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
- 2787 Views
I don't think it's racist at all
22/03/2010 07:15:55 PM
- 795 Views
Uh.
22/03/2010 09:36:35 PM
- 888 Views
Re: Uh.
29/03/2010 07:03:14 PM
- 825 Views
I'm not Dutch, but that was a pretty ignornant claim
29/03/2010 07:20:09 PM
- 755 Views
Re: I'm not Dutch, but that was a pretty ignornant claim
29/03/2010 07:28:34 PM
- 851 Views
Not "higher" nor "lower," but "different" would be the word to use here
29/03/2010 07:46:15 PM
- 691 Views
Re: Not "higher" nor "lower," but "different" would be the word to use here
29/03/2010 07:53:56 PM
- 647 Views
This. ~points at Larry's post~ *NM*
29/03/2010 07:42:35 PM
- 426 Views
Re: This. ~points at Larry's post~
29/03/2010 07:57:30 PM
- 737 Views
Um.
29/03/2010 08:00:54 PM
- 886 Views
Re: Um.
29/03/2010 08:44:31 PM
- 673 Views
My question for you was on that one line that Larry responded to.
29/03/2010 08:46:26 PM
- 705 Views
She agrees with you about it not being racist - she had issues with your "crude" comment.
29/03/2010 08:59:44 PM
- 705 Views
I don't see it
22/03/2010 08:19:31 PM
- 742 Views
i'd say the actions in the commercial are more racist than the words
22/03/2010 10:00:02 PM
- 733 Views
It would not float here in the US
22/03/2010 10:07:08 PM
- 746 Views
Agreed.
23/03/2010 05:36:14 AM
- 898 Views
Could you please expand on one point in your reasoning?
23/03/2010 07:20:31 AM
- 741 Views
It's not race specific music if it's enjoyed/performed/presented by various races.
23/03/2010 07:32:33 AM
- 983 Views
MOBO
23/03/2010 10:20:22 AM
- 695 Views
The trouble lies in historical neuroses cooked in our melting pot, I think.
23/03/2010 11:29:06 AM
- 743 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
- 732 Views
Agreed
23/03/2010 10:21:59 AM
- 764 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
- 385 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
- 982 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
- 696 Views
The term encompasses listeners, performers and presenters.
23/03/2010 04:42:55 PM
- 791 Views