worse.

Actually i rarely listen to any of them, i could care less at this point, when someone new comes along worthy im there till then, i sit back and depend on artists that always deliver to me. RB and alot of new ROCK artists have no clue, i dont see any fascination with Justin or Robin, and i see nothing special in trey or even miguel, there is the assumption as soon as some dude picks up a guitar for a photo he is a fucking genius to the genre. That kind of nonsense i blame on years on Timbalame and Pharrell ruling the "game" depending on almost never having an instrument, and yeah i know Pharrell has talent cause he sang and played instruments, i get that, but to me him doing that is no different than Alicia Keys or John Legend who people hate on 24/7, no difference to me. In all genres now i see NONSTOP LAZINESS, i dont see anyone going out there and gigging there asses off, im tired of hearing a 12 date run a fucking TOUR, thats not a tour. Singer Songwriter Harry CHapin from 1972-1980 did 2000 concerts, Beyonce and Mariah Carey together havent done that many. Where is that artist now doing shows? Whos playing a 100 shows a year now? where is that? and i dont wanna hear, the economy blah blah blah the 70's had LESS going for them than now, problem is no one now can get off their asses and do it. Too busy posting lame tracks and samples on their facebook page or soundcloud etc...sorry, todays artists 99% of them even the talented ones, are LAZY!

lastdecember said:

BlaqueKnight said:

99% of the ones YOU listen to. Speak for yourself. Its ain't like Justin and Robin are making strides in substance, either. Justin is no better than Trey to me; in fact, in some ways, he's worse.

Actually i rarely listen to any of them, i could care less at this point, when someone new comes along worthy im there till then, i sit back and depend on artists that always deliver to me. RB and alot of new ROCK artists have no clue, i dont see any fascination with Justin or Robin, and i see nothing special in trey or even miguel, there is the assumption as soon as some dude picks up a guitar for a photo he is a fucking genius to the genre. That kind of nonsense i blame on years on Timbalame and Pharrell ruling the "game" depending on almost never having an instrument, and yeah i know Pharrell has talent cause he sang and played instruments, i get that, but to me him doing that is no different than Alicia Keys or John Legend who people hate on 24/7, no difference to me. In all genres now i see NONSTOP LAZINESS, i dont see anyone going out there and gigging there asses off, im tired of hearing a 12 date run a fucking TOUR, thats not a tour. Singer Songwriter Harry CHapin from 1972-1980 did 2000 concerts, Beyonce and Mariah Carey together havent done that many. Where is that artist now doing shows? Whos playing a 100 shows a year now? where is that? and i dont wanna hear, the economy blah blah blah the 70's had LESS going for them than now, problem is no one now can get off their asses and do it. Too busy posting lame tracks and samples on their facebook page or soundcloud etc...sorry, todays artists 99% of them even the talented ones, are LAZY!

Well, we agree for the most part about musical laziness. Pop stars like Beyonce can't do nearly as many dates because its a bigger production. Back in the day, an artist had a couple of 18-wheelers full of gear and they travelled all over. Nowadays, everything is a big production with video walls and scenery. When they tour, it looks like a convoy going down the road (because it is). Big tours cost big money and employ way more people than they used to. While that rule applies to pop stars, it does not to mid-level artists. Despite that, there are still a lot of talented up-and-comers that get overlooked regularly.

BlaqueKnight said:

lastdecember said:

Actually i rarely listen to any of them, i could care less at this point, when someone new comes along worthy im there till then, i sit back and depend on artists that always deliver to me. RB and alot of new ROCK artists have no clue, i dont see any fascination with Justin or Robin, and i see nothing special in trey or even miguel, there is the assumption as soon as some dude picks up a guitar for a photo he is a fucking genius to the genre. That kind of nonsense i blame on years on Timbalame and Pharrell ruling the "game" depending on almost never having an instrument, and yeah i know Pharrell has talent cause he sang and played instruments, i get that, but to me him doing that is no different than Alicia Keys or John Legend who people hate on 24/7, no difference to me. In all genres now i see NONSTOP LAZINESS, i dont see anyone going out there and gigging there asses off, im tired of hearing a 12 date run a fucking TOUR, thats not a tour. Singer Songwriter Harry CHapin from 1972-1980 did 2000 concerts, Beyonce and Mariah Carey together havent done that many. Where is that artist now doing shows? Whos playing a 100 shows a year now? where is that? and i dont wanna hear, the economy blah blah blah the 70's had LESS going for them than now, problem is no one now can get off their asses and do it. Too busy posting lame tracks and samples on their facebook page or soundcloud etc...sorry, todays artists 99% of them even the talented ones, are LAZY!

