To Hell In A Hand Basket

[BarryL]

When rappers get the most nominations for Grammy awards, you know that popular culture has gone to hell in a handbasket.

[Dusty Chalk]

Dude, the Grammy's were a joke a long time ago, made evident by the whole Milli Vanilli scandal.

Sorry, though, gotta disagree with the rappers slam, though. Just because it's not your thing (and it ain't mine, neither), doesn't mean it's not a legitimate musical art form.

[-Jar-]

this is great..

Dark rockers Evanescence were also represented in the best new artist category alongside rapper 50 Cent, the alt-pop group Fountains of Wayne, R&B singer Heather Headley and dancehall artist Sean Paul.


http://www.msnbc.com/news/1001153.asp?0cv=CB20

Um.. Fountains of Wayne.. New Artists??

They reunited in 1996 as Fountains of Wayne (so named in honor of a New Jersey gift shop), issuing their acclaimed self-titled LP on Atlantic; that same year, Schlesinger also enjoyed success as the author of the title theme to Tom Hanks' rock'n'roll movie That Thing You Do!

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&uid=UIDMISS70311071336452375&sql=Byf1uak1kgm3b

stupid Grammys..

[Whooptee]

I generally agree about the Grammys straining their credibility with their nominations, but I also think Outkast is most deserving of their 6 nominations. Those guys are good.

John

[joel2762]

Rap is just fast talking. Big deal. Anyone can do that.

[Mr MidFi]

Rap is just fast talking. Big deal. Anyone can do that.

And running is just fast walking, so Carl Lewis was no big deal either.

[DariusNYC]

Outkast and Missy Elliott are innovative, fun, intelligent, and wildly popular artists that deserve anything they get as far as awards go. Beyonce's and Justin Timberlake's albums were critically quite well received, and as they're quite popular it makes sense that they were nominated (I haven't heard these albums other than the singles, which were catchy pop and of course not groundbreaking). Evanescence completely sucks.

I think this Grammy slate is better than some previous years I can think of. The fact that Outkast and Elliott were nominated in general categories is a good sign, not a bad one.

Black acts have dominated Grammy nominations in recent years partly because rap artists and r&b artists have been more successful in recent years in making highly popular music that doesn't suck. Not better overall in making music that doesn't suck; there's a lot of rock acts that are making music in that category too, of course. But how many of those quality current rock acts have managed to be as popular as Outkast? Very few. Hence the Grammy's, which is partly a popularity contest, is dominated by rap and r&B acts. Good for them. I don't really care at all about the Grammy's but I don't consider it necessarily a bad sign. Better than some old adult contemporary fogey getting all the awards.

[Troy]

And running is just fast walking, so Carl Lewis was no big deal either.

Carl Lewis was a fast runner, but it's still just running regardless of how fast it is. Anyone can do it. Some people find watching people run exciting, I guess, but to me and lots of other people, no Carl Lewis WAS no big deal precisely because it's just running.

Ergo, if rapping is just fast talking, well then it's still just talking . . . and anyone can do that.

Hey, enjoy yourself with these things. Hell, I like auto racing and anyone (except J) can drive a car so I'm just being an ass at this point.

BUT

Part of what makes music so appealing is that it's one of those things that everyone can't do. Give me singers, give me musicians. Not just fast talkers.

[DariusNYC]

Carl Lewis was a fast runner, but it's still just running regardless of how fast it is. Anyone can do it. Some people find watching people run exciting, I guess, but to me and lots of other people, no Carl Lewis WAS no big deal precisely because it's just running.

Ergo, if rapping is just fast talking, well then it's still just talking . . . and anyone can do that.

Hey, enjoy yourself with these things. Hell, I like auto racing and anyone (except J) can drive a car so I'm just being an ass at this point.

BUT

Part of what makes music so appealing is that it's one of those things that everyone can't do. Give me singers, give me musicians. Not just fast talkers.

I understand you're just having fun "being an ass", but it's kind of a ridiculous distinction between rappers and singers, although I hear people raise it once in a while. Everyone can sing, everyone can rap, but 99% of people suck at each such skill. I don't see a big objective difference. Most rappers can't sing well (although a there are certainly exceptions) and most singers can't rap well (although again there are exceptions). They're just different skills. The "fast talking" comment of the earlier poster was silly and you know it.

[joel2762]

But you know, say like. Chinggy. His songs like "Right Thurr" and "Holidae Inn". really listen to them. How long do you think it took him to write something like that. It just repeats the same thing over. What about the singers and bands that have real talent. They write great songs with good meanings, some have interesting stories to them. They show off their singing talent. But these rappers come in and take the awards for their small effort. Don't get me wrong I know they do work, I admit I like some rap too. Some is good, with good beats, but IMHO, it's not something that i'd really call music. But everyone has opinons, and this is just mine.

[Dusty Chalk]

Part of what makes music so appealing is that it's one of those things that everyone can't do.Wrong. You're trying to rationalize an aesthetic taste. Part of what makes music appealing is that it's appealing, and that's as far as I care to explain it. But to say it's something that not everyone can do is just plain outer-limits territory.

Game over. Please try again.

[Troy]

Chalky- I don't ascribe to the notion that everyone can make music. I don't ascribe to the notion that everyone is an artist either. That's a BS idea used to validate all the bad art of the 20th century.

Darius- have you ever noticed that I almost never talk favorably about people that only sing? That's because I don't put singers on a pedestal. Yes, anyone can sing, but like Carl Lewis at running, some are better than others.

I was talking about musicians. People that write songs and play instruments. THAT'S not something that everyone can do.

[Dusty Chalk]

Chalky- I don't ascribe to the notion that everyone can make music. I don't ascribe to the notion that everyone is an artist either. That's a BS idea used to validate all the bad art of the 20th century.I don't ascribe to the notion that everyone can make music well. There is certainly a lot of crap art out there. But I continue to disagree with you. What Darius said -- there are degrees of ability. Sure, everyone can run, but not everyone has the determination, experience, and (possibly inherited) ability to break world speed records. Sorry, that's just not something everyone can do. If you dislike a whole genre of music, I gotta believe that maybe it's just not for you. Which, IMHO, renders you useless as a judge of said genre.

I do agree with you that not everyone is an artist. OMG. We have the Hirschorn here in DC, 'nuff said?

[nobody]

It's just like all the people who don't like modern art. They look at something and say something like, "Hell, I coulda done that."

Well, if it's so damn easy. Go do it. It's gotta beat your day job.

[Dave_G]

I cannot sing nor can I play an instrument, but I sure do know my music.

Dave

[Troy]

It's just like all the people who don't like modern art. They look at something and say something like, "Hell, I coulda done that."

Well, if it's so damn easy. Go do it. It's gotta beat your day job.

I do. It is my day job.

[Troy]

If you dislike a whole genre of music, I gotta believe that maybe it's just not for you. Which, IMHO, renders you useless as a judge of said genre.

Drop the whole notion of rap for a sec. I was mainly talking about singers that don't do anything but sing, regardless of the style they sing in, whether it's opera or rap or anything in between. They don't write or play, they are just a small part of the overall musical experience, yet they garner most of the attention.

Sorry, NOT everyone can play an instrument. Everyone with vocal cords can sing, no matter how Shatner-esque or Yoko-ish they sound. Not everyone cannot pick up a guitar or sit at a keyboard and make music. They can make sound, but that does not mean it's music.

[ForeverAutumn]

It's just like all the people who don't like modern art. They look at something and say something like, "Hell, I coulda done that."

Well, if it's so damn easy. Go do it. It's gotta beat your day job.

Making the so-called art isn't the hard part. It's finding some sucker who's willing to pay cash for it that's difficult.

A couple of years ago, my husband and I took a trip to Ottawa and visited the National Art Gallery. While the Contemporary Art section did have some stunning pieces of work created by artists who were obviously very talented. Other pieces were so asinine that we only made a narrow escape before being thrown out by the curator because we were laughing so hard.

We should have been crying at some of the total crap that our tax dollars have purchased.

[Dusty Chalk]

Drop the whole notion of rap for a sec.'kay.
I was mainly talking about singers that don't do anything but sing, regardless of the style they sing in, whether it's opera or rap or anything in between. They don't write or play, they are just a small part of the overall musical experience, yet they garner most of the attention.Dude. Lyrics are hard.

Good singers are worth their weight in gold. Bowie, for instance. The rest of the act is just background. As much as I love it, it's hard to dismiss him as "playing a small part".

I bet you're thinking of Dream Theater. 'kay, I'll give you that, he's pretty disposable. But you'd be surprised how different they would sound with a different singer. Have you heard Sunday All Over The World's Kneeling At The Shrine? It's basically 80's King Crimson with Toyah (Wilcox, Fripp's wife) as a singer instead of Belew. OMG! What a completely different sounding bad, and not just because they play different compositions. Toyah just gives the music a totally jazzy feel that early 80's King Crimson just plain does not have.
Sorry, NOT everyone can play an instrument. Everyone with vocal cords can sing, no matter how Shatner-esque or Yoko-ish they sound. Not everyone cannot pick up a guitar or sit at a keyboard and make music. They can make sound, but that does not mean it's music.You are completely defying yourself. I disagree. Not in a Jay way, that I'm just plain stubborn, but in the way that you continue to be provably wrong. Yes, anyone can sit down at a keyboard and make music. It might be the keyboard equivalent of Shatner-esque or Yoko-ish (you've heard that track on Belew's Lone Rhino album where the piano just plunks occasionally here and there? That's his two-year-old daughter that he happened to catch on tape. I've put my cat on the keyboard once and got better music than some of the things I've heard.), but it's still music. My earliest ramblings on the guitar were more rhythmic than musical, and I'll be the first to say that it was really bad, but it's something that anyone (short of completely missing your arms and such) can do. We had a guy who was paraplegic who could still program -- presumably, you give him a software synth setup, he would still be able to compose.

Sure, most people will not be able to do that well, but they'll still be able to do it. If that's really what appeals to you about music (and I can't believe that), then you need to get another hobby, because the corresponding appeal/grasp that it has on me is that some people do it better than others.

You're being pedantic about an aspect of music that is just plain wrong. (While I am being pedantic and right.) It's splitting hairs to say that everyone can sing, but not everyone can make music on any other instrument, and it's so fine as to be indistinguishable from BEING WRONG.

[Troy]

'kay.Dude. Lyrics are hard.

Good singers are worth their weight in gold. Bowie, for instance. The rest of the act is just background. As much as I love it, it's hard to dismiss him as "playing a small part".

Yes, lyrics are hard. That's why I wouldn't include Bowie in this group. Not only does he write, he also plays reeds and keys.


'I bet you're thinking of Dream Theater. 'kay, I'll give you that, he's pretty disposable. But you'd be surprised how different they would sound with a different singer.

No, I wasn't, actually, but now that you mention it . . .

Yes, they would sound better with a different singer. Been saying it for years.


Yes, anyone can sit down at a keyboard and make music. It might be the keyboard equivalent of Shatner-esque or Yoko-ish (you've heard that track on Belew's Lone Rhino album where the piano just plunks occasionally here and there? That's his two-year-old daughter that he happened to catch on tape. I've put my cat on the keyboard once and got better music than some of the things I've heard.), but it's still music. My earliest ramblings on the guitar were more rhythmic than musical, and I'll be the first to say that it was really bad, but it's something that anyone (short of completely missing your arms and such) can do.

This is just semantics. What you're talking about is BS music that no one wants to hear, let alone pay to hear. It may be music technically to you, but to me it's just sound.

Everyone sings. EVERYONE, even Dave G. Everyone knows tunes and sings along, but very few people can play organized, real music on instruments.

[jack70]

Interesting Troy raised the "sports" comparison with music. There were some recent discussion on a hoops board I read after Kasparov beat Big Blue (computer), as to whether chess is a "sport". Despite chess players burning off 10 lbs of weight during a match... I don't think it is. Neither is darts, pool, bowling or even golf... which are more "skill games". Real "sports" (to me) combines competition (games) and a high athletic dimension (either endurance, strength, or some combination). BTW, Carl Lewis had both a great natural talent and worked extremely hard to get to the world class level he did... same as great pianists & violinists do. It takes BOTH natural talent and work. As for the off-hand comment about Lewis "just running"... that's way too dismissive of his incredible work ethic and mental tenacity to reach that level.

Likewise, I see Rap as "outside" of music... it uses few of the disciplines/skills of "true music" (a little rhythm is all). No (even basic) melodic or instrumental skills are required, something that even a 5 yr old pianist or singer must master. Simply put, it's NOT music.... no more than "chess" is sport. But that's the closest place to dump it... so we deal with it; but don't kid yourself, it ain't really music. It's more akin to poetry... but it's been 100 years since poetry has been "hip" in our popular culture... hence Rap gets placed in the "music" dumper... for better or worse (worse IMO).

It's no more "music" than gambling/gaming is "sport". (Has nothing to do with aesthetics, Dusty... check).

As for the Grammys... they've been a joke for years (forever). Just a self-serving commercial money-making scheme. If someone wants to watch em for the "entertainment" value... fine, but that's it. There's at least some intellectual honesty in giving awards and trophies to sporting competitions... but to Art? Gimme a break.

Think the rappers are bad Barry? How about Hillary Clinton getting nominated for reading her book... gimme a frickin break! Maybe they'll come up with a Grammy category for "singing pets" next (a la David Letterman). Don't laugh.

BTW, I've NEVER watched even a second of the Grammys... ever! I might watch it for Singin' Pets though. They're marginally more talented than a lot of the poseurs up there.

[Finch Platte]

I cannot sing nor can I play an instrument, but I sure do know my music.

Dave

That explains a lot.

fp

[nobody]

I do. It is my day job.


OK...the art comment was a bad example for you. By the way, I do like your pictures. I should probably save the covers on your comps. Maybe I can cash in on 'em some day. Rare Troys are bound to be worth something.

Then again, many people do consider photography one of those things that anybody could do, say in comparison to painting or sculpture. I wouldn't think you'd be too wild about that notion. But, it is little different than saying rap is easy, singing is easy, only a specific realm of music takes talent and the rest can be done by anyone. Rap is like anything else. Anyone can do it. Only a few can do it well.

But, I was only comparing art to music. In that vein, since you consider rap so easy, I really think you may wanna give up photography. There's a lot more money in rap if you can make it big, which shouldn't be hard since it's so easy. And the groupies are on a whole 'nother level.

[Dusty Chalk]

Yes, lyrics are hard. That's why I wouldn't include Bowie in this group. Not only does he write, he also plays reeds and keys.I would disagree vehemently that that is what sets him apart from other musicians. He is a consumate artist -- musician -- even if he didn't play any other instruments.
This is just semantics. What you're talking about is BS music that no one wants to hear, let alone pay to hear. It may be music technically to you, but to me it's just sound.I agree that it is very very very bad music, but it is still technically music. It even has melody, which is key to many peoples' definitions. But you're the one getting semantical. How can you say that something as crappy as Yoko Ono or William Shatner or worse (there are some people who sing along to music who cannot hold a tune -- even when it's right there sitting alongside with them) is any different than the differentiation that I am trying to make?


Everyone sings. EVERYONE...Everyone knows tunes and sings along...Nope. Maybe your circle of friends is too small or something (perhaps too specialized) but there are people who simply don't care about music, there are people who do care, but can't do it themselves, etc.

At this point we're just repeating ourselves, so I'm going to just "agree to disagree". You're still wrong.
Likewise, I see Rap as "outside" of music... Simply put, it's NOT music.... You are so far from "correct" that I don't even know where to begin. I'm flabbergasted. Rap is music to a larger percentage of the population than you will ever know, and part of being music is having an audience. Just for one example. Where's Darius when I need him, damit? (Sweeps pieces off board. Fog chess. The sports analogy is a bad one -- sports is about competition, and music is fundamentally not. The Grammy's are a perversion of this characteristic of music.)

[Troy]

As for the off-hand comment about Lewis "just running"... that's way too dismissive of his incredible work ethic and mental tenacity to reach that level.

Yes, lots of work and reasons to give up. It's running taken to another level, but to those of us that couldn't care less it's still just running.


It's more akin to poetry... but it's been 100 years since poetry has been "hip" in our popular culture... hence Rap gets placed in the "music" dumper... for better or worse (worse IMO).

Wow, I like that. It's quite true. Think about the current wave of poetry "slams" happening in many American urban areas. Virtually everyone involved is black and the atmosphere of a lot of the pieces is rather rappy.

[Troy]

By the way, I do like your pictures.

Thanks.


Then again, many people do consider photography one of those things that anybody could do, say in comparison to painting or sculpture. I wouldn't think you'd be too wild about that notion.

I just had that question dropped on me by an interviewer for a local paper. It's analagous to the Carl Lewis thing. Yes, it's just taking pictures, but it's taking pictures to another level, concentrating on the quality of light and composition. A photographer with training (or practice) is gonna take a much higher percentage of "good" pictures that someone who is not.

I DO understand the dilema, and that's one of the reasons why my photos are so complex and screwey; it makes them take on a more "painterly" quality.


But, it is little different than saying rap is easy, singing is easy, only a specific realm of music takes talent and the rest can be done by anyone. Rap is like anything else. Anyone can do it. Only a few can do it well.

It's not that I'm saying it's easy, more that I'm saying that many of the practitioners of rap don't have any idea how the mechanics of music works because what they are doing is, as Jack says, more akin to poetry than music. If these guys want music awards, they should learn how to play an instrument and write songs.


But, I was only comparing art to music. In that vein, since you consider rap so easy, I really think you may wanna give up photography. There's a lot more money in rap if you can make it big, which shouldn't be hard since it's so easy. And the groupies are on a whole 'nother level.

Ha! I tried poetry in my 20s, went to a bunch of readings and flopped miserably. Free verse is in and I'm much more structured and rhymey. Not to mention, most of the poems I wrote were about my genitalia and dropping anvils on kittens. I was messing with their serious nature and they hated me for it.

Rap is for and about a world completely alien to me. A world that I have no desire to be involved in either. It panders to a black culture that revels in debasement and greed. My black friends think it's a dead end for black youth, and I'm inclined to agree with them.

[BarryL]

Hillary Clinton getting nominated for reading her book?

That woman lives a blessed life. She helps boot Nixon out of office. She gets away with $100,000 insider-trading profit before insider trading is a political issue. She becomes first lady. She gets a multi-million dollar book deal. She become a Senator.

