I think I'll go with NOT CRAP. I agree with Mr. Janes about how difficult it is to dismiss an entire genre when I do in fact love certain records in that genre. I will also agree with Mr. Helicopters about the "thug"-style rap. There's something really crass about selling black-on-black violence which seems to transcend even the vilest rock music I can think of. I hate that thug shit, but it sells, so what can you do? Maybe if we all downloaded it, the artists would go bankrupt. He he.

This is an interesting discussion, one that I've been maintaining on and on for several years.

The genre of rap is not crap. Rap/hip hop as an art form is a necessary part of the pantheon of music. It is a valid vehicle for social expression, and innovative music construction.

That being said, rap, for the most part, is simple. For the most part, you have a guy either spinning records, or creating a simple, hooky music bed, and then you have a vocalist or vocalists displaying varying degrees of linguistic eloquence.

That is the base tenet of rap. Certainly there are leaders who catapult beyond this simple framework - PE, NWA, De La Soul, Missy Elliot/Timbaland, Wu-Tang, Outkast, BDP, to name a random few.

But the problem with rap, just like with rock or R&B is that there are copycats who don't seem (from an outsider's perspective) to recognize that not only are rap's "figureheads" good at defining space, they also push the limit. "Copycats" seem to languish in the space defined.

This is what keeps me uninterested in rap as a whole. It's very easy for a cat with minimal studio knowledge to crib and/or slap some beat down, find a vocalist who can speak, and pump out a record.

To me this is typified by rap artists who's hit singles are a mess from a cohesive standpoint. Everyone knows that of which I speak, the songs that sound like the vocals were recorded without the backing track being played in their headphones, with good flows and rhymes, but on a whole disjointed and fighting with the rhythm bed.

Conjecture on this point leads me to postulate that perhaps many
"freestyle" artists are let loose just to flow, and then those vocal tracks are flown in on top of pre-existing beds.

If this be the case (and if it walks like a duck...etc.) then it is not artistry.
This is product.

And by all appearances, it is very easy to produce rap product. Thanks, Puffy.

Okay. Perhaps this is not the case. Then somebody explain Busta Rhymes to me.
A bud of mine tried to tell me that Busta was all about "busting the rhymes," not as "busting out the rhymes" but as "busting the conventions."


I examined different examples, but ultimately it still sounded analagous to me taking a vocal track from my band and putting it on top of one of your band's songs. Interesting in concept, and possibly coincidentally good, but most likely a mess.

And I am stunned that this disjointed "product" type rap is popular (or that the artists can even lip sync the lines in their videos - Explain the hook for "Bad Boys for Life," Mr. Diddy) when artists like Eric B. and Rakim and Ice Cube et. al. work the beats and deliver sounds that are top-tech stainless steel machines that blow your head off like Gentleman Weissenberger's tale of "It Takes A Nation of Millions To Hold Us Back."

Now, producers, that's another tale for another post. But good ones are as integrated and important to my collective experience of music just as Hendrix or Miles or Yo Yo Ma or Rey Washam.

Tim,

actually, yes, i do expect the same from rock artists. well, i don't *expect* it from rock any more than i expect it from rap, but i do *perfer* it. given a case where the music is good and identical, but the vocals fall into these different categories, here's how it breaks down for me personally...

i like stuff where there is no decipherable meaning to the words or possibly very few actualy real words, where it's much more about 'vocals' than it is about 'lyrics' (i.e. melvins-type stuff)

i *really* like stuff with a thoughtful and progressive message (like the band Death, for example)

i can certainly tolerate lyrics that're about stuff that i don't give two shits about. like most of what i've heard from britney spears, for example.

but when it comes to an entire movement that's centered around a degenerative negativity that reinforces existing problems rather than addressing them in a way that promotes their solution (specifically ganksta rap, not hip-hop) that i have seen evidence of kids latching onto, that's when i get upset.

considering the music itself to be equal in all cases.

