Is anyone else getting tired of the hacky "black people invented it but white people stole it!" narrative that is often project into pop music?
I sweat I'm not Sup Forums, I just think this thing has been so overplayed that it's actually becoming denigrating to entire communities (often poor, working class, etc) that pioneered different genres of music. They're often stereotyped as privileged white kids copying the work of black musicians in a malicious way.
Other urls found in this thread:
twitter.com
en.wikipedia.org
hyperallergic.com
technologyreview.com
arxiv.org
myredditnudes.com
twitter.com
I'm not tired of it because if I don't want to hear someone say that, I just turn of my computer and go outside.
Agree with you, it's not like there was no music before they 'invented' 'their' genres. Everything is influenced by something
theoretically
in reality you don't
>I'm not tired of it because if I don't want to hear someone say that, I just turn of my computer and go outside.
"black people invented it but white people stole it!"
I also don't mind hearing it. It doesn't bother me that people believe things I don't even if they're wrong.
So you haven't turned off your computer?
That's all the e idence I needed. I am officially joining the BLM movement and I'm going to make sure everyone knows that white people have made no cultural contributions to society in the past century.
These guys dont know shit about music, they saw a biased documentary and now they think they are hot shit for it.
Because MC5, the kinks, the Stooges and many others didnt popularize protopunk and punk before them, oh no, three black guys a few years later did it and there was no punk before them.
yeah shouldn't you be outside right now, just meandering around in your lawn
Work on your reasoning skills :)
If I don't want to hear someone say it, Ill turn of my computer. I've said I don't particularly mind hearing it, so even though someone said it, it doesn't follow that I should turn off my computer
so you're basically a junkie who says "i can quit anytime i want!"
you won't leave this thread and you won't get off the computer. i can guarantee that because you're here
FACT:
Black people made drum music in Africa (progenitor of modern dance music).
Black people made spirituals -> blues -> rock 'n roll
Just because you're mad about the facts doesn't make you right, kids.
They did invent, blues, jazz, techno and hip-hop, which are the foundations for pretty much all modern popular music
>They're often stereotyped as privileged white kids copying the work of black musicians in a malicious way
99% of the music class i was in fits to this meme. it´s not total bullshit you know, white males being unoriginal is a thing
no you're just wrong you obvious SJW
seriously you'd think people would learn history before talking
And BTFO
Good thread OP
The roots of American popular music are a mix of European/American folk music and African-American folk music. Like American folk music, African-American folk music was itself influenced by European folk music, but there was also a kind of primitivism that was unique to African-American folk music (i.e. it was to a larger degree than American folk music, new). African-American's invented blues, which is arguably the most profound aspect of the DNA of rock music. But basically, white people took the innovations of those African-American musicians (as well as white musicians to a lesser extent) and took it to the next level. Of course as popular music really became it's own thing and evolved into an art form, most of the influential musicians were white.
fuuuuuuckkkk
what's the most simple and direct contradiction to that nonsense?
Easy
Stop being an autist
White people did copy it, but not for long. They took parts of black music and made it part of their musical language. Not to mention that those African-Americans themselves were influenced by European music (protip: the guitar is a Spanish instrument). Black musicians weren't creating psychedelic rock and post-punk en masse. No one should deny the profound influence of black music on popular music, but neither should they make the over-simplistic assumption that white people contributed nothing to its development when ultimately they contributed more, especially to its later developments.
>when ultimately they contributed more
White people did fucking nothing innovative with popular music, they just made it more "classical" in structure and harmony.
Black people LITERALLY INVENTED THE FORMS AND STYLES.
Learn your fucking history, kid.
8/10 bait
Explain how I'm wrong.
5/10 bait
this is the right way to live, dont correct the idiots if it has even the slightest chance of benefiting you in the future or the present by not telling them.
>playing the shitty semantics game
Reed
There were punk bands before them
>Is anyone else getting tired of the hacky "black people invented it but white people stole it!" narrative that is often project into pop music?
It's only half true. In the case of rock music, it's was an equal combination of black and white music.