And now a Grammy Award Nomination!!!

You gotta love it. Only in (God Bless) America.

BTW, thanks for the timemachine disks. I've got some stuff going out that you might get before Christmas, but don't count on it.

[Troy]

I would disagree vehemently that that is what sets Bowie apart from other musicians. He is a consumate artist -- musician -- even if he didn't play any other instruments.

Yeah, see the difference is that he's a much more well rounded artist.

Here's another art analogy; In order for a painter to be able to distort and force perspective in a painting, they MUST first be able to do that painting WITHOUT forcing and distorting the perspective. That way they know how far to push it. In order to see weird, you need to see normal so that you understand what weirdness works and what doesn't.

Oh, you can do it, but the trained eye can tell that the artist is in over his head.

Music is no different.


Maybe your circle of friends is too small or something (perhaps too specialized) but there are people who simply don't care about music, there are people who do care, but can't do it themselves, etc.

My contextural point is that everyone can sing "Happy Birthday to you", but everyone can't play it on a piano. Dig?


Rap is music to a larger percentage of the population than you will ever know, and part of being music is having an audience.

It's all about perception. I couldn't even begin to care what the unwashed masses think about the viability of rap as music. What the hell do they know? If the bulk of the masses thinks the war in Iraq is justified, does that make it right? (just a rhetorical question not meant to spark a discussion about this subject)

[Slosh]

A coffin for Thing?

What flowergirls carry pedals in?

[Dusty Chalk]

So you're saying that every opera singer, every motown do-wop singer, every member of every a capella band ever, is not a musician.

Ella Fitzgerald is not a musician.

Billie Holiday is not a musician.

Maria Callas, Pavarotti -- none of those are musicians?

You're high. Higher than the moon.

You tell me that the difference I am making is semantical -- I disagree. I think the difference you are making is semantical. You say (and correct me if I misinterpret you) that anyone can sing, some better than others, but this differentiation is unimportant. I say that every person can make music, some better than others, but that this differentiation is no different than the differentiation that you are making about singers. I cite an example of some really bad music -- not to try to prove the flexibility of the definition of music, but to prove to you that everyone is able to make music (a point I think you missed), but, as you say about singing, to varying degrees. I disagree that by your own standards this applies to the ability to make music any more than it does to singing. To sing is to make music.

Do you know that there is hardware out there that you can attach to your throat so that it can sense what your singing, and, combined with a microphone input, you can use it to generate MIDI events (synthesizer controller). Thus, theoretically, one could use this system to make music. Not just sing. So anyone, given that they have the ability to sing, could theoretically use this system to make music.

Now, I may have come across the wrong way -- I disagree that everyone has the ability to sing, and I disagree that everyone has the ability to make music. My definition of music is set to a higher standard than many of the examples that I have been citing here. I don't think that crap that Adrian Belew's two-year-old daughter counts as music, but I do think that that stuff that he played around it made the entire product "music".

I think there is a threshold of ability beyond which, if one can transcend it, one can become called a musician. Anyone can sing (although if you honestly believe that, you haven't been to Karaoke night in a long time), but you have to be able to sing with a certain amount of ability -- be that conviction, emotion, or the ability to carry a melody, I don't care, I'm not going to try to bring this into the realm of Jay's freakin' overplayers/underplayers debate -- Joey Ramone was a singer of adequate quality to be considered a musician, okay, Jay? -- but one has to be able to have a certain amount of ability to be considered a singer/musician.

Finally -- I wasn't citing rap's popularity with the masses as a hermetically sealed case that it therefore is music. My point was only that having an audience is certainly one measure of being an artist. I would even go so far as to say, a successful one. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it not art. There's a lot of art I don't like, but that doesn't make it not art. It just makes it bad art.

[MindGoneHaywire]

WARNING: LONG POST. So many arguments, so little time. I guess it's time to find out if this board limits the length of posts.

Barry:

When rappers get the most nominations for Grammy awards, you know that popular culture has gone to hell in a handbasket.

The same thing was said of rock music.

Joel2762:

Rap is just fast talking. Big deal. Anyone can do that.

Wrong. Rap is not just fast talking. It may not be a big deal, but not anyone can do it.

Mr. Midfi:

And running is just fast walking, so Carl Lewis was no big deal either.

Good reply.

Troy:

it's still just running regardless of how fast it is. Anyone can do it.

Wrong. Most people know of at least one individual who can do no such thing. (I’m taking this statement literally for a reason)

Ergo, if rapping is just fast talking, well then it's still just talking . . . and anyone can do that.

Wrong. Most people know of at least one individual who can do no such thing.

anyone (except J) can drive a car

Wrong. I CAN drive a car. I’ve never had a license, but have driven on many occasions (even used a stick shift a few times) & once even owned a car that I drove using my learner’s permit (which I traded in for the non-driver’s license state ID that at least looks like a driver’s license, unlike permits, which most bartenders, bouncers, & deli clerks refused to acknowledge as being proper identification). But I CHOSE to stop driving because it’s just plain f*cking stupid.

Not just fast talkers.

I dispute that rap is just fast talking. It’s rhythmic, it’s syncopated, it’s a LOT of things that talking, and fast talking, are not.

Joel 2762:

What about the singers and bands that have real talent. They write great songs with good meanings, some have interesting stories to them.

Considering you're not providing any examples to back this statement up, it comes off as ridiculously subjective, to the point of being irrelevant.

But these rappers come in and take the awards for their small effort.

I’d like to know yr source for yr info on how much effort it takes to make a rap record.

Troy:

Chalky- I don't ascribe to the notion that everyone can make music. I don't ascribe to the notion that everyone is an artist either. That's a BS idea used to validate all the bad art of the 20th century.

Everyone’s standards are different. I agree with Dusty’s framing of this argument. If someone you don’t consider an artist has created a work you don’t consider art, but said work has been purchased by a customer who DOES define it as art, how is it that the creator, having now sold ‘art’ work as an ‘artist,’ is not an ‘artist?’ Please explain. I well understand that I may not think it’s ‘art,’ either, but that’s my standard. In a similar discussion/violent argument on another board recently, I stated that my standard for what is music—even if it’s the recorded screams of an infant, the recorded sound of a hammer pounding nails, the recorded sound of human regurgitation…wait a second, I hear that on a Butthole Surfers record. Where was I? Oh, yeah. If it’s produced & packaged as music, and a consumer is willing to buy it AS MUSIC, then I do not feel that I or anyone else is qualified to state that such a product is ‘not music’ to them just because THEY DON’T THINK it’s music. So apply that to what you said about ‘bad art.’

Everyone with vocal cords can sing, no matter how Shatner-esque or Yoko-ish they sound

Wrong. VOCALIZING is something that everyone with vocal cords can do. Singing is a MUSICAL SKILL that NOT everyone can do. Not everyone with vocal cords is capable of producing sounds that can be applied to a musical chart. Atonal vocalizing cannot be charted and therefore is not singing. And neither Shatner nor Yoko were 100% atonal.

Not everyone cannot pick up a guitar or sit at a keyboard and make music. They can make sound, but that does not mean it's music.

Wrong. They may not be able to PLAY, because that is a MUSICAL SKILL. But if they make sound that can be applied to a musical chart, then it MAY be considered music. I will personally stick to my standard that it should/must be SALEABLE as music to be considered music, with an asterisk for a very technical & arcane exception that says that if it can be charted, it is indeed music.

I am writing this as I scroll through the thread & I see that Dusty has addressed some of these points, so forgive me. So far I’m not disagreeing with much if anything in his arguments to yr statements. So:

This is just semantics. What you're talking about is BS music that no one wants to hear, let alone pay to hear. It may be music technically to you, but to me it's just sound.

It’s NOT semantics, it’s what IS and ISN’T. Whether or not it’s ‘BS music that no one wants to hear’ doesn’t mean it’s just sound & not music just because that’s the semantic prism you’re choosing to view this through.

Everyone sings. EVERYONE, even Dave G. Everyone knows tunes and sings along

Wrong. I have been acquainted with several people who told me that they have never engaged in any such activity in their entire lives. Some were people who never listened to music, but most at least listened to music on the radio.

Jack70:

Likewise, I see Rap as "outside" of music... it uses few of the disciplines/skills of "true music" (a little rhythm is all).

So what? That’s enough.

Simply put, it's NOT music.... no more than "chess" is sport

Absolutely, unequivocally, 100% wrong. Come on, Jackson. You know better than to say something like that. And you know the chess analogy doesn’t hold up.

it ain't really music. It's more akin to poetry... but it's been 100 years since poetry has been "hip" in our popular culture... hence Rap gets placed in the "music" dumper... for better or worse (worse IMO).

No, it’s because it’s created by MUSIC professionals, produced by MUSIC companies (okay, record companies, but if you can find one human being willing to testify in a court of law that the primary & most important record company products are NOT music, I’d like to meet him), sold by businesses that can be called MUSIC stores or RECORD stores (again, as a product that is classified as MUSIC, even if it’s the MUSIC section in a Barnes & Noble or Wal-Mart store—not poetry, or beef jerky, or shampoo, or #2 pencils—MUSIC), to MUSIC consumers (who, if you took a poll, would, I am confident, answer in at least a 99% percentile that their rap purchase was indeed a music purchase), who, in their consumption of the product, assume most if not all of the necessary characteristics and factors that must be present and in effect (i.e. the product can only be used if inserted into a hardware device such as one necessary for the playback of other recorded music products) if you are to define the phrase ‘listening to music.’

Nobody:

Rap is like anything else. Anyone can do it.

This is obviously in a different context, and I’m not trying to be an @sshole, just consistent. Unless I'm wrong, my understanding is that you don't actually believe this, at least not in the same way that others do.

In that vein, since you consider rap so easy, I really think you may wanna give up photography. There's a lot more money in rap if you can make it big, which shouldn't be hard since it's so easy.

Well put.

Dusty:

He is a consumate artist -- musician -- even if he didn't play any other instruments.

I don’t really have a problem with this, but…and I know you’re aware of this…if you’re in a discussion with someone who insists on being a stickler, they may insist, and be technically correct, that no vocalist, no matter how proficient, and I include Ella Fitzgerald, Frank Sinatra, Pavarotti—any vocalist that does not actually play a musical instrument can be called a musician. They will say, in a strict technical discussion on the issue, that a non-instrumentalist cannot be a musician.

Okay, I'm coming back to this after seeing yr latest post. I went to the dictionary & looked up musician: a composer, conductor, or performer of music; especially INSTRUMENTALIST. That’s in Merriam-Webster Online, and the emphasis is theirs. So I do agree with much of what you wrote in that last post.

Troy:

It's running taken to another level, but to those of us that couldn't care less it's still just running.

Dusty made a great point in a nearby post: it’s COMPETITIVE running. Those of you who couldn’t care less & choose not to draw this distinction are making a big mistake.

It's not that I'm saying it's easy

You said something—if not EXACTLY like that, then certainly VERY MUCH like that.

many of the practitioners of rap don't have any idea how the mechanics of music works

Many if not most practitioners of MUSIC have only a very basic & limited understanding of the mechanics of music—usually limited to the one or two or MAYBE three things that it is that THEY do. Does a French Horn player in a symphony orchestra have any understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by an improvisational saxophone player in a jazz club who works without the benefit of a chart? How about the other way around? Does the guitarist for Mudvayne have any understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by the director of the Harlem Boys’ Choir? Would Thelonius Monk have had an understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by a player who uses a Chapman Stick? Does Neil Peart have an understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by a guitarist using a Joe Maphis doubleneck Mosrite? And to placate some some of you, does Johnny Ramone have an understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by Robert Fripp? There are obviously an untold number of musical mechanics that a typical rapper (an individual who ADMITTEDLY is PROBABLY LESS MUSICAL than the typical MUSICIAN) will have absolutely no understanding of; but the chances are very good that none of the individuals in the examples I offer will possess any understanding of the mechanics of music that a rapper must understand.

If these guys want music awards, they should learn how to play an instrument and write songs.

Wrong. That’s what they should do if they want instrumentalist awards or songwriting awards. Otherwise, yr statement would apply to ANY nominee of ANY music award EVER who did not play an instrument, and/or write songs. I won’t bother with any examples of such individuals unless you really want to see some. Suffice it to say that such a list would include some of the most prominent, influential, and popular MUSIC artists of the last 100 years. Including, I have every confidence, SOMEONE whose work could be found in yr record collection.

Rap is for and about a world completely alien to me.

So? If it’s so easy, something anyone can do, ‘not music,’ or any of the other things you’ve said about rap in the past, how could that possibly matter? Once upon a time, rock music was so easy, anyone could do it. Quick, name someone besides Davy Jones who went from a musical theater background to become a rock star—rock music, for and about a world completely alien to people like him.

A world that I have no desire to be involved in either

You’re in that world, whether you like it or not. You don’t have to live in South Central to exist in the world rap operates in. Just like you didn't have to be in Chicago or Little Italy to be in the same world ‘Scarface’ was a part of when it was first released well over a half-century ago. Hmmm…’Scarface’…gangsta rap…hmmm…

It panders to a black culture that revels in debasement and greed

Oh, bullsh*t. The rap in my house does NO SUCH THING. I’d like to know why you feel that artists such as the Beastie Boys, Public Enemy, De La Soul, A Tribe Called Quest, P.M. Dawn, the Pharcyde, and Wyclef Jean—to name just a few—do anything that you just described.

My black friends think it's a dead end for black youth, and I'm inclined to agree with them.

They’re entitled to their opinions, just as you are. So how about if you ask them how ANY of the artists I just named are a ‘dead end for black youth?’ I’d REALLY like to know what their responses would be to such a question.

Here's another art analogy; they MUST first be able to do that…WITHOUT…
Oh, you can do it, but the trained eye can tell that the artist is in over his head.
Music is no different.

I’ll apply this statement to music: in order for a musician to play COMPLICATED music well, they must first be able to play SIMPLE music well. Well, NO WAY, PAL. By this logic prog musicians have to be able to play music as simple as, for instance, the blues. This is a fallacy. And I’m not talking about feeling, either; forget I said blues, let’s say blues structures. I’ve seen many, many players in my time whose understanding of music is such that they are simply NOT ABLE to play ANYTHING simple; they must ALWAYS overplay, and overplay in as complicated a manner as possible. I’ve been at plenty of social functions with ‘jams’ where you try to engage these sorts of players in something just a TRIFLE less complicated than what it is they’re doing. Many simply cannot. Some don’t understand the concept of a song—something with a beginning and an ending; some don’t understand that music does not mean one has to play lead guitar exclusively, with no attempt made at rhythm; some don't realize that some lyrics are meant to be heard without benefit of neverending soloing; others don’t have the attention span or discipline necessary to play something that’s ANY more repetitive than busy, note-y, endless, free-form soloing. There are many players who approach music, especially guitar, in more of a mathematical fashion than a musical one. Such players are often devoid of the ability to play simply, just as I am mostly devoid of the capability to play in a manner that most would not consider simple. If I didn’t apply yr analogy correctly, my apologies. Tell me where I got it wrong.

My contextural point is that everyone can sing "Happy Birthday to you"

Wow, now I’m REALLY surprised that you’d say something like that. Perhaps they can sing it, but they damn sure can’t sing it WELL. ‘Happy Birthday To You’ is considered to be an ESPECIALLY difficult song to sing, to the point where it is often used as a benchmark in the course of a professional audition. Actually, I do believe it has even been used for Broadway auditions. Yes, I'm serious. The jump in octave on the third line is no mean feat.

It's all about perception. I couldn't even begin to care what the unwashed masses think about the viability of rap as music. What the hell do they know?

Not caring about anyone else’s perception is GREAT. Except…what the unwashed masses think has a LOT to do with a LOT of what is produced (if not created) by entertainment companies. Now, yr taste in music, like many of us on this board, is interesting, fairly unique, and idiosyncratic. How about yr taste in movies? Did you like the first ‘Matrix’ movie? Wouldn’t it suck if it had never been made? What the unwashed masses think has a lot to do with movies like that being made. I know that if it hadn’t been there might’ve been something else that I might’ve enjoyed in a similar way, but I’d feel cheated if it had never been made because the unwashed masses wouldn’t have been expected to like such a thing. Now, of course, the unwashed masses’ opinions lead to the creation, production, & distribution of tons of crap, and not enough that I DO like—so, in a sense, you’re right, I really don’t care. (Except, both of us are on the same side of the argument that says that there's plenty of great stuff out there that's a little harder to find because it's under the radar of mass production) But I DO care enough to understand that it’s all part of the equation. Which means that you SHOULD care at least a whit what the unwashed masses think. Some times their opinions are not as advanced as what an authority on a subject may know to be true; other times they are more advanced than one would think considering how slow some businesses & industries are to respond to the desires of their customer base. In this case their opinions on rap are more advanced than the opinions of those who contend that rap is not music.

I’ve had a BUSY week, so I apologize for catching up in this clunky fashion. But I couldn’t let the posts in this thread go.

[jack70]

(Sweeps pieces off board. Fog chess. The sports analogy is a bad one -- sports is about competition, and music is fundamentally not.

Then you forfeit, right?...LOL!

I wasn't so much analogizing sports and music... but just the way activities are categorized. You can argue it's just semantics, but I see a qualitative hierarchy that's similar. I was pointing out that certain activities (like chess, darts, etc) are generally called sports when they're more accurately NOT sports (in my view anyway). They're skill games. Yet they're commonly thrown under that umbrella. Rap likewise is called music, but (in my view anyway) isn't most accurately music.

You can make a legitimate argument it comes from a musical/similar-social tradition, and even make valid points about how it has some "musical" bona fides... but I'm still gonna place it out "on the fringes" of music, the same way I place chess & bowling outside the "sports" mainstream. I simply see it more under the umbrella of spoken word, poetry, performance art, dramatic readings, etc... all of which I'm sure you wouldn't call "music" either? I'm not knocking it as an art form. (even though it's not my cuppa tea).

Rap is music to a larger percentage of the population than you will ever know, and part of being music is having an audience.

I don't dispute that, but it still doesn't make it music to me. Reading a speech ain't music either. BTW, a majority of the population believes in ghosts, UFOs, and a conspiracy in JFK's death -- all total crap IMO. Majority... is often just mob rule.




Originally Posted by jack70
As for the off-hand comment about Lewis "just running"... that's way too dismissive of his incredible work ethic and mental tenacity to reach that level.

