As much as I admire and respect the output of artists such as D, EB, LH and AE, I feel that their status as the originators of what we call Neo Soul is somewhat exaggerated. I say somewhat because while I would certainly agree that they were essential in helping Neo Soul establish a foothold as a marketable category, the music in my opinion, actually began with the UK collective known as Soul II Soul.

In the late 80's, many felt that Hip Hop had R&B's head on a charger when in the middle of what is arguably considered Hip Hop’s most potent era, Soul II Soul issued a stunning reminder of the resiliency of soulful R&B. Instead of shunning Hip Hop as did other R&B performers whose popularity was now beginning to decline, Soul II Soul acquiesced to Hip Hop’s rhythms and fresh lyrical approach. These elements combined with a soulful mixture of Afro Cuban, Dub and Jazz styles, yielded a highly sophisticated yet very danceable form of R&B. While the music of Soul II Soul acknowledged the validity of Hip Hop as a form of artistic/musical expression, it was also diverse enough to stand without it. This is evidenced by the fact that two of their most popular singles weren’t really Hip Hop oriented at all.

This is why I feel that they should be given more credit for the rise of modern or “neo” soul music. Their songs didn’t "need" sixteen bars from a flavor of the month MC to sustain them or help them sell. When New Jack Swing came along with it’s even fuller embrace of Hip Hop, it seemed like the majority of mid and up-tempo R&B/Soul songs released afterwards came with a rap verse thrown in.

When D’Angelo and his peers came on the scene, their music was still delivered with a Hip Hop sensibility but we could now detect a slight move to lose the rap crutch. By the time Musiq Soulchild came along it was gone all together. The Neo Soul “category” which began to catch on in the late 90’s was a signal that from a marketing standpoint, soulful R&B could once again stand on it’s own merits. However, the seeds of any movement to update the “sound” of soulful R&B while still promoting it’s ability to survive as an independently marketable genre were in my opinion, planted by Soul II Soul.

What do you think?

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
http://concretesoundsystem.com
The Underbelly - http://bit.ly/f5BmBR
RIPL - http://bit.ly/e5wzxn
Mo'Nium - http://monium.tumblr.com/

to me he was more Neo Soul than Soul II SOul



<================================
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20787335@N08

Omar can be somewhat difficult to pin down but his sound (circa 1990) in my ears approached that of Incognito. It was a transitional sound that walked a fine line between R&B and Jazz Fusion though I feel that Incognito may have been a wee bit jazzier. I didn't hear much of a Hip Hop influence from him until sometime later.

I can see why you and some others would want to make a case for him though. That's cool. Musically speaking, I feel that his music was more rich and diverse than the Neo Soul that followed it.

>As much as I admire and respect the output of artists such as
>D, EB, LH and AE,

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

I'm sorry...

D'Angelo, Erykah Badu, Lauryn Hill and Adriana Evans.

__________________________________________
CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!!
------------------------------------
Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell
Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this

I'm listening, please explain.

the whole sound of "neo soul"-rhodes, clear and melodic basslines, hard hitting drums with bounce and snap to them-that's all Tribe
they brought that to the table and even tho people try to give credit to Dilla for starting that sound, Midnight Marauders/Low End is the blueprint for that shit and that's what Phife was getting at
that sound just did so much for people's creativity but most of those not in the know don't think about it that way

__________________________________________
CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!!
------------------------------------
Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell
Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this

I agree. When you examine "Brown Sugar", "Baduizm", "Miseducation..." and "Adriana Evans", you could definitely detect a Tribe vibe. When JayDee (do folks still remember him?!) began to show up on later Tribe projects, I think the music just began to evolve in the direction he was moving in and it became the basis for the full grown neo sound later on.

Neo Soul singers were typically drawn to the softer side of hip hop so the Native Tongue and Pete Rock recordings were logical points of reference. Going back to Soul II Soul, I think it was the same thing. Neo Soul singers of the 90's drew their inspiration from the hip hop that was popular with them at the time (Native Tongues) while Soul II Soul might have used elements of De La Soul's pre-Native Tongues DAISY Age sound in the 80's.

Remember, urban radio was already in the middle of one major revolution in the 80's. I don't believe they could support two at the same time so we all went with hip hop and the 3.0 upgrade to smooth soul would have to wait. Soul II Soul did however, give us a taste of things to come.

it was a very interesting time in music, to say the least

__________________________________________
CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!!
------------------------------------
Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell
Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this

If so how? If not, why not?

Soul II Soul had their own sub genre name though right - soul jazz or something like that. I don't connect it to neo soul except as a transition in a mix.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
http://concretesoundsystem.com
The Underbelly - http://bit.ly/f5BmBR
RIPL - http://bit.ly/e5wzxn
Mo'Nium - http://monium.tumblr.com/

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

In my opinion, yes. Neo Soul was a refreshening of the R&B/Soul genre using the heavier rhythm patterns of Hip Hop as it's point of departure. Soul II Soul did this in the late 80's so I would technically categorize their music as "neo" soul.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
http://concretesoundsystem.com
The Underbelly - http://bit.ly/f5BmBR
RIPL - http://bit.ly/e5wzxn
Mo'Nium - http://monium.tumblr.com/

Although Neo Soul and New Jack Swing both borrow elements of hip hop, the overall production of Soul II Soul's music was closer to the music that was being produced before the arrival of Hip Hop. I'm talking the piano, strings, flutes, acoustic percussion which amongst other things resulted in a less programmed feel. This "organic" type of production would also surface later on in the 90's, though not as heavily orchestrated, under title of Neo Soul.

As I stated earlier, New Jack Swing borrowed even more heavily from Hip Hop which resulted in a more computerized and processed sound. Not to say that Jodeci wasn't "soulful". It's just that the common denominator between Soul II Soul and Musiq Soulchild is the music that predated Hip Hop. I don't recall New Jack Swing embracing that sound as overtly.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
http://concretesoundsystem.com
The Underbelly - http://bit.ly/f5BmBR
RIPL - http://bit.ly/e5wzxn
Mo'Nium - http://monium.tumblr.com/

It was a combination of both. I would say that Neo Soul was traditional "soul" music viewed through Hip Hop colored glasses.

"heavier hip-hop rhythm patterns"?

i guess not mutually exclusive. but....
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
http://concretesoundsystem.com
The Underbelly - http://bit.ly/f5BmBR
RIPL - http://bit.ly/e5wzxn
Mo'Nium - http://monium.tumblr.com/

because if you look at them in their own context, they were not so much of a revival as a straight continuation of a tradition that had already been going strong in the UK.

