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?
I don't really have an opinion on how integrated listening habits were during the 1960s--it's simply too diffuse a set of phenomena for anyone to tabulate in a way that would satisfy me.
I do contest the idea that American Bandstand/radio airplay somehow provide a window into personal listening habits, though--or that they can provide us any insight into whether the people buying records by white artists are the same people buying records by Black artists.
For what it's worth, I've always thought the claim that Jim Hendrix lacked a Black audience was questionable.
What we do know is that Black people didn't generally show up at his shows, which isn't necessarily surprising given the acts he was often paired with and the type of live audience those bills tended to attract... but that doesn't establish that Black people weren't buying his records, and I've been in the collections of plenty of older Black folks that had Hendrix records in with the JB, EWF and Stylistics.
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.
good read, It's interesting to see which household name companies are floourishing nowadays off the work of slaves. I'm not sure how I feel about reparations by the US government, but if you are a profit making corporaton who did not pay your workers while raking in the dollars it's time to pay up. I'm guessing it would be hard to say who was working for whom so if I were in any of those companies postiions I'd be trying to build up predominantly black communities and let the world know this is being done to pay for our previous mistakes.
Charts are fun, but please let's not take them seriously. God forbid I turn into an empiricist but while charting is a flawed system for all the reasons noted (and beyond), it doesn't mean it's wholly worthless either. Things like sales charts, radio playlists, etc. are all valuable - thought surely debatable - sources of data that are at least preserved for historical record. That hardly makes them definitive but they can be, at the very least, a useful place to start (just not the end-all/be-all) in trying to analyze the past.
For example, census taking is a flawed practice, through and through, but it's also completely central to any number of ways in which we try to understand society and fashion policy. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater just because the methodology isn't air-tight. You try to improve on it and, at the same time, hopefully find MORE sources of data to either corroborate or challenge what you have.
"But 40 years after black musicians laid down the foundations of rock"
wow, great fact checking...its been over 50 years ago....
I didn't read the article. Good call on my part. I think the whole premise of the article is as false as the claim that "(B)lack musicians laid down the foundations of rock" in 1967.
That Blacks listen to one type of music, and Whites another, is ok for marketers, but bullshit for a serious (or even the NYT) paper.
Faux was talking about finding Hendrix in collections with the JB, EWF and Stylistics. I will add that I find Merle Haggard, Johnny Mathis and Cleo Laine in those collections.
Trying to typecast someone listening preference based on appearance is a losing game. I've made that mistake many times, to my regreat.
Charts are fun, but please let's not take them seriously.
God forbid I turn into an empiricist but while charting is a flawed system for all the reasons noted (and beyond), it doesn't mean it's wholly worthless either. Things like sales charts, radio playlists, etc. are all valuable - thought surely debatable - sources of data that are at least preserved for historical record. That hardly makes them definitive but they can be, at the very least, a useful place to start (just not the end-all/be-all) in trying to analyze the past.
For example, census taking is a flawed practice, through and through, but it's also completely central to any number of ways in which we try to understand society and fashion policy. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater just because the methodology isn't air-tight. You try to improve on it and, at the same time, hopefully find MORE sources of data to either corroborate or challenge what you have.
Hughe Madsen?
If I am not mistaken, none of this huff addresses the basic point that charts/airplay/American Bandstand tell us nothing whatsoever about the proportions in which individual consumers were actually buying and listening to records by Black and/or white artists. They reflect only programming decisions and raw sales data that isn't broken down in a way that is meaningful to this dicussion.
If I am not mistaken, none of this huff addresses the basic point that charts/airplay/American Bandstand tell us nothing whatsoever about the proportions in which individual consumers were actually buying and listening to records by Black and/or white artists. They reflect only programming decisions and raw sales data that isn't broken down in a way that is meaningful to this dicussion.
I'm not so certain about that. If you were to track, for example, a high-selling single in the R&B column (let's just assume this is back in the 1960s) and then see it tracing an upward curve into the pop charts, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that said single crossed over between racialized audiences. These kinds of charts may not have 100% accuracy in terms of actual consumption patterns but they're not random fiction either. Just because they can't tell the whole story doesn't mean they don't get some of it right. Just to add, I wouldn't put much faith in this kind of data if the anecdotal data didn't also support the same basic contentions.
