this is a JOKE right? waits for punchline

Last time I checked neither one of those ladies was claiming that title, nor do they care to.

If you google queen of soul Aretha Franklin's name still comes up...thanks for the laugh though.

Why Adele Outsells All Of Your Favorite Black Soul Singers

Adele's success makes us wonder, why can't black people globally profit from a black sound?

Keyaira Kelly , Staff Writer

Birthed in the lungs of our ancestors in cotton fields and Southern churches, soul music has carried Black Americans through tragedy and triumph.

While Black musicians have used their voices to inspire movements from We Shall Overcome in the 60s to Janelle Monae‘s modern day anthem The Hell You Talmbout, the success of White artists in the space cannot be ignored.

With the explosion of Adele‘s most recent record topping hit, Hello, we collectively root for her and are drawn to the singer because she reminds us of something raw, familiar, and native within us. Hello made history this week when it became the first song to reach 1 million digital downloads in just 7 days.

But what is it about Adele that allows her to break records that some of her talented Black counterparts could never even dream of?

To understand it, we must first, look at popular music’s history.

Stories of kidnapped voices branded with White names were common in the popular artists of the 60s, as chronicled in the Oscar-winning documentary, 20 Feet From Stardom. Darlene Love‘s voice was recorded and repurposed under Phil Spector’s direction as The Crystals.

Similarly, there are countless other stories of Black background singers who have been used to bolster the grit of popular music. David Bowie, Mick Jagger, and Joe Crocker all employ Black backup singers to bring edge and heart to rock music.

None of this is to say that Adele isn’t individually talented, but we can’t neglect the history that has caused Black voices to be hidden beneath White pop stars.

Another part of the puzzle is promotion.

The media adores Adele. She has graced the cover of notable publications such as Vogue and Billboard numerous times.The 25 vocalist has also won coveted industry recognition which includes her 10 Grammys, an Oscar, a Golden Globe and a glowing endorsement from Beyonce herself.

Not to say award season is everything, but her accolades exceed artists with similar vocal ability like Jill Scott, who has taken home 3 Grammys, but likely doesn’t get the same marketing budget from her label.

And the final part of it is commodification.

The Iggy effect sent many people through a musical tailspin once they discovered her accent was a farce hijacked from southern throats, and Macklemore received a lot of flack for winning a Grammy in a category in which Kendrick Lamar lyrically dominated.

The hard truth is that, for so much of America and the world, Black voices in White bodies are more profitable.

Regardless, there seems to be a monopoly on who profits from the soulful sound, and it often cannot be attributed to a Black artists.

What do you beauties think? Is the world more apt to accept a particular voice if it’s coming from a certain race?

Sound off below.

missfee said:

The answer is quite simple given that Adele doesn't sing soul music.

That's right, and Jill Scott isn't even classified as soul either. She's billed as neo-soul.

I guess the OP is just having a laugh.

CynicKill said:

Well someone out there thinks she's soul.

>

Adele , Jill Scott , justin timberlake

Why Adele Outsells All Of Your Favorite Black Soul Singers

Adele's success makes us wonder, why can't black people globally profit from a black sound?

Posted 2 months ago.

Keyaira Kelly , Staff Writer

Facebook43.3KTwitterPinterestEmail

Source: Brian Rasic / Getty

Birthed in the lungs of our ancestors in cotton fields and Southern churches, soul music has carried Black Americans through tragedy and triumph.

While Black musicians have used their voices to inspire movements from We Shall Overcome in the 60s to Janelle Monae‘s modern day anthem The Hell You Talmbout, the success of White artists in the space cannot be ignored.

With the explosion of Adele‘s most recent record topping hit, Hello, we collectively root for her and are drawn to the singer because she reminds us of something raw, familiar, and native within us. Hello made history this week when it became the first song to reach 1 million digital downloads in just 7 days.

But what is it about Adele that allows her to break records that some of her talented Black counterparts could never even dream of?

To understand it, we must first, look at popular music’s history.