here's something for you. slayer. slayer is the perfect example, i think. their music, especially stuff like Reign In Blood, was amazing, and very important in a lot of ways. BUT, their message is for shit. granted, no question from me on that one. do i like slayer? yeah, much of their older shit, i do. do i think people are entitled to talk serious shit on slayer for their lyrical content? absolutely. if someone put up a rant about how slayer's lyrics have been a source of inspiration for the neo-nazi movement in america, i wouldn't dispute it. but i would also make sure that in the discussion, the real problem was addressed, which goes much deeper than the existence of slayer or bands like them. if your argument is that ganksta rap itself is no more to blame for the problems that kids have today than slayer is to blame for the recruitment of teenage neo-nazis, i agree whole-heartedly. at the same time, i would acknowledge that neither slayer nor ganksta rap are a source of positivity or progress, and i would point out that ganksta rap is is contributing more toward a shit future with more problems than slayer is, solely because of questions of scope. if the satanic neo-nazi lifestyle was as celebrated and popular as the thug life, i think we'd have a society with even more problems than it does now, with those problems getting worse and not better as we move forward. if mainstream pop music shifts from ganksta rap to satanic neo-nazi metal, i think we're in big trouble, and you'll hear me rant about that one just as much if not more than i rant about ganksta rap.

food for thought. check out these lyrics...

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/mystikal ... ldier.html

you think that's anything that's gonna help kids out, or hurt them, or neither, or who cares? i tend to think it's encouraging folks to take an existing problem and rather than try to seek positive ways to rise above it, to wallow in it. do i understand the plight of folks growing up in the ghetto? not by a long shot. can i look at these lyrics and make a statement about how i think they will reinforce a shitty state of affairs? i say yes.

and if you would say 50-cent and krs-one are equally 'better' or 'worse' in terms of their impact on youth culture, i think you're nuts. granted 50-cent maybe has better music, and is less of a dork, and maybe is better all around in terms of his craft. but if you wouldn't choose krs-one's underlying ideology over 50-cents underlying ideology, ignoring the difference in how they present it (music, phrasing, etc), i can only say "wow".

re: PE and class war... if i got the impression that in chuck d's heart, his answer was "get a gun and get as much money as you can", i wouldn't ever speak in favor of PE. am i in favor of elevating minorities and folks in situations of poverty? yes. am i in favor of folks accumulating cars, bitches, and money? fuck no. it seems to me like ganksta rap is more about trying to elevate oneself into the realm of 'the man' while maintaining some amount of ghetto cred, which i find absurd, rather than being about finding an effective way to actually address the problem at its root. kinda like the war on terror. if it addressed the roots of the problem, it'd be much more likely that good would come of it, in my estimation. an example of a guy who i'd love to see be the most popular pop artist of the moment would be Aaron McGruder, author of The Boondocks. i think if ganksta rap never came into favor, but messages more like PE's or McGruder's or any number of other like-minded folks did take over the mainstream, there might be a chance of the actual underlying problems being addressed and repaired. i think the thugs only serve to impede this progress.

and lastly, i find myself agreeing that the hook is a major element to most pop songs' success.

and if you would say 50-cent and krs-one are equally 'better' or 'worse' in terms of their impact on youth culture, i think you're nuts. granted 50-cent maybe has better music, and is less of a dork, and maybe is better all around in terms of his craft. but if you wouldn't choose krs-one's underlying ideology over 50-cents underlying ideology, ignoring the difference in how they present it (music, phrasing, etc), i can only say "wow".

thing is, i NEVER listen to music with its 'underlying ideology' in mind. i don't think promotion of an ideology should be music's primary function. music that takes this on as a primary goal almost always sucks.

i shudder to think of the records i'd have to play if this were important to me

i listen to music with only a desire to be moved, and if it moves me, it wins, to one degree or another

if 50 cent "has better music, and is less of a dork, and maybe is better all around in terms of his craft" than krs-one, then 50 cent wins, b/c he is a musician, not a candidate for public office. i wouldn't say he is the winner anyway, given the first two boogie down productions records. but those records, lest we forget, are also called _criminal minded_ and _by all means necessary_, and they both feature krs packing heat on their covers. i don't know where that leaves him in terms of his ideology at that point and time. i just know he (or scott la rock as the case may be) made better music back then.

and i don't see how you can trumpet "stuff where there is no decipherable meaning to the words or possibly very few actualy real words" and even have ideology as part of the discussion

if it comes down to 'i like not knowing, but if i know, i want it to say something nice, at least if it's rap,' then yeah, you pretty much have to vote crap. there are very few hiphop artists who are going to leave you wondering.

so it should be up to politicians to worry about ideology, and mainstream artists (who potentially have the biggest influence on youth culture) should just do whatever makes a buck, with total disregard for the results of their product?

