Brady and Moss names mentioned in rap lyrics

[apple strudel]

What do you mean I can't? I just did.

You can't do it and not be wrong. Simply put it's a foolish tact.

Let me try: rock music sucks. It's got no ideas, it's got very little technical skill and where it does exist is in the form of Thurston Moore and not Joe Satriani, it's a bunch of noodling irrelevant wankers who don't produce anything beautiful or meaningful and go about soloing even though they'll never improve on what Jimi did. It's a dead form. Disco is so much better anyway because they appeal to the common man, it's more compositionally skilled, and you can dance to it which is what music is all about. Guitar is easy anyway - you make up for lack of skill with effects pedals, amplifiers, and turning the volume up. All you guitarists should pick up piano and put down your guitars: you suck.

See?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

This diss essentially started both Biggie and Tupac on the road to their deaths.

You say that like it was a bad thing

 

[BradyFTW!]

Within the bounds of my subjectivity, furthermore, I can lay out perfectly objective criteria for analysis.

Well that's the crux of the debate, I guess. Can a criteria that's based on an admittedly subjective premise be considered objective? Apparently you think so, and it seems that apple disagrees.

We could argue this for 30 pages, or we could realize that philosophers have been debating this for a few thousand years precisely because it can't be proven one way or the other on any level that is objective without reliance on a pre-supposed subjective foundation.

In many areas of discourse and logic, these presuppositions are essentially necessary. In America, there are self-evident truths of equal rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. In law, it's held as a self-evident truth that murder is Bad (capital b). These foundational claims are, strictly speaking, reached subjectively, but are necessary because realistically there is no objective truth (unless you claim one religiously, but even then your selection of a religion is subjective, and that isn't relevant to this debate anyways since God probably just listens to country music).

Now I may totally be off here, but it always struck me that one of the main points of art was to pretty much explore new and innovative things and really tear down boundaries... which self-evident truths would create. While that subjective layer is necessary in a social contract (since you need laws to function as a society), does art really need that kind of a framework? Of course it doesn't, unless you're oddly obsessed with ranking it in some bizarre hierarchy of merit that fundamentally works against the core reasons why most people engage in artistic expression in the first place.

At the end of the day, though, I think we all just have to accept that, wherever there's new, interesting, innovative, trailblazing art out there, there will be ass-backwards 'purists' who appointed themselves vanguards of some imaginary standard, insisting that it isn't 'real' art. They said it about literally every genre of music that came before, so it's not like it's a surprise that they came out of the woodwork on hip hop. That's just a fact of life, and the best thing you can probably do is just not care.

 

[feldspar]

I have some friends who went to Berklee and got degrees in music theory and are now successful performers whose work pretty much exclusively consists of mixing drum and bass beats and sampling artists. It's way above my head, but to say that the level of training and intricacy that goes into the process is intense is a pretty profound understatement. Are they real musicians?

If they are real muscians, their jobs aren't the jobs of musicians. I'd call them technicians or something like that.

 

[apple strudel]

For crying out loud...

Your argument was that it's subjective and that you cannot rate it objectively.

If that's the case, OF COURSE people can dismiss an entire genre as inferior.

Within the bounds of my subjectivity, furthermore, I can lay out perfectly objective criteria for analysis.

If it's not subjective, there are testable things to determine superiority/inferiority. You have not been able to come up with some. In fact, you've insisted that such things don't exist even though it's clear to even someone blind from birth that you could lay out objective standards.

So, your argument is that it's all subjective, but rap can't be dismissed because you say so. That's the bottom line of your argument, and it's ridiculous. From talking instead of singing, to stealing someone else's music instead of making your own, there are ways to evaluate this objectively, both within a genre and cross-genre. You may not like the standards chosen, but that doesn't make them inherently wrong. The SAT is used as an objective test of knowledge despite the cries of some that it's racist/inaccurate/etc....