Originally Posted by Troy
Yes, lots of work and reasons to give up. It's running taken to another level, but to those of us that couldn't care less it's still just running.

True, but to those people who don't care anything about music, film, literature or other arts, you might not dismiss all those things quite that easily ("...that Michael Hedges guy... he's just another geetar player" or "Bach (or Shakespeare)... who cares?"). Running is probably the first true sport humans engaged in. I'm a bit prejudiced here I know, but I just think there's a lot there (under the surface) that's worthy of appreciation. It's just not apparent to outsiders. A month ago we had a State-Open (high-school) cross country meet that was a duel of classic proportions. It may have been "just running", but it was spectacular competition, as great as any Olympic race I've seen. I'll agree, many could care less... or never appreciate it.




Hillary Clinton getting nominated for reading her book?
That woman lives a blessed life. She helps boot Nixon out of office. She gets away with $100,000 insider-trading profit before insider trading is a political issue. She becomes first lady. She gets a multi-million dollar book deal. She become a Senator.
And now a Grammy Award Nomination!!!
You gotta love it. Only in (God Bless) America.

Whats nuttier is they'll probably give it to her (LOL), despite the fact she's a really lousy speaker (inflection, tone, shrillness). Now if we could just get her to read her college thesis (sealed under lock & key).



sold by businesses that can be called MUSIC stores or RECORD stores (again, as a product that is classified as MUSIC, even if it’s the MUSIC section in a Barnes & Noble or Wal-Mart store—...

I was expecting you to jump all over this Jay... LOL. First off, I think you missed my sports analogy stuff just like Dusty did (above)... it's a MUSICAL catgorization/ nomenclature thing I'm alluding to. I used the sports thing simply to show how popular culture tends to lump similarly related things together under big umbrellas.

Second... Rap is sold in "Music Stores" mainly because the product is in the form of a Compact Disc. Books, movies, comedy albums, spoken-word books-on-cassette, etc, etc are all sold there too... are all those things "Music" too?

Finally, I'm cool with Rap being called "music" (no skin off my as_)... but I just think it's a hybrid that's something a little different. I think a lot of people are misreading the way I want to "classify" Rap, as a slam on it.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Rap is sold in "Music Stores" mainly because the product is in the form of a Compact Disc. Books, movies, comedy albums, spoken-word books-on-cassette, etc, etc are all sold there too... are all those things "Music" too?

Not just CDs, but cassettes, and vinyl, too, you'll find rap on all of those, and probably soon on formats like DVD-A and/or SACD, if they haven't put out any titles yet. Now: if there are notes, and it can be charted, yes, it is music. Even if it's on a 'comedy' record, (say a comic singing a funny song with musical accompaniment) or if it's a poet reading over music ala Patti Smith on that song on her first album, or on an album that would be classified in a category not essentially considered 'music,' yet sold in a store that regularly sells products that can & must be classified as 'music.' I might agree that an entire record of comedy or poetry should not be classified as 'music' if there is two minutes of chartable sounds and 40 with none, but that does not mean there is not music on the record. 99% of rap occurs with some measure of musical, or at least rhythmic, accompaniment, which means to me that the quotient of 'music' is high enough for it indeed to be classified as 'music,' as opposed to a non-music product that just happens to contain some elements of music.

Rap is not spoken-word, comedy, or a book-on-cassette. It is music. How could anyone call it 'not music' when there is a certain percentage of it that's 'organically' produced, i.e. live band, real instruments, NO sampling? What the hell would you call that? How would that be 'outside of music?' And if it isn't, then where do you draw the line? I mean, a LOT of rap has some or a lot of sampling, and a little in the way of live instruments, played by 'real musicians.' I take it you're aware that quite a few of the older jazz cats still around have been playing on rap records for years now? Guys like Donald Byrd, Ramsey Lewis, Herbie Hancock, Freddie Hubbard, & Ron Carter. And I'm not talking about sampling--they all went in & recorded new tracks for RAP records, a lot for Blue Note, a label that has been putting out these 'outside of music' rap records for some time now. Which means that you're saying that records with guys like these on them are 'not music,' or 'outside of music.' Or...maybe you're saying that it's music if guys like that are on it, but not if they're not? Please clarify. There has to be a line somewhere if you're willing to acknowledge that these records are indeed music. And when you describe that line, there are three artists for which I'd like to know if you consider them music, or 'not music,' or 'outside of music': Gil-Scott Heron, Ken Nordine, & Linton Kwesi Johnson. Are they music? If not, why? If yes, then why them, but not rap?

So...where does it end, & where does it begin? Unless, of course, it's all outside of music. In the case of rap that contains all live playing, if you're going to call that 'not music' or 'outside of music'...I simply cannot find the words to express how wrong-headed this is. If you're willing to admit that these records, containing live playing, have to be considered 'music,' then I'd like to know where the lines are drawn, and why, how, and on what basis. If you use the argument that rap is not music on the basis of the sampling, and the fact that a certain percentage of it contains absolutely no 'organic' creation to speak of, then what of sample-predominant electronic music? For if you are not willing to call rap music, then you must apply that same standard to the world of electronica, regardless of whether or not it's dance music specifically. Casting rap outside of music is certainly significant in terms of the volume of work/art/product/music you're placing there; if you add electronica to that purgatory, then you're talking about a very decent percentage of all 'music'-type projects produced over the past decade. Is that a road you really want to go down?

I'm cool with Rap being called "music" (no skin off my as_)... but I just think it's a hybrid that's something a little different. I think a lot of people are misreading the way I want to "classify" Rap, as a slam on it.

Okay, you say this now, but yesterday I read yr post that said:

I see Rap as "outside" of music

and

Simply put, it's NOT music

and

it ain't really music.

I see a big difference there, don't you? And I direct this to Troy as well, and Barry, and anyone else who's going to try to tell me that rap--a genre I mostly stopped listening to over a decade ago--is 'not music.'

[Dusty Chalk]

Thank you, Jay! Well said, and you brought up a lot of points that I hadn't even thought of, yet. Plus, there's nothing wrong with a little reinforcement on the good points, because sometimes phrasing something slightly differently is just what it takes to get through to these numbskulls. So no need to apologize.

Jack -- yes, most certainly definitely I forfeit. If you consider never accepting the initial challenge to your game as a forfeit. I hate people who try to spin-doctor a non-game as a win.

Just for the record, Hilary was nominated in the "Spoken Word" category -- a category which has nothing to do with music, officially. I.E. those of you who pretend that this is some slight against the term "music" are deliberately using this fact incorrectly. The organization that sponsors the Grammy's is the Recording Academy, and recording, which, although mostly used for music, is also used for comedy, spoken word, sound effects, and opera.

NP: Music...erm...organized noise. Oval's 94diskont, in Pitchfork's top 100 albums of the 90's.

[Troy]

Jesus Christ, Jay . . . where Do you find the time?

This has spiraled into some incredibly oblique tangents and I've kinda lost track of what the point of all this really was so it's easy to come accross as self contradictory because we're all discussing 14 things at the same time. It doesn't help at all that this board threads very poorly either . . .



it's still just running regardless of how fast it is. Anyone can do it.

Wrong. Most people know of at least one individual who can do no such thing. (I’m taking this statement literally for a reason)

Sure, my uncle Richard has only one leg. I know some other guys in wheelchairs too.

Don't loophole me J. You know the implications of saying "anyone". There will always be an exception to the rule, but a rule is a rule for a reason.

The driving thing was meant as an easy-going humorous poke atcha Jay. Guess I poked too deep. Excuse me.

Everyone (again there's always exceptions to the rule, but they are rare) can sing "Happy Birthday", but not everyone can play it on an instrument was my contextural point..

It had NOTHING to do with how well they can sing it, It's about the fact that they CAN sing it at all. This sets singing apart from musicians.

You and Dusty can turn it around however you want, but that's the fact, jack.


in order for a musician to play COMPLICATED music well, they must first be able to play SIMPLE music well. Well, NO WAY, PAL.music: in order for a musician to play COMPLICATED music well, they must first be able to play SIMPLE music well. Well, NO WAY, PAL. By this logic prog musicians have to be able to play music as simple as, for instance, the blues. This is a fallacy. And I’m not talking about feeling, either; forget I said blues, let’s say blues structures. I’ve seen many, many players in my time whose understanding of music is such that they are simply NOT ABLE to play ANYTHING simple; they must ALWAYS overplay, and overplay in as complicated a manner as possible. I’ve been at plenty of social functions with ‘jams’ where you try to engage these sorts of players in something just a TRIFLE less complicated than what it is they’re doing. Many simply cannot. Such players are often devoid of the ability to play simply, just as I am mostly devoid of the capability to play in a manner that most would not consider simple. If I didn’t apply yr analogy correctly, my apologies. Tell me where I got it wrong

Yes, you missed my point completely. See, I AGREE with your paragraph, Jay, whether you realize that you shot yourself down or not. These individuals that don't know how to play anything other than the overplaying you describe don't have the foundation to play simply. Sure, they can play complex, but they don't understand that in order for the complex parts to really impact, you need to offset them with simple parts. Therefore, they do not play the complicated parts well because they don't understand about counterpoint and letting the music breathe. Nope, in order to play complicated, well, you have to be able to play simply, well.


Chalky- I don't ascribe to the notion that everyone can make music. I don't ascribe to the notion that everyone is an artist either. That's a BS idea used to validate all the bad art of the 20th century.

Everyone’s standards are different. I agree with Dusty’s framing of this argument. If someone you don’t consider an artist has created a work you don’t consider art, but said work has been purchased by a customer who DOES define it as art, how is it that the creator, having now sold ‘art’ work as an ‘artist,’ is not an ‘artist?’ Please explain. I well understand that I may not think it’s ‘art,’ either, but that’s my standard. If it’s produced & packaged as music, and a consumer is willing to buy it AS MUSIC, then I do not feel that I or anyone else is qualified to state that such a product is ‘not music’ to them just because THEY DON’T THINK it’s music. So apply that to what you said about ‘bad art.

Yes, everyone's standards are different. Hell Jay, there are people that think my photography is cheesy crap and that I am a hack BS artist. To them I say, what are you looking at it for? Warhol taught us that being an artist is all about perception. If you can convince the art establishment that your pile of paperclips stacked "just so" at the MOMA is an artistic statement by writng some longwinded polysylabic manifesto about it, then hey, you're an artist!

But wait, that's only the cogonscenti's perception. Does that mean that they're right? Hell no. You and I have just as much right to say whether it's art as they do. I reserve the right to my opinion just as much as anybody else, so if I say it's not art, then it isn't. It's a terrible mistake to let someone else make these decisions for you, yet that is precisely how most of the world operates.


Not caring about anyone else’s perception is GREAT. Except…what the unwashed masses think has a LOT to do with a LOT of what is produced (if not created) by entertainment companies.

Yeah, and that's why most everything I like flies under their radar.


Did you like the first ‘Matrix’ movie? Wouldn’t it suck if it had never been made? What the unwashed masses think has a lot to do with movies like that being made. I know that if it hadn’t been there might’ve been something else that I might’ve enjoyed in a similar way, but I’d feel cheated if it had never been made because the unwashed masses wouldn’t have been expected to like such a thing.


Frankly, The Matrix WAS under the radar. It happened to strike a chord with the masses and become a hit. It's mind boggling to me that 3/4 of the people that like that movie still can't explain the plot.

Your comments about feeling ripped off if it hadn't been made is extremely weird. How many supercool things haven't been made? Do you feel bad? Well, I don't . . . because they haven't been made. How can you miss something that doesn't exist?


Now, of course, the unwashed masses’ opinions lead to the creation, production, & distribution of tons of crap, and not enough that I DO like—so, in a sense, you’re right, I really don’t care. (Except, both of us are on the same side of the argument that says that there's plenty of great stuff out there that's a little harder to find because it's under the radar of mass production) But I DO care enough to understand that it’s all part of the equation. Which means that you SHOULD care at least a whit what the unwashed masses think.

I do pay attention to most pop culture stuff. You're right, it's part of my job. But while I do care what they think, I don't agree with it and go with the flow. Hell, Jay, 95% of the masses just do what they are told now anyway. Kids today are being TOLD that rap is where it's at now and they just blindly buy into it, hook, line and sinker.

It all goes back to perception and thinking for yourself.


In this case their opinions on rap are more advanced than the opinions of those who contend that rap is not music.

No, in this case, the masses are being told that rap is great and important and viable by a media and entertianment industry who's only goal is to sell them as much of it as possible.

Besides, I never said that "Rap is not music". I believe I said that "rappers (ie: the singers themselves) were not musicians". Kinda like Pat Boone or Milli Vanilli. They are just a face. There are always exceptions to the rule and you can cite 5 that are NOT just a face, I don't care, because for ever one you name there are 100 that are not.

And you can tell me 'til you're blue in the face that rap is not about debasement and greed. You are deluding yourself. Just turn on MTV and watch 5 rap videos at random, dude! It's truly appaling. Maybe you own the few rap albums that are not about crawlin' up inside giant black a$$es and the 'bling, but that is an exception to the rule. It's like saying that Heavy Metal is not about agression and violence because there are some Christian metal bands.

[Dusty Chalk]

Yes, everyone's standards are different. Hell Jay, there are people that think my photography is cheesy crap and that I am a hack BS artist.So they're saying "your art is bad", not that "it's not art". There is a fundamental difference. The first one is an opinion, the second is an argument of definition. Definition is a function of language, that is NOT a function of opinion.

That's like me saying "purple is a bad colour" vs. "purple is not a colour". You can't argue with me about the first one, because it's my opinion. However, you can and should argue with me about the second, because if I begin to misuse the language to such an extreme degree, then we will lose the ability to communicate.
You and I have just as much right to say whether it's art as they do. I reserve the right to my opinion just as much as anybody else, so if I say it's not art, then it isn't. It's a terrible mistake to let someone else make these decisions for you, yet that is precisely how most of the world operates.You're mixing opinion and fact. The correct statement is "...if I say it's bad art, then it's bad art." You are not entitled to be self-delusional. If you say the sky is not blue, you certainly retain the right to do so, but you're still on some absolute scale WRONG.

[Troy]

That's like me saying "purple is a bad colour" vs. "purple is not a colour". You can't argue with me about the first one, because it's my opinion. However, you can and should argue with me about the second, because if I begin to misuse the language to such an extreme degree, then we will lose the ability to communicate.You're mixing opinion and fact. The correct statement is "...if I say it's bad art, then it's bad art." You are not entitled to be self-delusional. If you say the sky is not blue, you certainly retain the right to do so, but you're still on some absolute scale WRONG.

No.

Your analogy with purple doesn't work. Art is not an absolute the way purple is.

The sky is NOT blue. I've seen thousands of colors in the sky.

At some point, certain pieces sold as art are so bad that they cannot be considered art . . . by me.

Purple is purple, no matter what you or I say (NO, it's violet! It is not, it's magenta!!), but a white canvas is a white canvas. It's not art for everyone just because some overeducated head-tripper says it is. No manifesto, no matter how eloquent and no reviewer in however high-falootin' art mag is gonna make me say that it is EVEN art, let alone bad art.

It's like saying dogcrap is food. Wellll, you could eat it, so technically it IS food. But aside from Divine, who would?

Whether something IS art is totally in the eye of the beholder, not the guy who created it or some goober in a magazine. It's is entirely up to YOU as to whether you think it's art or not.

[Dusty Chalk]

No.

Your analogy with purple doesn't work. Art is not an absolute the way purple is.Yes it is. There are some elements to art that we must agree on, otherwise we would not be able to communicate, agreed? It has to have an artist controlling or creating it (I.E. even computer-generated poetry had someone write the original program and provide the input); it has to have at least a potential audience (I only qualify it with "potential" because if a deaf person were to write a symphony that no-one else ever hears, I would have to say that art was still created), and it has to have at least one "artistic" aspect of it -- I realize that's kind of a circular definition, but I don't know how to put that in words, yet, other than to list all possible artistic aspects -- to tell a story, to evoke an emotion, to criticize sociopolitics, etc. But I don't know how to describe the abstract one -- I.E. Tangerine Dream, to make music for the sake of making music.
At some point, certain pieces sold as art are so bad that they cannot be considered art . . . by me.

Purple is purple, no matter what you or I say (NO, it's violet! It is not, it's magenta!!), but a white canvas is a white canvas. See, but it is at this point that your analogy to rap falls apart. Rap is not anti-art in the way that this effortless white canvas is, so I could easily point to this differentiation and say that that is what differentiates your non-art from rap, and that, by your own definition, rap still qualifies. I'm not going to ask you what your definition is (but feel free to give it a try, it's hard), but from everything you've said (especially WRT musicians vs. singers), I still stand by my stance that by your own definition, rap qualifies, and you have done nothing to dissuade me.
It's like saying dogcrap is food. Wellll, you could eat it, so technically it IS food. But aside from Divine, who would?The definition of food would presumably include some relatively oblique scale of "stuff that has nuitritional merit" vs. "is bad for you" (the latter of which dogcrap falls under), not just "that which is et".
Whether something IS art is totally in the eye of the beholder, not the guy who created it or some goober in a magazine. It's is entirely up to YOU as to whether you think it's art or not.But you just said that it was up to me! What if I were that goober? Wouldn't I be qualified to say that it's art?

So what you're saying is, IYHO, it is not art, but it is perfectly acceptable for the Recording Academy, or (by extrapolation) even the entire rest of the world to think so? I can live with that.

You do realize that that makes you "wrong". By my definition of "wrong", of course. And most of the rest of the world's. Or at least the Recording Academy's.

Pink flamingos are pink. IMHO. White music, however, is not white.

[Troy]

Yes it is. There are some elements to art that we must agree on, otherwise we would not be able to communicate, agreed?

Ok.


It has to have an artist controlling or creating it (I.E. even computer-generated poetry had someone write the original program and provide the input);

Who determines whether this person is an artist in the first place? Is he an artist because he says he is?


it has to have at least a potential audience (I only qualify it with "potential" because if a deaf person were to write a symphony that no-one else ever hears, I would have to say that art was still created), and it has to have at least one "artistic" aspect of it --

No, it does not have to have an audience at all. I know lots of people that create purely for themselves. Playing music and painting. Based on what I've seen of their other work, this work they do purely for themselves is undoubtedly art.


I realize that's kind of a circular definition, but I don't know how to put that in words, yet, other than to list all possible artistic aspects -- to tell a story, to evoke an emotion, to criticize sociopolitics, etc. But I don't know how to describe the abstract one -- I.E. Tangerine Dream, to make music for the sake of making music.

