Realness by proxy (or: writing about hip-hop when you're a shaggy-haired Stooges fan)

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
One of the many aborted ideas I had for my blog was to bascially concoct and explain a list of my 100 favorite hip-hop songs of all time -- 101 actually, due to a significant third-place tie. (I was going to call it "The Funky 100 + 1". Rimshot.) I eventually abandoned it, not because of time constraints but because I wasn't sure it was something that would even be considered critically feasible. This was due partially to the fact that it included songs by Beck and the Clash (in the high 90s, granted) and left out Brand Nubian completely. But most of my reservations came from the idea that even though I could easily think of 100 great hip-hop singles (all by different acts) and how to explain what made them great, I didn't feel like I had any real authority or any place in even coming up with such a list. I like hip-hop, but I'm not consistently, near-completely immersed in it like Caramanica or Oliver Wang or Jay Smooth and I sound patently artificial if I try to write in anything approximating their style. Is there a need for this kind of immersion to be taken seriously when writing about hip-hop? Does it have to be the only genre you really care about or pay attention to?

MC Transmaniacon (natepatrin), Saturday, 20 November 2004 22:11 (twenty-one years ago)

(Haha, my posting name looks even more absurd now. Blue Oyster Cult represent, bitches)

MC Transmaniacon (natepatrin), Saturday, 20 November 2004 22:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, here's the one entry I managed to write before I had my doubts:

100) Sugar Hill Gang, "Rapper's Delight"
(Sugar Hill, 1979)
The burden of all those firsts makes this track a lot less exciting than it used to be: it's the first hip-hop hit, though not the first single. It's the first hip-hop track to involve some actual rhyme biting (Cold Crush Brother Grandmaster Caz was the C-a-s an' the-o-v-a and the rest is F-L-Y before Big Bank Hank was), and the first catalyst for a case of hip-hop backbiting (Caz later gave Hank the OK to use the use those lyrics, under the impression that his group would get a break that never came). It's the first rap song to wear out its welcome both culturally -- call it hip-hop's "Rock Around the Clock," to be shortly bested by the Chuck Berry/Little Richard impact of the Furious Five -- and during the course of the song itself, an unwieldy fourteen and a half minutes in its longest version, the most unnecessarily bloated rap cut ever. It's the first rap cut to go from possibly the coolest thing going at the time to a pathetic pop-cult joke (three words to fear and ward off with voodoo: The Wedding Singer), the first alleged example of a vein of hip-hop being watered down for mainstream appeal, the first misrepresentation. And "Rapper's Delight" was the first song that could feasibly be called corny: rhymes about Kaeopectate emergencies and the miniscule dimensions of Superman's Krypto-dong bridge the culture gap between Rerun and Beavis in amusing fashion, but the bulk of it is soft-batch boasting -- after front-loading your inventory with a bigger wardrobe than Ali and a couple big American luxury cars, bragging that you have a color TV to watch the Knicks (or, more accurately, the Nets) is strictly Price is Right runner-up shit -- and between the redundant on-on-and-on-and-on-on-and-on verses and the straining attempts at filling the gaps with sub-Torme scatting ("skiddlee-bee-bop-we-rock-a scoobie-doo") and the beat-into-the-ground usage of the word "vicious", it seems like there's not a whole lotta there there. Until you sit through thirty seconds of blah blah yakety schmack and get hit with one of those it verses, the ones people always remember, the ones that managed to come correct, whether they'd written them or not: hotel, motel, Hol-i-day Inn, and if your girl starts actin' up then you take her friend, put some t-t-tickets in her behind like imp the dimp the ladies' pimp -- and then damn, you start doin' the freak to the still-chilling machete slash from that one second of Chic strings. Near the end of the full-length 12" they name-drop immortal New York R&B DJ Frankie Crocker, Captain Skyy of "Super Sperm" infamy and the Bar-Kays' masterful '78 dirty-funk-nasty-doodoo uberjam "Holy Ghost" -- if they were poseurs, they knew some damn good poses. And yeah, the beat's still great.

The rest of the list:

099) Trina ft. Ludacris, "B R Right"
098) The Clash, "Magnificent Seven"
097) Beck, "Loser"
096) Crucial Conflict, "Hay"
095) Fatback Band, "King Tim III (Personality Jock)"
094) K-Rob vs. Rammelzee, "Beat Bop"
093) The Funky 4 + 1, "That's The Joint"
092) Ol' Dirty Bastard, "Got Your Money"
091) Jeru the Damaja, "Me or the Papes (Dillinja Remix)"

090) Tone-Loc, "Wild Thing"
089) Kurtis Blow, "The Breaks"
088) 3rd Bass, "Steppin' to the A.M."
087) DMX, "Who We Be"
086) Biz Markie, "Nobody Beats the Biz"
085) Salt 'N' Pepa, "Push It"
084) Whodini, "Five Minutes of Funk"
083) Naughty By Nature, "Hip Hop Hooray"
082) Cypress Hill, "Insane in the Brain"
081) Hijack, "Doomsday of Rap"

