Should we boycott music critics who condone moral terror?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Obviously, no. I've been trying not to get sucked into the dumb debate about misogyny in hip-hop following the Imus fallout, but as someone who reviews hip-hop for a living I can't help but pay attention when Joe Scarborough suggests that Al Sharpton should launch a campaign against the NYT for giving positive reviews to morally hideous hip-hop such as Crime Mob. There's also talk that H Clinton should return the money she raised via a Timbaland fund raiser because Tim produces obscene tracks.

I hope most agree that this entire affair has pretty much descended into a witch hunt, and that debate following Imus' comments has been almost more racist than his actual comments, but is there any validity to the idea that hip-hop, and the music industry in general, needs to regulate itself? I don't think so, but maybe someone else would want to argue that point. And, in general, can any good arise out of this "conversation"?

― BillOhReally, Saturday, 14 April 2007 02:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

yeah, but you know what? after this week, reverend al will have a big piece of cheesecake and go sack out for a while. this was just handed to him on a platter. he didn't even have to travel anywhere! he's good for the year is what i'm saying. all this other shit about rappers, ugh, blah, blah, blah... this is just a little break before we all die from bombs and war and the sun exploding. everyone needs a little break.

― scott seward, Saturday, 14 April 2007 02:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

Kick back and listen to some Clipse. . . .

― If Timi Yuro would be still alive, most other singers could shut up, Saturday, 14 April 2007 02:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

Sorry. I'm don't normally post. Should've I attached a poll to this question?

― BillOhReally, Saturday, 14 April 2007 02:55 (6 years ago) Permalink

where was al for this nonsense:

A kindergartener was handcuffed and taken to the Highlands County Jail after acting up in school.

Desre'e Watson's mom says she couldn't believe it when she got the call that her 6-year-old daughter was arrested and jailed on felony charges.

Police say the girl became violent. They say she threw chairs and hit a teacher. But her mom says she's never seen that kind of behavior and believes something must have brought it on.

"I was upset simply fact they handcuffed her and took her to jail, but I just want to find out what really went on,” Lateshia Wilson said.

The 6-year-old faces three charges: disruption of a school function, battery on school employees and resisting arrest. The State Attorney's Office will now decide whether to prosecute or drop the charges.

video:

http://www.wftv.com/news/11455199/detail.html

― scott seward, Saturday, 14 April 2007 02:56 (6 years ago) Permalink

"Sorry. I'm don't normally post. Should've I attached a poll to this question?"

relax, mack daddy, there is no shortage of hot air on ilx. give it time.

― scott seward, Saturday, 14 April 2007 02:57 (6 years ago) Permalink

"relax, mack daddy"

is that you, don?

― BillOhReally, Saturday, 14 April 2007 03:02 (6 years ago) Permalink

Scott, Bob Herbert was on that. He wrote a column about it on, I think, Monday.

― If Timi Yuro would be still alive, most other singers could shut up, Saturday, 14 April 2007 03:02 (6 years ago) Permalink

I was sitting on the bus listening to The Chronic the other day and I found myself uncomfortable when a young lady with a little girl sat next to me. That one idiot's Pazz & Jop comment about Hell Hath resurfaced in my head, talkin bout "Would you feel comfortable playing this around your mother? Your daughter?"

For a guy who self-identifies as a feminist, I willfully ignore this stuff to a crazy degree.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 14 April 2007 03:20 (6 years ago) Permalink

there was one early 80's essay (I think having to do with Orwel and socialism, IIRC) where Christgau said something like (in all seriousness) "don't get me wrong, i'm still a principled supporter of revolutionary terrorism..."

sad/funny how nobody talks like that anymore outside of theory-related blogs.

― latebloomer, Saturday, 14 April 2007 03:22 (6 years ago) Permalink

i know that's kind of different from what we're talking about but it reminded me of that

― latebloomer, Saturday, 14 April 2007 03:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

doesn't talk like what?

