|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Yes, but posted by D on October 09, 2003 at 05:55:27:
I'm not interested in attacking anyone. What I am interested in attacking is the notion that rap requires no talent--when it's passed off as fact. If that's yr opinion, that's yr opinion. I might choose to argue otherwise, but I realize I'm probably not going to change yr opinion. When you insist that rap requires no talent & put it out there boldly as though you were proclaiming that the sky is blue, then I have a problem with it. I disagree with you that Miles was a sellout--how exactly did he sell out?--but that's not something that can be proven one way or the other. Sure am scratching my head about that one, though, since it's something I've never heard before, and since his body of work represents so many pioneering stylistic experiments and changes in direction, none of which, apparently, were done to cash in on anything in particular. But that's okay, you go on believing that. If you'd be so kind, perhaps you could tell me which of Miles' albums is an example of a 'sellout,' and why. I don't expect I'll be seeing 'Sketches Of Spain' on that list, but you never know. Perhaps you'll surprise me.Don't know if you've seen the posts above between fretless & myself, but I'm going to put to you a question that to this point he has not responded to. Since his contention is that rap is 'not music,' I asked him to tell me if he thinks albums by Ken Nordine, Gil-Scott Heron, and Linton Kwesi Johnson are music. If they're not, then it looks like there's a slippery slope here where there's an awful lot that could be considered 'not music.' If they are, then I'm quite curious to know how they could be considered music while rap isn't. So tell me, if you'd be so kind: do you think that what Nordine, Heron, & Johnson did was something that required 'no talent,' and if so, how do you come up with that conclusion? If you don't think that, then I'm eager to know why you'd say they are talented while rappers are not.
Follow Ups:
I should have stated that my post was only my opinion in the first place but I thought that since there is really no way to prove it as a fact, it would be a given that it was only my opinion. But actually, you COULD change it - what rappers/discs do you feel show that there is talent in the rap field? Perhaps I've missed something.As for Miles, no "Sketches of Spain" would not be on my list. Many jazz purists feel that anything after "In a Silent Way" should be on the list, but I don't agree. I'd say, from the top of my head, just about anything after "Decoy" was a blatant attempt to make money while sacrificing any music of real value. Remember, that's just my opinion and I've not heard every single disc Miles made after that point but I've heard most of them. And don't think just because I've used the old term "sell out" (which generally has a negative connotation) that I think making music for money is bad. Jazz/Rock Fusion itself was a sell out but I enjoy a lot of it (from the early days) and it is also well done.
I appreciate where you're going with your challenge but I'm afraid I've not heard anything by the three artists you mentioned. Can you supply suggestions - say, the single best disc from each of them? I'll check them out if I can find them. But I'm assuming that there are elements of rap and perhaps jazz - they're likely some kind of fusion - and your question is how can these two coincide if I feel rap artists have no talent? Is that where you're going? I can answer that without hearing the music you mentioned (I think) but do let me know before I do so I don't waste your time.
> what rappers/discs do you feel show that there is talent in the rap field? Perhaps I've missed something.I was exposed to rap fairly early on--1979. I listened to it in the early 80s & then didn't pay much attention until I heard a Beastie Boys single in 1985. After the big Run-DMC & Beastie Boys albums that came out in 1986 I listened to quite a bit of rap until 1992's The Chronic by Dr. Dre, the debut of Snoop Dogg. Since then I don't think I've purchased more than a dozen rap albums. Every once in awhile I hear something I think is very good--the first Pharcyde album, the third P.M. Dawn album, Eminem, MC Paul Barman, an odd tune here or there. Mostly I don't pay attention. Most of it sounds the same to me. And I hear efforts to deviate from the typical gangsta style, efforts to inject positivity, what have you. Some are good, but most suck. Like anything else. Who do I think is talented? The Beastie Boys, certainly. I don't think they've ever put out a bad record. De La Soul, A Tribe Called Quest, P.M. Dawn, KRS-One, Public Enemy, Eminem, absolutely. If not for Chuck D I'd say Eminem was the best rapper I've ever heard. Nobody has ever done with words what he does. He is the Sinatra of rap. The phrasing that is required to do what he does is absolutely mind-boggling. But I still think Chuck D is the best. I've never heard a voice like his...maybe Paul Robeson's voice would be an apt comparison (I am not talking about singing talent). There is a quality to Chuck D's voice that comes out precisely because of how he uses it--to rap. And he is the voice of rap so far as I'm concerned. What he does evokes a listening experience that you won't get from listening to anyone else. How anyone could say that does not require talent is beyond me.
