MotownSubdivision said:

LayzieKrayzie said:

I can't say I agree with that list. For 2 reasons I think. 1, some of theose people I would never co-sign as being the top. In terms of popularity I wouldn't argue that everyone in that list is the top because that's fair to say, but in terms of how good they are, I definitely wouldn't cosider any of them. And 2, some of those artists I don't hate, but that's because I just don't listen to them, so I can't really speak on them being the top since I don't know so I couln't judge them. But realistically, my favorite current artists are all rappers, so I can't be qualified to make a judgement on people I don't pay attention to. Really the only non-Rap/Hip-Hop related artists I really listen to like that is Alessia Cara and Lorde, and I don't even really think I can say Lorde anymore since her album was from 2013.

Talent is beside the point. Popularity is the center of discussion in this topic. That's not to say you can't say which ones you like and dislike but don't let that cloud your judgment.

Given those credentials, the acts I listed fit the bill although you may not quite agree with the order I put them in.

Lorde definitely qualifies since she's released an album this decade but considering that the album is nearly 3 years old and hasn't had a lasting impact, she definitely wouldn't rank in the top 10 of the most popular acts atm.

And that's exactly why I said what I said. Some I don't like, some I don't listen to. So because of that I can't really speak on them.

avajane said:

LayzieKrayzie said:

I can't say I agree with that list. For 2 reasons I think. 1, some of theose people I would never co-sign as being the top. In terms of popularity I wouldn't argue that everyone in that list is the top because that's fair to say, but in terms of how good they are, I definitely wouldn't cosider any of them. And 2, some of those artists I don't hate, but that's because I just don't listen to them, so I can't really speak on them being the top since I don't know so I couln't judge them. But realistically, my favorite current artists are all rappers, so I can't be qualified to make a judgement on people I don't pay attention to. Really the only non-Rap/Hip-Hop related artists I really listen to like that is Alessia Cara and Lorde, and I don't even really think I can say Lorde anymore since her album was from 2013.

I really like Alessia Cara I think she has a bright future ahead. As far as Lorde, quit hanging out with Taylor and the cool kids and get back to music. Take your craft seriously cuz time waits for no one, especially in the music business.

Oh you're a fan too? That's what's up. I really dig her album. I somewhat agree with that sentiment, she should stop hanging with Taylor and the cool kids. But my reason for agreeing is a little different, I think she should stop only because I'm not a fan a of them. It's not out of hate though, it doesn't bother me if she's friends with Taylor or something. It's more just the fact I look at it like - Really? Musically you're superior than a lot of these people. But I'm not too concerned with it. Like you said she has a bright future ahead. I like to think so too. She's very talented, and compared to her contemporaries it's almost no competition I feel. And she seems pretty about her music so I think she'll be fine.

MickyDolenz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

I can deal with rock acts selling more in the past but I don't like how when it comes to documenting the genre, it takes precedence over various other genres of music. We black people need to catalog our own history; no sense in relying on others to do it.

Since the rock audience was bigger, of course there's going to be more people writing about it and buying the books. There's supposed to be a movie version of the Motley Crue book The Dirt coming up. On VH1 there's the program That Metal Show. Rock had magazines like Creem, Hit Parader, Spin, & Rolling Stone. There really wasn't anyone writing about R&B acts other than the bigger acts getting featured in the rock mags. There were teen mags like Right On!, Rock n Soul, & Soul Teen, but they're more like Tiger Beat than Rolling Stone. There was a British mag called Blues & Soul.

For real, Rock (along with any forms of it) is probably the biggest genre of music to hit people's homes across the world. It's not some kind of bias where writers or people who make documentaries say "oh we're gonna make this Rock-related piece and make it bigger than non-Rock stuff" sorry but it just doesn't happen that way. Rock music has the biggest audience and the biggest influence on people globally and that's just the way it is. There is nobody to blame for that. And such it's audiene and influence is much wider, you're much more likely to get a film maker or writer of some sorts who are a fan of the genre. Which is how projects come about. It's not some group of people in charge of music with a sort of unanymous opinion on music and what will take preccedene over what. Individual people do documentaries on what they like. And Rock having the much wider audience, that's the way it's bound to be.