― scott seward, Saturday, 14 April 2007 03:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

talking like they take "revolutionary terrorism", etc. seriously. as if that's going to be an option anytime soon!

― latebloomer, Saturday, 14 April 2007 03:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

[high]we should boycott Timothy for supporting Hilary and not Obama. black dudes loves them some white hoes[high/]

― Spinspin Sugah, Saturday, 14 April 2007 03:32 (6 years ago) Permalink

x-post

i mean, i guess in the early 80's there was still some residual hippie/new-left politics floating around in mainstream criticism, versus now...if that clarified what i meant.

― latebloomer, Saturday, 14 April 2007 03:34 (6 years ago) Permalink

"as if that's going to be an option anytime soon!"

as if it was gonna be an option whenever he wrote that. who the hell knows what or who he was talking about. probably zapatistas or something.

― scott seward, Saturday, 14 April 2007 03:34 (6 years ago) Permalink

mainly that quote stayed with me because it conjures an amusing image of Xgau as a Che-style revolutionary with an ak-47 fighting off Contras in the jungle or some shit like that

― latebloomer, Saturday, 14 April 2007 03:37 (6 years ago) Permalink

That one idiot's Pazz & Jop comment about Hell Hath resurfaced in my head, talkin bout "Would you feel comfortable playing this around your mother? Your daughter?"

Wasn't that from the guy who runs the Fast'n'Bulbous site? If his question was relevant to your situation, why is it idiotic? Unless you think him an idiot for unrelated reasons.

― mulla atari, Saturday, 14 April 2007 03:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

i'm all for momma nature's slow & low approach. bigger storms, flooding, etc. we are all doomed, we just don't know it yet. no need for bloody battles. wait a few decades for when your neighbor is clawing your eyes out for your last can of gas! we are gonna see some crazy stuff.

― scott seward, Saturday, 14 April 2007 03:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

oh hoosteen, have you met The Venerated Marc Loi??

― lfam, Saturday, 14 April 2007 03:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

What I meant there was that I wrote his comment off as stupid and idiotic initially, but when the actual juxtaposition he was suggesting hit me, I was bothered/disturbed.

xxpost

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Saturday, 14 April 2007 03:44 (6 years ago) Permalink

if everything i listened to was stuff my mother approved of, i wouldn't be listening to much.

― scott seward, Saturday, 14 April 2007 03:49 (6 years ago) Permalink

some vic damone. some nancy wilson. some lovely jazz piano. actually, it wouldn't be that bad.

― scott seward, Saturday, 14 April 2007 03:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

my mom says she like a lot of what i listen to except for all that "screamy stuff"

re: that xgau quote i mentioned upthread, i found the essay (a pretty good one, actually) where i found it from. it's not so ridiculous in context. still, i'll treasure it for that funny mental image it gave me.

― latebloomer, Saturday, 14 April 2007 04:01 (6 years ago) Permalink

uh, here:

http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/bkrev/orwell-83.php

― latebloomer, Saturday, 14 April 2007 04:01 (6 years ago) Permalink

xpost: things would be a bit different for me, but certainly not unworkable

― bernard snowy, Saturday, 14 April 2007 04:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

All music fans should live by:
'I don't care if they kill boy scouts on the weekend, just as long as they make good music.'

― BlackIronPrison, Saturday, 14 April 2007 04:58 (6 years ago) Permalink

I hope most agree that this entire affair has pretty much descended into a witch hunt, and that debate following Imus' comments has been almost more racist than his actual comments, but is there any validity to the idea that hip-hop, and the music industry in general, needs to regulate itself? I don't think so, but maybe someone else would want to argue that point. And, in general, can any good arise out of this "conversation"?

