quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: It was clear he wasn't going to think about it, so I decided to cut to the chase. I explained that he didn't like it because it was melodic music. It lacked that primal rythmic back-beat found in all Rock style music. In fact, music pschologists have found that there is a very specific beat, a very specific timing that all people will instinctively respond to.
What bothers me about a lot of hip-hop and rap is that it exploits that instinctive response to the back-beat and rythme. The instrumentation, and skill of the musician is minimal, it just pure beat, a machine could produce it. Personally, I prefer guitar bands where skill instrumentation is showcased over the back-beat.
Okay, I've heard this idea before, and I've got two responses to it. I'm not even going to start an evidence press, even though I've never personally been able to find this study. It sounds a bit like some of those urban legend studies, like the Mozart Effect, the left brain/right brain ideas, and the well-quoted "fact" that humans use 10% of their brains. Nevertheless, I'll assume that this study has been done and is valid, and give you a couple responses to it.
FIRST: Let's say that the human response to hip-hop music is a primal response to the structure of the music. How does that make it any different than any genre of music? In fact, how does that fact make it terribly different than any art form? There's no logical reason that any music is pleasurable, from Bach to The Beatles to The Beastie Boys. It's all a primal response to melodic, harmonic and rhythmic structures.
Sure, you can bring up someone like John Cage or Arnold Shoenberg who made experimental music that may not be emotionally pleasing. But when is the last time you popped on a CD of a John Cage piece? Music that is solely interesting in a cerebral way isn't going to survive outside of academia very long. Any piece, in any genre, that you're likely to listen to is desirable because of the primal response that it evokes.
In fact, one could argue that a musician's only job is to find a way to evoke these primal emotions. Hopefully in a novel and interesting way. But, whether the music is formulaic or completely revolutionary, if it doesn't stir something in your soul, what's the point?
So if you're saying that hip-hop musicians have found a way to make this happen, perhaps that just means that they've done their job.
SECOND: If the only reason that hip-hop music works is because of that beat, why has it evolved? Grand Master Flash and Kurtis Blow figured out how to make dope beats in the late '70s. And within just a few years, rap music had changed into something almost completely different. And it kept changing. Rap from the '90s sounds much different that contemporary rap. And rap from LA sounds different than rap from Chicago, New York, Atlanta, London, Tokyo or Berlin. If all it requires is the exact same beat, why didn't someone find that beat and put it on every track from 1978 to now?
And if it could all be done by machines, why has hip-hop production grown into such a well-respected, diverse, technically rigorous and creative art form? If you've ever heard the production techniques of such masters as RZA, Dr Dre, The Dust Brothers, DJ Shadow, Tricky, RJD2, Ali Shaheed Muhammad, J Dilla, BT, Madlib, or Terminator X, and you still think they all use the same beat, or a machine could do what they do, you clearly don't understand what you're hearing.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Not being a music snob myself...
quote: If the only reason that hip-hop music works is because of that beat, why has it evolved? Grand Master Flash and Kurtis Blow figured out how to make dope beats in the late '70s. And within just a few years, rap music had changed into something almost completely different. And it kept changing. Rap from the '90s sounds much different that contemporary rap. And rap from LA sounds different than rap from Chicago, New York, Atlanta, London, Tokyo or Berlin. If all it requires is the exact same beat, why didn't someone find that beat and put it on every track from 1978 to now?
I don't think anyone suggested it's one singular beat, but rather that the beat is emphasized over most other aspects of the song.
There's a lot pointing toward this being true. Rap especially is very concerned with rhythm. Good rap is concerned with effectively combining several kinds of rhythm.
Bad rap / hip hop is the kind that uses one beat and one hook and overemphasizes them to the point of the rest of the music not mattering anymore.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I don't think anyone suggested it's one singular beat, but rather that the beat is emphasized over most other aspects of the song.
Here's what BlueWizard said in the post I referenced:
quote:In fact, music pschologists have found that there is a very specific beat, a very specific timing that all people will instinctively respond to. ... The instrumentation, and skill of the musician is minimal, it just pure beat, a machine could produce it.
That says to me that he thinks there's one beat, and no creativity necessary (or even tolerated) in the genre.
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Rap especially is very concerned with rhythm. Good rap is concerned with effectively combining several kinds of rhythm.
No more than many other kinds of music. One could argue that Stravinsky and Mingus were as concerned with rhythm as much of the hip-hop that's being produced today.
The fact is, if you're listening to the good stuff, there's as much going on outside of straight rhythm in a hip-hop piece as anywhere else. And where they are concerned with rhythm, there's as much variety and creativity to be had in hip-hop as just about any other type of music. If someone makes a statement like BlueWizard, it's clear to me that he doesn't have much experience with the form.
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Bad rap / hip hop is the kind that uses one beat and one hook and overemphasizes them to the point of the rest of the music not mattering anymore.
posted
Baron, I would say that "creativity" is encouraged in most genres, but not "unconventionality." Any way you slice it, if you're honest, hip-hop doesn't get rythmically complex. It can be rythmically ornamented and even intricate (rare) but that doesn't make it complex, complexity is a bare bones quality in music- something that sounds simple may be incredibly complex, and something that sounds intricate may be relatively non-complex. It's all a matter of how the music functions over a given period of time, and how varied and unusual or interestign those functions are. Hip-hop doesn't function on scales small or large enough to become complex- but if the songs were like they are, only 5 times as long, they might approach complexity.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Baron, I would say that "creativity" is encouraged in most genres, but not "unconventionality." Any way you slice it, if you're honest, hip-hop doesn't get rythmically complex. It can be rythmically ornamented and even intricate (rare) but that doesn't make it complex, complexity is a bare bones quality in music- something that sounds simple may be incredibly complex, and something that sounds intricate may be relatively non-complex. It's all a matter of how the music functions over a given period of time, and how varied and unusual or interestign those functions are. Hip-hop doesn't function on scales small or large enough to become complex- but if the songs were like they are, only 5 times as long, they might approach complexity.
Holy tomato, I wholeheartedly agree with Orincoro on MUSIC.
quote:The fact is, if you're listening to the good stuff, there's as much going on outside of straight rhythm in a hip-hop piece as anywhere else. And where they are concerned with rhythm, there's as much variety and creativity to be had in hip-hop as just about any other type of music. If someone makes a statement like BlueWizard, it's clear to me that he doesn't have much experience with the form.
I agree. But I think you'll agree that the image of even good rap & hip hop emphasizes two things: lyrics and rhythm (which combine for "flow," which is as overabused in describing music as it is in describing poetry).