LayzieKrayzie said:

^ We need to do that but the problem with us black people is that we don't have an interest in our own history because we "easily" forget and allow white people to re-write. We are quick to replace our black legends with each other instead of acknowledge the historical music history of how certain black performers and artists transformed and enhanced music. We always make everything a "competition" instead of telling the whole story. For ex. we first have to talk about Fats Dominos before we can talk about Chuck Berry and then Little Richard and then Jimmi Hendrix and then Prince etc Why does one have to be greater than the other? We are like crabs in a barrell when it comes to talking about our history. I think Little Richard is extremely underrated. A lot of the flamboyant nature of rock performances, wild hair swinging and cutting loose all started with him (for both white and black rock acts)

[Edited 5/15/16 12:17pm]

These are the four that come to mind:

MotownSubdivision said:

LayzieKrayzie said:

For real, Rock (along with any forms of it) is probably the biggest genre of music to hit people's homes across the world. It's not some kind of bias where writers or people who make documentaries say "oh we're gonna make this Rock-related piece and make it bigger than non-Rock stuff" sorry but it just doesn't happen that way. Rock music has the biggest audience and the biggest influence on people globally and that's just the way it is. There is nobody to blame for that. And such it's audiene and influence is much wider, you're much more likely to get a film maker or writer of some sorts who are a fan of the genre. Which is how projects come about. It's not some group of people in charge of music with a sort of unanymous opinion on music and what will take preccedene over what. Individual people do documentaries on what they like. And Rock having the much wider audience, that's the way it's bound to be.

Hence why I said we as black people need to catalog our history.

Yeah and I'm with that. But that statement was also said along with you don't like how Rock stuff takes precedence over other genres. To me that comes off as you saying it like it's a bad thing or somebody is at fault for it.

LayzieKrayzie said:

MotownSubdivision said:

LayzieKrayzie said: Hence why I said we as black people need to catalog our history.

Yeah and I'm with that. But that statement was also said along with you don't like how Rock stuff takes precedence over other genres. To me that comes off as you saying it like it's a bad thing or somebody is at fault for it.

No I don't like how rock takes precedence over other genres.

MotownSubdivision said:

No I don't like how rock takes precedence over other genres.

Well people, and not necessarily rock only listeners, make a big deal about who is or who isn't inducted into the Rock n Roll Hall Of Fame or whether or not they make rock music. There's other Hall Of Fames for other genres that don't get the same amount of attention. The Rock Hall was started by the founders of Rolling Stone magazine, so it is primarily the taste of RS. If Smash Hits started a museum, synth acts like Depeche Mode would more likely be inducted over blues based guitar rock acts. If Right On! had a museum, New Edition would get in over Bobby Blue Bland.

.

I think the classic rock audience generally are more loyal to their acts than the R&B audience, especially the younger ones. With a lot of them, something 2 months old is "old school" and played out. Rap is considered a young man genre. Being older is not cool in hip hop. Classic rock acts can still have big tours like the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, Bon Jovi, etc. That's not really the case with veteran R&B/soul acts. They're often on package tours like Sinbad/Tom Joyner cruises, Essence Festivals, or club tours. Maybe Lionel Richie can have big tours today and not have to do a package gig, but to some he's Nicole Richie's dad.

.