BUT they (along with other British soul acts like Loose Ends, Young Disciples and Brand New Heavies) did exert an influence upon the development of neo-soul in the US.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

I agree with you. Hip Hop hadn't reached the point of worldwide dominance at that point so the UK wasn't as impacted by it. What Soul II Soul and others over there were doing in the UK was more of a natural progression of R&B. However, the inclusion of Hip Hop elements made them a smash in the US because that's what our ears were tuned to.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
http://concretesoundsystem.com
The Underbelly - http://bit.ly/f5BmBR
RIPL - http://bit.ly/e5wzxn
Mo'Nium - http://monium.tumblr.com/

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

That much is obvious.... but how it differs from jodeci sampling hip-hop drums enough to distinguish it as a defining moment for neo-soul... that is the question.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
http://concretesoundsystem.com
The Underbelly - http://bit.ly/f5BmBR
RIPL - http://bit.ly/e5wzxn
Mo'Nium - http://monium.tumblr.com/

Because while I remembered "Back to Life" sampling the Roachclip break, I just went back and listened to it... it doesn't!

It's a similar pattern for sure, but it seems to be have re-programmed. "The Soul II Soul beat" (as we called it around my way) was everywhere in hip-hop and R&B (and Enigma tracks) after that, though.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

>It's a similar pattern for sure, but it seems to be have
>re-programmed. "The Soul II Soul beat" (as we called it around
>my way) was everywhere in hip-hop and R&B (and Enigma tracks)
>after that, though.

of all the places, I didn't expect to hear that beat in a early '90s video game. LOL

that beat was EVERYWHERE

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

I assume you were watching them for their artistic content?

j/tugging on your legwarmers, pal

-------
so I'm in a band now:
album ---> http://greenwoodburns.bandcamp.com/releases
Soundcloud ---> http://soundcloud.com/greenwood-burns

my own stuff -->http://soundcloud.com/lonesomedstringband

avy by buckshot_defunct

with other bits and pieces over it.

"Keep On Movin'" is the same break, with the 909 pattern over it that got jacked for stuff like "Tom's Diner" (with the break) and "Sadeness" (without), etc.



>Because while I remembered "Back to Life" sampling the
>Roachclip break, I just went back and listened to it... it
>doesn't!
>
>It's a similar pattern for sure, but it seems to be have
>re-programmed. "The Soul II Soul beat" (as we called it around
>my way) was everywhere in hip-hop and R&B (and Enigma tracks)
>after that, though.

-----
Get over yourself.

but reprogrammed

or is it straight samples?

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

I wouldn't go that far and say that Soul II Soul's arrival was a "defining" moment for Neo Soul. As I stated earlier, a proper definition wouldn't surface until later on in the 90's. I would say that they were tilling the soil though.

"the music in my opinion, actually began with the UK collective known as Soul II Soul"
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
http://concretesoundsystem.com
The Underbelly - http://bit.ly/f5BmBR
RIPL - http://bit.ly/e5wzxn
Mo'Nium - http://monium.tumblr.com/

Correct. I believe that the music of Neo Soul has it's origins with them. The term and the definition of Neo Soul for US marketing purposes came later on.

but they always had more of a soundsystem approach

that sort of uk thing where reggae bass, soul vocals, dance music and pop melody all gets mashed together, like early massive attack

young disciples, jamiroquai, etc, they generally stuck to 70s soul/funk/jazz as their bedrock

>I agree with you. Hip Hop hadn't reached the point of
>worldwide dominance at that point so the UK wasn't as impacted
>by it.

sorry dude but hip hop, or maybe moreso rap had an impact in the UK from the very early 80's, see Wham Rap, Ant Rap, Chant (I don't need this pressure on) etc etc Infact the popstars in the UK where onto it before, I would imagine, alot of places in the US even knew what it was

from the beginning of recorded hip hop it had a massive impact in the UK, just check the charts

.....
NEW PRINCE MIX : SHUT UP, ALREADY, JAM !!

http://allyal3.podOmatic.com

Check Mixcloud Also >> http://www.mixcloud.com/AllyAl3000/

You know what? You're right. I stand corrected on that one. I shouldn't be typing faster than I can think. Heck, I think I can even remember seeing some "12's from the UK during that time. It doesn't surprise me that the UK was up on the times. They always have been and still are.

That would explain why Soul II Soul had already had a good grasp on hip hop rhythms when their music came over here.

fairplay is the one that got SIIS noticed

and yes, it has a hip hop break (and congas! there were no congas in new jack swing/R&B of that time were there?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1lvnbTZE-Q

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

but it was still on the first album

and although it wasnt as big as what came after, its soul II soul at their tuffest imo and it had a hip hop break on it, like back to life.

keep on moving doesnt really have a hip hop break btw, its more of a go-go/80s soul type of drum pattern

but you can argue

Sade
hell Terence Trent D'arby
Loose Ends...

or the countless European soul groups that were emerging from the Loose Ends/Soul II Soul sound...

I have even heard cats argue Level 42... haha.. ironically.. but still.

I mean, we could even say the architect was Gil Scott Heron.

who embodied

Poetry
Singing
Rapping
and pulsating beats to allow him to do such.
Fender Rhodes, live drums on his recordings... so much to pick

However, the acid jazz movement (which Soul II Soul was NOT part of) does seem like a precursor in a way due to its borrowings from 70's stuff.

Useless bonus-trivia: Mary J Blige (yup!) said that Young Disciples changed her life and the direction she wanted her music to turn in a swedish interview around the time of "My life"... Of course, that record isn't neo-soul and doesn't sound like brit-soul but I think the overall approach mirrors acid-jazz even if the sound was different...

is definitely a nod at acid jazz, imo

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

*

I would like to thank everyone for sharing their own individual perspectives on this matter. Good dialog.

It is just SOUL. People always trying to rename something.


Check out NEW Soul music at: www.myspace.com/starbeing

Bumpin in the STEREO:
Jennifer Hudson-I Remember Me
Jill Scott- TLOTS
Shanice Wilson-Discovery
Alexander O Neal-Self titled
PROCK/CLSMOOTH-MATSB
Evelyn King-Get Loose

"It is just SOUL."

Not according to your sig...LOL!