Well, we agree for the most part about musical laziness. Pop stars like Beyonce can't do nearly as many dates because its a bigger production. Back in the day, an artist had a couple of 18-wheelers full of gear and they travelled all over. Nowadays, everything is a big production with video walls and scenery. When they tour, it looks like a convoy going down the road (because it is). Big tours cost big money and employ way more people than they used to. While that rule applies to pop stars, it does not to mid-level artists. Despite that, there are still a lot of talented up-and-comers that get overlooked regularly.

I disagree with this.

Madonna and Janet had way more elaborate shows with scenery that cost way more in the 90's and they still did alot more shows than she does. Even recently, Madonna did way more shows during her last tour. Her 2012 tour was very expensive.

I think the reason why artists well pop stars specifically of this era do not do as many shows is because they generate their income in other areas besides their music. Why would you need to do 1000 shows if you can make millions off of perfume, clothing line, movies,marketing etc. They do not have to tour because they make money in other areas and their focus is not on music/touring specifically and they are musically lazy.

[Edited 2/17/14 16:45pm]

Tank definately played a part in the demise of traditional R&B. That "TGT" album added an extra nail to an already sealed coffin. He ought to look at himself in the mirror and refuse to let anyone autotune his voice on his next album. He has a good enough voice not to have to completely destroy it by using that shit. So Tank need to stop complaining unless he has serious plans on doing his part to bring the rhythm and the blues back to urban music.

kitbradley said:

So Tank need to stop complaining unless he has serious plans on doing his part to bring the rhythm and the blues back to urban music.

When was the last time an R&B station played a blues act? The early 1960s? The closest thing I've heard to a blues song was in the mid 1990s when Last Two Dollars by Johnnie Taylor and Give Me One Reason by Tracy Chapman was played for a little while, but that was on the "adult R&B" station. There's a blues program on one of the local college stations, but they're not commercial and run off of pledges and a soul oldies station that sometimes play acts like Bobby Bland, Stevie Ray Vaughn, & zydeco. Top 40 pop definitely doesn't play blues.

[Edited 2/17/14 17:29pm]

mjscarousal said:

BlaqueKnight said:

Well, we agree for the most part about musical laziness. Pop stars like Beyonce can't do nearly as many dates because its a bigger production. Back in the day, an artist had a couple of 18-wheelers full of gear and they travelled all over. Nowadays, everything is a big production with video walls and scenery. When they tour, it looks like a convoy going down the road (because it is). Big tours cost big money and employ way more people than they used to. While that rule applies to pop stars, it does not to mid-level artists. Despite that, there are still a lot of talented up-and-comers that get overlooked regularly.

I disagree with this.

Madonna and Janet had way more elaborate shows with scenery that cost way more in the 90's and they still did alot more shows than she does. Even recently, Madonna did way more shows during her last tour. Her 2012 tour was very expensive.

I think the reason why artists well pop stars specifically of this era do not do as many shows is because they generate their income in other areas besides their music. Why would you need to do 1000 shows if you can make millions off of perfume, clothing line, movies,marketing etc. They do not have to tour because they make money in other areas and their focus is not on music/touring specifically and they are musically lazy.

[Edited 2/17/14 16:45pm]

You simply can NOT compare artists who do smaller shows to arena artists. They are in a different league. There is a vast difference in expense, scheduling, and a great number of other factors that I'm not about to go into at the moment because it would take too long but its a whole different world.

Comparing current acts to older acts is also moot because there was no Live Nation in the 90s and before. Arena venues are united under one entity now and schedule accordingly, wheras in the past, if a venue was open, with enough advance notice, it was fair game. Also, with artists being "brands" now, there are other considerations. Some artists can tour more than others depending on their contractual obligations.

Yeah, endorsement obligations play a much bigger part than they used to - BECAUSE NOBODY IS BUYING MUSIC LIKE THEY USED TO. So, if you gotta play Donatella's Versacé party at the Ritz in the middle of a tour or sing at the opening of some event sponsored by Bacardi, the tour has to get split. I'm not trying to make excuses for any particular artist because each circumstance is different but I'm just saying that its a lot more complicated than it used to be.

As to Mr. Tank, he is a balladeer who has never had an uptempo hit. What does he know?

BlaqueKnight said:

mjscarousal said:

I disagree with this.

