Brady and Moss names mentioned in rap lyrics

[Deus Irae]

The insistence on objective standards that do not exist is what makes it lazy. What are the objective standards? How do we measure them? The answer is that in art you don't. That's the whole point. What's worse is trying to do it across genres. There used to be a whole lot of noise made about the inferiority of film making or photography to painting. Guess what happened to those arguments? People like Alfred Stieglitz and Luis Bunuel obsoleted them.

Your dislike of the objective criteria laid out by someone else does not invalidate that criteria, nor does it make it 'lazy'. It's far more lazy to just say "but I like it, and it's subjective".

 

[Satchboogie3]

Regardless of rap's origin, it's still music.

Yes, but the music is minimal, its just simple (and, oh my, sometimes complex!) rhythms. That's it. The real "skill" is in poetry... not music. Thus, we are arguing that genre's like Jazz require more skill IN MUSIC. Jeez.

 

[letekro]

Those of us who dislike rap are not arguing that rapping takes skill, we are arguing that it takes immensely less skill than many other forms of music.

To be a great "rapper", what skills do you need?
You probably have to know a thing or two about rhythm, but I seriously doubt you need to know EVERYTHING about rhythm (simple & compound time, polyrhythms, complex cycles, syncopation, etc) and be able to play anything (switch meters with ease, etc).

You have to be able to write lyrics. So, yes, they are poets. I'll give them that. Do I think they are comparable to the best song writers (Great American Song Book, and the likes of Billy Joel, etc), No. Few have the knowledge (yes, I did just say that).

Melody. Here is where the skills cease to exist in rap. I HIGHLY doubt that there is a single rapper out there that has mastered melody alone. (can sing every mode (major modes, minor modes, melodic minor modes) along with all the other different scales (altered scales, chord scales, Indian and other 'regional' scales)).

Harmony. Here is something that is almost never found in rap music. Harmony is even MORE complex than melody. You have triads, tetrads, etc. You have counterpoint. You have enough theory and craft to cover to spend a lifetime mastering.

Improvisation. This is what REALLY sets apart Jazz from anything else. Great Jazz artists take ALL the skills I've listed bellow (with some others, too) and use it to create music on the fly. It takes many many years of practice, study, experience, skill, and talent to improvise well over any conceivable piece of music. Most of the greats spend most waking hours practicing their skill.

Composition. Again, Rap doesn't compare to any great Jazz or Classical music. Jazz and Classical compositions are far more complex than anything you will ever find in Rap and it takes far more knowledge and skill to be able to understand it and compose music in those genres.

On top of just the knowledge, most of the great Jazz and Classical artists are proficient in more than one instrument. How many rappers do you know that are proficient in many instruments (including experts in at least one)?

It simply doesn't take as much skill to be a great rapper as it does to be a great in many other genres. It's not even close.

I'm not sure why you're using skill level or complexity as a proxy for music quality. Yngwie Malmsteen is a tremendously skilled guitar player, many of Frank Zappa's compositions are quite complex - does that mean that these guys produce objectively better music than, for example, U2, or Bruce Springsteen? I'm not so sure (and I'm also not sure that the latter artists are objectively "better" or more worthy than the former).

I notice that you give Billy Joel as an example of "one of the best songwriters." This is probably because his lyrics make you feel certain emotions, or evoke memories or feelings that you find enjoyable (it is probably not because they read as great pieces of literature - try reading "pressure" straight through, for example), but you also have to agree that people with different backgrounds, histories, psychic makeups, etc., may not be so moved. I think we can agree that this doesn't make Billy Joel a bad songwriter. With respect to rap, like someone who does not "get" Billy Joel, you are one of the people that is not moved by the lyrical content (although you may be preventing that by dismissing it out of hand) - that's fine, but it doesn't mean that there are not good, provocative lyricists within the genre.

And, with regards to improvisation, haven't you ever heard of "freestyle"?

