|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
|
|
General Asylum General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
|
In Reply to: Re: Yes, but posted by D on October 9, 2003 at 10:27:54:
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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Yes, but - J 12:16:00 10/09/03 (3)
- Re: Yes, but - D 12:59:44 10/09/03 (2)
- I understand yr point, but... - J 14:48:42 10/09/03 (1)
- Thanks for the clarification - D 06:28:08 10/10/03 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
