^That's right, Micky and it makes me a little sad because this makes acts like Dylan and the Stones seem more important than JB and P-Funk, while all of them were hugely influential. But then again, it's always been like that.

NorthC said:

^That's right, Micky and it makes me a little sad because this makes acts like Dylan and the Stones seem more important than JB and P-Funk, while all of them were hugely influential. But then again, it's always been like that.

Business wise, they are more important. Rolling Stones tours are big money makers. P-Funk, not so much. James Brown had to keep working constantly up to his death, he couldn't take years off like the muti-millionaire Stones. U2, Madonna, & Bon Jovi tours are really successful today too, but popular R&B acts from the same era are on little promoted package shows or Tom Joyner cruises. I think R&B was not given the same importance by the rock press because, R&B was more singles oriented than albums, and it wasn't as common for the acts to self write. I think because most R&B hits tended to be love songs in some fashion did not help rock critics to take it seriously, the same reason they put down pop singers. When Rolling Stone writes about Marvin Gaye, it's most likely to be about the What's Goin On album, not the rest of his catalog like the Tammi Terrell duets. They don't talk about albums by The Supremes or Earth Wind & Fire like they do for The Beatles and Nirvana. They don't talk about Smokey Robinson in the same way as Bob Dylan, because Smokey mostly wrote love songs. Love songs often last longer than protest songs, because protest songs sometimes speak about certain events that dates them.

.

In the 1970s, an R&B album was considered a big success if it went gold when Fleetwood Mac & The Eagles was selling over 10 million with certain albums. Even the superstar R&B acts of the era didn't do those numbers, they might sell 2 or 3 million. There was a reason some wanted to reach the Top 40 pop audience like Kool & The Gang, Prince, Lionel Richie, and Michael Jackson. That's where more money was. R&B never got the same media attention. There was no Rolling Stone style magazine for R&B/soul. There were for jazz, blues, and country music. R&B had Right On!, Rock n Soul, and Black Beat, and other similar lesser known ones. But they were all mainly teen magazines. So R&B/soul was less documented than other popular genres. There's probably more than a thousand books written on The Beatles. Also on rock in general. I can find hundreds of books about Elvis Presley, even ones just about women he's dated, or about every show he's played in Vegas, his movies, or his parents. But few if any about Louis Jordan, Fats Domino, Jackie Wilson, Sam Cooke, Little Richard, etc. So a show like Unsung is good for the old groups.

.

Classic rock stations play some of the boomer acts over and over, so new audiences here them. There's not really a soul or R&B version on regular radio. There's a local Urban Contemporary station that plays some 1970's and 80s stuff with newer acts like Jaheim, but it's mostly mid tempo songs like Maze, Anita Baker, & Luther Vandross. What they call "steppers songs", not too uptempo. Going by their usual playlist, you'd think the Isley Brothers was only a slow jam group and The Tempatations only released Treat Her Like A Lady. They do like playing Atomic Dog a lot though. Recently they've started to add some early rap like Kurtis Blow but not in regular rotation. Classic rock & pop songs are more likely to get used in mainstream TV shows, movies, & commercials. If R&B oldies are used, they're usually songs that crossed over and became Top 40 hits like Let's Get It On by Marvin Gaye.

And you know what the crazy thing is? Bob Dylan wrote more love songs than protest songs! His "protest" period lasted only a few years (1962-64), but it was enough to label him as a "serious" artist who wrote about what's going on in the world. His songs were and are treated like literature. R&B was more about entertainment and that's not "serious" enough for a lot of critics, so yeah, there is a bit of snobism involved here. And you are right about protest songs: I love Dylan's The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol, but I really needed a history lesseon to know what it's about. But everyone can understand I Want You.
[Edited 11/28/15 13:41pm]

NorthC said:

R&B was more about entertainment and that's not "serious" enough for a lot of critics, so yeah, there is a bit of snobism involved here.

R&B developed from vaudville, where there was dancing & comedy. Other than maybe Mick Jagger, the rock acts generally didn't dance or do choreography like many of the vocal groups like The Temptations and James Brown. They wore matching suits. Early R&B was also influenced by the southern Baptist & Pentecostal churches, where people might dance, jump, or stomp around and the choirs moved and did steps. Daryl Hall said in an interview that rock critics liked you if you were blues influenced, but anything else was suspect. He was talking about Hall & Oates having a R&B/soul influence. The blues thing is probably because those British Invasion acts were talking about them. The Beatles were also influenced by vaudville & showtunes especially Paul, whose father played in a swing jazz band. But the critics don't talk about that, or they put it down, or say John wrote the serious introspective songs and Paul's were silly singalongs. George Harrison had a lifetime love of ukeleles because of George Formby.

.

The blues had an image of a poor rural guy in raggedy clothes chewing tobacco strumming a guitar, had "Blind" in their name, or were prisoners in jail (the kind of people Alan Lomax recorded), so more authentic to the rock writers, than sharp dressed bands dancing and smiling playing in a juke joint. When in truth, a lot of the professional blues singers were well dressed and wore flashy jewelry.