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: I didn't get much of that post. I don't know how you're defining "complex" here. Or if the word is supposed to be a compliment or an insult. Same with your use of "creativity" vs "unconventionality." However, somehow I suspect you are also selling the genre short.
You mentioned the length of the songs, which I think is a complete red herring. For one thing, as I was reading your post I was listening to a hip-hop track that is over 9 minutes long. Good hip-hop, though, works over short spaces just like other music. I'm reminded of what Brian Eno said about his experience composing the start-up music for Windows 95.
quote:The idea came up at the time when I was completely bereft of ideas. I'd been working on my own music for a while and was quite lost, actually. And I really appreciated someone coming along and saying, "Here's a specific problem – solve it." The thing from the agency said, "We want a piece of music that is inspiring, universal, blah-blah, da-da-da, optimistic, futuristic, sentimental, emotional," this whole list of adjectives, and then at the bottom it said "and it must be 3¼ seconds long." I thought this was so funny and an amazing thought to actually try to make a little piece of music. It's like making a tiny little jewel. In fact, I made 84 pieces. I got completely into this world of tiny, tiny little pieces of music. I was so sensitive to microseconds at the end of this that it really broke a logjam in my own work. Then when I'd finished that and I went back to working with pieces that were like three minutes long, it seemed like oceans of time.
I don't know why you think a song has to be 30 minutes long to be complex, unless you're using a different definition of the word than I am.
There is a much wider variety of music that can be called "hip-hop" than I think you're taking into account. But just considering the very narrow definition of sampling, here are a few quotes about how deceptively complex and ingenious even strictly sampled works can be.
quote:"A lot of people still don't recognize the sampler as a musical instrument. I can see why. A lot of rap hits over the years used the sampler more like a Xerox machine. If you take four whole bars that are identifiable, you're just biting that s***. But I've always been into using the sampler more like a painter's palette than a Xerox.... You listen to a song like "Knowledge God" by Raekwon: it took at least five to seven different records chopped up to make one two-bar phrase. That's how I usually work." —RZA, The Wu-Tang Manual, 2004
quote:"It's a context issue, because not every sample is a huge chunk of a song. We might take a tiny little insignificant sound from a record and then slow it way down and put it deep in the mix with, like, 30 other sounds on top of it. It's not even a recognizable sample at that point. Which is a lot different from taking a huge, obvious piece from some hit song that everyone knows and saying whatever you want to on top of that loop. An example that's often brought up in court when we get sued over sampling is a Biz Markie track where he more or less used a whole Gilbert O'Sullivan song. Because it was such an obvious sample, it's the example lawyers use when trying to prove that sampling is stealing. And that's really frustrating to us as artists who sample, because sampling can be a totally different thing than that." —Beastie Boys
quote:"You got stuff darting in and out absolutely everywhere. It's like someone throwing rice at you. You have to grab every little piece and put it in the right place like a puzzle. Very complicated. All those little snippets and pieces that go in, along with the regular drums that you gotta drop out in order to make room for it." —Eric Sadler of Public Enemy's Bomb Squad, Black Noise by Tricia Rose, Wesleyan Press 1994, p. 80
quote:"[Samples have] a certain reality. It doesn't just take the sound, it takes the whole way it was recorded. The ambient sounds, the little bits of reverb left off crashes that happened a couple of bars ago. There's a lot of things in the sample, just like when you take a picture—it's got a lot more levels than say, the kickdrum or the drum machine, I think. [...] Looking at a sampler the way it was used first—to try and simulate real instruments—you didn't have to get a session guitarist and you could just be like, 'Hey, I can have an orchestra in my track, and I can have a guitar, and it sounds real!' And I think that's the wrong way to use sampling. The right way is to get the guitar, and go, 'Right, that's a guitar. Let's make it into something that a guitar could never possibly be.' You know, take it away from the source and try to make it something else. Might as well just get a bloody guitarist if you want a guitarist. There's plenty of them." —Amon Tobin
I really believe that if you think hip-hop is simple, you really haven't heard enough of the right stuff, or haven't paid attention when it was on.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: But I think you'll agree that the image of even good rap & hip hop emphasizes two things: lyrics and rhythm (which combine for "flow," which is as overabused in describing music as it is in describing poetry).
Again, this is taking a very narrow view of the art. If you think hip-hop emphasizes lyrics, consider the fact that there has been an entire sub-genre of hip-hop in the past decade made without little or no rapping at all. And even in the hip-hop that centers around the rappers, a fair amount of their albums contain instrumental tracks. I don't know how you could describe DJ Shadow, DJ Krush, DJ Spooky, RJD2, or any of their contemporaries in terms of "flow."
And sure, there's a solid rhythm in a lot (though by no means all) of hip-hop. But if you think it's more pronounced than rock, soul, funk, jazz, or even a lot of modern classical music, you're listening to the wrong hip-hop.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, this is taking a very narrow view of the art. If you think hip-hop emphasizes lyrics, consider the fact that there has been an entire sub-genre of hip-hop in the past decade made without little or no rapping at all. And even in the hip-hop that centers around the rappers, a fair amount of their albums contain instrumental tracks. I don't know how you could describe DJ Shadow, DJ Krush, DJ Spooky, RJD2, or any of their contemporaries in terms of "flow."
I also wouldn't call Krush, Shadow or D2 hip hop artists. Heck, even they often make the distinction.
quote:And sure, there's a solid rhythm in a lot (though by no means all) of hip-hop. But if you think it's more pronounced than rock, soul, funk, jazz, or even a lot of modern classical music, you're listening to the wrong hip-hop.
Here's the differentiation: I'm not picking and choosing which hip hop to listen to. We're talking about the genre as a whole, not the best-of. And, unfortunately, "hip hop" includes all the crap that sits in the Top 40, the same way "rock" includes crap like Nickelback and Puddle of Mudd.
If you ask the average human being what defines rap and hip hop, you will get the very answers you're disputing. That, unfortunately, is what defines the genre.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: also wouldn't call Krush, Shadow or D2 hip hop artists. Heck, even they often make the distinction.
Krush, Shadow and RJD2 are all hip-hop DJs who have produced instrumental hip-hop albums. The last two came out with straight hip-hop albums this year. Shadow has been a little defensive about people who think he's selling out by making a hip-hop album, and he's been saying a lot in the press about how he's always, even in the Endtroducing days, been a hip-hop musician. In fact, he was interviewed by the AV Club a couple months back, and there was a lot in there about how he identifies himself as a hip-hop musician. Here's an example:
quote:DJS: I'm not going to say that I never said anything along those lines. I definitely remember criticizing commercial hip-hop at that time, and one of the reasons was that Tupac had just been killed, and then Biggie was killed. And I started saying, "You know, I don't know if this is the way we really want to be going, where you have these bicoastal wars." So, yeah, as a lover of hip-hop and as somebody who grew up on hip-hop, I had issues with the music at the time. But I think a lot of people, particularly outside of hip-hop, misinterpreted things I said, and came to the conclusion, based on the song "Why Hip-Hop Sucks In '96," that I didn't like rap. Which, even in 1996 when I was saying those things, rap was still the main music I listened to. It's just that, like anybody, I had opinions on the music of the time, and I think to some degree, I got misrepresented. Probably because of that song title.