-- BillOhReally, Friday, April 13, 2007 10:37 PM (Yesterday

Bill, I've been thinking about this too. This has also been discussed on various Pazz n Jop threads and various rap threads. Yea, it's real complicated --the hypocricy of some of the critics, plus political, social & cultural issues involving schooling, parenting, economic factors, pre-segregation/post-segregation, kids possible need to rebel against parent's taste, learning values and whether hearing song lyrics affects those values or not, etc. I also recall on some rap thread that I endorsed (tongue partly in cheek) Funky Four Plus One era old old school rap, noting in part that it seemed like the lyrics were generally more kid-friendly than current ones and yes I still listen to the current ones(I have a 12 year-old son who listens to the radio). But that makes me seem like some kind of crotchety old prude. Greg Tate and Nelson George have written interesting thoughts on this over the years.

― curmudgeon, Saturday, 14 April 2007 14:43 (6 years ago) Permalink

Snoop’s comments on MTV News:

It’s a completely different scenario. [Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We’re talking about ho’s that’s in the ‘hood that ain’t doing sh–, that’s trying to get a n—a for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain’t no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha—-as say we in the same league as him. Kick him off the air forever.

Uh, thanks Snoop.

― curmudgeon, Saturday, 14 April 2007 16:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

Snoop's point is a fair one. Snoop cannot get Tim Russert on the phone. Presidential candidates are not groveling for Snoop's endorsement.

― unperson, Saturday, 14 April 2007 16:16 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yanno, I get this in my day job as the metal buyer in an indie record store more than I do as a writer because I almost never get to write about the stuff that we in the store have termed "sketchy" - our euphemism to describe black metal dudes with veiled, subtle or even overtly racist views. I even will label the bin cards with my own feelings on the subject - the card for Arghoslent says "Warning: Racist Redneck Fuckheads" - however I fail to feel responsibility for what I stock or even what I like. Some of those bands such as Graveland are wonderful. I also like Christian bands but could give a shit about the lyrics. And if I sell something (or in the context of ILM review something) that is "sketchy" and the buyer uses that as an excuse to be a dick or have dick-like feelings on the subject? Too fucking bad.

― NYCNative, Saturday, 14 April 2007 16:28 (6 years ago) Permalink

rappers should just start rapping in norwegian.

― scott seward, Saturday, 14 April 2007 16:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 14 April 2007 16:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

hip hongroe?

― latebloomer, Saturday, 14 April 2007 16:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

[xp] Scott: http://www.norselaw.com

Not in Norwegian but close...

― NYCNative, Saturday, 14 April 2007 16:54 (6 years ago) Permalink

Snoop's comments strike me as being similar to the "Nobody picks on my brother but me!" argument.

― Cunga, Saturday, 14 April 2007 18:58 (6 years ago) Permalink

snoop is a rapper. keep this in perspective

― deej, Saturday, 14 April 2007 19:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

i totally think snoop should be fired from his daily 3-hr NBC talk show.

― moonship journey to baja, Saturday, 14 April 2007 19:10 (6 years ago) Permalink

Is criticism possible in a post-moral universe?

― fife, Saturday, 14 April 2007 22:14 (6 years ago) Permalink

does a bear eat a pope and shit him out in the woods on mars?

― latebloomer, Saturday, 14 April 2007 22:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

rap music is music, not some old priviliged media fatcat talking plain shit on the radio, and rap gets edited on or for the radio, and for stores like Wal-Mart, and subject to ratings in its unedited versions (but if you want to say there is this thang called teh Internets that makes all this increasingly irrelevant, and that there is fury vs. this, and vs. the drift of previously taken-for-granted voters/contributors from the kneejerk fold, and so we must rally the troops, as with the War On The War On Christmas, and that maybe Christgau was kidding about that dredged-up line, well you might be right.)(also if you think maybe Imus should have just been suspended, and fined, but where was the FCC in all this, too busy supporting suits against PBS affiliates for airing PBS documentaries, and that NBC and CBS and advertisers took Imus off the air, not rappers or Hilary or hypocritical black ministers or)

― dow, Sunday, 15 April 2007 05:06 (6 years ago) Permalink

should we condone self-proclaimed music critics who compose thread titles including semi-coherent phrases like "moral terror"?

