is DMB white music?

eganski · Unread post by **eganski** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 2:01 pm

I'm not going to go into a self-righteous rant about racism or culture or what's right and what's wrong, but i will say this, and you can hate me, but it's true...

Maybe the reasons blacks aren't huge fans of Dave Matthews Band can be connected to the fact that you'll never see DMB on MTV Cribs sporting their 12-carat ice while sitting in their Hummer H5's while taking you around their house full of pillow rooms, exotic pools, and bling-bling.

Maybe the're not overly popular with the Black community because their music doesn't degrade women, discuss different ways to enjoy Krystal, talk about themselves and how they've made it from the school of hard knocks.

Eminem is white. Do you think he's popular with the black community? The fact is that you don't have to be a certain color to respect and enjoy all types of music, but there is a difference. The fact that three-fifths of DMB are black makes no difference.

Rap a lot of times portrays a lifestyle that many people want to emulate, and the majority of those people are black. That's reality. If DMB music was so popular, MTV would have more shows geared to the DMB message, not the materialistic message of Rap.

I hope this doesn't sound racist, though it is full of generalizations and for that I apologize.

spencey · Unread post by **spencey** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 5:28 pm

Who cares bro... I totally agree... DMB represents the finer and more simple things in life... DMB dresses acts walks and talks the way that us other joes out here do... Krystal and hoes are not something I'm too familiar with... how bout you guys?

KevinGTArch · Unread post by **KevinGTArch** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 6:43 pm

Hey... uh Kevin... Africa is a continent... NOT a country... and when it comes to the human race evolving the continent of africa IS the only place capable of producing black skinned people... and I believe it was stated that 3/5 of the band were "african americans" and in saying that they have a "black" skin color... not that they were africans...

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to argue. My apologies for the typo - obviously I meant to state that Africa is not the only continent (or continent with countries) capable of producing people with skin pigmentation. What can I say - it was late at night.

So you get me on a technicality - if the human race has its origins in Africa then, yes, all "Black" people come from Africa. But, you can then make the argument that all "White" people came from Africa.

WHAT?!?

Most, if not all of us, are familiar with the conglomeration of continents once called Pangaea, and the evolution of man (if you believe it) in the Mediterranen and African region. The land bridge the first native Americans crossed from the Asian region into what is now Alaska, Canada, and finally the rest of the United States. I won't hash out the entire pre-history and history of the human race but I suggest you take a class in Western Civilation I - it's very enlightening.

So where am I going with this? The change of skin pigmentation just happened over the course of millions of years of evolution. We ventured into different climates - climates with a lower intensity of sunlight/heat - and the need for pigmentation was lost. Ok so we now we know how that happened.

Back to the comment that Africa is the only CONTINENT capable of producing "Black" people: not in this day in age, my friend. If you want to call a person "Black" because they have darker skin then let's look at the island nations of Haiti, Jamaca, Puerto Rico, the Bahamas. Better yet, what "color" do you call the people of India and the Middle East? They certainly aren't "White". Mexicans can maintain a fairly dark complextion as well. It kind of makes you start to realize that racism based on skin color is really REALLY rediculous.

Do you really think the DMB sees itself as 3/5 "Black" or "African" or however you want to say it?

Probably Not.

Peace,

Kevin

spencey · Unread post by **spencey** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 7:05 pm

Uh... you don't exactly introduce new colors to the human race these days... its all done. However yes your right about Pangaea but what do you think the heart of Pangaea was that produced the first humans.. thats right the great Zion mother Africa... anyways... I really doubt theres much of a racial profiling going on in DMB anyways I agree with Eganski says anyways. And I happen to be majoring in world history buddy

AnandPatel · Unread post by **AnandPatel** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 7:47 pm

Hey?!? I'm brown ....where do fit it?..haha. What is this world comming to?... haha.. I agree with eganski. DMB music is not about being all "ruff and tuff" (and yes I know how to spell "rough" and "tough"). They are not about "pimping on 21 inch dubs", nor to they have (or care about) a "pinky ring". (and to those that do listen to rap, what IS the significance of a pinky ring?..I'm was confused as hell when I heard that. Why single out a ring made for a pinky...Mr. T had one?..is that why..he was "ruff and tuff"..anyways). Society puts a color on music if anything.

Dinner time.

two steps too many · Unread post by **two steps too many** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 7:50 pm

spencey wrote:and when it comes to the human race evolving the continent of africa IS the only place capable of producing black skinned people

look at the south pacific, Fiji to be exact, I spent 3 months thre and those black people are just as black, if not more so then african. It's all about where you live, hot sunny places are gonna produce darker skinned people, if not then they wouldn't be able to survive.

AnandPatel · Unread post by **AnandPatel** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 7:56 pm

two steps too many wrote:
spencey wrote:and when it comes to the human race evolving the continent of africa IS the only place capable of producing black skinned people
look at the south pacific, Fiji to be exact, I spent 3 months thre and those black people are just as black, if not more so then african. It's all about where you live, hot sunny places are gonna produce darker skinned people, if not then they wouldn't be able to survive.

Ain't that place nice... My family owns a house over there, and I do not think you have lived until you have seen a Fijian sunrise - screw Hawaiian sunrises. And yes, a good point, they are blacker than most black people here in the states. People in Sri Lanka are black as well.