Regardless, this is all a rather tangential debate to the core point of the article (or people's disagreements with it).
Charts are fun, but please let's not take them seriously.
God forbid I turn into an empiricist but while charting is a flawed system for all the reasons noted (and beyond), it doesn't mean it's wholly worthless either. Things like sales charts, radio playlists, etc. are all valuable - thought surely debatable - sources of data that are at least preserved for historical record. That hardly makes them definitive but they can be, at the very least, a useful place to start (just not the end-all/be-all) in trying to analyze the past.
For example, census taking is a flawed practice, through and through, but it's also completely central to any number of ways in which we try to understand society and fashion policy. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater just because the methodology isn't air-tight. You try to improve on it and, at the same time, hopefully find MORE sources of data to either corroborate or challenge what you have. Census gathering is very carefully done. The information is then analyzed by statisticians and corrected for sampling errors. As you say, it is flawed, but useful.
The charts are done for the purpose of marketing. They were never designed to be a historical record. As a reflection of sales or spins no attempt has ever been made to correct sampling errors. For example today Wal-Mart dominates soundscan, and thus the charts. Billboard makes no attempt to correct this sampling error by finding out what mom and pop shops and niche Internet retailers are selling.
Or course that is not what we are talking about. Someone suggested that we could determine what Black and White people used to listen to by looking at the charts. This is just false. The Race/R&B/Soul/Urban charts never meant to reflect what Blacks were buying. Instead those charts were designed to reflect the sales (and spins) of what was being marketed to Blacks.
Here are some notes from Joel Whitburns Top R&B Singles 1942-1988:
"After several years the content of this Top 30 Rhythm & Blues chart was top-heavy with pop artists and pop titles... It was discontinued on November 30, 1963"
That's right folks, Black people were buying too many pop artists so they had to discontinue the R&B charts. For 14 months Billboard did not publish an R&B chart because their tracking of Black buying trends included too many White artists. When the chart was reintroduced they went out of their way to keep artists marketed to Blacks out of the pop charts, and artists marketed to Whites out of the Soul charts.
As you can see using Billboard charts to prove or disprove anything about race is as stupid as the article that started this thread. (You didn't write it did you?)
If I am not mistaken, none of this huff addresses the basic point that charts/airplay/American Bandstand tell us nothing whatsoever about the proportions in which individual consumers were actually buying and listening to records by Black and/or white artists. They reflect only programming decisions and raw sales data that isn't broken down in a way that is meaningful to this dicussion.
I'm not so certain about that. If you were to track, for example, a high-selling single in the R&B column (let's just assume this is back in the 1960s) and then see it tracing an upward curve into the pop charts, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that said single crossed over between racialized audiences. These kinds of charts may not have 100% accuracy in terms of actual consumption patterns but they're not random fiction either. Just because they can't tell the whole story doesn't mean they don't get some of it right. Just to add, I wouldn't put much faith in this kind of data if the anecdotal data didn't also support the same basic contentions.
We can extrapolate that it reached a higher sales stratum through the purchases of white consumers who also, presumably, sometimes bought records by white artists, sure. You hardly need a chart to know that.
But how does this differ from the present? Remember the contention is that "records by Black and white artists no longer mingle on the turntables of teenagers in the way that they used to" or some such schitt. How can the data be broken down in a way that meaningfully substantiates that one?
If I am not mistaken, none of this huff addresses the basic point that charts/airplay/American Bandstand tell us nothing whatsoever about the proportions in which individual consumers were actually buying and listening to records by Black and/or white artists. They reflect only programming decisions and raw sales data that isn't broken down in a way that is meaningful to this dicussion.
I'm not so certain about that. If you were to track, for example, a high-selling single in the R&B column (let's just assume this is back in the 1960s) and then see it tracing an upward curve into the pop charts, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that said single crossed over between racialized audiences. These kinds of charts may not have 100% accuracy in terms of actual consumption patterns but they're not random fiction either. Just because they can't tell the whole story doesn't mean they don't get some of it right. Just to add, I wouldn't put much faith in this kind of data if the anecdotal data didn't also support the same basic contentions.
We can extrapolate that it reached a higher sales stratum through the purchases of white consumers who also, presumably, sometimes bought records by white artists, sure. You hardly need a chart to know that.
