Chalky Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 I don't think it's right Gene that you have a dig then close topic therefore denying right oif reply. Gene-R said.... Oh dear Jocko - that time of month is it, or haven't you taken your medication, or were you bullied as a young boy? All I wanted was to create a healthy debate - not some load of self-righteous bile spouted by someone who thinks they're THE authority on "northern soul" or the big I-am (move over Mr Godin). In general, I think the majority of posts here make way for healthy debate, apart from your inane (boring) ranting, and those who follow you like sheep (many of who aren't even old enough to know what they're agreeing with). And yes Chalky, that means you - as a member of forum staff, and a pillar of society that you try to be, you should hang your head in shame for giving approval and thumbs-up to such an abusive post. You're a disappointment and a total embasrrassement - call yourself a moderator? Yes, I am one of the DLT fans, and always have been, and I'll always like the other greats who frequented Radio 1 during the 70s. As for your "I want it wherever I go, you don't so lets make sure we are never in same place. Based on this I would hope that was inevitable" quote, don't make me laugh - you are so childish! You sound more like a lover scorned, or a playground bully. However, I mst say that I'm dazzingly impressed by your psychic powers - how would you know what I want, and what I don't want? You don't even know me, thank God! Moronic, ill-informed and pathetic? Well, I think you're a highly-strung, self-centred, arrogant, condescending, patronising jumped-up little man who thinks the Northern Soul scene owes you a living, but I don't suffer epileptic fits over it. And it also serves to remind me that it's people like you that make me glad that I'm no longer part of the "Northern Soul" scene. You can keep it, sir. You may think you look clever with your rants and cheap four-letter insults, but it really does makes you look the complete gibbering idiot that you are. So perhaps now you should get off your high horse, and crawl back to your gin-soaked armchair....... If anything was ill informed it was your initial post Gene. I'm fed up with people having a go because their taste in soul and pop isn't the same as others on the site. I have a very broad and diverse range in taste and Jock's taste in Soul music and Northern Soul is as diverse as anyone I know. Just because I didn't like that pile of pop tripe The Javells, cause that is what it is, pop, nothing to do with soul music, blue eyed or otherwise. Jock post came across as pretty well informed to me and certainly not gibberish. You obviously don't know Jock cause how you described him is not the man I know, far from it, but I'm sure he'll stick up for himself. It is high time the insults like narrow minded and soul snob stopped just because our tastes differ cause that is all it is at the end of the day, personal taste, nothing to do with snobbery, I and many many others are into soul music, we have to suffer The Javells on here but it doesn't mean we have to suffer it when we go out and if someone chooses to avoid that type of venue it's nothing to do with anyone else. As Jock said it is primarily a soul scene, made up of black soul music with a fair smattering of blue-eyed Soul and some pop as well. If someone doesn't like the pop so what, it is their prerogative, get over it. If the topic had been left open I'm sure many others would have felt the same way as Jock, myself and Arkwright. I'm sure others would have agreed with you and continued with the soul snob insults as well, thats debate, not spitting you dummy out and closing the topic . What aren't I old enough to know what I'm agreeing with, doesn't make sense one bit that part of your rant? I don't feel embarrassed either. Lastly what I say has nothing to do with my status as forum staff. It is my own personal opinion, just like yours, I don't make myself out to be a pillar of society either. If Mike thinks I've stepped out of line I'm sure he will tell me so.
Gene-r Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Well, I shall certainly bring your behaviour on the post to Mike's attention and let him see or do as he thinks fit. Jock's post well informed? Certainly was, informing us how frequently the F word can be used inappropriately, and how one can resort to childish insults. And by the way, it's my post and I have a right to close it as necessary, so get a grip. And no - it's not a dig. Some people just don't like to know the truth about themselves. Edited July 6, 2011 by Gene-R
Chas Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 Jeez! Saw this by accident,cant believe it,its like the old letters page used to be like in echoes!