My dictionary says:
ART-
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

2. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

Interesting to note the word "beautiful". Perhaps "pleasing" is a better word.

If I could add to that it would be that the the individual experiencing the finished product (even if it is only the creator) is moved in an emotional way.

It's not about intelect, it's not about analysis or reasoning. It is purely an emotional response.



See, but it is at this point that your analogy to rap falls apart.

Jesus F'ing Christ, are we still talking about rap?


Rap is not anti-art in the way that this effortless white canvas is, so I could easily point to this differentiation and say that that is what differentiates your non-art from rap, and that, by your own definition, rap still qualifies.

Not sure I ever said that "Rap can't be art". That said, no rap has ever moved me on an emotional level except to make me angry and disappointed in the future of humanity. But I won't deny the possibilty that artful rap (that isn't paligeristic of already existing artful music) exists.


But you just said that it was up to me! What if I were that goober? Wouldn't I be qualified to say that it's art?

Sure. Just as qualified me saying it's not. Why should I believe you? Why should you believe me? MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND!


So what you're saying is, IYHO, it is not art, but it is perfectly acceptable for the Recording Academy, or (by extrapolation) even the entire rest of the world to think so? I can live with that. You do realize that that makes you "wrong". By my definition of "wrong", of course. And most of the rest of the world's. Or at least the Recording Academy's.

Nothing about my opinion is humble, sonny. I'm a "Legend in my own mind", remember?

Yeah, a Recording Academy that called Milli Vanilli the best new artist, called Jethro Tull best metal band and nominated Fountains of Wayne for best new artist this year sure has a lot of credibility!

Do you really thing "most of the rest of the world" even has an opinion about this nonsense?

Yes, your definition of wrong is wrong. nyuk nyuk nyuk.


Pink flamingos are pink. IMHO.

Your opinions are as humble as mine. And Pink Flamingos have white bellies and black around their eyes, so I question the validity of even that.

[Dusty Chalk]

Who determines whether this person is an artist in the first place? Is he an artist because he says he is?Alright, bad choice of words. "...has to have someone creating it...". The concentration is on a semblence of effort exerted.
No, it does not have to have an audience at all. I know lots of people that create purely for themselves.That's another reason I said "potential". Presumably, if someone else saw/heard/ate said art, they would like it, yes? Besides, "themselves" is already an audience of one.
Based on what I've seen of their other work, this work they do purely for themselves is undoubtedly art.A-ha! Audience of two.
Jesus F'ing Christ, are we still talking about rap?I was.
Not sure I ever said that "Rap can't be art". Something to the effect of "rap isn't music". Music, presumably, being a pure subset of art.
That said, no rap has ever moved me on an emotional level except to make me angry and disappointed in the future of humanity.Whoever said that that isn't an emotional reaction? Protest songs are supposed to make people angry and disappointed in the future of humanity. And sounds to me like you haven't heard rap. There are many types of rap -- the kind you seem to have heard is the kind called "gangsta rap". There's many other kinds. Sometimes rap is fun (Outkast), sometimes it's very positively motivated (Tribe Called Quest? not sure).
Sure. Just as qualified me saying it's not. Why should I believe you? Why should you believe me? MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND!So, we've been agreeing this entire time?

EDIT: And, who said I wasn't? I never said I was ever doing anything less than making up my own mind.

For someone who thinks everyone is entitled to their own opinion, you sure do spend a lot of effort trying to convince me of yours.
Nothing about my opinion is humble, sonny. I'm a "Legend in my own mind", remember?Yes, everything I say is correct.

I was just ribbin' ya'.
Yes, your definition of wrong is wrong. nyuk nyuk nyuk.That's your opinion.

[DariusNYC]

Likewise, I see Rap as "outside" of music... it uses few of the disciplines/skills of "true music" (a little rhythm is all). No (even basic) melodic or instrumental skills are required, something that even a 5 yr old pianist or singer must master. Simply put, it's NOT music.... no more than "chess" is sport. But that's the closest place to dump it... so we deal with it; but don't kid yourself, it ain't really music. It's more akin to poetry... but it's been 100 years since poetry has been "hip" in our popular culture... hence Rap gets placed in the "music" dumper... for better or worse (worse IMO).

Not sure why you're definining music based on what technical skills are required to produce it. We don't hear "skills", we hear the music itself. Do we like it, do we find it pleasurable, powerful, compelling? Does it create an emotional or other reaction in us? This is how you judge music (and, incidentally, any art) and criticisms of any art based on the process used to create it will always be misguided (and unnecessarily elitist). And such criticisms are usually invoked by people with quite narrow tastes in music (or, for visual art, by the "I could've done that!" anti-20th-C.-art crowd). So, if you hate rap (what little you've heard, as you seem to have very little knowledge of it as evidenced by your statement), if it doesn't do anything for you, then say so; that's cool, a lot of people don't like rap. But delegitimizing it is a cheap and elitist move. Anyhow, the specifics are your statement are b.s. as well -- and really, they're so 1983 (although they were wrong back then as well) -- if you listen to any rap being played on the radio today, it's obviously music, and that's why it's universally recognized as such. And even if we accepted that technical skills of individual artists, rappers or musicians are relevant in themselves to the judgment of the finished product, rapping well, writing good rap lyrics, creating the instrumental portion of a rap song, all of that requires tons of talent to do well. So what's the issue.

[Troy]

A-ha! Audience of two.

No, I was assuming that their work I hadn't seen was art. Still an audience of one.


Whoever said that that isn't an emotional reaction? Protest songs are supposed to make people angry and disappointed in the future of humanity. And sounds to me like you haven't heard rap. There are many types of rap -- the kind you seem to have heard is the kind called "gangsta rap". There's many other kinds. Sometimes rap is fun (Outkast), sometimes it's very positively motivated (Tribe Called Quest? not sure).

Go back and read Webster's definition of art again. The idea that something the prokoves ANY emotional response (as opposed to a positive one) is art is a fairly recent spin on the meaning of art . . . and one that I don't really buy into. Art doesn't piss you off, it doesn't make you angry or depressed.



EDIT: And, who said I wasn't? I never said I was ever doing anything less than making up my own mind.

For someone who thinks everyone is entitled to their own opinion, you sure do spend a lot of effort trying to convince me of yours.Yes, everything I say is correct.

That goes both ways dood! It's called debate. Sure, I'm trying to get you to see it from a perspective that you normally don't see it from. I'm not so much looking to change your mind as much as get you to acknowledge that there are other ways of looking at it other than the common conceptions that you adhere to.


I was just ribbin' ya'.

No****, Sherlock. Right back attcha.

[jack70]

jack70:I'm cool with Rap being called "music" (no skin off my as_)... but I just think it's a hybrid that's something a little different. I think a lot of people are misreading the way I want to "classify" Rap, as a slam on it.

Okay, you say this now, but yesterday I read yr post that said:

I see Rap as "outside" of music
and
Simply put, it's NOT music
and
it ain't really music.
I see a big difference there, don't you? And I direct this to Troy as well, and Barry, and anyone else who's going to try to tell me that rap--a genre I mostly stopped listening to over a decade ago--is 'not music.'

I'm simply saying I don't consider it music, but it don't bother me that others do. This isn't something I'm all that worked up about, that's all (despite the size of this thread, LOL). I DO see Rap more as performance art or poetry than music. If others see it differently, so be it, is all. There are people of religion that similarly feel their religion is the word of God, yet most are willing to accept the fact others see the "world of God" differently. Those that DON'T are a bit (lot) whacked (like OBL). I'm a little whacked... but not a LOT.

No, I don't consider certain CD's, LPs and cassettes "music" -- my George Carlin, Jean Shepherd, Henry Rollins, Fireside Theater, LBJ tapes, Bob & Ray cassettes, etc etc. I don't even consider a lot of Laurie Anderson's stuff "music"... it's also out on the fringe and deserves a "better" term.

As to those BN musicans playing on certain Rap records... you've obviously got a much wider view of the whole Rap genre, so I'll specify my view. I'm talking about some of the a-cappella Rap, or stuff with a cheesy "rhythm" machine churning in the background, yet totally out of rhythm. That's the stuff I'm speaking of. So, I'll grant you that there is some Rap stuff that has enough musical involvement to be considered more under the "music" umbrella. But... a LOT of it just isn't. And simply being live on stage isn't necessarily a "musical" event; it could also be public speaking, poetic reading, dramatic reading, acting, performance art, etc.



Jack -- yes, most certainly definitely I forfeit. If you consider never accepting the initial challenge to your game as a forfeit. I hate people who try to spin-doctor a non-game as a win.

I accept your forfeit! (Just kiddin ya... I'll take whatever I can get) Your "scene" was hilarious (LOL)... touché



...I've put my cat on the keyboard once and got than some of the things I've heard.), but it's still music.

So a monkey typing gibberish on the keyboard is "literature"? gimme a break... Sound ain't music, and too much modern "expressionism" really ain't art; it's simply... expressionism. This is more artistic (cultural) relativism gone beserk IMO... a sign of the times, I suppose.

I guess you think my facetious idea of a grammy for "musical pets" has some legitimate musical validity? Whatever...



Just for the record, Hilary was nominated in the "Spoken Word" category -- a category which has nothing to do with music, officially. I.E. those of you who pretend that this is some slight against the term "music" are deliberately using this fact incorrectly. The organization that sponsors the Grammy's is the Recording Academy, and...

Yeah, I do know that the Grammys have a spoken word (non-music) category. Unfortunately this (lousy) web type of communication makes for "leaving out" a lot of stuff (cause of time). I brought up the Hillary nomination because I knew BarryL would get a laugh out of it. (Barry, you started this whole messy thread!) As someone who's recorded lots of music and spoken word over the years, I'm well aware of the technical aspects and reason for the award. But I found it typical (& humorous) of such a media-linked-event (grammies have become a "show"), that they'd nominate someone like Hillary. It's just so "PC"... and such a crock. Without hearing any of the other spoken-word works from last year, I'll go waaay out on a limb and bet that there are 5, 100 or 200 that are more deserving. Yeah, I'm not surprised they're flaunting her, but it's political, not artistic or technical... don't anyone kid themselves.

Most of the "music" grammys are likewise also based on likeability, cache, politics and other "high-school voting" dynamics, instead of a higher standard. It's (primarily) a popularity contest... more cynically it's a commercial vehicle to sell "product" by a bunch of suits. You see the same thing with the Oscars, where many of the voters, although in the biz, haven't even seen the works they're voting on. You add into that mix the million$ paid by the studios to champion certain films and stars in advert-campaigns, and you often get similarly nutty nominations as the Grammys. I much prefer reading lists of "best" films or "best" albums by writers or knowledgable people in the industry... their motives are not "selling their companies product," or "pushing a political agenda," but just an honest appraisal/opinion from their well honed experience.




Not sure why you're definining music based on what technical skills are required to produce it. We don't hear "skills", we hear the music itself. Do we like it, do we find it pleasurable, powerful, compelling?

Where to begin.... first music is AN art, it isn't "ALL art". Rap is simply a DIFFERENT art IMO... like drama, poetry, etc. Painting... IS NOT MUSIC either. Of course, if YOU WANNA SAY IT IS... go ahead. But something is not simply "what you say it is". There are certain historical frameworks of accepted ideas about many things, including various arts. There are some modern artists that have confused many people that "there are no longer any rules", and something is "whatever I damn well say it is". I say, "BS"... Dixieland is NOT Opera music... abstract expressionism is Not surrealism. The lunatic on the corner baying at the moon... is NOT a performance artist. IMO, some Rap is not music.


Does it create an emotional or other reaction in us? This is how you judge music (and, incidentally, any art) and criticisms of any art based on the process used to create it will always be misguided (and unnecessarily elitist)....And such criticisms are usually invoked by people with quite narrow tastes in music (or, for visual art, by the "I could've done that!" anti-20th-C.-art crowd)....

Read more carefully.... I'm NOT saying it's not art. (stop here & repeat). I'm NOT saying "I could'a done that". I'm just saying it's not the FORM of art you claim it is. (although some of it may be). It's a new, different type of art. My "criticisms" (if ya wanna call em that... but it's not) of Rap, have NOTHING to do with the processes inherent to it. My "criticism" is simply one of nomenclature and subtype. It's a fine point, and one that too many have missed.

As to "elitists"... it's idiots who watch some no-talent playwright, musician, or artist and accept it as "good" because they don't want to be judgmental that are the elitists. Art is not just about one's personal expression, it's about imparting that emotion to others. You can atonally bang on the piano all day long if you want, and you can call it "art" if you you want, but it ain't "music"... it's masturbation. That's fine for the person doing it... but don't tell me I'm elitist because I don't appreciate it.... jeeze.

[Dusty Chalk]

No, I was assuming that their work I hadn't seen was art. Still an audience of one.Yeah, but you know what "assuming" does, don't you? It makes an ass out of u and ming.
Go back and read Webster's definition of art again. The idea that something the prokoves ANY emotional response (as opposed to a positive one) is art is a fairly recent spin on the meaning of art . . . and one that I don't really buy into. Art doesn't piss you off, it doesn't make you angry or depressed.Some of my most favourite music is supremely depressing. Gorgeous, beautiful, pleasing...depressing.

I guess where I was coming from on that statement was censorship. The law about censorship says something to the effect of "...a work of art must have some social redeeming value..." -- I never liked that definition, so I was just trying my hand at something else -- something more vague, but not having to abide by social values. I guess it didn't work, but I think I was closer to the mark than they were.
That goes both ways dood! It's called debate. Sure, I'm trying to get you to see it from a perspective that you normally don't see it from. I'm not so much looking to change your mind as much as get you to acknowledge that there are other ways of looking at it other than the common conceptions that you adhere to.Well, just for the record, I was trying to change your mind. There's a difference between arguing fact and arguing opinion. The latter is pointless, and I usually don't go there.

There's a grey middle ground that people often tread, and that's to try to convey fact as opinion or vice versa. I saw you...well, someone...trying to convey "rap is not music"...as opinion, and I disagree that it is a matter of opinion. It is my belief (not the same as an opinion) that what is and is not music, and what is or is not art, is not a matter of opinion.

Obviously, we disagree on this point.

Not to say I wasn't having some fun along the way. At this point, my expectations to change your mind are low...miniscule...non-existent. And it's no hair off my back either way.

Jack seems to believe that it is a matter of religion with me. Hmm...the analogy is not that far off. But let me turn it around on you, Jack. Murder. This is a matter of right and wrong, yes? This is a matter of definition (as well as many other things) possibly even religion (a lot of people base the fact that murder is wrong on That Commandment), not of opinion, wouldn't you agree? At least, in 90% of the non-borderline cases. My analogy is that sometimes, whether it appears to be religious-based or not, sometimes, matters are worth arguing. To use the old camel's-nose-under-the-tent-flap theory would be wrong in this case -- just because 10% (or whatever the number is, I'm making it up anyway) of the cases are borderline, doesn't mean that the definition of "murder" isn't still some "absolute".

The analogy would be that someone says that whether or not a particular ritual is right or wrong is a matter of opinion. It might be in some cases, but in the case of murder, that's got nothing to do with it.

Sorry, that sounds pretty extreme, to compare "rap is not music" with "ritual is not murder", but I think the analogy part holds.

[Chris]

Rap is just fast talking. Big deal. Anyone can do that.
Can they? Can everyone talk fast AND keep a rythym? Can you? If so, I'd suggest you go get a record deal with the amount of money that's being thrown at these so-called, "talentless" rappers out there.

The majority of rap that is out there is not what I'd call "art". I don't like much of it. Most of it has all the same lyrics anyway. But you can't deny that some rap artists have a talent that others can't duplicate. If rapping was just fast talking, you'd see way more people doing it, and a lot more people making money in that industry. Obviously, it isn't something that just anyone can do, and do well.

However, I don't think receiving a Grammy makes the music good. It's more like a popularity contest than a testament to how good the artist/album is. Good music is subjective. It's called "personal taste" and "opinion". It IS all music in some way, shape or form, regardless who here says otherwise. You cannot scientifically break down what makes something musical. It's not a scientific theory. It's preference. If it makes you feel good, and makes you want to dance, it is musical. Just because it has "fast talking" in it, doesn't mean it is NOT music.

I don't think River Dancing is "real dancing". It looks like anyone can do it. But in reality, it probably is not easy, and it is a form of dancing. I just don't like it. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean I can say that it's not real dancing.

[jack70]

Jack seems to believe that it is a matter of religion with me. Hmm...the analogy is not that far off. But let me turn it around on you, Jack. Murder. This is a matter of right and wrong, yes? This is a matter of definition (as well as many other things) possibly even religion (a lot of people base the fact that murder is wrong on That Commandment), not of opinion, wouldn't you agree?


No, no, no... I didn't (really) use that "religion" analogy into the "music" debate (check it again). I used it (only) in trying to explain to Jay about my "fervor" (rather, my lack of it) in getting as "worked up" as some others (apparently) are about the "classification" of Rap in the music camp. Jay was making an issue of the depth of my belief on this issue... I was just explaining (with the religious analogy) that I was NOT a zealot on this (largely) semantic issue. If you are, fine... but I'm not, is all.

When I hear sportscasters and sports-talkshow people discuss bowling (as "sport")... I accept their methodology, even if I see it a little differently (it's NOT a big deal). Same with Rap... I don't think it's "true" music, it's something a little outside of it... but I can live with most people calling it "music", unlike say, religious zealots who have a hard time living with other popular world views.

BTW, classic producer Jerry Wexler was talking about Solomon Burke on 60-Mins last Sunday.... he called "all singing" as a trade between music & drama. Considering rappers use little melody in their "singing", one could say it IS more in the drama family (performance art).

Now, your bringing up the term "murder" is interesting because law is something that is codified through centuries of experience. It IS designed to be absolute (as close as words can make it). It's spelled out (unlike the term "music") with specifications called "elements of the law" for all manner of exigent circumstances. The whole debate of "what is music", is a pop-cultural dynamic that's very inexact and fluid, unlike the law, which is extremely exact (for good reason... ever read your state's penal code?).

At the same time, I'll bring up the fact that even "murder" is legally defined differently in different countries, different cultures, and different times (we constantly add/change those elements), sometimes radically so. If a people decide to make a "ritual" inside (or outside) some law, they can do it through our legal process. Interesting, because "polygamy" is undergoing that debate now after the results of the Mass gay-marriage case. But art isn't law, and science isn't art. For many though, art is religion... LOL.