― dow, Sunday, 15 April 2007 05:08 (6 years ago) Permalink

Dude, it's an attention-getting thread title that he immediately distances himself from. Chill.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 15 April 2007 05:17 (6 years ago) Permalink

Hey. I'm just asking. Like he's just asking. Look. Distance. Immediately. Steam. Well. Wasted. (Chille

― dow, Sunday, 15 April 2007 05:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

d.)

― dow, Sunday, 15 April 2007 05:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

No attack intended, you're asking interesting questions.

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Sunday, 15 April 2007 05:31 (6 years ago) Permalink

rap music is music, not some old priviliged media fatcat...the drift of previously taken-for-granted voters/contributors from the kneejerk fold, and so we must rally the troops, as with the War On The War On Christmas,

Yes, let us all abandon any serious discussion about anti-social themes in rap and general popular music because by discussing things like that we become more like Sean Hannity or Lou Dobbs.

Things like that only distract us from what should be talking about: adding stuff to the rolling youtube thread. Be not deceived by the distractions of the world, fellow music lovers!

― Cunga, Sunday, 15 April 2007 05:41 (6 years ago) Permalink

Not that we should abandon it, just note when Hannity and his wannabees try to hijack such an ongoing discourse, speaking of distraction (see also Eric Alterman's current column in The Nation, about privileged pundits who can't take it when bloggers point out their bullshit--the show's moving on, and Imus/Hannity/Friedman and many others don't get it)(neither does the Times, with their Times Select shit, and their music coverage videos where you can barely hear the music for the voiceover text)

― dow, Sunday, 15 April 2007 06:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

not that there aren't a lot of soggy blogs too.

― dow, Sunday, 15 April 2007 06:39 (6 years ago) Permalink

― Mordechai Shinefield, Sunday, 15 April 2007 07:13 (6 years ago) Permalink

Apparently some do assume, for instance Joe Scarborough calling for a boycott of the Times, re favorable rap reviews. But "picking out" can be too evasive. Sometimes talent does overcome aholery, but both should be acknowledged. Of course there's talent without aholery, more than evah, availabilty-wise.(All hail the World Wide once again, while we still can.)

― dow, Sunday, 15 April 2007 07:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

I think Kelefa is taking the piss w/some of those those lyric quotes

"charming"

― m coleman, Sunday, 15 April 2007 11:57 (6 years ago) Permalink

― curmudgeon, Sunday, 15 April 2007 12:58 (6 years ago) Permalink

The problem with Scarborough's argument is, as always, that he doesn't recognize shades of gray. A review is either positive or negative, not guardedly positive or negative but recognizing positive attributes. We can discuss whether or not you should be recognizing gray areas in, I dunno what to call 'em, real-world situations, but not recognizing ambiguity in our discussions and assessment of art is betraying one of the fundamental purposes for the whole exercise.

The problem, it seems to me, is not that people are supporting rap with morally questionable messages (since we support lots of art with morally questionable messages--action movies, etc.), but that we as critics seem to be unable to explain in a way that lines up with real-world listening practices what's acceptable and what's not. Is there contextual recognition of the morally questionable nature of the characters rapper are creating that justifies it in the same way that, say, the sympathetic-to-the-victims language in "Stagger Lee" does?

― Eppy, Sunday, 15 April 2007 15:04 (6 years ago) Permalink

OMG Meet the Press right now has David Brooks talking about hip-hop. Tim Russert said "the h-word."

― Eppy, Sunday, 15 April 2007 15:12 (6 years ago) Permalink

when this comes up i usually just link to that julianne shepherd bit and leave it at that. (mostly as a way of avoiding talking about it...)

― tipsy mothra, Sunday, 15 April 2007 15:18 (6 years ago) Permalink

That's great. Dylan and Julianne nicely cover the issues. Can we get them on Meet the Press (with the Ying Yang Twins).