> Many jazz purists feel that anything after "In a Silent Way" should be on the list, but I don't agree
I don't have much use for anything he did after 'E.S.P.' But sellout? No.
> just about anything after "Decoy" was a blatant attempt to make money while sacrificing any music of real value
If he'd done an album of Phil Collins covers, then I'd agree with the term 'sellout.' But while I have absolutely no use for what he was doing, it was hardly Muzak. I believe he remained true to his artistic sensibilities. I just don't get where this is a sellout. It makes no sense to me. It's not like the stuff was disposable pop garbage designed to sell a million copies. 'Rockit' is a different story. What Miles did? I'd characterize it more as flailing about in an uninteresting genre as his skills & sensibilities declined. But sellout? No way.
> I've not heard every single disc Miles made after that point but I've heard most of them
I haven't heard them all, either, but I've heard a lot of them. Recently someone sent me a copy of 'Aura.' One of the worst things I've ever heard. But I can't see how that would be considered a sellout. Now, if you've heard 'Doo-Bop,' again, I have no idea how that could be characterized as a sellout. It's simply a mediocre funk jazz album with a few raps on it. Lousy raps, I might add. I have no doubt had Miles not passed when he did that he would have turned out a good piece of work, had he had more time to pursue that direction. I hear real potential in that record. A year after it was released, Guru put out Jazzmatazz, a jazz/rap hybrid, on Blue Note records. Digable Planets rapped over jazz. And so did the Pharcyde. The Quincy Jones album might more easily be labeled a 'sellout,' since it was a pop marriage of jazz luminaries & rappers. Still, he was ahead of his time with it. Miles' record was more serious, and, even two years later, he was still ahead of the curve.
> Jazz/Rock Fusion itself was a sell out
By this argument any style that is in any way a hybrid is a sellout. Only the root forms can be considered non-sellouts. What's ironic about this is that rap is as pure a form that was created in the 20th Century. Sure, there are influence, but, prior to 1975, there's very little that resembles it closely. It's based on itself, and it was created from scratch. Yet everyone finds it to be so worthless. This always amazes me.
I don't listen to fusion & never did. But there's a fine line between exploring an artistic muse & selling out. As much as I detest the stuff, I don't think it's a sellout in & of itself & never did.
> I'm afraid I've not heard anything by the three artists you mentioned
So a guy who's telling me that he doesn't think that rap requires any talent actually hasn't heard any of these guys? This amazes me. You've never heard Gil-Scott Heron's 'The Revolution Will Not Be Televised?' I mean, come on. To sling the insults that you do about rap, yet never having heard any of these three people...this astounds me.
Ken Nordine is a voice-over specialist who's been putting out records dubbed 'word jazz' since the 1950s. It's a little difficult to describe, but think of it as stream-of-consciousness poetry/prose over background jazz. If you're thinking of Jack Kerouac spitting out beat manifestos while someone with a goatee beats on bongos, you're way off. It's nothing like that. Maybe someone else can describe it better than I can, or take a look on AMG.
Gil-Scott Heron is more like a beatnik poet, except of the Black Panther-ish variety. He's made a lot of very interesting records where he explores social issues from a typically incendiary point of view. Bernard Purdie (James Brown's longtime drummer) played on some of his records. So did Ron Carter and Bernie Worrell. My favorite of the three people I've mentioned here, though I'm not exactly a fanatic. But the anger that emanates from his record is similar in tone to what you hear on Public Enemy records. Unfortunately, in his middle age, apparently he's fallen on hard times. I did not know if he had any history of drug abuse; actually I don't think he did. But over the past several years the word is that he became a homeless crack addict. I don't know what's happening with him now. But I do think he's still alive.