"thing is, i NEVER listen to music with its 'underlying ideology' in mind. i don't think promotion of an ideology should be music's primary function. music that takes this on as a primary goal almost always sucks."

that's a big part of my point. YOU don't listen to music for it's ideology, and you probably have your own opinions and your own ideology, and all is fine and well. but 15 year old kids, who are in the process of developing an ideolgy, who don't see things through the same eyes as us old folk, aren't looking at ideology either. they just like you, are going with whatever moves them, and also to probably a much larger extent than you, what is presented to them. and they're ingesting it and adopting it as their own identity. without regard to the big picture of the underlying ideology. it's seen as "i too can get myself some money and power through the thug life. hrm, sounds much better than working my ass off to get the best education i can and leave this whole shit scene behind me". when really it's NOT better. in the big picture.

maybe i'm way outta line on all this and nobody should ever give a shit about the psychological or subconscious effects that anything has on anyone. i tend to think it's important that people think about and make projections and estimations about the future. nobody has a crystal ball, i know, but some trends are worth acknowledging and addressing before they go too far. like the state of affairs with terrorism for example... which is essentially what thug life is based on. terrorism without any deliberate sense of ideology, just a desire for money and power. right on!

and as far as trumpeting stuff with no decipherable meaning, i'm suprised that you don't understand. getting on a stage and singing "oh, oh, ohhhhhh, ohhhhhh, oh, oh oh" for forty minutes is probably not gonna incite anyone to throw their life away in pursuit of money and power rather than work towards growth or betterment. it may or may not be a waste of time, but i think it's wholly different from getting on a stage and selling folks on the idea that you fucking rule because you sold drugs to get money to buy guns and an escallade so you could kill your enemies. don't you see in much rap, especially ganksta rap, that a core tool is to sell people on the idea that you fucking rule? that whole "i fucking rule" routine makes this all so much worse, it's not just talking about a concept, but it's making a concerted effort to convince people that you fucking rule, which i think will invariably lead to immitation in those who really buy into it.

if you don't see that there are consequences and results from actions whether you set out to produce them or not, then i don't know what to say. i'm not saying anyone has to set out specifically to produce a certain cultural result, and in almost all cases that would probably be futile anyways (though i bet you could name some bands that did just fine with a major platform of 'rise above' type mentality) but i do think there is a responsibility to be aware of the effect you're having if you're multiplatinum and a major, major influence on an entire culture. that's just my opinion.

"i like not knowing, but if i know, i want it to say something nice, at least if it's rap," - is that what it looks like i'm saying?

right here. this is what i'm talking about. this hits the nail on the head.

http://www.ohhla.com/anonymous/delasoul ... es.dls.txt

so it should be up to politicians to worry about ideology, and mainstream artists (who potentially have the biggest influence on youth culture) should just do whatever makes a buck, with total disregard for the results of their product?

no

i put a lot of stock in walking it like you talk it, but people don't have to walk or talk it my way

if someone's music is good, it will have the ring of truth, artfully rendered. and if that truth is ugly, so be it. i can get into it or not, but i wouldn't discard it or vilify it by any means.

please note the one-way street--plenty music has the ring of truth but is not good

if someone's just blowing about being tuff, and it doesn't amount to anything much, i have as little use for that as you do

YOU don't listen to music for it's ideology, and you probably have your own opinions and your own ideology, and all is fine and well. but 15 year old kids[...]

i had the same attitude when i was fifteen

fifteen-year-old kids aren't necessarily that dumb. not even often. not even usually.

i just don't have any use for this argument. the velvet underground may have inspired some kids to do heroin. n.w.a. may have inspired some kids to hate cops. skrewdriver may inspire some kids to beat up black people. none of this music has this effect on me or anyone i know, but i knew people in high school who fixed on the most violent and thuggish aspects of punk rock and took them on as their own. they were fuckers, is all.

people who are predisposed to engage in that kind of behavior will find a reason to do it anyway. even if they wouldn't, i don't think it's worth putting the artist on trial for something somebody else does.