Pete S Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 o I don't think it's right Gene that you have a dig then close topic therefore denying right oif reply. If anything was ill informed it was your initial post Gene. I'm fed up with people having a go because their taste in soul and pop isn't the same as others on the site. I have a very broad and diverse range in taste and Jock's taste in Soul music and Northern Soul is as diverse as anyone I know. Just because I didn't like that pile of pop tripe The Javells, cause that is what it is, pop, nothing to do with soul music, blue eyed or otherwise. Jock post came across as pretty well informed to me and certainly not gibberish. You obviously don't know Jock cause how you described him is not the man I know, far from it, but I'm sure he'll stick up for himself. It is high time the insults like narrow minded and soul snob stopped just because our tastes differ cause that is all it is at the end of the day, personal taste, nothing to do with snobbery, I and many many others are into soul music, we have to suffer The Javells on here but it doesn't mean we have to suffer it when we go out and if someone chooses to avoid that type of venue it's nothing to do with anyone else. As Jock said it is primarily a soul scene, made up of black soul music with a fair smattering of blue-eyed Soul and some pop as well. If someone doesn't like the pop so what, it is their prerogative, get over it. If the topic had been left open I'm sure many others would have felt the same way as Jock, myself and Arkwright. I'm sure others would have agreed with you and continued with the soul snob insults as well, thats debate, not spitting you dummy out and closing the topic . What aren't I old enough to know what I'm agreeing with, doesn't make sense one bit that part of your rant? I don't feel embarrassed either. Lastly what I say has nothing to do with my status as forum staff. It is my own personal opinion, just like yours, I don't make myself out to be a pillar of society either. If Mike thinks I've stepped out of line I'm sure he will tell me so. Chalky that's a disgraceful abuse of your powers as a moderator, it's not your place to open and close topics if a member feels it should be closed, just because you disagree with him. I'll report this, but seeing as it goes straight to you, what's the point.
Pete S Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 Well, I shall certainly bring your behaviour on the post to Mike's attention and let him see or do as he thinks fit. By the way, it's my post and I have a right to close it as necessary. Close it again Gene.
Chalky Posted July 6, 2011 Author Posted July 6, 2011 Well, I shall certainly bring your behaviour on the post to Mike's attention and let him see or do as he thinks fit. By the way, it's my post and I have a right to close it as necessary. You already have haven't you? I won't change my opinions just because I am a Mod on here. And I have the right to start a new topic and have the right of reply.
Pete S Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 You already have haven't you? I won't change my opinions just because I am a Mod on here. And I have the right to start a new topic and have the right of reply. You can start a new topic but you can't take it upon yourself to reopen one that someone's closed just for your own benefit.
Chalky Posted July 6, 2011 Author Posted July 6, 2011 Close it again Gene. He can't, I started this topic. Get's on my tit's the way some think they can behave and feel the need to berate and have a go at anyone who's taste doesn't match their idea of what Soul/Northern Soul is or should be, then soon as someone has a go back they spit the dummy out.
Chalky Posted July 6, 2011 Author Posted July 6, 2011 You can start a new topic but you can't take it upon yourself to reopen one that someone's closed just for your own benefit. Pete, butt out, I haven't reopened any topic, I've started my own.
Pete S Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Pete, butt out, I haven't reopened any topic, I've started my own. Yes of course you have. That's really sneaky behaviour taking a massive quote and pasting into a new topic. Edited July 6, 2011 by Pete S
Guest julesp1905 Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 I am frankly amazed that somebody would start a topic of this nature, why is colour such an important factor? Soul Music is global!
Pete S Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 He can't, I started this topic. Get's on my tit's the way some think they can behave and feel the need to berate and have a go at anyone who's taste doesn't match their idea of what Soul/Northern Soul is or should be, then soon as someone has a go back they spit the dummy out. Chalky it's not about what Jock said, it's about the way he said it, and I can bet you if I'd spoken to someone like that, someone would have had a word with me. There was just no need for it, it was like someone plugged him in and off he went on this mad sweary rant. He usually articulates himself without behaving like a madman. Well, I say usually...