>"It is just SOUL."
>
>Not according to your sig...LOL!

Lol! Y'all know what I mean. New soul music from past and present Soul artists.

Check out NEW Soul music at: www.myspace.com/starbeing

Bumpin in the STEREO:
Jennifer Hudson-I Remember Me
Jill Scott- TLOTS
Shanice Wilson-Discovery
Alexander O Neal-Self titled
PROCK/CLSMOOTH-MATSB
Evelyn King-Get Loose

It's all good. I just couldn't resist after seeing those words printed right up under your comments.

made up by slick marketing and promotion A&Rs



The term has definitely worn out its welcome

by marketing execs/record labels' as if the very statement itself invalidates the use of the term.

Guess what? Pretty much ALL genre tags were created by marketing people: jazz, blues, rock & roll, soul, hip-hop... ALL of them.

So what's the point of bringing it up all the time?

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

different, and when you get in musical discussions that are often arbitrary debates about directional hair-splitting, as we do here, it can become lead to a lot of bullshit

THAT'S why that matters

It's different enough from R&B, 70's and 80's soul, and Hip Hop to the point that it should have some type of label.

------------------------------

50+ FREE Mixes on www.DJR-Tistic.com!

Twitter and Instagram - @DJ_RTistic

I agree with #33 and #34. Whether we like them or not as artists, marketing labels exist for a reason...to help with marketing. If we want to be a part of an industry, we have to learn how to play by industry rules.

This may warrant another discussion thread someday but I think that Neo Soul was the ideal designation for the R&B music of the late 90's to mid 00's.

Why couldn't D'angelo, Maxwell, Badu, etc just be modern R&B or Soul artists or 90's R&B or Soul? Why couldn't Nirvana just be a rock band instead of "Grunge"? Sure music isn't going to sound exactly the same as what was recorded 20 or 30 years before but I hardly think that warrants a whole new genre every couple of years especially when the change really isn't that dramatic. Hip Hop was a dramatic change from anything and absolutely needed to be defined as a genre. But would anyone really go looking for R Kelly, Aretha Franklin or Badu in any section other than the R&B/Soul section? It may have different nuances and the recording of the music might be more modern but I don't see why that warrants a whole new genre.

through piles and piles of CDs by Alfonzo Hunter, MoKenStef, Brooke Valentine, SisQo, Az Yet, Next, Ideal, Profyle, No Question, 112, Trina & Tamera, R. Kelly, SWV, Tank and Ruff Endz to find the music they're interested in lol

Plus, such sub-divisions are good for community-building. WIthout the deliberate demarcation of neo-soul as a movement distinct from the contemporary R&B, we probably would not have had this site and this forum on which we're now conversing.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

>through piles and piles of CDs by Alfonzo Hunter, MoKenStef,
>Brooke Valentine, SisQo, Az Yet, Next, Ideal, Profyle, No
>Question, 112, Trina & Tamera, R. Kelly, SWV, Tank and Ruff
>Endz to find the music they're interested in lol

Any of the few records left on earth are still going to have Dru Hill, Maxwell, Chris Brown and Anita Baker in the same section. It's that way with every genre. If you go in the Jazz section you might not like current Jazz dudes like Jason Moran or Roy Hargrove but they are still in the Jazz section right along with Miles or Charlie Parker.
>
>Plus, such sub-divisions are good for community-building.
>WIthout the deliberate demarcation of neo-soul as a movement
>distinct from the contemporary R&B, we probably would not have
>had this site and this forum on which we're now conversing.

Music always creates a sense of community no matter what. That wouldn't change without labels like Neo Soul or Grunge...especially in today's world where access to music from all different types of styles all over the world is just a click away. This is essentially a Hip Hop based website but within that you have a posts about Wu Tang, Tribe, Outkast and Snoop. None of those artists are the same stylistically but they still are Hip Hop artists. To me it's limiting of a genre to only sound like one or two artists that defined the genre and never be allowed to deviate from that without being called something "neo" or "alternative". If there are going to be labels and new genres they should truly stand out from anything that came from the past and not just be the latest way artists of that same genre are producing the music. Drum & Bass can't be lumped in with Sam Cooke records. They don't share anything in common but with Neo Soul you obviously know that those artists were listening to him, Motown, Stax, etc so why pretend like they aren't?

Yes, it's true that fans of Maxwell and Adriana Evans would still have had to plow through bunches of CDs by mainstream R&B acts in order to get what they wanted because even in the golden age of the record store, all R&B subgenres were stocked in the same broad section anyway.

But the demarcation of a subgenre still gave them a better chance of finding stuff that was interesting to them.

Look at this way: if I had tried to listen to rock throughout the 1980s during the height of the hair metal era and I decided that I just couldn't get with the cheesy excess and the overproduction and I decided that I just don't like rock music... and then someone came to me in 1991 and said "Hey, there's this cool new band called Nirvana that you need to listen to." If I asked "what kind of music do they play?" and they said "rock"... chances are that I'd just dismiss them because I don't like rock.

But if they told me "No, these guys play a different kind of rock... it's harder and rawer and more sincere," I might give them a chance. And if I liked them, I might want to find more music like that.

How do I find "rock" that sounds like Nirvana without having to wade through the latest Skid Row, Poison, Warrant and Cinderella discs? Remember that this was in the pre-Internet era.


As for the community building part... I don't know if you were here at the beginning of this site, Luke, but it came together in a fairly unique way. This was more that just a messageboard... it was like a *movement* in the early days. And it came together from a few oddball "alternative" Black artists of the 1990s finding each other, realizing that they had things in common and that there was a growing community of fans that were not interested in the mainstream Black music and wanted to come together to talk about the stuff they were into.

Sure, now we talk about everything from Snoop to OutKast, but it wasn't always that way... In the first couple of years of this site, talking about mainstream Black music was virtually forbidden. We did discuss hip-hop but it was always Slum Village, Binary Star, Jedi Mind Tricks and stuff like that. If you mentioned DMX here, you might be chased off the boards.

Brother scorpion has pinpointed the exact moment that the Lesson started to change and become more all-inclusive and it became safe to admit being into mainstream (non-old school or old school aesthetic) hip-hop here. It was this moment here:

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=17&topic_id=31269&mesg_id=31269&listing_type=search

Note that ?uest basically apologizes for Jay and tries to make the case that deep down, Jay really is "one of us" and is worthy of being accepted in our community. Because that community, that brand of OKP as the place for "alternative Black music" meant a lot to people back then.