KevinGTArch · Unread post by **KevinGTArch** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:10 pm

Uh... you don't exactly introduce new colors to the human race these days... its all done. However yes your right about Pangaea but what do you think the heart of Pangaea was that produced the first humans.. thats right the great Zion mother Africa... anyways... I really doubt theres much of a racial profiling going on in DMB anyways I agree with Eganski says anyways. And I happen to be majoring in world history buddy

I don't think you understand what I'm saying at all. I didn't try to introduce any new races or colors into the fold. I was merely pointing out that there were other locations offering people of different color OTHER than Africa at present date.

Nowhere did I dispute that Africa was THE origin. In fact I pointed it out several times in my posts. It was when Africa was part of Pangaea that the human race was able to leave that area and branch into what later became other continents, countries, etc.

We're all on the same base here, just read the posts.

Kevin[/quote]

Brock · Unread post by **Brock** » Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:28 pm

So who likes cheese? :roll:

Two Hands · Unread post by **Two Hands** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 12:17 am

as some one who has a very eclectic taste in music, i think it is juvenile to use music to create/emphasize/imply boundaries between people, whatever color they may be... because the reality is that music does have color, the problem is that some of us are still seeing in black and white...

and i love cheese

lordmelt · Unread post by **lordmelt** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 1:19 am

music has no color, in a racial way, i assume you are referring to music having color in a different way, music is not made for certain races, and those that make music for that reason arent making music for the right reasons, they are dealing with politics of a sort, or they are trying to make money, or causing a form of discrimination
which i feel is unacceptable to music

Two Hands · Unread post by **Two Hands** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 2:44 am

yea i agree with what youre saying. i just took a different approach at explaining it. because i dont completely agree that music was made for the ears and not for the eyes, like you said earlier... whatever i think we're getting at the same point haha

spencey · Unread post by **spencey** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 11:32 am

Well I defintly think that people with agendas should be able to get their point across through music... Like rage against the machine their goal was to race social awerness throughout the world through music.. and i think thats great... and I'm really not majoring in world history.. but wouldn't that have made a great ending. :wink:

ticohans · Unread post by **ticohans** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 1:24 pm

Ahh, but I think that music DOES have color, at least to a certain extent. In and of itself, the actual MUSIC, the notes, rhythms, etc, do not have an explicit color, but when talking about music, I am not AT ALL comfortable with severing the the personal and societal aspects of it. Because the fact is that music does not exist in some sort of vacum. Certain societies produce certain types of music, and through that music, they reinforce identity and culture. Most black people born after, say 1970 in the US like rap music. It's a generalization, sure. But it's true, too. Most white people born after, say, 1940 like some sort of rock and roll. This isn't just something that's true today. It's been true for about as long as people have been making music. If you go back to classical stuff, there are MANY different styles and central rhythms, each associated with a different societal class. If you were having a feast at the king's court, you knew what types of music were going to be played. If you were out at a local pub or popular show, you could expect certain styles of music. in the church you knew that you were going to hear another type of music. For a very long time there have also been more general distinctions between ecclesiastical and popular music.

What am I trying to say with all of this? Let me give you a definition of music: music is the imagined or percieved relationships between sounds, including issues of pitch, register, and rhythm. What does that mean? It means the listener is important. There's a reason why if you go out and listen to the traditional gamelan music of Indonesia it's not going to sound all that great to you. We are conditioned towards certain types of music, even from the time we are in the womb. As the listener is then an INTEGRAL part of the creation, you cannot separate the psychological ties and effects that exist. Because, really, music, as we know it, doesn't exist without people. We arranged the sounds and we organized the scales and over entire era's of aural evolution we've come up with this stuff. So, yeah, if you just want to talk about pitch content, melody, and rhythm, you can try and say that music has no color. But you CAN'T isolate music like that, you can't take the people away from it because we create it, and we're the ones that choose to imagine certain configurations of sound as pleasing and others as simple noise. As you can then separate neither the composer nor the listener, you also cannot ignore the bias that they MUST bring to the table as human beings. It's sort of along the same lines as the whole "you can't observe something without changing it" adage.

Now, the question is, is this bad? I don't think so. Can I, as a white guy, listen to African polyrhythmic drumming? Or Indian raga music? Sure, it will take a little education on my part to be able to understand and appreciate what's going on, and I may never get it all, but that's ok, and I can listen to it.

I see no problem with labels. Labels are not bad, they are not harmful, they are not divisive. We chose to make them a negative thing. I'm white. I've lived in certain places and seen certain things, and to deny that all that affects me is just silly. I know black people who have lived in certain places and seen different things, and that makes them different. There is no problem with any of that and no reason to deny any of that. Racism has yet to enter the equation. Racism comes into all of this as a REACTION to the differences. So it is not our differences that create problems but rather HOW WE REACT TO THEM. Differences can be a POSITIVE thing, and simply pretending they don't exist doesn't make them go away. If anything, I think that ignoring differences is ALSO a bad thing, as we can loose out on the cultural, intellectual, and yes, even musical ideas that others have to offer if we simply ignore them and hope they go away so that we can all live happily ever after.

So go ahead, and SLAP labels on things. Because stereotypes DO exist, and there IS somewhere at their roots a good deal of truth. But do so with the understanding that differences are not BAD, but that they can be embraced. Again, racism lies not in our differences, but in how we react to them.

So yes, there is black music and white music and Indian music and Inuit music and music that is particular to every tribe and tongue. Fortunately, we can learn and appreciate the heritage and cultures of other people and learn to love the black music and white music and Indian music and Inuit music and the musics that are particular to every tribe and tongue.

And there's my rant for the day.

Pickles · Unread post by **Pickles** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 2:35 pm

long post ticohans. long, but good :lol:

DMBTabs.com

is DMB white music?

Who is online