Scorp said:

absolutely

The record labels didn't invent samplers, companies that makes musical instruments did and some of them were priced less than an actual instrument. Something like a Casio keyboard was cheap to buy and didn't take a lot of time to learn. Before the actual sampling machines came out, DJ's had to actually scratch the breakbeats/music and that took skill. It didn't take as much skill to use a sampler, so you could say sampling made the DJ less important in rap music. Some of those early rap records like Rapper's Delight was actually replayed by a band, in that case the Sugarhill Records house band. It wasn't sampled. So technically a remake with different lyrics like Weird Al.

^^Sampling is not a good thing,though.It's lazy and uninspiring.I truly despise a song like "U Can't Touch This".There's nothing artistic about it.

The average person doesn't listen to music as art, that's what music snobs do. Like people used to say on American Bandstand "I like it because it has a good beat and I can dance to it". What's the difference in sampling and what groups like Led Zeppelin was doing, copying old blues songs and claiming they wrote them? Or making soundalike songs like the Bar-Kays. At least samples have to be cleared, at least after the 1980s.

[Edited 11/29/15 21:08pm]

MickyDolenz said:

MichaelJackson5 said:

People were liking Queen's Pressure just as the folks who bought 10 million copies of Please, Hammer Don't hurt Em were basically enjoying Super Freak again. Sampling has helped to destroy the music industry we knew and loved.

Who's we? I'm a rap fan so I don't think that sampling ruined anything. None of Rick James albums sold anywhere near 10 million, so Hammer's album was more successful than Street Songs, and Rick also made a lot of money from the success of Hammer, even though Rick had to sue. After around this time samples had to be cleared, so an album like Paul's Boutique by the Beastie Boys would be too expensive to make after the law was passed.

.

You can go on Youtube today and compare the views of Superfreak and U Can't Touch This and one has way higher numbers. I never heard of Under Pressure until Ice Ice Baby was a big hit. Sampling makes some people go and seek out the original song, that in some cases were forgotten or obscure. Like Whitney Houston remade a lot of songs that were little known and people thought she released them first.

Superfreak: 15,232,040

U Can't Touch This: 188,727,644

Under Pressure: 37,569,086

Ice Ice Baby: 88,470,084

that has not been the case by music fans, I've studied this practice from the time it became prevalent by the late 80s and when I was in high school and when all those songs were out that featured sampling from other's work, I can't recall anymore wanting to find out who's music that really was because they thought the person who was sampling was the person who originated the music and what's why it has became so prevalent and caused music to become stagnant over the years...

the pop ascension was the all time exploitative entity in music history because as it did reach an apex period where you had the MC Hammers of the world selling the number of copies he sold, it happened at the expense of true musical production and arrangements so by the time it came for Hammer to make his own music, he could not do it and his career was over at that point

the 13 million or so who bought ICE ICE BABY was not reseaching to find out that Vanilla Ice hijacked Queen's Under Pressure

sampling killed and destroyed genuine r&b while stripping it of all its richness

as you say, Rick James had to sue Hammer for infringement before Hammer issued songwriting credit for James to receive royalties, if Rick had not sued, he never would have got paid, and you now it's an exploitative practice when lawsuits have to be filed to begin with

there's no way a person can make me reach a conclusion that DE LA SOUL'S "ME MYSELF AND I" was better than FUNKADELIC'S "KNEE DEEP" when they hijacked the entire song......anyone here on this forum could have done the same thing

there have been moment's where sampling was done in good taste but when it became prevalent and extreme as a formula to produce records, it destabilized R&B and it has not recovered since

MickyDolenz said:

The average person doesn't listen to music as art, that's what music snobs do. Like people used to say on American Bandstand "I like it because it has a good beat and I can dance to it". What's the difference in sampling and what groups like Led Zeppelin was doing, copying old blues songs and claiming they wrote them? Or making soundalike songs like the Bar-Kays. At least samples have to be cleared, at least after the 1980s.

I'm just more impressed with musicians going into a recording studio and creating a new song from scratch...the way music is supposed to be made If that makes me a "music snob",then OK.

^^I told you before what I thought about your so-called pop ascension. It doesn't exist

MickyDolenz said:

MichaelJackson5 said:

People were liking Queen's Pressure just as the folks who bought 10 million copies of Please, Hammer Don't hurt Em were basically enjoying Super Freak again. Sampling has helped to destroy the music industry we knew and loved.

