RMMGJ Rocks!!
Pt
So many new people here.
Over 100 posts per day.
Things are really picking up.
Maybe jazz is making a come back.
Maybe young people are getting sick of rap.
Cool!!!
Pt
Michael Ellenberger
> Wow!
> So many new people here.
> Over 100 posts per day.
> Things are really picking up.
Nice pun.
> Maybe jazz is making a come back.
Look out.
> Maybe young people are getting sick of rap.
> Cool!!!
>
> Pt
>
>
--
Mike Ellenberger
Listen to some soundclips at
http://home.att.net/~grumpmeister/MikesJazzPage.html
http://www.soundclick.com/traveler
Jeremey Poparad
> Maybe young people are getting sick of rap.
Being a young person, I pray that's the case ;-). Seriously though, I think
today's youthful listeners are so disconnected from the sounds of jazz that
it may be fresh again to their ears. The little jazz they hear is the
smooth variety and some old big band stuff, none of which is very cutting
edge material. Whenever I play a chord melody arrangment of something with
lots of altered chords and more mordern harmonies, untrained ears are often
very interested and people ask "what was that??" with a lot of eager
interest. I think to many people there is an interest there but not
necessarily an accessable way to hear things. I'm doing my part though by
spreading the good word about this crazy "jazz" music. :-P
Adam Bravo
news:2e3f4f0b77b2d874...@news.teranews.com...
>
> > Maybe young people are getting sick of rap.
>
> Being a young person, I pray that's the case ;-).
I just worry that rap isn't well enough esatblished. If young people lost
their interest in rap, it may very well be lost. But oh well.
> Seriously though, I think
> today's youthful listeners are so disconnected from the sounds of jazz
that
> it may be fresh again to their ears. The little jazz they hear is the
> smooth variety and some old big band stuff, none of which is very cutting
> edge material. Whenever I play a chord melody arrangment of something
with
> lots of altered chords and more mordern harmonies, untrained ears are
often
> very interested and people ask "what was that??" with a lot of eager
> interest. I think to many people there is an interest there but not
> necessarily an accessable way to hear things. I'm doing my part though by
> spreading the good word about this crazy "jazz" music. :-P
The reaction I get more often is a mocking laugh and then dancing
idiotically. Sometimes, if I'm lucky, they're just apathetic. They can't
hear the difference between Teddy Wilson and Bill Evans, anyway.
Pt
He plays many jazz chords well.
His soloing is outstanding.
We jammed together recently and he asked if I would show him how to
play some jazz tunes.
What a great surprize!
I started with Take 5 because of its simplicity and he picked up on it
immediately.
Had a little trouble with the 5/4 time at first..but didn't we all?
A jamming friend in his earely 30's is a superb heavy metal player.
Plays UFO perfectly.
He has been asking me about altered chords, subs and modes.
He is well on his way to being a jazzer.
I hate rap as most adults do, but it is something that kids can relate
to.
Most teens are angry about something and rap lets out their feelings.
I feel that when some sort of new music relates to what kids today
feel, rap will be history.
How about angry jazz?
Pt
Greger Hoel
>I hate rap as most adults do, but it is something that kids can relate
>to.
>Most teens are angry about something and rap lets out their feelings.
>I feel that when some sort of new music relates to what kids today
>feel, rap will be history.
In my case, I see my liking of various musical genres only expanding
with time. Ten years ago, I couldn't stand hip hop, but now I like
quite a few hip hop acts. Then again, ten years ago, all I listened
much to was blues and various forms of rock...
>How about angry jazz?
Sounds like a plan :P
--
Greger
______________________________________________
What's up Chuck?
To email me, replace everything after @ with softhome.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauri Pekonen
> On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:25:33 GMT, Pt <pea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I hate rap as most adults do, but it is something that kids can relate
>>to.
>>Most teens are angry about something and rap lets out their feelings.
>>I feel that when some sort of new music relates to what kids today
>>feel, rap will be history.
> In my case, I see my liking of various musical genres only expanding
> with time. Ten years ago, I couldn't stand hip hop, but now I like
> quite a few hip hop acts. Then again, ten years ago, all I listened
> much to was blues and various forms of rock...
This is interesting. I like hip hop and rap, but not because of the lyrics.
To me, hip hop and rap are funk. And in good rap vocalist's phrasing
I hear same things as when listening to a good jazz drummer. Many jazz
musicians should be jealous of the rhytmic command many rap vocalists
have.
icarusi
news:k0hrlv0rjgr7uk2r3...@4ax.com...
> I hate rap as most adults do, but it is something that kids can
relate
> to.
> Most teens are angry about something and rap lets out their
feelings.
> I feel that when some sort of new music relates to what kids today
> feel, rap will be history.
> How about angry jazz?
Isn't rap just 'beat poetry' reinvented with more ghetto terms. I
think the original rapping/toasting was quite clever when it was
improvised live. The rehearsed stuff is less skilled, but it gives
folks who can't play, sing or dance something to do to music. I'm
amazed M&M has done so well, his nasal whine sounds like a nagging
wife/girlfriend to me, but I'll concede some of his raps are good, if
you can stand the whine.
Icarusi
--
remove the 00 to reply
Adam Gottschalk
Lauri Pekonen <lpek...@cc.hut.fi> wrote:
> To me, hip hop and rap are funk. And in good rap vocalist's phrasing
> I hear same things as when listening to a good jazz drummer. Many jazz
> musicians should be jealous of the rhytmic command many rap vocalists
> have.
I agree with this explicitly. To me, the rap itself might as well be
scat. What "bothers" me is when these rappers are credited with being
"great poets" who can create "amazing rhymes". They might as well be
percussionists, fully a part of the "rhythm section". Amazing rhymes? My
ass. Everything I hear is about how many words can you come up with that
rhyme with "flow" or whatever, and then you spit them out in machine-gun
phrases that, in the end, don't mean all that much except the same old
thing it's been since the beginnings of B-boys: I'm the baddest MC.
Max Leggett
In 'Standing in the Shadows of Motown' the Funk Brothers say they were
doing it years ago, but they called it talking the dozens.
What's the word?
Thunderbird.
What's the price?
Twenty, twice.
Who drinks the most?
Us poor folks.
Pt
Digital bass playing one note.
Some dude saying words I wouldn't say on a construction job.
You call that music?
I still hate it!!!
Pt
Tim Berens
> Many jazz
>musicians should be jealous of the rhytmic command many rap vocalists
>have.
Not the good jazz musicians.
Tim
http://timberens.com
A Website for Guitarists
Learn something...Have some fun
Jurupari
>doing it years ago, but they called it talking the dozens.
It's been around a looong time, tales like the signifyin' monkey, which I think
Oscar Brown Jr. sort of wrote a song around.
>What's the price?
>Twenty, twice.
come again?
a dollar ten
>Who drinks the most?
>Us poor folks.
the boyz on the coast
who drinks the least?
the cats in the east
...and on an on.
This probably goes waay back to africa if you research it.
And the white guys had talkin' blues, too.
Clif
Greger Hoel
>Digital drums.
>Digital bass playing one note.
You've been raving about your new digital guitar setup now for quite
some time. What's your point? Also, if the bass pulses on one note,
you rule out quite a lot of rock too, as music.
>Some dude saying words I wouldn't say on a construction job.
>You call that music?
How is the lyrical content related to the musicality of it?
Pt
<gre...@spamblock.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 21:52:00 GMT, Pt <pea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Digital drums.
>>Digital bass playing one note.
>
>You've been raving about your new digital guitar setup now for quite
>some time. What's your point? Also, if the bass pulses on one note,
>you rule out quite a lot of rock too, as music.
>
>>Some dude saying words I wouldn't say on a construction job.
>>You call that music?
>
>How is the lyrical content related to the musicality of it?
What musicality?
Maybe I can get in a rap band and play an E note on the synth bass
patch on every beat.
I knew the synth would be good for something.
Then if I get a drum machine.....there is no telling where I can go.
Pt
tomw
pea...@yahoo.com says...
> What musicality?
>
> Maybe I can get in a rap band and play an E note on the synth bass
> patch on every beat.
> I knew the synth would be good for something.
> Then if I get a drum machine.....there is no telling where I can go.
> Pt
>
>
Hey Pt, a lot of music is pretty fundamental. See Son House, for
instance. The fact that it's simple doesn't preclude it from being
musical, meaningful, influential, etc. Try to keep an open mind, boss.
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
icarusi
news:MPG.19c92dc14...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
> Hey Pt, a lot of music is pretty fundamental. See Son House, for
> instance. The fact that it's simple doesn't preclude it from being
> musical, meaningful, influential, etc. Try to keep an open mind,
boss.
Or John Lee Hooker, the best at doing the least IMO, this is hip
pretty baby........
Max Leggett
wrote:
Da Wolf. Smokestack Lightning. Now _there's_ a chord progression.
Crazy bass line.
Idawg
> >
> >>Digital drums.
> >>Digital bass playing one note.
> >
> >You've been raving about your new digital guitar setup now for quite
> >some time. What's your point? Also, if the bass pulses on one note,
> >you rule out quite a lot of rock too, as music.
> >
> >>Some dude saying words I wouldn't say on a construction job.
> >>You call that music?
> >
> >How is the lyrical content related to the musicality of it?
>
> What musicality?
>
> Maybe I can get in a rap band and play an E note on the synth bass
> patch on every beat.
> I knew the synth would be good for something.
> Then if I get a drum machine.....there is no telling where I can go.
> Pt
There is plenty of excellent rap music. Some tunes have lyrical
melodies, great singing and complex rhythms. At the same time, like
any genre allot of it sucks. And in the same way that some people
here don't consider Kenny G jazz, plenty of hip-hop fans don’t
think much of Puff daddy and the other top 40 rappers. If you want to
dismiss an entire genre and say "what musicality?" that’s your
prerogative, but consider this. Rap is one the highest grossing
genres of music in the world. It’s very much a vibrant living
genre with a rich history, multiple sub-genre’s and a wide range
of instrumentation (including in LA a Hip-hop orchestra complete with
sitar and archtops called Dakah http://www.dakah.com/ ). Also there
has been plenty of cross over between jazz and rap/electronica off the
top of my head MMW, Charlie Hunter and Scofield all have been
influenced.
