Is U2 making music for "white" people only?

[starsgoblue]

Jick, you still dodge the point by writing ad nausem about nothing with the original issue! Why did you say U2's music would be more appealing to blacks if they used words such as 'ain't' more often? It was stereotypical and ignorant comment. I doubt you'd be appreciative if a poster here tried to categorize you with a Phillipino stereotype. Don't write an overly long response that diverts from the the question...just answer it.

 

[shaun vox]

what what yeahhhhhhaaaaa




what

what

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

let's get a few things clear... a few people in this thread need to stop assuming that the entire african-american race talks like little john, p.diddy or jay-z. that is a blatant stereotype, no matter what country you're from. chris rock put it best about 10 years ago when he was talking about how white people discussed colin powell. he said that the most common compliment white people gave powell was that "he speaks so well." his response... "he's a fucking educated man... what voice were you expecting to come out of his mouth? i'm a drop me a bomb today! i be pres-o-dent!"

this, in turn, is why your "ain't" comments, jick, is offensive. perhaps it's the cultrual boundries that led to your comments (

), but let's let that slide for now.

the argument is not wether blacks like u2. it's wether the hip-hop generation likes u2. and the hip-hop crowd encompases people of all races... white, black, latino, asain, etc. etc. etc.

 

[jick]

Jick, you still dodge the point by writing ad nausem about nothing with the original issue! Why did you say U2's music would be more appealing to blacks if they used words such as 'ain't' more often? It was stereotypical and ignorant comment. I doubt you'd be appreciative if a poster here tried to categorize you with a Phillipino stereotype. Don't write an overly long response that diverts from the the question...just answer it.

Its Filipino by the way.

Stereotypes are part of life and there are always exceptions to the rule.

U2 would be more appealing to blacks if they use a variation of English many blacks use. It's as simple as that. But they don't.

And the main point of the original poster of the thread is that U2's music may appeal mostly to whites. And I do agree with that premise. And it goes beyond just the variation of English they use. U2's melodies are more centered for the whites and so are their instruments, with the exception of Rattle And Hum of course. U2's lyrics and themes are also more appealing to the whites. Face it, the ratio of white to black people in a U2 concert is much more than in an Eminem (white artist) or Usher (black artist) concert. So the original premise of the original poster is still correct, and my comment about the method of English usage U2 employs is only one of the factors (out of many out there) that makes U2's music more appealing to the whites. So I just point out one small factor and blow it out of proportion and make me look like the racist bully now? Look at the bigger picture rather than nitpicking, sometimes it might just help.

Cheers,

J

 

[starsgoblue]

Its Filipino by the way.

Stereotypes are part of life and there are always exceptions to the rule.

U2 would be more appealing to blacks if they use a variation of English many blacks use. It's as simple as that. But they don't.

And it goes beyond just the variation of English they use. U2's melodies are more centered for the whites and so are their instruments, with the exception of Rattle And Hum of course. U2's lyrics and themes are also more appealing to the whites.

Um, my mere spelling of Filipino bothered you enough to point it out? How poignant to my original premise.

How do you know what 'many blacks' use in thier vernacualar?! Again, you pleaded ignorance about the 'n' word, claiming unfamiliarity with black-white relations in America...How are you so sure the majority of blacks even speak that way then?! You are painting with a broad brush.

I think and believe U2's lyrics are ones that tried to embrace all humanity. Thier lyrics of equality, compassion, love, anger and despair are one that cross all cultural boundaries. And like Headache very well put it, hip hop is a musical genre that does that same. Anyone that bothers to take 2 minutes understanding the roots of hip hop will find it is one that grew from multiple cultures.

(Would love to know what a "white melody" is. Funny, I thought rock n' roll grew out of black roots.)

 

[U2Kitten]

I just hope they never go rap You know how they like to experiment and change their sound, how would you guys like it if they went rap or hiphop? They'd get made fun of though, look at the old white guys trying to be hip

 

[jick]

i]How are you so sure the majority of blacks even speak that way then[/i]?! You are painting with a broad brush.