[Dusty Chalk]

Actually, I think you did get my point, in that I was taking exactly your example, but had the opposing view.

See, you're mixing things up here a little bit, when you talk about the rigidity of the legal definition of murder, and the "fluid" definition of music. Certainly those are the cases, but those are also two different stances.

There are two ways to write a dictionary -- "prescriptive" and "descriptive". A "prescriptive" dictionary tries to define words as they should be used, and a "descriptive" dictionary tends to define words as they are already used. The two stances can also be looked at as liberal vs. conservative.

Anyway, that's what you're doing. You're taking the prescriptive stance on murder (other than that last paragraph about different cultures, but I'll get back to that in a second), but the descriptive stance on music. Why? Because it's a quickly changing society, and music is evolving quickly, and it would have been difficult to define music 50 years ago and still see it applied today.

Now back to murder -- sure there are borderline cases that, in one society would not be considered murder, but in another, it is. But I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the pretty clear-cut cases that most if not all of us would consider pretty clearly murder -- even if we didn't have the legal and linguistic background to give it a proper definition. The Hannibal Lechters and the Jeffrey Dahmers and the John Wayne Gacys and the Ted Bundy's and the borderline adolescents who killed "just to know what it felt like" and etc. It's still absolute -- at least in some cases. And because it is still absolute in some cases, it is not a matter of opinion -- it's not a matter of "well, that's your opinion" or Troy's or whatever. Whether or not Rap is music is an absolute, and you are wrong, not only because you don't think it is, but because you think it's your right not to think so. You're wrong about that, too.

That was my point.

[jack70]

See, you're mixing things up here a little bit, when you talk about the rigidity of the legal definition of murder, and the "fluid" definition of music. Certainly those are the cases, but those are also two different stances.

Not entirely... Although the "value" of the term "murder" is specific, I'm admitting it can be fluid also. Society changes laws all the time (18'th & 21'st amendments to the constitution). Music and graphic arts change. Scientific laws, on the other hand, are unique and unchangable once discovered. Since "music" is NOT a scientific fact, or legal law, "my" definition of music is certainly as valid as your's (which is lacking).



There are two ways to write a dictionary -- "prescriptive" and "descriptive". A "prescriptive" dictionary tries to define words as they should be used, and a "descriptive" dictionary tends to define words as they are already used. The two stances can also be looked at as liberal vs. conservative.

Anyway, that's what you're doing. You're taking the prescriptive stance on murder (other than that last paragraph about different cultures, but I'll get back to that in a second), but the descriptive stance on music. Why? Because it's a quickly changing society, and music is evolving quickly, and it would have been difficult to define music 50 years ago and still see it applied today.


...It's still absolute (murder) -- at least in some cases. And because it is still absolute in some cases, it is not a matter of opinion -- it's not a matter of "well, that's your opinion" or Troy's or whatever. Whether or not Rap is music is an absolute, and you are wrong...


OK, that's a fair point. But how about if I just say: "I don't care"... or "it don't matter".

Seriously, I also state that I'm willing to accept (live with) the "prescriptive" stance on music, even though I don't agree with it. Lets go back to a legal/law analogy here: Many pro-lifers "live with" abortion being legal, even though they disagree with it. Who knows... it's entirely possible people in 100 years will look back to our time and see "legalized abortion" as abhorrent as we now view the forced sterilization (eugenics) of the early 1900s, or slavery of the 1700's. Does that mean those who were anti-slavery in 1750, or anti-eugenics in 1920, or anti-abortion today were wrong? (hey, you brought up "murder"... Ethics is just as slippery as art IMO.)

Same goes for Rap. I'm just ahead of my time is all.... (don't hurt your head bangin' it against the wall...LOL)

[Chris]

WARNING: LONG POST. So many arguments, so little time. I guess it's time to find out if this board limits the length of posts.

Barry:

When rappers get the most nominations for Grammy awards, you know that popular culture has gone to hell in a handbasket.

The same thing was said of rock music.

Joel2762:

Rap is just fast talking. Big deal. Anyone can do that.

Wrong. Rap is not just fast talking. It may not be a big deal, but not anyone can do it.

Mr. Midfi:

And running is just fast walking, so Carl Lewis was no big deal either.

Good reply.

Troy:

it's still just running regardless of how fast it is. Anyone can do it.

Wrong. Most people know of at least one individual who can do no such thing. (I’m taking this statement literally for a reason)

Ergo, if rapping is just fast talking, well then it's still just talking . . . and anyone can do that.

Wrong. Most people know of at least one individual who can do no such thing.

anyone (except J) can drive a car

Wrong. I CAN drive a car. I’ve never had a license, but have driven on many occasions (even used a stick shift a few times) & once even owned a car that I drove using my learner’s permit (which I traded in for the non-driver’s license state ID that at least looks like a driver’s license, unlike permits, which most bartenders, bouncers, & deli clerks refused to acknowledge as being proper identification). But I CHOSE to stop driving because it’s just plain f*cking stupid.

Not just fast talkers.

I dispute that rap is just fast talking. It’s rhythmic, it’s syncopated, it’s a LOT of things that talking, and fast talking, are not.

Joel 2762:

What about the singers and bands that have real talent. They write great songs with good meanings, some have interesting stories to them.

Considering you're not providing any examples to back this statement up, it comes off as ridiculously subjective, to the point of being irrelevant.

But these rappers come in and take the awards for their small effort.

I’d like to know yr source for yr info on how much effort it takes to make a rap record.

Troy:

Chalky- I don't ascribe to the notion that everyone can make music. I don't ascribe to the notion that everyone is an artist either. That's a BS idea used to validate all the bad art of the 20th century.

Everyone’s standards are different. I agree with Dusty’s framing of this argument. If someone you don’t consider an artist has created a work you don’t consider art, but said work has been purchased by a customer who DOES define it as art, how is it that the creator, having now sold ‘art’ work as an ‘artist,’ is not an ‘artist?’ Please explain. I well understand that I may not think it’s ‘art,’ either, but that’s my standard. In a similar discussion/violent argument on another board recently, I stated that my standard for what is music—even if it’s the recorded screams of an infant, the recorded sound of a hammer pounding nails, the recorded sound of human regurgitation…wait a second, I hear that on a Butthole Surfers record. Where was I? Oh, yeah. If it’s produced & packaged as music, and a consumer is willing to buy it AS MUSIC, then I do not feel that I or anyone else is qualified to state that such a product is ‘not music’ to them just because THEY DON’T THINK it’s music. So apply that to what you said about ‘bad art.’

Everyone with vocal cords can sing, no matter how Shatner-esque or Yoko-ish they sound

Wrong. VOCALIZING is something that everyone with vocal cords can do. Singing is a MUSICAL SKILL that NOT everyone can do. Not everyone with vocal cords is capable of producing sounds that can be applied to a musical chart. Atonal vocalizing cannot be charted and therefore is not singing. And neither Shatner nor Yoko were 100% atonal.

Not everyone cannot pick up a guitar or sit at a keyboard and make music. They can make sound, but that does not mean it's music.

Wrong. They may not be able to PLAY, because that is a MUSICAL SKILL. But if they make sound that can be applied to a musical chart, then it MAY be considered music. I will personally stick to my standard that it should/must be SALEABLE as music to be considered music, with an asterisk for a very technical & arcane exception that says that if it can be charted, it is indeed music.

I am writing this as I scroll through the thread & I see that Dusty has addressed some of these points, so forgive me. So far I’m not disagreeing with much if anything in his arguments to yr statements. So:

This is just semantics. What you're talking about is BS music that no one wants to hear, let alone pay to hear. It may be music technically to you, but to me it's just sound.

It’s NOT semantics, it’s what IS and ISN’T. Whether or not it’s ‘BS music that no one wants to hear’ doesn’t mean it’s just sound & not music just because that’s the semantic prism you’re choosing to view this through.

Everyone sings. EVERYONE, even Dave G. Everyone knows tunes and sings along

Wrong. I have been acquainted with several people who told me that they have never engaged in any such activity in their entire lives. Some were people who never listened to music, but most at least listened to music on the radio.

Jack70:

Likewise, I see Rap as "outside" of music... it uses few of the disciplines/skills of "true music" (a little rhythm is all).

So what? That’s enough.

Simply put, it's NOT music.... no more than "chess" is sport

Absolutely, unequivocally, 100% wrong. Come on, Jackson. You know better than to say something like that. And you know the chess analogy doesn’t hold up.

it ain't really music. It's more akin to poetry... but it's been 100 years since poetry has been "hip" in our popular culture... hence Rap gets placed in the "music" dumper... for better or worse (worse IMO).

No, it’s because it’s created by MUSIC professionals, produced by MUSIC companies (okay, record companies, but if you can find one human being willing to testify in a court of law that the primary & most important record company products are NOT music, I’d like to meet him), sold by businesses that can be called MUSIC stores or RECORD stores (again, as a product that is classified as MUSIC, even if it’s the MUSIC section in a Barnes & Noble or Wal-Mart store—not poetry, or beef jerky, or shampoo, or #2 pencils—MUSIC), to MUSIC consumers (who, if you took a poll, would, I am confident, answer in at least a 99% percentile that their rap purchase was indeed a music purchase), who, in their consumption of the product, assume most if not all of the necessary characteristics and factors that must be present and in effect (i.e. the product can only be used if inserted into a hardware device such as one necessary for the playback of other recorded music products) if you are to define the phrase ‘listening to music.’

Nobody:

Rap is like anything else. Anyone can do it.

This is obviously in a different context, and I’m not trying to be an @sshole, just consistent. Unless I'm wrong, my understanding is that you don't actually believe this, at least not in the same way that others do.

In that vein, since you consider rap so easy, I really think you may wanna give up photography. There's a lot more money in rap if you can make it big, which shouldn't be hard since it's so easy.

Well put.

Dusty:

He is a consumate artist -- musician -- even if he didn't play any other instruments.

I don’t really have a problem with this, but…and I know you’re aware of this…if you’re in a discussion with someone who insists on being a stickler, they may insist, and be technically correct, that no vocalist, no matter how proficient, and I include Ella Fitzgerald, Frank Sinatra, Pavarotti—any vocalist that does not actually play a musical instrument can be called a musician. They will say, in a strict technical discussion on the issue, that a non-instrumentalist cannot be a musician.

Okay, I'm coming back to this after seeing yr latest post. I went to the dictionary & looked up musician: a composer, conductor, or performer of music; especially INSTRUMENTALIST. That’s in Merriam-Webster Online, and the emphasis is theirs. So I do agree with much of what you wrote in that last post.

Troy:

It's running taken to another level, but to those of us that couldn't care less it's still just running.

Dusty made a great point in a nearby post: it’s COMPETITIVE running. Those of you who couldn’t care less & choose not to draw this distinction are making a big mistake.

It's not that I'm saying it's easy

You said something—if not EXACTLY like that, then certainly VERY MUCH like that.

many of the practitioners of rap don't have any idea how the mechanics of music works

Many if not most practitioners of MUSIC have only a very basic & limited understanding of the mechanics of music—usually limited to the one or two or MAYBE three things that it is that THEY do. Does a French Horn player in a symphony orchestra have any understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by an improvisational saxophone player in a jazz club who works without the benefit of a chart? How about the other way around? Does the guitarist for Mudvayne have any understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by the director of the Harlem Boys’ Choir? Would Thelonius Monk have had an understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by a player who uses a Chapman Stick? Does Neil Peart have an understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by a guitarist using a Joe Maphis doubleneck Mosrite? And to placate some some of you, does Johnny Ramone have an understanding of the mechanics that must be understood by Robert Fripp? There are obviously an untold number of musical mechanics that a typical rapper (an individual who ADMITTEDLY is PROBABLY LESS MUSICAL than the typical MUSICIAN) will have absolutely no understanding of; but the chances are very good that none of the individuals in the examples I offer will possess any understanding of the mechanics of music that a rapper must understand.

If these guys want music awards, they should learn how to play an instrument and write songs.

Wrong. That’s what they should do if they want instrumentalist awards or songwriting awards. Otherwise, yr statement would apply to ANY nominee of ANY music award EVER who did not play an instrument, and/or write songs. I won’t bother with any examples of such individuals unless you really want to see some. Suffice it to say that such a list would include some of the most prominent, influential, and popular MUSIC artists of the last 100 years. Including, I have every confidence, SOMEONE whose work could be found in yr record collection.

Rap is for and about a world completely alien to me.

So? If it’s so easy, something anyone can do, ‘not music,’ or any of the other things you’ve said about rap in the past, how could that possibly matter? Once upon a time, rock music was so easy, anyone could do it. Quick, name someone besides Davy Jones who went from a musical theater background to become a rock star—rock music, for and about a world completely alien to people like him.

A world that I have no desire to be involved in either

You’re in that world, whether you like it or not. You don’t have to live in South Central to exist in the world rap operates in. Just like you didn't have to be in Chicago or Little Italy to be in the same world ‘Scarface’ was a part of when it was first released well over a half-century ago. Hmmm…’Scarface’…gangsta rap…hmmm…

It panders to a black culture that revels in debasement and greed

Oh, bullsh*t. The rap in my house does NO SUCH THING. I’d like to know why you feel that artists such as the Beastie Boys, Public Enemy, De La Soul, A Tribe Called Quest, P.M. Dawn, the Pharcyde, and Wyclef Jean—to name just a few—do anything that you just described.

My black friends think it's a dead end for black youth, and I'm inclined to agree with them.

They’re entitled to their opinions, just as you are. So how about if you ask them how ANY of the artists I just named are a ‘dead end for black youth?’ I’d REALLY like to know what their responses would be to such a question.

Here's another art analogy; they MUST first be able to do that…WITHOUT…
Oh, you can do it, but the trained eye can tell that the artist is in over his head.
Music is no different.

I’ll apply this statement to music: in order for a musician to play COMPLICATED music well, they must first be able to play SIMPLE music well. Well, NO WAY, PAL. By this logic prog musicians have to be able to play music as simple as, for instance, the blues. This is a fallacy. And I’m not talking about feeling, either; forget I said blues, let’s say blues structures. I’ve seen many, many players in my time whose understanding of music is such that they are simply NOT ABLE to play ANYTHING simple; they must ALWAYS overplay, and overplay in as complicated a manner as possible. I’ve been at plenty of social functions with ‘jams’ where you try to engage these sorts of players in something just a TRIFLE less complicated than what it is they’re doing. Many simply cannot. Some don’t understand the concept of a song—something with a beginning and an ending; some don’t understand that music does not mean one has to play lead guitar exclusively, with no attempt made at rhythm; some don't realize that some lyrics are meant to be heard without benefit of neverending soloing; others don’t have the attention span or discipline necessary to play something that’s ANY more repetitive than busy, note-y, endless, free-form soloing. There are many players who approach music, especially guitar, in more of a mathematical fashion than a musical one. Such players are often devoid of the ability to play simply, just as I am mostly devoid of the capability to play in a manner that most would not consider simple. If I didn’t apply yr analogy correctly, my apologies. Tell me where I got it wrong.

My contextural point is that everyone can sing "Happy Birthday to you"

Wow, now I’m REALLY surprised that you’d say something like that. Perhaps they can sing it, but they damn sure can’t sing it WELL. ‘Happy Birthday To You’ is considered to be an ESPECIALLY difficult song to sing, to the point where it is often used as a benchmark in the course of a professional audition. Actually, I do believe it has even been used for Broadway auditions. Yes, I'm serious. The jump in octave on the third line is no mean feat.

It's all about perception. I couldn't even begin to care what the unwashed masses think about the viability of rap as music. What the hell do they know?

Not caring about anyone else’s perception is GREAT. Except…what the unwashed masses think has a LOT to do with a LOT of what is produced (if not created) by entertainment companies. Now, yr taste in music, like many of us on this board, is interesting, fairly unique, and idiosyncratic. How about yr taste in movies? Did you like the first ‘Matrix’ movie? Wouldn’t it suck if it had never been made? What the unwashed masses think has a lot to do with movies like that being made. I know that if it hadn’t been there might’ve been something else that I might’ve enjoyed in a similar way, but I’d feel cheated if it had never been made because the unwashed masses wouldn’t have been expected to like such a thing. Now, of course, the unwashed masses’ opinions lead to the creation, production, & distribution of tons of crap, and not enough that I DO like—so, in a sense, you’re right, I really don’t care. (Except, both of us are on the same side of the argument that says that there's plenty of great stuff out there that's a little harder to find because it's under the radar of mass production) But I DO care enough to understand that it’s all part of the equation. Which means that you SHOULD care at least a whit what the unwashed masses think. Some times their opinions are not as advanced as what an authority on a subject may know to be true; other times they are more advanced than one would think considering how slow some businesses & industries are to respond to the desires of their customer base. In this case their opinions on rap are more advanced than the opinions of those who contend that rap is not music.

I’ve had a BUSY week, so I apologize for catching up in this clunky fashion. But I couldn’t let the posts in this thread go.

Great reply.

[Dusty Chalk]

Well, yeah, but let me respond to even that. It's not black and white, it's not "it's worth dying over" vs. "it's not important". You know the old expression, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it"? I may not like rap, but I will fight as long as it's convenient their right to call it music. As long as I'm sitting here at my computer. Get me started at a bar, and I'll probably just wander off and get drunk.
I don't even consider a lot of Laurie Anderson's stuff "music"... it's also out on the fringe and deserves a "better" term.Hard to argue with that -- she's a self-proclaimed "performance artist". And I agree that her spoken word pieces wouldn't qualify as music -- they might ride on a bed of music, but they are not entirely music.

And yes, I realize that you are trying to say the same thing about rap, but I disagree. Wire have a whole disc that is basically one note (Dugga Dugga Dugga), is that not music? You have to hear it -- it is.


Same goes for Rap. I'm just ahead of my time is all.... (don't hurt your head bangin' it against the wall...LOL)http://www.classicrockforums.com/images/smilies/banghead.gif

[MindGoneHaywire]

Troy:

Jesus F'ing Christ, are we still talking about rap?

Hell yeah. I didn’t start the thread. As long as I see something worth discussing, I will discuss. I notice that Barry & Joel never weighed back in here, though. Hmmm....

Don't loophole me J. You know the implications of saying "anyone".