And believe me, has hard as it is to imagine now, the Jay-Z thing was pretty controversial back then. You got a lot of responses along these lines: http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=17&topic_id=31269&mesg_id=31269&listing_type=search#31371

(This was not the only post on the subject, btw... and while lots of people in this post are sucking up to 15, there were other responses that were very angry about it... some people even stopped posting here because of the betrayal!)

That's why I say that without that sectioning off of the "alternative" section, you probably would not have had this place here right now.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

>Look at this way: if I had tried to listen to rock throughout
>the 1980s during the height of the hair metal era and I
>decided that I just couldn't get with the cheesy excess and
>the overproduction and I decided that I just don't like rock
>music... and then someone came to me in 1991 and said "Hey,
>there's this cool new band called Nirvana that you need to
>listen to." If I asked "what kind of music do they play?" and
>they said "rock"... chances are that I'd just dismiss them
>because I don't like rock.
>
>But if they told me "No, these guys play a different kind of
>rock... it's harder and rawer and more sincere," I might give
>them a chance. And if I liked them, I might want to find more
>music like that.
>
>How do I find "rock" that sounds like Nirvana without having
>to wade through the latest Skid Row, Poison, Warrant and
>Cinderella discs? Remember that this was in the pre-Internet
>era.

If you saw Nirvana open for someone like Sonic Youth and you dug them then you would possibly pick up a cd at the show and let other friends know about them. No matter what you are going to have to do some digging even within these little fake sub genres. Plenty of people may not have loved Poison or Warrant but they did like GNR or Van Halen and that's pretty much the same scene just with better execution, better songs and better artists. That's what I mean. Guns N Roses and Faster Pussycat are both 80's sunset strip rock bands...one was just that much better than the other. Badu is one of my favorite artists of this so called Neo Soul movement but I have absolutely no interest in any of India Arie's music but best believe if people are talking about Neo Soul or I'm buying a CD off of amazon and I've bought Badu CD's then Arie's name will come up or be recommended.
>
>
>As for the community building part... I don't know if you were
>here at the beginning of this site, Luke, but it came together
>in a fairly unique way. This was more that just a
>messageboard... it was like a *movement* in the early days.
>And it came together from a few oddball "alternative" Black
>artists of the 1990s finding each other, realizing that they
>had things in common and that there was a growing community of
>fans that were not interested in the mainstream Black music
>and wanted to come together to talk about the stuff they were
>into.
>
>Sure, now we talk about everything from Snoop to OutKast, but
>it wasn't always that way... In the first couple of years of
>this site, talking about mainstream Black music was virtually
>forbidden. We did discuss hip-hop but it was always Slum
>Village, Binary Star, Jedi Mind Tricks and stuff like that. If
>you mentioned DMX here, you might be chased off the boards.
>
>Brother scorpion has pinpointed the exact moment that the
>Lesson started to change and become more all-inclusive and it
>became safe to admit being into mainstream (non-old school or
>old school aesthetic) hip-hop here. It was this moment here:
>
>http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=17&topic_id=31269&mesg_id=31269&listing_type=search
>
>Note that ?uest basically apologizes for Jay and tries to make
>the case that deep down, Jay really is "one of us" and is
>worthy of being accepted in our community. Because that
>community, that brand of OKP as the place for "alternative
>Black music" meant a lot to people back then.
>
>And believe me, has hard as it is to imagine now, the Jay-Z
>thing was pretty controversial back then. You got a lot of
>responses along these lines:
>http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=17&topic_id=31269&mesg_id=31269&listing_type=search#31371
>
>(This was not the only post on the subject, btw... and while
>lots of people in this post are sucking up to 15, there were
>other responses that were very angry about it... some people
>even stopped posting here because of the betrayal!)
>
>That's why I say that without that sectioning off of the
>"alternative" section, you probably would not have had this
>place here right now.

I got around here about 1998 or 1999. I never posted much back then because for one I didn't want be that "label guy" trying to only promote or discuss the artists on the label I worked for and the second main reason was the very thing you're talking about...annoying backpackers who hated anything that you could bump at a club. I remember when Pun died that I was pleasantly surprised to see all of the love he was getting. But that mentality is something that exists everywhere. I've been on Jazz boards where you couldn't bring up Bitches Brew or someone like Ramsey Lewis without getting stoned to death for daring to bring up that commercial trash. Eventually the "purist" voice gets drowned out by the masses and most people stop worrying about what is or isn't commercial and focus on what's good.

Of course I was commenting on the reality of 2011... which is why I specifically made reference to such quintessentially 1990s R&B acts like MoKenStef, Profyle and Alfonzo Hunter.

You really are smart, Warren Coolidge!!!!!!!!!!1!!!

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

which specific Black music they wanted to hear, within the larger genre of Black music..

the idea that they haven't been able to do that, or that they all of the sudden became lazy or incapable of doing so is moving towards that revisionist history

You have a knack for saying stuff that to the casual observer sounds like it makes sense... the more gullible might even want to say it sounds intelligent.

But even the most cursory examination reveals that it's empty wordage with not a cogent point to be found within miles.

*smh*

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

In your effort to legitimize neo soul as a label
You make up a scenario where fans needed to be able
To distinguish between certain artusts, so thus the
Label neo soul was born.

its plenty factual examples to demostrate the fact
That fans of black music have always been able to discern
Their facorite artists even when the world of black
Music included 10 times more mainstream artists with
Way more stylistic variety.

>its plenty factual examples to demostrate the fact
>That fans of black music have always been able to discern
>Their facorite artists even when the world of black
>Music included 10 times more mainstream artists with
>Way more stylistic variety.

Put up or shut up.

*waits in vain*

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

lolol..

YOU prove that lie you made up..

I speak truth fool

Since I told lies, it should be really simple to cite the facts and make me look stupid, right?



(eejiot.)

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

you got nothing..

you fugazi homie..

try making shit up with people who don't know better.

It's fiction...

You really remind me of my senile old great uncle the way you just ramble and say a bunch of senseless shit that has nothing to do with anything.

Let's break it down and expose how meaningless your statements are, shall we?

So you claim that I am making shit up and not defending it, right?

Okay. What did I make up?

I stated that people use sub-genres to narrow own broad and diverse categories of music to isolate the particular styles of music that they are interested in at any point in time.

