Ok maybe a bit out of left field here, but I believe this is likely a subject near and dear to many of our hearts. I'm currently reading "Just Around Midnight: Rock and Roll and the Racial Imagination", by Jack Hamilton, which discusses how media marketing in the USA during the 1960s was instrumental in shifting public perceptions of "Rock" music (and/or "Rock and Roll" music) from a predominately black-consumed to a predominately white-consumed medium.
Part of this comes from retroactively re-defining "rock" music to exclude black artists who were absolutely considered rock in their time (the book references a New York Times article from 1964 which compares Bob Dylan, a folk-singer, to Sam Cooke, a "rock-and-roll star". It also references another NYT cover article from 1965 about "rock music" which featured Diana Ross and the Supremes on the cover).
It also discussed how, in a media industry which was quite segregated, many young African-American artists who were looking to emulate Jimi Hendrix, Chuck Berry and/or Muddy Waters were 'diverted' into other styles, that would come to be known as "funk" or "soul".
As an interesting aside, it seems like many of the terms that we have for modern music really just come from euphemisms the industry came up with to describe music that was predominately being consumed by black Americans. The Billboard "Rhythm and Blues" charts began as the "Race Records" charts; became "Rhythm and Blues" (at the time, referring to two separate music genres, united by perceived 'blackness') became the official name from 1949; it was discontinued from 1963 to 1965, before being called the "Soul" charts from 1969 to 1982, when it became the "Black music" chart, until 1999, when it became the "Hip-Hop/R&B chart". This being said, over time, these catch all labels have come to mean specific types of music in the popular imagination.
Ok lets maybe give an actual thesis here. As a former failed musician myself, I'm aware that African-American participation in 'rock' music never really died, and there have always been African-Americans who listened to rock music, whether made by black artists or white. And of course, in my mind, if Prince isn't a rockstar, no one is. So the question is really one of the media and marketing - how do we keep rock music being marketed to African-Americans? Even if not all rock music is marketed to them.
And a second, related question: do all these industry terms ACTUALLY still just refer to a public perception? Is there, musically, a difference between 'rock' music and 'funk' music, for example, aside from the colour of those who it is predominately marketed to? This last part I really struggle with, again, as a musician, to me Sly Stone, P-Funk, Marvin Gaye, the Beatles and Metallica are all just different expressions of music, which we now call "rock and roll", that is deeply rooted in African-American musical traditions of the deep south, particularly blues, gospel, and jazz. When talking to non-musicians, however (which is, you know, most people) it seems that the vast majority of people don't see it this way.
So I guess the question is two-fold: is there a meaningful distinction between "rock" and "r&b", or is "rock" really just a subset of "r&b". And if rock is meaningfully different than r&b, is there a way to retain a large African-American consumption of rock music?
It's worth pointing out that the book points out that the false racial dichotomy of black vs white is perhaps nowhere more visible in the modern world than in modern musical terminology. I, and the author, acknowledge that human reality is far more complex than the labels on bins at the record store.
I'm interested in hearing peoples thoughts and opinions on the matter, it's just something that I've been considering a lot. I don't know if I have a meaningful way of distinguishing the "electric blues" from "blues rock". And, well, that's the music I grew up playing.
Part of this comes from retroactively re-defining "rock" music to exclude black artists who were absolutely considered rock in their time (the book references a New York Times article from 1964 which compares Bob Dylan, a folk-singer, to Sam Cooke, a "rock-and-roll star". It also references another NYT cover article from 1965 about "rock music" which featured Diana Ross and the Supremes on the cover).
It also discussed how, in a media industry which was quite segregated, many young African-American artists who were looking to emulate Jimi Hendrix, Chuck Berry and/or Muddy Waters were 'diverted' into other styles, that would come to be known as "funk" or "soul".
As an interesting aside, it seems like many of the terms that we have for modern music really just come from euphemisms the industry came up with to describe music that was predominately being consumed by black Americans. The Billboard "Rhythm and Blues" charts began as the "Race Records" charts; became "Rhythm and Blues" (at the time, referring to two separate music genres, united by perceived 'blackness') became the official name from 1949; it was discontinued from 1963 to 1965, before being called the "Soul" charts from 1969 to 1982, when it became the "Black music" chart, until 1999, when it became the "Hip-Hop/R&B chart". This being said, over time, these catch all labels have come to mean specific types of music in the popular imagination.
Ok lets maybe give an actual thesis here. As a former failed musician myself, I'm aware that African-American participation in 'rock' music never really died, and there have always been African-Americans who listened to rock music, whether made by black artists or white. And of course, in my mind, if Prince isn't a rockstar, no one is. So the question is really one of the media and marketing - how do we keep rock music being marketed to African-Americans? Even if not all rock music is marketed to them.
And a second, related question: do all these industry terms ACTUALLY still just refer to a public perception? Is there, musically, a difference between 'rock' music and 'funk' music, for example, aside from the colour of those who it is predominately marketed to? This last part I really struggle with, again, as a musician, to me Sly Stone, P-Funk, Marvin Gaye, the Beatles and Metallica are all just different expressions of music, which we now call "rock and roll", that is deeply rooted in African-American musical traditions of the deep south, particularly blues, gospel, and jazz. When talking to non-musicians, however (which is, you know, most people) it seems that the vast majority of people don't see it this way.
So I guess the question is two-fold: is there a meaningful distinction between "rock" and "r&b", or is "rock" really just a subset of "r&b". And if rock is meaningfully different than r&b, is there a way to retain a large African-American consumption of rock music?
It's worth pointing out that the book points out that the false racial dichotomy of black vs white is perhaps nowhere more visible in the modern world than in modern musical terminology. I, and the author, acknowledge that human reality is far more complex than the labels on bins at the record store.
I'm interested in hearing peoples thoughts and opinions on the matter, it's just something that I've been considering a lot. I don't know if I have a meaningful way of distinguishing the "electric blues" from "blues rock". And, well, that's the music I grew up playing.
Last edited:
