Page 3 of 4 <1234>
Topic Options
#23403 - 04/17/09 04:52 AM Re: Satanic Rap [Re: Diavolo]
Bacchae Offline
Satan's White Trash Neighbor
member


Registered: 05/13/08
Posts: 438
Loc: los angeles
but think of all the money you'll save, being a jew. oy!!
haaaaaa


(executive one-liner override in effect)

Top
#23644 - 04/21/09 04:10 PM Re: Satanic Rap [Re: MaggotFaceMoe]
Gemini Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/18/09
Posts: 56
Loc: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
 Quote:
I once tried writing rap, but writing good rap lyrics is a lot harder than normal lyrics, with having to make the stuff rhyme so that it sounds good and the flow and all... So I just stick to what I do best, writing lyrics for my two metal bands.


I've never been much of a fan of rap or hip-hop; in fact, in general, it is the bane of my existence. However, I will say this: rap & hip-hop producers, lyricists, and DJs certainly have their work cut out for them.

Writing rap lyrics is a challenge, to say the least; laying out a catchy beat is something that requires a great ear. And rap is quite possibly the most difficult musical genre to mix. ;\)
_________________________
http://www.soundcloud.com/onewingedangel

-Gemini

Top
#23680 - 04/22/09 04:34 PM Re: Satanic Rap [Re: Gemini]
Draculesti Offline
Impaler
member


Registered: 09/18/07
Posts: 325
Loc: Rockville, Maryland
 Quote:
I've never been much of a fan of rap or hip-hop;


We are in agreement.

 Quote:
However, I will say this: rap & hip-hop producers, lyricists, and DJs certainly have their work cut out for them.


How so? I have never been interested, so I do not really know what all goes into making a rap song/record. It seems to me, however, that it is mostly a cut-and-paste kind of job. Much of what I have heard (which is, admittedly, little) seems to consist in large part of sampling, which is to say bits of music by other artists, or sound samples in a software database. You may disagree, but take P. Diddy for instance. I find the guy to be a hack, and you may agree. He made his career from raping songs by the Police and Led Zeppelin; his only contribution were new lyrics. The beat, the music, nor any of the rest of it his original music. That is like taking the Mona Lisa, painting a mustache on it, crossing out Da Vinci's signature and writing your own.

 Quote:
Writing rap lyrics is a challenge, to say the least


The thing I dislike about rap lyrics is how they perpetuate the poor (if not incoherent) use of the English language. "Is you is, or is you ain't gon' give me a ride?" While I understand that "I faced my enemy with the courage of my convictions" does not have as much street cred as "I was all up in that nigga's face to show him I keep it real," it is far more well-spoken.

 Quote:
laying out a catchy beat is something that requires a great ear.


Catchy tends to translate as "simplistic," which is not always a bad thing. However, many of the beats I have heard are simplistic to the point of being elementary. When a hip-hop guy comes back with a beat reminiscent of the shifting meter in the Rite of Spring , perhaps I will be impressed. If one already exists, please let me know. Of course, then it would be harder to dance to (but not impossible; it is a ballet, after all).

Most music has a beat (there are some composers in art music of the 20th century who created music which all but eschews meter). However, I cannot tell you how many times I have heard someone say "I like it because it has a beat and I can dance to it." That, in my opinion, is not a viable aesthetic position.

I do not wish this to be understood as a personal attack against anyone; I wish to debate, to have my opinions challenged.
_________________________
The Holy Trinity: Me, Myself, and I.

Homo Homini Lupus

Top
#23683 - 04/22/09 05:00 PM Re: Satanic Rap [Re: Draculesti]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'm not going to defend rap here but I'd like to mention that while sampling is looked down upon as rather uncreative by some, I do see it at a musical level as what is "collage" at other levels of art.

If you'd look at some of the works of Hannah Höch, you'd notice that it could be considered as some sort of sampling but at the same time, it does create a new artform.





So personally I do see it as a bit more evolved than drawing a mustache at the Mona Lisa.

D.

Top
#23687 - 04/22/09 07:43 PM Re: Satanic Rap [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3887
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I would have to agree with Drac here. A collage entails taking several things and mixing them into one. If that was done musically it would indeed be an artform, but that isn't what hiphop does. Taking a pre-existing song, removing the lyrics and replacing it with what amounts to very bad poetry isn't creating a collage.