Pete S Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 Soul Music is global! Sorry but what on earth does that mean?
Chalky Posted July 6, 2011 Author Posted July 6, 2011 I am frankly amazed that somebody would start a topic of this nature, why is colour such an important factor? Soul Music is global! Exactly It matters little, it's the quality that counts. The Righteous Brothers "Soul Out" is a regular on my decks along side the so called proper stuff It's no less soulful just because they are white. I can fully understand some, including me taking a dislike to the Javells, pure treaty pop, but I can also understand why those were there at the time like the record. But then again The Javells isn't part of the Soul Scene but the Northern Scene where it often matters little whether a record has soul in it, especially back in he day
Chalky Posted July 6, 2011 Author Posted July 6, 2011 Chalky it's not about what Jock said, it's about the way he said it, and I can bet you if I'd spoken to someone like that, someone would have had a word with me. There was just no need for it, it was like someone plugged him in and off he went on this mad sweary rant. He usually articulates himself without behaving like a madman. Well, I say usually... Pete you are often "off hand" with people with your retorts. I though Jocks response was articulate, ok he might have been upset but maybe the countless digs at people because their taste doesn't fit in with someones ideology drove him to the point were enough was enough. I was thinking something along the lines of Jock but I felt I didn't have to say anything more as he'd already said it.
Pete S Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 Pete you are often "off hand" with people with your retorts. I though Jocks response was articulate, ok he might have been upset but maybe the countless digs at people because their taste doesn't fit in with someones ideology drove him to the point were enough was enough. I was thinking something along the lines of Jock but I felt I didn't have to say anything more as he'd already said it. I don't think I've ever gone at anyone with a barrage like that, or sworn at anyone like that Chalky, if you can find an example of my doing that I'd be very surprised. And over nothing as well...
Gene-r Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Pete you are often "off hand" with people with your retorts. I though Jocks response was articulate, ok he might have been upset but maybe the countless digs at people because their taste doesn't fit in with someones ideology drove him to the point were enough was enough. I was thinking something along the lines of Jock but I felt I didn't have to say anything more as he'd already said it. Yes Chalky - your response above smacks of you taking "my mate Jocko's" side and trying to excuse his bad behaviour. Right then - let's dissect this 'articulate' response for what it really is, shall we? "I think this is one of the most moronic, ill informed and pathetic posts ever, and typifies why I f**cking shake my head whenever a Northern fan tries to initiate a debate on soul. " "The knobheads who go on about the colour only are as uninformed as you and your lot." "WTF does 27 years on a dance scene tell you about soul music, go and educate yourself FFS." "I do not know any real soul fan who states they do not like any blue eyed music, another anomaly I suspect from a Northern fan trying to be clever, and off course failing." "...to me its quality control and it rejects the pure pop pish that you and your like support...." ...it's a taste question, I have it, lots of others have it, you don't. It doesn't mean we all have to agree on that taste but the fact I won't accept it allows you and others to bang on with the soul snob thing. Pathetic, puerile and more about you than it is about me. Its nothing more than quality control to me, when the quality dips, I stop going out and leave it to the DLT fans like you." "Although this to me is either a rare species that exist either not much or are in your imagination to allow you to continue your soul snot tirade, hiding the fact you just don't f****ng get it." "Get over yourself, there are loads of places that don't have that quality control but do not expect me to go. I repeat, I am soul fan, I want it wherever I go, you don't so lets make sure we are never in same place. Based on this I would hope that was inevitable. " "Maybe that is all you know but is just arrogant and misguided bullsh*t on your behalf to assume this." "And before you come out with the usual don't get angry/personal, there is no other way to deal with rubbish like this. Not only do you re-write some American history, you attempt to re-write the history of the UK soul scene, really would have expected better from you." Now I'll tell you something for nothing. There is nothing more I like than healthy debate. What you see here, in stark contrast, is pure condescending abuse from some tyrant who thinks he's better than everyone else, and it's unnecessarily aimed at me. OK, I started the original post, but no need for this level of vitriol, is there? That is OUT OF ORDER. - no excuse for it. As has previously been said, the ramblings of a madman or some holier-than-thou being. In my closing response on the previous thread which you have very kindly stupidly copied here, how else could I treat a personal attack like that, other than attack back and go for the jugular, albeit in a more constructive, sane and intelligent manner (since, unlike some people, that's just the sort of person I am). So much for your idea of an ARTICULATE post. Need I say more? Edited July 6, 2011 by Gene-R
Pete S Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 Shame really cos over on The Javells thread, there are people saying that they are soul snobs and proud to be so.
