TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
It's R&B (well, the classic Motown stuff is at least). Because there is a certain, distinctive style that came out of Motown does not mean that Motown is a "genre". Philly International had a sound. That doesn't make Philly International a genre. Same for Stax, Sugar Hill, Studio One and any number of other labels/production houses.
Interesting comment! Would you say that part of the reason so much of this music ends up charting is because of that lack of abrasiveness? I can see where less abrasive music (read something more easy listening oriented) would be safer for a label to invest in because it might have offended fewer moms and dads.
Philly International was my major client when I was selling studio gear. Can confirm. There was a Philly sound, but it was all part of a bigger thing that included a whole bunch of other labels recording and (later) charting as R&B.
Well, it does seem like a lot of people enjoy "softer" sounding music. If you look at the popularity of crooners in the 40s and the softer sounds of a lot of the more sappy, "wholesome" type of rock 'n' roll from the late '50s through the 60's, into "soft rock" and AOR/MOR, etc. it's clear that there is definitely a large market for the less abrasive side of rock/pop. The Red Hot Chili Peppers: that's a band that I never suspected would get airplay on mainstream radio (having heard their earlier material but then they record "Under The Bridge" and they're off to the races: something palatable to people who would not necessarily have been very receptive to "Jungle Man".
Take a look at my band's mini playlist, posted above. It's almost all on the softer side. We have done, and will do, harder stuff too. But our audiences tend to appreciate this stuff more. They'd rather hear "Rikki" than "Black Dog," though someone's always going to scream and throw money at us when we play "Black Dog."Well, it does seem like a lot of people enjoy "softer" sounding music. If you look at the popularity of crooners in the 40s and the softer sounds of a lot of the more sappy, "wholesome" type of rock 'n' roll from the late '50s through the 60's, into "soft rock" and AOR/MOR, etc. it's clear that there is definitely a large market for the less abrasive side of rock/pop. The Red Hot Chili Peppers: that's a band that I never suspected would get airplay on mainstream radio (having heard their earlier material but then they record "Under The Bridge" and they're off to the races: something palatable to people who would not necessarily have been very receptive to "Jungle Man".
Yeah, it's funny - I like rhythmically hard music (be it funk, reggae, Afro-Cuban, what have you) but I tend to not like stuff that's aggressive in the higher registers. Screaming "rock" guitar, for example, is not really my cup of tea (though I do feel it has its place). I tend to prefer more lush sounds.
Good post!
But I'm open to whatever each individual considers to be "pop." I'm enjoying the variety!
I'm a '60s/'70s kid, and my posts will certainly reflect that!