080) Goodie Mob, "Black Ice"
079) Dr. Octagon, "Earth People"
078) The Avalanches, "Electricity (12-inch)"
077) So Solid Crew, "21 Seconds"
076) Trick Daddy ft. Lil Jon & Twista, "Let's Go"
075) Big Pun ft. Fat Joe, "Still Not A Player"
074) Noreaga, "Superthug"
073) Rockmaster Scott & the Dynamic 3, "The Roof Is On Fire"
072) The Roots, "The Seed 2.0"
071) Snoop Doggy Dogg, "Gin & Juice"

070) 50 Cent, "In Da Club"
069) Wiley, "Pies"
068) Blackalicious, "Make You Feel That Way"
067) Bubba Sparxxx, "Ugly"
066) Black Star, "Respiration"
065) JJ Fad, "Supersonic"
064) P. Diddy, Colin Powell & Taki, "Bad Boy For Life"
063) David Banner, "Crank It Up"
062) Too $hort, "Money in the Ghetto"
061) Rob Base and DJ EZ Rock, "It Takes Two"

060) Lil Jon & the Eastside Boyz, "Get Low"
059) Jungle Brothers, "What U Waitin' 4 (Jungle Fever Remix)"
058) De La Soul, "A Rollerskating Jam Called Saturdays"
057) Digital Underground, "Humpty Dance"
056) Masta Ace, "Born to Roll"
055) Audio Two, "Top Billin'"
054) Black Sheep, "The Choice Is Yours (Revisited)"
053) Gang Starr, "Check the Technique"
052) RJD2, "The Horror"
051) Eminem, "Stan"

050) MF Doom, "Hoe Cakes"
049) DJ Shadow, "The Number Song (Cut Chemist Party Mix)"
048) Ice-T, "O.G. (Original Gangsta)"
047) T La Rock and Jazzy Jay, "It's Yours"
046) Redman, "Time 4 Sum Aksion"
045) Ghostface Killah, "Daytona 500"
044) Kool G Rap & DJ Polo, "Bad To The Bone"
043) Big Daddy Kane, "Raw (Remix)"
042) Sir Mix-A-Lot, "Baby Got Back"
041) The Pharcyde, "Passin' Me By"

040) The Clipse, "Grindin'"
039) Mobb Deep, "Shook Ones Pt. II"
038) Main Source, "Looking At the Front Door"
037) Boogie Down Productions, "Love's Gonna Getcha (Material Love)"
036) LL Cool J, "Mama Said Knock You Out"
035) Ultramagnetic MC's, "Ego Trippin'"
034) Pharoahe Monch, "Simon Says"
033) The Fugees, "Ready or Not"
032) Dizzee Rascal, "Stand Up Tall"
031) Busta Rhymes, "Put Your Hands Where My Eyes Could See"

030) Del the Funky Homosapien, "Phoney Phranchise (Domino Mix)"
029) Pete Rock & CL Smooth, "T.R.O.Y. (They Reminisce Over You)"
028) The Coup, "Me and Jesus the Pimp in a '79 Granada Last Night"
027) Ice Cube, "It Was A Good Day"
026) The D.O.C., "It's Funky Enough"
025) Company Flow, "8 Steps to Perfection"
024) EPMD, "So What'cha Sayin'"
023) Schooly D, "P.S.K. (What Does it Mean?)"
022) Three 6 Mafia ft. UGK & Project Pat, "Sippin' on Some Syrup"
021) Dr. Dre ft. Snoop Doggy Dogg, "Nuthin' But a G Thang"

020) Cannibal Ox, "The F-Word"
019) Grandmaster Flash & Melle Mel, "White Lines (Don't Don't Do It)
018) Geto Boys, "My Mind Playin' Tricks On Me"
017) Spoonie Gee & the Treacherous Three, "The New Rap Language"
016) Afrika Bambaataa & the Soulsonic Force, "Planet Rock"
015) A Tribe Called Quest ft. Leaders of the New School, "Scenario"
014) 2Pac, "California Love"
013) Jay-Z, "Nigga What, Nigga Who"
012) M.O.P., "Ante Up"
011) Nas, "It Ain't Hard to Tell"

010) NWA, "Straight Outta Compton"
009) Beastie Boys, "Shadrach"
008) Ludacris, "What's Your Fantasy"
007) Missy "Misdemeanor" Elliott, "Get Ur Freak On"
006) Run-D.M.C., "Peter Piper"
005) Public Enemy, "Fight the Power"
004) Outkast, "B.O.B."
003) [tie] Notorious B.I.G., "Hypnotize"/Doug E. Fresh & The Get Fresh Crew, "La Di Da Di"
002) Wu-Tang Clan, "C.R.E.A.M."
001) Eric B. and Rakim, "Follow the Leader"

