Unless he actually joined ELP, then i can just see him having an unending blues career. 

 

What about Carlos Santana?

 

http://soundcloud.com/3rdegreeonline/the-socio-economic-petri-dish" rel="nofollow - http://soundcloud.com/3rdegreeonline/the-socio-economic-petri-dish

 

or

 

http://www.reverbnation.com/3rdegree/song/15166359-the-socio-economic-petri-dish" rel="nofollow - http://www.reverbnation.com/3rdegree/song/15166359-the-socio-economic-petri-dish

 

3RDegree fun fact: we used to play Stevie Wonder's "Living For The City" live in 1995-6.

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=82273&PID=4327205#4327205" rel="nofollow - http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=82273&PID=4327205#4327205

 

What does it matter?

 

My ancestors went for a walk about 70000 years ago and turned left when they left Africa. My friend Vijay's ancestors turned right instead. Some people's ancestors didn't feel the need to go for a walk because they liked it in Africa.

 

I really don't see the need to get hung up on race when we all came from the same ancestors and we're all really the same except for varying amounts of skin pigment. Maybe where we ended up affected us more from a cultural standpoint; perhaps African Americans got exposed to Country music which is possibly why they invented the blues to express their dissatisfaction and I totally understand!

 

I'd ask a different question - why are so few women involved in prog except as singers???

 

And whoever posted the link to The Great Gamble...THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! LOVE IT!

I love that song 

Ohhh boy ... don't get me started ... because the answer would be ... all them imperialists ... you know they killed all the colors and stole history to make sure they lasted longer. Not sure they did that in prog, or progressive, but I will grant that they had the better MEDIA (in print) to help define it and bring it alive.

 

In America, the majority of music was killed, and was just like the movie studios killing black music in the 50's and 60's because their stars were more important ... like Elvis! Same thing in the 60's when the media made sure it told everyone that we were dirty, filthy, and left garbage behind and we were not intelligent enough to appreciate meaningful music, in one of the most insane documents of our time! On top of it, the player was black!

 

Need to know any more why I marched wiht Martin Luther King in Madison? And why the prog thing in London bugs me to no end?

 

Funny addon to this ... Steve Hillage interview when he said that they wanted to come to America and play all that funk and far out stuff, and that folks coming to their concerts were getting disappointed because they were not playing "progressive" music! Yeah!

 

NOT according to Tom Dowd ... you need to see that DVD! It will change your perception of the history of music in America and how much was killed and never heard!

Because American history is a massive, filthy, ugly and vitriolic story of racism, complete with bullets and other very sad moments. You can say that the English had their woman hater and killer, but that was easier to deal with, when you were not killing all the scots and irish or anyone else. In America, these things were hidden for years, and even the end of the slave days by Lincoln, did not stop and Alabama and Georgia and other areas in America still have issues with it. The segregation thing in the 50's and 60's was an attempt to put these people back together again ... and sadly .. with schools like Notre Dame now putting together their own Catholic Belt ... and pretty soon, we have the Black Belt again, and then the Blah Blah belt ... and the separation continues ... instead of the integration.

 

The very fabric of American life has been "separation" ... and I'm not sure that American wants to deal with this ... until one day in the future, America becomes two or three other countries, because it can not support the integration and this means that the arts and the music ... will .. .again ... undergo a change, but maybe the black music and other arts will be way more visible beyond one style a pop something or other.

 

I was referring to our genetic make up being almost identical. We are genetically almost identical irrespective of our race since we are all descended from the same common group of ancestors, except for a few Neanderthal genes that got into everyone's make up except Sub-Saharan Africans.

 

Culturally, of course there are differences. The abomination that was the slave trade (one of my proudest claims is that I went to the same school as William Wilberforce, who abolished the trade in Britain) undoubtedly left indelible marks on those who survived, but it's the differing cultural influences that make our music different, not our genetics. All racial groups have contributed to the culture of the US; to denigrate what any of them have achieved is exactly what racists do. I suspect prog evolved before the civil rights movement in the States had achieved any real degree of progress in freeing black people from the almost endemic discrimination and segregation they had suffered, meaning that they were mainly exposed to the music of their communities, which was jazz, blues, soul and rock.

 

And as far as Asian cuisine is concerned, it's so engrained in British culture that noone really thinks of it as "foreign" any more.

 

Bingo ... yet another country in America!

 

As I've stated before, America is like 4 or 5 countries ... heck, in the space that you have America, how many countries do you have in Europe? It's really hard to discuss music in America when the differences are so varied ... and many times not appreciated in their own country's other areas!

Please excuse an ignorant Brit, but I always thought that country music was roots played by white settlers, whilst blues was created by descendants of black slaves, before being usurped by rebellious white teens in the fifties. In other words, from completely different traditions.

As to the original question, prog was born in England in the late sixties by a bunch of artie middle class college students. At the time, black members of that class would have been rare than sightings of Christ in the past 2000 years. Also, they would not have been too well disposed towards symphonic music or jazzy noodlings, and I should stress here that I am not a racist (I am a member of Amnesty and a former trade union activist).

Actually, without meaning this as a personal insult, it is rather a silly question.

 

I try to forget country music whenever possible.

Why are African Percussion Ensembles coal black? Likewise, virtually all Hip-Hop artists? 

Why doesn't anyone demand "diversity" for the above? 

Can't whites have their own art form(s)?

So we're all essentially identical twins with just a different paint job? There's absolutely no difference between an Australian Aboriginal and a Japanese? 

Culture is a manifestation of race. Culture does not exist independent of race. Cultures are racial constructs.

Who, in their right mind, likes it in Africa? Blacks did not invent blues. Who invented the instruments? What were blacks dissatisfied with? Being the most prosperous blacks of any in the world? Where would they have been better off?

Why are there so few women? Why are there no female composers? Why are there no women in the NFL? Sexism, of course.

 

Most differences between us are essentially cultural and it's cultural issues that seems to provoke racial friction in Britain. I don't get it; I don't like it. I prefer to celebrate the rich, varied culture that people from all backgrounds have brought to my country, not just the indigenous white traditions.

Hercules, thanks for responding in a civil manner. Yes, the differences are small but they are substantial. Take dogs, for example. What is the genetic variation between say, a cocker spaniel and a German shepherd? I don't know actually but I'm sure it's slight. They're both dogs, but clearly they're different in temperament and behavior. I dont believe we all came from the same place, if that's what you're saying. The Japanese are clearly distinct from the African.

 

Do you really celebrate diversity though? Maybe you do. What is the racial makeup of your community, neighborhood? I've found that diversity creates tension and hostility. Japan is an example of a racially homogeneous country which is quite harmonious.

 

For example, intricate rhythms:  I know al ot of people here enjoy those drum duets between Chester and Phil.  Prog with compelling rhythms is exciting and I don't think it is as developed as it could be.  I think Neal Morse has done some good stuff with rhythms lately and prog intertwines perfectly with it.  I think it could be developed further from an outside culture and we would all be better for it.

 

However, I am not advocating Country-Prog.  That is where I draw the line! 

 

 

Not everyone wants to live in the USA but many do. Mostly from the Third World.

Irrelevent but i think i just noticed who your avatar is - David Mitchell and Robert Webb?

We cannot underestimate the impact of cultural barriers.  I am not saying they should be there, just that they are more powerful in influencing opinions than we might believe them to be.    If you start a conversation about Indian music with Ravi Shankar, what sort of a reaction do you think an Indian would have to it?  You may even be well versed in the history of Indian music, but the frame of reference to begin with creates some negative perceptions at the other end.   Because he might reflect the starting point of the Western world's engagement with Indian music but he is not where it started for us.   Indian music was alive and well long before him and hopefully will be long after his sad demise too.  And please don't get me wrong, it's not a knock on his legendary status.   No doubt he is a virtuoso and one of the best there is; all I mean is when you start with his name, it MIGHT suggest you are simply name dropping Indian musicians and don't really appreciate it deeply (even if you actually do).

I don't want to ramble on further in that direction before some of my statements become a target for dangerous racist assaults, but it is my view that cultural barriers associated with race unconsciously influence our choices in music.   For blacks to play prog, we have to accept it performed in their own terms, reflecting their culture...it would be unreasonable to expect them to merge with more 'white' sounds in order that they appeal to larger audiences.   That would be a bit like how men often relate better to women singing more aggressively to violent music because that is closer to traditional 'male music' notions.   Whether you like it or not, that already suggests the effect that stereotypes have had in shaping your tastes.   After all, just because it doesn't sound white/black/brown or manly/womanly doesn't mean it's no good.  

It is not only the musicians who need to reach out to audiences, we also have to step out beyond the 'four walls' of our comfort zone.   But if we deny that such a comfort zone exists, we have already given up the endeavour.    I am sorry I didn't attempt to give a list of musicians to 'refute' the OP but I believe the question was why it is so and not whether there are any Afro American musicians in prog.  

Haha brilliant. I just never realized who was in the background. 

 

No - it's racism that causes tension and hostility. Racial diversity can happen quite happily so long as people accept everyone as a human being and forget where they came from.

 

And I'm afraid some of your comments suggest that you have white supremacist views which I wholly disassociate myself from.

When most people are free to choose who they associate with, they choose people like themselves. If diversity were a source of strength, people would seek it out naturally. They don't. It is only within the past 50 years or so that diversity, all of a sudden, became a great source of strength.

The Japanese don't like diversity and have an immigration policy which reflects that. I don't here anybody seeing Japan needs to import more Sikhs, Guatamalans etc.

Israel kicked out hundreds of blacks a few months ago with nary a peep from anyone. "Israel is for the white man" said a high Israeli official. Why is it okay for Israel to do that?

A few months, Mexico kicked out a number of illegal Central Americans, saying "Mexico is for Mexicans". 

So the Japanese are yellow supremacists, The Israelis are Jewish supremacists and Mexicans are brown supremacists. You say I am a white supremacist. What's the difference between my views and the above examples?

It is white countries, and only white countries, which are forced to accept diversity, and ultimately the displacement of white people themselves.

And down right xenophobic and ethnocentric!

 

As I say ... the yanks and brits invented the world ... and the rest? ... no one noticed because they had no media or tv's or radio's ... !!!

 

 

 

 

And one other person had an even bigger impact on this ... and he was far more progressive in his area than most ... but we would never consider him there, for those two albums, at least!

 

Goes like this in my early days of seeing black artists:

 

Chuck Berry -- (DJ's Madison) 95% black audience

Little Richard -- (DJ's Madison) 95% black audience

Earth Wind and Fire -- Santa Monica Civic -- 90% black audience

Blue Note All Stars -- in LA -- 100% black audience

Oscar Peterson -- in LA -- 100% black audience

Charles Musselwhite -- in SF -- 90% black audience

Mississipi Charles Bevel -- in Santa Barbara -- 90% black audience

Stevie Wonder -- Santa Monica Civic -- 95% black audience (like 72 or 73)

James Brown -- Santa Barbara -- 95% black audience

Michael Jackson (Bad Tour) - LA - 50% black audience

 

When it came to the "mixing" and getting people together, there is one person mentioned here that is never given that credit or appreciated for some of his work. Stevie Wonder, for some reason, was not as strong in the audience department as Michael was ... but it shows you ... that even without advertising ... some of these folks went to see their artists ... but it also showed a separation that is ... still visible.

 

It bothers me that when I went to see YES, the audience was 99% white. And when I saw Pink Floyd in 1972, it was 95% white. And when I saw it last year ... it was 90% white ... which is an improvement from 30 years ago ... I guess.

 

All in all, the day that ALL MUSIC BECOMES IMPORTANT, AND NOT THE RACE OR COLOR, is the day that we will ALL OF US, be color blind.

 

Sadly, when you look at the world and even some religious groups wanting to go their own separatist way ... I am not feeling too positive that the integration will happen ... and that we will hear some more mixes and far out music.

 

Which is really sad ... because a label like ECM has so many "blacks" ... but no one in America enjoys listening to them ... it's much easier to listen to the much more traditional "Blue Note" stuff and not anything else. And "Blue Note" has not, and probably never will, release the stuff that is not "traditional" that they think will confuse the fans about the artistry involved. A lot of it was experimental, free form and played far longer than 5 minutes -- which we are not hearing ... thus, we will not have a better, and more comprehensive, sense of history of music in America.

 

Again, America is about 4 or 5 countries, and some of them do not have the respect of others and vice versa ... and that means that it is really hard to have one area appreciate another, unless the media can get a top ten out of it ... so everyone thinks it's good!

 

Would that be me by any chance? Can you name one thing I've said that was "racist"?

 

What have I said that is "warped"? Can someone refute one thing that I've said. All people have done is call me names, "racist", "supremacist". Calling someone names is a graceless way of admitting you have lost the argument.

 

Why do you use racial epithets like "hillbillies" in describing the Appalachian people?

 

 

Then why have you responded at all? I ask you, or anyone else, to refute anything that I've said.

 this is to racism what intelligent design is to creationism.

That is a good example.  It is women who are expected to sound 'naughty' or 'sexy' or whatever, not Jon.  Jon has full licence to sing the way he wants and sees fit, women aren't granted the right to be independent artists, they must conform to male notions of music.  

Thanks Pedro....your comments are at least still within the topic in this strange thread.   I agree that Michael Jackson was more successful in appealing to white, black audiences...actually, the whole world.   The closest to a Beatles-like phenomenon since their time.  Interestingly, that marks the point where black audiences began to push back and it may have ultimately spurred the popularity of hip-hop among them.   Sadly, we go only so far and no further in this regard, it seems.  

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMw6UoMFKXQ" rel="nofollow - http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMw6UoMFKXQ

your link would not open so I put this up.