i don't think artists have a responsibility to be good role models. they have a responsibility to lay it out there as art, and laying it out there for real precludes the kind of second-guessing you're talking about.

i do think misogynist, racist, homophobic, and misanthropic viewpoints need to prove it artistically a bit more than other things, but that's just b/c it's harder to get past the subject matter.

guns'n'roses never said anything more offensive than ice cube does on _death certificate_. but their music was so stupid and bad most of the time that their 'immigrants and faggots' bullshit was unacceptable to me. _death certificate_ is probably more offensive on the face of it, more relentlessly so, but it is great music, it's fierce, it's funny. so i have no problem with it.

if it's impossible for you to get past the subject matter, so much so that it ruins a whole genre of music for you, then okey doke. it's impossible for me to get past people in plays spontaneously breaking into song, which is why i hate musicals, even though i'm sure i like at least two of them.

The whole "pre-determined to be an asshole" idea is kind of strange. I mean, if you look at it, the crime rate in an inner-city area predominantely occupied by black people would be higher, right? I'm not bullshitting on this as far as I know. Does this mean that environment has no effect on people's upbringing? It would seem that that argument would say that black people are more likely pre-determined to be criminals, and that's not something I'm really willing to accept.

Now, hold on, because it seems like I might have just implied you were racist. That's not really my intention. I'm just trying to say that, as far as I know, a person is defined by their pre-disposition (who they are at birth) and their upbringing. But, nobody knows which is more important, I mean, there have been hundreds of studies and it's all inconclusive. Nobody can say for certain and it likely varies from person to person.

Now, if your friends were influenced to follow the "punk" lifestyle and become assholes, that could have absolutely nothing to do with the music they listened to, or it could have everything. I doubt even they would know for certain. However, maybe I'm being naive here, but I would consider neo-nazism to be a much lesser problem than urban violence. That's because most logical people will see a Nazi and laugh, but when they see a gangsta, they accept it. That's because people like Eminem and 50 Cent have been in popular culture already for a while, and so we've become used to it. For an alternative example, look at Michael Jackson- if he came from nowhere looking like he does now, he would universally be considered a figure of ridicule. However, since he has gradually evolved to his present state, people will still defend him or go out and buy his CDs. Likewise, if I see a thug or wigger (these are more common here on Long Island) walking down the street I'm not going to be too shocked, and given the conditioning I have been given, I wouldn't necessarily prejudge this person. For all I know, he could be a rocket scientist or something, and it would be racist to consider that he's a total asshole just because he dresses like a rapper.

In contrast, if I saw a skinhead with jackboots and suspenders walking down the street, I would not feel too bad criticizing him before I even heard him speak. Realistically, though, since the "thug" has become such a large part of modern culture, that stereotype is capable of doing far more damage.

The problem isn't that young people are exposed to different ideas at an early age. Theoretically, this would never be a problem- if I show a kid Nazi propaganda and then show him a MLK speech, he will be influenced by them to equal extents or so, and eventually he will come to a rational conclusion regarding both. Logically, if the kid is predetermined to be an asshole, he will choose the ideology most suited to him, and if the kid is not dumb, he will also come to a conclusion that makes the most sense to him. In any case, protecting kids from any viewpoints that go against the current moral standards would be a shitty thing to do, because eventually they'll learn about it one way or another.

HOWEVER, if a kid grows up in a situation where he idolizes 50 Cent because he's such a hardass (hey, he got shot NINE TIMES) and in a society that values only violence, drugs, and whores, then there's virtually no way he'll grow up to be adjusted. If you were able to listen to it and end up alright, that's fine for you, but are you suggesting that black people in the inner city are more suggestible?

The common reason given for the current situation is that black people were held back for so long that they didn't have enough time to catch up yet, and that even now there are still unbalanced circumstances, such as worse schools in city areas and stuff like that. I can see the point of this argument, and it makes sense to me. After all, there has to be something to explain it, because an imbalance is impossible to deny. What is necessary to realize that music is not just music, it is nearly a lifestyle. It is uncommon to see a guy decked out in Fubu and bling and talk in ebonics who listens to predominately Led Zeppelin, and it is also unlikely that you will see some guy with shoulder length hair in jeans and a t-shirt who listens to mostly Jay-Z. Rap music (and any other music for that matter) has more of an influence than its lyrical content- the kids want to emulate the rapper lifestyle, which is basically what is discussed in the songs in the first place. So even if they were to completely ignore the lyrical content of rap, the bad influence would still be there.

