Why in the hell does Pitchfork review the new R. Kelly?

THE SECOND IN TWO WEEKS, THE HONOUR IS OURS!

but from then on it ceases to be ironic. or maybe it's the incongruity of not actually liking mustaches even though you're wearing one? that doesnt quite make sense though. am i missing something?

Bizarre? yes.
Audacious? probably.
Brilliant? ... it made me laugh, i guess, and that takes a *kind* of brilliance, but probably not what Mitchum is talking about.

"But most consumers won't be buying this disc for anything but the five-part melodrama "Trapped in the Closet," in which a series of characters all voiced by Kelly uncover each other's unexpected romantic entanglements. Released sequentially to radio in recent weeks, the song's chapters saturated the airwaves and stormed the charts. Collected on "TP.3," though, the saga's novelty fades fast, leaving listeners with 15 musically monotonous minutes and a story that no longer shocks."

Though I am troubled that anyone would have found this song cycle to be shocking or interesting the first go-round. I just laughed at its desperation and overblown sense of artistry.

7.4?

W
T
F
.

Me, too.

I'll give almost any pop performer some slack, even the most hackneyed (Britney has a few good tunes in that shlock case she calls a catalog and Eminem/50 Cent both score on occasion despite being fairly reprehensible personalities), but no one on this Earth could convince me that R. Kelly has ever done anything to deserve the lauditory praise he continually gets from this younger generation of music writers. My guess is that his scandals have only made him that more interesting to people, as Kelly was "steppin'" perilously close to the edge of irrelevance before it broke.

Keep on truckin', I suppose.

The singles blurbs (I mean "Track reviews") really make me wonder wtf sometimes though.

You'll notice I do take into account that he's intensely popular. I personally am simply flabbergasted by the fact time and time again.

"You'll notice I do take into account that he's intensely popular. I personally am simply flabbergasted by the fact time and time again."

I don't feel sorry for anyone that doesn't like or get something I enjoy. I chalk it up to simple different tastes. I don't negate people liking him, just citing what I think to be Kelly's lackings.

Eh? I wouldn't go that far...

But since we're on the subject, as opposed to bashing P-Fork's R. Kelly review, or white irony issues, maybe a better line would be to question Pork's negligence in broadening their review horizons.

A few years back they shifted format and weighed in on steering indie-hipsters away from elitism and toward a broader music palette, using the then-current wave of expanded hip-hop/r&b production and pop singles as a starting point to claim "a great song is a great song". Fair enough, I suppose. Recently, however, it seems they've returned to that near all-indie format, dropping only an occasional hip-hop/r&b review, and damn near ignoring everthing else (damn near, I said- damn near). Yes, there are many examples to kill this argument, but dude, there are six to seven Shins/White Stripes-clone reviews for each review of anything else. Or at least it seems that way.

*ducks in anticipation of thrown objects*

(and don't feel sorry for me. don't cry for me argentina...)

Heaven, I need a hug
Is there anybody out there willin’ to embrace a thug
Feelin’ like a change of heart
And all I really need is a sign or a word from God
So shower down on me (Shower down on me now), wet me with your love
I need you to take me (Please) and lift me up,
yeah, yeah (Said I’m callin’ on heaven)

R Kelly is anything BUT run-of-the-mill.

Gotta love those net transcriptions.

Kells is amusing -- occasionally -- but that new album is pretty meh, once the TITC fervor wore off. Same old, same old.

well I guess in that case (as in many others) I'm primarily interested in the minority, ie, the other 3/10ths.

Beyond the attraction of his persona/antics, the fact that none of his songs have ever stuck in my head or jumped out enough for me to notice them as strange or unique is a bit more damning. If you don't gimme any catchy hooks, I don't care how "interesting" you are, I ain't gonna give a shit.

Hey hey now, leave Wes out of this! And you can just go to NYC or something and smear shit on actual Eclectic members instead!

xpost I'd disagree, Jess. Much of his career has been built on notoriety. From "that guy who bit Aaron Hall's sound" to "Is he really married to Aaliyah" to the pissing parties.

I'm neutral on Pitchfork also. I literally never read it unless someone here is ranting about something on there. But, can some other R&B acts get some kind of review love? Besides the artists that people like to champion ironically or otherwise. When's Angie Stone or like Kem gonna get a Pitchfork review?

i seriously dont think even the most ardent r. kelly supporter would put him anywhere near prince

I've never found R. Kelly to be a transcendant performer; I'm usually shocked and amazed when he releases a song that I like ("Fiesta", "Thoia Thong").

