Rock was created by black artists like Fats Domino, Chuck Berry and Little Richard, and Elvis Presley and other white artists eventually picked up the sound. In the ???60s, teenagers were just as likely to stack their turntables with records from both white and black artists[/b] ??? with perhaps a little bit of Motown, another musical thread of the time, thrown in, said Larry Starr, who wrote ???American Popular Music: From Minstrelsy to MTV,??? with Christopher Waterman. But that began changing in the late ???60s. By the time Jimi Hendrix became the ultimate symbol of counterculture cool, with his wild wardrobe and wilder guitar playing, the racial divisions were evident.
Rock was created by black artists like Fats Domino, Chuck Berry and Little Richard, and Elvis Presley and other white artists eventually picked up the sound. In the ???60s, teenagers were just as likely to stack their turntables with records from both white and black artists[/b] ??? with perhaps a little bit of Motown, another musical thread of the time, thrown in, said Larry Starr, who wrote ???American Popular Music: From Minstrelsy to MTV,??? with Christopher Waterman. But that began changing in the late ???60s. By the time Jimi Hendrix became the ultimate symbol of counterculture cool, with his wild wardrobe and wilder guitar playing, the racial divisions were evident.
would love to see a source on the bolded portion
How is this a controversial claim?
You think white teens only listened to white artists and vice versa for black teens? There's a variety of ways to support that, not the least of which is looking at sales/radio charts from the 1960s and tracking the success of singles on both the R&B and pop charts. Then there's basic, oral history collection which, I think, would bear out the same claim.
BTW, I haven't read the NYT article, I'm just commenting on the sentence in question.
Rock was created by black artists like Fats Domino, Chuck Berry and Little Richard, and Elvis Presley and other white artists eventually picked up the sound. In the ???60s, teenagers were just as likely to stack their turntables with records from both white and black artists[/b] ??? with perhaps a little bit of Motown, another musical thread of the time, thrown in, said Larry Starr, who wrote ???American Popular Music: From Minstrelsy to MTV,??? with Christopher Waterman. But that began changing in the late ???60s. By the time Jimi Hendrix became the ultimate symbol of counterculture cool, with his wild wardrobe and wilder guitar playing, the racial divisions were evident.
would love to see a source on the bolded portion
This is common knowledge, man. Check out the charts from the 60s. Check out the rosters from American Bandstand. If anything, that might be the most truthful thing in that paragraph.
i'm questioning the idea that things have changed over time.
There were always teens rocking out to bobby darren or whateverthefuck just like there are teens now who only listen to the pixies. i don't really think that "by the time Jimi Hendrix became the ultimate symbol of counterculture cool...the racial divisions were evident" any moreso than they had been previously.
Rock was created by black artists like Fats Domino, Chuck Berry and Little Richard, and Elvis Presley and other white artists eventually picked up the sound. In the ???60s, teenagers were just as likely to stack their turntables with records from both white and black artists[/b] ??? with perhaps a little bit of Motown, another musical thread of the time, thrown in, said Larry Starr, who wrote ???American Popular Music: From Minstrelsy to MTV,??? with Christopher Waterman. But that began changing in the late ???60s. By the time Jimi Hendrix became the ultimate symbol of counterculture cool, with his wild wardrobe and wilder guitar playing, the racial divisions were evident.
would love to see a source on the bolded portion
This is common knowledge, man. Check out the charts from the 60s. Check out the rosters from American Bandstand. If anything, that might be the most truthful thing in that paragraph.
Neither of those phenomena are evidence of what teenagers were actually "stack[ing] their turntables with".
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
i'm questioning the idea that things have changed over time.
There were always teens rocking out to bobby darren or whateverthefuck just like there are teens now who only listen to the pixies. i don't really think that "by the time Jimi Hendrix became the ultimate symbol of counterculture cool...the racial divisions were evident" any moreso than they had been previously.
Just in my lifetime, I've noticed a dramatic change in that music nowadays seems to be much more stringently categorized along the lines of race by music marketers and unfortunatelty it seems to me at least that listeners have followed suit.
What did change around that time was white cultural acceptance of rock music (thnx elvis!) while black popular music moved in a different direction. i think saying that black audiences suddenly retreated into listening to only black artists is a specious claim at best with no supporting evidence.
it also puts white music post-60s central to the narrative - blacks move in relative position to 'rock music' rather than 'white' rock music being an offshoot of 'black' rock music.
i'm questioning the idea that things have changed over time.
There were always teens rocking out to bobby darren or whateverthefuck just like there are teens now who only listen to the pixies. i don't really think that "by the time Jimi Hendrix became the ultimate symbol of counterculture cool...the racial divisions were evident" any moreso than they had been previously.