― curmudgeon, Sunday, 15 April 2007 19:05 (6 years ago) Permalink

I can't recall reading a music review that cites blatant homophobia, sexism, or racism as the value of a hip-hop album. I've heard praises of hip-hop albums that use those themes, but generally the praise is for something other than the lyrical content. Maybe the beats are stunning, or the lyrical wordplay - though sexist - is still impressive poetry. So where are these music critics that are condoning moral terror? Or is the assumption that picking out praise-worthy aspects of questionable content is still condoning?

I understand that critics and music lovers don't necessarily "like" those aspects of it but what is genuinely alarming is the fact that in listening to pop music, a work that calls for people to notice the details and point out the obscure influences and connections related to the art, people almost go out of their way to ignore a major portion of the art they judge (its lyrics, message, themes, etc).

To use an extreme example (my favorite kind), it'd be like if you watched snuff films for a living and studied and observed every aspect of the the genre (the plot, the cinematography, its place in history etc) but continually ignored the fact that a human being gets murdered on film in every film.

The fact that writers ignore anti-social themes every time they review rap is almost suggestive that to point out its presence in the work is redundant; like pointing out that most of the songs on a rock album are in 4/4 or that a new punk rock album is "loud" and "angry towards authority figures." They are understood ahead of time to be such an integral part of the genre that there is no rational reason to point it out every time.

But there is also a sickening double-standard in that when reviewing non-rap albums critics go back to pricking their ears for subtle anti-social attitudes and bigotry that they are blind to in rap. If Toby Keith says he's "taking his woman out for a good time" it reeks of male chauvinism, and a proud Southerner becomes an "ignorant flag-waver" if he brags about where he's from. Of course, the fact that rappers take male chauvinism and territorial bragging to new levels is ignored, almost like its comparing apples and oranges. Why Simon Cowell gets in trouble for implying Ryan Seacrest is gay and how DMX was ever able to air "Where Da Hood At" on cable television and on radios is something I don't have faith even Bill Nye could explain.

Two standards being expected of the two cultures is implied. With many gangsta rappers playing the modern day role of the noble savage, a product of "the jungle" who isn't expected to play by the rules of "civilized" society and is judged so. When mainstream society wonders why there is a double standard it is thought to be funny to people who are used to two having two sets of rules when judging these things.

The truth of the matter is that critics do listen to the morals behind some songs, but only songs they feel confident to judge and not ones that would open up a can of worms should they actually pay attention to them. Some critics will make gigantic, sweeping assumptions about entire genres like '1950s pop' ("It's demeaning towards women! It promotes the uber-patriotic 'system'!") and totally ignore other kinds of music that deserves a closer look.

Ooh look, I've not looked at the time and have written another mini-essay. Yep, it is Sunday.

― Cunga, Monday, 16 April 2007 00:50 (6 years ago) Permalink

Yeah here we go,the blacks getting away with something, given a ghetto pass by Politically Correct White Timelords, while poor little Toby Keith gets picked on (I've never seen him busted for "taking his woman out for a good time, " just for "We'll put a boot in your ass," when he's not going a=soldiering, and who is the you in "your"? Is it Osama, cringing in front of his CMT? Or is it closer to Natalie's diagnosis,"He targets a whole culture"? If we want to reivisit the great late 80s feud among some music writers and some fans, over Axl's "police and niggers, get out of my way," and "foreigners" too, vs. Public Enemy's Professor Griff's anti semtism ["Denounce Axl!" "You denouce Griff first!"], then yeah, I think Snoop Dogg's mumblin' pimp talk is shit, Dr. Dre is talented but ill shit too, who else you want? But as I said before, upthread, Imus, whose producer got him to admit he told the producer that he hired Bernard McGurk to feed him "nigger jokes" [the tape and transcript will be posted on onthemedia.org this week], occupied a privileged position ON RADIO, where uncensored rap is not supposed to be played, while Imus did his shit for years, and years, and yeah Obama and everybody else who chose to ignore, so they could come on there and peddle their wares, was double-standard, and more so for waiting to denounce him when that was the more commercial move, but trying to shift it to--what? Rappers who should be boycotted? Or censored? Or those who don't denounce them should be boycotted or censored? It really does seem like rally-the-drifting-conservative-base-time, like with The War On The War On Christmas, etc, but I said that before bye.)

