The term encompasses listeners, performers and presenters.
Joel Send a noteboard - 23/03/2010 04:42:55 PM
Namely, that calling something "black music" means that only black people (are supposed to) enjoy listening to it. Can't it mean that a) it originated among black people, and/or b) most artists within the genre are black, without implying c) it appeals exclusively (or even just mostly) to black listeners?
And I think it's unduly restrictive in each case. Most (but far from all) jazz musicians are black and most (but far from all) physicists are white; that doesn't make jazz "black" music any more than it makes physics "white" science. Only in the sense that jazz originated in Southern black culture and entered a renaissance in Northern black culture after the turn of the 20th century is the term valid, but it's moved far beyond that now, a fact we should recognize and celebrate. The days when it was born and matured were days when it WAS nearly exclusively black music because its country or origin was officially segregated in the South and unofficially in the North. America, and jazz, have grown beyond that, to the credit of both. Ignoring the political reality, the musical reality is that jazz is both too widely accessible and too influential in other musical genres to be so narrowly defined.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Is it racist?: Commercial for Jazz/Soul radio
22/03/2010 01:47:45 PM
- 2685 Views
I don't think it's racist at all
22/03/2010 07:15:55 PM
- 714 Views
Uh.
22/03/2010 09:36:35 PM
- 827 Views
Re: Uh.
29/03/2010 07:03:14 PM
- 762 Views
I'm not Dutch, but that was a pretty ignornant claim
29/03/2010 07:20:09 PM
- 697 Views
Re: I'm not Dutch, but that was a pretty ignornant claim
29/03/2010 07:28:34 PM
- 790 Views
Not "higher" nor "lower," but "different" would be the word to use here
29/03/2010 07:46:15 PM
- 632 Views
Re: Not "higher" nor "lower," but "different" would be the word to use here
29/03/2010 07:53:56 PM
- 585 Views
This. ~points at Larry's post~ *NM*
29/03/2010 07:42:35 PM
- 399 Views
Re: This. ~points at Larry's post~
29/03/2010 07:57:30 PM
- 675 Views
Um.
29/03/2010 08:00:54 PM
- 823 Views
Re: Um.
29/03/2010 08:44:31 PM
- 615 Views
My question for you was on that one line that Larry responded to.
29/03/2010 08:46:26 PM
- 646 Views
She agrees with you about it not being racist - she had issues with your "crude" comment.
29/03/2010 08:59:44 PM
- 647 Views
I don't see it
22/03/2010 08:19:31 PM
- 681 Views
i'd say the actions in the commercial are more racist than the words
22/03/2010 10:00:02 PM
- 675 Views
It would not float here in the US
22/03/2010 10:07:08 PM
- 687 Views
Agreed.
23/03/2010 05:36:14 AM
- 838 Views
Could you please expand on one point in your reasoning?
23/03/2010 07:20:31 AM
- 684 Views
It's not race specific music if it's enjoyed/performed/presented by various races.
23/03/2010 07:32:33 AM
- 917 Views
MOBO
23/03/2010 10:20:22 AM
- 628 Views
The trouble lies in historical neuroses cooked in our melting pot, I think.
23/03/2010 11:29:06 AM
- 680 Views
Only if it's racist to mention the fact that different races exist. Which seems to be the US view.
23/03/2010 09:24:23 AM
- 670 Views
Agreed
23/03/2010 10:21:59 AM
- 700 Views
Some people are like that, yes, but at least it isn't the "accepted" media position. Yet. *NM*
23/03/2010 11:01:47 AM
- 354 Views
Not at all, the problem is when people seem to say something is exclusive to a given race.
23/03/2010 11:51:06 AM
- 912 Views
I agree with some of what you say, but I think you're assuming more than is warranted.
23/03/2010 02:33:34 PM
- 640 Views
The term encompasses listeners, performers and presenters.
23/03/2010 04:42:55 PM
- 724 Views