I would recommend any Solesides or Quannum releases if you are
interested in hearing some really good non commercial rap.
http://www.quannum.com/home.html
Pt
I recall when my parents said that rock and roll was lewd and obscene.
Pt
Gerry Scott-Moore
<pea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Maybe this has to do with age.
> I recall when my parents said that rock and roll was lewd and obscene.
It's irrelevant. Simplicity exists in a repeato-groove with a synth
bass with a drum machine. A loop we're calling it these days, because
it really only gets played once. You can't get more simple than that.
Simplicity exists in the music of Son House or John Lee Hooker. But
it's a very different simplicity.
Poetry, whether romantic or misogynist can be art, but it's not music.
Miró is simple and lovely. But it's not music. Son House is music no
matter how you slice it.
Rap is not music. It can a groove, sure. It can teach interesting
lessons about urban values and their migration. But as aural art It
doesn't grow, develop, become something. It's a groove, a loop or drum
machine with somebody's "urban poetry" on tope--assuming the best case.
I don't hate it as music. Because I can't manage conceptually to get
it into that category.
--
///---
tomw
says...
>
> Da Wolf. Smokestack Lightning. Now _there's_ a chord progression.
> Crazy bass line.
>
>
>
Love that tune. As a kid this was the tune that asked the question "What
exactly IS the blues?" But it wasn't Wolf who I heard: it was Manfred
Mann.
Greger Hoel
wrote:
>In article <3f5fb1cb...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, mleg...@nospam.ca
>says...
>
>>
>> Da Wolf. Smokestack Lightning. Now _there's_ a chord progression.
>> Crazy bass line.
>>
>>
>>
>Love that tune.
Yeah. My fave Wolf songs are Smokestack Lightning and Moanin' At
Midnight.
Greger Hoel
<222...@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote:
>Rap is not music. It can a groove, sure. It can teach interesting
>lessons about urban values and their migration. But as aural art It
>doesn't grow, develop, become something. It's a groove, a loop or drum
>machine with somebody's "urban poetry" on tope--assuming the best case.
>I don't hate it as music. Because I can't manage conceptually to get
>it into that category.
All hip hop ain't based only on samples and loops. As far as I'm
concerned, music doesn't have to "grow, develop, become something" -
something all good rap music does, BTW - in order to be music. If it
grooves, it's already music.
tomw
gre...@spamblock.net says...
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:09:22 -0400, tomw <tw25R...@cornell.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <3f5fb1cb...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, mleg...@nospam.ca
> >says...
> >
> >>
> >> Da Wolf. Smokestack Lightning. Now _there's_ a chord progression.
> >> Crazy bass line.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >Love that tune.
>
> Yeah. My fave Wolf songs are Smokestack Lightning and Moanin' At
> Midnight.
>
entire tune, then wail over it, was so outasight. It was something
you'd hear in the delta, but really -- as far as I can recall -- only
Wolf and Hooker brought it into a combo setting. I also like Wolf's
jump-blues/boogie-woogie style. Maybe even more, because he had Willie
Johson and/or Pat Hare playing on those sides.
Jack A. Zucker
> Rap is not music. It can a groove, sure. It can teach interesting
> lessons about urban values and their migration. But as aural art It
> doesn't grow, develop, become something.
Funny - None of my music text books ever described what you're saying
as a requirement for something *being* music. Rap is as valid a music
as Coltrane's Giant Steps. Whether you dig it, understand it, groove
on it or not is totally irrelevant.
In fact, according to Websters:
mu·sic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (myzk)
n.
1) The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous,
unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony,
rhythm, and timbre.
I think Rap qualifies as having all that.
Mark Kleinhaut
Agreed, and the fact that so many people hate it is proof that it is evocative,
indeed.
http://www.markkleinhaut.com
http://www.invisiblemusicrecords.com
markkl...@hotmail.com
Bob R
markkl...@hotmail.com wrote on 9/11/03 9:02 AM:
>> mu·sic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (myzk)
>> n.
>> 1) The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous,
>> unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony,
>> rhythm, and timbre.
>>
>> I think Rap qualifies as having all that.
>
> Agreed, and the fact that so many people hate it is proof that it is
> evocative,
> indeed.
Yup. A lot of people hate Parker and Coltrane, for that matter. :-0
--
Bob Russell
http://www.bobrussellguitar.com
CD, "Watch This!", available at:
http://www.cdbaby.com/bobrussell
Jurupari
>evocative,
>indeed.
More people hate jazz, and especially solo guitar.
I don't hate whatever it's calling itself, but most of it doesn't touch me very
much. It's sort of anticlimatic is all. same with whatever is being called
'acid jazz'.
It's not like it hasn't been around forever, it's just that it's only gotten
electronic in the last 20 years or so, and it's marketed across ethnic lines
with some clout behind it.
Also it makes for a perfect opportunity for posers with no much of anthing
goin on and not much hope of gettin something going. That's not new, either!
Put on the costume and hit the boards!
Hell, I did a Wildman Steve revue from about 40 years ago that had some kind of
rap and dancin' goin on, but it was playing Champale-and-Robitussin AC cut n'
shoot clubs.
Fortunately I was just on loan from the house band, and didn't travel with
them, but there was hip hop stuff even then. the one chord grooves, the
dancin, and the mc goin' on. Sort of vaudeville with fried chicken and
collards.
Clif Kuplen
tomw
juru...@aol.com says...
> Hell, I did a Wildman Steve revue from about 40 years ago that had some kind of
> rap and dancin' goin on, but it was playing Champale-and-Robitussin AC cut n'
> shoot clubs.
>
> Fortunately I was just on loan from the house band, and didn't travel with
> them, but there was hip hop stuff even then. the one chord grooves, the
> dancin, and the mc goin' on. Sort of vaudeville with fried chicken and
> collards.
>
> Clif Kuplen
>
>
>
During the 70s my band would play Jamaican MCs(toasters) like Big Youth
and U Roy before and between sets. The rhythm was different than hip-
hop but the sampling and rapping was very similar. It sounded nothing
like what we were doing so it provided a nice contrast.
Tim Berens
wrote:
>Funny - None of my music text books ever described what you're saying
>as a requirement for something *being* music. Rap is as valid a music
>as Coltrane's Giant Steps. Whether you dig it, understand it, groove
>on it or not is totally irrelevant.
>
If you want to talk on that totally subjective artistic level where
absolutely anything goes, hip hop is as valid as Beethoven. And a 3
year old's scribblings are also as valid as the finest works in the
Louvre.
But if you want to talk on a level where skill, craftmanship, and
subtlety matter, there is simply no comparison between ANY pop music
and serious music like classical or jazz. Rap, country, rock, polka,
folk, reggae.....they are all "Mary Had a Little Lamb" with a beat
that people can dance to.
If saying the above makes me a snob, that's cool. There's a lot to be
said for snobbery.
Gerry Scott-Moore
<gre...@spamblock.net> wrote:
> >Rap is not music. It can a groove, sure. It can teach interesting
> >lessons about urban values and their migration. But as aural art It
> >doesn't grow, develop, become something. It's a groove, a loop or
> >drum machine with somebody's "urban poetry" on tope--assuming the
> >best case. I don't hate it as music. Because I can't manage
> >conceptually to get it into that category.
>
> All hip hop ain't based only on samples and loops.
Certainly not. But all hip-hop is rhythm and groove based, don't you
agree? Frequently it is synthesized loops, whether recorded, sampled or
actually repeatedly played. But however it plays it has no harmony *by
and large*. I've heard it but wouldn't call it fundamental to style.
And that's not a slam: traditional musics from India, and much of the
Middle-East don't use harmony. They do have some highly complex line
development though. Rap doesn't have that either.
> As far as I'm concerned, music doesn't have to "grow, develop, become
> something" - something all good rap music does, BTW - in order to be
> music. If it grooves, it's already music.
I'm not going to scientifically argue the lack of "growth" in rap
music. On it's *musical* level, predominantly, it's static. Do you
think that's fair? If not, I'd have to have it explained to me where
harmony or melody is involved.
On to rhythm: Everything with a rhythm isn't necessarily music. On the
other hand we can take that "a bird singing and a donkey braying--all
is music" approach. How about West African rhythmic musics? I studied
it and played them and love it. But it's rhythmic stuff that develops,
migrates, shifts. In my experience I hear very little rhythmic
development in hip hip. If you can refer me to examples in which
rhythmic variation and development is a significant factory I'll chase
it down.
That's why I can't personally categorize it as music, despite it
unimpeachable poetic contribution to the community of the "record
industry" and society in general.
--
///---
Gerry Scott-Moore
<br...@reality.net> wrote:
> in article 3f607283$1...@127.0.0.1, Mark Kleinhaut at
> markkl...@hotmail.com wrote on 9/11/03 9:02 AM:
>
> >> mu·sic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (myzk)
> >> n.
> >> 1) The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous,
> >> unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony,
> >> rhythm, and timbre.
> >>
> >> I think Rap qualifies as having all that.
> >
> > Agreed, and the fact that so many people hate it is proof that it is
> > evocative,
> > indeed.
>
> Yup. A lot of people hate Parker and Coltrane, for that matter. :-0
A lot of people hate my Uncle Dave. He must be music.
--
///---
Gerry Scott-Moore
Zucker <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote:
Your opinion counts too.
--
///---
bob r
at 222...@adelphia.net.invalid wrote on 9/11/03 12:07 PM:
>>>> 1) The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous,
>>>> unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony,
>>>> rhythm, and timbre.
>>>>
>>>> I think Rap qualifies as having all that.