MC Transmaniacon (natepatrin), Saturday, 20 November 2004 22:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Dude, write about 'em because you like 'em and you want to. Don't measure yourself against other critics -- my 136 list five years ago wasn't burdened with that. It could be a really nice project, and the fact that you actually talk about your reasons automatically makes it more interesting than just a list.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 20 November 2004 22:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha but next time Ned will fear posting such a list mwahahaaaa

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Saturday, 20 November 2004 22:26 (twenty-one years ago)

No but seriously nate, post it, that would be pretty awesome. If you like the song there's no reason not to write about it.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Saturday, 20 November 2004 22:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Haha but next time Ned will fear posting such a list mwahahaaaa

The only one scared and complaining about that list was you, dude. ;-)

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 20 November 2004 22:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I think people who aren't completely immersed in hip-hop often tend to be *better* judges of the genre (or at least they often tend to have a fresher perspective on it) than the specialists, who might tend more often to conform to arbitrary rules taken for granted as unquestionable biblical truths in the genre, MCT. And that doesn't go just for hip-hop; it goes for *any* genre. (And it's not meant as a slight of the writers you mention in your initial post, though, by the way -- heck, Caramanica writes about country as often as hip-hop these days anyway, as far as I can tell.) And your "Rapper's Delight" review reads nice. (When you say "not the first single," though, do you just mean Fatback Band preceded it, or what? There weren't many others, were there? Though I guess it depends on where you draw the boundaries of "hiphop".) So anyway, I say go for it. (Even though your #100 is actually a better record than most of it not all of your top tens. But what the heck.)

chuck, Saturday, 20 November 2004 22:33 (twenty-one years ago)

And your #94 and #93 are among the best singles ever made in history, hiphop or otherwise -- wait a minute, are you positive the list isn't *upside down"??

chuck, Saturday, 20 November 2004 22:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, why would imitating Caramanica/Wang/Smooth's style(s) be remotely important? I don't get that. Anybody who thinks there is only one proper way (or three proper ways) to write about hiphop (or any other genre) is an idiot, plain and simple.

chuck, Saturday, 20 November 2004 22:40 (twenty-one years ago)

I think people who aren't completely immersed in hip-hop often tend to be *better* judges of the genre (or at least they often tend to have a fresher perspective on it) than the specialists

Very true. While, for instance, I've given Mr. Miccio much grief over how he judges a slew of goth/postpunk bands in light of how he v. much likes Interpol -- and I of course am right ;-) -- he also comes from a perspective of both a different time and a different sense of what music works for him and what doesn't, so as a result he looks at them through different eyes and finds things to celebrate I wouldn't think of and things to question which similarly wouldn't cross my mind as something to question. And that's just one example of many.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 20 November 2004 22:42 (twenty-one years ago)

You [xp: Chuck] do have a point in that we could use more perspectives from people who came into it at a different period than pre-Wu/Biggie or whatever. (Maybe then it'll be safe for me to say that most of Brand Nubian's beats bore me senseless. I'd actually have backup or something.) There might be the underlying issue of some critics trying to judge hip-hop with outsider terminology (which is how we get "best rap album ever" blurbs about that '03 Outkast atrocity), but it's not always borne out of ignorance or bullheaded stupidity and sometimes these people notice things the hardcore heads don't.

Anyhow, "King Tim III (Personality Jock)" came I believe a couple months before "Rappers' Delight" did. And I know you hate on Rakim and like the rap-a-dee-dap pre-Run DMC style, but I'll just chalk it up to a generation gap or something. And I liked "Rapper's Delight" too until I heard "New Rap Language". Goddamn, that track slays.

MC Transmaniacon (natepatrin), Saturday, 20 November 2004 22:46 (twenty-one years ago)

While I agree w/ what Chuck is saying to a degree there is something to be said for having a knowledge of the genre you are discussing - the more hip-hop I hear, the more I can share with the reader.

And Chuck - do you really like Rappers Delight that much? Its so fucking long and boring. If anything, I think that's probably not deserving of making my own personal list at ALL. Although I agree w/ you about 93 and 94 being terrific tracks that I would rank higher.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Saturday, 20 November 2004 22:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh god I just realized I'm talking from the perspective of a critic in that first sentence. Someone shoot me.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Saturday, 20 November 2004 22:47 (twenty-one years ago)

;-)

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Saturday, 20 November 2004 22:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Keep in mind I was 2 in '79 and 4 in '81 and 6 in '83 so by the time I heard those Sugarhill tracks and "Beat Bop" I had already been hit with the idea of rap in '86 or so via Run DMC and the Beastie Boys and later molded by the Native Tongues aesthetic in the early '90s*, so the old school stuff is more 'roots' to me than formative tracks.

*I didn't like gangsta rap back then. Or PE. Because I was a dork. Well, more of a dork.