INSANE CLOWN POSSE TO THREAD

he makes more interesting music than Avant, certainly. I think it's pretty damn contentious that he would be considered "run of the mill," and "Ignition (Remix)" is one of my favorite songs ever so... :) yr nuts!!!

btw i am not defending this album or its music, per se, as i have only heard it once so far and need time to digest. the only time he's come remotely close to the completely satisfying album banana is chocolate factory and even that has its share of filler. filler. the best-of cd-r i put together, however, is straight fire. also i could give a fuck about virtuosity, as i do not judge pop music with classical or jazz criteria.

Uhhhh, Twelve Play?

More interesting? Think not. Without the remixes, most of his "best" songs would be Avant or Joe b-sides. For every "Down Low" and "Honey Love," there's a "Touchin" or "You Remind Me of My Jeep." Yeah yeah...Ignition Remix was the favorite song of every Natty Light drinking frat boy senior year of college, so the novelty wore off quite quickly!

"sandra, that was mean."

R. Kelly is just alright. He's not bad nor good. He might be occasionally great at first, but for me, his songs just get played out quickly.

I liked his early stuff OK and never really warmed to the mid-period stuff (and I am not someone who particularly cares about what bodily fluids a musician has deposited on whom) but have been liking the newer stuff more and more--"Sex in the Kitchen" etc.

Roffle.

Oh come on now.

like HELL dude!

Kelly was "steppin'" perilously close to the edge of irrelevance before it broke.

ahahah ahhah ahahha ahaha ahahaha a aha aha ha ahahahahahahahhaha.

Yeah? Oh, ok then.

Okay, okay. Twelve.

The rhythm is really insistent without being hard - it's got this sort of bossanova groove, just bubbling under the song, easing it gently but irresistably across
Hahahaha! Get a fucking grip!

But if his back story wasn't so front page/ridiculed, would y'all even care? Ignition (Remix) is such a aesthete approved song. Anyone coming out for "Home Alone" or "Did You Ever Think" or is that a little too R&B?

(Also the use of the word "irresistably" completely torpedoes that description of the beat unless there's a subtext in there that allows for the "unable to resist lunging for the radio to change the channel" reading.)

For the record-- and I'm sure there's a thread about this already, but-- the new remix of "In the Kitchen" is fighting tooth n' nail for the "Ignition" remix crown. Finally, a rock solid '05 summer jam. Better late, etc.

As for the anti-pop rhetoric, I'm learning to tune it out. There's still lots of open-minded people up in this bizzitch.

hi jess!

I don't think it's always ironic, token might be a better word. I sometimes feel the random "crunk/rnb" tracks at the end of the reviews segment feel tacked on like the site works on a quota system. The fact PFM (and the music press in general) often intellectualizes inane rap/rnb songs while shunning mainstream country music for being dumb and trashy is also ironic. It is especially ironic since many PFM writers seem to be very articulate about why the music is good and seem to have to dumb things down a bit for the RnB/rap sections, or at least when they do a mainstream artist. I think the "NO REDNECKS ALLOWED" attitude towards country but a tolerance (if not an intellectualization) for people like Lil' Jon is what makes pitchfork seem a little bit immature to some. Although I do like the site in small doses.

of the five review days listed in full on the front page now, four were headlined by non-rock lps; on four of those days the No. 2 review was a non-rock record. This week, there have been non-ironic reviews of the Kells LP and a Kells cover by indie artists (tomorrow's track headline will prolly also be Kells); seven of the 15 track reviews currently listed on the front page are hip-hop trx (w/one 'crunk/rnb' near on the bottom, yes) - and yet this is sometimes ironic, token, and random coverage of pop/r&b/hip-hop??

Interesting re: Mainstream Country. Has anyone at PFM actually accused it of being dumb and trashy? Could it simply be that none of the editors have any interest in it, like the other music they largely ignore? I know I don't (although for that matter, I don't have any interest in R&B either, but that's beside the point).

there was also this from a May Robbie Fulks review, but this is me seriously reaching: "Big & Rich's Horse of a Different Color is much more imaginative and playful, and albums by Gretchen Wilson, Julie Roberts, and Dierks Bentley sound more soulful and innovative..."