As for what colleges are teaching, who gives a rat's ass? They teach a lot of idiotic courses, so nothing they add to it will surprise me. I don't say this to denigrate the rap classes, because I'm not posting to put down the genre. I say this to point out the uselessness of that particular argument:

The 15 Strangest College Courses In America | Online Colleges

Dude, it's simple, clear, and obvious, and I've been saying the same thing over and over again for what, days now, and you're still not following. You don't have to like a genre, but don't pretend your dislike is objective. It's not. There's no objective way to rank one genre over another, and that's why serious people don't do it.

I've said this from the beginning. Don't go blaming other people because you can't follow along.

And just because some colleges may teach seemingly odd courses doesn't mean that the physics they teach isn't any less real. Gates is a giant, and Stanford and Harvard speak for themselves. Hip hop institutionalized for good reason. If you know anything about art and art theory you understand that the questions of authorship, citation, and origin are important, and that's what hip hop does for music. It's as legitimate as any other form of art, or any other genre of music. Like it or not.

 

[BradyFTW!]

If they are real muscians, their jobs aren't the jobs of musicians. I'd call them technicians or something like that.

Well, for whatever it's worth, Berklee disagrees with you.

 

[apple strudel]

If they are real muscians, their jobs aren't the jobs of musicians. I'd call them technicians or something like that.

They make music, as a result they are musicians. Your pretense is cute, but it's a dead one for the last generation.

 

[feldspar]

You can't do it and not be wrong. Simply put it's a foolish tact.

Let me try: rock music sucks. It's got no ideas, it's got very little technical skill and where it does exist is in the form of Thurston Moore and not Joe Satriani, it's a bunch of noodling irrelevant wankers who don't produce anything beautiful or meaningful and go about soloing even though they'll never improve on what Jimi did. It's a dead form. Disco is so much better anyway because they appeal to the common man, it's more compositionally skilled, and you can dance to it which is what music is all about. Guitar is easy anyway - you make up for lack of skill with effects pedals, amplifiers, and turning the volume up. All you guitarists should pick up piano and put down your guitars: you suck.

See?

I can see that people are free to think whatever they want.

 

[Kontradiction]

You say that like it was a bad thing

If you're a fan of what hip-hop used to represent (which was a message from blacks about the struggles of living and growing in ghettos) then it was a bad thing. Essentially, the deaths of Tupac and Biggie Smalls killed off hip-hop's old vanguard and ushered in a new era of crap.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I can see that people are free to think whatever they want.

Study: 38 Percent Of People Not Actually Entitled To Their Opinion | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

 

[apple strudel]

You say that like it was a bad thing

I'm sure your family is proud of you.

 

[apple strudel]

I can see that people are free to think whatever they want.

For the, what, billionth time? Nobody's saying that isn't the case. Nobody's saying you have to like it. But don't pretend it's an objective analysis or you'll get called on it. There's nothing objective about it. In fact, it's a counter-productive analysis. Something about the forest for the trees.

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

Well, for whatever it's worth, Berklee disagrees with you.

I wish people would leave Berklee out of this discussion. Berklee isnt the grand endorsment that it once was. No offense to your friends, being that they might be talented, but saying you went to Berklee no longer means you're a good musician. It just means you went there

 

[glm]

I said it was a hell of a lot easier than creating your own music from scratch.

Well, since you stated it as a fact, I would like to see some evidence.

I said this:

It's rapping over someone else's music or a machine's music. That GIGANTIC shortcut alone should give rap a LOT less credence than a group of people that make every sound themselves from scratch. Makes it easier, right? Not all rappers do that, but tons of them do. Rapping over a completely contrived backdrop...that's the worse kind.

And I see a lot of opinions written as if they were facts.

I said this:

Why exactly isn't there a band (behind the rapper) that can create their own song? The whole process is way beneath the processes of other genres, which is the exact point. Chop this from somebody, chop that from somebody else...put it all together and call it your own. That almost borders on dishonesty. All musicians take this or that from other musicians, but not so directly or pathetically

And from this I see opinions and a misinformed person.

Oh, and about this:

All musicians take this or that from other musicians, but not so directly or pathetically

I want you look up a band called "Led Zeppelin" or a thing called "the Blues."