It's painting a wang on "The Scream" or placing a pair of novelty plastic mustache glasses on "David". It's an entire genre that lets untalented and unmusical people pretentiously play pretend.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#23688 - 04/22/09 07:43 PM Re: Satanic Rap [Re: Diavolo]
The Zebu Offline
senior member


Registered: 08/08/08
Posts: 1646
Loc: Orlando, FL
Sampling is an art form if done correctly. Anyone can rip a random funk beat, loop it, and slap their own lyrics on top, but it takes talent to blend a large number of elements together into something new and interesting. Most rap... like most rock, pop, metal, etc... is total shit. But in that pile of total shit are a few shiny untainted gems.
_________________________
«Recibe, ˇoh Lucifer! la sangre de esta víctima que sacrifico en tu honor.»

Top
#23696 - 04/23/09 02:40 AM Re: Satanic Rap [Re: The Zebu]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
I like all kinds of music, and I have to agree with Diavolo and The Zebu. There are gems within the pile of shit. Just like how metal has some joke bands.

You can't throw everything out just because 85% of it sucks.

Run DMC, LL Cool J, Public Enemy, Ice T, Rappers Delight, Salt n Pepper, and Biggie Smalls. The guys who did the song "White Lines" from back in the day. The band Onxy, who teamed up and toured with Anthrax fuck ass years ago. Hell, even Little Wayne with his current mix of him playing metal gutair on his rap songs. There are others as well.

Just because you are not exposed to something, doesn't mean it shit. Oh, and btw, yeah, puffy daddy sucks.


M
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#23707 - 04/23/09 12:29 PM Re: Satanic Rap [Re: Morgan]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Grandmaster Flash.

There was some great stuff in the 80ies and I enjoyed much of it and even today, there is some good stuff out there. But again, much of it is ridiculously bad. But so it is in all aspects of creativity.

It's like this place, flooded with nonentities most of the time but even when, others here still rock. ;\)

D.

Top
#23817 - 04/27/09 02:46 PM Re: Satanic Rap [Re: Diavolo]
Draculesti Offline
Impaler
member


Registered: 09/18/07
Posts: 325
Loc: Rockville, Maryland
Some good points made here by everybody.

Of course there is shit in every type of music, and I did not mean to imply that all other types, save rap, were irreproachable. Perhaps I have become an elitist snob, but I think it has more to do with the fact that I approach listening to music as a musician and not a casual music enthusiast. One could say that it is kind of like someone who is/was in the military, and they are watching a VERY Hollywood glamorized film and thinking "THAT'S all wrong; that would never happen in a real combat situation." I listen to something and I think "what is so hard about that compared with what I do?" Granted, "more difficult" does not necessarily mean "better," but I do think an element of effort required is a factor.

 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
It's an entire genre that lets untalented and unmusical people pretentiously play pretend.

 Originally Posted By: The Zebu
Anyone can rip a random funk beat, loop it, and slap their own lyrics on top, but it takes talent to blend a large number of elements together into something new and interesting.


That is the rub, is it not? Is it art if anyone can do it? I do not think so. Art has, for the most part, been founded on the principle that it is something that not everyone can do. Again, I suppose that is the elitist part coming into play, but I feel art would be rendered insignificant if it were to become something that anyone/everyone could do.

Musical borrowing is not a new concept. It was prevalent in music from the Medieval period through the Baroque, but continued from the Classical period to even today. For instance, in the Medieval and Renaissance periods, composers would compose entire masses based on a melody (which usually came from a liturgical chant) called a [/i]cantus firmus.

In the Baroque period, many composers would borrow from other composers (which was seen as a high form of flattery...you know what they say about imitation), such as for a theme and variations movement. Bach himself would borrow from other composers, but more often than not he borrowed from his own compositions; many of the Baroque composers had such a huge corpus of work to draw from, it makes sense, no? Also, Bach had very real obligations in his church positions; he had to come up with new music very frequently, and sometimes it was easier to draw upon his own works to write "new" music for the following Sunday.

A theme and variations composition is another form of borrowing, in which a composer would borrow a theme (though that is not always the case; very often, the theme is an original composition as well) from another celebrated composer and work out a series of variations on that theme. Regardless, a great deal of compositional skill is required.

So you see, it is not a new concept, but to equate what is done by these people today with what was done by Josquin des Prez, Guillaume Machaut, Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, or Schubert is to insult their memory and the world of music itself. It may be similar, but it is definitely not the same thing.

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
I like all kinds of music,


I do not. That may seem strange coming from a musician, but I think that there is an erroneous presumption that musicians (and even non-musicians) "have" to like a little bit of everything. I do not agree at all. I know where my aesthetic sensibilities lie, and there is much music in this world which does not lie with them. There is a difference between appreciation and admiration. And no, I do not find myself at all limited because of it ;\)

The problem with the arts in general, is that they are subjective by nature. As a result, no conclusive accord could be made by everyone, and I can both understand and appreciate that.
_________________________
The Holy Trinity: Me, Myself, and I.

Homo Homini Lupus

Top
#23818 - 04/27/09 03:06 PM Re: Satanic Rap [Re: Draculesti]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
That is the rub, is it not? Is it art if anyone can do it? I do not think so. Art has, for the most part, been founded on the principle that it is something that not everyone can do. Again, I suppose that is the elitist part coming into play, but I feel art would be rendered insignificant if it were to become something that anyone/everyone could do.

Nowadays, art is considered if you can hold a pencil and make a line on a piece of paper...
Same goes for music, if you take existing songs, modify them on computer, chant something on the tune (voice automatically is modified so you sound "nice") it is considered as very artistic... luckily there are quite some alternative bands who experiment with new tunes..
To state my point:
Modern art.. @ barcelona is a museum where a plank with 3 nails nailed in it and painted white is considered "outstanding, inspiring piece of art"...
Here in Belgium you have "het S.M.A.K".. one of the art pieces is just an old sofa with a broken vent...

Guess it depends on how one defines it.. To me art is more of the likes of Rubens, Van Gogh, Toulouse-Lautrec, William Turner,...

 Quote:
I do not. That may seem strange coming from a musician, but I think that there is an erroneous presumption that musicians (and even non-musicians) "have" to like a little bit of everything. I do not agree at all. I know where my aesthetic sensibilities lie, and there is much music in this world which does not lie with them. There is a difference between appreciation and admiration. And no, I do not find myself at all limited because of it

Same here, I can also be considered as a muscician, and I neither like all sorts of music. Why? Because I don't like certain tunes. I can however say if something is played well and congratulate the musicians if I noticed that the played tunes are technically quite hard to produce..

Appreciating music based on how it is played is different from appreciating music based on personal likeness..


Edited by Dimitri (04/27/09 03:07 PM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#23822 - 04/27/09 03:32 PM Re: Satanic Rap [Re: Dimitri]
Draculesti Offline
Impaler
member


Registered: 09/18/07
Posts: 325
Loc: Rockville, Maryland
 Quote:
Same here, I can also be considered as a muscician, and I neither like all sorts of music. Why? Because I don't like certain tunes. I can however say if something is played well and congratulate the musicians if I noticed that the played tunes are technically quite hard to produce..

Appreciating music based on how it is played is different from appreciating music based on personal likeness..


I absolutely agree, but the type of music currently under discussion does not fall under the consideration of technique.
_________________________
The Holy Trinity: Me, Myself, and I.

Homo Homini Lupus

Top
#23824 - 04/27/09 04:05 PM Re: Satanic Rap [Re: Draculesti]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I do agree that not everything creative is art. Egalitarianism has infected all levels of society and nowadays it seems, like Dimi said, that if you can hold a pencil and draw a line on paper, you are an artist. The same can be said for music or other aspects of creativity. How many call themselves a writer because they write? I do think it requires more than that.

At the level of art I do think there are some requirement for something to be Art. Although it does not necessarily require all.

The first is craftsmanship; and this is all what art was before the days it got elevated above it. If you do not have the skills or quality of skills, no matter what you create, it will not be art. At best you are lucky. In music, they call it one-hit wonders. Museums also have those stocked into their cellars.

The second is communication. I do think that every form of art is communication, it is speaking to an observer in a certain language. Of course, some languages are pretty complicated to understand and require some effort from the observer. It might require learning that language.