MC Transmaniacon (natepatrin), Saturday, 20 November 2004 22:53 (twenty-one years ago)

I think "Rappers Delight" is great, and not boring at all, even in its 14 minute version -- it's sounds unstoppable, it doesn't quit, it goes on and on til the break of dawn, and the punchlines come at you with an ease that most later attempts at hiphop humor couldn't touch. I love "New Rap Language" too; always have. It's just so fucking fast; totally impressive. But I don't think that's Treacherous Three's best track (I'd probably go with "The Body Rock" or "Feel the Heartbeat" or "Whip It" or "Yes We Can Can"), and it's not even close to Spoonie Gee's best track ("Love Rap" and "Spoonin Rap" would be near the top of my top own top ten.) But everybody has their own tastes, obviously. And I definitely don't see how you have to be a specialist to "have a knowledge," or to hear tons of hiphop for that matter. (And just because somebody hears tons of hiphop doesn't mean they have any interesting ideas about it, either, obviously-- and even if they do, it doesn't mean they can convey them in a coherent manner. And an inability to put hip-hop in the context of the non-hiphop world is a big mark *against* lots of so-called specialists. And again, that goes equally for any other kind of music, too.)

chuck, Saturday, 20 November 2004 23:02 (twenty-one years ago)

and "beat bop" is the weirdest hip-hop record ever made (weird at least in part because there was no template for hip-hop "weirdness" to draw on when it was made, not to mention because it set the template for so much of the weirdness that came later), and "that's the joint" is the most joyful mix of voices in hiphop (hell, maybe in music) history. but i'm really not trying to start arguments about specific songs. those opinions i stated up above were just meant as playful asides or whatever. my main point is that people shouldn't have to be part of the club to talk about this stuff. people who believe you *should* have to be part of the club tend to be club-members building barricades against heretics, shutting down discussion rather than opening up.

chuck, Saturday, 20 November 2004 23:18 (twenty-one years ago)

*applauds*

Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 20 November 2004 23:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Chuck I agree w/ you but
And I definitely don't see how you have to be a specialist to "have a knowledge,"

I was defining "specialist" has "having a lot of knowledge."

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Saturday, 20 November 2004 23:23 (twenty-one years ago)

well, in this case, nate IS a specialist! (And so am I, for that matter. Though I sure would never consider myself one.)

chuck, Saturday, 20 November 2004 23:26 (twenty-one years ago)

(btw, i also don't think "rappers delight" is the best sugarhill gang track! "apache" is.)

chuck, Saturday, 20 November 2004 23:30 (twenty-one years ago)

If you sent that in unsolicited to me I would send you a polite 'no thanks', but that doesn't mean you shouldn't write about something, at least not for a bloody blog!

Pikmin, Saturday, 20 November 2004 23:36 (twenty-one years ago)

If you sent that in unsolicited to me I would send you a polite 'no thanks'

What do you edit?

MC Transmaniacon (natepatrin), Saturday, 20 November 2004 23:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Nate, I thought you're name was a reference to the RTX album! I was glad to find out somebody else likes it. Ah well.

I don't think immersion is necessary, just something to say. That said, there's a lot of music I enjoy but I'm not ready to go into great detail about because I don't feel totally informed. I haven't said much about Wiley's album (which I might), despite loving it, because I don't want to just regurgitate what other people have said about grime based on faith. But if you do have stuff you can talk about with personal authority (and authority doesn't necessarily mean vast knowledge of the genre - it could just mean descriptive acuity), then go ahead.

miccio (miccio), Sunday, 21 November 2004 00:00 (twenty-one years ago)

A magazine. Which it's probably not appropriate to name.

Pikmin, Sunday, 21 November 2004 00:11 (twenty-one years ago)

is it dirty?

miccio (miccio), Sunday, 21 November 2004 00:12 (twenty-one years ago)

No. Just prefer not to give out details on internet message boards etc.

(I have contributed to 'dirty' magazines before though.)

Pikmin, Sunday, 21 November 2004 00:20 (twenty-one years ago)

well, in this case, nate IS a specialist! (And so am I, for that matter. Though I sure would never consider myself one.)

(btw, i also don't think "rappers delight" is the best sugarhill gang track! "apache" is.)

I agree with both of these!

I don't want to just regurgitate what other people have said about grime based on faith.

The thing is - I've read so many writers who do just that! And while its not fair to attach it entirely to a lack of of knowledge about the genre, (obviously its also laziness and bad writing etc. etc.) I do think its fair to expect a writer to know what they are going to be discussing beyond a few tokens, unless they are an extremely skilled writer. (obviously since we're just dealing w/ rhetorical pieces here, its a bit difficult for me to make that generalization, but in my experience there are lots of pieces by otherwise fine writers that come off as lazy bcuz they didn't do enough research beforehand).

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Sunday, 21 November 2004 01:48 (twenty-one years ago)

haha interestingly i don't have as much experience w/ music writers as you, chuck - does this give me a better perspective? ;-)

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Sunday, 21 November 2004 01:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Personality Jock was a b-side, so Rapper's Delight has a better claim on "single" as such. And Chuck OTM on how great the song is, ESPECIALLY in the 14.59 version. The shorter it is, the weaker it is.

kit brash (kit brash), Sunday, 21 November 2004 02:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Is there a way we can ban the word "real" from the music discussion lexicon forever and ever, amen break?

donut christ (donut), Sunday, 21 November 2004 02:14 (twenty-one years ago)

chuck totally OTM only to provide the vice versa:

Rappers talking about rock music is almost always FAR more interesting than rockers talking about rock music.

donut christ (donut), Sunday, 21 November 2004 02:17 (twenty-one years ago)

that come off as lazy bcuz they didn't do enough research beforehand).