If you didn't see Endtroducing as a hip-hop album, maybe that explains some of your misconceptions about the genre.
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: If you ask the average human being what defines rap and hip hop, you will get the very answers you're disputing. That, unfortunately, is what defines the genre.
And if you ask the average person what "classical music" is, they'll tell you it's "a bunch of violins and s***." I heard that exact answer when I DJ'd a classical radio show Sundays in college.
In fact, when I was on that radio station I also teamed up with a friend of mine on Saturdays to do a jazz show. You'd be surprised how often, in the middle of a tasty Miles Davis track, some idiot called up and told us to "turn off the classical music."
I've learned not to define styles based upon what average people think they are. Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Here's the differentiation: I'm not picking and choosing which hip hop to listen to. We're talking about the genre as a whole, not the best-of. And, unfortunately, "hip hop" includes all the crap that sits in the Top 40, the same way "rock" includes crap like Nickelback and Puddle of Mudd.
Yet I don't recall any threads titled "Why I don't like rock." I can, however, recall at least one other thread like this one.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Baron: And if you ask the average person what "classical music" is, they'll tell you it's "a bunch of violins and s***." I heard that exact answer when I DJ'd a classical radio show Sundays in college.
In fact, when I was on that radio station I also teamed up with a friend of mine on Saturdays to do a jazz show. You'd be surprised how often, in the middle of a tasty Miles Davis track, some idiot called up and told us to "turn off the classical music."
I've learned not to define styles based upon what average people think they are. [Smile]
I disagree that most people would describe classical music as "a bunch of violins and s***." I think, at best, that that's an exaggerated example of a lack of understanding of the genre.
It's a problem suffered by MANY genres of music. Classical suffers from it. So does electronica. So does jazz. So does hip hop. That doesn't make it any less true to the average person.
Both classical and hip hop suffer from the gross misassumption that it all sounds the same, because we're exposed to a very narrow range of it in the course of our lives. I think a more fair average summary of classical would be "Beethoven and Mozart and s***." Likewise, a fair average summary of hip hop could be (these days) "Jay Z and Chingy and Kanye and s***."
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: Yet I don't recall any threads titled "Why I don't like rock." I can, however, recall at least one other thread like this one.
There are a lot of possible reasons for this.
1) Rock has existed for far longer (relatively speaking) than hip hop has.
2) Unlike a lot of other musical genres, rock is very heavily defined by its sub-genres. Many people (perhaps most?), when saying they like rock, will assert that they like "classic rock" or "alternative rock" or "indie rock," etc. While every genre of music has its subgenres, people tend to differentiate more often with rock than with other forms of music. This may be because different styles of rock have much more readily identifiable distinguishing features than subgenres of other music to the average person - and to emphasize again, I'm not saying that hip hop or any other genre of music suffers from a lack of differentiation, only that that differentiation is not as prominent in the minds of the masses.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: Orincoro: I didn't get much of that post. I don't know how you're defining "complex" here. Or if the word is supposed to be a compliment or an insult. Same with your use of "creativity" vs "unconventionality." However, somehow I suspect you are also selling the genre short.
You mentioned the length of the songs, which I think is a complete red herring. For one thing, as I was reading your post I was listening to a hip-hop track that is over 9 minutes long. Good hip-hop, though, works over short spaces just like other music. I'm reminded of what Brian Eno said about his experience composing the start-up music for Windows 95.
This is a little disingenuous. I said specifically that the MUSIC as it is does not generally become complex (meaning varied in many qualities to produce an effect greater than the whole of the individual elements alone, and an effect that is dynamic), in the time in which a pop song can tastefully exist. The better rock and pop stuff I've heard has generally been longer, because the length was tolerable given the complexity and variability of the music. The reason though, that most pop songs are about 3:30-4:00 minutes is that the music doesn't have the potential to describe a dramatic arc any longer than that. Many pop songs even have to cheat out that length by turning song forms back into strict rounded binary forms. What you get is this effect, and it is NOT complex.
A section Strophe 1 chorus Strophe 2 chorus Strophe 3 (transition) B (transition)
A Repeat, fade.
If you want to hear a song that goes exactly that way, listen to "London Bridge" by Fergie. It's particularly insipid, and this is only one of the reasons. While it's true that this is a form long established in romantic song cycles, dating in its essence to as far back as the 15th century, but those songs are harmonically interesting, they are melodically dynamic, they are dramatically moving. They also come in cycles of many songs that complement each other, which is something that modern hip-hop is not always good at doing. The best hip-hop is that which can sustain even a stylistic presence across a whole album, but I have NEVER heard a CD that maintained the level of stylistic unity and interest that song cycles by Schubert or Schumann were able to accomplish.
When I say that a song or a CD can be creative without being unconventional, I mean that the songs on it can do interesting things, and still not manage to escape from the standard practices in hip-hop. Unconventionality is a virtual prerequisite for great music, because even the music that seems "conventional" written well, will do things with conventional ideas that are unique and interesting. It is entirely another thing to be a creative member of a genre, than it is to be an innovator. Some innovators are not even very creative, they just have good ideas that they can't express properly- that's where you get indie music that's badly performed, that people need to get used to in order to like.
To say that hip-hop "works over short spaces," is meaningless to me. If I wanted to write a piece with one note in it, I could simply write one measure with a note. That piece would be perfectly acceptable to anyone's ears the first time it would be played, but as the performer would acknowledge the end of the piece, after one note, the audience would be disappointed and baffled. To accept a single note in a vacuum, as a promise or a foreshadowing of the music to come is one thing, but really interesting and beautiful music does more than simply exist in a space, filling it with gas. The music has to feel sometimes as if there is more left unsaid, mysteries apparent in the story of the music, or disturbing problems in the texture that require thought, that promote intrigue and active listening. Hip-hop is tasteless when nothing is left unsaid, and often more is said, musically than is acceptable or tasteful to me. This is not to say that there is actually more material of interest presented, but that the interesting aspects of the music are grotesquely co-opted to fulfill all expectations of flash, whim and apparent "completeness." A pop song is usually incapable of exploring a melodic idea of any interest without wrecking the interesting parts by making them harmonically obvious and cheesy; that is one example of what I mean.