Madonna and Janet had way more elaborate shows with scenery that cost way more in the 90's and they still did alot more shows than she does. Even recently, Madonna did way more shows during her last tour. Her 2012 tour was very expensive.

I think the reason why artists well pop stars specifically of this era do not do as many shows is because they generate their income in other areas besides their music. Why would you need to do 1000 shows if you can make millions off of perfume, clothing line, movies,marketing etc. They do not have to tour because they make money in other areas and their focus is not on music/touring specifically and they are musically lazy.

[Edited 2/17/14 16:45pm]

You simply can NOT compare artists who do smaller shows to arena artists. They are in a different league. There is a vast difference in expense, scheduling, and a great number of other factors that I'm not about to go into at the moment because it would take too long but its a whole different world.

Comparing current acts to older acts is also moot because there was no Live Nation in the 90s and before. Arena venues are united under one entity now and schedule accordingly, wheras in the past, if a venue was open, with enough advance notice, it was fair game. Also, with artists being "brands" now, there are other considerations. Some artists can tour more than others depending on their contractual obligations.

Yeah, endorsement obligations play a much bigger part than they used to - BECAUSE NOBODY IS BUYING MUSIC LIKE THEY USED TO. So, if you gotta play Donatella's Versacé party at the Ritz in the middle of a tour or sing at the opening of some event sponsored by Bacardi, the tour has to get split. I'm not trying to make excuses for any particular artist because each circumstance is different but I'm just saying that its a lot more complicated than it used to be.

As to Mr. Tank, he is a balladeer who has never had an uptempo hit. What does he know?

Well first off, I was not comparing smaller show artists to arena artists. The past artists that I compared during their peaks were stadium/arena artists. Madonna is still a arena/stadium artist. I just disagreed with the point that you made about arena shows being more expensive today and that is not true. The elaborate arena shows in the 90's were just as expensive and those pop stars did way more shows. I think that is worth mentioning in this discussion since you made an agrument that arena shows are more expensive today Regardless whether a live nation existed or not in the past, these artists out now are not touring as much as the artists of the past have. Madonna just recently completed a tour that was very expensive and she still did more shows than Beyonce. Madonna was the most paid because of the money she generated from that tour not because of a perfume line or an endorsement

I know for a fact that an artist on Beyonce status could do more shows if she really wanted too. She doesnt because she does not want to and I dont think that decision has anything to do with Live Nation . The Rolling Stones and Black Sabbath still sell out arenas and they dont have perfume lines or clothing lines. They do alot of shows as well and they dont have new music. The older acts simply have more of a work ethic when it comes to touring. I think part of that reason has to do with the fact that they are "real artists" that focus just on the music unlike the pop stars out now that can generate their money in other areas besides touring. So they will put all their effort into touring since that is their main focus

[Edited 2/18/14 19:49pm]

mjscarousal said:

The Rolling Stones and Black Sabbath still sell out arenas and they dont have perfume lines or clothing lines. They do alot of shows as well and they dont have new music.

Actually, Black Sabbath released an album in 2013 called 13. Like KISS, the Rolling Stones have a lot of merchandising. Ronnie Wood from the Stones sells his artwork and Charlie Watts breeds horses. So they're not just making money from music.

MickyDolenz said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Not better than Rahsaan, no way.

Rahsaan Roland Kirk? Isn't he jazz?

Think the poster is referring to Rahsaan Patterson, who is an R&B singer who has been around for a while and has released several albums. But, again, because he's not following what others are doing, hardly anyone is hip to him.

mjscarousal said:

Well first off, I was not comparing smaller show artists to arena artists. The past artists that I compared during their peaks were stadium/arena artists. Madonna is still a arena/stadium artist. I just disagreed with the point that you made about arena shows being more expensive today and that is not true. The elaborate arena shows in the 90's were just as expensive and those pop stars did way more shows. I think that is worth mentioning in this discussion since you made an agrument that arena shows are more expensive today Regardless whether a live nation existed or not in the past, these artists out now are not touring as much as the artists of the past have. Madonna just recently completed a tour that was very expensive and she still did more shows than Beyonce. Madonna was the most paid because of the money she generated from that tour not because of a perfume line or an endorsement

