Technique in Rap and Rock

There doesn't seem to be that kind of feeling among hip-hop fans, even undie fans. In fact I don't think it's ever really surfaced outside rock - rock since punk is an evolutionary aberration here. The closest I've seen has been some of the discussion around Northern State (whose enthusiastic 'badness' is definitely part of the total package, it's very hard to imagine them without it) and a couple of old ILM threads where Ethan talked about Ma$e and Puffy. So what I'm asking isn't "why doesn't that aesthetic exist in hip-hop?" because it doesn't need to exist - but instead "could it exist?" or "how might you find value in bad rapping?"

xpost - I don't get that feeling Colin, I think "X can't rap" means exactly that generally; X has no flow, no skills, not enough rhymes, can't freestyle etc.

I'd like to hear this defended. When do you prefer complexity over feeling?

Funny -- I know this song from the Prodigy's *Dirtchamber Sessions* mix CD, and to me, it's always seemed like a GREAT record, and the vocal totally rocks, as does the music. It has a real PUSH to it. I wish I knew *why* Gear! thinks it's so foul, or its rapping is bad.

Oh god worst description of Rakim's style ever.

course, i only know this cos i'm right and everybody else is wrong ;)

so the way i see things this doesn't mean i can't say "(x) can't rap", it's just that "can't rap" is this set of impossibly compressed and pretty much indecipherable values. eg. "(x) can't make me feel good".

(side issue: last time i saw the "can't play" argument used with any force to beat up someone in the indie/rock world, meg white was getting the bruising.)

if he didn't make corny disco records and rapped about different things, he would totally be a top ten hip-hop rockist pick. i always thought he sounded sort of like rakim, too.

But it seems like you're trying to push this indie rock aesthetic on hip-hop. Hip-hop wouldn't be hip-hop without its competitive nature. Certainly skills don't define whether the art is good or not; but it DOES affect HOW THE ART SOUNDS.

I do think most rap criticism struggles to deal intelligently with the whole vocal element -- what the voices sound like, as Mr. Eddy says, and how the sounds work with the rest of the music, and what the sounds *mean*. Criticism tends to focus on lyrics, and to a lesser extent on "flow" (although even that is more often simply said to exist or not, rather than being articulated and contemplated in any specific way), but rarely on the whole complex set of things that actually make up rap vocals (which range from timing to timbre to emotional versatility, etc. etc.). Which is too bad, because I think the failure to adequately come to terms in some expressive way with rap vocals is part of what (still) leads to a lot of dismissive comments about "shouting" and so forth. I mean, I can imagine a whole critical angle on Public Enemy focused primarily on the interplay between Chuck and Flava's voices -- I mean, that interplay and the way it plays off the sonics of the production (a whole other field of inquiry, obviously) is what makes them great, at least as much as their socio-political relevance or whatever.

"...I don't see pre-Rakim rap..."

"...So how is it that...."

Canibus! (and his mom prolly)

also, Chuck D's voice is very expressive...usually expressing shock and outrage, but still I mean the classic "BASS! How low can you go?" is totally exciting and not boring ditto for tons of chuck lines.

Doesn't this seem really LIMITED to you, though?? It does to me....Spoonie Gee or the Real Roxanne could express shock, outrage, and LOTS of other things!

i dunno. because the "complexity" changed the dynamics of voices in rap, which are more viscerally felt than those in rock, and visceral effect still largely decides how rap records are made (rather than complexity for its own sake), maybe? just throwing that out there...

Wasn't that the point of Chuck D's approach? Pedal-to-the-metal barrelling like a mack truck? He could change it up a little when he wanted ("Pollywannacracka" most obviously), but his whole thing was really just drive-drive-drive. Without Flav and the bomb squad, it wouldn't have worked as well -- although "Autobiography of Mistah Chuck" was better than I thought it would be. But that in itself seems to point up the folly of adhering to any one rap aesthetic. Lots of things can work, if you know how to make them work. Comparing all MCs to each other (and/or to some mythic MC Golden Mean) makes no more sense than doing the same to all rock singers or crooners.

Maybe. And right, in the context of PE's music, it was often quite effective. But just because a vocal style is somebody's "approach" doesn't mean what they do is justifiable. Just because lots of death metal singers sound like the cookie monster throwing up all the time doesn't mean I should love them for it.