There are serious problems with taste, in my opinion, in the hip-hop culture and in much popular entertainment. We respond on a very basic level to aesthetics of taste: we are aware of comic timing for example, and we are generally aware of the appropriate length of a toast, or a film. We know when music is being played too loud, and we know when someone's writing is becoming histrionic and melodramatic. We recognize good and bad acting (at least I do!), and yet people want to convince each other that we can't recognize that there is good and bad music. It's like this with everything though-- I can tell you that I thought a stand-up comic wasn't funny, and you'll accept my judgment as being extended beyond personal taste to include an observation about the comic's actual qualities. I am NOT just saying I didn't like it, I am saying I don't think it was funny. On the same token, people shouldn't get away with the opposite approach: "it didn't appeal to me, and taste is very personal." Taste is by definition NOT personal, it is a quality that applies to interaction, and "personal" judgments about anything are also comments on the qualities in those things. The music you don't like doesn't just not appeal to you, you actually think it's bad. If you then listen to it and decide it's not bad, then it never was, it just took time for you to appreciate.
Baron- in regard to the quote you posted about 4 second pieces of music: those pieces are definetly not as complex as man longer pieces. You can't, as far as I have experienced, fit any real, understandable, dynamic complexity into 4 seconds. 4 seconds isn't even time to solidly establish a key or a meter, so how could you establish complexity of any kind in that space. You might be able to do something INTRICATE in 4 seconds, but since you could only really dwell on the idea for, oh 4 seconds, it would not be complex, it would be ONE statement of an intricate idea, and ideas are the things that evolve complexities. This idea you put forward is utterly ridiculous, really a 4 second piece is not complex, it can't be. I don't think it takes THAT much longer to be complex, even 30 seconds was enough for Anton Vebern, but 4 seconds isn't enough to do anything, so I don't buy it for an instant.
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: Yet I don't recall any threads titled "Why I don't like rock." I can, however, recall at least one other thread like this one.
There are a lot of possible reasons for this.
1) Rock has existed for far longer (relatively speaking) than hip hop has.
2) Unlike a lot of other musical genres, rock is very heavily defined by its sub-genres. Many people (perhaps most?), when saying they like rock, will assert that they like "classic rock" or "alternative rock" or "indie rock," etc. While every genre of music has its subgenres, people tend to differentiate more often with rock than with other forms of music. This may be because different styles of rock have much more readily identifiable distinguishing features than subgenres of other music to the average person - and to emphasize again, I'm not saying that hip hop or any other genre of music suffers from a lack of differentiation, only that that differentiation is not as prominent in the minds of the masses.
I'm going to go one further and say that because we're talking about current music, the definition of "hip-hop" from person to person varies alot. Are we talking about the last 25 years of hip-hop, or the last 5? Or the last year? Also these threads are often negative reactions against an evolving genre, in hopes that undesired changes will stop, or to see if others feel the same reservations about new things. On the whole, I find the thread perfectly reasonable, though in 50 years it probably would need more specifics and a different approach, like that which you would need in order to debate any period of classical music.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen a lot of discussions like this, and I want to state some of the things that are obvious to me, features of all such discussions.
1. It's obvious that every genre includes some good and bad music, and that, generally, the bad pieces outnumber the good in all genres.
2. Music that one does not "get" always sounds repetitive to one. I could quote what people said about Beethoven, Stravinsky, The Beatles, Yes, Beck, Holst, etc. and the descriptions would match so closely you could not pick out which statement was said about which music. "It's all the same thing, over and over." "Nothing but a bunch of bangs and crashes." "No subtlety at all. Crude and childish." "Primitive."
3. Harmony, Melody, Rhythm, Tone, etc. all are elements of music, and none are inherently superior to others. The best music uses whatever tools work best to be what it is, what's good. There's no way to define goodness in music, as any definition has more exceptions than hits. If it sounds good, it is good. That's it.
4. Every generation dislikes the music of the generation preceding (too stuffy and hokey), and the generation after it (this crazy stuff the kids listen to now), and thinks it is somehow the gold-standard of all good music. This is hooey. All times have good and bad music, the same as all genres.
5. What is smartest, wisest, coolest, and most fun is to learn to sincerely enjoy as much music as possible. Sometimes (often) this is a stretch. But quite often, the music that pleases one the very best of all (at any given time), took a while for one's ear to become attuned to. The longest-lasting great music always takes a fair amount of time to "get". The hard part is figuring out what music you just need to give more time and a few more listens, and what you should never listen to even once, because it's junk. =)
So, rather than argue about what genres of music are inherently bad and why, I would prefer to share the music I like, and explain a bit about what I like about it, to possibly give someone some new joy to experience. =)
Lately, I've been doing this ritual each day, dancing for the pure joy of movement, and life, and having a body, and also paying close attention to how beautiful every instant of existence actually is. For some reason, the music that works best for The Ritual has been Carlos Vives. He has a song called "Pa' Mayte" that I can't not dance to, but he has many other excellent songs, and lots that are great dance songs. There's this infectious joy that he has that goes along very well with The Ritual. It's making me extremely happy. =) I recommend The Ritual to everyone.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, I think everyone here will agree with you that Fergie sucks.
I'm on my way to a 13-hour day of work, so I don't have much time for a complete answer to your question. But I'll give you a very brief summation of my opinion.
You're making a lot of assumptions about this type of music based, clearly, upon a lack of experience and understanding of it. We all know that you like "classical" music (by the vernacular definition), and that you've spent quite a bit of time listening to, and dissecting, the works of maybe the greatest one-tenth of a percent of these musicians from the past several centuries. So when you want to talk about why your style of music is better than someone elses', it's very easy to compare Schubert to Fergie, break out your own classical-centered definitions of what makes music worth listening to, and think you're right.
Again, I don't have the time to get really technical with you over this. But you have to remember that there are people with as much or more musical training than you who have found pieces of hip-hop music interesting, unique and innovative. One of my best friends has a Ph.D. in music and is a professor of musical studies at a university in Ohio. A couple years ago he taught a course in rap history. He is personally responsible for turning me on to much of the best hip-hop in my collection. It's not his #1 favorite genre, nor is it mine. But he has taught me that there are some real gems to be found in it if you're willing to look.
I'm off to work, so that's about as specific as I can get right now. If you want more detailed information about what is great in hip-hop, I'm sure you can find better explainations than I could give, from learned individuals, at the library or perhaps even online. Of course, I'm sure you're about as likely to go to that much trouble as your average Jay-Z fan is to spend some time poring over Mahler scores. But try to recognize that there are other opinions out there, and your preferred type of music isn't the objective right answer.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really wish people would stop calling all orchestral music "Classical." Very imprecise and annoying.