― dow, Monday, 16 April 2007 03:52 (6 years ago) Permalink

Cunga, I've been thinking about your post. It seems to me that Music Critics - while they can be moral critics - don't need to occupy that position. You can be a music critic - critiquing the evolution, nature and social consequences of a particular album - without ever making a moral judgment of the content. So when I call Good Charlotte misogynistic, obviously I feel it's wrong for them to be that. But I'm also calling attention to a certain development in a certain kind of music. (Emo-related music that is overtly sexist, in contrast to Hopper's critique.) If I wrote an album review of a hip-hop album, and I kept talking about the misogynism, I better have something novel to say about it. Otherwise the reader gets very little new insight into the topic.

I'm not saying this is the only way to go - and I think a music critic can be very successful making moral judgments on music. But I also think that the failure of a critic to critique a hip-hop album morally has less to do with the critique and more to do with the pervasiveness of the moral problem.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Monday, 16 April 2007 04:00 (6 years ago) Permalink

Plus, I've personally read plenty of articles about misogynism in hip-hop. And I haven't exactly been searching them out - there are just plenty of them. So it's not like people aren't acknowledging the murders in the snuff film (to use your metaphor).

― Mordechai Shinefield, Monday, 16 April 2007 04:03 (6 years ago) Permalink

x-post

I recognize that Imus, given his radio platform, his contact with politicians and celebrities, and well his being white in a country that has practiced slavery and segregation, is much more deserving of criticism than your average 'bitch' word using rapper. But while the danger may be less, that does not mean it has to go uncommented on.

Mordecai, a NY Times reader might be unfamiliar with Lil' Wayne, and a review that does not even mention his sexist phrasing because the writer does not feel he has anything 'novel' to say about it (or just assumes that readers know what kind of words those darn rapper guys use)is not fully conveying what it is like to listen to that cd (no matter how many articles music critic you have read about misogynism and rap).

― curmudgeon, Monday, 16 April 2007 04:24 (6 years ago) Permalink

Fair enough, I see both points. It's probably true that the anti-social themes in the music are so prevalent and so accepted at this point in time that it's almost too late to point it out and make a big deal now. Or at least it feels like it. It's one thing to reprimand the emperor for wearing no clothes soon after you discover his attire, it's another to let years go by and to let him sit in your favorite chair before telling him that it's inappropriate to let everyone see his junk like that.

Plus, I've personally read plenty of articles about misogynism in hip-hop. And I haven't exactly been searching them out - there are just plenty of them. So it's not like people aren't acknowledging the murders in the snuff film (to use your metaphor).

The problem is that people separate the misogyny from the music and the culture too much. As others have said, the media will cover the negative aspects of hip-hop and then turn right around and interview the rappers and play the music they were just criticizing a few segments ago. It's talked about as being a problem, because not many people can stomach it all without their conscious bugging them, but it's still not enough of a problem that people can totally distance themselves from it and really condemn it like they should.

The question critics need to ask themselves is, "Are the lyrics and the message as much a part of the song as anything else?" Because if they are, is there ever a point when appalling lyrics and anti-social themes outweigh whatever musical merit the song might otherwise have? Can a song ever be so anti-social and so wrong that it becomes a problem? If noise played over a beautiful poem can detract from the poem's lyrical beauty than why can't horrible messages and lyrics ruin a brilliant song?

Some critics will argue that lyrics mean nothing to them and or that they are entirely separate, but that's only partially true at best. We are all moved by lyrics some of the time; they can, when they do, make good music even better. And if song lyrics only work as an accessory, and not as an equally integral part of a song, then the question still remains of how bad does it have to get before the depravity of one ruins the other?