[x-post]

I think Lemmy's vocals (and Motorhead's music) are more limited than they need to be, too (though nowhere near as limited as lots of gratuitously ugly so-called-extreme metal they influenced), and I said so in my heavy metal book. (I also think Motorhead were a really great band, at last in the beginning, by the way. Like AC/DC, they were best when they had more of an r&b groove underneath; the more they conformed to the cold rules of metal, the duller they got.)

http://villagevoice.com/issues/0403/eddy.php

You're suddenly the one limiting rapper's ability to express themselves here! Rappers like Rakim, Chuck D, and the ridiculously awesome KRS-One developed unique identities AS rappers. and that's why they've become canonized favorites. Not because of "skillz!1!" And neither Chuck D nor KRS had anything nearing a monotone, and while it could be argued for Rakim, that was what made listening to him so thrilling - it was smooth and slick without becoming samey or dull.

I mean if I hear any rock band that "can't play" I'm still hearing that they're *tight* and *rock* usually, or that they're something else that's cohesive, or cohesively shambolic, or etc. Which is about rhythm and swing and not just speed and complexity of chords. And when I hear a rapper that "can't rap" that I like its coz THEY have rhythm and tightness and etc -- a lil jon would be a perfect example of someone with a small vocab w/r/t their raps, and not v. fast, and mainly just shouty, but still undeniably QUALITY -- & I don't think its too hard to hear a difference between that and someone whose just not good.

The problem is "rap" means both "play" AND "rock" at the moment -- so chuck of all ppl. has argued that its v. meaningful to say a band doesn't rock -- but if a rapper doesn't rap does it mean he's not putting words in meter!?

I guess the most general and succinct way I can put "quality" is the question -- is it INTEGRATED? -- i.e. do the elements cohere and feel purposeful, is there an esthetic unity to the work, or are there extraneous elements which don't resolve (and don't resolve in an UNINTERESTING way) because they're just bland accidents of lack of skill. (nb if you lack the skill, at least work things so you can avoid highlighting the skill you lack -- or so there's a POINT to highlighting it).

The point being (and maybe this is just where i've developed my crit-skills) I can tell when a rap verse is missing something (and articulate what its missing) far better than I can tell (and articulate) when a band is "missing something".

This may also be due to my knowledge of and like of words and metrics as opposed to my lack of knowledge of how to, say, play a guitar.

just to diverge - i disagree with this assessment. of all turntablists Kid Koala's music doesn't emphasize virtuosity at all, and if he refers to it then it's because his stuff is so physically taxing to perform. not sure about the comic book thing either, Koala carries around a sketchbook so he's drawing constantly but that's not to say he doesn't spend just as much time crate-digging.

>what it MEANS to rap is more contested than what it MEANS to "play"<

If Sterl hung around rock people more, he'd hear stuff like "so and so can't play for shit" ALL THE TIME. It's EXACTLY the same as in rap.

And somehow, the "unique identities" thing strikes me as sort of a red herring, since some unique identities (L'Trimm's, say) are obviously not as readily cannonized as some others (KRS-One's, say.) Either way, preferences ultimately come down to how the music SOUNDS.

As for what makes a great rapper, my opinion is worthless since I haven't listened to the stuff in 10 years. My then-favourites were Ice Cube, Chuck D and Roxanne Shante; and all the praise heaped upon then-newcomer Snoop (Doggy) Dogg totally baffled me (thought he sounded like Howard Cosell, and still do.) And then the stuff just kept getting slower and slower (too much chronic?) and I got bored and gave up.

I really like Snoop a lot though I think the praise heaped on him initially had as much to do with him sounding like no one else as it had to do with his skills.

also Vanilla Ice has made it impossible for me to take the A1A seriously as a major thoroughfare in Miami.

also it strikes me that poss. there are more rappers with weak rhymes that rockers with weak skillz coz production can indeed account for a lot more in rap.

which when i think about it actually does resemble "rocking" and jay-z actually doesn't do much to rock the mic. (not that i don't think he COULD).

why does rappers never want to rock?