I know for a fact that an artist on Beyonce status could do more shows if she really wanted too. She doesnt because she does not want to and I dont think that decision has anything to do with Live Nation . The Rolling Stones and Black Sabbath still sell out arenas and they dont have perfume lines or clothing lines. They do alot of shows as well and they dont have new music. The older acts simply have more of a work ethic when it comes to touring. I think part of that reason has to do with the fact that they are "real artists" that focus just on the music unlike the pop stars out now that can generate their money in other areas besides touring. So they will put all their effort into touring since that is their main focus

[Edited 2/18/14 19:49pm]

My point was that its not "regardless of" but rather because of. You blew that "little" detail off as if its nothing when in fact it is the core. In the 90s, if Madonna wanted to tour, her people would orchestrate a tour and make it happen. Now, the game is played differently. Pop stars aren't really allowed to stay on the road like they used to. There is much more planning that goes into a tour now than there used to be in terms of negotiations. While groups like U2 and The Stones are the exception (they will still hit the road a couple of years at a time), most pop stars have more limited run tours and its not the artists' fault. Before, there was not one entity calling the shots. It was a free-for-all and whoever could book whatever arena at whatever time, well that's what happened. If Prince wanted _____ arena on this date and Joan Jett wanted the same arena, it would probably go to Prince. Big act takes smaller act Now, its a different game. Tour scheduling has become a game of its own now that big business has bought up a chunk of controlling interest in arenas.

I agree with you that older acts have more of a work ethic when it comes to touring.

There is no question there. There was more incentive for them to.

Still, you have acts like Pink that have great touring ethics and wouold probably tour more if she could but can't get dates two years ahead because of Live Nation. Now, pop stars have to have a current release and the appropriate media surrounding them to support a big tour. That has always been the case to a certain degree but now, its a science and carved in stone. Its not all on the artist. Not all of them are lazy and don't want to tour. The tour negotiations are happening between the label, artist management and Live Nation and Live Nation holds most of the cards. I don't think Beyonce would shy away from longer tours. She herself as said she's most comfortable on stage. She was bred for stardom by her dad. STARS DO NOT RUN THE LABELS. This ain't the 80-early 90s anymore. It used to be that a star like Madonna, MJ or Prince called shots because they were the primary source of the money. Now that is not the case and stars are interchangeable. There is a formula in place that is helping sustain the labels and the rest of the industry and it don't work the way it used to. I know this for a fact.

Oh, and touring IS the main focus of most artists now because its where they get the bulk of their money. Records ain't selling anymore. Its merch and touring all the way. That's why labels do 360 deals now as standard. They are taking from artists' touring money.

[Edited 2/19/14 10:50am]

kitbradley said:

Tank definately played a part in the demise of traditional R&B. That "TGT" album added an extra nail to an already sealed coffin. He ought to look at himself in the mirror and refuse to let anyone autotune his voice on his next album. He has a good enough voice not to have to completely destroy it by using that shit. So Tank need to stop complaining unless he has serious plans on doing his part to bring the rhythm and the blues back to urban music.

.

It's funny, too, 'cause Jason 'I-gotta-have-more-autotune' Derulo dropped a perfectly harmless, fun little R&B record in the form of Tattoos last year, on which he's noticeably dialled down on the voice distorting; and he's shooting up into the charts with it all around the globe as we speak.

.

Tank should come off the 'I'm not selling records, and here's my analysis as to why' cloud, and focus his ears on what the audience wants, like Derulo or Drake are doing.

MickyDolenz said:

mjscarousal said:

The Rolling Stones and Black Sabbath still sell out arenas and they dont have perfume lines or clothing lines. They do alot of shows as well and they dont have new music.

Actually, Black Sabbath released an album in 2013 called 13. Like KISS, the Rolling Stones have a lot of merchandising. Ronnie Wood from the Stones sells his artwork and Charlie Watts breeds horses. So they're not just making money from music.

Do you really think these bands must do this stuff to make a living. The fact is older acts have work ethic young groups do not want to put the time into touring.

laurarichardson said:

Do you really think these bands must do this stuff to make a living. The fact is older acts have work ethic young groups do not want to put the time into touring.

I said nothing in this thread about anyone's work ethic or touring. I only replied to the comment that younger acts have perfumes and clothing lines and that Black Sabbath had no new music. You're reading stuff that is not there. Michael Jackson, The Beatles, Elvis, The Monkees, Duran Duran and many other older performers had dolls, games, clothes, video games, etc. Michael had a LA Gear sneaker. Journey had a video game called Journey Escape and Aerosmith also had a video game.

Like you font!!!!!!!!!!!! Its hot..