Who's we? I'm a rap fan so I don't think that sampling ruined anything. None of Rick James albums sold anywhere near 10 million, so Hammer's album was more successful than Street Songs, and Rick also made a lot of money from the success of Hammer, even though Rick had to sue. After around this time samples had to be cleared, so an album like Paul's Boutique by the Beastie Boys would be too expensive to make after the law was passed.

.

You can go on Youtube today and compare the views of Superfreak and U Can't Touch This and one has way higher numbers. I never heard of Under Pressure until Ice Ice Baby was a big hit. Sampling makes some people go and seek out the original song, that in some cases were forgotten or obscure. Like Whitney Houston remade a lot of songs that were little known and people thought she released them first.

Superfreak: 15,232,040

U Can't Touch This: 188,727,644

Under Pressure: 37,569,086

Ice Ice Baby: 88,470,084

I have no problem with Rap music. The real rappers like Grandmaster Flash and The SugarHill Gang were excellent rappers. Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer are not because they sample. There is no creativity in sampling older songs. All these rappers that sample nowadays have contributed absolutely nothing to music. They're like leeches.

Sure, Hammer may have sold more than Rick James but it wasn't primarily because of his music. It was those Harem pants and Running Man dancing on the video that helped make U Can't Touch This a big hit that helped move 10 million copies of Please, Hammer Don't Hurt 'Em.

It doesn't take much talent to take somebody else's song as a background for a rap. It should be considered as copyright infringement. And Ice's exlplanation for using Under Pressure is even more pathetic:

Blurred Lines has over 400 Thousand views on YouTube but Robin Thicke will never be respected like Marvin Gaye who's Got To Give It Up has no views since it didn't even have a video. After one mega-hit he all but disappeared. In 20 years, or even 10 years time, who will be remembered? Marvin Gaye or Robin Thicke?

Thicke, Hammer and Ice may have made more money than Gaye, James and Queen but there is no integrity in how they made the money ripping of another artist's work.

It's true Whitney sang a lot of remakes like Greatest Love of All and I Will Always Love You. But she took those songs and with the power of her voice made them known as her songs. Whitney couldn't write a half-decent song if her career depended on it and she knew it.

Lionel Richie, on the other hand, was a great songwriter which is what makes Dancing On The Ceiling so disappointing. Speaking of YouTube, none of the songs on Dancing On The Ceiing even made it onto Lionel's Vevo lineup. Not even his live performances of the singles.

He should have waited a year to release quality songs such as Do It To Me instead of the drivel on Dancing on The Ceiling.

Mickey...go ahead,grab your headphones and rock out to "U Can't Touch This" I'd rather hear the real thing: "SuperFreak" by Rick James

...

[Edited 11/29/15 21:23pm]

SoulAlive said:

Mickey...go ahead,grab your headphones and rock out to "U Can't Touch This" I'd rather hear the real thing: "SuperFreak" by Rick James

...

[Edited 11/29/15 21:23pm]

Same here.

SoulAlive said:

Mickey...go ahead,grab your headphones and rock out to "U Can't Touch This" I'd rather hear the real thing: "SuperFreak" by Rick James

...

[Edited 11/29/15 21:23pm]

Truthfully the pulse from rap purists in the streets they loved Hammer's first album but they

all felt Hammer Don't Hurt Em was generic and really exposed him as a rapper. He was more

of a showman than a pure MC that rap purists respected. Even rappers like Joseph Simmons,

QTip, Ice Cube, and CL Smooth who were among your most respected rappers in the game basically

referred to MC Hammer as a fraud. I never put the MCHammer record on and a lot of guys I knew

said Hell No he gets no play in my car.

SoulAlive said:

I'm just more impressed with musicians going into a recording studio and creating a new song from scratch...the way music is supposed to be made If that makes me a "music snob",then OK.

If that's the case, a one man band record is fake then. A person cannot perform a song that way, only with a band. Before multi-tracking was invented, everybody had to play and sing live. If someone messed up, they had to start over, they couldn't just punch it in. Before recording tape was invented, acts had to sing songs hundreds and even thousands of times because they were recording directly to a shellac disc. So each copy was unique. What about the studio tricks George Martin & The Beatles used? At the time, some of the songs couldn't be reproduced live. Some classical fans say non-classical music is not music and I've come across metalheads who say the same thing about their music. So who's right? I would imagine when electric instruments first came out, some of the people who were playing acoustic all that time were against them. Some people were against talking movies at first, as they only knew silent films. Folks are always against technology.