(xpost -- what about an mc who can rock the boat?)

production can -- to borrow some capitalization-for-emphasis from chuck -- do EXACTLY the same thing for "weak"-skilled rockers as it can do for "weak"-skilled rappers. rock of all stripes is littered with drummers who can't keep time, guitarists who've got no sound, etc., whose asses are saved by hands-on producers. no difference whatsoever there.

well, there's plenty of great rock and pop productions that sound good DESPITE not that good singing. britney, for example. or a lot of madonna singles. or, say, motley crue. so i'm still not sure what the difference is.

xpost they can't rap well, but it's beside the point because their music sucks major ass.

And more to the point i think i'm getting frustrated coz this thread is suggesting that rap is more "rockist" than rock except i think that by and large it ISN'T and all the prejudices that chuck is throwing down against are held by a small critical minority (as opposed to the fairly widespread rockism w/r/t rock) -- i.e. if it was all about "skillz" for hip-hop then lil jon and david banner would NOT be at the top of the pile right now -- in other words yeah i dislike undie skillzmongering as much as the next guy but it hardly seems to be that much of an issue as compared to people complaining about bands that "can't play" coz they're looking for a narrow set of things about what it means to play.

(i think that the session musician world of wannabe rockstars accounts for this phenom quite a bit)

in otherwords i dispute the premise of the thread coz i don't think that most people who say someone "can't rap" are doing what chuck gets mad about [tho of course some are, including say, dj]

I don't know enough to argue about whether rap is such a genre.

When did I say this?

i'm not necessarily arguing with that. i just need to go away and contemplate that possibility for a few days. which i'm happy to do since i like most of her singles just fine.

but ... that's what i'm saying you don't ... ah forget it.

For instance, when talking of James Brown circa "The Funky Drummer," people often talk about how great his drummer was.
He held a functional role that helped define the music.
This is what I'm arguing for the role of MCs like Rakim.

And yes, Britney can sing.

>>Do you just deny that there could be a genre which has at least some minimal objective standards of skill built into it?<<

No, of course I don't deny the possibility, though there is nothing "objective" about musical tastes, ever, as far as I can see. And as somebody who's been listening to rap since 1981, I don't see how those standards are "built in" to rap. See above, my post about pre-Rakim battles etc...They're something rap starting emphasizing more and more as time went by. I also can't imagine much ENJOYING a genre with so-called objective virtuosity standards, one reason I've never been a bluegrass fan. (Maybe also why I've never been a bebop fan; I dunno, maybe bebop has nothing to do with this at all.)

i like a lot of her records!

but in the context of this hread, i think she's a perfect example of someone who has got by on feel and sound despite a lack of "technique." her voice is quite noticeably thin, she doesn't have great range, and she's demonstrated no ability to hold a pitch. none of which is necessarily a horrible thing. unless all you care about is raw technique, in which case she's a few notes short of a scale. but she sounds good singing her own records. which has a lot to do with why i like them. that's all i'm saying.

You do make a case with real examples from rap's history, true.

I also can't imagine much ENJOYING a genre with so-called objective virtuosity standards, one reason I've never been a bluegrass fan. (Maybe also why I've never been a bebop fan; I dunno, maybe bebop has nothing to do with this at all.)

Okay, that I can understand. I guess that in the past ten years I've gotten to enjoy some types of music where a certain level of technique is a requirement (though not sufficient in itself to make something good music). Bebop does seem like a good example, though not one that I particularly appreciate either.

Blink 182 and Maroon 5 and Linkin Park and Hoobastank and Jet and Trapt and Switchfoot are hardly virtuosos, yet they're on the top (or near the top anyway) or the rock pile these days. And I bet many of their fans also own Faith Hill or Ludacris or Clay Aiken records. So I don't get how "rockism" is widespread w/r/t rock, either, Sterling.

Anyway I think the bop analogy is a good one and one of the more productive parts of my discussion with this one Af-Am Studies musicologist was pinning down the way in which flow suddenly switched waaay up (mainly just breaking free of iambic regularity) as rap's "bop moment". For that matter I'd recommend you listen to "Things That U Do" off Jay's Vol 3. coz the way he dances around swizz' beatz is pretty damn bop too and also really delightful in the same way that louis armstrong and his hot five can be or something.

I do like Louis and the Hot Five though. They rock!

Is Rakim possibly the best rapper - ever?