That's what I'm saying. But this is a criticism that can be made of a lot of outlets, let's see the review stable: Missy, R. Kelly, Kanye West, Game, ODB, Young Gunz, Eric B & Rakim reissue, Common, Mike Jones, Amerie, Beanie Siegel, etc. You might as well call a spade a spade and say: "here's our ghettoized section of things you might see referenced passing through MTV.com when you're bored one day or hear booming from a stereo on a street near you. Just get the basic facts about the record and you can play along at a party." It's ironic for a site that's so indier than thou that they are so superficial when it comes to R&B/rap music.

xpost Yeah really, Dan. Like I said, I remember when R. Kelly was just an Aaron Hall biter.

(I'm gonna pretend you didn't call that "camp.") He ended up fighting with Gloria Velez aka Glory aka that blonde Big Pimpin video chick for custody of his kid and doing a Guy reunion album. Now, he's probably hanging out and counting his money or something.

Anth, save that sass for the Ryan Schreiber Intonation Roast.

x-post sorry, I was really referring to the video camp-wise. The song's just good.

anyway, candicissima, is the lead review a "ghettoized" space on the front page? Or is that a characterization of mainstream hip-hop? (we also cover indie hip-hop, do busdriver profiles, dälek interviews, etc.)

I really can't believe ppl still indicate they think that when pfm reviews non-indie music it's doing so by communicating in some super secret indie code to other indie listeners with sneering contempt. For one thing, I'd guess the audience is vastly different than most ppl characterize it: Daily readership has gone up by 40x in the past five years. And hip-hop placed best on a year-end list in 2002, so I'd guess the vast majority of the site's readers probably never knew a time when pfm didn't cover hip-hop lps let alone think when we do so it's all one big joke to us and should be to them as well.

hahahahha

the "Kitchen" remix would be like a dozen times better without that fucking spoken word intro. Wish he'd stop doing that.

HIP HOP 4 EVA

19. The Game feat. 50 Cent “Hate It Or Love It”

If you're not part of the solution, Anthony...

And while you can yell at people on ILM all you want--and, again, with full marks for the actual content of PF's pop's reviews--I don't think the impression has changed much in the non-writer community of PF being an indie website. When PF reviews Kells, I think it's regarded as "the indie take on R. Kelly." Now, most people here, if they're being honest, would admit that this is a good thing--indie kids seem to need someone to discuss non-indie music with them in their language for them to be able to appreciate it. Lord willing, one day we will reach a point where that's not necessary and we're all dancing in a polyamorously perverse pop bacchanaal. But we ain't there yet.

This is not to say that I think PF should stop covering indie and electronic music--that's what it does best--just that these are at the very least understandable criticisms, even if they're not fair ones.

OTM. Where are the Vivian Green reviews?

oh good lord. first, dan - I doubt ryan knows or considered the racial makeup of the posters who said negative things about r. kelly (and his comments weren't directed at yours.)

Well, it's rather clear that the assumption is "people who dislike R. Kelly = indie white people who haven't tried hard enough" from Ryan's post. Given that Candicissima and I have been two of the most vocal "get over R. Kelly already" people on this thread, I found that amusing and I hope you'll forgive the apparent hubris of thinking that he might have been talking to me (I guess next time I'll know to stand in the back and be quiet).

In R. Kelly's case, I'd much rather have the news.

Dan, no need! I just meant (as david said as well) that your reasons for disliking r. kelly didn't seem like a potential motivation for ryan's blanket complaint.

Same goes for the whinging and second guessing about people liking something ironically, insincerity in pop music! how despicable!!!

also, ryan is, I guess, addressing the "why bother with r. kelly at all crowd?" rather than "if r. kelly, why not x?"-- the questions you and Candicissima are asking are far more useful than the former, in my opinion, and I'm admittedly pleased that pfm's rep is moving beyond the 'omg a positive dance/hip-hop review' and ppl are instead actually wondering 'why not r&b/country?'

David R, I was talking to David D aka Deej.

Ronan, get off of my dick already.

Truthfully (and this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, or then again, maybe it might), I don't really get that. What the hell is the point of having such disassociation with music? Why does there have to be the costume aspect of trying on a genre and only enjoying it to simultaneously mock it? Why be a corny cowardly poseur? It's such a waste of time.