Gene-r Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 Get's on my tit's the way some think they can behave and feel the need to berate and have a go at anyone who's taste doesn't match their idea of what Soul/Northern Soul is or should be, then soon as someone has a go back they spit the dummy out. What a hypocritical thing to say, since you obviously condone and approve such behaviour. And what you describe here is exactly Jocko's attitude.
boba Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 I am frankly amazed that somebody would start a topic of this nature, why is colour such an important factor? Soul Music is global! Race is an extremely important factor in Soul Music. To deny is is to put your head in the sand. That doesn't mean that there's not good White soul artists or bad Black soul artists. But it was music mostly created by and produced by African Americans.
Steve L Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 oh i do love a mass debate. Cant deny it livens things up a bit!
Pete S Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 Race is an extremely important factor in Soul Music. To deny is is to put your head in the sand. That doesn't mean that there's not good White soul artists or bad Black soul artists. But it was music mostly created by and produced by African Americans. Nobody can deny that, and there are really very few 'real' soul records by white artists. There are though, hundreds and hundreds of Northern Soul records by white artists. And I think this is what causes the confusion. Northern Soul is, to be honest, a bit of an enigma.
Gene-r Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 Chalky that's a disgraceful abuse of your powers as a moderator, it's not your place to open and close topics if a member feels it should be closed, just because you disagree with him. I'll report this, but seeing as it goes straight to you, what's the point. Thanks Pete - that's two of us reported this abuse of power.
boba Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 Nobody can deny that, and there are really very few 'real' soul records by white artists. There are though, hundreds and hundreds of Northern Soul records by white artists. And I think this is what causes the confusion. Northern Soul is, to be honest, a bit of an enigma. you are definitely correct on this point. The thread that started this debate though was whether there is real White soul music (not "northern soul").
Pete S Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 Thanks Pete - that's two of us reported this abuse of power. I jumped the gun thinking Chalky had re-opened it - he hadn't, but he might as well have, cutting and pasting from the original topic.
Pete S Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 you are definitely correct on this point. The thread that started this debate though was whether there is real White soul music (not "northern soul"). Sorry, I Missed that.
Gene-r Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 I jumped the gun thinking Chalky had re-opened it - he hadn't, but he might as well have, cutting and pasting from the original topic. I have reported it on that basis.