I wouldn't know how to go about sampling, and I'm sure it takes some expensive equipment to do. It wouldn't take intruments to do, though...think about that for a second. I'm going to make music without a single instrument.

YouTube - Fortune Faded - Acústic (no instrument)

How about YOU do some sampling, and then create an original song of your own from scratch...post both songs here, and then report back on which one was easier to do.

Right after you get done with your assignment.

Then you'll see my point.

After you see mine.

My point was never that it was just plain easy; I wouldn't say that because I don't know how to do it...besides it wouldn't be an interesting thing to do at all.

Yeah, that's it. Dismiss something before you try it.

 

[glm]

Riding a bike is easy. That doesn't mean that you can hop on it and ride it "above average" without a little practice.

Well, if a person who never rode a bike before said it was easy to ride a bike because he rides on motorcycles, then I would expect him to ride the bike above average with no practice.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I wish people would leave Berklee out of this discussion. Berklee isnt the grand endorsment that it once was. No offense to your friends, being that they might be talented, but saying you went to Berklee no longer means you're a good musician. It just means you went there

It doesn't even matter if they're good. The level of talent is irrelevant to the point that I was disproving. It just shows that Berklee disagrees with feldspar's premise that sampling, mixing, and creating beats != music

 

[BradyFTW!]

I wouldn't know how to go about sampling, and I'm sure it takes some expensive equipment to do. It wouldn't take intruments to do, though...think about that for a second. I'm going to make music without a single instrument.

1) Define instrument
2) Was Luciano Pavarotti a musician?

 

[Deus Irae]

Dude, it's simple, clear, and obvious, and I've been saying the same thing over and over again for what, days now, and you're still not following. You don't have to like a genre, but don't pretend your dislike is objective. It's not. There's no objective way to rank one genre over another, and that's why serious people don't do it.

I've said this from the beginning. Don't go blaming other people because you can't follow along.

And just because some colleges may teach seemingly odd courses doesn't mean that the physics they teach isn't any less real. Gates is a giant, and Stanford and Harvard speak for themselves. Hip hop institutionalized for good reason. If you know anything about art and art theory you understand that the questions of authorship, citation, and origin are important, and that's what hip hop does for music. It's as legitimate as any other form of art, or any other genre of music. Like it or not.

I can follow along. Your argument is just wrong.

 

[apple strudel]

I can follow along. Your argument is just wrong.

lol - that's all you've got? What is this, pre-school?

And that's so - LAAAAAAAME! Nigga switch up your flow
Your **** is garbage, but you try and kick knowledge?

 

[Deus Irae]

Well, if a person who never rode a bike before said it was easy to ride a bike because he rides on motorcycles, then I would expect him to ride the bike above average with no practice.

A lot of things are easy to do. It doesn't mean that there's no need for a small adjustment and learning period. Using a computer for its basic functions is very easy. That doesn't mean that someone doesn't need to learn the location of the power button and learn how to open applications once the system boots up.

This entire argument is based upon apple strudel and his inablility to understand what objective means in comparison to subjective, and to understand the ramifications of that. Objective doesn't mean "universally loved and applauded", and it doesn't mean "what apple strudel says".

What it means in the context of this discussion is:

5.not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
8.of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

objective definition | Dictionary.com

Now, unless you're going to play the "Nothing is real, it's all subjective" game, it's obvious that objective criteria can be used. Apple strudel doesn't like some of what's been put forth as criteria. That's fine as an argument about what can/should be used. It's not fine, however, as some for of proof that nothing objective can be found.

As I noted, one could, for example, objectively grade painters on their ability to draw humans, animals, houses, etc.... that people can actually recognize as being those objects. Others could argue as to the value of that objective standard, but that won't magically make the standard subjective. Hell, if one wanted to, one could use "total number of instruments required to play that song" as an objective standard for determining the quality of music. I certainly wouldn't do that, but my thinking that such a standard would be stupid doesn't make it inherently invalid.