This point of Scott's seems really crucial to me. I mean, yeah, PFM doesn't review much neo-soul or contemporary country -- but if someone applied to write for the site who had a good grounding in these genres and wanted to pitch an Angie Stone or Toby Keith review, would PFM let them? I would think and hope so. I mean, Stylus didn't review any contemporary country until Anthony Easton came on board. And I doubt the Jodeci greatest-hits would've been considered if Thomas Inskeep wasn't around. People act like every decision PFM makes is a political one, with all of these complex machinations, when it's really still just a bunch of people writing about some records they like.

x-post

though a lot of "hipster" disdain for the pop side of their own culture would imply an unpleasant schism there.

"So bad it's good" is possibly distinct-from or larger-than irony: Seriously, everyone here needs to read Douglas Wolk's Believer article on "S.O.B.I.G." as the new-and-different face of Sontag-style camp.

a lot of "hipster" disdain for the pop side of their own culture would imply an unpleasant schism there.

Anthony OTM. I've never heard about an ironic appreciation of Green Day or Dave Matthews Band.

People who believe the objects of their fandom should be perfect are KILLING MUSIC etc. etc.

What I'm trying to say is that at this point a lot of "hipsters" consider rap and R&B to be a part of their own culture.

I hate it too as I keep thinking it's a typo of "Kelis"

I think we're reading too much into those "knuck if you buck" neighborhoodies.

PBR isn't ironic, it's cheap.

Oh, white people!

xpost Certain artists are mainstream because of their sales/marketing success and Natty is cheap too, but I haven't seen people falling over themselves to drink that much on a night out.

Because they don't have it in the bars I go to.

I will generally drink the cheapest beer in any given bar. This is usually Bud, but if it's PBR, serve my ass up a bucket.

I don't think it's OK to be disdainful of mainstream rock, but the way to correct that probably isn't to make it not-OK to like mainstream rap/R&B. Bring everyone in, show the love, etc. etc.

And seeing as how their lead review today was Missy Elliott I suspect they're listening to some of the criticism we've posted here.

x-post I totally found nothing ironic about the original pfork article, which was just kinda whatever.

nobody used the phrase "so bad it's good" and I'm not sure why someone has to be deemed a "poseur" for liking something for reasons which don't sit well with whatever our own personal code is.

if someone likes something are they lying if they don't like it in a manner which is deemed "ok" by whomever else?

Bourbon is a whole other story.

Agreed that the original PF story wasn't particularly ironic; it was, you know, a review of an album that someone gave their opinion on.

Also, PBR ain't all that but considering the price its certainly a better option than Natty Light, which is fucking awful.

Meh. Before you guys continue to get your backs up about being called black music (and cheapo beer) tourists, I'll rephrase: the consumption of rap/R&B/hip hop culture signifiers is a part of the mainstream, but more often than not, the players are negligible. Is that really a false statement? Anyone else read Hip: The History?

Well, I think it's hard to track that--for some rock partisans, it's still very much not OK to like R&B/hip-hop too much. For hipsters who like indie and R&B, there's an exposure issue I usually feel, the mooks in their hometown listen to stuff that sounds like mainstream rock, pop-punk is a bastardization of something that "really meant something to me" (see the Dischord/Nike thread), etc. They've heard a lot of mainstream rock in their time and not much R&B, so there's the natural inclination to like more what you've heard less of. Maybe. I dunno.

Also, you know, the race thing.

That, or IT'S MISSY ELLIOTT. One of the most commercially and critically successful hip-hop artists of all time, and one who's almost always gotten props from indie kids, releases a new album -- of course it's going to be the lead review.

Yup.

By the way, I actually do think PBR is good and most other beer in its price range is shit. Even MGD, which is usually my cheap brand when the bar I'm at doesn't have PBR, isn't that great.

PBR > Miller > Natty Light > Genny Red > Utica Club > Genny Cream Ale (BLECCCCH!)

Oh, and "cheap beer tourism"? Hee hee hee hee.

But we do have Saranac. If only more city bars would carry it!

That is all.

The only way a critic or listener or publiction can be called a black music tourist is by intentionally ignoring black music and then reviewing a token superstar like Missy, and then the critic betrays his ignorance by writing a stupid-ass review. Rolling Stone did this a lot in the '90s.

Also Alfred, yes, the Pfork staff sat down only last night, tossed out the headline schedule, and produced, edited, and uploaded a review of a major hip-hop release, all just to respond to random criticism on ILM.

Also I keep drinking cheap-ass Rheingold but good god is that stuff gassy.

How so?