Agentsmith Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 cant quite believe ive read all this vitriol from grown adults who profess to love the same music as me. life's too short ( PARTICULARLY WHERE A LARGE PROPORTION OF US ARE CONCERNED ) to be worrying about identity/ethnicity/catergorization of what we've grown up with for 3/4 decades....that debacle began in the 70's with the northern/modern clashes......wigan/mecca....and look where that got us.......BOTH VENUES LONG GONE.....and we're still here. the black and white scenario was also part of that as well, but is it REALLY necessary to drag it through the wringer when we're approaching doteage/pension age?...do we REALLY want to be taking this arguement to/be driven to our graves....FOR GOD'S SAKE, CANT ALL PARTIES JUST BURY THE HATCHETT, LIVE WHAT LIFE YOU HAVE LEFT ENJOYING REAL MUSIC, FAR REMOVED FROM WHAT THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD HAS TO OFFER....REMEMBER THAT YOUR SAVIOUR AND YOUR SANITY WAS THE SCENE,....YOU JOINED THIS ESCAPIST MOVEMENT FOR PRECISELY THAT REASON....TO ESCAPE THE BORING MUNDANE WORLD OF REALITY....WHY KEEP SQUABBLING OVER ORIGINALITY?...ISNT THE MANTRA " ITS WHATS IN THE GROOVE THAT COUNTS" OR "ITS JUST GOT THE RIGHT BEAT"....BOTH QUOTES RELEVANT TO BLACK AND WHITE SOUNDS AND BOTH SOUNDS DOVETAILED TO CREATE THE MUSICAL KALIEDESCOPE THAT IS OUR BELOVED NORTHERN SOUL SCENE.... now please, get back to the bigger picture, call a truce, shake hands and get on with talking about things that you really enjoy. 3
Guest gordon russell Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 "good bye.....there's nothing to say".....l said "goodbye there's no other way":D
Winnie :-) Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 cant quite believe ive read all this vitriol from grown adults who profess to love the same music as me. life's too short ( PARTICULARLY WHERE A LARGE PROPORTION OF US ARE CONCERNED ) to be worrying about identity/ethnicity/catergorization of what we've grown up with for 3/4 decades....that debacle began in the 70's with the northern/modern clashes......wigan/mecca....and look where that got us.......BOTH VENUES LONG GONE.....and we're still here. the black and white scenario was also part of that as well, but is it REALLY necessary to drag it through the wringer when we're approaching doteage/pension age?...do we REALLY want to be taking this arguement to/be driven to our graves....FOR GOD'S SAKE, CANT ALL PARTIES JUST BURY THE HATCHETT, LIVE WHAT LIFE YOU HAVE LEFT ENJOYING REAL MUSIC, FAR REMOVED FROM WHAT THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD HAS TO OFFER....REMEMBER THAT YOUR SAVIOUR AND YOUR SANITY WAS THE SCENE,....YOU JOINED THIS ESCAPIST MOVEMENT FOR PRECISELY THAT REASON....TO ESCAPE THE BORING MUNDANE WORLD OF REALITY....WHY KEEP SQUABBLING OVER ORIGINALITY?...ISNT THE MANTRA " ITS WHATS IN THE GROOVE THAT COUNTS" OR "ITS JUST GOT THE RIGHT BEAT"....BOTH QUOTES RELEVANT TO BLACK AND WHITE SOUNDS AND BOTH SOUNDS DOVETAILED TO CREATE THE MUSICAL KALIEDESCOPE THAT IS OUR BELOVED NORTHERN SOUL SCENE.... now please, get back to the bigger picture, call a truce, shake hands and get on with talking about things that you really enjoy. and from the ashes a phoenix arose.............
Gene-r Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) and from the ashes a phoenix arose............. ....and pigs DO fly...... Edited July 6, 2011 by Gene-R
Guest Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 friggin outragous ....[/b] modorators self rightous, do i as say not as i do
jocko Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Okay, thought I would stand back and let this develop, Firstly, my style of response was very deliberate for a couple of reasons, with more vitriol than normal and deliberately little humour, and based on the responses I take it (a) Gene thinks it is okay to call people's names just because they like soul but does not think it is okay to defend yourself to this name calling in big bad nasty way, Who is the hypocrite here? (b) It is okay to start a topic for debate, by basically slagging a group of people, soul fans who dare to debate on a debating forum about music they love and defend that music against people whose only argument is to call them names, but it is not okay to defend that position. Who is the hypocrite? Go on and read Gene's words and his opening assumptions if you don't allow pop music to be called Soul, not Northern, then its open season on name calling. Its not my opinion on what is in Soul music, its a historical fact, hence my suggesting he educates himself with reading a world leading book on the fact. Ignorance is almost always behind intolerance, which calling people soul snobs because they like soul most definitely is. © Pete, the normal doyen of free speech, gets offended when someone defends themselves because they swear. Yet he gets annoyed when people try to shout down racist and bigoted bile that often used to be spewed on here, shouting about being beaten down by the "loonie left". Who is the hypocrite here? In all honest I am pig sick of people like Gene with this soul snob etc etc shite. and it does make me angry, I repeat its peurile, pathetic and uninformed. If I am wrong on this Gene debate the points I made rather than throwing a strop because I called you nastier names than you called us. Go on and read the facts between the swear words and debate them. Perception is a powerful thing and based on your point on your topic and your responses, most of my assumptions of you stand based