And rap rocks, when done right. I will agree, however, that there seems to be a higher crap/gold ratio on hip-hop stations than rock, country or pop ones, just from anecdotal experience.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant to post this last night but the site was down. Hopefully it is still relevant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Wow, I sort of thought this thread had been abandon, checked back every few days and didn't see much new stuff, but now apparently someone has attacked me, though I mean that in the softest tones.
To Baron Samedi criticizm that -
"Okay, I've heard this idea before, and I've got two responses to it. I'm not even going to start an evidence press, even though I've never personally been able to find this study. "
I believe I took that from an old book on Musical Psychology, though I read it years ago and probably don't have the copy any more. But there is a simplier test, put on some back-beat rock music (including Rap/Hip-hop) and babies will start dancing. OK, not babies, toddlers. Who taught toddlers how to dance? Answer; no one, they just naturally respond to the beat.
Speed Metal is certainly faster than basic POP rock, but even at twice the speed, it is still based on the same core rhythm.
Let me pause here to address Orincoro comments on 'complexity' of music. Music doesn't have to be complicated to be complex. Recently I saw a music documentary in which Eric Clapton played the songs of Robert Johnson (blues in case you didn't know). The recordings we have of Robert Johnson are very old, they are essentially this old black dude sitting in the corner (literally) of an old hotel room singing into a microphone and playing accoustic guitar. What could be more simple than that. Well, Eric Clapton who is generally acknowledge as one of the most accomplished Rock/Blues guitar players alive today couldn't duplicate the guitar licks he heard on Robert Johnson simple accoustic guitar recordings, and all indications are that he worked very hard at he attempt. Those simple recording of an old blues player with his guitar are complex because even the best guitar players can't duplicate it, yet being simple basic accoustic blues, they are very simple songs. So, once again, 'complex' doesn't necessarily mean complicated.
Back to our regularly scheduled programming -
FIRST: Let's say that the human response to hip-hop music is a primal response to the structure of the music. How does that make it any different than any genre of music?
It doesn't. I never objected to the mere fact that is has a back-beat, and even acknowledge that other form of music also depend on this. What I objected to is that it appears to be ALL back-beat, at least, the Rap/hip-hop I've been exposed to.
Also note that I readily and clearly admited my own prejudices in music. I like guitar bands, I like musicians far more than I like singers.
So if you're saying that hip-hop musicians have found a way to make this happen, perhaps that just means that they've done their job. ...
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said. But, I also said, I don't particularly like the way they are doing their job. That is a statement of preference.
SECOND: If the only reason that hip-hop music works is because of that beat, why has it evolved? ...
Well, every form of music, and I mean EVERY form, has to keep thinking of new ways to do the same old thing. Basic three-chord Rock is an extremely diversified field of music, yet in the end, it is still just basic three-chord Rock.
If all it requires is the exact same beat, why didn't someone find that beat and put it on every track from 1978 to now?
Actually, I think they did just that, though their actions in doing so were much subtler than this basic statement makes it sound. Though, I suspect in referencing the range and variations in Rap/Hip-Hop was the very point you were making.
I don't deny that Rap/Hip-Hop is popular, I don't even deny that some of it is good. What I claim is that I don't like most of it and gave my reasons way.
Least you try to delude people into thinking I'm totally anti-Rap, please note the statements in my original post -
"...appealing aspects of Rap and Hip-Hop ..."
"...urban poetry set to a back-beat..."
"Urban Rap and Hip-Hop give a poetic voice to disenfranchised people, and some of it is culturally and socially significant. "
Or where I defended the 'dark' messages found in Rap/Hip-hop -
"...it reflects the dark and destructive world that some people live in."
"Yes, some of it is homophobic and misogynistic, but that does reflect a real aspect of our modern world."
"That does reflect the culture that some people are thrown into and forced to grow up in."
"...because that darkness is a real part of life..."
One thing I do not in any way retract is this statement -
"I hear that dark message and it tells me how bad things are, kids hear it and falsely think it is a message about how good things can be. They listen and think that bitches, whores, guns, drugs, gangs, and killing are something to aspire to. "
But that is the problem of the listeners, not the Rappers.
Originally posted by BlueWizard: "Not being a music snob myself..."
Are you sure? [Wink]
I'm far less of a music snob than most people who listen to what I will now call 'pop' Rap or any 'pop' music for that matter. The person in the example that I gave from college was a music snob because he couldn't allow himself to consider the worth of any other form of music other than what he and his friends listened to. It's what I call 'Center of the Universe' syndrome implying 'I am the center of the universe, all things of value are defind by me'.
I, at least, acknowledged and defended apects of Rap, while admittedly criticizing other aspect. But I could do the same for Blues, Metal, Hard Rock, Pop Rock, Soft Rock, Folk, Country and every other form of music.
In the end I have my preferences, yet my preferences cast a far far wider net than most young popular music fans.
For the record, my FOUR FOOT record collection, and yes they really are record albums, not CDs, spans the range from Blues (Sonny & Brownie, Howling Wolf, Clarence 'Gatemouth' Brown, B.B.King, Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy, etc...) to country (Walon & Willie, Doug Kershaw, etc...) to Folk (Dylan, Donovan, etc...) to Rock (Doors, Stones, etc...) to Hard Rock (Who, Deep Purple, etc...) to Acid Rock (Hendrix, Robin Trower, Pink Floyd, Cream, etc...) to guitar classics like Django Reinhart and so forth. I even on occassion enjoy some classical and opera not to mention Punk.
And yes, I am well aware that by mentioning my selection of music I have dated myself back to the stone age of Rock music.
Finally -
And if it could all be done by machines, why has hip-hop production grown into such a well-respected, diverse, technically rigorous and creative art form?
Because there is money to be made, simple as that. There are so many corporate or manufactured 'bands' out there now who are extremely popular and to some extent, even talented that have simply been assembled to make money for corporations. Sad but true. Of course that certainly doesn't define any or all aspects of popular music, but it none the less is a very real aspect of the modern music scene.
Remember, I didn't just criticize Rap/Hip-hop, I also defended it; I pointed out the up side and the down side.
quote:Originally posted by David Bowles: I really wish people would stop calling all orchestral music "Classical." Very imprecise and annoying.
First off, I'm not just talking about orchestral music. I'm also including opera, choral works, chamber music, and music for solo instruments. Calling Schubert's Trout Quintet, Bach's Tocatta and Fugue in D minor, Handel's Messiah, or Chopin's nocturnes "orchestral" would be far less precise than calling them "classical."