Beware of dismissing entire genres out of hand. The history of persecuting or belittling practitioners of new or underground musical genres is as long as the history of music itself. For years, even your beloved jazz was thought to be perverse entertainment for degenerates. This is before the white big-banders and Louie Armstrong's ridiculous singing brought it mainstream, and way before Miles Davis and Coltrane made it "cool." More often than not, such a dismissal shows a cultural disconnect, rather than a musical one.

 

[glm]

Yes, but the music is minimal, its just simple (and, oh my, sometimes complex!) rhythms. That's it. The real "skill" is in poetry... not music. Thus, we are arguing that genre's like Jazz require more skill IN MUSIC. Jeez.

The problem with Rap is that it isn't really music. It's basically just prose set to a simple rhythm. When Rap starts actually having real melody, then I'll call it music.

Well, apparently, your original point was that rap wan't music, not that Jazz required more skill in music.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Yes, the words "not really" is in respect to the fact that only the rhythm, the delivery of the words, is music. Really, there isn't much difference between reciting poetry and rap.

Also, I'm not arguing about "quality". I'm talking skill. Apple made the argument that rappers are just as skilled as artists of any other genre. I'm arguing that his belief is wrong.

It's funny you bring up Yngwie. I used to listen to the guy, but he just got old. He never went anywhere and just played the same old "harmonic minor" crap over and over. He's you're classic "One skill" type of musician. He has great chops and plays a mean "Neo-Classical Metal", but he can't do anything else.

I find rap boring, I'm not saying all rappers have no skill. There are rappers out there that are skillful poets. I do believe, though, that most popular rappers aren't very skillful and that rappers, overall, aren't as skillful, in respect to music, as artists from other genres, such as Jazz.

Just a background too, I listen to a whole lot of different music, but it is important that it is MUSICAL. I want MUSIC as the focal point, not poetry. A lot of people listen to music primarily for the lyrics. I do agree with Yngwie in that I think music is more important than the lyrics. His belief was that music was the focus, but if he could write great lyrics, it would be even better. Stuff like "Highway Star" by Deep Purple was great music, but the lyrics were ****. But the music was good, so it was fine. On the other hand you had guys like Bob Dylan. Great lyrics, but the music was crap (opinion). I'm of that belief.

 

[letekro]

Yes, the words "not really" is in respect to the fact that only the rhythm, the delivery of the words, is music. Really, there isn't much difference between reciting poetry and rap.

Also, I'm not arguing about "quality". I'm talking skill. Apple made the argument that rappers are just as skilled as artists of any other genre. I'm arguing that his belief is wrong.

It's funny you bring up Yngwie. I used to listen to the guy, but he just got old. He never went anywhere and just played the same old "harmonic minor" crap over and over.

I find rap boring, I'm not saying all rappers have no skill. There are rappers out there that are skillful poets. I do believe, though, that most popular rappers aren't very skillful and that rappers, overall, aren't as skillful, in respect to music, as artists from other genres, such as Jazz.

Well what are we arguing about then? You don't like rap. Fine. Rap artists are generally not as "skillful" musicians as jazz artists. Fine, and I don't think you would get any disagreement from the rappers. Is that it??

As to yngwie, I actually like his first album, but never got into the whole Yngwie/Vai/Satch guitar-wanker thing, although I would agree that Satch is the most tasteful of the three.

 

[Satchboogie3]

That's of course why my SN is Satchboogie. I listen to Yngwie when I want a good laugh at hair-metal (Heaven Tonight!). I think Vai has the most "feel" of any rock guitarist and Satriani just writes awesome instrumental rock tunes.

Right now, though, the guy I listen to the most is Pat Metheny. In my opinion, he is the perfect ideal of a musician and holds the same musical tastes as I do. His fusion with the Pat Metheny Group is just magnificent.

I don't think there is a real argument, it's just that Apple is trying to argue that Rappers are just as skilled as Jazz musicians, etc.