on your stance, I have no other way to judge you. The ironic thing is I get accused of trying to define Northern when that is exactly the opposite of what I was doing, Sometimes its easy to miss the point when you are trying to defend the indefensible. Bob A gets it completely, no surprise really, if Gene had debated about this on the Northern Scene I wouldn't even have read it. He didn't, he decided to re-write the Soul music history, and as Bob says that is history, not an opinion, it is well documented fact. Am I sorry I wrote how I did, absolutely not, what I am sorry was it did not start the debate I wanted about this pathetic stance about soul snobs etc. Gene didn't even read it properly as he seems to think I am saying something about Northern, when it is quite clear I am not. However I couldn;t answer that, why, Gene closed it because I called him names in response to him calling me names, collectively rather than personally admittedly, quite ridiculous really. If you don't want to feel people angry at you think what you say, I challenge you to re-read your opening post and see any sort of balanced view or debate in that, you were stating a position and calling people names because they disagree with it. Hardly a debate is it. I repeat pathetic and peurile. Change my perception if you can. Edited July 6, 2011 by jocko
jocko Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 you are definitely correct on this point. The thread that started this debate though was whether there is real White soul music (not "northern soul"). And just in case you miss it in my multitude of words, this is exactly the point, and calling people names because of it.
Guest julesp1905 Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 But it was music mostly created by and produced by African Americans. I wasn't aware that soul music had ceased to be produced, when did it end? though back to topic, i often see records on this forum described as white, usually to slate them, if it is a soul record then colour does not need to come into it. Opinions on the track are all that is required. Nobody slates a record for being black. If it's not a soul record, then does it really need to be discussed on a soul forum, we have a freebasing sub section, surely that's the correct place.
Mike Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 ok have had two reports from two members have read the above and for what its worth heres my take 1. jocks reply was out of order due to insults and abusive tone 2. chalky post/actions were at fault as it seems he didn't make it clear to all that these were just his own personal views not 'official' as a moderator 3 closing threads - members can close threads if they wish however members are free to reopen any topic in such a thread for further discussion will repost this in feedback and ask if you wish to discuss any further these or anything else on the moderation side then do it on that thread link : https://www.soul-source.co.uk/forums/topic/205650-from-thread-black/ regarding this thread if members want to carry on the discussion then ask do it in a calmer less heated manner thanks mike
boba Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) I wasn't aware that soul music had ceased to be produced, when did it end? though back to topic, i often see records on this forum described as white, usually to slate them, if it is a soul record then colour does not need to come into it. Opinions on the track are all that is required. Nobody slates a record for being black. If it's not a soul record, then does it really need to be discussed on a soul forum, we have a freebasing sub section, surely that's the correct place. Maybe you should be more "aware" of the cultural context of the music you listen to? "Soul" and "Soul Music" are specific terms that became culturally important / frequently used directly in connection with the emergence of the elements of African-American consciousness / identity that was happening in the late 60s and early 70s -- e.g. changes in politics, clothing, hairstyles, food, attitudes, and every other cultural element. Obviously the meaning of words change but in this case it has a lot of baggage and is very closely tied to very specific things. The music "ceased to be produced" when the people producing the music and connected to the cultural movement ceased to use it as a term to describe their own music. It's problematic to reappropriate the word to describe other things because of its close connection with specific historical and cultural things. At least it should be done with an awareness of what the word came from. I would describe a lot of music today as "soulful" and maybe some throwback acts like Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings are able to capture an older sound and I would go so far as to call them "throwback soul" or something like that, but even those acts aren't making music in the specific cultural context that "soul music" comes from. Anyways, people need to chill out. I don't see why people should be nasty. Edited July 7, 2011 by boba
Guest ScooterNik Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 I was really hoping that this thread would end with Chalky ripping into Gene and then locking it. Not because I necessarily agree with Chalky, but just because it would have been interesting to see Genes reaction. End of the day, who gives a damn? If it's a soul record then it's a particular beast. If it's a Norrthern soul record, then it's a different kind of beast that may or may not be related to the soul beast. Depending.