Linton Kwesi Johnson recorded several reggae/dub records in the late 1970s & early 80s. His delivery is somewhat rap-like, and he also explores social issues, if with a little less anger than Heron. But he was very influential in reggae & dub, with lots of people following his tradition of beat poetry in combination with the music.
> But I'm assuming that there are elements of rap and perhaps jazz - they're likely some kind of fusion - and your question is how can these two coincide if I feel rap artists have no talent?
Yeah, something like that. For the sake of this discussion, I'd suggest taking a look at any Heron best-of comp on Amazon. Take a listen to the samples & tell me what you think. If you think that requires no talent, I'd like to know why. If you think it does, then I'd wonder why that does but not rap.
I think one of my neighbor's kids has some Eminem and perhaps a few other things. I'll check it out."Now, if you've heard 'Doo-Bop,' again, I have no idea how that could be characterized as a sellout. It's simply a mediocre funk jazz album with a few raps on it."
By your second sentence, the word "sellout" screams at me. I'd say that one definitely, "Amandla" would be another and "You're Under Arrest" is a third. Apparently, you and I differ on what is meant by the term. You mention that he uses "lousy raps" on Doo-Bop. Don't take this the wrong way but just what is it that tells you if a rap is good or lousy? Lyrics? Beat? What? You've said that rap requires talent? In what ways?
Why should my not hearing the three people you mentioned surprise you? If it even resembles rap, it's something I've stayed away from. My listening runs from 50's and 60's rock to avant garde jazz to bands like Current 93 and Controlled Bleeding (which are called noise bands, I guess) to metal to world music and back to jazz, swing and beyond. The three you mentioned don't sound like they'd be something I'd be interested in so I either shyed away or didn't notice.
I'll check into some of the things you mentioned. Who knows? Maybe I've missed something. I don't believe I have but I do promise to give it an honest shot and attempt to put my biases behind me. I can usually do that ok - I'm often pretty sure I won't like something and occasionally it turns out differently.
If you're going to listen to Eminem and have that be the first rap you listen to you're probably not going to like it. However, I'd suggest the song 'Stan' as an introduction. I can't imagine that anyone could listen to that with an open mind & not have SOME sort of feelings evoked by the imagery that the words bring. If you have access to his most recent album, then I'd say 'Hailey's Song.' If it's the first album, I'd suggest 'My Name Is,' 'Guilty Conscience,' 'Bonnie & Clyde '97,' and 'My Fault.'> By your second sentence, the word "sellout" screams at me. I'd say that one definitely, "Amandla" would be another and "You're Under Arrest" is a third. Apparently, you and I differ on what is meant by the term.
Like I said, considering Miles' body of work, nothing short of a Phil Collins tribute album would be a sellout by him so far as I'm concerned. I can't speak specifically to the albums you're mentioning; I heard one once, but not the other. It sounded like more meandering fusion blah-de-blah stuff of the sort he'd been doing for years to me, certainly not like anything I would've thought was an attempt at some sort of commercial breakthrough. I don't think it was a case of him betraying his abilities, either. It would have to be one or the other for me to consider it a sellout. Miles never cared what anyone thought & was a peerless visionary so far as I'm concerned. Like I said, I have no use for anything he did after 1965--but if there's an artist who walked the planet who earned the right to explore his artistic muse, it was that guy. He kow-towed to nobody. So I just can't see how anyone could ever consider him a sellout. In my book he was always true to his art.
> what is it that tells you if a rap is good or lousy? Lyrics? Beat? What? You've said that rap requires talent? In what ways?