The term research ought to be reserved for use in the hard sciences. Like, if you're planning on a career in chemistry, you're going to have to deal with the periodic table. But as for writing about pop music, there is no such barrier although there are plenty who act like there is or who might wish it to be so.

Using your head a little, however, is always an asset.

George Smith, Sunday, 21 November 2004 03:20 (twenty-one years ago)

It's a lot easier when you're a stooges-haired Shaggy fan.

Curt1s St3ph3ns, Sunday, 21 November 2004 03:42 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost "pre-Sugar Hill" (prob not "hits" though, excpet in very local snese); some that were *leased* by Sugar Hill, on the astonishing STEINSKI'S BURNIN' OUT OF CONTROL: THE SUGAR HILL MIX

don, Sunday, 21 November 2004 06:33 (twenty-one years ago)

The term research ought to be reserved for use in the hard sciences. Like, if you're planning on a career in chemistry, you're going to have to deal with the periodic table. But as for writing about pop music, there is no such barrier although there are plenty who act like there is or who might wish it to be so.

You don't think that if someone were to do an overview of cash money they should have heard most cash money albums? Because the reason cash money is regarded as one-dimensional bling bling music isn't JUST rockism, its also a plain lack of awareness over what the label has produced.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Sunday, 21 November 2004 10:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Cash Money Records = pretty much an answer to defeat any hip-hop argument/line of thinking since 'Illmatic' dropped.

Pikmin, Sunday, 21 November 2004 12:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Do you mean because they are unfairly maligned?

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Sunday, 21 November 2004 18:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Because the reason cash money is regarded as one-dimensional bling bling music...

Where would anyone get the idea that something named Cash Money would be about bling-bling? [rimshot]

George Smith, Sunday, 21 November 2004 19:44 (twenty-one years ago)

MAKING LISTS = TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON
NOT MAKING LISTS BECAUSE YOU ARE WHITE = TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON

Does John Coltrane Dream of a Merry-go-round? (ex machina), Sunday, 21 November 2004 20:00 (twenty-one years ago)

John C. is white isn't he? So I don't think it was a race thing.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Sunday, 21 November 2004 20:13 (twenty-one years ago)

I think people who aren't completely immersed in hip-hop often tend to be *better* judges of the genre (or at least they often tend to have a fresher perspective on it) than the specialists

That may be so (though surely not in all cases) but the specialist have usually heard more of the stuff to even consider including in such a list.

JoB (JoB), Sunday, 21 November 2004 21:44 (twenty-one years ago)

So? A great writer can write a great "favourite 100 hip-hop tracks" even if they've only heard 100 tracks. It won't be the right one, but there isn't a right one. The only real advantage of the specialist is that they can say that their list is their final list - they're not going to pick up an album tomorrow and find a new #1 (or #100). This certainty seems at best a mixed blessing.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Sunday, 21 November 2004 21:59 (twenty-one years ago)

(the word 'album' has no place in that post except that obviously I've been thinking about the 1990's Album poll at the same time)

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Sunday, 21 November 2004 22:03 (twenty-one years ago)

It won't be the right one, but there isn't a right one.

No, but there can be a more interesting one. When I read Oliver Wang's hip-hop album guide it is not unimportant to me that I can be pretty sure he has heard everything that could possible be included in such a volume.

JoB (JoB), Sunday, 21 November 2004 22:08 (twenty-one years ago)

JoB gets what I is trying to have said. He writes gooder, though.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Sunday, 21 November 2004 22:25 (twenty-one years ago)

But why would that make it more interesting?

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Sunday, 21 November 2004 22:32 (twenty-one years ago)

Dude if I want a book on hip-hop and I don't know much about the genre, I want the book to have some fucking INFORMATION in it! Sure I can appreciate good writing in any context but christ if I want to learn about hip-hop I'm going to go to a guy who has listened to lots of it. I don't neccessarily have to AGREE with him but this whole "You don't have to know anything about music to write about it" is a sorta ridiculous ideology. of COURSE you don't have to know tons of hip-hop to write about it, but celebrating a lack of knowledge is just stupid.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Sunday, 21 November 2004 22:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh right, yes, I misunderstood. Obviously for a reference book you want as much information as possible. Sorry.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Sunday, 21 November 2004 22:44 (twenty-one years ago)

in order to better "understand" hiphop said writer might regard time better spent in listening to an array of music from, say, ragtime to microhouse, rather than listening to more hiphop.

bulbs (bulbs), Sunday, 21 November 2004 23:15 (twenty-one years ago)