 

[glm]

Yes, the words "not really" is in respect to the fact that only the rhythm, the delivery of the words, is music.

Then what about this part:

When Rap starts actually having real melody, then I'll call it music.

. . . ?

Really, there isn't much difference between reciting poetry and rap.

Too lazy to write up a response, so here's a link.

Rap definition R.A.P - Revolutionary Arts Proverbalization

Also, I'm not arguing about "quality". I'm talking skill. Apple made the argument that rappers are just as skilled as artists of any other genre. I'm arguing that his belief is wrong.

To make a discussion of this, I would have to know what context he meant by "rappers are just as skilled as artists of any other genre."

Did he mean they are just as skillful in their respective genres then other artist's are in their genre, or that a rapper has as much skill as any other artist in any other genre even though there is no way of measuring that, and it's all subjective.

I find rap boring, I'm not saying all rappers have no skill. There are rappers out there that are skillful poets. I do believe, though, that most popular rappers aren't very skillful and that rappers, overall, aren't as skillful, in respect to music, as artists from other genres, such as Jazz.

Completely subjective.

 

[apple strudel]

Your dislike of the objective criteria laid out by someone else does not invalidate that criteria, nor does it make it 'lazy'. It's far more lazy to just say "but I like it, and it's subjective".

Except it's not objective. It's a failed attempt at objective analysis, but is really opinion wearing the mask or analysis. It's hard enough to compare artists working in the same genre, impossible across them.

How do you measure skill in art? If you can't measure it, how is it objective?

Edit: more than skill - how do you measure important ideas in art? Ideas and concepts are probably more important than technical skill anyway.

 

[apple strudel]

I don't think there is a real argument, it's just that Apple is trying to argue that Rappers are just as skilled as Jazz musicians, etc.

Well, not really. My main argument is that it's impossible to meaningfully argue one genre's superiority over another. How do you measure that skill? Is it useful or productive to follow the argument? History says no - artists make genre, not the other way around. Look at the short story, or even what's happened to poetry. Look at Raymond Chandler. Detective novels seems a pretty low form but the man is taught in colleges, and is a fantastic writer. Same with Poe - do you throw him out because he wrote gothic stories? Certainly not.

 

[Satchboogie3]

Except it's not objective. It's a failed attempt at objective analysis, but is really opinion wearing the mask or analysis. It's hard enough to compare artists working in the same genre, impossible across them.

How do you measure skill in art? If you can't measure it, how is it objective?

Edit: more than skill - how do you measure important ideas in art? Ideas and concepts are probably more important than technical skill anyway.

Believe it or not, when you go to a music college, you actually have to take courses in music theory, etc. You even have to take proficiency tests for your instrument. These exams measure your skill and knowledge. No way!

 

[apple strudel]

but again, that's not music, that's poetry.

But they are so closely related.

Smithsonian Education - The Music in Poetry

 

[apple strudel]

Believe it or not, when you go to a music college, you actually have to take courses in music theory, etc. You even have to take proficiency tests for your instrument. These exams measure your skill and knowledge. No way!

And that has no bearing on the quality of the artist. Otherwise MFAs from Iowa would be more accomplished than Burroughs or Faulkner.

 

[Satchboogie3]

And that has no bearing on the quality of the artist. Otherwise MFAs from Iowa would be more accomplished than Burroughs or Faulkner.

It's called "the next step". Once you have mastered your instrument/craft, then you have to compose great music, using your skills. Also, there are plenty of great writers out there that aren't very famous. Believe it or not, but gaining fame and reputation has a whole lot of factors besides skill. If skill was all that mattered, people like Britney Spears wouldn't have a job.

 

[Deus Irae]

Except it's not objective. It's a failed attempt at objective analysis, but is really opinion wearing the mask or analysis. It's hard enough to compare artists working in the same genre, impossible across them.