I think and believe U2's lyrics are ones that tried to embrace all humanity. Thier lyrics of equality, compassion, love, anger and despair are one that cross all cultural boundaries. And like Headache very well put it, hip hop is a musical genre that does that same. Anyone that bothers to take 2 minutes understanding the roots of hip hop will find it is one that grew from multiple cultures.

(Would love to know what a "white melody" is. Funny, I thought rock n' roll grew out of black roots.)

I am not sure. Did I say I was sure? I ever said I had no statistical data to show it. I just said it was my OBSERVATION. And my observation is based on media outlets, like TV, etc etc. So I could be wrong considering we don't get ALL the American tv shows, interviews, music, etc. by black people. But I have never been afraid to admit that mine was a generalization based on observation and subject to being wrong or to having exceptions. So I state my obsevations and come up with a generalization. So your generalization is different than mine, so that's the point. This is a discussion forum. We share different conclusions based on our observations. That is why we DISCUSS. So we will never have the absolute facts because there are no statistics or hard data to show what kind of method of speaking and spelling most blacks use.

While U2's music have very broad themes that may try to embrace humanity, it is the presentation of the lyrics that make it different. But there are also peculiarities that makes music more appealing to one race over the other. When an artist talks about snow, people like me from the Philippines cannot relate. When U2 talks about operas, then it would be a predominantly white crowd that would react. When a rapper talks about the ghetto or the hood, I think it would not ring a bell to all. Music is based on life experiences. Bono is white, he writes from his point of view. It is only a natural consequence that U2's music appeals more to whites than to blacks.

If your premise is that U2's music has equal appeals to blacks and whites, then let's leave it and that and let's just agree to disagree. Because I think the scales of U2's music are tipped more towards the whites.

Cheers,

J

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

velvet revolver might not be as good as GNR but their music still kicks arss and their music is not for old people like you. and lets face it they look fucking COOL.

if its too loud your too old and the current u2 music suits you best i think!!



face it u2's new music is for OLD people!!!


booringggggggggggg.. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz sleepyyyyyyyyyy.
slow and going nowhere!

cant do this with u2's new music can you

I'm not old...and Velvet Revolver looks like oldies trying to rock out like the kids to me! Also I love loud rock and roll so I don't know what you are trying to say..you mean to tell me you don't like POP, Joshua Tree Achtung Baby etc? I wouldn't classify them as especially "loud" albums.

 

[boystupidboy]

Whooa this thread is starting to get way too heavy man ,this is my last comment on it.

 

[ZeroDude]

^
Too heavy for you, I thought you could stick this I'll take your place and defend whatever needs be,

Ok here we go,

To Shaun Vox my aunt of 44 years of age is a fan of Velvet Revolver, U2, Radiohead and Thin Lizzy, she's going to see Velvet Revolver over here soon, you know what also I'd rather rock the fuck out to The Fly than any G 'n' R song and I liked them before I got into U2 seriously. Is Chinese Democracy going to be shite as a side note to this madness my answer is YES

To Everyone involved in the whole Jick, Stars argument

Let it go please, Stars your being ignorant to Jick's culture, Jick's culture is ignorant to the world, that of course is to harsh a thing to say or to generalise the whole of the Filipino people, but for the sake of the sometimes strained realtionships we have on this board can we all calm down, U2 appeals to whoever it touched emotionally or otherwise regardless of race, colour or creed, I'm glad we have them, easily one of the best bands ever, come on people

WE'VE GOT TO CARRY EACH OTHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Miggy D]

Its Filipino by the way.

Stereotypes are part of life and there are always exceptions to the rule.

U2 would be more appealing to blacks if they use a variation of English many blacks use. It's as simple as that. But they don't.

And the main point of the original poster of the thread is that U2's music may appeal mostly to whites. And I do agree with that premise. And it goes beyond just the variation of English they use. U2's melodies are more centered for the whites and so are their instruments, with the exception of Rattle And Hum of course. U2's lyrics and themes are also more appealing to the whites. Face it, the ratio of white to black people in a U2 concert is much more than in an Eminem (white artist) or Usher (black artist) concert. So the original premise of the original poster is still correct, and my comment about the method of English usage U2 employs is only one of the factors (out of many out there) that makes U2's music more appealing to the whites. So I just point out one small factor and blow it out of proportion and make me look like the racist bully now? Look at the bigger picture rather than nitpicking, sometimes it might just help.

Cheers,

J

--I had heard that it was actually "Pilipino" because the language lacks a "ph" phoenetic.--

The black people you are referring to do not speak that way because they are black. They speak that way because of their social and environmental conditioning. If you put a white, asian, indian, or any other ethnicity in that environment as a child and raised them there, they would speak that way. It has nothing to do with skin color. It has everything to do with social and environmental conditioning.

The reason why so many African-Americans speak this way, is, sadly, because so many of them are socially and economically disenfranchised. This is why they are raised in poor, urban environments without a decent education. If you were to talk to a black kid raised in middle-class suburbia, guess what - he'd sound like a quote-unquote 'white kid.'

You're right, Jick - you don't live in America, and I believe you are sincere when you say you do not understand American culture to the extent that we (people who live here) do. But you can't in one post say:

"I know that not all black people speak this way"

and in another say:

"U2 would be more appealing to the blacks if they used words like 'ain't."

When you say 'The Blacks' you are referring to all of them. Same if I were to say 'The British' or 'The Brazillians.' You assume the person is referring to the entire group.

It is not the language or slang that is appealing to young kids raised in urban environments. Rap appeals to different people for different reasons. It appeals to the kids raised in urban society because it talks about situations that are applicable to them. They're going to relate more to songs about their own neighborhoods more than they would than music from four Irish guys. Also, you're naturally conditioned to enjoy the music you hear as a child. If you're exposed to hip hop beats from a very young age, your ear is going to develop a taste for it.

Does this mean that it's impossible for urban youth to enjoy U2? No. Like other posters have said - U2 makes music with universal themes of compassion, despair, heartache, and hope. Their messages can appeal to anyone in any environment. Whether or not their musical stylings or rhythms appeal to kids raised to appreciate hip hop beats is anyone's guess. But I'm a white kid raised in suburbia to the sound of rock music, and I can appreciate many rap songs. Some of my peers can't stand the stuff. It all depends on the individual.

Which brings me to my final point:

Generalizations are bad news. They're based on stereotypes which were started many years ago to degrade people who were deemed 'different.' If I were to post some assumption about Pilipinos that was based on some generalziation, wouldn't you be insulted? You would want to be judged on your own merits, as an individual with his own accomplishments and distinctions. Who ever wants to be grouped in with thousands of others, and on a generalization that isn't even accurate?

Judge each person as an individual. That's how you'd want to be judged, right?

-Miggy

 

[sallycinnamon78]

[No message]

 

[sallycinnamon78]

damn double posts!!

 

[sallycinnamon78]

I just ran acros this kind of opinion on a diferent (movies) forum.
That U2 is for "white people" only and that "color" people don't... i don't know... "like it"... (?)

[/SIZE]

What about When Love Comes To Town when they duet with BB King?

I
It's not a matter of whether or not U2 are making music for white people only, they're making music for themselves and whoever buys it buys it.

Agreed. I personally am of the opinion that it's a matter of individuality, personal taste - as opposed to some overgeneralised stereotype based on race.

I'm BROWN and i listen to U2.

Me too!!!!

We must be the only ones.

Incidentally - I'm Anglo-Asian, definitely not white, and my family and I have loved U2 for many years. As do several of my friends of various descent. So you can add me to the growing list.

Not to forget, rock music, was "black" music, originally, even Bono and Edge said that. One of Adam's favorite bands is Bob Marley and the Wailers, Larry loves Elvis' music, who made "black" music accessible, brought it to "white" American culture.

Not to mention, U2 is Irish, English-Irish, Welsh-Irish, there's black people in Ireland, England, Wales never been there, but it's not like the only black people are in America and Africa.

Well said. As the beat comes from Africa anyway, I'm having trouble seeing the foundation of this entire debate.

 

[sallycinnamon78]

Not to be overly PC, but [...] Mexicans, South Asians and Indians are not white people.

I agree with your sentiments completely HelloAngel. Just one little point - there are areas of India, Kasmir for example, where the majority of the population is paleskinned, or "white" (I have family members from this area), so there are white Indian natives. This, of course, reinforces your original point about not seeing groups of people as being white or black, or brown, etc.

 

[pub crawler]

Jick, starsgoblue pointed out the many contradictions as well as the weak and disingenuous points you've made in this thread, so I won't bother covering that ground again. Plus the fact that I don't care to spend too much time responding to you because I feel as though by doing so I am being sucked in to your little game.

The bottom line is, when you plead ignorance to matters of race and culture, you come across as a game-playing little fuck. Or, to put it in Headache's wise words: You are

. It's quite obvious.

 

[Miggy D]

I agree with your sentiments completely HelloAngel. Just one little point - there are areas of India, Kasmir for example, where the majority of the population is paleskinned, or "white" (I have family members from this area), so there are white Indian natives. This, of course, reinforces your original point about not seeing groups of people as being white or black, or brown, etc.

The history of the 'white' definition is an interesting one. Did you know that at one point Italians were not considered white?

In the 19th century, Irish were also not considered 'whte' because they were not anglo-saxon. When Irish were immigrating into the US, they experienced the same kind of discrimination blacks and chinese were experiencing. Many stores would neither hire or serve 'paddys.' They were considered 'beneath' the white race, even if their skin was technically just as 'white' as the german or english settlers. Overtime, though, they were recognized as 'white' simply because they looked that way, and they were more easily able to assimilate into American culture because they 'looked' like the other german and english immigrants.

So the 'white' label is very subjective, depending on the time and place.

-Miggy D

 

[sallycinnamon78]

The history of the 'white' definition is an interesting one. Did you know that at one point Italians were not considered white?

In the 19th century, Irish were also not considered 'whte' because they were not anglo-saxon. When Irish were immigrating into the US, they experienced the same kind of discrimination blacks and chinese were experiencing. Many stores would neither hire or serve 'paddys.' They were considered 'beneath' the white race, even if their skin was technically just as 'white' as the german or english settlers. Overtime, though, they were recognized as 'white' simply because they looked that way, and they were more easily able to assimilate into American culture because they 'looked' like the other german and english immigrants.

Yes - I can't speak for anyone else, but I learned all this stuff at school, many years ago, both here and in The States.

So the 'white' label is very subjective, depending on the time and place.

-Miggy D

 

[Zoots]

I'm sorry but this thread was a bad idea. As soon as I read the original post for the the first time, I had the expression of and knew it would get kinda nasty in the end.

 

[starsgoblue]

"The Irish are the blacks of Europe, and Dubs are the blacks of Ireland, and
Northside Dubs are the blacks of Dublin." ~'The Commitments'



Irishmen and black Americans have close ties in the sense that they have identified with each for a long time. Bono's admiration of Martin Luther King Jr. is not unique and just a personal fancy.

Nationalists in Ireland had been making the identification with black American civil rights activists for a long time now.

Back in the mid 1800s, when escaped slave Frederick Douglass campaigned for support for the anti-slavery movement in the U.S., he found a supportive and empathetic ear in Ireland.

And by the mid-1960s, many in Ireland drew identification between their struggle and the issue of civil rights in the U.S. The two movements had similar issues, both were struggling with local government in regards to discrimination, housing, land ownership and votes. Both groups struggled with the limits of non-violent means to an end.

The more and more I think about this, the more I realize U2 definetly makes music that is 'accessible' to blacks. Or any human being for that matter that holds equality and humanity, and the struggle for both, close to thier heart.

 

[jick]

--I had heard that it was actually "Pilipino" because the language lacks a "ph" phoenetic.--

The black people you are referring to do not speak that way because they are black. They speak that way because of their social and environmental conditioning. If you put a white, asian, indian, or any other ethnicity in that environment as a child and raised them there, they would speak that way. It has nothing to do with skin color. It has everything to do with social and environmental conditioning.

The reason why so many African-Americans speak this way, is, sadly, because so many of them are socially and economically disenfranchised. This is why they are raised in poor, urban environments without a decent education. If you were to talk to a black kid raised in middle-class suburbia, guess what - he'd sound like a quote-unquote 'white kid.'

You're right, Jick - you don't live in America, and I believe you are sincere when you say you do not understand American culture to the extent that we (people who live here) do. But you can't in one post say:

"I know that not all black people speak this way"

and in another say:

"U2 would be more appealing to the blacks if they used words like 'ain't."

When you say 'The Blacks' you are referring to all of them. Same if I were to say 'The British' or 'The Brazillians.' You assume the person is referring to the entire group.

It is not the language or slang that is appealing to young kids raised in urban environments. Rap appeals to different people for different reasons. It appeals to the kids raised in urban society because it talks about situations that are applicable to them. They're going to relate more to songs about their own neighborhoods more than they would than music from four Irish guys. Also, you're naturally conditioned to enjoy the music you hear as a child. If you're exposed to hip hop beats from a very young age, your ear is going to develop a taste for it.

Does this mean that it's impossible for urban youth to enjoy U2? No. Like other posters have said - U2 makes music with universal themes of compassion, despair, heartache, and hope. Their messages can appeal to anyone in any environment. Whether or not their musical stylings or rhythms appeal to kids raised to appreciate hip hop beats is anyone's guess. But I'm a white kid raised in suburbia to the sound of rock music, and I can appreciate many rap songs. Some of my peers can't stand the stuff. It all depends on the individual.

Which brings me to my final point:

Generalizations are bad news. They're based on stereotypes which were started many years ago to degrade people who were deemed 'different.' If I were to post some assumption about Pilipinos that was based on some generalziation, wouldn't you be insulted? You would want to be judged on your own merits, as an individual with his own accomplishments and distinctions. Who ever wants to be grouped in with thousands of others, and on a generalization that isn't even accurate?

Judge each person as an individual. That's how you'd want to be judged, right?

-Miggy

I won't get insulted about anything you'll post about Filipinos. I've heard them all, and they're just words - not sticks and stones. Pilipino is how it is said in the native tongue but in English it is Filipino - not Philippino -- and I would rather use the English spelling because my post is in English.

I don't want to refer to my saying about the black language as a generalization but more of an observation based on the exposure I get through whatever media forms there are here in my country.

It's really no issue if this "ain't" English is brought about by whatever means you imply. I NEVER said it was "wrong" English, but that it was just a different way of speaking and spelling it that was more predominant among blacks based on my observation. It is only those who ascribe malice in my posts who think it is derogatory.

While U2 may write about universal themes, their version of English in their songwriting is just plain and simply different from the "ain't" English I make reference to (which by the way is also spoken by whites and browns in my obserevations but not as much as blacks). So it is but a natural conclusion that if you put two artists side by side who write about the same themes, while one artists uses a version of English that hits closer to home - then surely the listener will gravitate to that artist compared to the other one.

But as I said many times, U2's method of English is just a SMALL factor why there white to black ratio of U2 fans is much bigger than other artists. There are also other more important and telling factors which I'd rather not discuss in further detail or else I might risk being accused of being derogatory again.

Let's go to the bottom line and the main point of this post. Do I feel that U2's music appeals to the whites much more than it does to the blacks? My answer is yes. I'll just withhold further explanations for private discussion in private email.

To those here who think that U2's music has equal appeal to both whites and blacks, then I think you are the ones who are racist. It is very very clear that whites greatly outnumber the blacks to U2 concerts, so when you imply that the appeal to both colors is equal then you are implying that blacks don't have the means to go to U2 concerts. Now this is what I think is derogatory and degrading and somehting I would never say.

Cheers,

J

 

[jick]

The more and more I think about this, the more I realize U2 definetly makes music that is 'accessible' to blacks. Or any human being for that matter that holds equality and humanity, and the struggle for both, close to thier heart.

I think I like the term you are using and I fully agree - "accessible."

U2's music is accessible to everyone, it just so happens that more whites choose to access it rather than blacks. Blacks prefer other alternatives to U2, while whites prefer U2 to the other alternatives. Now what? Some of my detractors will accuse this of being a statement that you can take offense to?

Cheers,

J

 

[starsgoblue]

To those here who think that U2's music has equal appeal to both whites and blacks, then I think you are the ones who are racist. It is very very clear that whites greatly outnumber the blacks to U2 concerts, so when you imply that the appeal to both colors is equal then you are implying that blacks don't have the means to go to U2 concerts. Now this is what I think is derogatory and degrading and somehting I would never say

I really hope you just didn't call me a racist....we're gonna have some problems if you did.


And also, in your post directly following that...it's funny how you glaze over and ignore my entire point and just address the last paragraph. You make lump statements and group people's taste according to race....it's an INDIVIDUALS choice to listen to whatever music they want. I don't listen to certain music because it's expected of me as a white girl.

 

[beli]

I'm sorry but this thread was a bad idea. As soon as I read the original post for the the first time, I had the expression of and knew it would get kinda nasty in the end.

I agree, this has turned into a nasty thread.

 

[jick]

And also, in your post directly following that...it's funny how you glaze over and ignore my entire point and just address the last paragraph. You make lump statements and group people's taste according to race....it's an INDIVIDUALS choice to listen to whatever music they want. I don't listen to certain music because it's expected of me as a white girl.

I did not ignore your last paragraph. I said that I would take no offense of any statements you may make about Filipinos.

While everything boils down to the individuals, there is nothing wrong with making groupings or categorizations. I am an indiviual, but I can also be considered as one of many Filipinos, as one of many Asians, as one of many Christians, as one of many brown race people - whatever it is people always fall under a group.

So to make a general observation about blacks in not wrong per se, it is? We are just categorizing them like any other group. To my mind, when you refuse to see that the group called "blacks" as just like any sub-group (whites, Americans, Muslims, Christians, Europeans, gays) and would give them a "special" or "preferred" treatment to make you more sensitive and extra careful to them then you become racist. I am sure blacks want to be treated just like any other categorization of humans, and no need for the extra sensitivity or special attention. If you do then you make them different and this is dicrimination. As with any grouping, there are always generalizations and stereotypes and this is unavoidable. It is when you refuse to accept this fact only for blacks, and want to treat them "specially" that you become racist instead.


The original topic of this thread didn't call for individual reactions but group reactions to U2's music. And it was black and white -simple as that. If you refuse to see categorizations and sub-groupings and prefer to see it only as individuals then you will make a poor market research analyst who do thing based on groupings and demographics.

This discussion is about groupings not individuals.

Cheers,

J

 

[namkcuR]

Jick - stop it. Bow out of this thread. You're only digging yourself deeper.

And let me tell you something. Using the word 'ain't', and being attracted to the word 'ain't' - that's not about being black or white, it's about being uneducated. The are white people who are intelligent and there are white people who are are uneducated idiots. Identically, there are black people who are intelligent and there are black people who are uneducated idiots. The uneducated idiots - white and black alike - will be more prone to using and being attracted to words like 'ain't'. And the more educated, intelligent people, white and black alike, will look down on the usage of that word as a norm in the English/American language. I don't mean to offend anyone with my use of the word 'idiot', but I'm trying to make a point here.

Furthermore, the idea that U2 should have renamed their song like that, is A)Ridiculous, and B)to say that U2 should stoop to attract the uneducated people - and that's what it is, nothing to do with skin color. U2 - nay, NO artist of any kind - should ever stoop down to attract more people. Exactly the opposite should take place - the uneducated should be educated. But this is all a moot point because I find the idea that the distinction in a song title between the word 'isn't', and the word 'ain't' can alter who does and doesn't like or connect to the song to be utterly ridiculous.

Listen, art is the only truely universal language we have, EVERYONE understands art. It doesn't matter where you're from or what verbal language you speak, the only thing that's gonna determine how well you understand art is your heart and your mind. And perhaps that's true for music more than for any other artform. Music doesn't know skincolor. Music doesn't know race. Music doesn't know nationality. Music doesn't know any of that shit. Music is only about one soul communicating with another. Music, and the medium of song, have a greater power, in their ability to be understood by all people from all walks of life, and to think you can override that power, and actually limit the ability to understand a song to a certain group of people just by changing one word in the mere title of said song to a more primitive version of itself, is ignorant and, frankly, makes me think you haven't a clue what music is really all about.

 

[Do Miss America]

Wow we have some true bigots in here. I won't mention any names.

But this is the greatest smiley, we should add this to our regular library. Along with one that shoots the finger, I really think we need one of those.

 

[jick]

Jick - stop it. Bow out of this thread. You're only digging yourself deeper.

And let me tell you something. Using the word 'ain't', and being attracted to the word 'ain't' - that's not about being black or white, it's about being uneducated. The are white people who are intelligent and there are white people who are are uneducated idiots. Identically, there are black people who are intelligent and there are black people who are uneducated idiots. The uneducated idiots - white and black alike - will be more prone to using and being attracted to words like 'ain't'. And the more educated, intelligent people, white and black alike, will look down on the usage of that word as a norm in the English/American language. I don't mean to offend anyone with my use of the word 'idiot', but I'm trying to make a point here.

About "ain't" referring to undecuated is your own conclusion of fact based on your own culture. I have made it clear that this "ain't" English to me is just a different method of speaking the language. Do the British diss Americans for spelling color colour or vice versa? I don't think so. We all have our own ways of communicating. English in universal, we aren't talking about educated or uneducated here. You seem to either confuse or intentionally cloud the issuse here by talking about educated blacks and uneducated whites. The categorization called for in this post is black and white, not educated and illiterate, or gay and lesbian, or man and woman, or youth and adult, or religious or ahteist. The categorization called for is simply black and white and I make my observations about black in general. The attraction of the "idiots" to the word "ain't" is just your own conclusion of fact. Are you trying to mean that when Alicia Keys sings "if I ain't got you" she is intentionally trying to attract your so-called "idiots"? No I don't think so. She is just singing from her heart, from the point of view of the blacks and using the language which is intimate to them. She is communicating through her music. Alicia Keys is educated and a well-versed artist with real talent, mind you.

Furthermore, the idea that U2 should have renamed their song like that, is A)Ridiculous, and B)to say that U2 should stoop to attract the uneducated people - and that's what it is, nothing to do with skin color. U2 - nay, NO artist of any kind - should ever stoop down to attract more people. Exactly the opposite should take place - the uneducated should be educated. But this is all a moot point because I find the idea that the distinction in a song title between the word 'isn't', and the word 'ain't' can alter who does and doesn't like or connect to the song to be utterly ridiculous.

It is you who brought up the topic about being uneducated, not me. In my book, it's still permissible to use the word ain't and it's not wrong or uneducated at all. It's just a different way to speaking/spelling English.

Listen, art is the only truely universal language we have, EVERYONE understands art. It doesn't matter where you're from or what verbal language you speak, the only thing that's gonna determine how well you understand art is your heart and your mind. And perhaps that's true for music more than for any other artform. Music doesn't know skincolor. Music doesn't know race. Music doesn't know nationality. Music doesn't know any of that shit. Music is only about one soul communicating with another. Music, and the medium of song, have a greater power, in their ability to be understood by all people from all walks of life, and to think you can override that power, and actually limit the ability to understand a song to a certain group of people just by changing one word in the mere title of said song to a more primitive version of itself, is ignorant and, frankly, makes me think you haven't a clue what music is really all about.

But music isn't just art, music also has to do with language if it is not intrumental music. Non-English speaking people won't appreciate U2's music as much as English speaking people do. And when you subdivide the English speakers, the ones who will appreciate U2's music the most are those who speak the same branch of English U2 does. It's as simple as that.

I don't see why some are trying to pin me down for simple observations and statements that intended no malice.

Cheers,

J

 

[starsgoblue]

But this is the greatest smiley, we should add this to our regular library.

 

[R8drgurl]

Well, I'm half black/half white and my white side loves U2 while my black side loves Outkast. My black friends think Bono is cool but don't like U2's sound. Hey, it's rock n roll - even in 2005 you just won't see alot of black folks at rock concerts.

I always play 'count the black folks' at U2 concerts so I can then go back and tell my black friends, "see I told you that black folks like U2!" I don't ever count that many but I do count some! It's all in fun. No biggie - just different types of music appeal to different folks. Rock SOUNDS different than R&B or Rap or Country or Reggae...Certainly doesn't have anything to do with how many ain'ts are in the lyrics.

Oh and thanks to some of the posters that said 'n-word' instead of spelling it out. It was thoughtful.