My own feeling is that 50% of it is the words. If they're no good, then listening to the funkiest beat with the most infectious grooves that make me want to get up & dance (and THAT'S a feat) is ultimately a disposable experience. I have lots of rock records that I love for the music, but the words are just insipid & uninspiring & lousy & cliche-ridden. I usually don't absorb the words at first & hear the music first & foremost, so in some cases I'll really dig an album. Then over repeated listenings over time, I'll hear how lousy the words really are & end up listening to it less & less. And eventually I'll arrive at a point where if I hear it, I'll chuckle as I remember how much I liked it before I knew what it was all about.
There's a great deal of profundity & intellect in a lot of rap lyrics. It's poetry any way you look at it, and not all of the people who are writing it are thugs. Some are quite educated, cultured, and articulate. Like ALL forms of pop music, rap started out solely as party/dance music. By 1982 Grandmaster Flash was talking about 'The Message,' about life on the street. The first rap that broke through because it was married to rock music (Run-DMC's duet with Aerosmith, and the first Beastie Boys album), and because it was about partying (first Beastie Boys album). These records crossed over because they were made to appeal to people with a rock sensibility--white people who had grown up listening to white rock music. That was the untapped audience that either had never heard rap, or knew it only as that noisy garbage that black people listened to. A year or two after those breakthroughs, Public Enemy put out their definitive artistic statement, 'It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back.' It's angry & laden with rhetoric, but it's as effective as a political statement as any Malcolm X speech, and was probably heard by more people than ever heard Malcolm X. And it was the first rap record that a lot of people took seriously, since it was so serious, and since it also crossed over to teenaged white suburbia. A year later, N.W.A. put out what I'd say was the first 'gangsta rap' album. This is a record that spawned a genre that pretty much got it all wrong. It's not something that's meant to be taken seriously, which of course is exactly what happened. They didn't disavow it; their leading member left; and the genre went on to become something completely different: real-life & wannabe gangsters bragging of their exploits & fantasies about doing all sorts of illegal things. It could've been great as entertainment, but to my ears is a miserable failure as a depiction of reality--in no small part because it is completely unapologetic. (This is where Eminem can also be quite refreshing, especially in a song like 'Stan,' as well as others where it becomes clear that the notion of taking responsibility for one's actions is anything but a foreign concept to him) Through all these records, and others that I like, is what I consider to be good raps, good lyrics--good storytelling, funny, insightful...having something to say, even if it's as mundane as 'Be-Bop-A-Lula.' So I'd have to put words as the most important aspect. This requires talent. Perhaps not musical talent, but talent nonetheless, to construct poetry that's going to connect with the listener.
Then there's the ability to rap well. You know, the part that requires 'no talent?' It does, though. It sounds like something anyone can do, but when it comes to that, people never learn their lesson. Listen to the Beach Boys much? Those hit singles sound really simple, don't they? They sure sound like something anybody can do. However, if you notice, there are very few Beach Boys covers out there. Why? Because they're REALLY HARD to perform, in spite of how simple they SOUND. The Beatles were good at this as well, though not to the extent of Brian Wilson. But that's besides the point. I'm not comparing rap to the BBs. What I am saying is that it's something that not everyone can do. How many times have you seen criticism of three-chord rockers who never emerge from that box? 'Oh, anybody could do that.' But NOT everybody can become proficient enough on guitar to even play three chords competently. It's a talent that too many listeners take for granted, because it sounds pretty much effortless. It isn't. You at least have to get to the point where you can do that, and there isn't a soul on the planet who can pick up a guitar & automatically play 3 chords without working at it. In a technical sense, rap is nowhere near that difficult, obviously. But that in no way means that it's something that 'anyone' could do. It requires rhythmic skill. Now, since nobody raps with the material of others, we're talking about not only having to compose halfway decent words, make them rhyme properly, and apply the proper cadence depending on the beat. This is not the same as singing, of course, but to say that it's something that anyone can do is ludicrous. It does require some measure of musical talent.