Then why say ‘anyone?’

There will always be an exception to the rule, but a rule is a rule for a reason.

There are some rules for which there are no exceptions. One is, if I see something worth discussing, and I am physically capable, I will discuss.

The driving thing was meant as an easy-going humorous poke atcha Jay. Guess I poked too deep. Excuse me.

Oh, no. I wasn’t offended. Just clarifying.

Everyone (again there's always exceptions to the rule, but they are rare) can sing "Happy Birthday", but not everyone can play it on an instrument was my contextural point..

I understood that. I just found it a trifle weirdly ironic that you chose that particular song, considering how difficult it actually is. I got the point.

Yes, you missed my point completely. See, I AGREE with your paragraph, Jay, whether you realize that you shot yourself down or not. These individuals that don't know how to play anything other than the overplaying you describe don't have the foundation to play simply. Sure, they can play complex, but they don't understand that in order for the complex parts to really impact, you need to offset them with simple parts. Therefore, they do not play the complicated parts well because they don't understand about counterpoint and letting the music breathe. Nope, in order to play complicated, well, you have to be able to play simply, well.

Shot myself down? You’re saying that you have to be able to perform the simple well, both in art & music, in order to do the complex well. What I know about art would fill a thimble (preferably one in a gallery, so someone could call it ‘art’ ), so I wasn’t really looking to get involved in the analogies much. But my point was that there are tons of guys out there who CAN perform complicated music well WITHOUT being able to perform simple music well. And I would wager that there’s a goodly amount of SUCCESSFUL musicians who play complicated music well who are not capable of playing simple music well. In art it may well be that you really CAN'T do anything complex without a strong knowledge of the simple, but in music that’s not the case. Most rock players learned how to play their instruments while playing what they liked best, not what they didn’t. Players who play complex music, some of the time, or a lot of the time, probably didn’t spend much time with simple stuff. <sarcasm>Which of course is easy, and anyone can do it.</sarcasm>

As an aside, I pulled out a file from nearly 3 years ago where I had archived an epic rap debate. Not on the old board, on the board before that one. Lots of debate back & forth between you, me, Darius, Brad, Kevin B, & others. And in that debate, you said this, which I found interesting given what you said in this thread:

Personally I think you need to be able to do ornate art before you can be justified in knowing what you're doing when you're doing minimal art.

Interesting.

If you can convince the art establishment that your pile of paperclips stacked "just so" at the MOMA is an artistic statement by writng some longwinded polysylabic manifesto about it, then hey, you're an artist!

But wait, that's only the cogonscenti's perception. Does that mean that they're right? Hell no. You and I have just as much right to say whether it's art as they do.

Only to the point of defining it for one’s self. You do NOT have the right to insist that another must share yr perception. If it’s art to THEM, then it’s art TO THEM. If it’s not art to YOU, that doesn’t mean it’s NOT ART, only that it’s not art TO YOU.

I reserve the right to my opinion just as much as anybody else, so if I say it's not art, then it isn't. It's a terrible mistake to let someone else make these decisions for you, yet that is precisely how most of the world operates.

If you say it’s art, but I say it is, then yr first sentence is incorrect, because it only applies to yr perception, not mine. If the dictionary says it’s art, unless I have a violent disagreement with the definition, then I’ll defer to the dictionary. And I’d have to have a pretty goddamn good reason to find fault with the dictionary definition.

I have always felt that few vocalists deserved to be referred to as ‘musicians,’ but I never held that as a hard & fast rule. I might’ve felt more strongly had I had less experience with people who were insistent that a non-instrumentalist could never be considered a musician. Rather than try to reason with someone who chose to steadfastly deny that Billie Holiday or Frank Sinatra could possibly be a musician, I decided that a loose application of that basic standard, with room for exceptions, was a reasonable policy. Having seen the dictionary definition that I saw the other day, I see no reason to dispute it.

That does not mean that I am going to all of a sudden expand my personal definition of ‘musician’ to include anyone with no musical skill who may randomly create chartable musical sound by banging on some instrument—but I must accept that if someone is creating chartable sound, that is music, and if they are creating music, then, according to the strictest dictionary definition, that person is a musician. And it can be Dusty’s friggin’ cat, too, YES. If he records his cat walking on the friggin’ keys, the resulting sounds may be charted. If you can chart the notes, then you have music. PERIOD.

Now, again, it’s a matter of putting things into perspective, and realizing that this doesn’t make non-musicians musicians all of a sudden; I’ll stick with the standard that most people generally apply in order to define the term. There may be some quibbling, but most would agree that a musician is someone who possesses a requisite, level of skill (the level of which is always going to be debatable) when it comes to being an instrumentalist, and probably a higher level of skill if you’re talking about someone who’s strictly a vocalist. Yet, according to that dictionary definition, taking the argument to extremely ridiculous yet technically correct extremes, anyone who ever does anything that results in the creation of musical sound is creating or performing music, and therefore a musician. Anybody care to argue this? (Hold on, Jackson. I've got plenty for you below)

If so, while you’re at it, explain how a CONDUCTOR can be a musician, since they are not performing music, not creating music, not playing an instrument, not even singing. That the dictionary considers a conductor to be a musician is something I have to live with, since I think it best to rely on the dictionary in this matter; but, needless to say, I feel that, while a conductor is certainly performing a musical function, and must be a person with great knowledge of music, or music theory, or whatever, what they do is NOT the same as being a musician. But I’ll accept that, just as I accept that whoever wants to put forth the admittedly idiotic argument that a skill-less person banging on a piano is a musician is technically correct.

The Matrix WAS under the radar. It happened to strike a chord with the masses and become a hit.

The movie cost like $100 million to make. Under WHAT radar? Do you actually think that the budget necessary to make that movie would’ve been approved if it had been felt that this film would fly under ANYONE’S radar? Come on.

Your comments about feeling ripped off if it hadn't been made is extremely weird. How many supercool things haven't been made? Do you feel bad? Well, I don't . . . because they haven't been made. How can you miss something that doesn't exist?

Easy. I know that if record labels were willing to finance what I like, rather than what they think will sell, then there’d be a lot more on the market that I like. Yes, of course there’s always going to be underground stuff that will be created in spite of, or because, what labels put out is 'this or that' (or, more specifically, NOT 'this' & not 'that' either), but it definitely has an impact.

If more bands of the sort that I like had been signed 20-25 years ago, regardless of success level, fewer bands that are the sorts of bands that I like would have broken up; fewer would have had to pack it in before ever recording, or after putting out one or two minor releases. Fewer would've had such a difficult time out on the road--something that killed the Minutemen's D. Boon.

So I KNOW that there has been stuff NOT done, and a lot more not easily available, because it was not considered commercially viable (or whatever). Now, since you know what I like, you know the sorts of bands I’m talking about. Now apply it to you. How much more of the sort of stuff that you like might have been created & produced if more sorts of bands that you like had been signed? A lot of the stuff you like was not in vogue 20 years ago because of the general decline of prog in the late 70s. What if it had rebounded & thrived & been as prominent (if not as popular) as either the early/mid 80s Brit pop New Romantic/new wave thang, or the later 80s hair metal/power ballad thing? What do you think, Darren, Dave G, Demetrio? Wouldn't it have been nice if there had been more of what you like back then? Instead of seeing the popular MTV bands rule the pop charts & the mass imagination, maybe the sorts of bands you like could've been more prominent. Hell, maybe the world is different, and maybe Peter Gabriel never leaves Genesis (yeah, I know that happened earlier), maybe Roger Waters never leaves Pink Floyd. Of course, I could care less, but do those thoughts not at least intrigue you?

Obviously there are market forces to think about, and it’s a silly thing to have a chip on one’s shoulder--especially since, to my ears, all the current crop of punk bands are surely the Emperor's New Clothes if ever I've heard it...though my lack of patience with how lousy I think they are may have been less of a factor if major labels were financing bands I liked 20 years ago (it might've taken a long time to get to the point I'm at now with bands doing Don Henley songs--disgusted). A few good years with prominent punk bands would've been a good thing so far as I'm concerned, but it didn't happen, and at least what I like was prevalent & available in the 90s for awhile (and there's bands like the White Stripes & the Hives around now), so I count my blessings for that, especially since most people I knew who liked the music I did in the 80s felt roundly ignored, to the point of being insulted.

But every once in awhile I think of how improbable it was that this or that was successful (the Beatles being probably the BEST example, considering that in the beginning they were turned down by as many British labels as they were). Now does it seem so weird?

Kids today are being TOLD that rap is where it's at now and they just blindly buy into it, hook, line and sinker.

Oh, and kids in the late 50s & early 60s weren’t told the exact same thing about rock music by Alan Freed, Murray The K, Dick Clark & others? Can’t believe you’d fall into that trap. Substitute ‘rock’ for ‘rap’ and there’s NO difference between yr statement & what most people older than 30 were saying about rock’n’roll 40-45 years ago.

Besides, I never said that "Rap is not music".

No, you didn’t, not exactly. Here’s what you said in that old thread, though:

It cheapens the rest of the music in the world .

Of course, that was said about rock, too. Then you said

None of these guys can play an instrument .

Now, you backed off that statement, because you had to & you knew it. But it’s the same thing as saying ‘anyone can.’ But then you admitted that

Sometimes I just can't get past the form to see the content

…which says an awful lot about yr perceptions of rap, of course. When you seemingly can’t turn on the television without being bombarded with rap videos, and all yr message board pals send you tons of the stuff & you don’t like any of it, you probably think you’ve heard a lot of it—and you might be right. But you might not be. I hardly care if you don’t the stuff. But I have to wonder how informed all these things are that you say about the stuff. I’m sorry, it just doesn’t sound like you’ve heard much, and that’s not a good thing to have in common with people who say the sorts of things you say about it, yet don’t know or understand or possess 1/100th the knowledge & understanding you have about music in general.

And you can tell me 'til you're blue in the face that rap is not about debasement and greed. You are deluding yourself. Just turn on MTV and watch 5 rap videos at random, dude! It's truly appaling.

Okay, now you’re crossing into territory where you’re not only just plain wrong, but it borders on ignorance. I’m not going to tell you or anybody else that I was at Kool Herc’s or Afrika Bambaataa’s block parties in the late 70s, because I wasn’t. But I bought my first rap record in 1979. I was exposed to it in school all the time, and so was a guy I went to school with, Rick Rubin. The guy who co-founded Def Jam records with Russell Simmons, the guy who was responsible for a lot of the first rap records a lot of people ever heard, like Run-DMC with Aerosmith, or the first Beastie Boys album with the white-boy Led Zep/Black Sabbath guitar riffs, or Public Enemy, or LL Cool J.

While I wasn't a consistent fan of the stuff the entire period, I heard quite a few records at the time (1979-1986) that flew under a lot of people’s radar. And most of ‘em weren’t about debasement, or anything remotely like it. Greed? There was bragging involved, but to say that they were about greed is a distortion. Whatever greed aspect there was, was tongue-in-cheek and as much of an exaggeration as anything else the bragging happened to be about. So unless you’re going to go back & listen to all those records, don’t tell me I’m deluding myself.

Yeah, I noticed, you used current tense—what rap IS about. So think about that for a second. What you just did is akin to someone in 1970 who was hearing stuff like the Who, the Beatles, Vanilla Fudge, the Rolling Stones, CSNY, Jefferson Airplane, Dylan, the Grateful Dead, Buffalo Springfield, and Jimi Hendrix telling someone who was listening to Elvis & Little Richard & Jerry Lee Lewis & Ike Turner well over 10 years before that ‘you can tell me ‘til you’re blue in the face that rock is not about drugs & social (and maybe a little political) protest. You are deluding yourself.’ So while rock had indeed become significantly about those things, it had not always been that way, nor was it something that was comprised solely of those aspects—or anything CLOSE to solely. Rap is NO different in that sense.

As for turning on MTV—why would I do that? Part of why I continue to listen to rap at all is because I IGNORE whatever it is you’re seeing on MTV. If my opinion of ROCK music was based solely on what’s currently popular, I’d think it was all about whatever Sum 41 or Good Charlotte sing about, or that it all sounded like Limp Bizkit or Linkin Park or Metallica. Is THAT accurate? All that stuff is appalling, too, only in a different way, which may not be as worse. But to some people it just might be.

Maybe you own the few rap albums that are not about crawlin' up inside giant black a$$es and the 'bling, but that is an exception to the rule. It's like saying that Heavy Metal is not about agression and violence because there are some Christian metal bands.

Bullsh*t. I’m not going to say there isn’t a ton of stuff out there that is everything you’re saying it is, because I know there is. But…the ‘few’ rap albums? Give me a break. You want me to produce a list, I will (though Darius would probably be more qualified). But also keep in mind that there was NO SUCH THING as a rap album for several years. It was all 12" singles.

The sky is NOT blue. I've seen thousands of colors in the sky.

If there wasn’t a general perception that a CLEAR sky in DAYLIGHT is GENERALLY blue, I doubt there would be a shade of blue called SKY BLUE. If you can best this general perception with something from the dictionary that says we should never use the phrase 'the sky is blue,' or if there is scientific research that says we should never do this, present it. In this case I say the general perception that the phrase 'the sky is blue' is representative of what most think--and proof that if you asked 100 people what color the sky is, at least 99 of them would forget about nighttime, cloud cover, & sunsets, & offer blue as the answer. And if they're all wrong, then I'll happily join them in being wrong on this.

Art doesn't piss you off, it doesn't make you angry or depressed.

So art depicting Nazis wearing swastikas isn’t art, because art 'doesn't do those things? Who’s doing the deluding here?

Jack70:

You didn’t answer me on Nordine, Heron, or Johnson, Jackson. I am curious & very interested. While you’re at it, I’m also wondering what yr opinion on Miles Davis & Quincy Jones both recording rap albums in the late 80s/early 90s. Come on, don’t duck me on this.

I'm simply saying I don't consider it music, but it don't bother me that others do.

There are people of religion that similarly feel their religion is the word of God, yet most are willing to accept the fact others see the "world of God" differently.

I don’t get with this analogy. It’s either music, or it isn’t.

No, I don't consider certain CDs, LPs and cassettes "music"

Neither do I, but I never said they were.

I'll grant you that there is some Rap stuff that has enough musical involvement to be considered more under the "music" umbrella.

But... a LOT of it just isn't.

Examples? I’d like to know what record you’ve heard that isn’t ‘musical’ enough for you to consider it to be ‘music.’ And please tell me where you draw yr lines--what makes one 'music,' and another 'not music?' Where do you draw yr lines? What do you have to hear, or not hear, to make a determination? Examples & specifics, please.

And simply being live on stage isn't necessarily a "musical" event

Again, never said it was.

Sound ain't music

If the sound contains notes that can be charted, then how can you possibly say this?

This is more artistic (cultural) relativism gone beserk IMO... a sign of the times, I suppose.

No way. Dictionary definitions are HARDLY artistic/cultural relativism going beserk. It has NOTHING to do with avant-guards telling us there are no rules & EVERYTHING to do with what it says in the dictionary. If sound contains chartable notes, then it is music. If rap contains none, then it is still music on the basis of the rhythm (of course, if you listen closely to the stuff that seems like it's more just rapping over drums and/or percussion, you'll hear a bass line in most cases). If rap cannot be music because the only connection to music is rhythm, then African tribal drumming devoid of melody cannot be music, either. I think Baba Olatunji would’ve had something to say about that, wouldn’t you?

I sell a lot of rap CDs on Ebay. I listen to almost none of them. But I look on AMG for credits & stuff like that--so I can say in my auctions, 'this Ol' Dirty Bastard record features Anita Bryant as guest artist,' or something along those lines. Some of the time I see nothing resembling organic music credit--but a LOT of the time, I see credit given for drums, for bass, for guitar, for keyboards. IT AIN'T ALL SAMPLING. Even if it were, the original artists are paid & credited.

Ozzy Osbourne won't let anyone sample his music unless they pay him $100,000--but he does allow it. If he's paid & properly credited, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? If Ozzy Osbourne MUSIC is recycled on a rap record, what's the difference between that & him releasing a live album with songs he's already released? Oh, it's a performance, unlike the rap record. Well, you can't assume that, number one, and number two, you don't know how much overdubbing & autotuning & ProTools manipulation have gone into anybody's recording, regardless of how genuine the musicianship is on the record. But rap 'isn't music.' Jeez.

My "criticisms" (if ya wanna call em that... but it's not) of Rap, have NOTHING to do with the processes inherent to it. My "criticism" is simply one of nomenclature and subtype. It's a fine point, and one that too many have missed.

You haven’t convinced me, either. Actually, quite the opposite. Miles Davis & Quincy Jones both made albums well over a decade ago that prominently featured rap, and today there are still people out there trying to tell others that the stuff ain’t music. The mind boggles, really.

You can atonally bang on the piano all day long if you want, and you can call it "art" if you you want, but it ain't "music"... it's masturbation.

Actually, it may be both. If it can be charted, again, IT IS MUSIC, even if it’s masturbatory music banged out by someone with absolutely no musical skill (which is to say, someone with a lot less skill than a rapper).

That's fine for the person doing it... but don't tell me I'm elitist because I don't appreciate it.... jeeze.

I wouldn’t say you’re an elitist for not appreciating it, but perhaps for not understanding that, in the strictest sense of the word, it is music.

Understand that I'm not the one pushing the boundaries here, nor do I necessarily want to see them pushed simply for the sake of irrationally technical definition. But there will always be a John Cage or a Yoko Ono or someone like that doing exactly that, and there will always be a Duplex Planet so that people like Ernest Noyes Brookings can be thought of as poets & songwriters. But if you disqualify him, it's not far from there to Daniel Johnston, really. So how do you exclude one & not the other?

I was just explaining (with the religious analogy) that I was NOT a zealot on this (largely) semantic issue. If you are, fine... but I'm not, is all.

I’m not going to get into the religious analogies, but ‘it is NOT music,’ as you posted, tells me that you ARE something of a zealot on the issue.

When I hear sportscasters and sports-talkshow people discuss bowling (as "sport")... I accept their methodology, even if I see it a little differently (it's NOT a big deal). Same with Rap...

No, it’s not the same, at least not on this board. Here I think it’s perfectly valid to say that if someone’s going to say the things about rap that have been said so far, that the discussion is fair game. If someone wants to say that sport is technically anything athletic that involves competition, they’ll be excluding chess, but including bowling. If it’s competition only, it can be flipping coins, or seeing who can talk the girl at the end of the bar into bed. So there are lines to be drawn there, but it doesn’t really work as an analogy for me, really. Because you can go by dictionary definitions if you like, and in the case of music I’m certainly doing that, but you can also say that the sports press & the sports-related press covers these activities that some don’t consider sport.

I’m not sure that means chess is sport; but I can tell you that there aren’t many music publications out there that would refuse to cover rap on the basis that it’s NOT MUSIC. Actually, the converse is true. So you’re isolating yrself from not only the mainstream, but underground music presses, all of which either embrace rap or cover it in some varying degree of depth, or at least How many are there in the music world, really, that refuse to acknowledge rap as music? The more time passes, that number drops more & more. When there’s nobody left who’s going to dispute that rap is music, will you still insist that it is not?

but I can live with most people calling it "music", unlike say, religious zealots who have a hard time living with other popular world views.

How easy can it be to live with it if you’re so at odds with this conclusion?

classic producer Jerry Wexler was talking about Solomon Burke on 60-Mins last Sunday.... he called "all singing" as a trade between music & drama. Considering rappers use little melody in their "singing", one could say it IS more in the drama family (performance art).

Rap ISN’T SINGING. It’s RAPPING. If anything it takes the punk rock ethos of ‘anyone can do this’ even further—whereas in punk rock it wasn’t necessary to play GREAT or sing GREAT, in rap you don’t have to be able to sing AT ALL. You DO, however, have to do things that are different than most singing, things that involve rhythmic skill—which is to say it involves musical skill. Yet you continue to insist that rap is outside of music, mostly if not completely on the basis of there being no melody in the vocals. This is ridiculous.

As for it being anything having to do with performance art—one major criticism I have of rap is that, unlike a very few artists, there is nothing resembling a work ethic when it comes to putting on a show. Choreography is used sometimes, but who the hell wants to see that? Well, obviously someone does, but it ain't me. There’s little if anything from the rock world when it comes to entertaining the audience, and that’s really a shame. I haven’t seen a ton of rap shows, but all the ones I saw except for the Beastie Boys always sucked, and I’m told by someone who sees a lot of it that there just is no conception of putting on a great show for the crowd. They mostly just stand there with a microphone. A guitarist standing stock-still on a stage is bad enough, but a rapper meandering around a stage--usually aimlessly--is worse, so far as I'm concerned, in terms of entertainment value. So I quibble slightly with the idea of it being performance art, from the point of view that there is, in my opinion, a component of performance art that exists to elicit way more of a response from the audience—even if it isn’t a general, common, base, or rank form of entertainment.

The whole debate of "what is music", is a pop-cultural dynamic that's very inexact and fluid

I say wrong, and the dictionary agrees with me.

Definition one: any art presided over by the Muses, especially music…

Definition two: the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity…

Definition three: vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony…

If my cat walks on my Casio, the resulting sounds create a melody, though it may not be conventional. I’ll be happy to chart it; once it’s committed to a chart, find a way to convince yrself that this is not music, and do be so kind as to share yr conclusions with me, please.

"music" is NOT a scientific fact

Re-read definition two.

But how about if I just say: "I don't care"... or "it don't matter".

It mattered when you said “rap is NOT music,” so why not now?


Chris:

Great reply.

Hey, thanks, but you didn’t have to re-post the whole thing, ya know. You could get in trouble doing that. I take up lots of bandwidth. You sure you want to compound that?

The majority of rap that is out there is not what I'd call "art". I don't like much of it. Most of it has all the same lyrics anyway. But you can't deny that some rap artists have a talent that others can't duplicate. If rapping was just fast talking, you'd see way more people doing it, and a lot more people making money in that industry. Obviously, it isn't something that just anyone can do, and do well.

Good paragraph. The stuff about the Grammys is obvious, if true. The stuff about river dancing puts it into perspective nicely, though.

[Troy]

I'm gonna have to give you the short stack today. Too much going on at the moment.

Don't loophole me J. You know the implications of saying "anyone".

Then why say ‘anyone?’

Because there are (virtually) always exceptions to the the rule. It's implicit. If you prefer, I can say "most" anyone in the future.

As an aside, I pulled out a file from nearly 3 years ago where I had archived an epic rap debate. Not on the old board, on the board before that one. Lots of debate back & forth between you, me, Darius, Brad, Kevin B, & others. And in that debate, you said this, which I found interesting given what you said in this thread:

Personally I think you need to be able to do ornate art before you can be justified in knowing what you're doing when you're doing minimal art.

Interesting.

Rooting around in 3 year old threads to find me with my pants down? Yeesh, you are hardcore.

This is not me being self contradictory. It goes bothways. I just think that the best artists (and yes, that includes musicians) are the ones that are well rounded, the ones with a lot of experience and background utilizing their medium in in every way it can be utilized. By working outside of your comfort zone, it's changes your perception OF your comfort zone and consequently makes you better at what you do best.

You and I have just as much right to say whether it's art as they do.

Only to the point of defining it for one’s self. You do NOT have the right to insist that another must share yr perception. If it’s art to THEM, then it’s art TO THEM. If it’s not art to YOU, that doesn’t mean it’s NOT ART, only that it’s not art TO YOU.

Yep. We all reserve the right to say "that crap is not art, it's crap!" Not that it's just crappy art, but that it's not art at all. And you reserve the right to say I'm wrong.

If you say it’s art, but I say it is, then yr first sentence is incorrect, because it only applies to yr perception, not mine. If the dictionary says it’s art, unless I have a violent disagreement with the definition, then I’ll defer to the dictionary. And I’d have to have a pretty goddamn good reason to find fault with the dictionary definition.

Except for the Nazi reference below . . .

I have always felt that few vocalists deserved to be referred to as ‘musicians,’ but I never held that as a hard & fast rule. I might’ve felt more strongly had I had less experience with people who were insistent that a non-instrumentalist could never be considered a musician. Rather than try to reason with someone who chose to steadfastly deny that Billie Holiday or Frank Sinatra could possibly be a musician, I decided that a loose application of that basic standard, with room for exceptions, was a reasonable policy. Having seen the dictionary definition that I saw the other day, I see no reason to dispute it.

That does not mean that I am going to all of a sudden expand my personal definition of ‘musician’ to include anyone with no musical skill who may randomly create chartable musical sound by banging on some instrument—but I must accept that if someone is creating chartable sound, that is music, and if they are creating music, then, according to the strictest dictionary definition, that person is a musician. And it can be Dusty’s friggin’ cat, too, YES. If he records his cat walking on the friggin’ keys, the resulting sounds may be charted. If you can chart the notes, then you have music. PERIOD.

Now, again, it’s a matter of putting things into perspective, and realizing that this doesn’t make non-musicians musicians all of a sudden; I’ll stick with the standard that most people generally apply in order to define the term. There may be some quibbling, but most would agree that a musician is someone who possesses a requisite, level of skill (the level of which is always going to be debatable) when it comes to being an instrumentalist, and probably a higher level of skill if you’re talking about someone who’s strictly a vocalist. Yet, according to that dictionary definition, taking the argument to extremely ridiculous yet technically correct extremes, anyone who ever does anything that results in the creation of musical sound is creating or performing music, and therefore a musician. Anybody care to argue this? (Hold on, Jackson. I've got plenty for you below)

If so, while you’re at it, explain how a CONDUCTOR can be a musician, since they are not performing music, not creating music, not playing an instrument, not even singing. That the dictionary considers a conductor to be a musician is something I have to live with, since I think it best to rely on the dictionary in this matter; but, needless to say, I feel that, while a conductor is certainly performing a musical function, and must be a person with great knowledge of music, or music theory, or whatever, what they do is NOT the same as being a musician. But I’ll accept that, just as I accept that whoever wants to put forth the admittedly idiotic argument that a skill-less person banging on a piano is a musician is technically correct.

Dig these definitions from Websters:

music

1. The science and the art of tones, or musical sounds, i. e., sounds of higher or lower pitch, begotten of uniform and synchronous vibrations, as of a string at various degrees of tension; the science of harmonical tones which treats of the principles of harmony, or the properties, dependences, and relations of tones to each other; the art of combining tones in a manner to please the ear.


musician

One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music.

One skilled in the art or science of music; esp., a skilled singer, or performer on a musical instrument.

According to these definitions DC is wrong: a cat walking on the keyboard is NOT making music because it lacks the harmonic principles and patterns associated with music.

Again, note the word PLEASING. Apparently, it IS about esthetics afterall, not just that it can be charted. I suppose it's like saying a string of disassociated words is not writing even though the words can be written . . .

Singers are musicians. But only SKILLED ones, which is kinda what I've been saying all along (eg: the Bowie reference). I don't get the conductor thing either, except to say that it must have to do with his consumate knowledge of the piece and theory in general. Most art directors I know are artists themselves.

The Matrix WAS under the radar. It happened to strike a chord with the masses and become a hit.

The movie cost like $100 million to make. Under WHAT radar? Do you actually think that the budget necessary to make that movie would’ve been approved if it had been felt that this film would fly under ANYONE’S radar? Come on.

I honestly don't think that anyone in the industry thought that movie was gonna be the phenomenon it became. They all thought it was gonna sink without a trace like all the other $100 million sci-fi epics like "Battlefield Earth", "Waterworld" or "Reign of Fire".

Your comments about feeling ripped off if it hadn't been made is extremely weird. How many supercool things haven't been made? Do you feel bad? Well, I don't . . . because they haven't been made. How can you miss something that doesn't exist?

Easy. I know that if record labels were willing to finance what I like, rather than what they think will sell, then there’d be a lot more on the market that I like. Yes, of course there’s always going to be underground stuff that will be created in spite of, or because, what labels put out is 'this or that' (or, more specifically, NOT 'this' & not 'that' either), but it definitely has an impact.

I see. What you're talking about is much more abstract and conceptual than what I was.

I just don't think about stuff like that very much. You'll find that I don't usually play along in threads about "What if Roger Water's hadn't left the Floyd" very much. What is, is.

I agree, it'd be nice if our favorite types of music were more popular, but I question whether it's quality would then become marginalized by all the bad copycat bands that the industry would then foist on us. ie: your bad ersatz modern punk bands.

Kids today are being TOLD that rap is where it's at now and they just blindly buy into it, hook, line and sinker.

Oh, and kids in the late 50s & early 60s weren’t told the exact same thing about rock music by Alan Freed, Murray The K, Dick Clark & others? Can’t believe you’d fall into that trap. Substitute ‘rock’ for ‘rap’ and there’s NO difference between yr statement & what most people older than 30 were saying about rock’n’roll 40-45 years ago.

Yep, our dads. Rock sucked to him because of it's lack of musical sophistication. It was too simple, too primal.

Rap takes that simplicity to new lows, it's stripped down to the point of losing the things that make music . . . musical.

Sometimes I just can't get past the form to see the content

…which says an awful lot about yr perceptions of rap, of course. When you seemingly can’t turn on the television without being bombarded with rap videos, and all yr message board pals send you tons of the stuff & you don’t like any of it, you probably think you’ve heard a lot of it—and you might be right. But you might not be. I hardly care if you don’t the stuff. But I have to wonder how informed all these things are that you say about the stuff. I’m sorry, it just doesn’t sound like you’ve heard much, and that’s not a good thing to have in common with people who say the sorts of things you say about it, yet don’t know or understand or possess 1/100th the knowledge & understanding you have about music in general.

How much do I have to hear before I can make a judgement?

And you can tell me 'til you're blue in the face that rap is not about debasement and greed. You are deluding yourself. Just turn on MTV and watch 5 rap videos at random, dude! It's truly appaling.

Okay, now you’re crossing into territory where you’re not only just plain wrong, but it borders on ignorance. I’m not going to tell you or anybody else that I was at Kool Herc’s or Afrika Bambaataa’s block parties in the late 70s, because I wasn’t. But I bought my first rap record in 1979.

Yeah, I noticed, you used current tense—what rap IS about. So think about that for a second. What you just did is akin to someone in 1970 who was hearing stuff like the Who, the Beatles, Vanilla Fudge, the Rolling Stones, CSNY, Jefferson Airplane, Dylan, the Grateful Dead, Buffalo Springfield, and Jimi Hendrix telling someone who was listening to Elvis & Little Richard & Jerry Lee Lewis & Ike Turner well over 10 years before that ‘you can tell me ‘til you’re blue in the face that rock is not about drugs & social (and maybe a little political) protest. You are deluding yourself.’ So while rock had indeed become significantly about those things, it had not always been that way, nor was it something that was comprised solely of those aspects—or anything CLOSE to solely. Rap is NO different in that sense.

As for turning on MTV—why would I do that? Part of why I continue to listen to rap at all is because I IGNORE whatever it is you’re seeing on MTV. If my opinion of ROCK music was based solely on what’s currently popular, I’d think it was all about whatever Sum 41 or Good Charlotte sing about, or that it all sounded like Limp Bizkit or Linkin Park or Metallica. Is THAT accurate? All that stuff is appalling, too, only in a different way, which may not be as worse. But to some people it just might be.

Uh-huh. I can't fault your logic.

But here's the thing: Because the music is so repetitve and simplistic, it really does all sound the same. My association with it is that it's about the gangster ethic because of the videos I've seen and the songs I've heard that my friends kids like. Because it all sounds the same and the lyrics are virtually uninteligble, my association (however wrong) is that it's all gangsta rap. It's repetitive nature causes it to be guilty by association for me.

Art doesn't piss you off, it doesn't make you angry or depressed.

So art depicting Nazis wearing swastikas isn’t art, because art 'doesn't do those things? Who’s doing the deluding here?

Then why does the word "pleasing" appear in the definition of art? I think the precept of what art is got turned on it's head in the 20th century.

A supposed art piece with Nazis wearing swastikas in it that is designed to elicit an angry response is a political statement, not an artistic one. I didn't see anything about politics in the definition of art.

[jack70]

Mother of God, Jay! You trying to break this new software or sumptin? You know I might only click in here every other day, for just 5 minutes and then read it off-line later. I thought Dusty had put a rather nice end to this at the end of page-2. I've mostly avoided past Rap threads because it's not something worth my time (so how smart am I?), but there were some other interesting things brought up, so I stuck my hand in this. I'm starting to feel like a tar baby.

I remember the first day of class in my freshman art course... the question was "what is art". And it was never answered, per se. My portfolio ended up as "my art" (no Rappin in it either). Art is based on personal aesthetics and culturally accepted conformities. It's a different paradigm from say, science. Let me just repeat that I think Rap is art, just not music (the "strict" Rap part anyway). So it's not a slam on it, it's just my view of how I order things and see the world. This debate reminds me a little of Robert Pirsig's philosophical examination on quality... an inquiry that led him to a mental breakdown. (hint) I'd like to answer all of your points (they're ALL erroneous hehehe) ... trouble is it's gonna take some time, and I'm about to go to bed. I'll be back...

[MindGoneHaywire]

Troy:

Then why does the word "pleasing" appear in the definition of art? I think the precept of what art is got turned on it's head in the 20th century.

The attached picture is of a sculpture which I snapped a photo of at the Metropolitan Museum of Art here in NYC. To my knowledge it was created prior to the 20th Century, but if it isn't, there is certainly a substitute in that building that IS more than 104 years old. I would submit that this is one of MANY pieces of 'art' that is NOT pleasing, and was not prior to the 20th Century. I'm not sure I read that definition as saying that art HAD to be pleasing, just that it was a component that was at best recommended, not required. Surely this is pleasing to some, but keep in mind that it's a piece that shows the impending horror of a parent with mouths to feed & no way to do it. Can't remember the name or the artist; perhaps you know. All I know is that it generates in me feelings & emotions that I would in no way describe as 'pleasing,' yet I think it's art, and so does the Met. If the definition of 'art' is to be read that it HAS to be pleasing, then I've got enough of a case to disagree with it based on this one piece of sculpture alone. I see no such evidence that one could challenge the dictionary definitions of music with.

[mad rhetorik]

Wow. Do you think you're vesting mebbe a <b>little</b> too much in this debate Jay? ; P It feels like people are blowing this way out of proportion with the original posting topic. Anyway, it's been a slow day, so I guess I'll bravely throw my $.02 in anyway.

Anyway, I'm going to keep this conversation grounded and not deny rap as an art form. Rapping and freestyling is a rhythmic skill, if not an instrumental one (rappers are <b>vocalists</b>, not <b>musicians</b>). Even scratching a turntable is, to some extent, a musical skill in that it is a musical "effect" (feel free to debate amongst yourselves whether it is an instrument or not). I do like some of the genre, mostly the old-school stuff that Jay mentioned, and the early "new-school" artists (Run-DMC, Beastie Boys, Public Enemy, A Tribe Called Quest, Rakim). That was when MC's knew the meaning of melody, flow, and harmony, concepts that most hip-hop/rap acts today don't seem to be concerned about.

I do lament the negativity and "gang$ta" outlook that have taken over mainstream rap. Someone here (I think it was Troy) stated that rap was about debasement and greed, and while that's not <b>entirely</b> true, it's becoming harder and harder to say that's not what it's about these days, especially with all the mainstream sources shoving the "bling-bling and murder" mindset down the listener's throat. It's a shame that the gangster rap trend started by Ice-T and NWA has escalated to this degree of excess, because I think the originals of the genre never intended it to become a spectacle of negative racial stereotypes. They were merely making music about what they knew, just like Ian Curtis of Joy Division was making songs about depression and suicide and Layne Staley of Alice In Chains wrote music from the angle of a drug addict.

Anyway, I think the original statement at the core of this thread simply expressed displeasure at who the Grammys selected for their awards rather than attempting to start some lofty debate over what constitutes "music." Having said that, the Grammies are irrelevent on the basis of talent. It's all about commercial exposure and record sales, ex. the Milli Vanilli fiasco. I stopped paying attention to industry award shows (including the Oscars, for the most part) a long time ago. If <b>anyone</b> thinks that winning a Grammy is representative of having actual talent, they are in need of a reality check.

[Finch Platte]

...how the heck I'm supposed to follow who responded to whom?

Merci.

fp

[Dusty Chalk]

music

1. The science and the art of tones, or musical sounds, i. e., sounds of higher or lower pitch, begotten of uniform and synchronous vibrations, as of a string at various degrees of tension; the science of harmonical tones which treats of the principles of harmony, or the properties, dependences, and relations of tones to each other; the art of combining tones in a manner to please the ear.


musician

One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music.