But how does this differ from the present? Remember the contention is that "records by Black and white artists no longer mingle on the turntables of teenagers in the way that they used to" or some such schitt. How can the data be broken down in a way that meaningfully substantiates that one?
I've recently seen some White teenagers ipods and Black and White artists comingle. I have no doubt that same is true for Black teenagers. What is even more true is, individuals listen to whatever they like, without worrying about the race of the artists. This is true for Whites and Blacks, racists and people celebrating divirsity.
If I am not mistaken, none of this huff addresses the basic point that charts/airplay/American Bandstand tell us nothing whatsoever about the proportions in which individual consumers were actually buying and listening to records by Black and/or white artists. They reflect only programming decisions and raw sales data that isn't broken down in a way that is meaningful to this dicussion.
I'm not so certain about that. If you were to track, for example, a high-selling single in the R&B column (let's just assume this is back in the 1960s) and then see it tracing an upward curve into the pop charts, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that said single crossed over between racialized audiences. These kinds of charts may not have 100% accuracy in terms of actual consumption patterns but they're not random fiction either. Just because they can't tell the whole story doesn't mean they don't get some of it right. Just to add, I wouldn't put much faith in this kind of data if the anecdotal data didn't also support the same basic contentions.
We can extrapolate that it reached a higher sales stratum through the purchases of white consumers who also, presumably, sometimes bought records by white artists, sure. You hardly need a chart to know that.
But how does this differ from the present? Remember the contention is that "records by Black and white artists no longer mingle on the turntables of teenagers in the way that they used to" or some such schitt. How can the data be broken down in a way that meaningfully substantiates that one?
That wasn't the contention. That was Harvey's contention, but I don't think that's what ODub and I have been arguing--certainly not me.
I've recently seen some White teenagers ipods and Black and White artists comingle. I have no doubt that same is true for Black teenagers. What is even more true is, individuals listen to whatever they like, without worrying about the race of the artists. This is true for Whites and Blacks, racists and people celebrating divirsity.
you've failed soulstrut
how dare you say that black people and white people don't act differnt based on the color they are born with
next you'll be saying that we should treat them like equals
If I am not mistaken, none of this huff addresses the basic point that charts/airplay/American Bandstand tell us nothing whatsoever about the proportions in which individual consumers were actually buying and listening to records by Black and/or white artists. They reflect only programming decisions and raw sales data that isn't broken down in a way that is meaningful to this dicussion.
I'm not so certain about that. If you were to track, for example, a high-selling single in the R&B column (let's just assume this is back in the 1960s) and then see it tracing an upward curve into the pop charts, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that said single crossed over between racialized audiences. These kinds of charts may not have 100% accuracy in terms of actual consumption patterns but they're not random fiction either. Just because they can't tell the whole story doesn't mean they don't get some of it right. Just to add, I wouldn't put much faith in this kind of data if the anecdotal data didn't also support the same basic contentions.
We can extrapolate that it reached a higher sales stratum through the purchases of white consumers who also, presumably, sometimes bought records by white artists, sure. You hardly need a chart to know that.
But how does this differ from the present? Remember the contention is that "records by Black and white artists no longer mingle on the turntables of teenagers in the way that they used to" or some such schitt. How can the data be broken down in a way that meaningfully substantiates that one?
That wasn't the contention. That was Harvey's contention, but I don't think that's what ODub and I have been arguing--certainly not me.
That is the article's contention: the 60s represented a racially open-minded teenage musical utopia, but color lines hardened over subsequent decades and now a new generation of Black kids is rebelling via bad haircuts, bad shoes and bad music.
Ha, this is why I said my point was a tangent. It originated, not with the essay, but with Deej's asking: "how does one know what white or black teenagers were stacking on their turntables back in the '60s?"
I'm not touching the argument that Faux is citing since I haven't read the article yet.
Ha, this is why I said my point was a tangent. It originated, not with the essay, but with Deej's asking: "how does one know what white or black teenagers were stacking on their turntables back in the '60s?"
Same here.
I agree with you about the article's contention, though, D.
"how does one know what white or black teenagers were stacking on their turntables back in the '60s?"