Second, we had a fairly lengthy discussion on this very topic not too long ago in which all the interested Jatraqueros tried to come up with a better word than "classical" to describe this style of music. We were unable to reach a satisfactory conclusion. I am, however, aware of the distinction. That's why, in the post immediately preceding yours, I made it clear that I was using the word in its vernacular sense.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't have a problem saying, but I can't remember his stage name. His mom always refers to him by his real name, which I don't care to post. I know he's toured with Atmosphere, and I think he backs a female MC sometimes. *shrug* Sorry, probably not very helpful.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: You're making a lot of assumptions about this type of music based, clearly, upon a lack of experience and understanding of it. We all know that you like "classical" music (by the vernacular definition), and that you've spent quite a bit of time listening to, and dissecting, the works of maybe the greatest one-tenth of a percent of these musicians from the past several centuries. So when you want to talk about why your style of music is better than someone elses', it's very easy to compare Schubert to Fergie, break out your own classical-centered definitions of what makes music worth listening to, and think you're right.
Again, I don't have the time to get really technical with you over this. But you have to remember that there are people with as much or more musical training than you who have found pieces of hip-hop music interesting, unique and innovative. One of my best friends has a Ph.D. in music and is a professor of musical studies at a university in Ohio. A couple years ago he taught a course in rap history. He is personally responsible for turning me on to much of the best hip-hop in my collection. It's not his #1 favorite genre, nor is it mine. But he has taught me that there are some real gems to be found in it if you're willing to look.
Hold on. Please don't tell me how much experience I have with music of any kind- I know how much hip-hop I've listened to, how much popular music I've studied in school and how much I've thought about it, and my answers or theories are always couched in the experience level I have, as well as my sense of taste. It is not that I "don't get it," because I lack experience or ability, and it's insulting for you to say that. I didn't question your level of experience, because I am talking about things we should all be able to understand- this kind of attitude shuts down discussion because now I hardly even want to express my opinion to someone who thinks I don't get it, because I disagree with people who have more experience than I do. My opinions can be confronted and argued (they are all arguable) based on their merits and not mine; that's all I'll say.
Now, these are not "classical centered definitions" I am using. They have been in use very recently by musicologists (a field that arose largely over the last century), and are often used to describe classical music. However the music I've studied both pre and post-dates classical music, and I've found general principles of form, to be universal to human methods of expression. These descriptive devices are NOT classical-centered, they are principles that have affected the way people have thought since the rise of civilization; they are things that Aristotle and Horace wrote about thousands of years ago. You are free to reject all the jargon if you like, but form is form, and all music has it. It so happens that of late my interest has been in large scale formal relationships, and that's something hip-hop music doesn't do well, imo, so I harped on that, and that's my prerogative. You can argue the points I've made, not the points you think I'm really making (like "I'm smarter than you," or "hiphop sux!")
I'll remind you that classical period music is not "my style," it something that has had FAR more of an effect and a lasting presence in the art world than hip hop has yet achieved. It is, if only by default, historically much more important and proven to be extremely popular and influential throughout modern history. The best among the classic-romantic composers are gods in the music world even now, so OF COURSE it's easy to talk about Schubert over Fergie- one comes from a proven tradition of admirers and emulators, and the other has done nothing significant, musically. If you would like to engage in a dialog, talk about music you think WILL be influential and which you believe IS comparably great, or which has the potential to be those things.
The thing is, the argument I so often hear is that we have a "different method" of exploring the music. Well, I can assure you that I compose in the same time period as all the hip hop artists making records today, and I see many of the same things as they do in life. I don't need a new perspective to see what their music is doing, and when there is something lyrically or melodically or rythmically interesting in a song, I pay attention to it. What I don't do is what you would prefer, that I abandon my skills as an analytic in order to enjoy the music in a new way- that's mystical music mumbo jumbo as far as I'm concerned. If you have to lobotomize yourself in order to enjoy a piece of music because "it's good for dancing," then you don't really have a good reason for liking that music, as music. You make like the experience, but the music is not defensible as being complex or interesting- it simply exists as a tool for providing a beat to dance to.
Classical forms arose from dance forms. So what we get with advanced classical and romantic music is the descendant of dance music. Composers learned over long years to employ various devices, such as fugue, counterpoint, rythmic manipulation, motivic writing, etc, and employed those devices in their dance music. At a certain point, the music became ABOUT the music, and the dancing stopped, or it continued on with music much like that which classical forms evolved from. Formally complex compositions on the order of a Mozart, Haydn or Beethoven string quartet find their routes in dances, but they are MORE complex and do MORE musically- not just something different, something more.
There is potential in many many folk based dance music styles for the music to become more interesting and complex and I DO sincerely believe that rap and hip hop will evolve into influential modes of composition in time. But new forms, based on popular dance styles do not initially hint at real complexity- they can't, it's inimical to dance music. But then you have Hungarian folk dances that find their ways into brilliant modernist compositions by Bártok, and Austrian folk dances like Lënders finding their ways into Mahler's symphonies. These dance forms were evolved and complicated by an enhanced sense of their place in the musical world, by great musical minds who studied the classical styles. Did Mahler not appreciate folk music because he thought classically? His renditions of popular tunes in symphonic settings would suggest that he knew their potential better than anyone who danced to them.
So please, don't tell me I don't know the potential in the music- I know. I don't think that the music we are being sold lives up to this potential, but I am definitely open to the day when I hear something that changes my mind. In many ways that day has come again and again for many styles, and I have continued to learn from all of them. Certain rap and hip-hop works I've heard have impressed me, but I have recognized that there was more they could do, and I stand by that because it's always true, in every genre. I'm not saying it can't happen, but I am saying it hasn't happened yet.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I have a few minutes before work again, so here comes my briefer-than-I'd-like answer.
First off, perhaps you're right in saying that I've underestimated the amount of time and attention you've given the genre under discussion. So if you could just tell me the name of the last hip-hop album you listened to from start to finish with the same attention you'd give to a Bartok piece, about how long ago it was, and why you hated it so much, maybe I won't have to make such hasty generalizations about your background.
You keep bringing up this mystical concept of "complexity". You're clearly using this word in a different way than I'm familiar with, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. It would be helpful to have a frame of reference. It may not be a classical-centered definition, but based upon how you've used the term so far, it sounds an awful lot like one.
It's not necessary to lobotomize oneself to enjoy all hip-hop music. (I could take this as a personal attack, but I'll choose not to rise up in righteous indignation for the sake of the discussion. Maybe you could return the favor.) However, from the opposite perspective, my reaction is that I feel a little sorry for anyone who thinks that music can only be intelligently enjoyed on the same level as a clever sudoku puzzle.
In other words, if you don't mind me doing a quick impression of a high school policy debater, "cross-apply everything OSC has ever said about academia, and pull the whole damn thing across."