MichaelJackson5 said:

Blurred Lines has over 400 Thousand views on YouTube but Robin Thicke will never be respected like Marvin Gaye who's Got To Give It Up has no views since it didn't even have a video. After one mega-hit he all but disappeared. In 20 years, or even 10 years time, who will be remembered? Marvin Gaye or Robin Thicke?

Thicke, Hammer and Ice may have made more money than Gaye, James and Queen but there is no integrity in how they made the money ripping of another artist's work.

The only reason anyone is remembered is because they are promoted still. There's many hit songs (and TV shows/movies too) from the past that don't get played today or used in movies, commercials, or video games. Why do people know today about the music of Mozart or Bach, people who never recorded anything and lived hundreds of years ago? Because orchestras perform their music. Why do more people know about Martin Luther King rather than Marcus Garvey, Angela Davis and Medgar Evers? Because MLK more promoted and spoken about and has a holiday. Why is Star Trek so successful today when the original series never really got good ratings. It became a hit when it got syndicated. That's how young people discover The Monkees because their show is still rerun. The Beatles, Stones, The Who, & The Monkees are more remembered than the Dave Clark Five. Why do people say Columbus discovered America when he never set foot in it and people were already there anyway? Because it says so in the school history books and he has a holiday. Many people know Marilyn Monroe even if they've never seen her movies, as she's a brand. People wear T-shirts of bands they don't even listen to. That's all promotion and keeping their names out there.

MickyDolenz said:

SoulAlive said:

I'm just more impressed with musicians going into a recording studio and creating a new song from scratch...the way music is supposed to be made If that makes me a "music snob",then OK.

If that's the case, a one man band record is fake then. A person cannot perform a song that way, only with a band. Before multi-tracking was invented, everybody had to play and sing live. If someone messed up, they had to start over, they couldn't just punch it in. Before recording tape was invented, acts had to sing songs hundreds and even thousands of times because they were recording directly to a shellac disc. So each copy was unique. What about the studio tricks George Martin & The Beatles used? At the time, some of the songs couldn't be reproduced live. Some classical fans say non-classical music is not music and I've come across metalheads who say the same thing about their music. So who's right? I would imagine when electric instruments first came out, some of the people who were playing acoustic all that time were against them. Some people were against talking movies at first, as they only knew silent films. Folks are always against technology.

the point is,I prefer *original* music that's made from scratch,as opposed to songs that sample other music.It's more artistic to me.A song like "U Can't Touch It" is pure laziness,no matter how successful it was.

SoulAlive said:

Scorp said:

Anyone here could have made that song by sampling the same music

You mean like this

SoulAlive said:

Yeah...I would say that,beginning in 1978 with "Three Times A Lady",the focus seemed to be on Lionel's ballads.Look at their 1979 album Midnight Magic....the two big hits are "Still" and the country-flavored "Sail On".The funk jams were being downplayed at that point.

phunkdaddy said:

I think by the turn of the 80's they were starting to fade in the background as Lionel started getting attention for the lush ballads he wrote.

Ironically I liked Wonderland and Loving You better than those songs from Midnight Magic. When I was on my high school band for a brief time we played Still. At that point that was my least favorite Commodores song. Sail On was alright but the best part of that song was the slick ending.

Anyone pointing to "U Can't Touch This" as an example of sampling, please consider "Kingdom Come" by JAY-Z (okay all I can find is Just Blaze's instrumental)

Cinny said:

Anyone pointing to "U Can't Touch This" as an example of sampling, please consider "Kingdom Come" by JAY-Z (okay all I can find is Just Blaze's instrumental)

Wow, Jay Z sampled U Can't Touch This which was already a sample of Super Freak. It doesn't get much worse than that.