Guest julesp1905 Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Maybe you should be more "aware" of the cultural context of the music you listen to? e.g. changes in politics, clothing, hairstyles, food, attitudes, and every other cultural element. thank you for your response, I know the cultural heritage of soul music, and i'm glad you acknowledge the role it has played in the greater society, so i will go back to my original post, Why in 2011, do why have a topic debating the merits of the colour of skin? dismissing an artist for anything other than their product is unwarranted, our idols would be ashamed to hear that skintone could be used as a factor. Or have i misunderstood something?
Billy Freemantle Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 I jumped the gun thinking Chalky had re-opened it - he hadn't, but he might as well have, cutting and pasting from the original topic. So,what? If a politician, for example, says something controversial, then he has the right - as does anyone else - to say that he wishes to say no more about it, which is equivalent to closing a thread. However, others have the right to quote what he said if they wish. The politician in our example then has 2 choices: he can remain silent or he can re-engage in the argument. It is absurd to report someone for continuing a contentious argument by using the well-established convention of quoting. And it is similarly absurd to suggest that a moderator of a chat site loses his rights as a human being to reply to what he perceives to be nonsense.
Pete S Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) © Pete, the normal doyen of free speech, gets offended when someone defends themselves because they swear. I didn't complain about you defending yourself, I complained about you attacking someone in an extremely aggressive way. Big difference. "Yet he gets annoyed when people try to shout down racist and bigoted bile that often used to be spewed on here, shouting about being beaten down by the "loonie left". Who is the hypocrite here?" Gene is of Asian origin by the way. Edited July 7, 2011 by Pete S
Ady Croasdell Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Maybe you should be more "aware" of the cultural context of the music you listen to? "Soul" and "Soul Music" are specific terms that became culturally important / frequently used directly in connection with the emergence of the elements of African-American consciousness / identity that was happening in the late 60s and early 70s -- e.g. changes in politics, clothing, hairstyles, food, attitudes, and every other cultural element. Obviously the meaning of words change but in this case it has a lot of baggage and is very closely tied to very specific things. The music "ceased to be produced" when the people producing the music and connected to the cultural movement ceased to use it as a term to describe their own music. It's problematic to reappropriate the word to describe other things because of its close connection with specific historical and cultural things. At least it should be done with an awareness of what the word came from. I would describe a lot of music today as "soulful" and maybe some throwback acts like Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings are able to capture an older sound and I would go so far as to call them "throwback soul" or something like that, but even those acts aren't making music in the specific cultural context that "soul music" comes from. Anyways, people need to chill out. I don't see why people should be nasty. This should probably be a separate post Bob but presumably you're talking about 'Sweet Soul Music' and onwards; I generally term that mid 60s onwards as there were soul related lyrics from 1964. But wasn't it used first in musical terms in gospel and then jazz (Booker T had a 1964 hit 'Soul Dressing') and I wondered what your take on it being adopted for a new secular vocal music from those two sources was? Ady PS Much maligned mods please feel free to splinter this off into a new topic, we don't want to upset any Javells fans (I actually bought it before it was played when it was still by Nosmo King!)