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No no no, you started it with the "you don't have enough experience with this to know what I'm talking about" argument, so don't give me that.
FYI, It's not a personal attack, it's an observation about myself. The only way I have enjoyed "dance" music had been by ignoring it the best I could, and trying not to let it bother me. That's how it makes me feel, so that's what I imagine other people doing to enjoy it, but I can't know how others internalize things.
I've listened through a number of albums but I rarely go very far with music I don't like. This means that I have only gotten through music that didn't turn me off in the first few songs. I've listened at friend's houses to a fair bit of Jay-z, which I liked, and I've heard most of the Eminem albums all the way through at least once. Albums I've despised on listening are harder to recall because they leave little impression, but I've definetly sat through an Usher album, Lil John and Sean Paul, and didn't like them.
I'm not going to play the "we have different definitions" game, so if you don't get what I'm talking about with complexity from reading what I've said- since I did define it in an earlier post- then I'm not going to repeat myself over and over. It gets harder, not easier, to make sense when talking about this concept when you have to continually provide definitions that are self-consistent and match the ones you've already given. If what you want is a high school debate atmosphere, then keep me on the run by telling me I'm not making any sense, and forcing me to explain myself again and again. Shockingly the explanations will be increasingly difficult to follow, because I have no idea what you aren't understanding, only that you don't understand.
What is this last paragraph all about? A way to say "If I were immature I would tell you you're a stupid-face?" You get to argue using other people's arguments as long as you qualify it by saying "this is what a high schooler would say?" That's what you're doing, you're using OSCs twisted conspiracy theories and applying them to me, all the while admitting you're the one without an argument of your own that doesn't have to do with name calling. I'm pretty much done with this discussion unless you have something to say that addresses the points I've made without telling me we can't talk to each other. It would be good if you could do that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoa, what's with all the hatred? Last things first, you've read way more into the last paragraph of my previous post than was intended. If this is going to devolve into one of those threads where we see who can stir up the most indignation, with all the "you insulted me," "well you did it worse," "well you started it," "well you took it to a whole nutha level," "talk to the hand, girlfriend," "oh no he didn't," "yo' mama," just let me know and I'll get out now.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'm not going to play the "we have different definitions" game, so if you don't get what I'm talking about with complexity from reading what I've said- since I did define it in an earlier post- then I'm not going to repeat myself over and over. It gets harder, not easier, to make sense when talking about this concept when you have to continually provide definitions that are self-consistent and match the ones you've already given. If what you want is a high school debate atmosphere, then keep me on the run by telling me I'm not making any sense, and forcing me to explain myself again and again. Shockingly the explanations will be increasingly difficult to follow, because I have no idea what you aren't understanding, only that you don't understand.
Okay, after I read that I figured I must have missed something. So I printed out the entire thread, and went over your posts with a pen and took notes. This is what I could determine, based upon everything you've written here, about your standard of complexity.
Complex is not the same as intricate. Something may sound complex to the lay listener, but, by your definition, not be complex. Or vice versa.
It has something to do with how music functions over time. That relationship was never explained.
Songs need to be "5 times as long" as average hip-hop songs to even have a chance at complexity. However, Anton Vebern did it in 30 seconds, so the average hip-hop song must be 6 seconds long.
Complex == good. The two terms seem to be basically interchangable, and if a piece of music does not achieve this standard of complexity, that alone is enough to close the book on it.
Complexity has a specific enough definition that it is possible to determine in a completely objective way, upon a single listen, whether a piece has the quality, does not have the quality, approaches the quality, or has potential to display the quality.
I have been assurred that your standard of "complexity" is not classical-centered. But it's also been stated that popular music forms generally cannot achieve complexity until they are used by a classical composer in a classical context. And all the examples of complex work given have been classical.
The definitions have been used only recently, arising in an academic discipline that wasn't around 100 years ago. Yet it should somehow be obvious what it is, and Aristotle and Horace wrote about them thousands of years ago.
So I see that you have talked a lot about this idea of complexity. But it's still clearly a different use of the term than is in common practice. What I'm looking for is the precise algorithm you're using to determine what is or isn't complex, and how close something is if it has not fully achieved that quality. Until I know what criteria you're using to judge music by, and why it is the gold standard for differentiating good music from bad music, it's all a black box to me. It's very easy for you to assure me that one entire genre of music fails the test and another genre passes it, but until I can see how you're objectively reaching these conclusions, it's a little hard to even discuss.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I've listened through a number of albums but I rarely go very far with music I don't like. This means that I have only gotten through music that didn't turn me off in the first few songs. I've listened at friend's houses to a fair bit of Jay-z, which I liked, and I've heard most of the Eminem albums all the way through at least once. Albums I've despised on listening are harder to recall because they leave little impression, but I've definetly sat through an Usher album, Lil John and Sean Paul, and didn't like them.
This is pretty much what I assumed earlier, just before I got the smack down for making assumptions.
By the way, just out of curiosity, what was it about Jay-Z that you liked? I bought one of his albums a year or so ago just to see what all the fuss was about. I've listened to it several times trying to get into it, but it's easily (in my own opinion) the most uninteresting hip-hop album in my collection (although I don't have any Black Eyed Peas or Lil John, so maybe there's no good competition.) There's nothing particularly irritating or offensive about it, but it's like a test of will for me to sit through the whole thing. I've always wondered what all those millions of fans see in him.
Anyway, I've got another 12 hours of work tomorrow (or is that today? I'm up way too late.) So I've got to close up here, but I'll check back when I get home.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am equating complexity with the level of intellectual skill necessary to create any piece of music. A good piece of music will reveal more about itself over time, and not less. It should not become truly "old," because the qualities in it should continue to appeal to the minds of listeners for various reasons. In short, good pieces have internal resources, they ask and answer questions interchangeably.
Part of the way I see a piece of music, after it has already been written (because I think a piece of music is only expressing the feelings of the composer when he writes it, not when it is played), is that it is a machine or a living thing on its own. This new thing will be tested, and if people stop listening or don't react to it, then it fails and dies. The more that piece of music effects people and influences them in some way, the more that piece spreads its ideas and life to other compositions, and into other art forms. The more complex the piece, the more levels at which the music may potentially effect people.
But, music can be simple and touching. Robert Johnson, for instance, wrote simply formed blues standards that achieve a connection on a simple level, but to many many people in common. It happens, but most often in history the artists and composers and writers who were written off as "too complicated, or "too much," outlasted the names of their detractors. Mozart was criticized, consistently, for writing music that was too complex for his listeners to enjoy. T.S. Elliot dismissed by people even today for being willfully complex, appeals to each new generation by the sheer density of his resources.