How do you measure skill in art? If you can't measure it, how is it objective?

Edit: more than skill - how do you measure important ideas in art? Ideas and concepts are probably more important than technical skill anyway.

How do you measure skill in art?

Painting:
Can he paint a human and make it look like a human?
Can he paint a dog and make it look like a dog?
etc....

That's one way to start, just as a very basic example, and it's perfectly objective even if you don't like it as a standard. Your notion is really that, even though there are clearly objective standards available, they shouldn't be applied.

It's one thing to defend the music you like. It's another to imply that the person who doesn't like it is an ignorant racist who doesn't get it, and then to claim that there's nothing to get. That's essentially all you've done.

If there's room for objectivity, you can rate them as inferior/superior, or at least as pass/fail for the objective standards. If it's 100% subjective, then someone analyzing it using what they feel is an objective criteria (does it have a fiddle in it?), has made a valid standard within their own subjective world, and your argument that a person is ignorant for considering the genre inferior falls on its face.

The sad part is that rap doesn't need defending, especially by someone who's made such a hash out of the defense as yourself. It's a money-making enterprise whether it sucks or not, and the poster's disdain for the genre isn't going to have any appreciable effect upon it.

 

[apple strudel]

How do you measure skill in art?

Painting:
Can he paint a human and make it look like a human?
Can he paint a dog and make it look like a dog?
etc....

That's one way to start, just as a very basic example, and it's perfectly objective even if you don't like it as a standard. Your notion is really that, even though there are clearly objective standards available, they shouldn't be applied.

100 years of modern art says absolutely not. Figuration in painting has been a problem for what, 150 years now?

It's one thing to defend the music you like. It's another to imply that the person who doesn't like it is an ignorant racist who doesn't get it, and then to claim that there's nothing to get. That's essentially all you've done.

Not at all. It's admittedly difficult to choose the better artists, but you're much better off going in the affirmative direction than the other. But that's within genres or media. You can't dismiss a whole class of artists, however. That's the point, and I've mad it a million times now. See the pulp/Chandler example. Or even the modern art example. People who dismiss it hands down are doing it wrong.

The sad part is that rap doesn't need defending, especially by someone who's made such a hash out of the defense as yourself. It's a money-making enterprise whether it sucks or not, and the poster's disdain for the genre isn't going to have any appreciable effect upon it.

That's not the point either. You keep dancing around it, in lieu of an argument I suppose.

 

[letekro]

How do you measure skill in art?

Painting:
Can he paint a human and make it look like a human?
Can he paint a dog and make it look like a dog?
etc....

Can Mark Rothko even do this? I have no idea, and neither do the people that shell out $100 million for his paintings.

 

[apple strudel]

It's called "the next step". Once you have mastered your instrument/craft, then you have to compose great music, using your skills. Also, there are plenty of great writers out there that aren't very famous. Believe it or not, but gaining fame and reputation has a whole lot of factors besides skill. If skill was all that mattered, people like Britney Spears wouldn't have a job.

How do you measure them in a way that is broadly accepted?

 

[Satchboogie3]

How do you measure them in a way that is broadly accepted?

It's called listening. You listen to the music and the artist and you can get an idea of what they are doing. It involves the listener (who must have an immense music knowledge) putting in the work and dissecting the artists work.

The average person can't actually measure musical talent/skill beyond "that sounds complicated".

There are some great musicians who have actually experiment with rap/rappers before (Victor Wooten comes to mind), but it is always as just a side project and it always involves more music than what normal (by rap artists) rap has.

 

[Deus Irae]

Can Mark Rothko even do this? I have no idea, and neither do the people that shell out $100 million for his paintings.

That doesn't mean that it wouldn't be an objective standard. Really, the failure to see that is one of the reasons that apple strudel's argument has been so weak. One COULD evaluate art on an objective basis, and most people do use some objective measurements within/along with their subjective takes.