![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
genderjumperExpanding a working theory...
First, there was innovation. Black folks of meager means gathered whatever second-hand instruments were plentiful and created something new: rhythmic, fast, loud, it was first played for parties with lots of dancing and drinking. In no time at all, the instrumental background took on distinct vocal qualities and became a new form of storytelling: stories not of epic pasts but of the immediate presence, of love, and death, and humor. It was seen as an immature fad, but being rejected by traditional music left plenty of room to be more bawdy, more lustful. A great deal of hidden and double meanings could be buried in slang, thick affectations, and irreverence toward serious topics, but in the earlier days the text would be more overt (and often queer, inebriated, and antagonistic).
Pretty soon, the vocals were outshone by soloists who could do incredible new things and tell the same stories without words. Specialists would compete to see who could be the most clever, the most dynamic, the fastest. Eventually it would be seen as "all in good fun", but especially in the earlier days some performers were literally singing for their supper, and their ability to improvise would be central to their careers as touring musicians.
The tours stayed close to Black venues in Black neighborhoods, but eventually white record executives would come sniffing around and take the most extreme, most dance-able, most profitable aspects of a generation of history, leaving nuance and collaboration and community behind. Early recordings would highlight the humor, sometimes confusing the interlude for the genre itself, and oversimplify the baser, more id-based aspects of the music. It would become widely known, but as a novelty. Music that had never before been written down would have to be, watering down the performance and making it more accessible.
Only when white musicians appeared did the music start to take on legitimacy, and within another generation it starts getting difficult to tell the art form started with Black musicians at all. Black artists would continually lead the charge, taking the music in new directions and forging new sub-genres through advanced technical prowess, complex arrangements, or raw command of their instruments, well into the time period when whites outnumbered them. Eventually, new genres would emerge as Black innovators and upstarts decide to create new paths where white musicians could not easily follow: a return to coarse, gritty, and darkly humorous material yet with more precision than ever before.
Yet white stars would remain the dominant force for a generation. In this way, the novelty would wear out and mainstream audiences would move on. The offshoots and competitors of the genre would outgrow it, and those who could not advance the genre further would settle into roles as elder statespersons, teaching new generations and showing how much "new" sounds weren't all that new. The genre would be mainstream, but drift into the background, as people debated its ontology to death.
Even as new music continues to be created, the genre's disciples are mostly chasing the shadows of long-dead innovators and maintain their pursuit out of sheer love of the sound. Those who discover it anew never buy as much of the new stuff as the old, and they find it difficult to expand their passion without plenty of like-minded peers to form a band or cut heads with.
If my theory is at all accurate, this description could more or less apply to blues, jazz and several prominent subgenres, (possibly country, possibly gospel,) rock & roll and several prominent subgenres, (possibly punk), disco and club music, and of course rap. What needs further research is the level of specificity, which may apply in various combinations to most but not all of the genres listed. I'm also not sure how much to elaborate on the deliberate division of Black/white music, since it played a heavy role throughout the 20th Century but may require elaboration.
First, there was innovation. Black folks of meager means gathered whatever second-hand instruments were plentiful and created something new: rhythmic, fast, loud, it was first played for parties with lots of dancing and drinking. In no time at all, the instrumental background took on distinct vocal qualities and became a new form of storytelling: stories not of epic pasts but of the immediate presence, of love, and death, and humor. It was seen as an immature fad, but being rejected by traditional music left plenty of room to be more bawdy, more lustful. A great deal of hidden and double meanings could be buried in slang, thick affectations, and irreverence toward serious topics, but in the earlier days the text would be more overt (and often queer, inebriated, and antagonistic).
Pretty soon, the vocals were outshone by soloists who could do incredible new things and tell the same stories without words. Specialists would compete to see who could be the most clever, the most dynamic, the fastest. Eventually it would be seen as "all in good fun", but especially in the earlier days some performers were literally singing for their supper, and their ability to improvise would be central to their careers as touring musicians.
The tours stayed close to Black venues in Black neighborhoods, but eventually white record executives would come sniffing around and take the most extreme, most dance-able, most profitable aspects of a generation of history, leaving nuance and collaboration and community behind. Early recordings would highlight the humor, sometimes confusing the interlude for the genre itself, and oversimplify the baser, more id-based aspects of the music. It would become widely known, but as a novelty. Music that had never before been written down would have to be, watering down the performance and making it more accessible.
Only when white musicians appeared did the music start to take on legitimacy, and within another generation it starts getting difficult to tell the art form started with Black musicians at all. Black artists would continually lead the charge, taking the music in new directions and forging new sub-genres through advanced technical prowess, complex arrangements, or raw command of their instruments, well into the time period when whites outnumbered them. Eventually, new genres would emerge as Black innovators and upstarts decide to create new paths where white musicians could not easily follow: a return to coarse, gritty, and darkly humorous material yet with more precision than ever before.
Yet white stars would remain the dominant force for a generation. In this way, the novelty would wear out and mainstream audiences would move on. The offshoots and competitors of the genre would outgrow it, and those who could not advance the genre further would settle into roles as elder statespersons, teaching new generations and showing how much "new" sounds weren't all that new. The genre would be mainstream, but drift into the background, as people debated its ontology to death.
Even as new music continues to be created, the genre's disciples are mostly chasing the shadows of long-dead innovators and maintain their pursuit out of sheer love of the sound. Those who discover it anew never buy as much of the new stuff as the old, and they find it difficult to expand their passion without plenty of like-minded peers to form a band or cut heads with.
If my theory is at all accurate, this description could more or less apply to blues, jazz and several prominent subgenres, (possibly country, possibly gospel,) rock & roll and several prominent subgenres, (possibly punk), disco and club music, and of course rap. What needs further research is the level of specificity, which may apply in various combinations to most but not all of the genres listed. I'm also not sure how much to elaborate on the deliberate division of Black/white music, since it played a heavy role throughout the 20th Century but may require elaboration.