Stories of kidnapped voices branded with White names were common in the popular artists of the 60s, as chronicled in the Oscar-winning documentary, 20 Feet From Stardom. Darlene Love‘s voice was recorded and repurposed under Phil Spector’s direction as The Crystals.

Similarly, there are countless other stories of Black background singers who have been used to bolster the grit of popular music. David Bowie, Mick Jagger, and Joe Crocker all employ Black backup singers to bring edge and heart to rock music.

None of this is to say that Adele isn’t individually talented, but we can’t neglect the history that has caused Black voices to be hidden beneath White pop stars.

Another part of the puzzle is promotion.

The media adores Adele. She has graced the cover of notable publications such as Vogue and Billboard numerous times.The 25 vocalist has also won coveted industry recognition which includes her 10 Grammys, an Oscar, a Golden Globe and a glowing endorsement from Beyonce herself.

Not to say award season is everything, but her accolades exceed artists with similar vocal ability like Jill Scott, who has taken home 3 Grammys, but likely doesn’t get the same marketing budget from her label.

And the final part of it is commodification.

The Iggy effect sent many people through a musical tailspin once they discovered her accent was a farce hijacked from southern throats, and Macklemore received a lot of flack for winning a Grammy in a category in which Kendrick Lamar lyrically dominated.

The hard truth is that, for so much of America and the world, Black voices in White bodies are more profitable.

Regardless, there seems to be a monopoly on who profits from the soulful sound, and it often cannot be attributed to a Black artists.

What do you beauties think? Is the world more apt to accept a particular voice if it’s coming from a certain race?

Sound off below.

Thanks for posting the source so I can tell her directly to get her head out her ass.

CynicKill said:

Well someone out there thinks she's soul.

>

Adele , Jill Scott , justin timberlake

Why Adele Outsells All Of Your Favorite Black Soul Singers

Adele's success makes us wonder, why can't black people globally profit from a black sound?

Posted 2 months ago.

Keyaira Kelly , Staff Writer

Facebook43.3KTwitterPinterestEmail

Source: Brian Rasic / Getty

Birthed in the lungs of our ancestors in cotton fields and Southern churches, soul music has carried Black Americans through tragedy and triumph.

While Black musicians have used their voices to inspire movements from We Shall Overcome in the 60s to Janelle Monae‘s modern day anthem The Hell You Talmbout, the success of White artists in the space cannot be ignored.

With the explosion of Adele‘s most recent record topping hit, Hello, we collectively root for her and are drawn to the singer because she reminds us of something raw, familiar, and native within us. Hello made history this week when it became the first song to reach 1 million digital downloads in just 7 days.

But what is it about Adele that allows her to break records that some of her talented Black counterparts could never even dream of?

To understand it, we must first, look at popular music’s history.

Stories of kidnapped voices branded with White names were common in the popular artists of the 60s, as chronicled in the Oscar-winning documentary, 20 Feet From Stardom. Darlene Love‘s voice was recorded and repurposed under Phil Spector’s direction as The Crystals.

Similarly, there are countless other stories of Black background singers who have been used to bolster the grit of popular music. David Bowie, Mick Jagger, and Joe Crocker all employ Black backup singers to bring edge and heart to rock music.

None of this is to say that Adele isn’t individually talented, but we can’t neglect the history that has caused Black voices to be hidden beneath White pop stars.

Another part of the puzzle is promotion.

The media adores Adele. She has graced the cover of notable publications such as Vogue and Billboard numerous times.The 25 vocalist has also won coveted industry recognition which includes her 10 Grammys, an Oscar, a Golden Globe and a glowing endorsement from Beyonce herself.

Not to say award season is everything, but her accolades exceed artists with similar vocal ability like Jill Scott, who has taken home 3 Grammys, but likely doesn’t get the same marketing budget from her label.

And the final part of it is commodification.

The Iggy effect sent many people through a musical tailspin once they discovered her accent was a farce hijacked from southern throats, and Macklemore received a lot of flack for winning a Grammy in a category in which Kendrick Lamar lyrically dominated.

The hard truth is that, for so much of America and the world, Black voices in White bodies are more profitable.

Regardless, there seems to be a monopoly on who profits from the soulful sound, and it often cannot be attributed to a Black artists.