What is made up in the above statement? I don't see how any of what I said is even really debatable. It's a basic FACT that is proven every single day in the discussions on this board, and even by the very existence of this site, which was founded to create a home for contemporary Black artists that seemed to be following a path that was "alternative" to the mainstream of R&B and hip-hop.

But no... I made all that up, right? LOL

And then you counter with some meaningless gibberish about how "there are plenty of factual example to demostrate the fact that fans of black music have always been able to discern their facorite artists even when the world of black music included 10 times more mainstream artists with way more stylistic variety."

Okay... Why not cite some of those examples then?

I mean, you're basically telling me that there was a time when "Black Music" was an amorphous mass of diversity with no attempts made to taxonomy different sub-styles like Funk, Blues, Jazz, Gospel, Disco, Soul, Rap, etc, right?

And I'M the one who makes shit up?

LMAO Go to sleep old man... your tired ass is through.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

>I mean, you're basically telling me that there was a time when
>"Black Music" was an amorphous mass of diversity with no
>attempts made to taxonomy different sub-styles like Funk,
>Blues, Jazz, Gospel, Disco, Soul, Rap, etc, right?
>
>And I'M the one who makes shit up?
>
>LMAO Go to sleep old man... your tired ass is through.


I'm disputing the idea that they come from people not wanting to take the time to discern or scour through CDs of other artists to get to what they want.

My point about the immense diversity in mainstream Black music during the 70's and 80's is that these music formats and sub-genres coexisted within the larger world of "Black music". Radio playlists were diverse because there was something for everyone and people had more varied taste in their music

The "labeling" of the sub genres is more an outside construct being placed over the music. The differences within the sub genres represent artistic variations and styles...THAT is what drives it..not convience for people to be looking through CDs....

Oh... sub-genres are made up, are they?

I thought that they were something invented by AFKAP_of_Darkness?

>I'm disputing the idea that they come from people not wanting
>to take the time to discern or scour through CDs of other
>artists to get to what they want.

That is exactly what genre-classification of any kind is about: to narrow down a broad group so that people can get to exactly what they are looking for.

>My point about the immense diversity in mainstream Black music
>during the 70's and 80's is that these music formats and
>sub-genres coexisted within the larger world of "Black music".

In the 1970s and 80s you had

R&B/Soul
Disco
Funk
Blues
Gospel
Rap
Electro
Jazz
Jazz Fusion
Traditional jazz
Smooth jazz

each one with its loyal adherents

But I suppose AFKAP made all that up too, huh?

>The "labeling" of the sub genres is more an outside construct
>being placed over the music. The differences within the sub
>genres represent artistic variations and styles...THAT is what
>drives it..not convience for people to be looking through
>CDs....

Newsflash: ALL genres are "outside constructs" that are created for the purpose of marketing... and that's not a bad thing either. They're effective means of delivering the music to the audiences that are desiring those particular "artistic variations and styles."

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

>>My point about the immense diversity in mainstream Black
>music
>>during the 70's and 80's is that these music formats and
>>sub-genres coexisted within the larger world of "Black
>music".
>
>In the 1970s and 80s you had
>
>R&B/Soul
>Disco
>Funk
>Blues
>Gospel
>Rap
>Electro
>Jazz
>Jazz Fusion
>Traditional jazz
>Smooth jazz
>
>each one with its loyal adherents
>
>But I suppose AFKAP made all that up too, huh?


you are obviously not making those things up, but to insinuate that (a)ardhent fans of those sub genres didn't fukk with music of other sub genres (b) artists didn't freely move throughout all of those sub genres.

The sub genres coexisted on the radio....on concert stages....as well as fans record collections.

My point was that the label was not a way for listeners to discern.... those labels represent stylistic differences within larger general categories.

I mean so the guy that fukked with Ramsey Lewis didn't fukk with Al Green???

the person who liked listened to Walter Hawkins didn't also bump Gladys Knight and the pips???

All 4 of those artists would have been played on the same Black Radio station back then anyways...





>
>>The "labeling" of the sub genres is more an outside
>construct
>>being placed over the music. The differences within the sub
>>genres represent artistic variations and styles...THAT is
>what
>>drives it..not convience for people to be looking through
>>CDs....
>
>Newsflash: ALL genres are "outside constructs" that are
>created for the purpose of marketing... and that's not a bad
>thing either. They're effective means of delivering the music
>to the audiences that are desiring those particular "artistic
>variations and styles."

So now it is a marketing technique??? That's what I was saying. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that labeling (well....there is something wrong with it when it became a method of narrowing Black music down and marginalizing it to the point we see today, but that's another topic) But it is a marketing technique....the reason people dismiss it the label neo soul is because the "label" placed on it was about marketing not about the creative process of making that type of music....which again was being made before, and is being made right today.

theyre just there as shorthand

to make it easier for ppl to describe a type of music they like/dont like

but if you look at early interviews with badu, dangelo or lauryn hill even, theyll say they didnt want their songs to sound like typical R&B. eg - lauryn hill said she didnt want her vocals to sound 'wet' like a normal R&B record, she wanted it dry, like an old soul record would be produced

far as i remember, there were several posts on the lesson when jill scott and musiqs first albums came out that they were making something closer to normal R&B rather than neo soul

that would indicate that theres a pretty obv difference between the two styles

It makes it easier for insiders/fans yes but "outsiders" who are new to as genre often get confused due to sheer amount of subgenres-electronic music and metal in particular are ridiculous in those regards.

Another thing that may seem ridiculous but which I honestly believe is that music is supposed to envolve and change; if you create a new genre/subgenre for every little trend and change, there is a bigger chance that they become viewed as "that summer of 2011 fad" rather than part of a longer lineage and I think it is perfectly possible that it might actually affect the way the music will be viewed.

However, this has not been a big problem in R&B really so I don't see why people get offended over neo-soul...

Regardless of if D'Angelo etc. were working in a classic soul tradition, what did R&B mean in the mid-late 90s? it meant Total, it meantr Mokenstef (LOL @ AFKAP for remembering them, I actually bought the album!), it meant Rodney Jerkins beats etc. The stuff classified as neo-soul obviously sounde4d diffe4r4e4nt. The4 acts known as "Acid Jazz"¤ in the late 80's-early 90's were also different-they didn't sound like New Jack swing *or* "¤quiet storm"¤ which to my knowledge is pretty much how the "¤norm" of R&B/soul was at that time; that their music was retro and derivative and TOTALLY (well, almost) was in line with Ayers/Heron/Mayfield not to mention r4ipping off various jazz musicians soul-based songs like Pharoah Sanders "prince of peace" or Archie Shepp's "attica blues" note-by-note is not relevant.