I agree. But I dont think that contradicts what I said either.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Sunday, 21 November 2004 23:16 (twenty-one years ago)

or by reading some books on, i dunno, conspiracy theory and american history.

bulbs (bulbs), Sunday, 21 November 2004 23:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, I agree that putting hip-hop in perspective of all pop music is also important.
But I don't think that having this sense of "perspective" is any more legitimate than the perspective gained after listening to more hip-hop. Its like all the guys who listen solely to the New York canon and think they have knowledge of the genre, without even looking at music coming out of the south or west coast or whatever.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Sunday, 21 November 2004 23:19 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not saying that people HAVE to listen to or like southern/west coast hip-hop - just that if they're going to be making a book called the HIP-HOP GUIDE they should probably be engaging with ALL of hip-hop.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Sunday, 21 November 2004 23:20 (twenty-one years ago)

i wouldn't qustion the legitimacy of the two approaches, its you who seem to favour digging in specific crates dee. i dunno where this turned into a question about who's gonna turn in the best hiphop reference tool.

bulbs (bulbs), Sunday, 21 November 2004 23:23 (twenty-one years ago)

also is nate REALLY shaggy-haired???

bulbs (bulbs), Sunday, 21 November 2004 23:24 (twenty-one years ago)

When JoB and Andrew had an exchange slightly upthread and JoB mentioned Oliver Wang's book. I didn't bring up the reference tool thing, he did, and I think it was a good point - there is a reason we listen to writers who focus specifically on hip-hop, and it doesn't neccessarily mean they don't have perspective.

Also I don't know where on this thread I advocated looking at specific crates, rather that accumulating knowledge of music was not a bad thing. And yes, if you are going to discuss hip-hop than having heard hip-hop would be a good first step.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Sunday, 21 November 2004 23:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Get a haircut hippy.

Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Sunday, 21 November 2004 23:29 (twenty-one years ago)

me arguing is looking pretty stupid bcuz i think we agree basically.

You're saying that knowledge is useless without perspective and i'm saying perspective isn't as good if not accompanied by knowledge.

Right?

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Sunday, 21 November 2004 23:47 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, true. on the other hand i would find a hiphop list made by, say, edward-o interesting: because the things he values may not be the things for example o-dub values. his knowledge of hiphop is not what an encyclopediast would consider deep.

bulbs (bulbs), Sunday, 21 November 2004 23:57 (twenty-one years ago)

but feh, thats just me.

bulbs (bulbs), Sunday, 21 November 2004 23:59 (twenty-one years ago)

I would find it interesting as well; but both of us spend a lot of time discussing music and discussing people's approaches to music. Maybe this is the nerd in me, but don't you think the casual reader of music writing is going to want something informative as well as insightful? Lots of people use music writing to learn about music, and most don't appreciate how certain insights fit into the grand scheme of music writing (and why should they?). They just want to learn about a form of music that may be alien to them.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Monday, 22 November 2004 00:01 (twenty-one years ago)

well they may need a gateway that isn't too daunting too? that springs from a pov they CAN understand? but really, i don't really wanna talk about the great "they".

bulbs (bulbs), Monday, 22 November 2004 00:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Fair enough. Its also difficult to talk about the rhetorical book and rhetorical music writer.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Monday, 22 November 2004 00:04 (twenty-one years ago)

But the basic point that chuck and bulbs (and prob others) have made is that there is no one ultimate POV. Facts are facts, true (Jay-Z has made certain albums and not others). But, especially in pop culture today, there is sooo much product, including reissues, dognose, that nobody's got *the* POV. And reference books on pop start obsolescing the moment they're written, in terms of perspective 9cos of the stuff that came out the moment after they're written. Which is not to say they can't be valuable, if written and read with that in mind. (Another reason why blogs can be valuable, if approaached the same way, day by day or at whatever faster-than-books rate.)

don, Monday, 22 November 2004 07:36 (twenty-one years ago)

I wouldn't disagree with that.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Monday, 22 November 2004 09:00 (twenty-one years ago)

i mean, djdee (or whoever else), do you necessarily think it's better for somebody to be familiar with, say, THIS 3000 rap records (whatever they may be) than THAT 3000 rap records (ditto)? if so, i totally disagree. i don't get how the so-called expert who knows the same 3000 records all the other so-called experts know is more informed (or potentially more informative) than the dabbler who knows 3000 records that the experts maybe *don't* know, and might even never have heard of. (In reality, of course, there would obviously be somewhere between 623 and 1834 records overlapped in the middle of the Venn Diagram, but never mind; let's not confuse matters.) And if all the "experts" know the SAME 3000 records, I would almost by definition find the comments of the dabbler who knows 3000 other records more interesting. But that's only me! What the hell do I know?