Cinny said:

MichaelJackson5 said:

MotownSubdivision said:

MichaelJackson5 said: Thriller was made with the intention of being the greatest selling album of all time which in order to be that, had to generate hits. It's singles that drive album sales, especially at the time. Bad is no less timeless than Thriller despite its dated sound. Being one of the most popular albums of all time definitely helps his case but its songs sound no more out place today than they did in 1987. Also, Bad is an MJ album, how does it not have soul? Even if you want to say that DotC wasn't a good album to go on a hiatus with, it's hardly the cancer to his career you make it out to be. Lionel is still a successful international touring act, selling out shows worldwide to this day. If an album like DotC was enough to kill his career, he wouldn't be touring and making money doing it.

Thriller was never made with the intention of becoming the biggest selling album in the history of music. Find me one quote from MJ or Q that alludes to such an intention before it's release. Thriller blew up because of great singles which showed the public an older, mature Michael Jackson. Also, the Motown 25 debut of the moonwalk catapulted Thriller sales to the stratosphere along with the iconic video for the title track.

Bad had none of Thriller's magic. It's a decent album and sold 6-8 million in America but that's not what MJ had in mind. There was no Human Nature, Lady in my Life, Billie Jean or Wanna Be Startin Something on Bad. Instead, we got childish songs like Speed Demon, Smooth Criminal and a title track that felt incomplete. It's as if Michael Jackson regressed. I was expecting a cinematic masterpiece for Smooth Criminal's video and not some video aimed at young kids in the 5th grade where MJ transforms into a car. Bad is one of the most popular albums worldwide, but in the US, it is not among the biggest sellers of that era or even today, after his album surge in 2009 and the publicity of Bad25. It still hasn't managed to sell 10 million copies in America.

MJ was a big international act even up to the late 1990s but in America his sales were hitting rock bottom. Last single from HIStory was Stranger in Moscow and it peaked at 91 on the Hot 100 charts.

Dancing on the Ceiling was a major disappointment to fans of Can't Slow Down. And despite selling 4 million copies in America, it sold the first 3 million in it's first month due to anticipation. Bad achieved the same feat. That means half-baked songs like Ballerina Girl and Love Will Conquer All could only manage to push one million albums in the US market.

It's great that Lionel can sell out the O2 arena in England, but that's Europe where legacy acts last longer. MJ managed to sell out at the O2 50 times over but it didn't change his status in America.

Yes it was. I don't have the quote but Michael went on record to say that his goal was to have the highest selling album of all time and after getting snubbed at the 1980 Grammys, he set his sights on achieving that goal with Thriller. It's astronomical success couldn't have been predicted but it was expected nonetheless.

Bad wasn't a big seller even by today's standards? The album that went on to sale 30+ million worldwide and is the 28th best-selling album of all time wasn't/ isn't a big seller? Also, it sold 9 million in the US yet you say that like it was a commercial failure. Even if MJ expected to sell far more than that, you can't say 9 million copies sold is bad. 9x platinum for an album in just one part of the world is excellent by today's standards last time I checked.

You're cherry picking.

Selling 3 million copies is selling 3 million copies whether or not it was due to anticipation.

Lionel has been touring worldwide for years and been doing pretty good. MJ still had plenty of fans in America even after his public image was smeared in the 90s and still sold millions of albums. Just because they didn't sell as much as Thriller doesn't mean that they weren't successful in their own right.

MichaelJackson5 said:

Cinny said:

Anyone pointing to "U Can't Touch This" as an example of sampling, please consider "Kingdom Come" by JAY-Z (okay all I can find is Just Blaze's instrumental)

Wow, Jay Z sampled U Can't Touch This which was already a sample of Super Freak. It doesn't get much worse than that.

Wha? It is a creative chop of "Super Freak".

Scorp said:

Cinny said:
Anyone pointing to "U Can't Touch This" as an example of sampling, please consider "Kingdom Come" by JAY-Z (okay all I can find is Just Blaze's instrumental)

Just gave a perfect example of what Ive been alluding to The well has run so dry over the years because if the overabundance if sampling that the samples are being sampled now

Well, it certainly does not sound like "Can't Touch This". I give up

MotownSubdivision said:

MichaelJackson5 said:

Thriller was never made with the intention of becoming the biggest selling album in the history of music. Find me one quote from MJ or Q that alludes to such an intention before it's release. Thriller blew up because of great singles which showed the public an older, mature Michael Jackson. Also, the Motown 25 debut of the moonwalk catapulted Thriller sales to the stratosphere along with the iconic video for the title track.

