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.
  • 12-06-2003, 10:36 AM
    Troy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nobody
    By the way, I do like your pictures.

    Thanks.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nobody
    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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nobody
    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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nobody
    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.
  • 12-06-2003, 10:43 AM
    BarryL
    America, What A Place!
    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.
  • 12-06-2003, 10:51 AM
    Troy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Not Parkaboy
    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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Not Parkaboy
    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?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Not Parkaboy
    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)
  • 12-06-2003, 12:39 PM
    Slosh
    WTF is a handbasket?
    A coffin for Thing?

    What flowergirls carry pedals in?
  • 12-06-2003, 04:51 PM
    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.
  • 12-06-2003, 06:52 PM
    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.
  • 12-07-2003, 09:29 AM
    jack70
    more rappin
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dusty
    (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.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Troy
    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.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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.

    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).


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mind Gone Haywire...
    sold by businesses that can be called MUSIC stores or RECORD stores (again, as a product that is classified as MUSIC, even if itís the MUSIC section in a Barnes & Noble or Wal-Mart storeó...

    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.
  • 12-07-2003, 11:00 AM
    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.'
  • 12-07-2003, 11:03 AM
    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.
  • 12-07-2003, 11:14 AM
    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 . . .

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    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. (Iím 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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    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 Iím not talking about feeling, either; forget I said blues, letís say blues structures. Iíve 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. Iíve been at plenty of social functions with Ďjamsí where you try to engage these sorts of players in something just a TRIFLE less complicated than what it is theyíre 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 didnít 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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    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.

    Everyoneís standards are different. I agree with Dustyís framing of this argument. If someone you donít consider an artist has created a work you donít 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 Ďartí work as an Ďartist,í is not an Ďartist?í Please explain. I well understand that I may not think itís Ďart,í either, but thatís my standard. If itís 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 Ďnot musicí to them just because THEY DONíT THINK itís music. So apply that to what you said about Ďbad 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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    Not caring about anyone elseís perception is GREAT. ExceptÖwhat 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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    Did you like the first ĎMatrixí movie? Wouldnít 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 hadnít been there mightíve been something else that I mightíve enjoyed in a similar way, but Iíd feel cheated if it had never been made because the unwashed masses wouldnít 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?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    Now, of course, the unwashed massesí opinions lead to the creation, production, & distribution of tons of crap, and not enough that I DO likeóso, in a sense, youíre right, I really donít 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 itís 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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire
    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.
  • 12-07-2003, 11:20 AM
    Dusty Chalk
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Troy
    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.
    Quote:

    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.
  • 12-07-2003, 01:12 PM
    Troy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Not Parkaboy
    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.
  • 12-07-2003, 01:41 PM
    Dusty Chalk
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TroyBoy
    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.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by LegendInHisOwnMind
    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.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by The Great Regurgitator
    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".
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Not A Goober
    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.
  • 12-07-2003, 02:18 PM
    Troy
    Quote:

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

    Ok.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Not Parkaboy
    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?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Not Parkaboy
    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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Not Parkaboy
    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.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Not Parkaboy
    See, but it is at this point that your analogy to rap falls apart.

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

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Not Parkaboy
    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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Not Parkaboy
    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!

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Not Parkaboy
    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.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Not Parkaboy
    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.
  • 12-07-2003, 03:22 PM
    Dusty Chalk
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Troy
    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.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Not Parkaboy Neither
    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.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Not Talkin Bout Love
    Jesus F'ing Christ, are we still talking about rap?

    I was.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Said It, You Did
    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.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Contradicts Himself Often, He Does
    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).
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Soapboxster
    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.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by A Sturgeon In His Own Mind
    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'.
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Knucklehead
    Yes, your definition of wrong is wrong. nyuk nyuk nyuk.

    That's your opinion.