Reply #81: here's how I see... [View All]

[RememberJohn]

..It has it's roots in black r&b and gospel. Traditional music fans find it threatening, alien. Reaction to is similar to reations whenever something "new" musically garners attention. Rock. Disco. Grunge. Hip Hop. Traditionalists will always react harshly to it.

America's first real introduction to the style on a mass scale came when Whitney Houston sang the National Anthem. I was working for an Atlanta newspaper at the time and remember very clearly the mean spirited and often racist letters and comments we received from people who said she turned it into, and I quote from multiple comments, "nigger music."

Many who sing that style don't do it well. Many others do it real well. Calling it "overdone" and "show-offy" is really kind of silly. The fact someone is singing means they're showing off.

Unoriginal? What, I ask, is original? Singing flat and monotone as most singers do?

I contend that people who find it "repulsive" (and that is a strong word) either have a problem with it's black roots, are jealous that they (or their favorite singer) don't possess the skill and range to do it, or some combination of both.

It's one thing to say "I don't like something." But calling something repulsive is indicative of some sort of prejudice.

Do you hold other skills to the same measure of judgement? Was Jimi Hendrix (or Clapton or Van Halen) being repulsive and "show-offy."

When everyone tried to imitate them, did the style then become "unoriginal" and not worthy of consumption?