Oldies No Longer Quite So Golden

[Patrick M]

I wonder what it was about '73 that apparently caused so many shifts.

I was born.

[BradOlson]

If it weren't for CCM, we have probably not have gotten the Amazing Rhythm Aces catalog on CD either. Collectables did issue an excellent reissue of B.W. Stevenson's My Maria album with bonus tracks, retitled "The Very Best of B.W. Stevenson."

[Ron]

Interesting. People I know who experienced the era as young adults almost invariably finger 1973 (give or take a year) as "the end of the sixties," which for them started after Kennedy's assassination and the British Invasion. (Still a decade, just shifted a little.) I agree with Grant that white -- or "mainstream" to use the obnoxious and actually more offensive PC terminology -- interest in soul seemed to go away about then, replaced by more beat-oriented funk and disco.

I don't know as there's anything magical about the year, per se. The black culture had certainly been undergoing radical changes throughout the 60s and 70s [the American culture as a whole, as well], all of which was naturally reflected in the music. And yes, white interest in black music ["soul"?] would seem to have fallen off the map as soul veered away from it's blues/gospel roots into both "sweet soul" and rhythm/beat-oriented stuff like funk and disco.

Music that I've always referred to as soul had at its core a "sense of hurt" that is, of course, universal and not unique to any one culture. That universal quality of feeling coupled with some of the finest rhythm sections the world has ever heard [Stax, Fame, Hi, Muscle Shoals and Atlantic NY session guys] created a sound that wasn't too far removed from rock--so maybe it's not surprising that this sound literally exploded on the scene. So why did whites stop buying it? Because it stopped sounding like rock and became music exclusively for black people.

Al Green's a good example. His first two albums are two mighty steamin' rockin' affairs. But whereas successive albums have their share of cool songs/hits, the pace slows down considerably--so slow in fact that more and more songs become difficult to listen to. Until the light goes on: Hey, man. This is fuckin' make-out music!

Funk music? Great to dance to, but to listen to? Not as many white folks listening to "Hot Pants" as listened to "Try Me" thru "It's a Man's World." I don't listen to current black music, but much of what I hear [R&B? Hip hop?] sounds like music to get up-close-and-personal-with-the-one-you-love-on-the-dance-floor-stuff. Great for making out and/or dancing. But to listen to? Silky and sinewy and terribly boring.

I saw Parliament/Funkadelic in '77 or '78 in Los Angeles. Of course it was mostly a black affair, but if memory serves I'd say there must've been like 20-25% whites in attendance. All to say that whites hadn't completely abandoned the genre [though Funkadelic was pretty rock-oriented].

One last thought. I don't think you can underestimate the effect of disco in co-opting large chunks of black music. It took courage for those black artists not to succumb to the disco beat [and the bucks that would roll in should a song turn out to be a hit]. ZZ Hill and Solomon Burke are two artists who come to mind who steadfastly churned out "soulful" soul music throughout that era.

[mikenycLI]

What's always fascinated me as a music fan, over the years, has been the music "style", largely found in the British Isles, known as "Northern Soul".

How does this fit into our collective conception, of what is black music and what is white music ?

Would anyone like to weigh in on this one ?????

Mike

[Grant]

Interesting. People I know who experienced the era as young adults almost invariably finger 1973 (give or take a year) as "the end of the sixties," which for them started after Kennedy's assassination and the British Invasion. (Still a decade, just shifted a little.) I agree with Grant that white -- or "mainstream" to use the obnoxious and actually more offensive PC terminology -- interest in soul seemed to go away about then, replaced by more beat-oriented funk and disco.

I don't know as there's anything magical about the year, per se. The black culture had certainly been undergoing radical changes throughout the 60s and 70s [the American culture as a whole, as well], all of which was naturally reflected in the music. And yes, white interest in black music ["soul"?] would seem to have fallen off the map as soul veered away from it's blues/gospel roots into both "sweet soul" and rhythm/beat-oriented stuff like funk and disco.

Music that I've always referred to as soul had at its core a "sense of hurt" that is, of course, universal and not unique to any one culture. That universal quality of feeling coupled with some of the finest rhythm sections the world has ever heard [Stax, Fame, Hi, Muscle Shoals and Atlantic NY session guys] created a sound that wasn't too far removed from rock--so maybe it's not surprising that this sound literally exploded on the scene. So why did whites stop buying it? Because it stopped sounding like rock and became music exclusively for black people.

Al Green's a good example. His first two albums are two mighty steamin' rockin' affairs. But whereas successive albums have their share of cool songs/hits, the pace slows down considerably--so slow in fact that more and more songs become difficult to listen to. Until the light goes on: Hey, man. This is fuckin' make-out music!

Funk music? Great to dance to, but to listen to? Not as many white folks listening to "Hot Pants" as listened to "Try Me" thru "It's a Man's World." I don't listen to current black music, but much of what I hear [R&B? Hip hop?] sounds like music to get up-close-and-personal-with-the-one-you-love-on-the-dance-floor-stuff. Great for making out and/or dancing. But to listen to? Silky and sinewy and terribly boring.

I saw Parliament/Funkadelic in '77 or '78 in Los Angeles. Of course it was mostly a black affair, but if memory serves I'd say there must've been like 20-25% whites in attendance. All to say that whites hadn't completely abandoned the genre [though Funkadelic was pretty rock-oriented].

One last thought. I don't think you can underestimate the effect of disco in co-opting large chunks of black music. It took courage for those black artists not to succumb to the disco beat [and the bucks that would roll in should a song turn out to be a hit]. ZZ Hill and Solomon Burke are two artists who come to mind who steadfastly churned out "soulful" soul music throughout that era.

Ron, I don't know if you are white, but I think you just may have nailed it.

But, as a black guy around back then, I would say that the rift between blacks and white regarding music started right around 1967, when blacks could not really identify with the emerging hippie/counterculture. There is no doubt that the hippie movement affected pop music. It wasn't so much for soul music. The biggest rift I can see was the next year when Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated.

In my view, there was nothing special about the year 1973, except that Nixon withdrew out troops from southeast Asia, effectively ending out major involvement in the conflict. I think, after that, Watergate, Nixon's resignation a year later, and the energy crunch caused America, as a whole, to want something totally different than what was before, and that was to become nostalgic about the 50s and early 60s, and to dance! The baby-boomers realized that we weren't going to change anything, so we decided to foinally start practicing what we preached years ago, in free sex and drugs. People danced in discos to feel good in a rotten world. It was really also the younger boomers that embraced the harder-edged rock of the time.

[Grant]

What's always fascinated me as a music fan, over the years, has been the music "style", largely found in the British Isles, known as "Northern Soul".

How does this fit into our collective conception, of what is black music and what is white music ?

Would anyone like to weigh in on this one ?????

Mike

Honestly, as it is described as a music style, there is no difference. It is institutionalized racism that conditions people to think that one race listens to, or a certain music is made for a particular group of people. This causes people to be closed-minded or narrowly focused on one type of music only. In our collective American culture, it is still generally accepted that whites listened to melodic pop, or guitar-dominated rock music, and blacks and hispanics listened to rhythmically charged music. This is also why a lot of whites continue to assert that blacks made disco and rap, therefore, it is "black" music. Anything else that you don't dance or rap to must be white, of course, discounting many other musics of other cultures in America.

Today, calling one music white, and another black is a bit silly, whatever the orgins of a type of music may be.

[mikenycLI]

Grant,

To me, it's how the Music Business that used to, and even now to some extent, sets "The Rules", of what we hear/see, and therefore buy and "desire to buy/hear/see. In other words, especially in the not so old days, BEFORE, the internet, if it ain't in the major music periodicals, or it hasn't been signed by a major label, it won't be released, and therefore it doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, for better or for worse, that's just how music, and any comodity, is branded and offered to consumers.

[Ron]

In other words, especially in the not so old days, BEFORE, the internet, if it ain't in the major music periodicals, or it hasn't been signed by a major label, it won't be released, and therefore it doesn't exist.

Assuming I understand you correctly, I'm not sure I agree. Independent labels have flourished throughout history--meaning that tons of stuff has been released and occasionally massive hits ensue. Don't forget that many of today's "majors," e.g., Motown, Atlantic and Electra are a few that come to mind, started out as so-called "indies" labels. Granted, however, that the huge hits *usually* require the push [read: promotion and distribution] that cash-rich major labels can provide.

One of the current problems the industry faces, as I see it, is that today there is simply *so much* music out there that it's all too easy for music that has in fact been released to get heard. It's a double-edged sword in a way: it's great that there's so much out there, but I for one feel so overwhelmed by it all that I occasionally simply don't want to know about it and retreat into the familiar.

[mikenycLI]

Things are supposed to have changed for the better, but until there is a major upheaval in the way the Music Business works, yes, it's still the same. The impact of the internet, still, hasn't made a difference...yet.

The basic tools that have to be used to get the music noticed are still in place, only variations on the same theme, are employed. As per the article here, titled "Oldies No Longer Quite So Golden", it seems, there is a power shift going on, from the dominance of music labels, to the dominance of retail store outlets that sell the music.

What's interesting in this mix, is that music, really isn't the main reason these retail outlets are/were in business, in the first place ! Even though they are the places where music is, increasingly being sold, these days, these venues are still, MORE ill-equipped to serve consumers than the chain music stores, were. Remember how we used to complain about how lame the sales staff was/is in Tower, Sam Goody, etc. ?

Well, I guess we didn't know how well we had it, dealing with the lame sales staff, there, did we ???? Other than telling you "if it's not out there, we don't have it" or short-stocking on popular new releases, what do they do for us, other than drive us to driving all over town for a new release, on Tuesday mornings...if we can do that !

I quote, "Mass merchants "prevent unknown or developing artists from getting much-needed exposure," PwC notes in the outlook. "Over time, the result will be a growing reliance on established stars but less fresh music, as well as a weaker back catalog."

...and, in addition....

"...the increasing share of music sales held by mass merchants will impinge on the availability of catalog product and make it more difficult for new artists to be developed, in the process further limiting the market potential for recorded music."

Look at how the Eagles are marketing their new single. But how many other new artists can command to be treated like them and get a place on the shelves ?

None that I can think of, but that's where, it seems, the competition will have to fight in out !