Have you even listened to rock music? I think we can agree that African-American folk music forms the greater half of the foundation, but to deny the important influence of country and other forms of European/American folk music (especially country music) is insolent and ignorant. You are correct to assume that popular musics evolution after the mid-60s became distinctly influenced by avant-garde classical music, but also muzak and a plethora of other things, including music from around the world (personally, I'm inclined to think that Asian and African music had a profound and unsung influence as well via minimalism and the emerging precedence of ethnomusicologists recordings the folk musics of the world). It became a music that absorbed everything, black music included.
To say it's equal is an oversimplification, but it's a hell of a lot more accurate than saying that black music was the only influence on popular music.
>blacks invented everything
maybe, but whites made it not shit
>arrows equal causation
Wanna back any of that up?
Or are the little arrows meant to suffice?
>To say it's equal is an oversimplification
Incorrect. Do you even know how rock was created?
with geetars
>(protip: the guitar is a Spanish instrument)
The guitar comes from the berbers who settled in the iberian peninsula though, there's also the fact of how europeans appropiated middle eastern instruments
If you're referring to rock music as in Howlin' Wolf type stuff, then I'd partially agree, though musics from all around the world probably influenced it indirectly. If you view rock music as the dynamic thing that I think it is, then Asian musics (particularly Indonesian) profoundly influenced 20th century Minimalism, and through that and recordings of Asian folk music, rock music. Did you know that Brian Jones was one of the first to do a field recording of Indonesian music?
>indirectly
Slippery slope logic, must discard
You're actually correct and have invalidated that point of mine. An instrument is just an instrument, and there is no reason to assume that it would be tied to the playing techniques commonly associated with the instrument. African-American music was definitely influenced by European/American music though, though I don't even know if you're disagreeing with me in that regard.
Whos this guy again?
Fine, but if Indonesian music influenced Minimalism, then Indonesian music influenced rock.
What because of Brian Jones' field recordings? That's a stretch.
No, because of the profound use of ostinato and the quasi-stagnant counterpoint of the music.
Space Ho's Toast to Toast
Even if the appropriation bit were true, I don't see how these culture police would be able to prevent white people from performing rock music or punish those who do.
I guess, but was that really intentional?
Soooooooooooooo summer in here.
The anti-appropriation thing is cancer and will surely be abandoned when people start thinking about things more rationally. The only appropriation thing that is bad is to take something and then claim that your culture invented it, which I guess in this particular instance, the American record companies tried to do with Elvis (but even Elvis acknowledged his debt to Howlin' Wolf and others). Even those record companies were doing something more along the lines of "not lying, but not telling the truth", as I don't think they tried to say that Elvis invented rock. If they did though, then that's clearly a crime, but not the crimes of white artists making music in a style that's influenced by black music. All cultures should be belittled and ridiculed. Do you know why? Because they're all ridiculous when you view them outside of themselves.
>White people take inspiration from ethnic music
>cultural appropriation
>Nonwhites take inspiration from white music
>evil imperialist white culture brainwashing naive colored people
You can't win either way OP. Just vote for someone sensible like Trump and hope for the best.
>Black talking about
>"WHITE BOYS MUSIC!!!!"
>heavy laughing
damn
No, in many cases it probably wasn't, but I don't think that invalidates anything. The Velvet Underground were definitely consciously influenced by it though, and many would argue they're the most influential popular music group of all time.
>The only appropriation thing that is bad is to take something and then claim that your culture invented it, which I guess in this particular instance, the American record companies tried to do with Elvis (but even Elvis acknowledged his debt to Howlin' Wolf and others)
I wish more people understood this.
>The Velvet Underground were definitely consciously influenced by it though, and many would argue they're the most influential popular music group of all time.
That would be foolish, as many bands really don't care about them and weren't influenced by them at all.
Of course many weren't. But many of the most important (i.e. original) historical moments in the history of rock music certainly were (especially in post-punk, psychedelic music, lo-fi music, folk-as-in-not-real-folk music, and even sound collage (though Zappa is perhaps the most influential in regards to sound collage)). The problem with many rock listeners (not saying you're one of them), is that they don't explore enough, and actually have no idea of the true magnitude of the heterogeneity in rock music aesthetics. It's also wrong to assume that number of people influenced matters as much as which people were influenced.