Critics would also have to think of the moral responsibility they have if they recommend anti-social music just on the basis that the music (and not the lyrics) is good. Sure lyrics may mean little to them, but what if it does mean something to the person you're recommending it to? Do you give a Geto Boys album a 10/10 because you're only looking at the music and completely ignoring the lyrics and message to it? And if you are, how can you say you're fully judging art if you're not even looking at what the words and message behind it are? (Keep in mind that what I'm describing is completely different from, say, listening to a shoegaze band where nobody is meant to understand the words. I'm talking about critics hearing the words, understanding the message and purposely ignoring them for convenience sake)

― Cunga, Monday, 16 April 2007 04:47 (6 years ago) Permalink

Mordecai, a NY Times reader might be unfamiliar with Lil' Wayne, and a review that does not even mention his sexist phrasing because the writer does not feel he has anything 'novel' to say about it (or just assumes that readers know what kind of words those darn rapper guys use)is not fully conveying what it is like to listen to that cd (no matter how many articles music critic you have read about misogynism and rap).

Exactly! If you find some part of the music to be morally deplorable you should at least feel somewhat obligated to point it out. The "subjectivity" of what is and what isn't moral is no more subjective than what does and doesn't make good music. Why it is considered normal to tell other people what makes for good music and considered self-righteous to tell other people what makes for an immoral message is backwards.

If music critics would start deducting points off of albums that promoted immoral messaged they would, let's admit, be regarded as reactionary and patronizing by their peers. That being said, it would go a hell of a long way in getting rappers to stop this crap. If rapping about anti-social things wasn't considered to be the mark of sophisticated rappers and was getting you ousted from internet music magazines (or at least getting you mixed reviews) it would trickle down to their collegiate audience and then to pop culture in general. All it takes are critics with guts who would be able to withstand the initial teasing because they gave some albums a bad score because of their anti-social content for the ball to at least get rolling and for some progress to be made. As long as critics stand silent and, while not openly condoning it, give the idea that promoting violence and sexual abuse doesn't take anything away from your art, it will continue to stay as bad as it's been.

― Cunga, Monday, 16 April 2007 05:27 (6 years ago) Permalink

wid all due respect cunga i'm not sure the webzines --> collegiate audience --> pop-culture-in-general model is exactly how hip-hop careers are maked or breaked.

"wayne! they're callin you out on cokemachineglow!"
"oh SHIT!"

― tipsy mothra, Monday, 16 April 2007 06:16 (6 years ago) Permalink

It's worth discussion, sure, but is it really the music critics' place to 'rate' the music morally? Does anyone want that? If critics began knocking Wayne's points, would it also make sense to rate, say, Christian rock bands higher because they're promoting a socially positive message?

― lucas pine, Monday, 16 April 2007 06:39 (6 years ago) Permalink

<I>wid all due respect cunga i'm not sure the webzines --> collegiate audience --> pop-culture-in-general model is exactly how hip-hop careers are maked or breaked.

"wayne! they're callin you out on cokemachineglow!"
"oh SHIT!"</I>

haha

Maybe I should've been a little more ironic in describing that matter; it was a simplification of the situation but the truth of the matter is that if the people who review rap in that manner and in influential place it would start to trickle down. And it's not like the key to mainstream exposure doesn't, in part, lie in cracking underground white culture first.

It's worth discussion, sure, but is it really the music critics' place to 'rate' the music morally? Does anyone want that? If critics began knocking Wayne's points, would it also make sense to rate, say, Christian rock bands higher because they're promoting a socially positive message?

It would be subjective to the individual critic's prejudices (like it already is with the music). Sure, right now it does seem sort of odd, but the current model is still a little bit suspect in that critics are especially selective about when they want to make a "values judgment" about a song's message.