Anyway, I'm, raised on metal so I'm admittedly something of a "genre-fascist"; this is a style of music where people have spent 25 years debating whether Possessed's "Seven Churches" is death metal or "just" a very idiosyncratic brutal thrash album. However, even there and then, I was putting the context of the time and what the genres meant *right* at the moment of release...

>Regardless of if D'Angelo etc. were working in a classic soul
>tradition, what did R&B mean in the mid-late 90s? it meant
>Total, it meantr Mokenstef (LOL @ AFKAP for remembering them,
>I actually bought the album!), it meant Rodney Jerkins beats
>etc. The stuff classified as neo-soul obviously sounde4d
>diffe4r4e4nt. The4 acts known as "Acid Jazz"¤ in the late
>80's-early 90's were also different-they didn't sound like New
>Jack swing *or* "¤quiet storm"¤ which to my knowledge is
>pretty much how the "¤norm" of R&B/soul was at that time; that
>their music was retro and derivative and TOTALLY (well,
>almost) was in line with Ayers/Heron/Mayfield not to mention
>r4ipping off various jazz musicians soul-based songs like
>Pharoah Sanders "prince of peace" or Archie Shepp's "attica
>blues" note-by-note is not relevant.

But that's not something new. Motown R&B sounded different from Stax R&B which sounded different than Philly R&B. It's ironic that a group like Mokenstef didn't have to come up with a new genre name...they were just a girl R&B group but artists like D'angelo that were actually a lot closer in sound and style to artists of the past got stuck with a fake new genre tag.

>Anyway, I'm, raised on metal so I'm admittedly something of a
>"genre-fascist"; this is a style of music where people have
>spent 25 years debating whether Possessed's "Seven Churches"
>is death metal or "just" a very idiosyncratic brutal thrash
>album. However, even there and then, I was putting the context
>of the time and what the genres meant *right* at the moment of
>release...

It's not just Neo Soul like you mentioned. In retrospect a lot of these genres mean nothing once you get removed from the era which is my whole point about how useless they actually are.
>
>
>

If you were one of those (insane) people who argues that ALL genre classifications are "fake" and thus should be abolished, I'd at least understand where you were coming from even though I would think your point of view was inane.

But here, it seems that you're arguing that some genre classifications are "real" and others are "manufactured" or "fake"... when in fact ALL genre classifications are contrived just so that we can have points of reference that allow us to talk and think about them more effectively.

Again using the example of "Rock" as a genre. What does it mean? Elvis Presley is "rock." Radiohead is "rock." The Go! Team is "rock." Metallica is "rock." Fleet Foxes are "rock." LCD Soundsystem, also "rock."

What do any of these acts have in common, really? How can we discuss and compare them with such a broad classification?

That's why sub-genres are necessary.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

>If you were one of those (insane) people who argues that ALL
>genre classifications are "fake" and thus should be abolished,
>I'd at least understand where you were coming from even though
>I would think your point of view was inane.

I'm not someone who thinks that "music is just music" and there shouldn't be any genres at all. Labels and genre specifications are needed and in some cases give a cool historical perspective about the music making a statement about not only the music but the era that they were created in. The use of "Punk", "Funk" or "Jazz" not only reflect the language of the era that those genres come from they actually mean something sonically. What the fuck does "Indie Rock" mean? Especially when more than half of the people creating what is called that music are on major labels? That's a fake genre. Something like "Punk Revival" or "Neo Soul" don't tell a story and don't really reflect the music IMO. That's a fake genre to me.
>
>But here, it seems that you're arguing that some genre
>classifications are "real" and others are "manufactured" or
>"fake"... when in fact ALL genre classifications are contrived
>just so that we can have points of reference that allow us to
>talk and think about them more effectively.
>
>Again using the example of "Rock" as a genre. What does it
>mean? Elvis Presley is "rock." Radiohead is "rock." The Go!
>Team is "rock." Metallica is "rock." Fleet Foxes are "rock."
>LCD Soundsystem, also "rock."

Metallica is a good example of a legit time and place that a genre warrants a title. Sure in a broad sense they are considered rock by most people but the music they make (Metal) really is very different sonically & stylistically from what someone like the Beatles were doing. In a broad sense you know a Metal record from a straight ahead rock record even if they were created during the same era. Hetfield HATES the Beatles and isn't trying to make anything that sounds remotely like what they did lyrically or sonically but a band like Oasis is obviously from the same lineage as the Beatles and they don't need a fake genre called "Neo British invasion" to be created for them.
>
>What do any of these acts have in common, really? How can we
>discuss and compare them with such a broad classification?
>
>That's why sub-genres are necessary.

I feel too many times the use of sub-genres is there in some kind of attempt to take away from the diversity that may actually exist in a genre. This always seems to happy with Black music and it's annoying to me. Of course "rock" can be The Allman Brothers, U2 and Radiohead but V.V. Brown or Bryn Christopher couldn't possibly be R&B or Soul artists because R&B only has one sound and everyone must sound exactly like that or it's a new genre. Same with Hip Hop... Outkast or the Roots can't be Hip Hop because real Hip Hop sounds like....
>

And what's more, I detect some strong agenda posting going on here.

I'm a bit confused about one thing here: are you saying you're against sub-genre classifications IN GENERAL or against the "neo-soul" classification IN PARTICULAR?

Because if the latter is the case, we could have avoided this whole discussion... I have no problem with the neo-soul designation myself, but I do understand that a lot of people are not fond of it. However, I was under the impression that you just didn't want any further sib-divisions of broad categories like Rock and R&B.

Then you go and say this:

>Labels and genre
>specifications are needed and in some cases give a cool
>historical perspective about the music making a statement
>about not only the music but the era that they were created
>in. The use of "Punk", "Funk" or "Jazz" not only reflect the
>language of the era that those genres come from they actually
>mean something sonically.

Punk is a sub-category of rock.
Funk is a sub-category of R&B.

So are you saying you don't like sub-genres at all, or just SOME of them?