The problem with many rock listeners (not saying you're one of them), is that they simply think what they enjoy most is the most important, and misconstrue that to be orignal and actually have no idea of the true magnitude of the heterogeneity in rock music aesthetics.
It's also wrong to assume that the quality and which of people influenced matters as much as number of people who were influenced.
Originality is certainly a nebulous-at-best thing to ascribe to particular musics, but I think that to some degree we can evaluate it objectively. Originality is a characteristic that emerges from the sum of its' parts, which can mean that maybe only one aspect of it is original (e.g. a singers voice/style, a guitarists' unique manner of guitar playing, a unique form, etc.). Perhaps you can argue that originality =/= importance, but I choose to side with those who value originality. I also don't think it matters to the aesthetic quality of something if you influence anyone. It only means that people have been influenced by some technical aspect of your music and have adopted it, thus propelling the evolution of music forward, which is an achievement itself (though not an aesthetic one).
And when you influence particular people, you can influence many by proxy.
>but I think that to some degree we can evaluate it objectively
We really can't because "originality" is a subjective term altogether.
>Originality is a characteristic that emerges from the sum of its' parts
Or rather, it emerges depending on the lack of musical knowledge and context of that individual listener. If I haven't heard it before, it's orignal to me; if you have heard it before, it is not orignal to you. Innovation is simply an illusion.
>which can mean that maybe only one aspect of it is original (e.g. a singers voice/style, a guitarists' unique manner of guitar playing, a unique form, etc.)
By this logic then all music is original, which delineates the definition. We must discard this notion.
Did you drop your trip Avant Math?
Originality is subjective in the sense that yes, we can never listen to everything, and thus there will always be something "original"/new to us. I think though, that if we make the effort to be as expansive in our listening as possible (using a manner as rigorous as is possible), we can without reasonable doubt assume something is original at times. With the rise of the internet especially, there's no reason to not be able to listen to even the most obscure artists who may have the ability to destroy your notion that a particular artist is original. Using spectral analysis and other techniques, we may even be able to have computers evaluate originality for us.
Lastly, some voices are clearly very distinct and some are not (e.g. Tim Buckley, Maria Callas, etc.). Perhaps there is someone else in the world with the same voice as that person, but they are in all likelihood not making the same kind of music (especially if the music is original in other qualities). Likewise, some manners of playing any instrument are clearly distinct and some are clearly purely derivative.
I am not Avant Math, but he must be a pretty cool guy.
>genre
>invent
I think I see the problem.
The term rock refers to a rock n' roll music in addition to all popular music, which is not a genre. "All popular musics" is similarly as broad as saying "all folk musics".
No
sure you do, sure
I think it has more to do with which party is profiting from said culture. If the appropriating party successfully commercializes the work of another, it begs the question: is the profit generation based inherently on the advances made through appropriation, or because of more arbitrary means (white ppl finally being able to relate to rock because a white guy is doing it, pop stars coasting on other people's songwriting talents because they're pretty to look at, etc.)
Money corrupts art. I think it's too much to ask of consumers to "do their homework" and dig through the roots of whatever music they like to find the "inventor" of whatever music they like (implying they'd like the roots of said style anyway). I don't really know how the problem would be solved without abandoning free market principles pertaining to music.
WE
Dylan's got an incredible flow on Subterranean Homesick Alien, guess Big Daddy Kane is a plagiarist.
WUZ
No, because I love to hate SJW argumentation.
this
MEMES
Why? it doesn't effect you.
This shit is the equivalent of that retarded kid in every school that claimed everything was his.
>effect
Should be "affect".
What doesn't affect me?
Yup, as if folk and Celtic music never existed before 1900's
>What doesn't affect me?
SJW "argumentation"
...
Actually, it does. It affects you, too.
>en.wikipedia.org
Plus I find it interesting
>Nonwhites take inspiration from white music
>evil imperialist white culture brainwashing naive colored people
what? i was expecting a strawman but i've literally never heard anyone make an argument like this
>It affects you, too.
Not really, I'm more likely to get hired than a minority.
Have you personally been affected by Affirmative Action? Please give us an example.