Many people think that this will happen with a rap artist, and I think it might. The problem I see with the hip-hop genre, and as I said before, with the music teenagers want to hear when I DJ dances, is that it has none of the complexity even to appeal to me on any level, even in the first listening. Alot of classical and boroque period music probably had a similar effect, and people probably said at the time that the music wouldn't last- and they were probably right. Many composers and entire artistic movements (movements longer and bigger than hip-hop) are unheard and unseen centuries later, because they failed to achieve complexity and lastingness. The more versatile and mobile a piece of music is, the longer it will survive the inevitable slide of culture into new terrain. What we know about the classical music preserved today is that it made that journey, and is proven to be worth our attention. Much that is worth note will have been lost, but that which is left is probably very important.
quote: * The definitions have been used only recently, arising in an academic discipline that wasn't around 100 years ago. Yet it should somehow be obvious what it is, and Aristotle and Horace wrote about them thousands of years ago.
Well, the definitions I used like "strophe," "Coda" "chorus," "Binary form." Those are used with their modern definitions, and those definitions have become prevalent in academia in the last 100 years. The words really describe processes of expression, like dramatic pacing, timing, the "shape" of a narrative structure, that people have been aware of and writing about for millenia. Our understandings of these things are different now, but people's processes for digesting elements of form have not changed much. The definitions we use are new, but the ideas are really quite common in all cultures. Consult any philosophy you care to, and you'll find that people's ways of dealing with expression are universal at the fundamental level- they only appear different to us because we are all human beings and take much of our commonalities for granted. The words we use to describe these evolved versions of intuitive processes. My opinion is, essentially, that everyone IS an individual, but that we all really do respond to things similarly. Therefore, though we're individuals, truly effective music will be effective on everyone.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey. Quick post to tell you that I haven't blown you off, I just picked a really bad week to get into anything like this. I've got a response in my head, and I'll post it as soon as I have the time to commit it to writing.
Just wanted to tell you: 1. I haven't forgotten. 2. I appreciate the change in tone.
I'm off again. Laters.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I learned more about appreciating poetry from listening to Eminem than I have from taking English classes.
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Give the following songs a try: Till I collapse and Lose Yourself by Eminem. Both of those are, I think, his best songs. I honestly can't understand how you would like his earlier stuff--it had little to no content. Maybe some songs like The Way I Am were alright, but songs like Please Stand Up? Please sit down.....and never sing anything like that ever again Mr. Mathers.
Posts: 56 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
...Please Stand Up pretty much established Eminem as one of the better rappers of this generation. His earlier stuff was MUCH more deeper and heartfelt than his later stuff. I can't think of anyone who hasn't heard of the songs that you have mentioned. Lose Yourself was alright, but Till I Collapse wasn't that great. The production was nice, but Eminem's flow was weaker and his rhymes weren't that great. Eminem's earlier stuff was great because of how hungry he sounded on the mic. He knew he had something to prove and he always came his hardest on his first LP. His later stuff, especially songs off of Encore and The Eminem Show were sorta lame and cheesy compared to songs like Stan, which is easily Eminem's best song.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: You will find me listening to the occasional hip hop and rap from the 80's and early 90's but never will you catch me hearing anything from today. The mainstream stuff has really gone downhill, in my opinion. In music of those times I found that there was more rhythm to the music, it was more...danceable. It's just that the hop-hop/rap of today is just...bad. Of what I've heard, it's just about drugs, women, and sex. It's no longer the, "Let's go dance and have fun" kind of music. The only contemporary song I liked that belongs to this genre was "Hey Ya" and I'm not even sure if it qualifies as hip-hop/rap.
What has happened to the music? A lot of my friends listen to it and just don't understand why they do. For the most part, the songs generally belittle women in horrible ways and encourage drug use a lot.
posted
I agree on that. The great works of literature need, well, if not great at least adequate, explanation. You will not recieve that explanation in a normal high school, and maybe not even in the average college.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think even college should just give you the tools to start understanding things for yourself, in time. As a reasonably smart person who works his but off to learn and do things, I can only imagine how people get by without hard work in their lives. There is something very important to be said for staying ahead of the class, because that's where the successful people are- it's got nothing in the world to do with showing off, it's purely pragmatic.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm thoroughly enjoying your conversation. You've both said a lot of things I've thought about but could never articulate.
A thought: Personally, I place higher value on music that is complex because I've heard the "simple" so much. I like something that has great depth--that isn't easily figured out.
Now I love hip-hop (Snoop, OutKast, Streets, Ludacris), but I also recognize that 95% of hip hop falls into the "obvious" end of the spectrum between simple and complex. I still like it--but there's just not much there musically.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read that article linked above. I didn't realize that Ice-T did "Cop Killer."
Does anyone else find it ironic and/or amusing that he now plays a cop? And more than a little weird that he's been allowed to teach a class full of impressionable kids his craft?
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: Now I love hip-hop (Snoop, OutKast, Streets, Ludacris), but I also recognize that 95% of hip hop falls into the "obvious" end of the spectrum between simple and complex. I still like it--but there's just not much there musically.
Your listening to the wrong artists... its more like 95% of hip hop is gold, just that the other 5% is the only thing that is played on the radio.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really, it was when NWA came out that it sorta went haywire. Before then it was still alright even without the funk influences in it, but NWA came in and screwed everything up.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Soap- in that case you're not really talking about the same music we are. We seem to be mostly discussing popular and influential songs records and artists in the hip=hop or rap genres. I often hear that the worst of it is played on the radio, however for many people that part of it on the radio typifies the genre. You need to speak to the more universal experience, because of course there will always be things that few people have heard of, but which affected you personally, so you feel your hip hop is under represented. You can promote the idea of better music getting played, but also recognize the flaws within the genre that allow the creme de la crap to be so popular and requested.
I've been forced to listen to a lot of local San Francisco hip-hop so that I can keep up with my playlists at dances, but the music is just as bad, and the production values are usually worse. I've yet to hear that special music you're talking about.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Soap- in that case you're not really talking about the same music we are. We seem to be mostly discussing popular and influential songs records and artists in the hip=hop or rap genres. I often hear that the worst of it is played on the radio, however for many people that part of it on the radio typifies the genre. You need to speak to the more universal experience, because of course there will always be things that few people have heard of, but which affected you personally, so you feel your hip hop is under represented. You can promote the idea of better music getting played, but also recognize the flaws within the genre that allow the creme de la crap to be so popular and requested.
I've been forced to listen to a lot of local San Francisco hip-hop so that I can keep up with my playlists at dances, but the music is just as bad, and the production values are usually worse. I've yet to hear that special music you're talking about.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