What do you beauties think? Is the world more apt to accept a particular voice if it’s coming from a certain race?

Sound off below.

i dont think the writer thinks Adele is "queen of soul" either...i think she's being cynical, and bemoaning the fact that Adele gets far more promotion and acclaim than her more talented black peers

Always NEW or Old.

I wish people would stop saying this just to slight Adele's success I am not even her biggest fan but she does not make R&B. Jill Scott, Jaziman Sullivan or even Ledisi are not her peers. Adele is a pop star and she sings adult comtemporary. I have not a clue why people are constantly comparing her to R&B artists when she does not make R&B.

mjscarousal said:

I wish people would stop saying this just to slight Adele's success I am not even her biggest fan but she does not make R&B. Jill Scott, Jaziman Sullivan or even Ledisi are not her peers. Adele is a pop star and she sings adult comtemporary. I have not a clue why people are constantly comparing her to R&B artists when she does not make R&B.

The assclown who wrote the article is trying to characterize Adele as a "black voice in a white body", which is complete and utter bullshit.

Whatever the label they wanna put her in is, she sure fills a void. Young & old pay alot of attention to her.

the majority of Adele's fans have NO IDEA who Jill Scott is, they'd be like "wait...WHAT..." so WHO...

datdude said:

the majority of Adele's fans have NO IDEA who Jill Scott is, they'd be like "wait...WHAT..." so WHO...

Exactly... not sure why they are trying to slight this girls success. She keeps her clothes on and sings about songs with substance. I never hear them bring up Jill Scott or Ledsi to debunk Rihanna or Beyonce's success who imo deserve the back lash more.

Make 'em sing-off, or duet..

(Not to diss sensational Jill but )In my Opinion ReRe has no heir to her Queen of Soul Throne....Adele has a Soulful voice & she's played on R&B radio stations (at least she is here in South Carolina), but her music falls in the Pop category..Adele belongs to England and she'll forever be on "Loan" to America....The British can give her ANY title they want but here in America you gotta do more than sell a Zillion Records to get that "King/Queen" title.....For example...Americans LOVE awarding Amazingly Talented Brits with Oscars, but make no mistake about it Meryl Streep IS Queen regardless of her past and present Flops and we'll NEVER give her title to a foreigner, NEVER...LOL...

getxxxx said:

this is a JOKE right? waits for punchline

It must be as Jill has never been the queen of anything.

[Edited 12/21/15 5:37am]

Perhaps this thread should be moved to Politics & Religion LOL

SeventeenDayze said:

Perhaps this thread should be moved to Politics & Religion LOL

No kidding eh? People need to give it a rest.

Empress said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Perhaps this thread should be moved to Politics & Religion LOL

No kidding eh? People need to give it a rest.

Well, I do think there's a dynamic of race at play here but won't get into it here though.

Hamad said:

Whatever the label they wanna put her in is, she sure fills a void. Young & old pay alot of attention to her.

A huge one.. in the pockets of Sony Music..

.

She's talented vocally, but there should be no mistaking that her "success" has been heavily pushed, marketed and polished by Sony's A&R reps tireless looking for the right artist to put a good chunk of their musical investments behind. So even though the OP is likely trolling, if one were to ask oneself who's the more marketable of the two, there's zero dispute that one more than the other would have a greater transnational appeal that would bring in old and young , large swathes of each demographic all clammering to hear her on the radio, buy her cd's and dish out good money to see her in concert.

lezama said:

Hamad said:

Whatever the label they wanna put her in is, she sure fills a void. Young & old pay alot of attention to her.

A huge one.. in the pockets of Sony Music..

.

She's talented vocally, but there should be no mistaking that her "success" has been heavily pushed, marketed and polished by Sony's A&R reps tireless looking for the right artist to put a good chunk of their musical investments behind. So even though the OP is likely trolling, if one were to ask oneself who's the more marketable of the two, there's zero dispute that one more than the other would have a greater transnational appeal that would bring in old and young , large swathes of each demographic all clammering to hear her on the radio, buy her cd's and dish out good money to see her in concert.