The third being innovation. Everything evolves and in that, art evolves too. Some art is highly innovative and in that might be hard to understand but behind all this innovation should be an intellectual process and I mean a true intellectual process. It's pretty easy to just do something but it is pretty hard to do it for a specific purpose.

Of course nowadays art = money and due to that, we see artificially elevated art. The same principles applied to make you want to buy a car are applied to art. After all, quality is of lesser importance than profit.

D.


Edited by Diavolo (04/27/09 04:07 PM)

Top
#23825 - 04/27/09 06:42 PM Re: Satanic Rap [Re: Diavolo]
Draculesti Offline
Impaler
member


Registered: 09/18/07
Posts: 325
Loc: Rockville, Maryland
 Quote:
Egalitarianism has infected all levels of society


Absolutely correct. I saw an interesting news article on TV last year some time, I believe. It was talking about "Generation Me." For the last 20 or so years, egalitarianism and the push for political correctness and special consideration has corrupted society. They gave an example of Pee-Wee League baseball; this is the league for like 4-7 year old kids, the baseball is set up on a tee or is pitched very gently by an adult. There are no clear winners/losers; everybody wins, so that nobody feels "left out." Personally, I feel that losing builds character, because losing forces change and adaptation.

So, as a result of this "everybody wins" mentality (which is NOT applicable in the real world, of which kids know nothing, but if they do not learn, they are in for a wicked surprise when they suddenly find themselves in it), coupled with the general decline in intellect in the overall population, we have a generation of mediocrities who think they are rather great. That is why we have so much workplace incompetence, and this new surge of people who are famous for absolutely nothing, or famous for stupid things. Case in point, Kevin Federline; some people may consider nailing Britney Spears quite an accomplishment worthy of fame, but I am not one of them, and I do not think she would be much of a challenge anyway; her choice of a mate more than proves that fact. And yet, he walks around with a sense of accomplishment and self-worth that is, quite frankly, undeserved. He could be the poster boy for today's mediocrities. It kind of reminds me of the character of Salieri in Amadeus; then again, he was acutely aware of his mediocrity. Many of today's generations are blissfully ignorant.

"Don't tell Jimmy he sucks at trumpet; we don't want to damage his sense of self-worth."

Give me fucking break.

 Quote:
At the level of art I do think there are some requirement for something to be Art. Although it does not necessarily require all.


I agree. Of the three you mentioned, I think two out of three should be required. That seems fair.

 Quote:

Of course nowadays art = money and due to that, we see artificially elevated art. The same principles applied to make you want to buy a car are applied to art. After all, quality is of lesser importance than profit.


The arts in general are no longer art; art is a business. Of course, making music at a higher level was, in one way or another, about making money making music. During the Medieval and Renaissance periods, patronage was the domain of the church. In the Baroque and Classical periods, musicians could make a living under the patronage of the aristocracy or with church appointments (Bach did both). In the 19th century, after the fall of the aristocracy in the major revolutions, musicians had to get their money from the public, i.e. concert tours, and publication of their works (of which they received royalties). The advent of recording in the 20th century forever changed the face of music. With the advent of disco in the 70s, corporate greed was born, and companies churned out dime-a-dozen acts like there was no tomorrow. In the 80s, it was hair metal. In the 90s, boy-bands and rap/hip-hop. Today, it is still rap/hip-hop, largely untalented solo singers (male and female), and what I like to call "radio rock" cookie cutter bands. Music is no longer art; it is a product, a commodity. Profit over quality, indeed.


Edited by Draculesti (04/27/09 07:10 PM)
Edit Reason: addendum
_________________________
The Holy Trinity: Me, Myself, and I.

Homo Homini Lupus

Top
#23841 - 04/28/09 04:43 AM Re: Satanic Rap [Re: Draculesti]
Bacchae Offline
Satan's White Trash Neighbor
member


Registered: 05/13/08
Posts: 438
Loc: los angeles
insightful posts from diavolo and draculesti.


take some small solace though in that the major labels, which have become shareholder driven banks/loansharks essentially, are starting to fear for their very existence. the entire industry shows signs of tanking, and they know it. they simply could not or would not adapt.

it will take generations and cultural catastrophe to curb this flood of egalitarianism though Im afraid. no one wants to give up their uniqueness, no matter how false or borrowed it may be.