>>>
>>> Agreed, and the fact that so many people hate it is proof that it is
>>> evocative,
>>> indeed.
>>
>> Yup. A lot of people hate Parker and Coltrane, for that matter. :-0
>
> A lot of people hate my Uncle Dave. He must be music.
Actually, the fact that a lot of people hate him doesn't really say anything
about whether he's music or not. It does show that he's evocative, which is
a quality belonging to many things, music being one of those things.
--
Bob Russell
http://www.bobrussellguitar.com
CD available: http://www.cdbaby.com/bobrussell
Jurupari
>hop but the sampling and rapping was very similar. It sounded nothing
>like what we were doing so it provided a nice contrast.
Yeh, the Jamaican perspective was something R&B needed, I think. I wonder and
don't know when calypso became the minor influence and what became reggae and
ska and all got going.
By the time I knew about reggae, it was as you say, early to mid seventies and
it was all commercial and cross contaminated by that time.
Clif
Gerry Scott-Moore
<ti...@erinet.com> wrote:
> If saying the above makes me a snob, that's cool. There's a lot to be
> said for snobbery.
It says you have your own opinion. Subject, as it is, to validation by
others.
Unless one loves everything everywhere anytime, I guess they are a snob
of some kind...
--
///---
Gerry Scott-Moore
> > A lot of people hate my Uncle Dave. He must be music.
>
> Actually, the fact that a lot of people hate him doesn't really say anything
> about whether he's music or not. It does show that he's evocative, which is
> a quality belonging to many things, music being one of those things
That was a joke. I forgot to put the smiley face without which I
assume it was a snarl. :-)
--
///---
Pt
>1) The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous,
>unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony,
>rhythm, and timbre.
>
>I think Rap qualifies as having all that.
Shame on you Jack!!
Pt
Pt
saying the above makes me a snob, that's cool. There's a lot to be
>said for snobbery.
>
>Tim
I'm proud of you Tim.
Always speak your mind!
Pt
tomw
juru...@aol.com says...
> By the time I knew about reggae, it was as you say, early to mid seventies and
> it was all commercial and cross contaminated by that time.
>
> Clif
>
I think that by the time it became reggae it was already "commercial and
cross contaminated". Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Jurupari
He's not a hermit by any chance, is he?
Max Leggett
wrote:
>In article <20030911122620...@mb-m27.aol.com>,
>juru...@aol.com says...
>
>> By the time I knew about reggae, it was as you say, early to mid seventies and
>> it was all commercial and cross contaminated by that time.
>>
>> Clif
>>
>I think that by the time it became reggae it was already "commercial and
>cross contaminated". Not that there's anything wrong with that.
>--
All us old farts ragging on about hip hop reminds me of all the old
farts who ragged on about the Beatles and the Rolling Stones when I
was 15. "That's not music, it's noise." "They're disgusting." "Will
the big bands ever come back?" "They look like girls." And to me, and
one or two other 15-year olds, the Beatles and the Stones epitomised
everything about being 15, and being alive, and not being an old fart
who knew everything and wanted to run everything down.
I remember Danny Marks' father playing an LP of Basie Plays the
Beatles. "That's how it should be played," he said. It sucked. It was
crap. It still does. It still is. My father came home one day with an
8-Track of Sinatra Sings the Beatles. "That's how it should be sung."
It sucked. It was crap. Apart from the fact that it missed the whole
poiunt, it had nothing to do with being 15 and being alive. It had
everything to do with being an old fart and knowing everything.
Eminem and Britney have everything to do with being 15 and alive and
not being an old fart. The fact that old farts don't like it just
makes it all the better. A while back someone did a survey on this NG
and found that the average age was 42. Now, I know we're all hip to
the gills, but folks, that's old fart territory. Remember "Never trust
anyone over 30"? They were right.
And just like old farts since the beginning of time we have out little
favourites and we pore endlesly over the minutae of what we happen to
like. And we dump on anything that's not old-fartish. We know what's
good, and what the hell do they teach them in school these days,
anyway?
Yeah, I know that Eminem is a fraud and that Britney has killer tits
and not much else, but what else would you expect an old fart to say?
There are a zillion hip 15 year olds who couldn't give a shit what
some old fart thinks about being young and alive. Good for them.
Rap sucks.
Jurupari
>and not much else, but what else would you expect an old fart to say?
>There are a zillion hip 15 year olds who couldn't give a shit what
>some old fart thinks about being young and alive.
..but they'd better give a shit about those killer tits or we're in trouble as
a species!
I think music is generally important when you're running around chasing after
it. When you bring it home, it's not quite the same with music anymore.
clif
tomw
juru...@aol.com says...
KevinW
wrote:
>All us old farts ragging on about hip hop reminds me of all the old
>farts who ragged on about the Beatles and the Rolling Stones when I
>was 15. "That's not music, it's noise." "They're disgusting." "Will
>the big bands ever come back?" "They look like girls." And to me, and
>one or two other 15-year olds, the Beatles and the Stones epitomised
>everything about being 15, and being alive, and not being an old fart
>who knew everything and wanted to run everything down.
>
That reminds me of a piece I heard on the CBS Sunday Morning show a
few weeks back. The guy (can't remember his name) that writes for
R.S. does a semi-regular music commentary on that program.
He was talking about "us old farts" not "getting" today's music. He
also mentioned thinking about what Mom & Dad thought of "our" music.
They didn't "get" it. He then threw in the clincher. You're not
*supposed* to "get" it. It's not *for you* to get. It's that
generation's music. You had yours, your parents had theirs. This
belongs to one (or two) after you. Don't worry about "getting" it.
After a point in time, obviously one's tastes are not restricted to a
time period, but he made his point rather well I thought.
That being said - rap indeed sucks. And I can't play/sing/rap rap so
take my opinion with that grain of salt.
Gerry Scott-Moore
<kev...@covad.net> wrote:
> It's that generation's music. You had yours, your parents had
> theirs. This belongs to one (or two) after you. Don't worry about
> "getting" it.
>
> After a point in time, obviously one's tastes are not restricted to a
> time period, but he made his point rather well I thought.
>
> That being said - rap indeed sucks. And I can't play/sing/rap rap so
> take my opinion with that grain of salt.
Anybody read "Hole in Our Soul: The Loss of Beauty and Meaning in
American Popular Music" by Martha Bayles?
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226039595/qid=1063314580
/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-7256339-1601637?v=glance&s=books&n=507846>
It's amazingly dry, and deals with how such music was lost as much as
to whom and how evil rap is and all that stuff. It's been a long time
since I read this, and it's damned dry. But she had a lot of
interesting things to say on the topic. I note that on Amazon there
are *35* pages to peruse!
One of her points; no one is going to listen to 90's Rap in the
retirement home in 50 years.
Everybody can have their favorite pop styles in music, clothes, movies
and everything else. But melody and songs that are sung with lyrics
(to differentiate it from speaking) is what old folks will listen to in
their dotage remembering the good ol' days. These are markers in our
brain. Even songs I hated at the time, and still do--when I hear them
it's like I'm transported back to 1965 or 1978.
I think there are fundamental reasons that these markers don't happen
with talk with or without a real nice beat. It takes melody. For anyone
unsure of it, that's an opinion.
--
///---
Pt
First off I am old but I have been playing music all of my life.
Whether I am good or bad is not the point.
The point is that I am a muisician and have been for a long time.
I can play more than one instrument, I can read music and I take pride
in my ability to play with others.
I am not now, nor was I ever, stuck in one type of music.
I like it all.
But I like music that I can play and I can't play rap.
There is very little playable music to it.
Pt
Gerry Scott-Moore
<pea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But I like music that I can play and I can't play rap.
> There is very little playable music to it.
I thought you played bass!?
--
///---
Pt
I do but I don't want to play one note throughout a song.
Pt
Adam Bravo
news:100920032131318813%222...@adelphia.net.invalid...
> <pea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe this has to do with age.
> > I recall when my parents said that rock and roll was lewd and obscene.
>
> It's irrelevant. Simplicity exists in a repeato-groove with a synth
> bass with a drum machine. A loop we're calling it these days, because
> it really only gets played once. You can't get more simple than that.
> Simplicity exists in the music of Son House or John Lee Hooker. But
> it's a very different simplicity.
Depends on what you mean by "simple." It can be notated simply (the
"sequence of notes" is simple). But it can be analyzed quite deeply by
looking at the placement of the notes within the beat, the pitches the
rapper uses and how it relates to his phrasing and articulation, etc.
> Poetry, whether romantic or misogynist can be art, but it's not music.
> Miró is simple and lovely. But it's not music. Son House is music no
> matter how you slice it.
Well, music can be defined as rhythm combined with melody. Poetry has rhythm
surely. The background music has melody, and the rapper generally has melody
too. Melody in the sense of differing pitches, which is more than just
accents.
> Rap is not music. It can a groove, sure. It can teach interesting
> lessons about urban values and their migration. But as aural art It
> doesn't grow, develop, become something. It's a groove, a loop or drum
> machine with somebody's "urban poetry" on tope--assuming the best case.
> I don't hate it as music. Because I can't manage conceptually to get
> it into that category.
How doesn't it grow or develop? At the simplest level, it tells a
chronological story. At another ridiculously simple level, it may start out
with fewer instruments than it ends up with.
Adam Bravo
news:3f609bc0...@news.core.com...
> On 11 Sep 2003 05:58:16 -0700, j...@jackzucker.com (Jack A. Zucker)
> wrote:
> >Funny - None of my music text books ever described what you're saying
> >as a requirement for something *being* music. Rap is as valid a music
> >as Coltrane's Giant Steps. Whether you dig it, understand it, groove
> >on it or not is totally irrelevant.
> >
>
> If you want to talk on that totally subjective artistic level where
> absolutely anything goes, hip hop is as valid as Beethoven. And a 3
> year old's scribblings are also as valid as the finest works in the
> Louvre.