What the fuck does "Indie Rock"
>mean? Especially when more than half of the people creating
>what is called that music are on major labels? That's a fake
>genre. Something like "Punk Revival" or "Neo Soul" don't tell
>a story and don't really reflect the music IMO. That's a fake
>genre to me.

I could go into the Indie Rock thing but I really don't have the time or energy lol
I won't say anything about Punk Revival either.

However Neo-Soul DOES tell me a story about the music and the era it emerged from. It's a simple story:

"Once upon a time, contemporary R&B was overwhelmed by hip-hop and had almost completely lost any resemblance to the Soul music of 20 years earlier that had preceded it.

These few artists made a conscious effort to take it back.

(Your mileage may vary on how successful they were in doing this)."

And frankly, the fact that it was a very CONSCIOUS effort on the part of these artists is all the more the reason why the genre really wasn't the artificial label construct people are claiming it was.


>Metallica is a good example of a legit time and place that a
>genre warrants a title. Sure in a broad sense they are
>considered rock by most people but the music they make (Metal)
>really is very different sonically & stylistically from what
>someone like the Beatles were doing.

And the music D'Angelo was making was not sonically and stylistically different from Jodeci?

In a broad sense you know
>a Metal record from a straight ahead rock record even if they
>were created during the same era. Hetfield HATES the Beatles
>and isn't trying to make anything that sounds remotely like
>what they did lyrically or sonically but a band like Oasis is
>obviously from the same lineage as the Beatles and they don't
>need a fake genre called "Neo British invasion" to be created
>for them.

uh.... but they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britpop

Britpop was a pretty huge (and pretty conscious) movement in the 1990s. You really could not have missed that, man...


>I feel too many times the use of sub-genres is there in some
>kind of attempt to take away from the diversity that may
>actually exist in a genre. This always seems to happy with
>Black music and it's annoying to me.

And here's where I detect a Warren Coolidge/Lord Jansport-style racial agenda creeping in. And I have to say that I think it's pretty wrongheaded.

Of course "rock" can be
>The Allman Brothers, U2 and Radiohead but V.V. Brown or Bryn
>Christopher couldn't possibly be R&B or Soul artists because
>R&B only has one sound and everyone must sound exactly like
>that or it's a new genre. Same with Hip Hop... Outkast or the
>Roots can't be Hip Hop because real Hip Hop sounds like....

This "diversity in the genre" you're talking about is really overrated.

The category of "Rhythm & Blues" was created by record exec Jerry Wexler and the editors of Billboard magazine (how's THAT for "fake" "invented" names?) to replace their previous title of the Black music chart which was becoming politically incorrect: "Race Music."

That is, any music made by a person from "the race" was all thrown into the same bin. Whether it was the Soul Stirrers or Ray Charles or Lightnin' Hopkins or Dizzy Gillespie or Little Richard or whatever... As long as the person was Black, it was Race Music.

Race Music's successor Rhythm & Blues really follows the same path, despite the fact there has been further taxonomy done so that gospel and jazz & blues are no longer in the same category. ANY pop music made by a negro that is not Jazz, Blues or Gospel usually gets thrown into R&B.

And while you seem to want to protect that status quo based on what I'm reading as a kind of racial unity imperative, you need to think about how it actually hurts the artists. Look at how the grouping together of all artists who make popular music and happen to be Black keeps some artists from reaching the broadest audience.

Someone like RES has complained that she made a record that was similar to many white "rock" artists and should have been marketed to the same broad audience but instead she got thrown into the R&B ghetto just because of the color of her skin.

Look at the Grammy Awards where when veteran artists like Patti LaBelle and Smokey Robinson make excellent new records and end up having to compete in the same category as Chris Brown and Rihanna... which is ridiculous and which they can never win.

Seriously... DOES Smokey Robinson make the same kind of music as Rihanna? If they were not both Black, you would never even dream of saying they're related in even the most distant way.

If you're really serious about wanting to see music grouped by what it sounds like rather than by a false and superficial parameter, why is Little Richard not in the same box as Jerry Lee Lewis? Why is he in the same category as Chico Debarge?

If you're fighting against, "fake" genre inventions, I really don't understand how you can be defending such a broad and racist genre like R&B (which, when you get down to it really makes no sense... "Rhythm & Blues"? How does the music of someone like Whitney Houson even fit into that?)

R&B is the fakest of all genre tags.

And "Rock" ain't much better because it became a way to demarcate "R&B" made by a white person... until it also became a broad catch-all for any popular music made by white artists that was not jazz, country or Barbra Streisand.

Most of our modern sub-genres are MUCH more descriptive and meaningful than the old broad, racist genres.

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

>And what's more, I detect some strong agenda posting going on
>here.

I'm not selling a book or promoting my newest documentary. I have an opinion that I expressed about the term neo soul.
>
>I'm a bit confused about one thing here: are you saying you're
>against sub-genre classifications IN GENERAL or against the
>"neo-soul" classification IN PARTICULAR?
>
>Because if the latter is the case, we could have avoided this
>whole discussion... I have no problem with the neo-soul
>designation myself, but I do understand that a lot of people
>are not fond of it. However, I was under the impression that
>you just didn't want any further sib-divisions of broad
>categories like Rock and R&B.
>
>Then you go and say this:
>
>>Labels and genre
>>specifications are needed and in some cases give a cool
>>historical perspective about the music making a statement
>>about not only the music but the era that they were created
>>in. The use of "Punk", "Funk" or "Jazz" not only reflect the
>>language of the era that those genres come from they
>actually
>>mean something sonically.
>
>Punk is a sub-category of rock.
>Funk is a sub-category of R&B.
>
>So are you saying you don't like sub-genres at all, or just
>SOME of them?

I'm saying that some of the sub genres make absolutely no sense and there's no reason for them. I'm totally cool with sub genres like Punk or Funk but something like "Gangsta Rap" or Neo Soul is completely useless to me.
>
> What the fuck does "Indie Rock"
>>mean? Especially when more than half of the people creating
>>what is called that music are on major labels? That's a fake
>>genre. Something like "Punk Revival" or "Neo Soul" don't
>tell
>>a story and don't really reflect the music IMO. That's a
>fake
>>genre to me.
>
>I could go into the Indie Rock thing but I really don't have
>the time or energy lol
>I won't say anything about Punk Revival either.
>
>However Neo-Soul DOES tell me a story about the music and the
>era it emerged from. It's a simple story:
>
>"Once upon a time, contemporary R&B was overwhelmed by hip-hop
>and had almost completely lost any resemblance to the Soul
>music of 20 years earlier that had preceded it.
>
>These few artists made a conscious effort to take it back.
>
>(Your mileage may vary on how successful they were in doing
>this)."
>
>And frankly, the fact that it was a very CONSCIOUS effort on
>the part of these artists is all the more the reason why the
>genre really wasn't the artificial label construct people are
>claiming it was.