chuck, Monday, 22 November 2004 17:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, yeah, facts are facts, but specialists and dabblers alike pick and choose *what* facts to emphasize. And isn't there at least something a little bit suspect, in your mind, if they all seem to emphasize the same facts, if they all agree on what is important and what isn't? I dunno, maybe I'm weird, but I tend to distrust the hive-mind. I mean, I agree, when you (djdee) say that "as far as a reference for hip-hop...I'd like to hear the opinions of people who have some awareness of the genre and its history." But I'm not naive enough to believe that any genre only has *one* history, or (as with any history of anything, not just music obviously) that there's some kind of objective way to cover its history. And if the same history keeps getting thrown at me again and again, by all the experts out there, I can't *help* but start to wonder what they're leaving out.

chuck, Monday, 22 November 2004 17:51 (twenty-one years ago)

This is what I never got about how Miccio kept repeating, on that Entertainment Weekly top rap albums thread, that all those *EW* readers would learn something by the inclusion of such a list. I mean, yeah, duh, of *course* they'd learn something. But that doesn't mean they couldn't learn something more interesting if the list was different. And if they're learning to take for granted the same arbitrary assumptions that everybody else has been taught, and if those assumptions have already put a damper on how hip-hop is talked about, if they further carve into stone for yet another generation of potential hip-hop experts arbitrary rules or ideas that already deaden discussion of hip-hop, why is it wrong to complain about that?

chuck, Monday, 22 November 2004 18:03 (twenty-one years ago)

"dabblers" don't know 3000 records, chuck.

xpostz

Ian John50n (orion), Monday, 22 November 2004 18:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, most experts probably don't know 3000, either, Ian. I just picked a number out of my shoe. My point is that it's silly to assume that somebody who has never heard Nas is any less qualified to discuss hip-hop than, say, somebody who has never heard (to pick an arbitray non-canon artist) Esham (who has way more albums than Nas, last time I checked), or the Quad City DJs, or Sequence, or whoever.

chuck, Monday, 22 November 2004 18:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Chuck, I agree w/ everything you posted except that when I think of "dabblers" i wasn't thinking of people who revolutionize the canon by selecting entirely different albums to emphasize and by telling the history from a different perspective, but yes, I agree that a history like that WOULD be more interesting.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Monday, 22 November 2004 18:40 (twenty-one years ago)

(which obviously isn't to suggest that obscurantism for its own sake is the answer, either, in case anybody thinks that's what i'm saying. but sometimes obscurantism does open up the door for neat new ideas.)

xp

chuck, Monday, 22 November 2004 18:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, it seems to me you're just saying that someone w/ a different canon than the dominant one (who would be someone who "knows hip-hop" if they know the same number of albums as the people who voted for the strict canon from EW).

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Monday, 22 November 2004 18:45 (twenty-one years ago)

oops didn't finish sentence - it would seem that they are just as knowledgeable as someone who knows the EW canon, so I don't think that fits into what I was arguing.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Monday, 22 November 2004 18:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Chuck, I didn't keep repeating that the EW list was educational. I kept repeating that it was absurd for you act like the list was a big surprise and preach to the choir about how boring it was. And frankly, the groups you brought up were pretty obvious Chuck-canon ones - only more valuable if, as you imply upthread, you believe your take is more enlightening, unique and refreshing than everyone else's. I was annoyed that we were going to have the thousandth thread where everybody stands aghast that major publications follow the popular canon. We all know this, no Ilxor approves, why act like its news? My point was that anybody who already knows "the canon" shouldn't be reading magazines that are basically there to enforce the canon text-book style.

miccio (miccio), Monday, 22 November 2004 18:55 (twenty-one years ago)

When did I act like the list was a surprise? I don't only complain about things that surprise me; I complain about things that piss me off, especially when I'm dumbfounded that nobody else seems equally pissed off. The list's predictabilty pissed me off more, not less, Anthony. And EW *doesn'* always enforce the canon; David Browne is usually too smart for that -- ever look at his year-end top ten lists? They're usually pretty smart; way more interesting and less predictable than what you'd usually see in most daily newspapers, or in Rolling Stone or Spin for that matter. And if repeatedly pointing out that "Any Entertainment Weekly reader who doesn't learn anything from this Entertainment Weekly list probably shouldn't be reading Entertainment Weekly" isn't "repeating that the EW list was educational," I don't know what the hell it is.

chuck, Monday, 22 November 2004 19:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Chuck Eddy I heart your book. I read it when I'm taking a shit, it is very good for reading in pieces like that.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Monday, 22 November 2004 23:07 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, that's because I *wrote* it on the toilet, djdee.

chuck, Monday, 22 November 2004 23:09 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't mean that as an insult, it really is good bathroom reading.

xp haha makes sense.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Monday, 22 November 2004 23:10 (twenty-one years ago)

That was in my pre-Zantac-and-Nexium days, see.

chuck, Monday, 22 November 2004 23:20 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.freakytrigger.co.uk/nylpm/2002_07_01_nylpm_archive.html#79555444

Also, if nate does do this project, I think its important that it be concieved of as something to give personal reactions and reasons, rather than take a "here's some knowledge for you" approach -- otherwise it will turn out funny.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 23 November 2004 00:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Reading that ft article - do we really think the "two kinds of music writing" are not entirely overlapping?