Well, it's not very "pure" because the three year old has no intent. But
it's just as valid for himself. He's doing it for himself, just as every
artist does his art for himself.
> But if you want to talk on a level where skill, craftmanship, and
> subtlety matter, there is simply no comparison between ANY pop music
> and serious music like classical or jazz. Rap, country, rock, polka,
> folk, reggae.....they are all "Mary Had a Little Lamb" with a beat
> that people can dance to.
No, it's actually a trillion times more complex than that. And it's more
serious than jazz, because it's less "selfish." Skill and craftmanship? Fine
for the artist to pursue for himself, but why should anyone care about it?
And how much subtlety do you want? To the point where it's so subtle that
you can't even recognize it?
> If saying the above makes me a snob, that's cool. There's a lot to be
> said for snobbery.
I agree. But can you think of anything positive?
Jurupari
>serious than jazz, because it's less "selfish."
Well, it's serious all right, those motherfuckers blow each other's brains out
at the drop of an eight ball.
but loadin up with bling bling seems a tad selfish...
>Skill and craftmanship? Fine
>for the artist to pursue for himself, but why should anyone care about it?
Really - screw that statue of David - Michaelangelo could have just pissed in
the mud and made a schmoo instead. Pass me them mcnuggetts!
>And how much subtlety do you want?
More than I see on BET would be ok..
>can you think of anything positive?
yeah, it's not about or for me and it's welcome to exist in any form that
doesn't kill non perfomers. Whoever wants it can have it, I don't have to and
everybody's presumably happy.
I don't like proselytizing about any kind of music, and it may well be that
when the current generation of youth goes geriatric, they'll have stayed with
the same music all their lives. Most people do unless they become musicians,
then sometimes not.
But I do like the idea that jazz persists, even though it's immensely
unpopular. It wouldn't if it didn't have similarly immense meaning to those few
who are passionate about it. Ain't no trillions of nothin' in jazz..
Clif
Gerry Scott-Moore
<mra...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Simplicity exists in a repeato-groove with a synth bass with a drum
> > machine. A loop we're calling it these days, because it really only
> > gets played once. You can't get more simple than that. Simplicity
> > exists in the music of Son House or John Lee Hooker. But it's a
> > very different simplicity.
>
> Depends on what you mean by "simple." It can be notated simply (the
> "sequence of notes" is simple).
The notation would fairly represent my meaning. A simple bass/drums in
a line sense, rhythmic sense and harmonic sense. Simple compared to
Classical, Latin, African, Rock, Jazz, and almost any popular music.
> But it can be analyzed quite deeply by looking at the placement of
> the notes within the beat, the pitches the rapper uses and how it
> relates to his phrasing and articulation, etc.
Well you're talking the meter of the spoken word. Yes that can be and
usually is far more complex. If it had a melody my view might well be
different. A jack hammer has rhythm. So does emptying a bag of
potatoes. Neither becomes music because of this association.
> > Poetry, whether romantic or misogynist can be art, but it's not
> > music. Miró is simple and lovely. But it's not music. Son House is
> > music no matter how you slice it.
>
> Well, music can be defined as rhythm combined with melody. Poetry has
> rhythm surely. The background music has melody,
I disagree that the background "has melody". There is no "melody" in
any traditional sense in hip-hop. Periodically there's a little snatch
in a seque or something. Ain't nobody whistling that on the way out the
theatre. If one is going to argue the artistry of hip-hop it won't be
by claiming it has "has melody".
> and the rapper generally has melody too. Melody in the sense of
> differing pitches, which is more than just accents.
You're torturing the word "melody". Rapper's rap, not sing. Every
speaking voice changes pitches, but that doesn't make it music. It's
speech.
> > Rap is not music. It can a groove, sure. It can teach interesting
> > lessons about urban values and their migration. But as aural art
> > It doesn't grow, develop, become something. It's a groove, a loop
> > or drum machine with somebody's "urban poetry" on tope--assuming
> > the best case. I don't hate it as music. Because I can't manage
> > conceptually to get it into that category.
>
> How doesn't it grow or develop? At the simplest level, it tells a
> chronological story.
Again we're back to the lyrical content. I think I've paid that enough
lip-service.
> At another ridiculously simple level, it may start out with fewer
> instruments than it ends up with.
That iis too ridiculously. I was thinking of something slightly more
complex, and from a melodic/harmonic/rhythmic sense. You might consider
it has all the earmarks of music. I don't.
If you like it as aural or lyrical art, why is it important to
categorize it as music? Do you think it's insulting not to consider
music?
--
///---
martin
> > But it can be analyzed quite deeply by looking at the placement of
> > the notes within the beat, the pitches the rapper uses and how it
> > relates to his phrasing and articulation, etc.
>
> Well you're talking the meter of the spoken word. Yes that can be and
> usually is far more complex. If it had a melody my view might well be
> different. A jack hammer has rhythm. So does emptying a bag of
> potatoes. Neither becomes music because of this association.
>
It's not the fact that it has rhythm that makes it music,it's the fact
that it has a rhythm that is *musical*.Both dialling a telephone and
gregorian chanting have notes played at different pitches but this
does not mean they are both music. Gregorian chanting has a musical
quality about it's arrangement of notes that dialling a telephone does
not. If you couldn't tell the difference by ear then no one could
explain it.
If you don't see it then that's fine - but that doesn't make it not
music.I am unable to hear the musical qualities in lots of genres of
world folk music as well as some avant garde classical music - maybe
because i am not used to hearing those types of music.But i think i'd
allow that an african drumming ensemble which has a repeated simple
rhythm over which soloist improvises counts as music.I'd say a rapper
performs an analogous role to the solo drum in a hip hop group. No?
martin
Gerry Scott-Moore
<martin...@volcanomail.com> wrote:
> Gerry Scott-Moore <222...@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:<110920032214555559%222...@adelphia.net.invalid>...
>
> > > But it can be analyzed quite deeply by looking at the placement
> > > of the notes within the beat, the pitches the rapper uses and how
> > > it relates to his phrasing and articulation, etc.
> >
> > Well you're talking the meter of the spoken word. Yes that can be
> > and usually is far more complex. If it had a melody my view might
> > well be different. A jack hammer has rhythm. So does emptying a
> > bag of potatoes. Neither becomes music because of this association.
> >
> It's not the fact that it has rhythm that makes it music,it's the
> fact that it has a rhythm that is *musical*.Both dialling a telephone
> and gregorian chanting have notes played at different pitches but
> this does not mean they are both music. Gregorian chanting has a
> musical quality about it's arrangement of notes that dialling a
> telephone does not. If you couldn't tell the difference by ear then
> no one could explain it.
>
> If you don't see it then that's fine - but that doesn't make it not
> music.
I've used stated logic to conclude that I can't categorize it as music.
I've explained that. You don't agree with my conclusions. Okay. I've
frequently heard folks say that if you dislike or disagree with some
things you must not understand or have experience with them. Neither
applies to me. I just don't consider it music in the formal sense we've
historically considered music.
> I am unable to hear the musical qualities in lots of genres of world
> folk music as well as some avant garde classical music - maybe
> because i am not used to hearing those types of music.
I've heard lots of rap. It doesn't have a melody, and it has no
significant harmonic content. That's not really a value judgement.
Redefining "melody" and "musical" doesn't give it a melody. If it
does--sing or play it. If you can do that, it has A melody and it is
music.
> But i think i'd allow that an african drumming ensemble which has a
> repeated simple rhythm over which soloist improvises counts as music.
That's true, and I used it as an example upstream.
> I'd say a rapper performs an analogous role to the solo drum in a hip
> hop group. No?
I'd say that is a long-standing art form called poetry. Is it
analogous? Certainly. But for pure analogy, emptying a bag of potatoes
qualifies too, and no one attempts to argue it is music.
--
///---
Holger Weber
"Tim Berens" <ti...@erinet.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3f609bc0...@news.core.com...
-snip-
> But if you want to talk on a level where skill, craftmanship, and
> subtlety matter, there is simply no comparison between ANY pop music
> and serious music like classical or jazz. Rap, country, rock, polka,
> folk, reggae.....they are all "Mary Had a Little Lamb" with a beat
> that people can dance to.
>
> If saying the above makes me a snob, that's cool. There's a lot to be
> said for snobbery.
>
> Tim
The crisis of classical music has led to this interesting trend of "legit"
musicians trying to pull jazz over to "their" side. If I listen to Lou
Donaldson's "Alligator Boogaloo" I do not think "gee, that's really deep".
It's just "Mary Had A Little Lamb" with a beat people can dance to. Do you
consider that jazz? Was Mozart any more serious than Zappa? Hendrix just
playing dance music while Chick Webb was making "serious" art? You tell me.
Snobbery maybe, but the snobbery of a classical musician and not of a jazz
musician IMO.
Holger
HotchkissTrio
From this discussion I don't think you've heard any "good" rap. Of
course, if the only place you've heard it is on the radio, then that's
not surprising.
You want good baselines and rap? Check out Eric B and Rakim's "I
guess I ddin't know", or check out Jurasic 5, Wutang Clan, etc. How
about MC-Solar featuring Ron Carter? (History of JAzz 5-disc set)
That's some of the funkiest coolest hippest $hit I've heard.
As for lyrical content, that IS THE essential thing in rap. Listen to
Public Enemy's "Fear of a Black Planet" album and tell me honestly
that you don't hear anything thought provoking.
Rap started as a protest music, and Public Enemy was probably best at
this. There's no "I'm the best MC" in it. "Welcome to the
Terrordome" is my personal favorite, and they even print out the
lyrics for you in case you can't here it all. It's pretty provacative
stuff.
In short, don't let some "bad" rap turn you off to the whole genre.
It is a worthwhile form of music that can be very entertaining,
danceable, and thought provoking. Would you want a bunch of potential
listeners to forgo your show because they heard Kenny G on the radio?
-Paul H.