I love the Wildean paradox here, but I'm not sure it scans. Rob Thomas doesn't sound like Wolf Eyes.

what are you talking about?

NB another funny thing is the Pfork branding split -- there are times when e.g. Julianne Shepherd talking hip-hop on Pitchfork becomes "symptomatic of Pitchfork's indie attitudes" or something, whereas if she ran the same stuff under the same name in any other publication it'd just be whatever.

-- Alfred Soto

Right -- but Jet is much more hated than Rob Thomas, whom most writers covering indie rock are indifferent to. I think that's what he was saying.

to miccio: in like a thousand ways! Rap relies on mixtapes, DJs, clubs, different radio stations, different demographics, etc. onto infinity.

Indie-rock publications don't much care for mainstream rock because they care for the indie version of rock; in fact, the mainstream rock they tend to hate most is whatever comes closest to resembling the stuff they actually do like. If their approach to hip-hop turns out not to have those same indie sensitivities -- if it kinda likes what it likes, no matter where that happens to fall in a landscape it's not as savvy with as the rock one -- then presumably that would be a good thing, the one spot where they're not in a position to be snarky and indie-sensitive and all the stuff they're usually criticized about. Presumably. More obvious, though, is the fact that the relationship between (and "quality" of) mainstream hip-hop and non-mainstream hip-hop is not at all analogous to the relationship between mainstream rock and non-mainstream rock. It's different and it should be. And I kinda like the fact that a publication like Pitchfork could theoretically review anywhere on the hip-hop (or other genre) spectrum they wanted, without getting tons of tetchy indie-sensitive reactions from readers about what's too-mainstream or too-obscure or how an album would be better if it were on Merge instead of Capitol.

Now see, why is that? (Again we're not really talking about Pitchfork all but) why would all anti-mainstream/corporate music arguments/misgivings go out of the window when we're talking about R. Kelly or Kelly Clarkson? Are there any more overly commercial genres of music currently than hip hop and pop? Why can't it follow that they'd be all for some Shawn Lee and Immortal Technique in following with those "ideals?"

xp miccio are you joking? Its an entirely different system. rock artists TOUR to gain support, rappers (for the most part) dont. Rappers use mixtapes, rock artists don't (and they're hardly comparable to 'compilations.') And comparing rock "clubs" and dance clubs is pretty ridiculous too, they serve totally different roles in american culture!

We're the fucking David Fairclough of this ish, just waiting to come off the bench.

And despite the breakdown of above- and underground, there's definitely an inscribed (eh...do I mean that word? I can't think now) conversation. Like presently, it's acceptable that being Indie means you can like pop/R&B/rap (or at least enough to get by) because it doesn't fall into the binary of rock music. But not like country because that's just not where you want to be. A fair number of years ago, hip hop/pop weren't included. In some years, country might be.

Isn't that what Nabisco was saying? I agree with this.

Anthony, I guess I just think that the wholly different aspects of performance/cultural origins make for a wholly different relationship between independent and mainstream whether you're coming out of hip-hop or rock.

Candicissima - But don't you think its good that pop and rap get support like that? (I still don't think most R&B does, to be honest, although I'd love it to.) I think we should be going for more, certainly. I mean, shouldnt the ideal be "indie kids willing to engage with all music"?

I think its perfectly understandable for Pitchfork to focus mainly on the pop side of R&B/rap, as most of the writers are coming to that scene in a top-down way (god knows I am!). It's just something that people should be aware of, especially if any writers cling to rockist tropes about their underground scene of choice.

Seriously, though: Like I said, what you're criticizing still seems to me not to be some political/ideological thing and just a matter of happenstance -- I don't see anything on a site like Pfork that suggests any realm of hip-hop (for instance) is being forbidden (and I'm pretty sure someone's written about Immortal Technique, actually). But I do see why a stable of mostly indie-rock and general-pop writers are gonna wind up with popular hip-hop (and backpacker stuff, obv) crossing their radars and the readers' radars with more frequency than some smaller acts. Which is fair game for criticism, sure, but criticizing the stuff a publication just isn't necessarily tackling is a much softer thing than claiming there's some agenda or critical decision behind that.

Country doesn't get as much hipster love as hip-hop because hipsters who listen to mainstream rap can ignore the icky mainstream part of it by congratulating themselves on engaging with black culture, like good urban liberals. Whereas country still has the taint of conservatism. 50 Cent may not be as "intellectual" as Stephen Malkmus, but at least he didn't vote for Bush.

nah i'm not arguing this. Per se.