BlaqueKnight said:

My point was that its not "regardless of" but rather because of. You blew that "little" detail off as if its nothing when in fact it is the core. In the 90s, if Madonna wanted to tour, her people would orchestrate a tour and make it happen. Now, the game is played differently. Pop stars aren't really allowed to stay on the road like they used to. There is much more planning that goes into a tour now than there used to be in terms of negotiations.

I didn't blow off your point. I understood your point but your point does not really have any support because older acts still tour longer and have more dates than current more relevant artists regardless of how much concert booking has changed. Personally, by your argument I would think Live Nation would give more touring dates to someone like Lady Gaga or Beyonce versus Madonna or Black Sabbath which is why I said that that ultimate decision is not entirely JUST made by Live Nation specifically. I would think they would give more dates to relevant more popular artists versus OLDER acts. I personally think that decision is a "collective decision".

While groups like U2 and The Stones are the exception (they will still hit the road a couple of years at a time), most pop stars have more limited run tours and its not the artists' fault. Before, there was not one entity calling the shots. It was a free-for-all and whoever could book whatever arena at whatever time, well that's what happened. If Prince wanted _____ arena on this date and Joan Jett wanted the same arena, it would probably go to Prince. Big act takes smaller act Now, its a different game.

How are they an exception?(I am sincerely asking because I am not understanding what you are referring to) They still tour more than the current acts. Let me ask you this, do you think Live Nation gives more tour dates to the older acts since you think Live Nation makes the ultimate decision when it comes to tour dates/contracts etc? Why do you think Live Nation gives more tour dates to old acts instead of more popular current artists?

Tour scheduling has become a game of its own now that big business has bought up a chunk of controlling interest in arenas.

I agree with you that older acts have more of a work ethic when it comes to touring.

Great! Do you think this has partially to do with why they tour more? I understand everything that you are saying about Live Nation but I think you are giving them ALL the credit Yea the way concerts are booked have changed but I do not think they would roll the dice and give an older act more touring dates than a newer ones unless your Madonna but the others I don't see why they would give them more tour dates than a popular act out now.

There is no question there. There was more incentive for them to.

I don't think it is more incentive for them to. I just think they have more of a work ethic and I think they geniunely enjoy touring. It is ALOT of work to tour. It strains the body and can be very exhausting and these 50 something, 60 something and 70 somethings still doing it and doing it more than the youngins.

Still, you have acts like Pink that have great touring ethics and wouold probably tour more if she could but can't get dates two years ahead because of Live Nation. Now, pop stars have to have a current release and the appropriate media surrounding them to support a big tour.

That has always been the case to a certain degree but now, its a science and carved in stone. Its not all on the artist.

Maybe you're right...maybe it is entirely not ALL the artist anymore but I don't think it is ALL Live Nation's decision either.

Not all of them are lazy and don't want to tour. The tour negotiations are happening between the label, artist management and Live Nation and Live Nation holds most of the cards.

The majority are though and you also need to take into consideration that touring is not where most of these current artists are getting their income. As a result, they might negogiate a contract with Live Nation that limits the amount of concerts they do since they get their income else where.

I don't think Beyonce would shy away from longer tours. She herself as said she's most comfortable on stage. She was bred for stardom by her dad. STARS DO NOT RUN THE LABELS.

There are tons of people that were born to stardom so that is not a unique thing There are artists that do smaller venues that were born to stardom so that is an excuse. I think the reason why she does not do as many dates as Madonna is simply because she's a brand and her brand does not require her to do as many dates. It is kinda smart when you think about it although it is lazy If I got paid 50 million just for a pepsi commercial I don't think I would tour as many dates either. She does not have to do alot of dates for money because she gets income in other places. Madonna has a perfume line, shoe line and a clothing line etc. She gets income in other places as well but she still does more concerts dates I don't think the reason why Beyonce does lesser dates is all entirely the decision of Live Nation. I think it would be misinformed to suggest that when their are older acts that tour more than her.

This ain't the 80-early 90s anymore.

God don't I wish it I wish I had a time machine.

It used to be that a star like Madonna, MJ or Prince called shots because they were the primary source of the money. Now that is not the case and stars are interchangeable. There is a formula in place that is helping sustain the labels and the rest of the industry and it don't

work the way it used to. I know this for a fact.

I agree but I still think that artists have a say... maybe the amount of it has changed but I don't think that privilege has been entirely taken away and especially if you reach a certain level of popularity.