Pt <pea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<dd12mvog9ib7b60j3...@4ax.com>...
florian schmidt
> There is plenty of excellent rap music. Some tunes have lyrical
> melodies, great singing and complex rhythms. At the same time, like
> any genre allot of it sucks. And in the same way that some people
> here don't consider Kenny G jazz, plenty of hip-hop fans don’t
> think much of Puff daddy and the other top 40 rappers. If you want to
> dismiss an entire genre and say "what musicality?" that’s your
> prerogative, but consider this. Rap is one the highest grossing
> genres of music in the world. It’s very much a vibrant living
> genre with a rich history, multiple sub-genre’s and a wide range
> of instrumentation (including in LA a Hip-hop orchestra complete with
> sitar and archtops called Dakah http://www.dakah.com/ ). Also there
> has been plenty of cross over between jazz and rap/electronica off the
> top of my head MMW, Charlie Hunter and Scofield all have been
> influenced.
Ack! Nicely put..
--
Florian Schmidt
Jack A. Zucker
> One of her points; no one is going to listen to 90's Rap in the
> retirement home in 50 years.
I'd be willing to bet there are 100x more people will listening to
'90s Rap in 50 years than there are listening to Coltrane in the year
2010 (50 years after his heyday)
> Everybody can have their favorite pop styles in music, clothes, movies
> and everything else. But melody and songs that are sung with lyrics
> (to differentiate it from speaking) is what old folks will listen to in
> their dotage remembering the good ol' days. These are markers in our
> brain. Even songs I hated at the time, and still do--when I hear them
> it's like I'm transported back to 1965 or 1978.
That's your (narrow) definition of music. You can't legislate art, nor
can you make it about what your personal choices are. This is one
thing that occasionally bothers me about this group. It seems at times
to attempt to narrow down what is and is not music, art, jazz, etc.
Nobody on this group can stop jazz or music's progression.
> I think there are fundamental reasons that these markers don't happen
> with talk with or without a real nice beat. It takes melody. For anyone
> unsure of it, that's an opinion.
Art isn't about "markers" or any other term coined by academia. Art is
about art - PERIOD.
Gerry Scott-Moore
Zucker <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote:
> You can't legislate art, nor can you make it about what your personal
> choices are. This is one thing that occasionally bothers me about
> this group. It seems at times to attempt to narrow down what is and
> is not music, art, jazz, etc. Nobody on this group can stop jazz or
> music's progression.
I've heard no one "legislating art", but it's a nice "outrage slogan"
like they manufacture on talk radio, in reference to nothing in
particular.
I'm surprised to find that art is not "about personal choices". I
assume that some "higher authority" (those whose opinions are "valid")
decides what art is about?
These two ideas seem to be in conflict.
> > I think there are fundamental reasons that these markers don't
> > happen with talk with or without a real nice beat. It takes melody.
> > For anyone unsure of it, that's an opinion.
>
> Art isn't about "markers" or any other term coined by academia. Art
> is about art - PERIOD.
My reference to "markers" was explicitly unrelated to art, but your
conclusion is certainly impossible to argue with.
--
///---
Jack A. Zucker
> In article <2f33c43f.03091...@posting.google.com>, Jack A.
> Zucker <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote:
>
> > You can't legislate art, nor can you make it about what your personal
> > choices are. This is one thing that occasionally bothers me about
> > this group. It seems at times to attempt to narrow down what is and
> > is not music, art, jazz, etc. Nobody on this group can stop jazz or
> > music's progression.
>
> I've heard no one "legislating art", but it's a nice "outrage slogan"
> like they manufacture on talk radio, in reference to nothing in
> particular.
>
> I'm surprised to find that art is not "about personal choices".
You're obfuscating what I wrote. I said it wasn't about *YOUR* personal
choices. It's up to each individual so no matter how much you rant and rave
about it not being music, it will continue on.
> I
> assume that some "higher authority" (those whose opinions are "valid")
> decides what art is about?
The higher authority is simply the music itself.
Now I know why you argued so hard about *OPINIONS* :-)
HotchkissTrio
is a form of music, you can like or it not. I think it was a wise
jazz musician who said study music hard, then forget all that bull$hit
and just play. Why are we trying to analyze and deconstruct rap to
prove through logic that rap is or is not music? The fact is that
millions of people, many more millions than currently show interest in
jazz, like rap and consider an artform and music and all that stuff.
Arguing about it doesn't change that.
-Paul H.
Gerry Scott-Moore <222...@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message news:<120920030720486012%222...@adelphia.net.invalid>...
Adam Gottschalk
paulyho...@hotmail.com (HotchkissTrio) wrote:
> As for lyrical content, that IS THE essential thing in rap. Listen to
> Public Enemy's "Fear of a Black Planet" album and tell me honestly
> that you don't hear anything thought provoking.
>
> Rap started as a protest music, and Public Enemy was probably best at
> this. There's no "I'm the best MC" in it. "Welcome to the
> Terrordome" is my personal favorite, and they even print out the
> lyrics for you in case you can't here it all. It's pretty provacative
> stuff.
Actually, this is exactly the example I think of. I listened to rap a
lot more back in the day when it was about radical statements and social
criticism. Man, Chuck D is still the baddest rapper I've heard (**Have
you caught that track on Weird Nightmare with Chuck D reading from
Mingus' diary while Frisell backs him up? It rocks.**). I stopped
listening as I saw the likes of Public Enemy start to fall from favor.
And that was already 12 or more years ago.
Adam Gottschalk
j...@jackzucker.com (Jack A. Zucker) wrote:
> > One of her points; no one is going to listen to 90's Rap in the
> > retirement home in 50 years.
>
> I'd be willing to bet there are 100x more people will listening to
> '90s Rap in 50 years than there are listening to Coltrane in the year
> 2010 (50 years after his heyday)
Gotta say I'd reckon the same thing.
Idawg
> Rap is like any other music, there is good bad and ugly.
>
> From this discussion I don't think you've heard any "good" rap. Of
> course, if the only place you've heard it is on the radio, then that's
> not surprising.
>
> You want good baselines and rap? Check out Eric B and Rakim's "I
> guess I ddin't know", or check out Jurasic 5, Wutang Clan, etc. How
> about MC-Solar featuring Ron Carter? (History of JAzz 5-disc set)
> That's some of the funkiest coolest hippest $hit I've heard.
>
> As for lyrical content, that IS THE essential thing in rap. Listen to
> Public Enemy's "Fear of a Black Planet" album and tell me honestly
> that you don't hear anything thought provoking.
>
> Rap started as a protest music, and Public Enemy was probably best at
> this. There's no "I'm the best MC" in it. "Welcome to the
> Terrordome" is my personal favorite, and they even print out the
> lyrics for you in case you can't here it all. It's pretty provacative
> stuff.
>
> In short, don't let some "bad" rap turn you off to the whole genre.
> It is a worthwhile form of music that can be very entertaining,
> danceable, and thought provoking. Would you want a bunch of potential
> listeners to forgo your show because they heard Kenny G on the radio?
>
> -Paul H.
Public Enemy's "It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back " is
what opened my ears up to rap and hip hop. My long time favorite of
the genre is Quannum "Spectrum". I haven't kept up with it in years
but I generally like anything by Solsides or Freestyle Fellowship.
IMHO what keeps a genre alive is its diverse influences and voices
intermingling and expanding in musical vocabulary. By closing off
oneself from an entire genre of music, especially one the size of
rap/hip-hop, you are only limiting your musical vocabulary.
Gerry do you really think Rap is not music? or just bad music.
According to the dictionary definition posted earlier, rap fit in.
So whats your definition of "music"?
Bob R
ad...@adamgottschalk.net wrote on 9/12/03 5:29 PM:
"911 Is a Joke" got me thinking about some things I hadn't really given much
thought to before.
--
Bob Russell
http://www.bobrussellguitar.com
CD, "Watch This!", available at:
http://www.cdbaby.com/bobrussell
Gerry Scott-Moore
Zucker <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote:
> > > You can't legislate art, nor can you make it about what your
> > > personal choices are. This is one thing that occasionally bothers
> > > me about this group. It seems at times to attempt to narrow down
> > > what is and is not music, art, jazz, etc. Nobody on this group
> > > can stop jazz or music's progression.
> >
> > I've heard no one "legislating art", but it's a nice "outrage
> > slogan" like they manufacture on talk radio, in reference to
> > nothing in particular.
> >
> > I'm surprised to find that art is not "about personal choices".
>
> You're obfuscating what I wrote.
You're doing an excellent job of that yourself. If you meant mine you
could have said mine. I assume you meant, then, that *I* was
"legislating art", or was that another non-specific inference?
> I said it wasn't about *YOUR* personal choices.
I was discussing my personal choices. I don't know where your "it" is
supposed to point. No more use of pronouns for you young man.
> It's up to each individual so no matter how much you rant and rave
> about it not being music, it will continue on.
I'm one of the individuals that it's up to, and that was my opinion. I
didn't expect it to change anybody else's appreciation of rap. You've
effectively moved the topic of discussion to me, I notice.
I think what you're trying to say is that I shouldn't express my
opinion on the topic. Well, that's your personal choice.
> > I assume that some "higher authority" (those whose opinions are
> > "valid") decides what art is about?
>
> The higher authority is simply the music itself.
That doesn't mean anything.
--
///---
Gerry Scott-Moore
HotchkissTrio <paulyho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Rap is a form of music, you can like or it not.
I don't think it is. You can like it or not.
> Why are we trying to analyze and deconstruct rap to prove through
> logic that rap is or is not music?
Not prove it, no. Only to explain my rationale for not accepting it as
music.
> The fact is that millions of people, many more millions than
> currently show interest in jazz, like rap and consider an artform and
> music and all that stuff. Arguing about it doesn't change that.
I never argued that it wasn't popular. Popularity doesn't mean it's
music by my definition. Your views may differ.
I think the problem is that I stated my definition and how rap doesn't
qualify. You may have a different definition. Do you expect me to use
yours? Certainly not. I don't expect you to use mine either.