By buying old record collections. When some one brings me a stack of grandads 78s from the 30s and 40s there is Basie and Shaw side by side. True for both Black and White grandads. When they bring me a stack of dads 45s from the 50s; Elvis and Ivory Joe Hunter, 60s; Supremes and Hendrix (do they count as Black or White artists?). Let me say 60s; Belafonte and Mathis (opps I'll try again) 60s; Cole and Sinatra, opps, 60s; Pickett and Beatles. 70s; we've all seen this, every rock collection has Wonder, Hathaway, Flack, Franklin and Mayfield. Not to mention Hendrix, Taj Mahal, BB King and Sly. Likewise soul collections are likely to have Steely Dan and Rod Stewart. I think things were about the same in 80s 90s and 00s. People tend to like music. Rock and soul collections of more than 75 records are likely to have country, classical, ez and other musical styles.
The billboard charts will back what I have said.
We all know White people into Black music. I know Black people deep into bluegrass, classical, Irish fiddle tunes.
I've recently seen some White teenagers ipods and Black and White artists comingle. I have no doubt that same is true for Black teenagers. What is even more true is, individuals listen to whatever they like, without worrying about the race of the artists. This is true for Whites and Blacks, racists and people celebrating divirsity.
you've failed soulstrut
how dare you say that black people and white people don't act differnt based on the color they are born with
next you'll be saying that we should treat them like equals
I've recently seen some White teenagers ipods and Black and White artists comingle. I have no doubt that same is true for Black teenagers. What is even more true is, individuals listen to whatever they like, without worrying about the race of the artists. This is true for Whites and Blacks, racists and people celebrating divirsity.
you've failed soulstrut
how dare you say that black people and white people don't act differnt based on the color they are born with
next you'll be saying that we should treat them like equals
I've never seen that point made here.
isn't this thread based on an article about black people acting like (white) hipsters?
wasn't the argument afterwards about what black people listened to vs. what white people listened to?
the undertones of many of these race threads are the differences between how black and white people are. What music they listen to, how their parents treat them, etc.
the idea of people being equal (despite of diffences in color) has never been something soulstrut has seemed to perscribe to
don't beleive me, lets just ask about the "real black experience" or how "white" one may sound
Ha, this is why I said my point was a tangent. It originated, not with the essay, but with Deej's asking: "how does one know what white or black teenagers were stacking on their turntables back in the '60s?"
I'm not touching the argument that Faux is citing since I haven't read the article yet.
pedantic i suppose, but that isn't exactly what i was getting at; i was concerned with the assertion that there was some kind of shift, which was the argument stated in the passage i quoted!
I've recently seen some White teenagers ipods and Black and White artists comingle. I have no doubt that same is true for Black teenagers. What is even more true is, individuals listen to whatever they like, without worrying about the race of the artists. This is true for Whites and Blacks, racists and people celebrating divirsity.
you've failed soulstrut
how dare you say that black people and white people don't act differnt based on the color they are born with
next you'll be saying that we should treat them like equals
I've never seen that point made here.
Dan, you seem to be having trouble picking up the voices inside Guzzle's head--may I suggest tinfoil bunny ears?
wasn't the argument afterwards about what black people listened to vs. what white people listened to?
No, actually, it wasn't.
"We can extrapolate that it (records) reached a higher sales stratum through the purchases of white consumers who also, presumably, sometimes bought records by white artists, sure. You hardly need a chart to know that.
But how does this differ from the present? Remember the contention is that "records by Black and white artists no longer mingle on the turntables of teenagers in the way that they used to" or some such schitt. How can the data be broken down in a way that meaningfully substantiates that one?"
"f I am not mistaken, none of this huff addresses the basic point that charts/airplay/American Bandstand tell us nothing whatsoever about the proportions in which individual consumers were actually buying and listening to records by Black and/or white artists".
Oh I'm sorry I guess the argument was what records by black people were teenagers listening to vs. what records by white people were teenagers listening to
The idea of splitting people up by colors is defintely not apparent there.
Comments
I don't really have an opinion on how integrated listening habits were during the 1960s--it's simply too diffuse a set of phenomena for anyone to tabulate in a way that would satisfy me.
I do contest the idea that American Bandstand/radio airplay somehow provide a window into personal listening habits, though--or that they can provide us any insight into whether the people buying records by white artists are the same people buying records by Black artists.
