[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/mu/ - Music


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: MotownVsStax.jpg (98 KB, 1334x1036)
98 KB
98 KB JPG
The great debate
>>
Both exploited black artists and robbed them of royalties, leaving most virtually penniless even though they made millions off their records. Both are based
>>
going through stax on discogs and listening to stuff that has cool art
>>
https://youtu.be/PgG6SU8L-dI

Black people were so fucking based
>>
how bad can it be when the album art looks like this?
>>
>>128737382
Motown all the way
>>
Nothing sounds fatter and funkier than holy ghost
>>
I mean, I like both but I think Stax is better. Motown was making commercial hits in a calculated way, Stax was just focused on making the best soul music they could and it sold by the virtue of the quality. iunno Motown was high quality, too, but you get what I'm saying



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.