Why is this so painful?
--
///---
Gerry Scott-Moore
Scott-Moore <222...@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article <2f33c43f.03091...@posting.google.com>, Jack A.
> Zucker <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote:
>
> > You can't legislate art, nor can you make it about what your personal
> > choices are. This is one thing that occasionally bothers me about
> > this group. It seems at times to attempt to narrow down what is and
> > is not music, art, jazz, etc. Nobody on this group can stop jazz or
> > music's progression.
I'm back trying to figure this statement out again, Jack. I see the
"you" in there and assumed it meant the universal "one". But sure
enough, you mean that I, Gerry Scott-Moore can't legislate art. I
agree, nor would I want to.
Though you shift to "this group" you then say it "attempts to narrow
down what is and is not music". Are you saying you havelimits on what
you consider music, art, jazz, etc. I thought such matters of
consideration were what were the *definition* of a personal aesthetic.
Deciding what we like, what we don't like, and how it fits together FOR
OURSELVES.
--
///---
Jurupari
>
>I don't think it is. You can like it or not.
I've always thought of it as multimedia. It borrows elements from music,
theater, the street, and out it comes. It sort of has to include the dancing
and the visual thing as much as the message, doesn't it? Jazz in clubs did too,
at one time in some places.
It's more theater to me, and music just plays a small part. I dig melody,
reharmonizing and chord changes, and that's not any of it real prevalent in hip
hop, so we're not too relevant to each other.
I hope that's ok with hopped up hipsters because it's ok with me - I don't
think they need to develop 'blues sensibility' or swing like Pops or anything,
just don't piss in my gas tank or shoot my dog.
I'm a lot more focused on melodic music and tonal systems and what I can do
with them, and I played in bands that did the songs they're sampling, so it's
not going to have much appeal to me. As far as a message goes, I prefer a
lecture, but that's just me.
I heard one recently on c-span that was memorable, and it probably wouldn't
have been if he'd rapped it instead, even though his audience was young and
black, and so was he.
Clif Kuplen
Bob R
paulyho...@hotmail.com wrote on 9/12/03 5:28 PM:
> Is it just me, or do we tend to over-analyze music on this forum.
Probably. Hell, definitely. But this is a discussion group, after all...
> Rap is a form of music, you can like or it not.
A common tactic used by those who don't like a particular kind of music is
to pronounce that it's "not music" at all, bringing out some personally
constructed set of criteria for "real music" which have been carefully
selected to exclude whatever it is they don't like. The more impressionable
among us can accept those pronouncements if they wish. Most of us will
examine the pronouncements based on what they know, believe, etc. and make
our own judgments as to their worth. This is doable by the average person
without resorting to seminars on epistemology, etc.
> I think it was a wise jazz musician who said study music hard, then forget all
> that bull$hit and just play.
Supposedly, Charlie Parker said something like that. How wise he was (except
in matters pertaining to the playing of bebop) is arguable, I suppose. At
least I'm sure someone will be willing to argue about it.
> Why are we trying to analyze and deconstruct rap to prove through logic that
> rap is or is not music?
For the same reason that some of our worthies periodically like to try to
prove that one artist or another "isn't jazz": some people just enjoy
arguments. Go figure.
> The fact is that millions of people, many more millions than currently show
> interest in jazz, like rap and consider an artform and music and all that
> stuff. Arguing about it doesn't change that.
The fact that millions of people like something only proves to me that
something's popular; it doesn't tell me anything one way or the other about
what it actually is or isn't. But you're right; arguing about it doesn't
change anything. However, it gives people who enjoy arguing something to do.
Max Leggett
>in article be1c2bf6.03091...@posting.google.com, HotchkissTrio at
>paulyho...@hotmail.com wrote on 9/12/03 5:28 PM:
>
>> Is it just me, or do we tend to over-analyze music on this forum.
>
>Probably. Hell, definitely. But this is a discussion group, after all...
>
>> Rap is a form of music, you can like or it not.
>
>A common tactic used by those who don't like a particular kind of music is
>to pronounce that it's "not music" at all, bringing out some personally
>constructed set of criteria for "real music" which have been carefully
>selected to exclude whatever it is they don't like.
I remember Ken Colyer, a typically limited trad trumpeter, opining
that, "What Mr Gillespie plays may well be interesting music, but it's
nothing to do with jazz." I've heard that line from other traddies,
too, as though some guy from North London knows more about jazz that
Diz from Cheraw, SC. That's the typical line taken by the Jazz Police:
Anything after Jelly Roll isn't jazz. A variant is, Ornette Coleman
reinvented jazz, and if you don't play harmolodics then you're not
playing jazz. I read an article from the Atlantic archives from 1928
or so which stated authoritavely that the Hot 5s were jazz, but that
the Hot 7s most emphatically weren't. Quite right, too. That Armstrong
was so sly and untrustworthy.
>The more impressionable
>among us can accept those pronouncements if they wish. Most of us will
>examine the pronouncements based on what they know, believe, etc. and make
>our own judgments as to their worth. This is doable by the average person
>without resorting to seminars on epistemology, etc.
In other word, it you like it, it's good. I can go for that. By
claiming that this is or is not music one sets the agenda. Once the
agenda has been set then everything that follows is post hoc ergo
propter hoc. Pretty fancy, huh? Latin quotations in a jazz NG. Lissen
up - if you can't drop Latin quotes at will then you can't play jazz.
It is written.
>> The fact is that millions of people, many more millions than currently show
>> interest in jazz, like rap and consider an artform and music and all that
>> stuff. Arguing about it doesn't change that.
>
>The fact that millions of people like something only proves to me that
>something's popular; it doesn't tell me anything one way or the other about
>what it actually is or isn't. But you're right; arguing about it doesn't
>change anything. However, it gives people who enjoy arguing something to do.
No it doesn't.
Adam Bravo
"Jurupari" <juru...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030912001830...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> >And it's more
> >serious than jazz, because it's less "selfish."
>
> Well, it's serious all right, those motherfuckers blow each other's brains
out
> at the drop of an eight ball.
>
> but loadin up with bling bling seems a tad selfish...
>
> >Skill and craftmanship? Fine
> >for the artist to pursue for himself, but why should anyone care about
it?
>
> Really - screw that statue of David - Michaelangelo could have just pissed
in
> the mud and made a schmoo instead. Pass me them mcnuggetts!
What?
> >And how much subtlety do you want?
>
> More than I see on BET would be ok..
>
> >can you think of anything positive?
>
> yeah, it's not about or for me and it's welcome to exist in any form that
> doesn't kill non perfomers. Whoever wants it can have it, I don't have to
and
> everybody's presumably happy.
That's my attitude.
> I don't like proselytizing about any kind of music, and it may well be
that
> when the current generation of youth goes geriatric, they'll have stayed
with
> the same music all their lives. Most people do unless they become
musicians,
> then sometimes not.
>
> But I do like the idea that jazz persists, even though it's immensely
> unpopular. It wouldn't if it didn't have similarly immense meaning to
those few
> who are passionate about it. Ain't no trillions of nothin' in jazz..
The people who like jazz are those who know the most about music.
Formerly Sideways
If I listen to Lou
> Donaldson's "Alligator Boogaloo"
Here's an interesting tidbit for you...it's not "Alligator Boogaloo,"
it's "Alligator Bogaloo." That's right, one "o" in "bo" You could
look it up, as Yogi would say.
As far as this thread...come on, what a gigantic waste of time putting
down rap and hip-hop and trying to objectify why it's no good.
If you don't care for what you've heard, lovely. I defend to the
death your right not to like it. But come on, really...Gerry, Tim,
have you listened to nearly enough hip-hop or rap to have an informed
opinion on it? Honestly? You've listened to enough hip-hop and rap
to have an informed opinion on its supposedly "lack of subtlety,"
whatever that means?
For instance, do either of you even know who the Roots are? Have you
listened to any of their stuff at all? I'm not even holding them up
as some kind of paradigm, but they are an example of an artist you
should check out before presuming to be able to dismiss this whole
genre as "crap."
I'm not a fan, but I don't see a lot of difference between this type
of musical bigotry and Finn's vilification of everything that doesn't
fall into his narrow and highly questionable defintion of music that
carries on the "tradition."
Formerly Sideways
> I've heard lots of rap. It doesn't have a melody, and it has no
> significant harmonic content.
In that case you have "heard" a lot of rap but not "listened" to much.
The melodies may be simple, not to your liking, but to say that "it
doesn't have a melody" is patently ridiculous and discredits your
entire arguement.
"That's not really a value judgement."
Horseshit.
>
Adam Bravo
well-revised.
"Gerry Scott-Moore" <222...@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:110920032214555559%222...@adelphia.net.invalid...
> In article <v%a8b.53312$nf3.19950@fed1read07>, Adam Bravo
> <mra...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Simplicity exists in a repeato-groove with a synth bass with a drum
> > > machine. A loop we're calling it these days, because it really only
> > > gets played once. You can't get more simple than that. Simplicity
> > > exists in the music of Son House or John Lee Hooker. But it's a
> > > very different simplicity.
> >
> > Depends on what you mean by "simple." It can be notated simply (the
> > "sequence of notes" is simple).
>
> The notation would fairly represent my meaning. A simple bass/drums in
> a line sense, rhythmic sense and harmonic sense. Simple compared to
> Classical, Latin, African, Rock, Jazz, and almost any popular music.
Simple compared to the most complex examples of those genres. Those are
probably the parts you're most familiar with (it's certainly what I enjoy
the most).
> > But it can be analyzed quite deeply by looking at the placement of
> > the notes within the beat, the pitches the rapper uses and how it
> > relates to his phrasing and articulation, etc.
>
> Well you're talking the meter of the spoken word. Yes that can be and
> usually is far more complex. If it had a melody my view might well be
> different. A jack hammer has rhythm. So does emptying a bag of
> potatoes. Neither becomes music because of this association.