For what it's worth, I've always thought the claim that Jim Hendrix lacked a Black audience was questionable.
What we do know is that Black people didn't generally show up at his shows, which isn't necessarily surprising given the acts he was often paired with and the type of live audience those bills tended to attract... but that doesn't establish that Black people weren't buying his records, and I've been in the collections of plenty of older Black folks that had Hendrix records in with the JB, EWF and Stylistics.
please to define lower than the bottom.
Isn't it called The National Review?
good read, It's interesting to see which household name companies are floourishing nowadays off the work of slaves. I'm not sure how I feel about reparations by the US government, but if you are a profit making corporaton who did not pay your workers while raking in the dollars it's time to pay up. I'm guessing it would be hard to say who was working for whom so if I were in any of those companies postiions I'd be trying to build up predominantly black communities and let the world know this is being done to pay for our previous mistakes.
Do you know what the Billboard Hot 100 is?
A joke?
Charts are fun, but please let's not take them seriously.
A joke?
Charts are fun, but please let's not take them seriously.
God forbid I turn into an empiricist but while charting is a flawed system for all the reasons noted (and beyond), it doesn't mean it's wholly worthless either. Things like sales charts, radio playlists, etc. are all valuable - thought surely debatable - sources of data that are at least preserved for historical record. That hardly makes them definitive but they can be, at the very least, a useful place to start (just not the end-all/be-all) in trying to analyze the past.
For example, census taking is a flawed practice, through and through, but it's also completely central to any number of ways in which we try to understand society and fashion policy. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater just because the methodology isn't air-tight. You try to improve on it and, at the same time, hopefully find MORE sources of data to either corroborate or challenge what you have.
I didn't read the article. Good call on my part. I think the whole premise of the article is as false as the claim that "(B)lack musicians laid down the foundations of rock" in 1967.
That Blacks listen to one type of music, and Whites another, is ok for marketers, but bullshit for a serious (or even the NYT) paper.
Faux was talking about finding Hendrix in collections with the JB, EWF and Stylistics. I will add that I find Merle Haggard, Johnny Mathis and Cleo Laine in those collections.
Trying to typecast someone listening preference based on appearance is a losing game. I've made that mistake many times, to my regreat.
youre getting an awful lot of mileage out of this metaphor. is there something on your mind?
I need to switch up my idiom science. Break some new catchphrases on ya'll like my man John Brown.
Hughe Madsen?
If I am not mistaken, none of this huff addresses the basic point that charts/airplay/American Bandstand tell us nothing whatsoever about the proportions in which individual consumers were actually buying and listening to records by Black and/or white artists. They reflect only programming decisions and raw sales data that isn't broken down in a way that is meaningful to this dicussion.
im fresh out. however, i did notice...
RETURN OF[/b]
I'm not so certain about that. If you were to track, for example, a high-selling single in the R&B column (let's just assume this is back in the 1960s) and then see it tracing an upward curve into the pop charts, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that said single crossed over between racialized audiences. These kinds of charts may not have 100% accuracy in terms of actual consumption patterns but they're not random fiction either. Just because they can't tell the whole story doesn't mean they don't get some of it right. Just to add, I wouldn't put much faith in this kind of data if the anecdotal data didn't also support the same basic contentions.
Regardless, this is all a rather tangential debate to the core point of the article (or people's disagreements with it).
God forbid I turn into an empiricist but while charting is a flawed system for all the reasons noted (and beyond), it doesn't mean it's wholly worthless either. Things like sales charts, radio playlists, etc. are all valuable - thought surely debatable - sources of data that are at least preserved for historical record. That hardly makes them definitive but they can be, at the very least, a useful place to start (just not the end-all/be-all) in trying to analyze the past.
For example, census taking is a flawed practice, through and through, but it's also completely central to any number of ways in which we try to understand society and fashion policy. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater just because the methodology isn't air-tight. You try to improve on it and, at the same time, hopefully find MORE sources of data to either corroborate or challenge what you have.
Census gathering is very carefully done. The information is then analyzed by statisticians and corrected for sampling errors. As you say, it is flawed, but
useful.