I think the fans of rock bands were more likely to know the names of the band members, so it's kind of a more personal thing. They can name the members of The Beatles, U2, Pink Floyd, Van Halen, etc. They talk about the drummer and the lead guitarists and make a bigger fuss about a particular member getting replaced or quitting. How many people can name all of the members of Harold Melvin & The Blue Notes, Bar Kays, Zapp, Brass Construction, Earth Wind & Fire, LTD, and so on? Many people might know the names of the lead singers, but not the trumbone player. Rock has famous album covers and maybe jazz to a lesser extent as well. I also think that rock being known as an album genre and R&B as a singles genre is a factor too. You can find entire books about a particular classic rock album like Tommy, Sgt Pepper, Dark Side Of The Moon, and Exile On Main Street. There's not that many R&B albums that are considered famous as an album or talked about by the rock press. Black magazines like Ebony didn't really talk about albums or music for that matter. Ebony had features on mostly really famous music acts, but their articles seemed to be about them as celebrities than about their music, like pictures of their homes or who they were dating or something. When I go into a record store, I don't see many albums by old R&B or soul acts, mostly Greatest Hits/Best Of compilations. But I see many individual albums of rock acts. Rock acts were more known for merchandising too, like T-shirts and band logos. R&B acts generally didn't have a recognizable logo/mascot like the Rolling Stones' tongue, Iron Maiden's Eddie, or KISS makeup.

MickyDolenz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

All of this is true. We black people tend to overlook our own history in favor of focusing primarily on the here and now. Maybe we can learn something from rock fans because they are very dedicated and almost cult-like in the preservation of the genre. I don't mind the history of rock being preserved and celebrated but I think there's a problem when sometimes people act like its the only genre of music or at least the only genre that matters. On the other side of the coin, hip hop is basically the new rock and has a far more diverse following than that of the predominately white crowd that makes up rock fans.

But hip hop has its own magazines (.ig Source, XXL, Vibe), which older R&B/soul/funk didn't have for the most part. The few that existed were generally not that big and are now defunct. There were magazines for jazz, classical, country, and blues. There's probably not a lot of video footage of most pre-1980s R&B acts. Soul Train started in the early 1970s, so unless the act happened to get on American Bandstand, Ed Sullivan, or Shindig, there wasn't much of an outlet before that. There were syndicated country music programs in the 1960s. There were a few R&B TV shows shows made for local markets in the 1960s like The!!!!Beat hosted by Hoss Allen that featured southern soul acts but it did not last long, Night Train from Nashville, and a 1970s gospel show called Hallelujah Train, which I think was filmed in Louisiana for what they call the ArkLaTex area. There's also a PBS show called SOUL! that ran from 1968 to 1973, but I've heard most of the episodes were taped over or lost. SOUL! wasn't a music only show. But there were entire episodes that are music though. I think SOUL! was only broadcast in New York at the time. A few years ago it was announced that there was going to be a documentary about the show and its host Ellis Haizlip, but I haven't heard anything else about it. So until Soul Train, there wasn't much nationwide. Nat King Cole & Hazel Scott had nationwide programs, but they weren't really R&B, more jazz & pop, and the shows did not last long because they couldn't get sponsors and many southern stations wouldn't broadcast them. There was another jazz show called Jazz Casual on PBS. This might have been regional too, not sure.

1. Taylor Swift (have never liked her sweet pop music)
2. Rihanna (I like some of her songs including the one from Anti that has Prince-like vocals)
3. Justin Bieber (Have always found him laughable but I hate him now because of that comment he made after P's death. But I do like his new singles from Purpose as guilty pleasures I must admit)
4. Adele (Have only heard a few of her songs and didn't like them)
   
5. Drake (Dude makes catchy songs but yet I can't remember them )
6. Beyonce (Great performer, like a few of her songs, but also the most overrated artist ever)
7. Bruno Mars (I'd list him higher because I actually like his music but he hasn't made an album since 2013 so he's not as relevant as others right now)
8. Katy Perry (Generic trash, all her songs sound alike, I did like Hot N' Cold back in 2009 though )
9. Justin Timberlake (I like some of his music but for some reason I find him very annoying, a lot of his songs are MJ leftovers or at least sound like them, especially his new single. It has that Off The Wall-esque sound)
10. Kanye West (I don't know anyone who actually likes this guy or his music other than Stronger)

I really like Janelle Monae, Stromae, Grimes, Kendrick, St Vincent, Lykke Li. Kimbra, Chance the rapper, fka Twigs are cool too.

[Edited 5/19/16 9:20am]

MotownSubdivision said:

LayzieKrayzie said:

Yeah and I'm with that. But that statement was also said along with you don't like how Rock stuff takes precedence over other genres. To me that comes off as you saying it like it's a bad thing or somebody is at fault for it.