The other 25% is the actual music that's being heard along with the beat. Now, I get angry at all these assertions that all of the music is canned, because it isn't. To be perfectly honest, I have no idea what percentage of rap involves actual musicians playing for the purpose of the rap track, but it's probably small. Still, even 1% renders this argument wrong. Yes, most rap involves little more than a DJ, beats, loops, and samples. But some rap is funky, some isn't. Some is pleasant to the ears, some isn't. Some rap samples well-known music of others, some doesn't. There's a huge decision-making process here. How are the words going to flow? Should there be unpleasant noise to highlight the unpleasantness of the subject matter? Should there be background singers or vocalists? How fast should the track be? Sometimes, I would think, the rapper makes these decisions, sometimes the DJ, sometimes the producer. I don't really know. But I've seen the argument put forth that the rapper bears no musical responsibility here, since the material is all chosen by others. I dispute this. Still, let's assume this is true. The rapper is still making the choice to work with the producer & the DJ who are choosing what music works best with the rapper & their material. That's why certain rappers seek the services of certain producers--because they know that the producer in question has a knack for putting the right music with any particular rapper. All of this is meant to say that there's a lot more here than meets the eye. Certain rap songs just wouldn't be the same without this or that particular sample. Is it repetitious to use the same 2-second snippet of somebody else's song, over & over again? Of course it is. Would I do it differently? Of course I would. But I certainly wouldn't assume that just because I have different ideas that the people who are doing this have no talent or skill.
As an aside, I would point out that samples are licensed, the original artists are paid for the use of their work, and I KNOW I'm not the only one in the whole world who's scanned liner notes to see what sample is what. I've bought albums by artists I wasn't all that familiar with based on samples. I can't be the only one.
> Why should my not hearing the three people you mentioned surprise you?
Because generally people who express such bold opinions about music can be expected to possess musical knowledge. These three guys are certainly obscure, but not THAT obscure. If it were the 1950s & I wanted to express the opinion that none of these whippersnapper heathen rock'n'rollers had any talent, I'd have chosen to make sure I knew who Ike Turner, Louis Jordan, & Louis Prima were before I would've made such a pronouncement.
> If it even resembles rap, it's something I've stayed away from
Well, it doesn't really, especially Nordine. But that's not the point.
> My listening
I will say that I'm kinda dumbfounded that someone who listens to avant-garde jazz & noise bands & stuff like Controlled Bleeding never heard of Ken Nordine. He came up with a one-of-a-kind form that, while not earthshattering, is certainly interesting, and nobody's ever paid a whit of attention. Except those into stuff like avant-jazz.
> I'll check into some of the things you mentioned.
Nordine's 'Word Jazz' is probably most up yr alley. But while Johnson is stylistically similar to a lot of reggae if you're not big into making distinctions in that realm, the Heron is similarly unique. I would highly recommend picking up a single disc best-of. It's something that everyone who's ever said a critical word about rap should hear.
> Who knows? Maybe I've missed something. I don't believe I have but I do promise to give it an honest shot and attempt to put my biases behind me.
Do you see the difference between what you're saying here & what you said in yr first posts? I do kinda wish all the other people who say similar things would take notice. I don't like most rap either, believe me. But if there's one thing I hate, it's a crappy attitude, especially when it's completely unfounded. I applaud you for at least pledging to try to keep an open mind. Chances are you'll never like the stuff. But if all I've done is present a case to you that you're wrong about the 'no talent' aspect, and it made any impact at all, then it was worth all the time & trouble so far as I'm concerned.
"If it were the 1950s & I wanted to express the opinion that none of these whippersnapper heathen rock'n'rollers had any talent, I'd have chosen to make sure I knew who Ike Turner, Louis Jordan, & Louis Prima were before I would've made such a pronouncement."Not necessarily so. I might be comparing them to classical musicians. Be that as it may, I don't understand how it's pertinent to knowing who Heron, etc are and having any familiarity with their music. Certainly I'm aware of the roots of music I enjoy but if you're saying that rap comes from these three, again, it's not pertinent to my original statement. If I said punk rockers possessed no talent, the fact that I might not be familiar with Velvet Underground, Stooges, etc has no bearing on it, IMO. PErhaps I'm comparing them to Page, Clapton, etc. If rap is to be considered talent-laden music, it's going to have to stand on its own, same as any other genre. I'm not sure where you're going with this comment. Somehow Heron and the others hold some key to musical knowledge?