The charts are done for the purpose of marketing. They were never designed to be a historical record. As a reflection of sales or spins no attempt has ever been made to correct sampling errors. For example today Wal-Mart dominates soundscan, and thus the charts. Billboard makes no attempt to correct this sampling error by finding out what mom and pop shops and niche Internet retailers are selling.
Or course that is not what we are talking about. Someone suggested that we could determine what Black and White people used to listen to by looking at the charts. This is just false. The Race/R&B/Soul/Urban charts never meant to reflect what Blacks were buying. Instead those charts were designed to reflect the sales (and spins) of what was being marketed to Blacks.
Here are some notes from Joel Whitburns Top R&B Singles 1942-1988:
"After several years the content of this Top 30 Rhythm & Blues chart was top-heavy with pop artists and pop titles... It was discontinued on November 30, 1963"
That's right folks, Black people were buying too many pop artists so they had to discontinue the R&B charts. For 14 months Billboard did not publish an R&B chart because their tracking of Black buying trends included too many White artists. When the chart was reintroduced they went out of their way to keep artists marketed to Blacks out of the pop charts, and artists marketed to Whites out of the Soul charts.
As you can see using Billboard charts to prove or disprove anything about race is as stupid as the article that started this thread. (You didn't write it did you?)
We can extrapolate that it reached a higher sales stratum through the purchases of white consumers who also, presumably, sometimes bought records by white artists, sure. You hardly need a chart to know that.
But how does this differ from the present? Remember the contention is that "records by Black and white artists no longer mingle on the turntables of teenagers in the way that they used to" or some such schitt. How can the data be broken down in a way that meaningfully substantiates that one?
I've recently seen some White teenagers ipods and Black and White artists comingle. I have no doubt that same is true for Black teenagers. What is even more true is, individuals listen to whatever they like, without worrying about the race of the artists. This is true for Whites and Blacks, racists and people celebrating divirsity.
That wasn't the contention. That was Harvey's contention, but I don't think that's what ODub and I have been arguing--certainly not me.
you've failed soulstrut
how dare you say that black people and white people don't act differnt based on the color they are born with
next you'll be saying that we should treat them like equals
That is the article's contention: the 60s represented a racially open-minded teenage musical utopia, but color lines hardened over subsequent decades and now a new generation of Black kids is rebelling via bad haircuts, bad shoes and bad music.
I'm not touching the argument that Faux is citing since I haven't read the article yet.
Same here.
I agree with you about the article's contention, though, D.
I'm surprised no one has talked about this. It's incredibly sad and shows just how deep rooted things are.
By buying old record collections. When some one brings me a stack of grandads 78s from the 30s and 40s there is Basie and Shaw side by side. True for both Black and White grandads. When they bring me a stack of dads 45s from the 50s; Elvis and Ivory Joe Hunter, 60s; Supremes and Hendrix (do they count as Black or White artists?). Let me say 60s; Belafonte and Mathis (opps I'll try again) 60s; Cole and Sinatra, opps, 60s; Pickett and Beatles. 70s; we've all seen this, every rock collection has Wonder, Hathaway, Flack, Franklin and Mayfield. Not to mention Hendrix, Taj Mahal, BB King and Sly. Likewise soul collections are likely to have Steely Dan and Rod Stewart. I think things were about the same in 80s 90s and 00s. People tend to like music. Rock and soul collections of more than 75 records are likely to have country, classical, ez and other musical styles.
The billboard charts will back what I have said.
We all know White people into Black music. I know Black people deep into bluegrass, classical, Irish fiddle tunes.
isn't this thread based on an article about black people acting like (white) hipsters?
wasn't the argument afterwards about what black people listened to vs. what white people listened to?
the undertones of many of these race threads are the differences between how black and white people are. What music they listen to, how their parents treat them, etc.
the idea of people being equal (despite of diffences in color) has never been something soulstrut has seemed to perscribe to
don't beleive me, lets just ask about the "real black experience" or how "white" one may sound
Kiri Davis
"a girl like me"
No, actually, it wasn't.
Dan, you seem to be having trouble picking up the voices inside Guzzle's head--may I suggest tinfoil bunny ears?
Oh I'm sorry I guess the argument was what records by black people were teenagers listening to vs. what records by white people were teenagers listening to
The idea of splitting people up by colors is defintely not apparent there.