No I don't like how rock takes precedence over other genres.

Right and that's what I have a problem with. To me that's just such an irrational thought to have. There's nothing to be upset about when that's just the way it is. Historically it's always been the biggest genre and I think it's safe to say, it has had the largest influence on people all over the world. And since it has the largest audience, what's to not understand about the apparent "precedence" it takes over other genres? What's makes that so hard to believe? When you look at the biggest and best selling artists of all time, almost all of them are Rock or a sub-genre of Rock. If I'm not mistaken Michael Jackson are Mariah Carey I think are probably the only 2 to rank along with other Rock artists. The Beatles are the best selling of all time. Pink Floyd's album Dark Side Of The Moon spent 14 years straight on the Billboard charts. 16 years all together, but 14 consecutive years. From the time it entered the Billboard it stayed there for 14 years straight without ever falling off the chart. It entered the Billboard in the early 70s and didn't leave until the mid 80s. Or Metallica, their self titled album, the Black Album, came out in 1991, and that has been the #1 sellling album since Soundscan first started keeping track of total album sales.

People are always quick to say album sales or states or anything like that doesn't actually mean anything. But it does, because it goes to show how many people support an artist in particular because if they didn't, they wouldn't have those stats. I just don't see how someone can feel some type of way over the natural order of things. Like, if Rock has a biggest audience why do you take that as it taking precedence over other genres? Do you expect people who like Rock to just suddenly be like "I like this, but for the sake of other genres taking precedence, I'm just gonna stop supporting what I like". Do you see the picture I'm trying to describe here? It's like if you get into a fight with someone, and this person is physically bigger and stronger than you, and he beat you in this fight. But you're not mad he beat you, you're mad that he's physically bigger and stronger, and that his physical abilities allowed him to win... It just doesn't make any sense. You can't get upset over a general consensus that nobody has control over. You can't be upset that fans of the largest genre support it.

LayzieKrayzie said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Sure, rock having precedence over other genres of music is "just the way it is" but that doesn't mean that someone can't be somewhat bothered by it when other genres (intentionally or not) don't receive the same kind of treatment as that one.

You can't force somebody to like or buy the other genres. Pre-rock, crooner pop was the most popular genre. Like Bing Crosby, Perry Como, and Frank Sinatra and also soundtracks from musicals such as Showboat & Singing In The Rain. Harry Belafonte was big as well. Exotica was somewhat popular in the 1950s too with the parents of the rock era teens. Korla Pandit even had a TV show. Korla was a black exotica organist who went as an Indian (India, not Native American).

MickyDolenz said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Sure, rock having precedence over other genres of music is "just the way it is" but that doesn't mean that someone can't be somewhat bothered by it when other genres (intentionally or not) don't receive the same kind of treatment as that one.

You can't force somebody to like or buy the other genres. Pre-rock, crooner pop was the most popular genre. Like Bing Crosby, Perry Como, and Frank Sinatra and also soundtracks from musicals such as Showboat & Singing In The Rain. Harry Belafonte was big as well. Exotica was somewhat popular in the 1950s too with the parents of the rock era teens. Korla Pandit even had a TV show. Korla was a black exotica organist who went as an Indian (India, not Native American).

I never said that. I don't have an issue with rock having legions of followers but then I wonder why a genre like R&B can't have a following on the same level as rock.

MotownSubdivision said:

I never said that. I don't have an issue with rock having legions of followers but then I wonder why a genre like R&B can't have a following on the same level as rock.

Easy, not as many people like it. Remember it was rock fans who had the riot at the baseball game and wore Disco Sucks shirts in the late 1970s. R&B was considered disco. Even Teena Marie couldn't crossover to a more white audience. Her music was too R&B/funk and not pop enough. Many of the R&B acts in the past who got Top 40 popularity were said to have watered down their music to reach a white audience or "sold out", like Lionel Richie and the J.T. Taylor era Kool & The Gang. Prince was said by some of the R&B audience/press of selling out with Purple Rain. Jazz purists said the same about George Benson when he started getting pop hits starting with Breezin'.

