The curse of Rap

Originally posted by Melanerpes
The big problem with classical music is that it seems like when they make a recording, they insist on putting the orchestra WAYYYY off in the distance. The sound quality is so bad. It's no wonder that you don't see anyone composing new classical music.

The thing that frustrates me with rap is that there are so many different things that could be done ...[text shortened]... lliams Sr - but I keep wondering, after almost 30 yrs, who is the "James Brown" of rap?

Eminem?
(just a thought)

I still prefer rap to the bland pop which constantly keeps producing 'hit' after 'hit'. Ironically these pop artists are using rappers to gain some 'street cred'.
You have to remember who buys most of this stuff...and therefore dictates what is in the charts.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
The big problem with classical music is that it seems like when they make a recording, they insist on putting the orchestra WAYYYY off in the distance. The sound quality is so bad. It's no wonder that you don't see anyone composing new classical music.

The thing that frustrates me with rap is that there are so many different things that could be done lliams Sr - but I keep wondering, after almost 30 yrs, who is the "James Brown" of rap?

Public Enemy, maybe? Though they don't really have that much mainstream popularity.

Anyways, there are plenty of people still making classical music.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Eminem?
(just a thought)

I still prefer rap to the bland pop which constantly keeps producing 'hit' after 'hit'. Ironically these pop artists are using rappers to gain some 'street cred'.
You have to remember who buys most of this stuff...and therefore dictates what is in the charts.

Yeah but pop doesn't have all those bad words in the songs (most of the time).

Originally posted by daniel58
Yeah but pop doesn't have all those bad words in the songs (most of the time).

lol

Originally posted by daniel58
Yeah but pop doesn't have all those bad words in the songs (most of the time).

Maybe it should and it wouldn't be so bland. I'd rather my ears grate than die from boredom. But thats just me...

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Maybe it should and it wouldn't be so bland. I'd rather my ears grate than die from boredom. But thats just me...

the truth is that pop music sucks, with or without "bad words".

but regardless of that, I'd rather not listen to songs with lyrics about bitches and gangsters.

Originally posted by generalissimo
the truth is that pop music sucks, with or without "bad words".

but regardless of that, I'd rather not listen to songs with lyrics about bitches and gangsters.

Your point is well made . It is obvious to the point of nausiousness.

These guys (rappers) are doing there own thing . Perhaps if we just leave them to their own devices they will work out their own short-commings without our judgments.

If not , I'm sure they will fade into a 'musical curiosity' that came and went without leaving much of a cultural imprint.

Music can be criticised , but it shouldn't be judged .

Originally posted by daniel58
Yeah but pop doesn't have all those bad words in the songs (most of the time).

I guess you haven't heard Brittney Spears' stuff -- especially the one about "seeking Amy". The main problem I have with the "bad words" is that it reminds me of some 8-yr old kid trying to deliberately drive his parents berserk.

The main reasons why current pop music is so bad:

1. auto-tune -- it all started with Cher's 1998 song "Believe" -- it's a cheap shortcut that ensures the singer is always in tune - but it also makes them sound somewhat robotic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-Tune

2. sound-quality -- most of the music recorded has no "depth" or "echo" of any kind - there's a slight tinniness to it. Almost like they took the original and added a bunch of artificial flavors and preservatives. And this is just considering the songs that bother to use real instruments. I wish there was a rule requiring all music to be recorded using technology that existed as of 1985.

3. you almost never hear songs that mention a specific person's name in them, or the name of a specific time or place. If you were a girl and your boyfriend kept referring to you as "oh girrrlll!!!", he would soon be an ex-boyfriend.

4. pop records must be an imitation of either a) the Jonas Brothers, b) Nickleback, c) Kelly Clarkson, or d) Britney Spears, or if you want to do country music, do a, b, c, or d with a slight southern accent.

Again if you listen to the blues msuic from the 30s- 50s, you'll find that a precedent for "naughty" lyrics had been firmly set. The Stones, Chuck Berry, The Doors and so many others have songs that certainly do not elevate woman.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
the problem with rap is that so few of the artists show any imagination. It seems like they all go to same clubs in the same cities, wave their hands around in the same way, gaze lustfully at the same shawtys, drink the same brands of liquor, show off the same grills and chains, wear the same baggy clothes, and sport the same tattoos.

Every once in awh he time -- and PLEASE, find something else to rap about besides all the worn out cliches.

Isn't this applicable to just about any commercialised style of music?

On a sidenote: YouTube

Originally posted by badmoon
Again if you listen to the blues msuic from the 30s- 50s, you'll find that a precedent for "naughty" lyrics had been firmly set. The Stones, Chuck Berry, The Doors and so many others have songs that certainly do not elevate woman.

well, at least it sounded good, and it was real music and not some fabricated crap with artificial sound.

Originally posted by badmoon
Again if you listen to the blues msuic from the 30s- 50s, you'll find that a precedent for "naughty" lyrics had been firmly set. The Stones, Chuck Berry, The Doors and so many others have songs that certainly do not elevate woman.

In fact, Bo Diddley songs are very reminiscent of current rap music in terms of lyrical content. There are even some "rap battles" - except that the lyrics are spoken, not rapped.

I quite like Dalek.

Originally posted by Jigtie
Isn't this applicable to just about any commercialised style of music?

On a sidenote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1T8xgHdMEM

I'm not a big fan of "rage rock" -- but the video was extremely well done and the whole thing was very powerful. And yes, this should technically qualify as a rap song. Not very hip hop, even though it probably spent more time on Martin Luther King in one song than most hip hop artists do during their whole career.

As for commercialized music, I agree -- because most artists focus on how they can "fit in" with the music industry; it's the easier way - but there are always some who insist that the industry is going to have to "fit in" with them. It's a much harder path, but all of the great ones take it.

I don't like Rap.

Neither do I like Hip Hop or Rock.

But Rap is socially understandable. Poor inner city kids who usually cannot afford an expensive musical instrument, made a so called art form out of their mouths.

Socialogically, I can understand the phenomenon. Artistically, i don't like it.