Writing about Hip-Hop

if link doesn't work, go to www.amazon.com, Nappy Roots new album, check for Christopher Wallace review, then 'see more about me' for all his reviews

Yeah, it always kind of bothers me when, say in a Pitchfork hip-hop review, the writer brings in all the appropriate slang (heads, etc.), but then I realize that it would probably be much worse if they stuck to their relatively square indie persona.

I've read a few reviews on http://www.hiphopinfinity.com/ that seemed to get the balance right...

On the other hand there's that wide swath of pitiful hip-hop reviews using the word "ho."

I agree with Tom that a vocab has developed which is meaningful and concrete in itself, and not subject to easy translation. At the same point, I've seen plenty of content-free reviews where the slang overwhelms the thought process. How do people use "down" language to capture music criticism? Look no further than the Jay-z/Nas throwdown.

The absolute worst is I think when the occasional term sticks out horribly from the review and is misused. As a whole though, genre and style-hopping incorporative novelistic language is classiXoR.

writing about hiphop isn't hard for me, but finding things to read about it is. the "mainstream" magazines (the source, vibe, xxl, etc.) can be great at times, total pandering fluff at others. likewise the wire can be pretty on point (WRITING WISE...taste-wise they tend to suck a big dick), but sometimes their hiphop review section (esp. the reviews by dave tompkins) seem designed to throw non-adepts off the scent at every turn.

one of the things i love about hiphop is how it's made so -much- language from so many different areas of life its own. why so many hiphop reviews rely on "Billy O'Reily" slang (gats, hoez, maybe "bling") is a source of endless disappointment.

DESTROY: PITCHFORK. (with the nominal exception of that psuedonym for some other writer, ethan p.)

writing about hiphop isn't hard for me, but finding things to read about it is. the "mainstream" magazines (the source, vibe, xxl, etc.) can be great at times, total pandering fluff at others. likewise the wire can be pretty on point (WRITING WISE...taste-wise they tend to suck a big dick), but sometimes their hiphop review section (esp. the reviews by dave tompkins) seem designed to throw non-adepts off the scent at every turn.

one of the things i love about hiphop is how it's made so -much- language from so many different areas of life its own. why so many hiphop reviews rely on "Bill O'Reily" slang (gats, hoez, maybe "bling") is a source of endless disappointment.

DESTROY: PITCHFORK. (with the nominal exception of that psuedonym for some other writer, ethan p.)

Isn't all slang and jargon meant as a wall between those in the know and those not...?

I don't think it's always *meant* to be a wall. It can certainly be used that way - but I don't think there's always an intention to exclude/include when slang is used. The boundaries between "slang", "jargon", and "non-slang/jargon" are really fuzzy, anyway.

Yes I'd take issue with that also. I mean, I'd better: I use in-jokes and weird bonus-prize adepts-only secret hidden trapdoor gags and weird jumps and stupid cryptic madey-uppy deadpan gibberish all the time, here on ILx cuz you let, and when I can out in the actually paying writer-world. It's not a wall to me: it's a door. OK it looks closed, or at least pulled to, until you push it. I can't make you push it, but also I can't see why you wouldn't want to (the trick is making you want to). This is the rationalisation, anyway, based on what I felt when I was medium-sized mark s and not yet a writer. I loved and love the encounter with the word or idea I don't get. erm it's the whole point actually...

I've noticed that when I read about hip-hop online some of these issues don't seem as important when the writer isn't from the United States. If Tim F. or Tom is writing about hip-hop, I tend to read it as if they're just talking about another form of pop music. Some of that baggage re where the writer stands w/ respect to language seems to dissapear. Does that ring true for anybody?

I've also enjoyed SF Jones writing on hip-hop, he's probably my favorite off the top of my head.

But more to the hip-hop question these words as doors/walls have different consequences and responsibilities: most obviously the *gasp* "n-word".

Where is Ramosi when we need him most?

Mark S, you'll be pleased to know that my writing style on Nas/Jay-Z was chosen out of fear (if something's worth saying, then it's worth saying incomprehensibly). Also, it contained word-for-word lifts from Raymond Chandler, which is no doubt what made it distinctively Koganiscious.