Just in my lifetime, I've noticed a dramatic change in that music nowadays seems to be much more stringently categorized along the lines of race by music marketers and unfortunatelty it seems to me at least that listeners have followed suit.
really? moreso than when it was specifically called 'race music'?
it also puts white music post-60s central to the narrative - blacks move in relative position to 'rock music' rather than 'white' rock music being an offshoot of 'black' rock music.
What Dick Clark and various radio DJs were being paid to play.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
i'm questioning the idea that things have changed over time.
There were always teens rocking out to bobby darren or whateverthefuck just like there are teens now who only listen to the pixies. i don't really think that "by the time Jimi Hendrix became the ultimate symbol of counterculture cool...the racial divisions were evident" any moreso than they had been previously.
Just in my lifetime, I've noticed a dramatic change in that music nowadays seems to be much more stringently categorized along the lines of race by music marketers and unfortunatelty it seems to me at least that listeners have followed suit.
really? moreso than when it was specifically called 'race music'?
Were they still calling it that in 1971?
Just compare how many integrated bands there were back in the 70's versus there being so few today.
Look at how many black artists used to cover the Beatles versus how many black artists aren't covering ___ (fill in the blank) today.
I dunno, I could give a fuck about scientific evidence, but from what I've noticed as a person (rather than as a computer) is that compared to the 70's/80's shit is way more segregated today.
i'm questioning the idea that things have changed over time.
There were always teens rocking out to bobby darren or whateverthefuck just like there are teens now who only listen to the pixies. i don't really think that "by the time Jimi Hendrix became the ultimate symbol of counterculture cool...the racial divisions were evident" any moreso than they had been previously.
Just in my lifetime, I've noticed a dramatic change in that music nowadays seems to be much more stringently categorized along the lines of race by music marketers and unfortunatelty it seems to me at least that listeners have followed suit.
^^^^MAD AT PEOPLE POINTING AT THE PROJECT BLOWED FANS LOOK LIKE THIS:
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
i'm questioning the idea that things have changed over time.
There were always teens rocking out to bobby darren or whateverthefuck just like there are teens now who only listen to the pixies. i don't really think that "by the time Jimi Hendrix became the ultimate symbol of counterculture cool...the racial divisions were evident" any moreso than they had been previously.
Just in my lifetime, I've noticed a dramatic change in that music nowadays seems to be much more stringently categorized along the lines of race by music marketers and unfortunatelty it seems to me at least that listeners have followed suit.
^^^^MAD AT PEOPLE POINTING AT THE PROJECT BLOWED FANS LOOK LIKE THIS:
Nah, just mad that I can't break your thumbs through this here computer.
it also puts white music post-60s central to the narrative - blacks move in relative position to 'rock music' rather than 'white' rock music being an offshoot of 'black' rock music.
What are you even talking about here?
yeah sorry not v. clear
this is the way i read that paragraph:
1. blacks create rock music 2. in the 60s, white and black teenagers largely listen to both white and black music 3. in the 70s there was some kind of racial split in music appreciation 4. Although no one is blamed for 'causing' the split, by the time of Jimi Hendrix rock black artists had left rock and rock music had become "largely a genre played by white rockers and celebrated by white audiences."
basically how i read it: this interpretation implies that 'rock' = a genre whose borders are defined after the 60s as being 'largely a genre played by whites, celebrated by whites' that had been abandoned by blacks. rather than seeing black musical traditions throughout this period as being an unbroken narrative from whence came white rock music - white rock is the 'legit' continuation of the rock tradition, which blacks abandoned.
does that make more sense?
i mean, he doesn't outright say that white rock is the 'legit' continuation, but i think it reads that way just due to the language he uses to describe the situation.
it also puts white music post-60s central to the narrative - blacks move in relative position to 'rock music' rather than 'white' rock music being an offshoot of 'black' rock music.
What are you even talking about here?
yeah sorry not v. clear
this is the way i read that paragraph:
1. blacks create rock music 2. in the 60s, white and black teenagers largely listen to both white and black music 3. in the 70s there was some kind of racial split in music appreciation 4. Although no one is blamed for 'causing' the split, by the time of Jimi Hendrix rock black artists had left rock and rock music had become "largely a genre played by white rockers and celebrated by white audiences."
basically how i read it: this interpretation implies that 'rock' = a genre whose borders are defined after the 60s as being 'largely a genre played by whites, celebrated by whites' that had been abandoned by blacks. rather than seeing black musical traditions throughout this period as being an unbroken narrative from whence came white rock music - white rock is the 'legit' continuation of the rock tradition, which blacks abandoned.
does that make more sense?
i mean, he doesn't outright say that white rock is the 'legit' continuation, but i think it reads that way just due to the language he uses to describe the situation.