But that's the thing, there were plenty of artists already around who made contemporary R&B that weren't thrown into this category. Eric Benet, Kenny Lattimore, etc were not making the Hip Hop influence R&B that Jodeci was. So why is Eric Benet R&B but D'angelo is Neo Soul? It doesn't make any sense to me.
>
>
>>Metallica is a good example of a legit time and place that a
>>genre warrants a title. Sure in a broad sense they are
>>considered rock by most people but the music they make
>(Metal)
>>really is very different sonically & stylistically from what
>>someone like the Beatles were doing.
>
>And the music D'Angelo was making was not sonically and
>stylistically different from Jodeci?

Not different enough to warrant an entire genre distinction. Jodeci and D share much more in common sonically than Metallica and Oasis do.
>
> In a broad sense you know
>>a Metal record from a straight ahead rock record even if
>they
>>were created during the same era. Hetfield HATES the Beatles
>>and isn't trying to make anything that sounds remotely like
>>what they did lyrically or sonically but a band like Oasis
>is
>>obviously from the same lineage as the Beatles and they
>don't
>>need a fake genre called "Neo British invasion" to be
>created
>>for them.
>
>uh.... but they did.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britpop
>
>Britpop was a pretty huge (and pretty conscious) movement in
>the 1990s. You really could not have missed that, man...

Yes I'm well aware of the term Britpop and I wasn't a big fan of that either just like I was aware of the "Grunge" term which I also wasn't a fan of.
>
>
>>I feel too many times the use of sub-genres is there in some
>>kind of attempt to take away from the diversity that may
>>actually exist in a genre. This always seems to happy with
>>Black music and it's annoying to me.
>
>And here's where I detect a Warren Coolidge/Lord
>Jansport-style racial agenda creeping in. And I have to say
>that I think it's pretty wrongheaded.

Again what kind of agenda could I possibly have? Does having an opinion different than yours equate to having an agenda?
>
> Of course "rock" can be
>>The Allman Brothers, U2 and Radiohead but V.V. Brown or Bryn
>>Christopher couldn't possibly be R&B or Soul artists because
>>R&B only has one sound and everyone must sound exactly like
>>that or it's a new genre. Same with Hip Hop... Outkast or
>the
>>Roots can't be Hip Hop because real Hip Hop sounds like....
>
>This "diversity in the genre" you're talking about is really
>overrated.
>
>The category of "Rhythm & Blues" was created by record exec
>Jerry Wexler and the editors of Billboard magazine (how's THAT
>for "fake" "invented" names?) to replace their previous title
>of the Black music chart which was becoming politically
>incorrect: "Race Music."
>
>That is, any music made by a person from "the race" was all
>thrown into the same bin. Whether it was the Soul Stirrers or
>Ray Charles or Lightnin' Hopkins or Dizzy Gillespie or Little
>Richard or whatever... As long as the person was Black, it was
>Race Music.
>
>Race Music's successor Rhythm & Blues really follows the same
>path, despite the fact there has been further taxonomy done so
>that gospel and jazz & blues are no longer in the same
>category. ANY pop music made by a negro that is not Jazz,
>Blues or Gospel usually gets thrown into R&B.
>
>And while you seem to want to protect that status quo based on
>what I'm reading as a kind of racial unity imperative, you
>need to think about how it actually hurts the artists. Look at
>how the grouping together of all artists who make popular
>music and happen to be Black keeps some artists from reaching
>the broadest audience.

It has nothing really to do with racial unity. Reggae is hugely different from R&B even though there are obvious influences. House is much different from R&B.
>
>Someone like RES has complained that she made a record that
>was similar to many white "rock" artists and should have been
>marketed to the same broad audience but instead she got thrown
>into the R&B ghetto just because of the color of her skin.

I never bought that argument from Res. There is nothing about that record that sounded "rock" to me in any way shape or form. Those songs delivered in that style are not getting played on your local rock station no matter the color of the skin of the singer. Lenny Kravitz has more of a leg to stand on in that argument than Res does. She opened for those artists, recorded with them and worked with them so I don't see how she was thrown into any type of R&B ghetto when those were the circles that she was running in already.

>Look at the Grammy Awards where when veteran artists like
>Patti LaBelle and Smokey Robinson make excellent new records
>and end up having to compete in the same category as Chris
>Brown and Rihanna... which is ridiculous and which they can
>never win.
>
>Seriously... DOES Smokey Robinson make the same kind of music
>as Rihanna? If they were not both Black, you would never even
>dream of saying they're related in even the most distant way.
>
>If you're really serious about wanting to see music grouped by
>what it sounds like rather than by a false and superficial
>parameter, why is Little Richard not in the same box as Jerry
>Lee Lewis? Why is he in the same category as Chico Debarge?

Little Richard is in the same box as Jerry Lee Lewis as far as I've always seen. I've never seen him in the R&B section of a record store. He's always in the "oldies" or early rock section with Bo, Chuck, Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis. Maybe it's different where you are but I've never been able to find a Chuck Berry or Little Richard record in the Soul or R&B section.

>If you're fighting against, "fake" genre inventions, I really
>don't understand how you can be defending such a broad and
>racist genre like R&B (which, when you get down to it really
>makes no sense... "Rhythm & Blues"? How does the music of
>someone like Whitney Houson even fit into that?)
>
>R&B is the fakest of all genre tags.

R&B is like the term "Black" for me. Is it racist and not always completely accurate? Sure... but it's better than "African American" to me.
>
>And "Rock" ain't much better because it became a way to
>demarcate "R&B" made by a white person... until it also became
>a broad catch-all for any popular music made by white artists
>that was not jazz, country or Barbra Streisand.
>
>Most of our modern sub-genres are MUCH more descriptive and
>meaningful than the old broad, racist genres.

They also usually fade after about 5 years. Shoegaze, Dream Pop, Neo Soul, Alternative Rap, etc. You can keep them all because in a few years they will drop off of the face of the planet anyway and we'll be back to using the old standard terms.