Oh, and touring IS the main focus of most artists now because its where they get the bulk of their money. Records ain't selling anymore. Its merch and touring all the way. That's why labels do 360 deals now as standard. They are taking from artists' touring money.

You're right but what about those brands that get their money in other areas besides touring? Pop stars today get their money in other places besides touring as well and sometimes they get more in those other areas.

Wanna know who makes better R&B than all of them?

THIS GUY!!!!!

MJ Carousel, I don't have the time to go line-by-line. I don't dissect conversations; I take them for the whole points.

I will try to address some of what you said but I'm not going line-by-line with you.

Acts like U2, The Stones and Springsteen are considered high-dollar touring acts. They are the exceptions because they consistently sell out arenas. Acts that are pop stars like Bey, Gaga, Riahnna, Katy, etc. have more of a dependency on their hit status of the moment. If they don't have anything on the charts, they sell less seats. U2 & the Stones are selling off of their track record. Do they get preferrential treatment?

HELL YES, THEY DO. They are going to sell tickets no matter what.

I'm not buying into the Bey is lazy theory. You may not like her but that's not going to fly in her case. That applies to artists like Rihanna. With them being a brand in their own right, they do have a responsibility to build their brand name, which means pushing merch. If they start clothing lines, perfumes, etc. they have to promote that mess and that means doing showcases and personal appearances. Its sometimes hard to coordinate those things with a tour schedule. Since Beyonce is a new mom, its not beyond the scope of belief to think she may want to actually spend some time trying to raise her child.

As to Live Nation, do not underestimate them. People underestimated Clear Channel. Now you get the same 20 songs on the radio hour after hour. Back then people were saying artists have just become lazy and don't want to promote their records. That couldn't have been further from the truth and by the time everybody realized what had happened, it was too late. The homogenization of music is deliberate and in effect. Live Nation is playing their role. Its all about access. You have to have access to venues to tour. What can you do when that access is not in your hands?

What used to be a free-for-all is now a streamlined business. It ain't your mother's music business.

Now, I'm going back to the topic of Tank being full of shit.

Shawty, if you think Mayer Hawthorne is the best R&B artist out there, you REALLY don't know R&B. I do like a few of his songs but come on...if that's your peak, you aren't reaching very high.

[Edited 2/22/14 10:10am]

Shawy89 said:

Wanna know who makes better R&B than all of them?

THIS GUY!!!!!

ANOTHER WHITE GUY (this isn't helping the argument)

[Edited 2/22/14 10:08am]

Cinny said:

Shawy89 said:

Wanna know who makes better R&B than all of them?

THIS GUY!!!!!

ANOTHER WHITE GUY (this isn't helping the argument)

[Edited 2/22/14 10:08am]

Mayer Hawthorne has a better "R&B" record than either Thicke or Timberlake. Its certainly not the best R&B record out but if Shawty is saying that he's making better R&B than either of them, there is room for argument in his favor there. Mayer is not a pop star (yet) so he doesn't have to cater to the teeny bop crowd for sales. He has the voice of a 70s pop singer rather than an R&B singer but in this day and age, he still sounds more R&B thn the two Ts. That ain't saying much.

[Edited 2/22/14 10:17am]

I did a search on youtube for r & b bands. Most of them were non black, cover bands who weren't even performing r & b. I looked up r & b singers and got a lot of really terrible singers mixed in with the singers who have been around forever. That should tell you about the current state of r & b.

I think social media and easy access to recording technology has killed the drive in young artists to create and strive for excellence. There is also a lack of venues for new artists to perform and develop their their live act. Although the internet has created an outlet for artists , it has also created an outlet for a lot more mediocrity.

Audiences aren't as demanding when it comes to music or live performance. It used to be if an artist was anything less than a 100%, they would get booed off the stage. Nowadays people don't care or notice if an artist is a halfed assed singer and performer. It's just the thrill of being in the same place as a famous person.

So in dynamics that consist of countless black songwriters, producers, backing bands, etc I'm supposed to believe they're doing "better R&B"? Meh.

Mstrustme said:

So in dynamics that consist of countless black songwriters, producers, backing bands, etc I'm supposed to believe they're doing "better R&B"? Meh.

Well put. Very well put. Kinda like how this country was built; on the backs of others.

Mstrustme said:

So in dynamics that consist of countless black songwriters, producers, backing bands, etc I'm supposed to believe they're doing "better R&B"? Meh.

Agreed.

And I also agree with those upthread who called out Rahsaan Patterson's consistent, fantastic body of work.

Then there's THIS MF'er!

>