It is indeed possible to meassure originality objectively though, and it has already been done.
hyperallergic.com
technologyreview.com
arxiv.org
This
haha i hate myself
>there is only one singular way to interpret art
Never did I say that, read again
>It is indeed possible to meassure originality objectively though
>Never did I say that
No you linked to several articles that claims to measure originality by interpreting art only one singular way.
>only one singular way
Which would be?
Even then, it shows that it's possible to measure originality with whatever parameters you choose.
not an argument
>They're often stereotyped as privileged white kids copying the work of black musicians in a malicious way.
Part of the reason for this is bands like Led Zeppelin stealing from guys like Howlin' Wolf and not crediting them and ending up getting sued
I see now that you're essentially right. Originality is an illusion, except historically (if the very first thing of it's kind counts as the original, though the first isn't necessarily the best), but no human knows all history. Not to mention what could have happened with alien civilizations. Originality in the subjective sense that you were talking about is still important, but I guess it would have nothing to do with how good it is. I still hesitate to grant that anyone has ever made music in the exact same way as, say, Nick Cave, as no one else has experienced his subjectivity. But of course this is essentially immeasurable.
In this sense, no art is original or non-original.
>Which would be?
Originality
>articles that claims to measure originality
>by interpreting art only one singular way
=
>articles that claims to measure originality
>by interpreting art only through originality
I'm making the claim that those articles only want to measure originality, not quality. Are you aware of that?
Yes.
Maybe we should discard the rubric of "innovation" and focus on the ability for an artist to communicate his/her ideas and their ability to emotionally impact the audience.
Are you aware you and I have both debated this endlessly of the last several years, in which your stance is that originality/innovation should be the measure of art?
It is the subtext you posted those article just now, and I'm calling you out on it. Please don't play dumb.
>originality is way too complicated to measure!
>instead, we should measure the ability for an artist to communicate his/her ideas and their ability to emotionally impact the audience, that sure is far more accurate than originality!
>in which your stance is that originality/innovation should be the measure of art?
I do agree with that, but that's not usually what we argue about. Last time it was about measuring originality only. Remember?
>It is the subtext you posted those article just now, and I'm calling you out on it. Please don't play dumb.
I'm not claiming with that post that more original is better (although I do believe it), just that it's possible to measure originality. Nothing more and nothing less.
>that sure is far more accurate
Quote me where I said that.
>Nothing more and nothing less.
OK since you admitted it was the subtext here (or at least your belief), then I will also admit you did not specifically state it, and I shouldn't have assumed. I retract my insinuation.
So on topic... in response to those articles. I would say it's very dangerous and that simply creating an algorithm that contains all art created by man and can calculate which is more "original" (by the standards of the programmer btw) really delineates the artistic process itself. It essentially makes the critical analysis of art unneeded, which is counter-intuitive to half of the process. Not to mention it dehumanizes a quintessentially human experience.
>Quote me where I said that.
I was only memeing you there
>I would say it's very dangerous
Yup
>and that simply creating an algorithm that contains all art created by man and can calculate which is more "original" (by the standards of the programmer btw)
Sure, but that doesn't mean the programmer (which there can be more than one, working on unrelated algorithms) can't take ideas from real art critics.
>really delineates the artistic process itself.
How?
>It essentially makes the critical analysis of art unneeded, which is counter-intuitive to half of the process.
Not really. Art analysis is still useful to determine how to make a better algorithm, or even to fix specific errors from the results of the algorithm itself.
>Not to mention it dehumanizes a quintessentially human experience.
Hmm, I don't really see this.
>How?
It essentially makes the critical analysis of art unneeded.
What is the point of art?
Death was more hard rock, anyway. They were great, but def didn't "invent" punk
Innovation is the most uniquely human characteristic in the animal kingdom. The pure pursuit of innovation is essentially the extreme of the most unique part of our nature. It begs the question: do humans live to go to uncharted territory, do we simply live (like animals) and go to uncharted territory just to make life more fun, or do we simply live like animals and have fun? I'd say the middle sounds the most correct, which indicates to me that originality and innovation do exist in the sense that as time goes by, more and more artists become familiar with what already exists and move forward and what is original to the "subjective collective consciousnesses" of artists is what should be pursued. However, sometimes the world does not need to be pushed forward, and perhaps this is why we have artistic eras.
