Sometimes ones opinion of "quality" is subjective - sometimes it not.Angelina Jolie is an actor, philanthropist and all around hot chick.
But sometimes one can imitate the traits of quality without actually having those traits themselves.
Back in the day - goods were made with better materials.
Today, many products are just being marketed and hyped as being the real thing.(Notice that only the front of this home is brick and that the materials used are of inferior quality.)
Who is this man?
Who is this man?For what is he known?
Even though he is the current heavyweight boxing champion - who is this man?
Even though he is the current heavyweight boxing champion - who is this man?For what is he known?
Sometimes there are front men acting like front men.
And then there are auto-tune assisted hype-men pretending to be front men.
Sometimes there are front men acting like front men.
And then there are auto-tune assisted hype-men pretending to be front men.
8 comments:
Can Lil Wayne get any love anywhere? He's become the poster child for every thing thats wrong, period! Damn!
(not from me)
I think it's probably natural that someone who might have been a fan of the first generation of hip-hop might be critical of the genre as it evolves beyond the characteristics with which they are endeared.
I personally don't believe that there are any absolutes when it comes to the "quality" of art, as how you experience it is in fact very personal and subjective.
As you transition into middle age and become part of the "older demographic" your appreciation of, and connection with an evolving art form is likely to become challenged. Especially since music seems to be so infused into one's life, particularly when you're growing up. It seems like there is always a natural tension between the original and what follows.
Like many, I didn't particularly appreciate the latest barrage of auto-tuned music, but I can't automatically dismiss the music because of the tools they use. Some of my most beloved, classic tunes utilized auto-tune, for example Roger Trautman's "Do Wa Ditty", "Dance Floor", etc. I think Parliment Funkadelic might have used some voice synthesis in a few of their classics. So, for me, it's not just the tools one uses but rather how they use them. Clearly, the recent onslaught of so many artists using auto-tune turned of a lot of people, but I'm not sure everything was crap.
I don't love Wayne's music the way I love some of my past hip-hop music. He's put out a lot of crap, imho, but I believe he's also put out some very interesting and innovative stuff, also in imho. When I look over the landscape of hip-hop (the very limited landscape that I have exposure to) to see who's doing anything of interest, I keep coming back to Wayne, his YoungMoney crew, and the other "southern" hip-hop artists that I mentioned (Rick Ross, Ludacris, etc.) in your previous post disparaging southern hip-hop, because it seems like hardly aint nobody else doing shit of note.
People and critics can debate about their subjective feelings regarding artistic expression, but ultimately, there is an empirical measurement of success...... the marketplace; and it has pretty much spoken. (I just checked Billboard's top 10 Rap Albums, Drake, Ricky, Wayne, Ludacris all top 10) Marketplace acceptance doesn't necessarily equal quality, but since there does not exist an all mighty, arbiter of absolute quality and taste, it may be the only non-subjective measurement we can look to.
the "marketplace" assigns a high "empirical" value to crack.
don't mean crack has any objective value whatsoever, except to a pathetic, deluded, crackhead.
the beginning of wisdom is discrimination....,
I don't really disagree with @CNu's comment. I made a point to say that marketplace success does not necessarily equate to "quality". My point was that the only empirical, non-subjective evidence that we have on the subject is the marketplace, all other evidence being offered here is subjective opinion. Whether one attributes that marketplace success to quality or some other factor is unknown (at least for me).
The crack comparison is sort of apples to oranges. Crack and other socially detrimental products are "negative goods" in economic terms, so the analogy is not really applicable. Music is generally not considered a negative good (though I realize Ugly Black, CNu and others perhaps view Wayne's music this way). The effects of crack on health and one's life in general are known; whereas, the level of enjoyment derived from music, how one experiences and appreciates music is intangible. In the realm where music is not considered a negative good, marketplace success could (emphasis on "could") be an indicator of perceived quality.
But what is "quality" in the expression and appreciation of music anyway? How is it measured?
Music is generally not considered a negative good (though I realize Ugly Black, CNu and others perhaps view Wayne's music this way).
Chitlins are not generally considered a negative good by those folk smacking their lips to shovel some hog-offal into their mouths...,
Mass-produced corporate aural pornography - unacceptable to play in the presence of your daughter, mother, or grandmother - does not qualify as "music".
It has no redeeming cultural or artistic value whatsoever - in PRECISELY the same way that chitlins have no redeeming gastronomic value.
@CNu, I respect that that is your opinion. In the context of Ugly's post, we would could not even discuss the subject at all, as you would have to toss out most of the genre.
Sorry DPizz, it's not merely an opinion. I've played instruments since I was a toddler, and joined a university symphony when I was 13 years old as a bassoonist.
Ask Uncle John if he's aware of anyone on line who has meditated more deeply and provided more dots to connect concerning the objective nature, structure, and function of music.
Let me break down for you. If you and I were to discuss tennis, perhaps it would serve our interests best to first go and play a set together. Now, after I beat you 6-0 and didn't even allow you to score a point, would you believe yourself qualified to discuss tennis with me as an equal?
So also for music. Since we can't go to the Mutual Musicians Union and do an improvisational stand-down on Night in Tunisia - and determine in no uncertain terms who is Charlie/Dizzy - and who is just a fan - we have to pretend that we approach this subject as equals.
Well, you can of course always go to my blog and see what my meditations are about music and perhaps you'll refer us to your documented meditations and we can assess for ourselves the depth of your subject matter expertise?
That said, my observations about the subject at hand are not merely matters of aesthetic opinion, I'm stating facts about the objective nature of the material in question.
That you are a fan of and apologist for this material says a great deal about the degenerate state of your own knowledge and understanding of what music is, and, about the success of those corporate interests who have profitted handsomely by inflicting this degree of degeneracy and aural pornography on the popular culture.
CNu, I simply disagree. With all your impressive credentials, talents and meditations, I don't believe that you can tell me anything about how I or any individual experiences and appreciates music. I don't believe you can use your expertise and knowledge to tell me whether a set of sounds and lyrics moves me, makes me feel a certain way, provides me entertainment enjoyment, consoles or comforts me, speaks to me on some level; hence, when you make observations about how I or others experience, appreciate, assess music or how it impacts me or another individual, I think, respectfully, that is your opinion.
No I am not an expert in music or claim any deep understanding of the subject, I only know how I personally experience music.
I came to this post to comment on it's core assertion, that Weezy is not a legitimate hip-hop artist on his own. I gave my opinion along with some information that I believe provided some support for my position. To make a comment that addresses the primary assertion of the post, you kind of have to accept the implied premise that the genre is legitimate, there are high and low quality artists within it, etc. I feel like the evolution of this discussion is drifting afield of the core post or deserves a separate post with a different subject.
I am a fan of this material (the genre as a whole), Uncle John is clearly a fan of this material ( generally) as he must listen in order to make this post. I certainly believe that there are some negative impacts of the music on popular culture. Some of my experience in the world has been degenerate, it also includes pornographic exposures of all forms (as well as other varied positive and negative experiences), so it seems natural that some other person who might also have shared similar experiences might choose to express them in musical form and that I might relate to that expression. I don't think that makes me a less worthy human being.
I really am explicitly saying nothing about the corporate interests, just whether imo Wayne is a legitimate artist or not.
Post a Comment