Anyway, I've wrote way too much and doubt anybody's even reading up to this point. The main thing I have a problem with is this: "people who are predisposed to engage in that kind of behavior will find a reason to do it anyway. even if they wouldn't, i don't think it's worth putting the artist on trial for something somebody else does."
Based on what I've just said, this view is impossible to take without saying that there's something within the black race that is inherently different that predisposes them to a certain type of lifestyle. True, you will always have criminals and viscious people who don't even listen to music in the first place, but it seems that a lot of the problems with crime in today's world don't even have to do with "stealing to survive" or what could even be considered "necessary crime." It just seems as if a lot of people are violent (especially gang-related) just because it's what seems to be popular.

I hope I don't come across as a racist or total asshole because I don't believe that I am either. I'm just trying to contribute something to the discussion. For the record I'm 17 years old and I live in the suburbs so you can take everything I say with a grain of salt, because for what it's worth I've lived a pretty sheltered life so far. For what it's worth I don't have a problem getting along with black people but I despise most wiggers because I have never met one of above average intelligence.

tim, i think i can happily agree to disagree a little. i dunno if this is accurate or not, but it kinda seems like i have a more progressive perspective on it, whereas yours seems more libertarian or populist? granted i never once advocated any kinda legislature or government intervention on the matter of ganksta rap, because i think that would be wrong. but it seems to me like your perspective is more about personal liberty and freedom to speak one's mind above all else. which is right americanly of you. so i think i can appreciate where you're coming from.

last night while i was pissing in the shower, i was thinking about people other than myself whose opinions i really value on this matter, who i believe have the same perspective on this as i do. and aside from de la soul (those lyrics, to "stakes is high" may very well have been part of the process through which i developed my opinion on this matter) i had a frightening revelation... in my head appeared KRS-ONE, specifically his rap segment on REM's "radio song", which kinda seemed to convey the same sentiment, even if it appears more focused on the corporate shittiness aspect, the line "DJ's communicate to the masses, sex and violent classes" seemed to ring true to the spirit of my concern. so i was glad, knowing that even if my opinion on the matter stems from a white, upper-middle-class upbringing and art school education, it appears to be in line with the opinion of folks like de la and KRS-ONE.

cheers maign

toomanyhelicopters wrote:i had a frightening revelation... in my head appeared KRS-ONE, specifically his rap segment on REM's "radio song", which kinda seemed to convey the same sentiment, even if it appears more focused on the corporate shittiness aspect, the line "DJ's communicate to the masses, sex and violent classes" seemed to ring true to the spirit of my concern. so i was glad, knowing that even if my opinion on the matter stems from a white, upper-middle-class upbringing and art school education, it appears to be in line with the opinion of folks like de la and KRS-ONE.

KRS-ONE is okay good rap man. Not great these time, but was okay good about, oh, three record maybe. People think he so smart. He talk about the philosophy and the religions and the peaces sometime, but I think he not so smart with these thing.

But he also to make of the guns! My god! He is to kill the other peoples in his songs! He say in "Bo Bo Bo" this thing:

"On the ground was a bottle of Snapple
I broke the bottle in his fucking Adam's apple
As he fell his partner called for backup
I had the shotgun and began to act up"

Then he shoot cop dead in song! Oh my god! He also make of the song "100 Guns" and "9mm Goes Bang"! The people, they all to die in these song! I no know, but these song, they have the violent to me!

Mr. Toomanyhelicopters, I no think you know so much of the rap songs! You always talking the major label MTV rap guy! But maybe you like the Schooly D or the Audio Two? Maybe the Just Ice? He pretty good. Or maybe the Edan? He real good. Maybe you to like these guy, but I no think so! You to talk about the R.E.M. rap! Is no rap!

Maybe you okay nice, Mr. Toomanyhelicopters, but you talking rap like the Rolling Stones magazines talking rap! So I think you first maybe to learn the rap and then you to talk the rap. Okay fine!