Bad had none of Thriller's magic. It's a decent album and sold 6-8 million in America but that's not what MJ had in mind. There was no Human Nature, Lady in my Life, Billie Jean or Wanna Be Startin Something on Bad. Instead, we got childish songs like Speed Demon, Smooth Criminal and a title track that felt incomplete. It's as if Michael Jackson regressed. I was expecting a cinematic masterpiece for Smooth Criminal's video and not some video aimed at young kids in the 5th grade where MJ transforms into a car. Bad is one of the most popular albums worldwide, but in the US, it is not among the biggest sellers of that era or even today, after his album surge in 2009 and the publicity of Bad25. It still hasn't managed to sell 10 million copies in America.

MJ was a big international act even up to the late 1990s but in America his sales were hitting rock bottom. Last single from HIStory was Stranger in Moscow and it peaked at 91 on the Hot 100 charts.

Dancing on the Ceiling was a major disappointment to fans of Can't Slow Down. And despite selling 4 million copies in America, it sold the first 3 million in it's first month due to anticipation. Bad achieved the same feat. That means half-baked songs like Ballerina Girl and Love Will Conquer All could only manage to push one million albums in the US market.

It's great that Lionel can sell out the O2 arena in England, but that's Europe where legacy acts last longer. MJ managed to sell out at the O2 50 times over but it didn't change his status in America.

Yes it was. I don't have the quote but Michael went on record to say that his goal was to have the highest selling album of all time and after getting snubbed at the 1980 Grammys, he set his sights on achieving that goal with Thriller. It's astronomical success couldn't have been predicted but it was expected nonetheless.

Bad wasn't a big seller even by today's standards? The album that went on to sale 30+ million worldwide and is the 28th best-selling album of all time wasn't/ isn't a big seller? Also, it sold 9 million in the US yet you say that like it was a commercial failure. Even if MJ expected to sell far more than that, you can't say 9 million copies sold is bad. 9x platinum for an album in just one part of the world is excellent by today's standards last time I checked.

You're cherry picking.

Selling 3 million copies is selling 3 million copies whether or not it was due to anticipation.

Lionel has been touring worldwide for years and been doing pretty good. MJ still had plenty of fans in America even after his public image was smeared in the 90s and still sold millions of albums. Just because they didn't sell as much as Thriller doesn't mean that they weren't successful in their own right.

You can spin Bad sales to look good, and by the numbers 9 million albums is a tremendous accomplishment for any other artist of the 60s,70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, etc. That is what most MJ fans like to say.."30 million sold, 5 No.1s, etc"

But none of Bad's No.1s spent more than two weeks at the top and I Just Can't Stop Loving You dropped out of the Top 40 almost as fast as it reached No.1. Same chart pattern happened for Bad which Sony rushed out as IJCSLY was free-falling off the charts.

At the time, I read on Billboard that they were the fastest falling chart-toppers since Tragedy and Too Much Heaven from Bee Gee's Spirits Having Flown. That's not an album MJ would want Bad compared to.

As for all the American fans you speak of, they only purchased 6 million copies of Bad during it's chart run from 1987-1989. He also went from touring stadiums in America during the Victory Tour to arenas during the Bad Tour.

This is disappointing for a follow up to the biggest selling album of all time. Fairly or not, Thriller set the bar higher for Michael Jackson and 6 million doesn't cut it when it took him 5 years to make the Bad album. So 3 million copies were sold in the first month out of sheer anticipation and 3 million were sold as a catalog album, mostly from the surge in sales of his albums after June, 2009. That means the Bad album sold only 3 million units in MJ's home market during the heart of it's two year run and 7 singles which included two big budget music videos, a televised performance of The Way You Make Me Feel and Man in the Mirror at the 88 Grammys, a video game and a Bad Pepsi commercial blitzkrieg. If he was happy with it's sales, like say if Bad sold 20 million in the US market, I doubt he splits with Quincy Jones regardless of New Jack Swing's emergence.

Lionel survived Dancing on the Ceiling but it damaged his reputation and respect. Note that VeVo doesn't even bother carrying the majority of his videos. He damaged his legacy. He deserved to continue making pop hits into the 1990s.