I'm confused as to what you're contesting: is it the methodololgy of looking at sales charts to determine listening habits or do you disagree with the the assertion of there being integrated listening habits in the 1960s?
not to detour too much from the music part of this thread, but there are a handful of US and international companies linked to the slave trade that many of us still do business with.
Should Jigga be aware of the link with Barclays?..i would say yes. Should it deter his willingness to do business with the company? perhaps, but I have a feeling that most of the companies that could front the $400M probably all have some sketchy history. Especially ones that have been around for hundreds of years.
jlee
1,539 Posts
Comments
Is it really true that Black people invented rock 'n roll? Jeesh, the NYT is just so interesting, and you always learn something when you read it.
you want a real good racist story check into Jay-Z's involvement with a bank that made its money off the slave trade and South African apparteid.
http://www.tmz.com/2007/01/30/jay-zs-team-nets-400m-from-ex-slave-trade-co/
Brooklyn Nets Holla
would love to see a source on the bolded portion
the article appeared in the 'sunday styles' section - where the editorial standards seem much much lower than the rest of the paper...
---
Hello Dolly
How is this a controversial claim?
You think white teens only listened to white artists and vice versa for black teens? There's a variety of ways to support that, not the least of which is looking at sales/radio charts from the 1960s and tracking the success of singles on both the R&B and pop charts. Then there's basic, oral history collection which, I think, would bear out the same claim.
BTW, I haven't read the NYT article, I'm just commenting on the sentence in question.
This is common knowledge, man. Check out the charts from the 60s. Check out the rosters from American Bandstand. If anything, that might be the most truthful thing in that paragraph.
There were always teens rocking out to bobby darren or whateverthefuck just like there are teens now who only listen to the pixies. i don't really think that "by the time Jimi Hendrix became the ultimate symbol of counterculture cool...the racial divisions were evident" any moreso than they had been previously.
Neither of those phenomena are evidence of what teenagers were actually "stack[ing] their turntables with".
Just in my lifetime, I've noticed a dramatic change in that music nowadays seems to be much more stringently categorized along the lines of race by music marketers and unfortunatelty it seems to me at least that listeners have followed suit.
it also puts white music post-60s central to the narrative - blacks move in relative position to 'rock music' rather than 'white' rock music being an offshoot of 'black' rock music.
What are you even talking about here?
What Dick Clark and various radio DJs were being paid to play.
Were they still calling it that in 1971?
Just compare how many integrated bands there were back in the 70's versus there being so few today.
Look at how many black artists used to cover the Beatles versus how many black artists aren't covering ___ (fill in the blank) today.
I dunno, I could give a fuck about scientific evidence, but from what I've noticed as a person (rather than as a computer) is that compared to the 70's/80's shit is way more segregated today.
I didn't know the Billboard Hot 100 has nothing to do with sales. Thanks for clarifying that one for me.
^^^^MAD AT PEOPLE POINTING AT THE PROJECT BLOWED FANS LOOK LIKE THIS:
Nah, just mad that I can't break your thumbs through this here computer.
this is the way i read that paragraph:
1. blacks create rock music
2. in the 60s, white and black teenagers largely listen to both white and black music
3. in the 70s there was some kind of racial split in music appreciation
4. Although no one is blamed for 'causing' the split, by the time of Jimi Hendrix rock black artists had left rock and rock music had become "largely a genre played by white rockers and celebrated by white audiences."
basically how i read it: this interpretation implies that 'rock' = a genre whose borders are defined after the 60s as being 'largely a genre played by whites, celebrated by whites' that had been abandoned by blacks. rather than seeing black musical traditions throughout this period as being an unbroken narrative from whence came white rock music - white rock is the 'legit' continuation of the rock tradition, which blacks abandoned.
does that make more sense?
i mean, he doesn't outright say that white rock is the 'legit' continuation, but i think it reads that way just due to the language he uses to describe the situation.
Spins do not = sales
I see where you're coming from.
I'm confused as to what you're contesting: is it the methodololgy of looking at sales charts to determine listening habits or do you disagree with the the assertion of there being integrated listening habits in the 1960s?
This has got to be a joke.
Do you know what the Billboard Hot 100 is?
wow, great fact checking...its been over 50 years ago....
not to detour too much from the music part of this thread, but there are a handful of US and international companies linked to the slave trade that many of us still do business with.
Should Jigga be aware of the link with Barclays?..i would say yes. Should it deter his willingness to do business with the company? perhaps, but I have a feeling that most of the companies that could front the $400M probably all have some sketchy history. Especially ones that have been around for hundreds of years.
another similar story from '02
And before the advent of SoundScan, the method of tabulating sales was pretty worthless (not that SoundScan is perfect, but it's a lot better).