One skilled in the art or science of music; esp., a skilled singer, or performer on a musical instrument.

According to these definitions DC is wrong: a cat walking on the keyboard is NOT making music because it lacks the harmonic principles and patterns associated with music. That was intended as more of a hypothetical question -- my stance is that the cat is not a musician, because it lacks intent. Whether or not the result is music is outside the scope of my ability to think right now (been iterating all day).

Funny that they say "...esp., a skilled singer..." and you insist on spin-doctoring that particular phrase to reinforce what you said, when in actuality it pretty unequivocally proves to me that you are wrong -- singers are musicians by this definition. Notice they said "skilled" -- people who write dictionaries are pretty particular about what they say and what they don't. They didn't say, "...esp. a singer who is also skilled in other areas...", they said, "...skilled singer..." with the meaning that singer is skilled as a singer, which is exactly what I've been saying all along -- the singer must be able to sing above a certain thresholed of ability. QED. Game set match. Checkmate. I win. You lose. Please insert two more quarters.

WRT the word "pleasing" -- that's kind of a vague term. Since I hang out with goths a lot, the question arose, what is it I like about "that scene". And the answer I came up with is, "I find beauty in darkness" and that I enjoy the company of others who find beauty in non-traditional places.

Also, I dig freaky chicks.

Some people watch horror movies -- they like to be scared. They find this "pleasing", but not in the traditional "sweet-tooth" "finding a good parking space" kind of pleasing, but rather it evokes within them an extreme emotion that they desire to replicate.

In that sense, someone finds rap pleasing (and, dare I say it, musical). So context is important. When you say, "rap isn't music", it depends who you're talking to. When you're talking to yourself, you can say, "Armadillos onsebegotten giraffe sublimage", because you understand what you're talking about. But when you're talking to someone else, (some of) these words have specific meaning, and unless you say things that are mutually agreed upon, you will be wrong.

The societal agreed upon definition of rap is that it is music.

Go to this page (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?rap), and then click on the 5th selection and click go. Rap means to perform rap music (kind of a circular definition), but it still says that it is music. (Sort of like saying Picasso liked to paint things a blue colour -- redundant, but underlines that blue is a colour.)
Wow. Do you think you're vesting mebbe a <b>little</b> too much in this debate Jay? Funny how people say that only when they don't want to hear what he has to say. (And I include myself in that group.) When I agree with him, I'm like, "you go, Jay!"
Anyway, I think the original statement at the core of this thread simply expressed displeasure at who the Grammys selected for their awards rather than attempting to start some lofty debate over what constitutes "music." Who cares? The conversation goes where it goes.
Having said that, the Grammies are irrelevent on the basis of talent. It's all about commercial exposure and record sales, ex. the Milli Vanilli fiasco. I stopped paying attention to industry award shows (including the Oscars, for the most part) a long time ago. If <b>anyone</b> thinks that winning a Grammy is representative of having actual talent, they are in need of a reality check.You got that right.

[Troy]

At this point I don't give a double scoop of poo about whether rap is music or art or whatever. Like I WANT to keep talking about rap music ferchrissake. *Sheesh*


That was intended as more of a hypothetical question -- my stance is that the cat is not a musician, because it lacks intent. Whether or not the result is music is outside the scope of my ability to think right now (been iterating all day).

Oh, suuuuure, backpedal all you want! Fact is, even a human with intent and no idea how music works will only make noise when they start hammering on that piano, whether it can be charted or not.


Funny that they say "...esp., a skilled singer..." and you insist on spin-doctoring that particular phrase to reinforce what you said, when in actuality it pretty unequivocally proves to me that you are wrong -- singers are musicians by this definition. Notice they said "skilled" -- people who write dictionaries are pretty particular about what they say and what they don't. They didn't say, "...esp. a singer who is also skilled in other areas...", they said, "...skilled singer..." with the meaning that singer is skilled as a singer, which is exactly what I've been saying all along -- the singer must be able to sing above a certain thresholed of ability. QED. Game set match. Checkmate. I win. You lose. Please insert two more quarters.

Now hang on a sec, bub. What makes a "skilled" singer? Would having the concept of musical theory and history under your belt make it so? Experience in different breathing and phrasing techniques? Sure, some singers have the ability to belt one out without any training, but imagne how much more skilled they could be if they did.

I see the meaning of skilled differently than you do. Regardless of how much natural ability you have, training is always gonna make you better.


WRT the word "pleasing" -- that's kind of a vague term. Since I hang out with goths a lot, the question arose, what is it I like about "that scene". And the answer I came up with is, "I find beauty in darkness" and that I enjoy the company of others who find beauty in non-traditional places.

Some people watch horror movies -- they like to be scared. They find this "pleasing", but not in the traditional "sweet-tooth" "finding a good parking space" kind of pleasing, but rather it evokes within them an extreme emotion that they desire to replicate.

Yeah, I can agree with you on this to a certain extent. But it goes back to an individual's perspective. A lot of my own artwork is pretty dark . . . but like I said, the 20th century put the definition of art on it's ear. All these things that are dark and sinister that are considered art by the majority of society would never have been accepted as art even 50 years ago.

I think that considering horror movies as art is a very recent phenomenon. There certainly has been a lot of tragic art all through history (like Jay's hideous statue). Pleasing? Maybe in an empathic way.

So I dunno. What were we talking about again? Rap *music* as *art*? You think so? Enjoy yourself. Who cares what I think?

And by the way, when someone types "Armadillos onsebegotten giraffe sublimage" with a straight face in order to explain something, that means that a thread has reached it's inevitable conclusion.

[Dusty Chalk]

...even a human with intent and no idea how music works will only make noise when they start hammering on that piano, whether it can be charted or not.I think you're getting me and Jay confused. I'm not the one who said "that which can be charted" (oversimplification, but suffices for the purpose of denial). I agree it takes more than a human with intent.
What makes a "skilled" singer? Would having the concept of musical theory and history under your belt make it so? Experience in different breathing and phrasing techniques? Sure, some singers have the ability to belt one out without any training, but imagne how much more skilled they could be if they did.I am not a "classically trained" snob -- I know too many examples of contradictions to believe that rule. I'm a results guy. A singer is skilled if he is effective. I base effective on his audience (even if potential). And let's not get back into that potential audience. Even if the singer only ever has an audience of one (themselves), there's still the possibility that if this individual were heard, the singing would be effective on that audience. That's what I mean by "potential audience". It's purely for pedants like you (and me) that I feel obliged to make this small distinction -- for the most part, musicians/artists have actual audiences (gasp!).
And by the way, when someone types "Armadillos onsebegotten giraffe sublimage" with a straight face in order to explain something, that means that a thread has reached it's inevitable conclusion.You just don't like hearing how wrong you are.

And who said it was with a straight face? I got a nose.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Rooting around in 3 year old threads to find me with my pants down? Yeesh, you are hardcore.

Thank you. I always thought that was a very interesting, something worth keeping. But I usually feel that way about anything I write. But I wasn't doing it to try to trap you or anything like that. I just found the comments interesting in light of the present discussion.

This is not me being self contradictory. It goes bothways. I just think that the best artists (and yes, that includes musicians) are the ones that are well rounded

Yeah...I didn't look at this as you being contradictory at all, actually. Just thought it was interesting.

According to these definitions DC is wrong: a cat walking on the keyboard is NOT making music because it lacks the harmonic principles and patterns associated with music.

Yeah, but then you listed this definition:

One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music.

Okay, so if the cat walks on the keyboard, and sounds are produced, and they are chartable, then you have music; the cat is, arguably, composing and/or performing that music. So here we have something of a contradiction.

You'll find that I don't usually play along in threads about "What if Roger Water's hadn't left the Floyd" very much. What is, is.

I'm with you on that. Sometimes, though, it's fun to dream, especially when you hear a recording that rings a bell that IF so & so hadn't broken up, or whatever, they might've turned out something that sounded like...

I agree, it'd be nice if our favorite types of music were more popular, but I question whether it's quality would then become marginalized by all the bad copycat bands that the industry would then foist on us. ie: your bad ersatz modern punk bands.

Well, we see the effect now with all of the popular new punk bands. I'm not surprised that there are a million of 'em & that they all the same. I am just a bit surprised that they mostly all suck as bad as they do.

How much do I have to hear before I can make a judgement?

Not much, probably far less than what you have heard. I have no issue with yr right to make a judgment. I only speak up to point out that, having had a different experience with this form of music, there's a different way of looking at this. I have no reason to expect that anything I say is going to get you to like the stuff. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to respond to a post going on about how it all sounds & seems the same. Which is not to say that so much doesn't all sound & seem the same; only that it wasn't always that way, and I hear & have heard plenty that doesn't sound the same at all.

Because it all sounds the same and the lyrics are virtually uninteligble, my association (however wrong) is that it's all gangsta rap.

The truth is that it's NOT all the same, never was. It's a real shame it would seem that way to someone who doesn't pay much attention, but that's the reality & I don't quibble with it. And I agree with what Mad had to say about this.

A supposed art piece with Nazis wearing swastikas in it that is designed to elicit an angry response is a political statement, not an artistic one.

Disagree. Why can't it be an artistic statement, even if it's a political statement at the same time? Because you say so? I'm not sure I'd go along with the view that would insist that it's purely an artistic statement, devoid of politics, though someone (probably the artist) might say that. But I remember seeing a big exhibit of political/social art at one of the big modern museums here in town about 20 years ago or so, probably on a school trip. It was either at the Whitney or MOMA. Not art?

We all reserve the right to say "that crap is not art, it's crap!" Not that it's just crappy art, but that it's not art at all. And you reserve the right to say I'm wrong.

Sure, you reserve the right to say that, it's a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. You can say LOTS of things that are WRONG, and BE wrong, even if you think you're right. I can say three plus six is twenty-two, and I have a right to say that, but I don't need you telling me I'm wrong to be wrong; I'm wrong whether or not anyone corrects me. I'll stand by my definitions of art & music; I think they're fairly rational.

Fact is, even a human with intent and no idea how music works will only make noise when they start hammering on that piano, whether it can be charted or not.

MY definition of music is that if it can be charted, it is music. If you have any rational means to disagree with that, hit me. After which I'll pose this hypothetical: I'll have my cat walk on my Casio, I swear I will, and I'll record it, and I'll chart it, and it'll be there in black & white, and can be performed by anyone with enough talent, in a studio, in Central Park, or in Carnegie Hall if I had enough money to rent it, and the onus will be on you to explain why or how it's NOT music. MUSICAL notes are MUSICAL notes. Again, to clarify: that doesn't make the cat a musician, not to me, though if someone wanted to be a complete prick & say that in the composition & performance of the notes that the cat is indeed a musician, in a purely technical discussion of the issue, according to the letter of the definition, I cannot disagree with that someone. Now, I know this is taking the whole discussion back to the irrational level it has existed at for a page or two now, but I do it for a reason. If the sound is chartable, and you say it's not music, then I can prove you wrong each & every time.

I see the meaning of skilled differently than you do. Regardless of how much natural ability you have, training is always gonna make you better.

Disagree on 'always.' Vehemently. Because there are certain things that are created by people who likely would never have created them had they had the training, and there are certain types of performers for whom training would have distorted what it was they did, even if it wasn't completely original.

Now...getting back to the 'grammy' part of this thread, which I guess we all lost sight of, for the most part...obviously they mean little, very little in the scheme of things, to people like the regulars on this board, who are mostly, primarily, fans of rock music, fans with idiosyncratic tastes. But then I heard some news that, I've gotta admit, warmed my heart: the last recording I did--actually, it was the DAY before I got sick more than four years ago--is now being worked on by a guy who is in fact up for a Grammy, for Record Of The Year. Nope, no kidding, I'm totally serious. When you hear something like that, you forget about all those arguments about how the Grammys mean nothing, even if it's for only half a second. Why this recording is still being worked on four years later is a mostly silly story, and you'll probably never hear this recording (though Darius saw the band), but it was still a nice thing to hear.

[dv8r]

I am a newbie to your board... and don't mean to harp.. stifle or otherwise cajole the posterati


but anyone in the music biz could tell you that the grammy awards are just a sales tool set up by that industry to promote itself...

i hate to see people wasting their time deciphering the merits of Milli Vanilli vs Chingy vs ...

This about moving units not stirring hearts...

stick those grammy nominee stickers on those CDs and they end up under Xmas trees my friends...

there's nothing better to end the year with than a bunch of self congratulatory backslaps around the label HQ holiday party... perhaps something to pump up the shareholder meeting & maybe warrant an end of year bonus to the staff ... or in these times, just barely stave off a pinkslip...

The people that vote are not basing these things on artistic merit, it's an insular thing, and only top selling producers and execs even are in the academy to vote...

they are just trying desperately to convince another few million hapless consumers to buy more crap...
But you know, say like. Chinggy... How long do you think it took him to write something like that. It just repeats the same thing over. What about the singers and bands that have real talent? But these rappers come in and take the awards for their small effort. .

So Joel, I hate to spoil your illusions about songwriting & whatnot... But it doesn't matter if you are Beethoven or The B-52's...They didn't win any Grammy's either... but Alicia Keys had one album out and has 5 trophies already...Norah Jones 8...

Sometimes it isn't even about sales ...it's just about who you know...

so Marilyn McCoo Davis has won 7 ... Alison Krauss 13...

and 70s leftovers Jethro Tull once beat Metallica's notorious 10x platinum Black Album for best heavy metal album of the year, go figure...


I see the Grammy Awards as something a music lover should definitely avoid... I routinely run across last year's Grammy compilations in the cut out bins at CD stores and that's generally where that **** should be...

Real artists don't need trophies ...

Do you really need some Whitney Houston

[Troy]

According to these definitions DC is wrong: a cat walking on the keyboard is NOT making music because it lacks the harmonic principles and patterns associated with music.

Yeah, but then you listed this definition:

One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental music.

Okay, so if the cat walks on the keyboard, and sounds are produced, and they are chartable, then you have music; the cat is, arguably, composing and/or performing that music. So here we have something of a contradiction.

(me)Fact is, even a human with intent and no idea how music works will only make noise when they start hammering on that piano, whether it can be charted or not.

MY definition of music is that if it can be charted, it is music. If you have any rational means to disagree with that, hit me. After which I'll pose this hypothetical: I'll have my cat walk on my Casio, I swear I will, and I'll record it, and I'll chart it, and it'll be there in black & white, and can be performed by anyone with enough talent, in a studio, in Central Park, or in Carnegie Hall if I had enough money to rent it, and the onus will be on you to explain why or how it's NOT music. MUSICAL notes are MUSICAL notes. Again, to clarify: that doesn't make the cat a musician, not to me, though if someone wanted to be a complete prick & say that in the composition & performance of the notes that the cat is indeed a musician, in a purely technical discussion of the issue, according to the letter of the definition, I cannot disagree with that someone. Now, I know this is taking the whole discussion back to the irrational level it has existed at for a page or two now, but I do it for a reason. If the sound is chartable, and you say it's not music, then I can prove you wrong each & every time.

No.

While that's the definition of Musician, look at the definition of what a musician makes:

1. The science and the art of tones, or musical sounds, i. e., sounds of higher or lower pitch, begotten of uniform and synchronous vibrations, as of a string at various degrees of tension; the science of harmonical tones which treats of the principles of harmony, or the properties, dependences, and relations of tones to each other; the art of combining tones in a manner to please the ear.

As DC said, It's about intent: a consious understanding of harmony and "relations of the tones to each other". That does not mean a series of random notes in random time.


I'm with you on that. Sometimes, though, it's fun to dream, especially when you hear a recording that rings a bell that IF so & so hadn't broken up, or whatever, they might've turned out something that sounded like...

Sure, like "The freaky chamber jazz of (the moronically named band) Isildurs Bane sounds like what Frank Zappa would today if he hadn't died".


A supposed art piece with Nazis wearing swastikas in it that is designed to elicit an angry response is a political statement, not an artistic one.

Disagree. Why can't it be an artistic statement, even if it's a political statement at the same time? Because you say so? I'm not sure I'd go along with the view that would insist that it's purely an artistic statement, devoid of politics, though someone (probably the artist) might say that. But I remember seeing a big exhibit of political/social art at one of the big modern museums here in town about 20 years ago or so, probably on a school trip. It was either at the Whitney or MOMA. Not art?

Yeah, I feel like I've been playing Devils Advocate a bit on this. Just going by that definition means that tragedy isn't art. Wrong. But I still stand by the fact they many of the things that 21st century man takes for granted as art would have been looked upon with derision and confusion 100 years ago.


We all reserve the right to say "that crap is not art, it's crap!" Not that it's just crappy art, but that it's not art at all. And you reserve the right to say I'm wrong.

Sure, you reserve the right to say that, it's a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. You can say LOTS of things that are WRONG, and BE wrong, even if you think you're right. I can say three plus six is twenty-two, and I have a right to say that, but I don't need you telling me I'm wrong to be wrong; I'm wrong whether or not anyone corrects me. I'll stand by my definitions of art & music; I think they're fairly rational.

Music and art are not finite that way mathematical formula are. It's open to interpretation.

Keep in mind that your talking to a guy that had a sticker on his car for years that read "2+2=5". No I don't think that it's true . . . but I wanted people to think about it. Question everything.


I see the meaning of skilled differently than you do. Regardless of how much natural ability you have, training is always gonna make you better.

Disagree on 'always.' Vehemently. Because there are certain things that are created by people who likely would never have created them had they had the training, and there are certain types of performers for whom training would have distorted what it was they did, even if it wasn't completely original.

Ok, ALMOST always.


Now...getting back to the 'grammy' part of this thread, which I guess we all lost sight of, for the most part...obviously they mean little, very little in the scheme of things, to people like the regulars on this board, who are mostly, primarily, fans of rock music, fans with idiosyncratic tastes. But then I heard some news that, I've gotta admit, warmed my heart: the last recording I did--actually, it was the DAY before I got sick more than four years ago--is now being worked on by a guy who is in fact up for a Grammy, for Record Of The Year. Nope, no kidding, I'm totally serious. When you hear something like that, you forget about all those arguments about how the Grammys mean nothing, even if it's for only half a second. Why this recording is still being worked on four years later is a mostly silly story, and you'll probably never hear this recording (though Darius saw the band), but it was still a nice thing to hear.

Well, THAT'S cool! Congrats are in order then.

And welcome dv8r.