And critics wouldn't have to make lyrics and message totally equal to or above sonic aspects. If you still find the average Christian rock band to be frustratingly bland musically and full of odd posturing you should still be able to say that that detracts from whatever pro-social message the songs have. Critics already do this as it's perfectly plausible that the music could be so bad it destroys the message. (There are countless "Rock Against ______" CDs that fit this description)

I'm just curious as to why it doesn't go the other way. Why can't songs with atrocious messages in hip-hop ever bring down the score? Is it not the critics job to judge the whole piece of art? Why do rappers score points for lyrical cleverness but never get damned for degrading ideas and sickening lyrics?

― Cunga, Monday, 16 April 2007 06:59 (6 years ago) Permalink

I'm not sure those are edges of the same blade, though -- when you're rating someone for lyrical ingenuity (or stupidity) you aren't making a moral judgment. How many hip hop (or whatever genre, I suppose) songs have been generally rated higher because of their positive message, as opposed to their inventive lyrics? I don't think it's at all common to score music higher because of positive messages -- or maybe I just can't think of any examples right now?

― lucas pine, Monday, 16 April 2007 07:19 (6 years ago) Permalink

You're right, cleverness was the wrong word. But still, lyrics that run with what the critic thinks is a good theme or is generally praiseworthy for something other than cleverness or flow might be good examples

And off the time of my head for message songs getting a free ride forever: boomers haven't been loving "All You Need Is Love" for its musical genius I don't think.

Argh, work to do but I'll see if I can get back to this tomorrow.

― Cunga, Monday, 16 April 2007 07:30 (6 years ago) Permalink

I find sexist rap phrasing in lyrics tired and lazy and not creative (without even addressing the moral angle).

― curmudgeon, Monday, 16 April 2007 14:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

5 years pass...

I'm boycotting all music critics until they become more politically and socially responsive instead of telling you something is "good" or "crap".

With mp3s and Spotify, people can judge for themselves.

― โตเกียวเหมียวเหมียว aka Bulgarian Tourist Chamber (Mount Cleaners), Thursday, 7 June 2012 15:55 (11 months ago) Permalink

Congratulations on your brave and honorable stand.

― they loooovin the crut (The Reverend), Friday, 8 June 2012 06:56 (11 months ago) Permalink

yes it's too bad that every music critic ever works at that level of reductionism

― ciderpress, Friday, 8 June 2012 13:15 (11 months ago) Permalink

I'm boycotting all music critics until they become more politically and socially responsive instead of telling you something is "good" or "crap".

With mp3s and Spotify, people can judge for themselves.

― โตเกียวเหมียวเหมียว aka Bulgarian Tourist Chamber (Mount Cleaners), Thursday, June 7, 2012 11:55 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

crap

― calm me maybe (Whiney G. Weingarten), Friday, 8 June 2012 13:37 (11 months ago) Permalink

i will respond to you socially, MC

"cashin out" is fucking awesome because it is a song about having a lot of money and expensive jewelry from selling drugs and the gun-related responsibilities that go with that

― he bit me (it felt like a diss) (m bison), Friday, 8 June 2012 13:39 (11 months ago) Permalink

m bison who are you and where did you come from your display name is magical. best pun i've seen all day

― frog ball (caulk the wagon and float it), Friday, 8 June 2012 14:51 (11 months ago) Permalink

i opened this thread expecting "moral terror" to be the name of some kind of unexpectedly awesome burzum/limp bizkit side project.
but why would they call it "moral terror" instead of "limp burzkit"

― Philip Nunez, Friday, 8 June 2012 16:32 (11 months ago) Permalink

fred durzum

― Whiney vs. (BradNelson), Friday, 8 June 2012 18:33 (11 months ago) Permalink

m bison who are you and where did you come from your display name is magical. best pun i've seen all day

― frog ball (caulk the wagon and float it), Friday, June 8, 2012 9:51 AM (3 hours ago) Bookmark

im m bison from the usa, ive been here forever and im milking this display name for all its worth

― he bit me (it felt like a diss) (m bison), Friday, 8 June 2012 18:51 (11 months ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.