[Edited 12/1/15 18:40pm]

MichaelJackson5 said:

MotownSubdivision said:

MichaelJackson5 said:

You can spin Bad sales to look good, and by the numbers 9 million albums is a tremendous accomplishment for any other artist of the 60s,70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, etc. That is what most MJ fans like to say.."30 million sold, 5 No.1s, etc"

But none of Bad's No.1s spent more than two weeks at the top and I Just Can't Stop Loving You dropped out of the Top 40 almost as fast as it reached No.1. Same chart pattern happened for Bad which Sony rushed out as IJCSLY was free-falling off the charts.

At the time, I read on Billboard that they were the fastest falling chart-toppers since Tragedy and Too Much Heaven from Bee Gee's Spirits Having Flown. That's not an album MJ would want Bad compared to.

As for all the American fans you speak of, they only purchased 6 million copies of Bad during it's chart run from 1987-1989. He also went from touring stadiums in America during the Victory Tour to arenas during the Bad Tour.

This is disappointing for a follow up to the biggest selling album of all time. Fairly or not, Thriller set the bar higher for Michael Jackson and 6 million doesn't cut it when it took him 5 years to make the Bad album. So 3 million copies were sold in the first month out of sheer anticipation and 3 million were sold as a catalog album, mostly from the surge in sales of his albums after June, 2009. That means the Bad album sold only 3 million units in MJ's home market during the heart of it's two year run and 7 singles which included two big budget music videos, a televised performance of The Way You Make Me Feel and Man in the Mirror at the 88 Grammys, a video game and a Bad Pepsi commercial blitzkrieg. If he was happy with it's sales, like say if Bad sold 20 million in the US market, I doubt he splits with Quincy Jones regardless of New Jack Swing's emergence.

Lionel survived Dancing on the Ceiling but it damaged his reputation and respect. Note that VeVo doesn't even bother carrying the majority of his videos. He damaged his legacy. He deserved to continue making pop hits into the 1990s.

[Edited 12/1/15 18:40pm]

And with that, you soundly defeated your whole argument. I'm not putting a positive spin on Bad's sales numbers any more than you're not splitting hairs and basically saying that album sales are the be-all-end-all of an artist's popularity or the quality of their music. You fit the description of a "fan" who judges music based on its commercial success to a T. You're no more an MJ fan than those who claim Thriller is his best album because it sold the most. [Edited 12/1/15 18:58pm]

It's not only album sales. As I said, MJ went from a US Stadium Tour with Victory to Arena Tours with Bad. His fan base was diminished greatly to the point he couldn't fill 45-50 thousand capacity football stadiums in America within just three years. That is a fair measure of an artist's popularity. He was still massive in Europe where he sold out venues like Wembley Stadium many times over. It was difficult for MJ to overcome his image problems in America from 1987 onward...which included the perception he was strange and addicted to cosmetic surgery.

[Edited 12/1/15 19:54pm]

MichaelJackson5 said:

MotownSubdivision said:

MichaelJackson5 said: And with that, you soundly defeated your whole argument. I'm not putting a positive spin on Bad's sales numbers any more than you're not splitting hairs and basically saying that album sales are the be-all-end-all of an artist's popularity or the quality of their music. You fit the description of a "fan" who judges music based on its commercial success to a T. You're no more an MJ fan than those who claim Thriller is his best album because it sold the most. [Edited 12/1/15 18:58pm]

It's not only album sales. As I said, MJ went from a US Stadium Tour with Victory to Arena Tours with Bad. His fan base was diminished greatly to the point he couldn't fill 45-50 thousand capacity football stadiums in America within just three years. That is a fair measure of an artist's popularity. He was still massive in Europe where he sold out venues like Wembley Stadium many times over. It was difficult for MJ to overcome his image problems in America from 1987 onward...which included the perception he was strange and addicted to cosmetic surgery.

[Edited 12/1/15 19:54pm]

Source? I'm pretty sure every show in the US during the Bad Tour sold out.

The Commodores were both. They made funk jams and also sexy slow jams. Lionel Richie, as a solo artist was decent but nothing anywhere near as good as when he was with The Commodores. His solo ballads were simply decent but they sounded more leaning toward the adult contemporary side rather than after midnight "bring a stranger home at 3:00 a.m." slow jams like before. As with any artist, when you try to appeal to too many groups of people, the music must be weakened because not everyone has the good taste to jam hard. I see it like this, artists should make the baddest jams possible for their core audience and if other groups of people like them, fine, and if they don't, well, fuck 'em.