MickyDolenz said:

NorthC said:

^That's right, Micky and it makes me a little sad because this makes acts like Dylan and the Stones seem more important than JB and P-Funk, while all of them were hugely influential. But then again, it's always been like that.

Business wise, they are more important. Rolling Stones tours are big money makers. P-Funk, not so much. James Brown had to keep working constantly up to his death, he couldn't take years off like the muti-millionaire Stones. U2, Madonna, & Bon Jovi tours are really successful today too, but popular R&B acts from the same era are on little promoted package shows or Tom Joyner cruises. I think R&B was not given the same importance by the rock press because, R&B was more singles oriented than albums, and it wasn't as common for the acts to self write. I think because most R&B hits tended to be love songs in some fashion did not help rock critics to take it seriously, the same reason they put down pop singers. When Rolling Stone writes about Marvin Gaye, it's most likely to be about the What's Goin On album, not the rest of his catalog like the Tammi Terrell duets. They don't talk about albums by The Supremes or Earth Wind & Fire like they do for The Beatles and Nirvana. They don't talk about Smokey Robinson in the same way as Bob Dylan, because Smokey mostly wrote love songs. Love songs often last longer than protest songs, because protest songs sometimes speak about certain events that dates them.

.

In the 1970s, an R&B album was considered a big success if it went gold when Fleetwood Mac & The Eagles was selling over 10 million with certain albums. Even the superstar R&B acts of the era didn't do those numbers, they might sell 2 or 3 million. There was a reason some wanted to reach the Top 40 pop audience like Kool & The Gang, Prince, Lionel Richie, and Michael Jackson. That's where more money was. R&B never got the same media attention. There was no Rolling Stone style magazine for R&B/soul. There were for jazz, blues, and country music. R&B had Right On!, Rock n Soul, and Black Beat, and other similar lesser known ones. But they were all mainly teen magazines. So R&B/soul was less documented than other popular genres. There's probably more than a thousand books written on The Beatles. Also on rock in general. I can find hundreds of books about Elvis Presley, even ones just about women he's dated, or about every show he's played in Vegas, his movies, or his parents. But few if any about Louis Jordan, Fats Domino, Jackie Wilson, Sam Cooke, Little Richard, etc. So a show like Unsung is good for the old groups.

.

Classic rock stations play some of the boomer acts over and over, so new audiences here them. There's not really a soul or R&B version on regular radio. There's a local Urban Contemporary station that plays some 1970's and 80s stuff with newer acts like Jaheim, but it's mostly mid tempo songs like Maze, Anita Baker, & Luther Vandross. What they call "steppers songs", not too uptempo. Going by their usual playlist, you'd think the Isley Brothers was only a slow jam group and The Tempatations only released Treat Her Like A Lady. They do like playing Atomic Dog a lot though. Recently they've started to add some early rap like Kurtis Blow but not in regular rotation. Classic rock & pop songs are more likely to get used in mainstream TV shows, movies, & commercials. If R&B oldies are used, they're usually songs that crossed over and became Top 40 hits like Let's Get It On by Marvin Gaye.

yaaas yaaaas for this review

SoulAlive said:

One thing that people are NOT saying is that it's not so much where these things are geared and marketed too, it's also how much and how important the albums were. "TUSK" sold close to 5 million in the states alone, PRINCE basically has two albums he could do expanded editions of and that would be "1999" and "Purple Rain" those sales wise would warrant huge reissue packages. Now all his albums could easily just be remastered and a track or two added on, TONS of RB artists have done that with albums that havent sold. The Fleetwood Mac stuff and Springsteen and even the McCartney huge packages are very pricey and people talk about it like they are sellling tons of these, they arent, its strictly for the collectors, thats why they put them in so many formats.

lastdecember said:

One thing that people are NOT saying is that it's not so much where these things are geared and marketed too, it's also how much and how important the albums were. "TUSK" sold close to 5 million in the states alone, PRINCE basically has two albums he could do expanded editions of and that would be "1999" and "Purple Rain" those sales wise would warrant huge reissue packages. Now all his albums could easily just be remastered and a track or two added on, TONS of RB artists have done that with albums that havent sold. The Fleetwood Mac stuff and Springsteen and even the McCartney huge packages are very pricey and people talk about it like they are sellling tons of these, they arent, its strictly for the collectors, thats why they put them in so many formats.

Yeah a younger audience is more likely to spend their money on Air Jordans or a video game than a music box set. Most of the people who bought Prince's original albums are not going to buy remasters, and might not be aware they exist if a 7 disc set of Purple Rain were released. It's not like they're advertised on TV. The Beatles remasters were, but The Beatles have a bigger potential audience that will buy them than would buy Prince's. The Beatles have a Rock Band video game, a Monopoly board game, dolls, a Cirque du Soleil show, and different kinds of other merchandise that sell. They're more of a brand than Prince. Many of these deluxe sets are released in limited quantites, sometimes numbered. When they sell out, they're out of print