Gene-r Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) And if you think I'm backing off from this without a fight, you're wrong. So Jocko, let's address your big I-am respose bit by bit: Gene thinks it is okay to call people's names just because they like soul but does not think it is okay to defend yourself to this name calling in big bad nasty way, Who is the hypocrite here? Erm, who's calling people names? "Soul snob" was used as an adjective to describe what some people refer to others as. And if anyone's calling people names in a "big bad nasty way", it's you. Who is the hypocrite here? Go on and read Gene's words and his opening assumptions if you don't allow pop music to be called Soul, not Northern, then its open season on name calling. Ditto. Who is the hypocrite here? Its not my opinion on what is in Soul music, its a historical fact, hence my suggesting he educates himself with reading a world leading book on the fact It's YOUR opinion - clearly. Your condescending, patronising, holier-than-thou attitude on reading a world-leading book to educate myself stinks. You obviously ARE a soul snob, and one who gives the rest a bad name. Who is the hypocrite here? Pete, the normal doyen of free speech, gets offended when someone defends themselves because they swear. Yet he gets annoyed when people try to shout down racist and bigoted bile that often used to be spewed on here, shouting about being beaten down by the "loonie left". Who is the hypocrite here? See Pete's post just before this one for your answer. If I am wrong on this Gene debate the points I made rather than throwing a strop because I called you nastier names than you called us. So who's throwing a strop? You, obviously. I challenged the points in a calm, intelligent manner - something that you're obviously incapable of due to lack of skills on both counts. Who is the hypocrite here? Perception is a powerful thing and based on your point on your topic and your responses, most of my assumptions of you stand based on your stance, I have no other way to judge you. You don't even know me, you know nothing about me - so who the hell are you to judge me? Who is the hypocrite here? Gene closed it because I called him names in response to him calling me names, collectively rather than personally admittedly, quite ridiculous really. You really do have a severe persecution complex, don't you. Me calling you names? You do that quite well yourself without my help. To quote: "And off course we are soul snobs, although to me its quality control and it rejects the pure pop pish that you and your like support." Who is the hypocrite here? If you don't want to feel people angry at you think what you say, I challenge you to re-read your opening post and see any sort of balanced view or debate in that, you were stating a position and calling people names because they disagree with it. Hardly a debate is it. As I said before, who's calling anyone names? So cut the "poor me, poor me" sob story. So now you're faced with the facts, you don't like it, do you? TOUGH. And let's not forget that you're using the factutlaly incorrect excuse that I called you names as a feeble excuse just to launch your own nasty and abusive tirade - just like a bully does. Who is the hypocrite here? Taking everything into acount, WHO IS THE HYPOCRITE HERE? Obviously you, Jock - no two ways about it. I don't need to say anything else - Mike already has. To quote "jocks reply was out of order due to insults and abusive tone" I rest my case. Edited July 7, 2011 by Gene-R
Pete S Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 So probably best to either close this topic or run with Gene's original idea from his first post asking people to name their favourite blue eyed Northern sounds?
Gene-r Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) So probably best to either close this topic or run with Gene's original idea from his first post asking people to name their favourite blue eyed Northern sounds? Forget even asking them what their fave blue eyed Northern sounds are - guaranteed one little Hitler with Tourettes and a large chip on his shoulder will spoil it all with stories of how they created the world. Edited July 7, 2011 by Gene-R
boba Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 This should probably be a separate post Bob but presumably you're talking about 'Sweet Soul Music' and onwards; I generally term that mid 60s onwards as there were soul related lyrics from 1964. But wasn't it used first in musical terms in gospel and then jazz (Booker T had a 1964 hit 'Soul Dressing') and I wondered what your take on it being adopted for a new secular vocal music from those two sources was? Ady PS Much maligned mods please feel free to splinter this off into a new topic, we don't want to upset any Javells fans (I actually bought it before it was played when it was still by Nosmo King!) I think you can find uses and origins of the word "soul" before the late 60s. That's why I specifically talked about it as "culturally important / frequently used" vs. used at all. For example, the TV program "Soul!" ran from 1968-1973. The TV show Soul Train started in 1970 in Chicago. The magazine "Soul" published starting somewhere around 1970 (for some reason I can't find a citation for it online to verify the exact years, even though I own some issues and have looked it up online before...).
Recommended Posts