.

Hip hop replaced rock in the USA as the most popular genre as far as Top 40 radio goes. Hip hop is also international like rock was with different countries having rappers in their native languages.

.

There's also the case that rock is considered "white music" and R&B as "black music". Since rock bands/singers tend to be white, rock can go to countries that are primarily white, where R&B doesn't really reach. Today, in places like Sweden and Germany, heavy metal is really popular. Go to around 0:35 of this Obama speech

MotownSubdivision said:

LayzieKrayzie said:

Right and that's what I have a problem with. To me that's just such an irrational thought to have. There's nothing to be upset about when that's just the way it is. Historically it's always been the biggest genre and I think it's safe to say, it has had the largest influence on people all over the world. And since it has the largest audience, what's to not understand about the apparent "precedence" it takes over other genres? What's makes that so hard to believe? When you look at the biggest and best selling artists of all time, almost all of them are Rock or a sub-genre of Rock. If I'm not mistaken Michael Jackson are Mariah Carey I think are probably the only 2 to rank along with other Rock artists. The Beatles are the best selling of all time. Pink Floyd's album Dark Side Of The Moon spent 14 years straight on the Billboard charts. 16 years all together, but 14 consecutive years. From the time it entered the Billboard it stayed there for 14 years straight without ever falling off the chart. It entered the Billboard in the early 70s and didn't leave until the mid 80s. Or Metallica, their self titled album, the Black Album, came out in 1991, and that has been the #1 sellling album since Soundscan first started keeping track of total album sales.

People are always quick to say album sales or states or anything like that doesn't actually mean anything. But it does, because it goes to show how many people support an artist in particular because if they didn't, they wouldn't have those stats. I just don't see how someone can feel some type of way over the natural order of things. Like, if Rock has a biggest audience why do you take that as it taking precedence over other genres? Do you expect people who like Rock to just suddenly be like "I like this, but for the sake of other genres taking precedence, I'm just gonna stop supporting what I like". Do you see the picture I'm trying to describe here? It's like if you get into a fight with someone, and this person is physically bigger and stronger than you, and he beat you in this fight. But you're not mad he beat you, you're mad that he's physically bigger and stronger, and that his physical abilities allowed him to win... It just doesn't make any sense. You can't get upset over a general consensus that nobody has control over. You can't be upset that fans of the largest genre support it.

There's nothing irrational about not liking the status quo. Sure, rock having precedence over other genres of music is "just the way it is" but that doesn't mean that someone can't be somewhat bothered by it when other genres (intentionally or not) don't receive the same kind of treatment as that one.

Yes it is kinda irrational. To wish you're favorite genre was the biggest genre makes sense. But to be upset at the fact it isn't the biggest doesn't. You can't dislike the fact that the sky is blue just because blue isn't your favorite color. You can't dislike the fact that grass is green just because green isn't your favorite. It's just a kind of thing where you might think "I wish this one specific thing I like was the normal instead of what is currently the normal". It's more something you think yeah maybe I like this better and wish it was #1, but it's just not and that's understandable. You can't let your own individual thoughts on certain genres influence on what you think should and shouldn't be the biggest. Me, I my favorite genre is Rap/Hip-Hop. If Country music was the biggest genre, I'm not gonna be mad at that. I'm gonna think Rap is my favorite and I would like to see that in the #1 spot, but if Country is bigger and takes more precedence, I get it. It's not my favorite, but I can see why it is bigger. Whatever, not a big deal.

Let me ask you this, would you still be upset if things were the other way around? Say each genre was exactly the same, but instead it was your favorite genre that took precedence over the others, would you still feel the same way? All the stats in each genre are all the same. Rock still has the largest audience and largest influence on people all over the world, your favorite genre still has all the same stats as it currently does today, but the only difference is your favorite genre was the one that took precedence over everything. I am willing to bet you wouldn't have a problem with it if that was the case. To me that says you just want what you like to the biggest simply because it's what you like.

LayzieKrayzie said: