>> Or said more simply: try to refrain from telling black people what the best response to racism is.

I'm sorry but I really don't understand what you mean by this. What black people did I tell what the best response to racism is? Can you point to my comment where I did this, please?

Also, could you please show me where in my comments I'm "lecturing", as per your previous comment?

It's not very helpful to interpret my comments without quoting my comments, so I can see what you refer to.

You started your comment with

> The article makes a very strenuous effort to make a point about something something racism in rock that sounds a bit boring and trite to my ears

This is very dismissive.

Then in thread you follow it up with stuff like:

> So why didn't the black grassroots ever sprout an analogous new rock scene, instead of turning towards the mainstream, big stage, light show, for-profit music that comes from black artists for the last few decades?

They did. You are simply ignorant of it. A large part of why you are ignorant of it is exactly because they were fenced away from the distribution channel by powerful publishers that ultimately only wanted reproducible results within predictable lanes. Because of the flaws of American society those lanes were very much racially defined.

This is what punk rock looked like in the 1970s. Note it was both racially integrated and willing to put a black woman in front: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6BHh_0pX_4

How did that very sort of new rock you demanded of black musicians disappear? Not because they didn't try, but because they did, and were fenced away from the means of reaching a mass audience vs the industry allowed white folk that played the same music, and even then white punk was fenced away in similar way (though not equivalent).

> Why Rihana and Beyonce, rather than a new Jimi Hendrix? Female, even. Why is Rock 'n' Roll pretty much dead to black kids, nowadays?

This again comes across as very judgmental, and an utter failure to understand what the article was telling you. You are blaming black musicians for not prevailing in a genre that was overtly hostile to them, when the people hostile to them held all the power. Then you're just asserting your own taste about Rihana and Beyonce.

Strike the phrase "female even" from your future discussions on this topic. No matter your intent that's going to read really wrong.

And specifically about Beyonce, I don't really see how you can watch this video and then assert she ain't punk rock as fuck: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDZJPJV__bQ and that has nothing to do with compositional taste of the music. This is where black American music went exactly because of all of the issues the article is describing.

Jimi is celebrated exactly because he was such a rare achievement in that era. The true tragedy is there's 10k Jimi's out there that never got a shot because of race, no matter their interest or ability.

I'm trying to be charitable here, but so far all you've done is ** on black musicians you don't like, and then criticize the history of black music for not being what you naively expect. That's what I meant with my comment.

I'd like to remind you again of HN's guidelines about trying to respond to the strongest interpretation of others' comments. Not because it's a rule that must be blindly followed, but because I think that it's a sensible bit of advise that promotes reasonable and useful conversation.

Of course I'm bringing the guideline up because I don't think you're responding to the strongest interpretation of my comments. I think you are instead responding to a very weak interpretation that only suits very low-quality debate where the point is to claim a moral high ground, rather than to learn anything new.

A few examples. You say that the following sentence is "very dismissive":

> The article makes a very strenuous effort to make a point about something something racism in rock that sounds a bit boring and trite to my ears

You don't say who it is dismissive against. My comment is dismissive - it is dismissive of the article, not any other person or group. In your previous comment you were concerned about my stance against black musicians. My comment above says nothing about black musicians, or black folks in general.

You say that the following comment comes across as judgemental:

> Why Rihana and Beyonce, rather than a new Jimi Hendrix? Female, even. Why is Rock 'n' Roll pretty much dead to black kids, nowadays?

You don't say against whom my comment is judgemental. My comment is judgemental against Beyonce and Rihana, because I don't like their music. But you are concerned about my behaviour with respect to all black musicians. You have to make a great big leap from Beyonce and Rihana to all black musicians, for example Fela Kuti would probably be unhappy if you compared him to Beyonce. Maybe not.

Finally:

>> And specifically about Beyonce, I don't really see how you can watch this video and then assert she ain't punk rock as fuck:

I'm afraid on this, I'll have to disagree. I see a bunch of people, men and women, shaking their asses. That's not my idea of punk. My idea of punk is young anglo kids getting wasted and pretending to be rebellious. You pointed to the X-Ray Spex. Punk of their era was 80% male, 99% white. I don't even begin to see how Beyonce shaking her money maker is punk, except of course that the famous punk rock bands of the '80s famously went for the money grab in their later years.

Edit: to avoid further confusion, I should point out I think punk is and has always been 99% rubbish. Same as pop.