It's not so much that an authentic reason is "required", but when you have someone who claims to like something ironically standing next to a person who enjoys something genuinely or unironically, the latter might feel offended in some way. Like if I say "I love this pop song, it's so cheesy and vapid and shallow, it's great!" and you're thinking to yourself "... but this song genuinely touches/moves me" then you probably feel like I'm mocking something that's dear to you.

So if pitchfork did write an overly snarky/ironic review of an good R&B record, giving the impression that it's only cool to like at an ironic distance, I can see where people would take issue with that. (But they didn't! That R. Kelly review is totally straightforward!)

today i think people take issue with ironic type reviews by like taking the realest high road, not by being offended personally or offended at dabbling or feeling dismissed, except all the brilliant shit on the minstrelsy thread of couse

jaymc OTM. The day of my Jobs, Unemployment, and Social Welfare class I'm saddest missing is when they made the list of signifiers of a person on welfare and they practically wrote black whore with too many kids all of the board.

It's not so much that an authentic reason is "required", but when you have someone who claims to like something ironically standing next to a person who enjoys something genuinely or unironically, the latter might feel offended in some way. Like if I say "I love this pop song, it's so cheesy and vapid and shallow, it's great!" and you're thinking to yourself "... but this song genuinely touches/moves me" then you probably feel like I'm mocking something that's dear to you.
sleep OTM too. Again I've got no Pitchfork axe to grind, I'm pretty much just off on a "since we're on this sorta" riffing thing...

xpost It's just that rap is more immediate when yr living in a city than country music is.
Tell that to Bubba Sparxxx

Hmm. I guess that's a concern but considering that music speaks on different levels to different people on pretty much every axis imaginable, isn't it naive to not recognize that someone else could either dislike your favorite song or love your favorite song but not have speak to them in any type of meaningful way?

dan i guess the argument is over whether someone can like something in no meaningful way, thats semantics?

Candicissima: I do see your point. It kind of goes back to the question of why different genres of music are subjected to different analytical techniques (by "analytical techniques" I mean people listen to rock music like this and hip-hop like that for reasons that don't seem to tie back to inherent sonic differences).

That would be pretty naive, though that isn't to say it doesn't happen. But I don't think that knowledge precludes taking offense when you perceive someone/something (especially an "elitist" someone/something, as pitchfork has been called, different can of worms etc) as looking down at and playing smirking ironic games with music that means a lot to you.

What's funny is that the social conservatism found in many black Americans leaks out in hop-hop all the time. How about the omnipresent but somewhat obligatory mentioning of God/Jesus or the usually confusing comments denouncing homosexuality? If blacks weren't such a key voting group for Democrats (they actually vote more Democrat than actual registered Democrats) I don't think the left would tolerate the non-stop Jesus talk and constant animosity towards gays that is found in hip-hop. The kind of religioug talk that usually elicits eye rolls gets intrigue and tolerance when done in hip-hop/rnb. I don't think Jesus Walks was any deeper than a Creed song about God but today Kanye West is considered a "thinking man's rapper", to quote an MTV VJ at Live8, while Creed were always kind of considered to be kind of obnoxious (although I'll admit there were other factors).

*I don't really need to disclaimer this, do I?

That's cool, and I can see where you're coming from. I'm just saying I can see why people react negatively to that, too. It makes sense to me that they would. (Personally I'm not sure how I would feel in the same situation).

Cunga's is an interesting observation.

ilm still better than pitchfork on its best day, btw.

Point of order: The left (or at a minimum the moderate left) is not going to discourage God talk from their side anytime soon. Having said that there's kind a of a blatant "Migger: The Magic Nigger" (thank you Chris Rock) syndrome going on when people react to mentions of God in hip-hop & R&B mixed in with a perfectly understandable "well at least they're not talking about fucking hoes and showing off their jewelry" reaction.

One of the best things about Will & Jada hosting the BET Awards was this comment from their monologue about rules for the show: "Rule #5: If you can't perform your work in church, don't thank God when you accept your award." It kind of encapsulates the whole conundrum in one awesomely-delivered joke.

OMG!

While I see what yr saying, they did used to say this about Ray Charles too, eh? Like, the whole spiritual music turned into nast dance songs "mama when she shake that thing" etc.

I certainly plan to buy this Pitchfrok

That is fucking classic. I like Chris Rock.