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Tuesday, 23 November 2004 01:15 (twenty-one years ago)

all the time.

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Tuesday, 23 November 2004 01:15 (twenty-one years ago)

>So much of listening to music involves the acts of discovery, the chance encounters, the wounded feelings of the outraged consumer, the impatient wait for a long-anticipated release date. Replacing those feelings for an envelope of CDs on the doormat, for pay or otherwise, is putting too much distance between my listening and my life.<

I don't understand, at all, how getting free records in the mail precludes most of the variables listed above -- especially "acts of discovery" and "chance encounters." In fact, in my experience, it's just the opposite -- it vastly INCREASES the possibility of discovering something great I never would have otherwise encountered.

chuck, Tuesday, 23 November 2004 01:29 (twenty-one years ago)

YES.

Matos W.K. (M Matos), Tuesday, 23 November 2004 01:34 (twenty-one years ago)

And receiving free records also doesn't prevent me from listening to the radio, or watching TV, or going to bars, or buying stuff just because it looks cool, or any of that other stuff. So I'm stumped. (I never cared very much about anticipating release dates before I was a music crtic, though, so I can't speak for that experience at all. But I don't understand how, if I stopped getting records anymore, I'd suddenly *start* anticipating release dates. If anything, I'd be having a way harder time keeping up with stuff that came out five months ago to remotely give a shit about what came out this week!)

chuck, Tuesday, 23 November 2004 01:35 (twenty-one years ago)

So who wants to tell me how to make records show up at my doorstep?

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Tuesday, 23 November 2004 01:49 (twenty-one years ago)

just call people up and tell them your name is Jann Weiner and that you have a new magazine called Rollin'Bone that is devoted to blunts, bikinis, bling, and beats and can they hook a brother up.

scott seward (scott seward), Tuesday, 23 November 2004 01:58 (twenty-one years ago)

scott, whats yr phone number?

djdee2005 (djdee2005), Tuesday, 23 November 2004 02:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Just lie a lot. It never fails.

scott seward (scott seward), Tuesday, 23 November 2004 02:05 (twenty-one years ago)

I left Tom a polite comment.

don, Tuesday, 23 November 2004 02:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Chuck Eddy I heart your book. I read it when I'm taking a shit, it is very good for reading in pieces like that.

ha ha. me, too!

john'n'chicago, Tuesday, 23 November 2004 02:39 (twenty-one years ago)

bathrooms rock! Are known for their excellent acoustics!! Someone should start a thread about all the great vocals(and other parts?) recorded there, from the days of DooWop at least!!!

don, Tuesday, 23 November 2004 08:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Speaking of hearting Chuck's book, in a way that's related to the matter at hand:

One of the reasons I heart Chuck's books is because they laud and magnify all that "Chuck-canon" stuff (Boney M, Quarterflash, you know) in the broader context of the other "Rock-canon" stuff (Stooges, Stones, Dylan, you know). Since Chuck's canon communicates with Rock's canon, I trust Chuck more, and I can (at least partially) gauge his stance on excluded Rock canon figureheads (Beatles, Stevie Wonder, you know). (Even if his true stance doesn't match the stance I imagine, that's OK, because we all have our own mental template of Chuck music, I'm sure.)

Application to Rap canon: If someone's lifting up a bunch of stuff I've never heard of, it may be great, they may be writing about it fine, but if they can sincerely stick a couple (even quasi-) canonical figures in there, the whole thing'll probably mean much more to me. It's nice to have something to communicate about.

dr. phil (josh langhoff), Tuesday, 23 November 2004 15:42 (twenty-one years ago)

MC Transmaniacon's list makes me wanna hear all the items I haven't heard. (Though if he can arrange it so I never hear "What's Your Fantasy" again, that's cool.)

dr. phil (josh langhoff), Tuesday, 23 November 2004 15:45 (twenty-one years ago)

>Application the rap canon:...If someone's lifting up a bunch of stuff I've never heard of, it may be great, they may be writing about it fine, but if they can sincerely stick a couple (even quasi-) canonical figures in there, the whole thing'll probably mean much more to me.<

I totally agree with this; sorry i somehow implied otherwise!

And I definitely love lots of Stevie Wonder and Beatles songs (and hate some other ones).

chuck, Tuesday, 23 November 2004 18:13 (twenty-one years ago)

So who wants to tell me how to make records show up at my doorstep?

I can tell you how to get people to stop sending records once they start.

George Smith, Tuesday, 23 November 2004 20:33 (twenty-one years ago)

dj the two types are totally not the same, anymore than its the same thing to read a fodor's travel guide and read a travelogue.

i mean, there's a time and place for both, but...

i think the canonical example is the greil marcus bit on the slits at the beginning of (i think) lipstick traces. pre-filesharing this was a tricky track to get ahold of and he wasn't expecting folks to go rush off and buy it, but that didn't diminish its impact as a piece of musicwrite, just changed it.

Sterling Clover (s_clover), Wednesday, 24 November 2004 07:37 (twenty-one years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.