Week 23: 50 Albums That Changed Music

[SlumpBuster]

So I'm not some old codger sitting around with a pipe, but let's get real.

Really? Because...

I suppose there is some artistry in modern hip-hop--if one considers a breadth of knowledge of other people's work, the skill to manipulate that into something conforming to legal standards, and the ability to intertwine it with the requisite themes of mysogeny and victimization artistry. I fail to see how a computer programmer composing three minute ditties can be compared with concentrated efforts by masters in the realms of jazz and classical.

codger is as codger does.

And a statement like "requisite themes of mysogeny and victimization artistry" makes me doubt that you have "scads" of rap record, but rather suggests a gross misunderstanding of hiphop. It's like suggesting that all metal is about Satan, or all country is about cheating dogs, or all jazz is masturbatory noodling, or all opera is about vikings.

I will admit that hip-hop is a crazy frustrating genre. It's a hot and cold, hit and miss genre. They need to outlaw skits and guest appearances by everyone's cousin. But, if you fail to see the artistry in Sugar Hill Gang's "Rappers Delight", or Paul's Boutique's "Sounds of Science" or Chamillionaire's "Ridin' Dirty," then no one is ever going to convince you otherwise. Whether its high art or low art is irrelevant if the audience is not even looking.

[Troy]

And a statement like "requisite themes of mysogeny and victimization artistry" makes me doubt that you have "scads" of rap records.

Because he used the word "scads?"

[nobody]

I'll toss out a few comments on a couple of the many topics brought up on this one...

The "rap's not music" thing is ridiculous on a board that's primarily rock based and in regard to a list that is basically rock/pop based. The arguments are no different than those who said rock was not music because it wasn't jazz or jazz was not music because it wasn't classical. You just define music by describing your favorite type and make a circular argument that anything not your favorite is not music. It's an easy ploy that's been used forever. But, c’mon the bottom line is people listen to it for pleasure, dance to it, drink to it, etc… It serves the same function that music always has in our culture. It’s music. If you don’t like it, fine. But, your personally not liking something does not mean it was music. If you want high art...go listen to a symphony. But, taking part in this thread and on this board pretty much says that for everyone except Pat D., you're not taking the high art road anyway.

Oh…and method of construction does not speak to the quality of the finished product in my opinion. But, this is an old process vs. product artistic argument. Personally, especially as time erodes the nature of creation and you are left with the product in the end, I feel you have to judge what has been created, not the method of creation. And, while the Beatles may not have used samples, they used enough studio trickery that they reached a point where they couldn’t even play their music live anymore. At that point are they creating music or are they just playing hi-fi tricks? An argument could be made either way, but I’ll stick with music for the same reason I just laid out.

As to how can it be influential if it didn't cross the Atlantic? If did. Jamaica to UK...a little thing called the Atlantic's in there ya know. Now, if the argument is that to be influential it has to be big in the US...that's a bit ethnocentric for my tastes. Besides, most of the albums mentioned in this or any other list are mostly influential within their genre. So, the judgment then becomes how influential to Jamaican dub was this record and considering until it was put out, you mostly had B-sides and singles and no full albums of dub, you'd have to say it was hugely influential. That dub then went on to influence a whole spectrum of other genres only adds to the record's significance.

[SlumpBuster]

As to how can it be influential if it didn't cross the Atlantic? If did. Jamaica to UK...a little thing called the Atlantic's in there ya know. Now, if the argument is that to be influential it has to be big in the US...that's a bit ethnocentric for my tastes.

Touche.

[bobsticks]

...than the previous nine post affair. "Influential", as it turns out, is as hard to qualify as it is to quantify, but in the end almost any argument about art is going to be tainted by one side's inference that their premise should be understood intuitiuvely or compelled by common sense. My own thinking is that unless one considers sales there is very little but opinion, claims of the artist, and perceptions of technical similarities and a timeline. If one does consider sales it becomes an issue of four Elvis songs, six Beattles tunes, and 40 Backstreet Boys, Spice Girls and Madonna songs.

nobody's first response was committed but lukewarm and with three of the six other main contributors to this series of threads initially taking a pass prospects looked dim. For the record, if the count sat at sixteen, my next step was to quote Easy E and argue that all heavy metal was, indeed, the work of Satan. You'll have to forgive my indulgence, but you are sprechen to a guy who once sat in a bar during "The Big Dance" and argued for over an hour that basketball isn't a sport because it doesn't involve expensive equipment.Its just my nature.So with a tip of my horned viking hat....


Cheers to y'all

[BradH]

Oh…and method of construction does not speak to the quality of the finished product in my opinion. But, this is an old process vs. product artistic argument.

It's like the early days of photography when the cognescenti said it wasn't art because the photographers weren't creating anything, merely photographing what was already there.

And, while the Beatles may not have used samples, they used enough studio trickery that they reached a point where they couldn’t even play their music live anymore.

The decision to make studio songs that couldn't be easily reproduced live came after the decision to stop touring, they didn't necessarily overproduce themselves off the stage. Although, the close harmonies in 1966 were hard to handle with the screaming girls and no stage monitors in those days. They knew at that point that any more touring was pointless and decided to explore the full possiblities of the studio. People who want to denigrate the Beatles or Brian Wilson use terms like "studio trickery" or "gimmickry" rather than "innovation". In a similar manner, people who want to denigrate hip-hop or rap decry sampling without listening closely to how it's being used. I would argue that, in the right hands, it's being used as innovatively as any "found objects" by The Beatles ("I Am The Walrus") or Eno & Byrne's My Life In The Bush Of Ghosts. Yeah, there are plenty of "rice cakes" to go around in hip-hop, same as any genre. But my earlier comment about avant-garde wasn't tossed off as a joke. Kraftwerk's Trans-Europe Express had made it's mark in Brooklyn long before Afrika Bambaataa rapped over Kraftwerk in 1983.

Bottom line: It's bullsh!t to say an album like the Tribe's Midnight Marauders isn't music. It's about as good as anything I've heard and it really cracks me up when I hear the "not music" accusation coming from those who think of themselves as "progressive".