(basically it never took an overt position itself, at the same time as — in the guise of superior cultural wisdom — pretty much leading the reader into the trap of believing that the black-white cultural gulf in urban america was total and absolute and forever)

(is that fair?)

Here's the line: "His eyes scanned the screen - copy for the next issue. He fiddled with it. 'I'm adding curse words,' he said. 'Putting in ain'ts. Making it more hip-hop.'"

"I know Stockhausen especially needs to do something or he ain't gonna be makin no $ after that ballerina shit at summerjam. No one needs to die but something bigger than 'Fuck you!' 'no fuck you!' 'oh yeah well you a bitch!' needs to go down for anyone involved in this to have any more cred. For example, Xenakis fucked Boulez up in a fight in QB a few years ago and that jus shut down Boulez's cred and took another wannabe out of the business."

Now, I don't mean to say that that isn't an effective piece of writing, but it just feels too much like someone trying to cop the Vogue style and make all the little Voguies feel comfortable; my own, slightly edgy voice, has been toned down, isn't quite in those words, if you know what I mean.

this months issue of the wire (well, the alice coltrane one...sorry, i live in america...things move more slowly here) features some of the most coded hiphop writing evah featured: "It's as raw as an old naugahyde Catfish Hunter glove in yr dogs mouth." does that mean it's good or not??

peter shapiro is a better writer than either hsu or dave tompkins, but his ideas on what makes for good music (and a sometimes baffling bias against pop) make him the most infuriating of the three, oddly.

I think Tompkins is unfairly maligned. Sure he's an unashamed geek, but i wouldn't say this was due to any wilful desire to obscure. Likewise the statement that you can't tell what's good or not; personally i find this comes across perfectly in the enthusiasm behind his writing, and bear in mind he would rarely pick any bad records for the sake of it out of say 12 reviews for a month's releases. And while everyone's huffing and puffing about how they don't know what he's talking about having read it once you seem to forget he's an absolutely amazing writer, far more creative and compelling than that rote dullard Hua Hsu. So his reviews take a little unpacking: so what? Are you so sacred?

and yes, i'm scare of dave tompkins. he beat me up and stole my 12" money. wah wah.

haha, he was talking about nappy roots!

(although yr nominally correct sterling.)

"it still tells me nothing about the release itself"

it tells you the record's raw, like sterling says. the fact that he went so deliriously far as to embellish that fact tells you whether he thinks that is a good thing or not. Without getting into a tedious 'role of tha critic' debate WHAT DO YOU WANT? "this record i think is an 11 out of 10 i would deffo spend 5.99 on it." cos anything more than that is just pretentious.

I'd say Sacha FJ was on the same wavelength as Tompkins if not so extreme. .

Writing about Hip Hop = BREAKdancing about Architecture

for his style to stop being so goddamn precious and to actually tell me something about himself or his relationship to the record in question - however obliquely...if you honestly think that I'm the type of person who prefers reviews to any other type of music writing then you haven't been reading ilm enough - hopefully without all the gratutitous namedropping and convoluted similies. to compare him to sasha frere-jones is ridiculous. a sample line from SFJ's run dmc bio:

"they were on soul train, but i missed them. i almost cried."

tells me more about the band, the writer, anything than i've ever gotten from tompkins. hell, than i've gotten from most writers.

(admittedly this makes it sound like the best thing in the world, i know, but TRUST me.)

The regime of authenticity strictly limits the discourse. Gonzo hip-hop writers never even gotta shot.

that seems a little reductionist, sterl, but i'm sorta inclined to agree tentatively. now who are you considering gonzo, and why dont they have a chance?

what happened to bob mack anyway?

1) More words in hip-hop (yeah, yeah, rap, whatever). More words = even more potential meanings than usual in music = more for writer to riff on.

2) Hip hop is relentlessly formalist, so there's more chance that they'll be something to say about the form of the record. Try telling two trance records apart with the written word alone (without mentioning the vocals). Then try it with hip-hop.