Well, for one thing, people don't find the sound of a jackhammer or potato
chips as pleaseing; they likely don't even see rhythm in it. But mainly it's
because those can't be analyzed to see what makes them pleasurable. Patterns
aren't very discernable in jackhammers and potato chips.
> > > Poetry, whether romantic or misogynist can be art, but it's not
> > > music. Miró is simple and lovely. But it's not music. Son House is
> > > music no matter how you slice it.
> >
> > Well, music can be defined as rhythm combined with melody. Poetry has
> > rhythm surely. The background music has melody,
>
> I disagree that the background "has melody". There is no "melody" in
> any traditional sense in hip-hop. Periodically there's a little snatch
> in a seque or something. Ain't nobody whistling that on the way out the
> theatre. If one is going to argue the artistry of hip-hop it won't be
> by claiming it has "has melody".
I think of melody as a succession of different pitches that one can find a
pattern in (whether that pattern is within the melody or compared to other
music). Rap has that melody.
People do "hum" rap - the "melodic" hooks. "Please stand up, Please stand
up." That's not even a very complex example.
(for those who don't know, that's a tune by Eminem, "I'm the Real Slim
Shady," I think)
> > and the rapper generally has melody too. Melody in the sense of
> > differing pitches, which is more than just accents.
>
> You're torturing the word "melody". Rapper's rap, not sing. Every
> speaking voice changes pitches, but that doesn't make it music. It's
> speech.
But it's in the way it changes pitches. In the spoken word, there's accents
and different pitches. They all serve one purpose: to emphasize certain
words or ideas. In rap, not only is the variety much more diverse and the
changes more intentional, but the accents and pitches serve a different
purpose. They're subservient to the rhythm and to the phrasing.
> > > Rap is not music. It can a groove, sure. It can teach interesting
> > > lessons about urban values and their migration. But as aural art
> > > It doesn't grow, develop, become something. It's a groove, a loop
> > > or drum machine with somebody's "urban poetry" on tope--assuming
> > > the best case. I don't hate it as music. Because I can't manage
> > > conceptually to get it into that category.
> >
> > How doesn't it grow or develop? At the simplest level, it tells a
> > chronological story.
>
> Again we're back to the lyrical content. I think I've paid that enough
> lip-service.
Granted.
> > At another ridiculously simple level, it may start out with fewer
> > instruments than it ends up with.
>
> That iis too ridiculously. I was thinking of something slightly more
> complex, and from a melodic/harmonic/rhythmic sense. You might consider
> it has all the earmarks of music. I don't.
I don't see why structural should be omitted - that's an earmark of music.
But what I meant when I said "ends up with more instruments," I meant from a
melodic/harmonic/rhythmic sense too. It may start with the bassline, which
may be just a couple of notes. Then the next loop added in is a funk guitar.
The next may be string pads played on a keyboard, etc.
> If you like it as aural or lyrical art, why is it important to
> categorize it as music? Do you think it's insulting not to consider
> music?
Not insulting, no. But most people consider it music, and I think music
describes what it is pretty well.
Holger Weber
"Formerly Sideways" <twot...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:db420ccf.03091...@posting.google.com...
> "Holger Weber" <hg_weber...@yahoo.de> wrote .
>
> If I listen to Lou
> > Donaldson's "Alligator Boogaloo"
>
>
> Here's an interesting tidbit for you...it's not "Alligator Boogaloo,"
> it's "Alligator Bogaloo." That's right, one "o" in "bo" You could
> look it up, as Yogi would say.
An interesting tidbit for you might be that despite the fact that some
person at Blue Note Records misspelt it as Bogaloo, it's still Boogaloo.
"Alligator Boogaloo". That's right, two "oo" in "boo". You could've looked
it up, as my Ma would say...
Holger
Bob R
mleg...@nospam.ca wrote on 9/12/03 7:34 PM:
>> The fact that millions of people like something only proves to me that
>> something's popular; it doesn't tell me anything one way or the other about
>> what it actually is or isn't. But you're right; arguing about it doesn't
>> change anything. However, it gives people who enjoy arguing something to do.
>
> No it doesn't.
Long live Monty Python. Well, the remainder of Monty Python, anyway.
"When did you first begin arguing?"
"I DIDN'T!"
Tim Berens
wrote:
>"Tim Berens" <ti...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>news:3f609bc0...@news.core.com...
>> But if you want to talk on a level where skill, craftmanship, and
>> subtlety matter, there is simply no comparison between ANY pop music
>> and serious music like classical or jazz. Rap, country, rock, polka,
>> folk, reggae.....they are all "Mary Had a Little Lamb" with a beat
>> that people can dance to.
>
>No, it's actually a trillion times more complex than that. And it's more
>serious than jazz, because it's less "selfish." Skill and craftmanship? Fine
>for the artist to pursue for himself, but why should anyone care about it?
>And how much subtlety do you want? To the point where it's so subtle that
>you can't even recognize it?
I'm a snob, and I'm proud of it. I think that some forms of music are
superior to others. I join most of the rest of the world in this
belief, but with one distinction: most people do not distinguish
between "what I like" and "what is good." In other words, for most
people, their personal favorite music is the "best." I try to draw
objective distinctions based on years of dedicated study of music.
It's easy to hear a kid who has had one guitar lesson and say with
certainty that Pat Metheny plays better than that kid. But once that
kid has a couple years of playing under his belt and can belt out a 3
chord love song, the issue of who is "better" becomes murky for many
people. For me the issue remains clear as glass.
For myself, skill and craftmanship count immensely. I think that the
finest music is made by musicians whose skills are honed to a razor
sharp edge through years and years of study and practice AND whose
artistic intentions and abilities are as substantial as their skills.
I am not saying that all other music is worthless -- that would be
arrogant beyond imagination in addition to being incorrect. I love
all sorts of music and listen to it regularly. I also love potato
chips, but don't consider opening a bag of chips to be "equal" to a
wondrous meal prepared by a master chef. I also love to read trashy
novels, but I don't think of them as the "equal" of the works of James
Joyce.
As I said: I am a snob and I'm proud of it.
Tim
http://timberens.com
A Website for Guitarists
Learn something...Have some fun
Gerry Scott-Moore
<mra...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Well you're talking the meter of the spoken word. Yes that can be and
> > usually is far more complex. If it had a melody my view might well be
> > different. A jack hammer has rhythm. So does emptying a bag of
> > potatoes. Neither becomes music because of this association.
>
> Well, for one thing, people don't find the sound of a jackhammer or potato
> chips as pleaseing; they likely don't even see rhythm in it.
If we're going to offer our opinions it won't be by citing what
"people" like and don't like. I presume people like a lot of things
you don't like and vice-versa.
> But it's in the way it changes pitches. In the spoken word, there's accents
> and different pitches.
I understand your argument. The spoken voice is a melody in your
aesthetic. It is not in mine.
> > If you like it as aural or lyrical art, why is it important to
> > categorize it as music? Do you think it's insulting not to consider
> > music?
>
> Not insulting, no. But most people consider it music, and I think music
> describes what it is pretty well.
You don't speak for most people. This is how opinion morphs into some
kind of "statistical validated" opinion. Adam's view is good enough,
but I don't concur.
--
///---
Gerry Scott-Moore
<br...@reality.net> wrote:
> A common tactic used by those who don't like a particular kind of
> music is to pronounce that it's "not music" at all, bringing out some
> personally constructed set of criteria for "real music" which have
> been carefully selected to exclude whatever it is they don't like.
My aesthetics haven't been "carefelly selected" to exclude rap, but
through a lifetime of experiences. "Tactics", "pronouncement"--is there
any way to legally consider rap "not music" without being
unknowledgeable, inexperienced, "legislating art", or some other damn
thing? Jeez, Louise, I really am encouraged to make nice and be
agreeable.
Damn, these opinions are pretty difficult to have and protect these
days. Maybe you do need a license to have one...
--
///---
Gerry Scott-Moore
<juru...@aol.com> wrote:
I'm totally in sync with all this. I don't know how you get away with
it. You're not even gonna get CLOSE to getting your ass-kicked on this.
Why am I? Sheesh...
--
///---
Gerry Scott-Moore
Some of you seem to think I don't LIKE rap. I'm not arguing whether it
is enjoyable intertainment or art. I've never said people shouldn't
like it or that it is not art.
I'm a big believer in rap, actually. I'm not crazy about all it's
incarnations but like lots of things I've heard. That doesn't make me
want to play any one piece repeatedly like I would a record. I would
listen but once. And most of the time, if I had the chance to listen or
not, I'd take not.
Nevertheless I think it's a hot-wire of art forms, that it is important
and will not die, but become ever more expansive.
For instance it has similarities to qawwali, a form of music from
Pakistan and India that uses set scriptures as text. Many people have
heard Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, a mesmerizing singer. This music too has
no significant relationship to harmony, it's about the line, or melody.
Both the melody and the rhythm are freely improvised by the singer with
a highly complex text--not a lyric.
That's a much better approximation of what rap does--but without the
melody. I see no reason that it might not grow one, and I am assured
that it's themes won't be forever relegated to shock chatter. Some of
this tough-guy attitude is becoming a parody of itself anyway. Themes
of sex and violence in the urban ghetto is interesting but I think
there are many more universal themes that might be considered. And they
will be.
So my view is that it's evolving from poetry, not from music. In the
meantime, as speech, because of other critical elements missing (melody
and harmony) it doesn't effect me the same as music. I don't think
that's some kind of rant or rave unless you're just bird-dogging me
(that means you, Jack).
I have my own answers to the following questions. What are yours:
Question 1)
Ever heard TS Elliot, Dylan Thomas, Charles Bukowski, John Asberry or
other poets read their work? Is that act "music"? Not, "like music" or
"as if it were music", but the real deal to you?
Question 2)
If you dub a background loop on that reading, with or without skillful
sync, would it be rap?
If not, why not?
Question 3)
Would the presence of the loop make of the entire affair a piece of
music?