Top
#23851 - 04/28/09 03:15 PM Re: Satanic Rap [Re: Bacchae]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
It will indeed require a lot to redirect humanity out of egalitarianism and into a healthy respect (and striving) for elitism again. Uniqueness can indeed be a luring pipe-dream. Frankly, I do think that uniqueness is overrated. If you look at a person, the strange contradiction is that while their uniqueness is put upon a pedestal, at the same time they are always looking into others for those values and traits they cherish most. In that, reality shows that they don't find uniqueness as important as commonness. Even we as satanists tend to prefer people we share aspects with and look down upon those that don't possess them at all.

Anyways, as an example of what I consider art, I'd like to share/quote some upon a work of Picasso. Many do not like Picasso, partly because Cubism fails to use some of the tricks that make paintings be perceived as beautiful. Beautiful here being perceived as pretty. Often I also hear the 'My kid could have drawn that' comment which is one of the standard sentences uttered by people not being too knowledgeable upon art to begin with. I always liked Picasso even when he dwelled far from what is here called academic art. I think Guernica is the work of him that I encountered first. It is a bit overrepresented and although it is an emotionally strong work, I do not think it is his best.
His best work, to me, is Les Mademoiselles d'Avignon.

I once saw a documentary upon it, years ago, and the work behind the painting was enormous. It is an intellectual and artistic exploration that is mind blowing. Even when it has everything to be considered either ugly or easy, it is a work that combines all three requirements I talked about before. Even after finishing it, it remained a very long time in his workplace before he dared showing it to the world.

I don't think the documentary exists in English, I saw a Dutch one but I'll add the painting here and a review that explains a bit of the process and language behind or in it.



 Quote:
Les Mademoiselles d'Avignon ( preserved in Museum of Modern art, New York) is one of the most famous of Picasso's paintings. Painted in France, 1907, it is a pivotal work in the history and development of modern art. It was a shocking piece of art painting that depicted five prostitutes in a brothel. Picasso created over one hundred sketched and studies in preparation of this painting, which became a pioneer of early Cubism. At the time when this painting was made, Picasso was working in his Montmartre studio, popularly known as the Bateau-Lavoir. He was developing a new pictorial language that showed a progression from the 'outer presence to inner shapes, from color to structure, and from modified romanticism to a deepening formalism'.

This painting is said to have blended together Picasso's previous themes and subjects with Iberian statuary-ancient pre-Spanish sculpture-and African art, adored for its seemingly abstract simplifications. This Picasso painting has also been regarded as the young Picasso's violent reaction to Henri Matisse's bold and idyllic 1906 masterpiece, Le Bonheur de Vivre. While some critics regard it as an unfinished work, others claim that inconsistency is intrinsic to this Picasso painting.

This being the first masterpiece of the historical movement named Cubism, required to unleash its unbridled energy in an artistic vocabulary unknown and untied to the existing canon. Of all the paintings in Picasso's oeuvre, Les Demoiselles d'Avignon presents a singular challenge for interpreting its physical composition as well as its psychological content due to its scale, composition, and change in pictorial style. A close examination of this transitional painting and a comparison with some closely related works allows us to better understand how the painting was conceived and executed.

Picasso painted each of the figures differently. The woman pulling the curtain on the far left has heavy paint application and her head is the most cubist of all, having sharp geometric shapes. The cubist head of the crouching figure was revised from an Iberian figure and the masked figure was derived from an African mask. The two Iberian figures at the center are evidently inspired by Iberian sculptures, characterized by their prominent ears and wide, staring eyes. The multiplicity of styles within the work has given rise to much critical debate. While some look at this famous Picasso painting as evidence of a transitional period in Picasso's art, an endeavor to relate his earlier work to Cubism, others claim that the multiplicity is but intentional. It is a deliberate attempt, a careful plan to arrest the viewer's attention. The five women seem to be disconnected from each other, being completely unaware of their subjective presence. They seem to be directing all their attention towards the viewer, their divergent styles enhancing the effect. The painting is pregnant with meanings, and indicates the 'trauma of the gaze' and violence inherent in sexual relationships.


D.

Top
Page 3 of 4 <1234>


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.