To Hell In A Hand Basket

Printable View

  • 12-04-2003, 10:05 AM
    BarryL
    To Hell In A Hand Basket
    When rappers get the most nominations for Grammy awards, you know that popular culture has gone to hell in a handbasket.
  • 12-04-2003, 10:14 AM
    Dusty Chalk
    Casting Asparagus Remarks
    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.
  • 12-04-2003, 10:33 AM
    -Jar-
    New Artists??
    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...=Byf1uak1kgm3b

    stupid Grammys..
  • 12-04-2003, 02:00 PM
    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
  • 12-05-2003, 03:33 AM
    joel2762
    Rap..
    Rap is just fast talking. Big deal. Anyone can do that.
  • 12-05-2003, 06:39 AM
    Mr MidFi
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by joel2762
    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.
  • 12-05-2003, 08:41 AM
    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.
  • 12-05-2003, 09:25 AM
    Troy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mr MidFi
    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.
  • 12-05-2003, 09:45 AM
    DariusNYC
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Troy
    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.
  • 12-05-2003, 11:49 AM
    joel2762
    Just think..
    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.
  • 12-05-2003, 11:49 AM
    Dusty Chalk
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Troy
    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.
  • 12-05-2003, 12:06 PM
    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.
  • 12-05-2003, 12:42 PM
    Dusty Chalk
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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.

    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?
  • 12-05-2003, 01:51 PM
    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.
  • 12-05-2003, 01:55 PM
    Dave_G
    I cannot sing nor can I play an instrument, but I sure do know my music.

    Dave
  • 12-05-2003, 03:04 PM
    Troy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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.

    I do. It is my day job.
  • 12-05-2003, 03:21 PM
    Troy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dusty Chalk
    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.
  • 12-05-2003, 03:48 PM
    ForeverAutumn
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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.

    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.
  • 12-05-2003, 08:06 PM
    Dusty Chalk
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Troy
    Drop the whole notion of rap for a sec.

    'kay.
    Quote:

    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.
    Quote:

    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.
  • 12-05-2003, 09:22 PM
    Troy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Not Parkaboy
    '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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Not Parkaboy
    '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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Not Parkaboy
    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.
  • 12-06-2003, 07:01 AM
    jack70
    Rappers, crappers and dogs
    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.
  • 12-06-2003, 07:07 AM
    Finch Platte
    Hmmmmm.
    Quote:

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

    Dave

    That explains a lot.

    fp
  • 12-06-2003, 07:14 AM
    nobody
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Troy
    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.
  • 12-06-2003, 09:57 AM
    Dusty Chalk
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Troy
    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.
    Quote:

    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?

    Quote:

    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.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jack70
    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.)
  • 12-06-2003, 10:21 AM
    Troy
    Quote:

    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.

    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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jack70
    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.