If not, why not?
--
///---
Jack A. Zucker
> THIS IS MY OPINION; my vender license is #408832.
>
> Some of you seem to think I don't LIKE rap.
Frankly, I don't care what you like or don't like. It was your statement
that "it wasn't music" that bothered me.
Jack A. Zucker
Dude - You make a strong, declarative statement on whether a particular
music for is actually "music" and then you get indignant at the replies.
Take a deep breath and go practice your guitar. It's not worth all the
aggravation! :-)
Jack A. Zucker
> >serious than jazz, because it's less "selfish."
>
out
> at the drop of an eight ball.
Yeah, jazz musicians never did anything like that. (not...)
The funny thing is that jazz musicians used to be the derelicts of society
and now they've become the slide-rule guys... :-)
Adam Bravo
> In article <s7t8b.54137$nf3.24386@fed1read07>, Adam Bravo
> <mra...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Well you're talking the meter of the spoken word. Yes that can be and
> > > usually is far more complex. If it had a melody my view might well be
> > > different. A jack hammer has rhythm. So does emptying a bag of
> > > potatoes. Neither becomes music because of this association.
> >
> > Well, for one thing, people don't find the sound of a jackhammer or
potato
> > chips as pleaseing; they likely don't even see rhythm in it.
>
> If we're going to offer our opinions it won't be by citing what
> "people" like and don't like. I presume people like a lot of things
> you don't like and vice-versa.
Well, I didn't think our discussion was about our own personal tastes. It
was about whether it was music, and certainly the beliefs of the the public
have to be factored in in deciding how a word can be applied.
> > But it's in the way it changes pitches. In the spoken word, there's
accents
> > and different pitches.
>
> I understand your argument. The spoken voice is a melody in your
> aesthetic. It is not in mine.
I just wonder how much rap you've listened to, by calling it "spoken word."
Rapping is quite a bit different than spoken word.
> > > If you like it as aural or lyrical art, why is it important to
> > > categorize it as music? Do you think it's insulting not to consider
> > > music?
> >
> > Not insulting, no. But most people consider it music, and I think music
> > describes what it is pretty well.
>
> You don't speak for most people. This is how opinion morphs into some
> kind of "statistical validated" opinion. Adam's view is good enough,
> but I don't concur.
I don't speak for most people, but by observation, I see that most call rap
music. Most call it "crappy music," because it makes them feel very smart,
but they call it music nonetheless.
I don't think whether it should be categorized as music is really that
important anyway. People know what you're talking about when you talk about
rap, which, for most intents and purposes, is good enough.
Adam Bravo
With all respect to your opinion, I think it's untenable. How do you decide
what music is better than any other music? Why is it relevant if it's
completely divorced from the concept of taste?
Gerry Scott-Moore
Zucker <j...@jackzucker.com> wrote:
> > The higher authority is simply the music itself.
> That doesn't mean anything.
> Dude - You make a strong, declarative statement on whether a particular
> music for is actually "music" and then you get indignant at the replies.
Dude, I'm not indignant. I said that phrase doesn't mean anything to
me. Music has no authority; it's an inanimate object.
> Take a deep breath and go practice your guitar. It's not worth all the
> aggravation!
Despite youre inability to shake the concept, I don't have any
emotional investment in the topic, and have no aggravation.
--
///---
Gerry Scott-Moore
<mra...@cox.net> wrote:
> Well, I didn't think our discussion was about our own personal tastes.
My discussion has been about nothing else.
> It was about whether it was music, and certainly the beliefs of the
> the public have to be factored in in deciding how a word can be
> applied.
You don't know what people like. Trying to enhance the credibility of
your statement by citing them is a rhetorical fallacy. The easiest and
the least effective.
> I don't speak for most people, but by observation, I see that most
> call rap music.
That's priceless. You don't speak for them but here's what they say?
--
///---
Formerly Sideways
. "Holger Weber" <hg_weber...@yahoo.de> wrote .
.An interesting tidbit for you might be that despite the fact that
some
> person at Blue Note Records misspelt it as Bogaloo, it's still Boogaloo.
> "Alligator Boogaloo". That's right, two "oo" in "boo". You could've looked
> it up, as my Ma would say...
>
> Holger
We'd have to ask Lou Donaldson, but I think for the purposes of this
album, the correct spelling is "Bogaloo" since it's that way on the
spine, the cover and the track listing. "Boogaloo" is a made up word,
after all, so I'm taking "Bogaloo" to be Lou's variation. You could
be right, but I'm sticking with my theory, for now.
Holger Weber
"Formerly Sideways" <twot...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:db420ccf.03091...@posting.google.com...
It's a typo, dude. It's Boogaloo as in boobs and not Bogaloo as in Bob. If
you don't believe me look it up at allmusic.com or do a google search. You
lost. Get over it ;)
Holger
Adam Bravo
"Gerry Scott-Moore" <222...@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <kSw8b.54168$nf3.1963@fed1read07>, Adam Bravo
> <mra...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Well, I didn't think our discussion was about our own personal tastes.
>
> My discussion has been about nothing else.
Well, then we're on two separate pages. I was discussing whether it was
music or not.
> > It was about whether it was music, and certainly the beliefs of the
> > the public have to be factored in in deciding how a word can be
> > applied.
>
> You don't know what people like. Trying to enhance the credibility of
> your statement by citing them is a rhetorical fallacy. The easiest and
> the least effective.
Looking at the huge number of rap albums sold as compared to jazz albums, I
think that one can get a pretty good idea that they like rap more than jazz.
But again, what they like is not the issue. Most people would call rap
music - do you disagree with that?
> > I don't speak for most people, but by observation, I see that most
> > call rap music.
>
> That's priceless. You don't speak for them but here's what they say?
"Speak for them" implies some sort of authority over the average person, and
also that they can't speak for themselves for whatever reason. I just made
an observation. You can dispute the observation, but it's not reasonable to
say that such observations cannot be made.
(does it feel like we've been down this road before?)
Max Leggett
wrote:
>"Speak for them" implies some sort of authority over the average person, and
>also that they can't speak for themselves for whatever reason. I just made
>an observation. You can dispute the observation, but it's not reasonable to
>say that such observations cannot be made.
>
>(does it feel like we've been down this road before?)
From the sidelines it looks as though this whole thread is a total
wate of bandwidth.
Formerly Sideways
> you don't believe me look it up at allmusic.com or do a google search. You
> lost. Get over it ;)
>
> Holger
Get over it? I lost?! What a silly thing to get all mr. know it all
over.
Bwahahahahaha!
The following is copied and pasted from All Music Guide:
Alligator Bogaloo is one example of Lou Donaldson's successful
combinations of hard bop and soul-jazz. Of the six tunes, three are
Donaldson originals, including the title hit. The excellent band,
consisting of Melvin Lastin Sr. on cornet, George Benson on guitar,
Lonnie Smith on organ, and Leo Morris on drums, mixes laid-back vamps
beneath driving hard bop charts. As the '60s turned into the '70s,
Donaldson began shaving off hard bop invention for a more
radio-friendly and 45 rpm length, leaving soulful — yet monotonous —
vamping. At that point, Donaldson's material suffered from a lack of
originality. That's not the case on Alligator Bogaloo. — Al Campbell
1. Alligator Bogaloo (Donaldson) - 6:57
Formerly Sideways
trashes the entire genres of hip-hop and rap, especially without
citing specific artists and works, it's as meaningless as someone
hearing a few Kenny G and Dave Koz tunes and then saying that all jazz
is crap.
Holger Weber
> "Holger Weber" <hg_weber...@yahoo.de> wrote.. If
> > you don't believe me look it up at allmusic.com or do a google search.
You
> > lost. Get over it ;)
> >
> > Holger
>
>
> Get over it? I lost?! What a silly thing to get all mr. know it all
> over.
Dude, you were the one who had the big mouth over this shit. Here is your
original remark:
"Here's an interesting tidbit for you...it's not "Alligator Boogaloo,"
it's "Alligator Bogaloo." That's right, one "o" in "bo" You could
look it up, as Yogi would say."
Now if you wanna play an arrogant prick like that, you should at least get
your facts straight, Yogi. Did you notice 8 entries for "Alligator Boogaloo"
for Lou Donaldson and exactly *1* entry for "Alligator Bogaloo" at allmusic?
Did you notice that on every Blue Note compilation since the typo has been
corrected? Did you find 2600 google entries for "bogaloo" vs. 86 000 entries
for "boogaloo"? Did you enter "bogaloo" at allmusic.com@styles only to find
"boogaloo"? Ever heard of "Boogaloo" Joe Jones? Any clue what a boogaloo is
in the first place? Well, you should have before *you* started this
spell-flaming shit, Yogi. Have a nice life.
Gerry Scott-Moore
<mra...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > Well, I didn't think our discussion was about our own personal tastes.
> >
> > My discussion has been about nothing else.
>
> Well, then we're on two separate pages. I was discussing whether it was
> music or not.
I can't believe it can be this convoluted.
There is no "universal" of what music is. Thus I am discussing nothing
but my personal aesthetic regarding how to categorize art.
> > You don't know what people like. Trying to enhance the credibility of
> > your statement by citing them is a rhetorical fallacy. The easiest and
> > the least effective.
>
> Looking at the huge number of rap albums sold as compared to jazz albums, I
> think that one can get a pretty good idea that they like rap more than jazz.
One can project the perspective of many or few, in order to "validate"
their viewpoints as universal. It's a rhetorical fallacy. Unless you
want to cite statistics, "what most people think" is a rhetorical
device.
--
///---
Gerry Scott-Moore
Sideways <twot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> if anyone trashes the entire genres of hip-hop and rap, especially
> without citing specific artists and works, it's as meaningless as
> someone hearing a few Kenny G and Dave Koz tunes and then saying that
> all jazz is crap.
I totally agree. Categorizing art forms in buckets named music, dance,
poetry, film; that isn't "trashing", is it?
--
///---