What does it mean to be "marketable" exactly?

Apples and Oranges. Adele does not sing black soul/R&B music. Neither is she regaled by soul music listeners and consumers.

SeventeenDayze said:

Empress said:

No kidding eh? People need to give it a rest.

Well, I do think there's a dynamic of race at play here but won't get into it here though.

I'm not really seeing that. Adele is appealing to many people who are becoming fatigued of gimmicks and hype and would like to be able to relax and enjoy some simple, straightforward, quality entertainment....they're out there.

For example Adele's trajectory isn't anywhere near what we've been subjected to with Bouncy for the better part of the decade. Adele is white but she is still a looong way from being over-exposed when compared to the level of hype surrounding Bouncy.

The OP was apparently having a bit of a jokey-joke anyways since Aretha is still alive and obviously no one seriously thinks there could be a new queen anytime soon. Neither Jill nor Adele have ever claimed such a thing.

I thought Mary J.Blige is supposed to be the "queen of soul" for this generation

lezama said:

Hamad said:

Whatever the label they wanna put her in is, she sure fills a void. Young & old pay alot of attention to her.

A huge one.. in the pockets of Sony Music..

.

She's talented vocally, but there should be no mistaking that her "success" has been heavily pushed, marketed and polished by Sony's A&R reps tireless looking for the right artist to put a good chunk of their musical investments behind. So even though the OP is likely trolling, if one were to ask oneself who's the more marketable of the two, there's zero dispute that one more than the other would have a greater transnational appeal that would bring in old and young , large swathes of each demographic all clammering to hear her on the radio, buy her cd's and dish out good money to see her in concert.

I hear you, but I don't think its that cynical, really. The general listener don't really think or care about that. She touches a thing in these people's hearts. Hence why she's in demand.

SoulAlive said:

I thought Mary J.Blige is supposed to be the "queen of soul" for this generation

Nope, that's queen of hip hop soul....get your queens straight please,

SeventeenDayze said:

lezama said:

A huge one.. in the pockets of Sony Music..

.

She's talented vocally, but there should be no mistaking that her "success" has been heavily pushed, marketed and polished by Sony's A&R reps tireless looking for the right artist to put a good chunk of their musical investments behind. So even though the OP is likely trolling, if one were to ask oneself who's the more marketable of the two, there's zero dispute that one more than the other would have a greater transnational appeal that would bring in old and young , large swathes of each demographic all clammering to hear her on the radio, buy her cd's and dish out good money to see her in concert.

What does it mean to be "marketable" exactly?

Marketability is always relative to the market, so if its a niche market the combination of type of talent and image should be relevant to that niche somehow. When Adele started off her managers were pushing her in the blue-eyed soul category, but when they realized she could be bigger than that they pushed her full into the adult contemporary / power balad singing category and it's worked out well. Marketability always combined image with talent, if you don't have the talent to back it up, image is kinda irrelevant. But A&R people primary task if weighing options about who to invest their time and money on, if you compare two people of equal talent, they're going to put their money behind the one with talent but who will appeal more to the masses or if they only work in a niche market, the artist who'll appeal more to that niche.

Hamad said:

lezama said:

A huge one.. in the pockets of Sony Music..

.

She's talented vocally, but there should be no mistaking that her "success" has been heavily pushed, marketed and polished by Sony's A&R reps tireless looking for the right artist to put a good chunk of their musical investments behind. So even though the OP is likely trolling, if one were to ask oneself who's the more marketable of the two, there's zero dispute that one more than the other would have a greater transnational appeal that would bring in old and young , large swathes of each demographic all clammering to hear her on the radio, buy her cd's and dish out good money to see her in concert.

I hear you, but I don't think its that cynical, really. The general listener don't really think or care about that. She touches a thing in these people's hearts. Hence why she's in demand.

I wasn't trying to be cynical, just speaking as a business man would. Radio stations and record labels aren't engaging in some charitable activity of bringing the masses quality music to enrich their lives, they're doing it to retire in their 40's, send their kids to ivy league schools, buy nice mansions in coveted zip codes etc etc. Its a business.