I bounced the name Ken Nordine off several musician/record collector buddies and got little info. It sounds interesting, though.
I appreciate your final paragraph. I don't think the point is for me to learn to like rap; the point is to see if I agree or not with the talent aspect. I'm sure I'll never enjoy it but it may just broaden my musical perspective somewhat.
What I'm talking about is my own personal bias that has to do with my wanting to know that someone issuing a critical comment has the background to qualify their opinions. If someone who has never seen 'Citizen Kane' states that 'Titanic' is the best movie ever made, then there's a credibility problem. So I'm only going to take their praise so seriously. Likewise, I think that someone who is familiar with Gil-Scott Heron is going to have more background on how & why rap music came into existence. So their opinion on rap is going to carry more weight with me. Obviously it's a waste of time to argue with a 10-year-old who's going to insist that 'Shrek' is the best movie ever made. We pick & choose our discussions. My own personal feeling is that anyone who's complaining about rap simply because they don't like it should listen to something like Heron; in most cases they've never actually listened to rap, just heard it blaring at them from their television or someone else's car. That's no way to judge an entire genre of music so far as I'm concerned. This being a site that is at least peripherally related to music, I tend to hold people on these boards to a certain standard when it comes to arguing about music. That's all.> Certainly I'm aware of the roots of music I enjoy
I'm also interested in the roots of music I don't enjoy. Some I know about more than others. But the bottom line is, I want to know where something I don't like comes from. Why does it exist? Is there something I'm not seeing? Is it somehow traceable to something I do like? Where do they diverge? How? Why? Who are the principals involved? When were they active? These are all things I want to know about. Obviously I'm going to know more about stuff I like as opposed to stuff I don't, but the more you know, the more informed yr choices can be. This may seem obsessive to some, but I'm not an obsessive person. If I'm obsessive about music, well, there's worse things one can be obsessive about.
> if you're saying that rap comes from these three
No, not at all. I don't think rappers were listening to Nordine. Some were obviously listening to Heron & drew inspiration there. But it comes just as much from electronic music pioneers like Kraftwerk, and James Brown & others like him. For several years, I once read, something like 50% of all rap that came out used 'Funky Drummer' as a backbeat. Miles' 'On The Corner' is also cited as an influence on the musical end of rap.
> If I said punk rockers possessed no talent, the fact that I might not be familiar with Velvet Underground, Stooges, etc has no bearing on it, IMO
That means a LOT to me. Anyone not familiar with those bands certainly has the right to express their opinion--but how much weight I give it, as I explained above, is going to depend on whether or not they HAVE heard those bands.
> Somehow Heron and the others hold some key to musical knowledge?
No, more like knowledge can be a key to understanding music.
> I'm sure I'll never enjoy it but it may just broaden my musical perspective somewhat.
I differ a little - I don't think it's necessary to express even a strong opinion on a form of music in its more or less pure state. Rap, or anything else, has to stand on its own two feet with me. OTOH, I would certainly understand people like Tim Berne, Evan Parker and Peter Brotzmann a little less if I didn't have the Albert Ayler, Coltrane and Charlie Parker background. Things just make a little more sense when you're familiar with the sensibility from which they're derived. But I also don't believe that the people who have listened to the first three and many others need to go back through the jazz canon to support their arguments against avant-jazz. It stands on its own or it doesn't. It may make for some interesting historical prose to research but a piece of music or even an entire genre either works or it doesn't. For me, rap doesn't. For my 4th or 5th OTOH, I"m much less familiar with it although I've heard a lot more than you may think. And as you probably know, there are a lot of jazz fanatics who think Coltrane's creativity died in 1965 and that think Cecil Taylor has zero musical knowledge and talent. Many thought the same about Monk... etc, etc. I may not agree with their opinion but I can understand, based on what they do enjoy, how that opinion came about.If you post your email address, I'll update you on my rap research offline. May prove uninteresting to the board.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: