Erykah Badu: C /D, S&D

deej, are your reactions to art always consistent? cause if so that makes you quite unique among human beings.

how on earth is that what im talking about

i dont even understand what the question means -- my 'reactions' to 'art' 'consistent'? they are consistently mine certainly, & the values we bring to bear are our own only -- im just talking about the act of openly acknowledging those values

only if you apply the same value systems to all judgments you make.

theres no way out of this dude

― NOT FUNNY NEEDS MORE GUCCI (deej), Wednesday, August 25, 2010 12:04 PM Suggest Ban Permalink
Bookmark

????

i would say a better example of a preference based on "ideology" would be someone who doesn't particular rate or pay attention to any badu album except pt1 - someone who wasn't interested in her until she made a political record, say, and who's disappointed that pt2 isn't as ~experimental~ or whatever. which i don't think anyone here is.

of course there are different value systems at play, but there is very little, if any, music within pt. 1's system that i prefer to it, whereas there is a fair amount within pt. 2's system that i do prefer. that doesn't mean i inherently prefer one value system to the other, even if i think this whole line of argument is more or less bunk.

you cant help but apply your own values to every critical argument you make. how do you apply someone elses?

of course there are different value systems at play, but there is very little, if any, music within pt. 1's system that i prefer to it, whereas there is a fair amount within pt. 2's system that i do prefer. that doesn't mean i inherently prefer one value system to the other, even if i think this whole line of argument is more or less bunk.

― king boy swag (The Reverend), Wednesday, August 25, 2010 2:12 PM (27 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

youre not understanding 'value system' -- thats the broad biases/opinions/values/morals that the critic brings to bear; the piece of art has no 'value system' of its own, just what we bring to it

you cant help but apply your own values to every critical argument you make. how do you apply someone elses?

― NOT FUNNY NEEDS MORE GUCCI (deej), Wednesday, August 25, 2010 12:12 PM Suggest Ban Permalink
Bookmark

whoever said anything about that?

"only if you apply the same value systems to all judgments you make."

from a critics perspective what values are their other than your own

you can hold different (and inconsistent) values yourself, which is what i assume lex meant by that

not if yr trying to make a convincing argument; if u hold two opposing ideas that in order to convince anyone u have to come up with an explanation for why one system works in one situation and another doesnt

especially in a case like this, when the two value systems aren't even opposed to each other or mutually exclusive

your assuming im making some argument im not if there as a 'situation like this'

i never claimed there was something wrong with liking pt. 1 yeesh

apparently you will only be happy if i admit i always prefer political/difficult music to that which does not fit those descriptions but it might ~blow your mind~ to find out i prefer nina sky to rage against the machine or hell, even al green to sly stone

all i said is that i think its worthwhile for discussion to observe the kinds of critical biases that work to elevate part 1 at the expense of part 2, its not at all about questioning the lex's RIGHT AND TRUE reasons for preferring pt 1 that evade typical ITS AN AGGRESSIVE DIFFICULT POLITICAL RECORD media hype but to observe why critics tend to line up IN GENERAL & IN LARGER NUMBERS on one side rather than the other. i could prefer pt 1 (i dont) & still make this argument

defensive posters are defensive

apparently you will only be happy if i admit i always prefer political/difficult music to that which does not fit those descriptions but it might ~blow your mind~ to find out i prefer nina sky to rage against the machine or hell, even al green to sly stone

― king boy swag (The Reverend), Wednesday, August 25, 2010 2:23 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

you're reading so much shit into what im saying that im not actually saying

defensive posters are defensive

― NOT FUNNY NEEDS MORE GUCCI (deej), Wednesday, August 25, 2010 12:24 PM Suggest Ban Permalink
Bookmark

good god, deej

dude -- u seriously think im telling you that i think you always prefer 'political / difficult music'?? reread this thread & tell me where i accused you of anything

all i said is that i think its worthwhile for discussion to observe the kinds of critical biases that work to elevate part 1 at the expense of part 2, its not at all about questioning the lex's RIGHT AND TRUE reasons for preferring pt 1 that evade typical ITS AN AGGRESSIVE DIFFICULT POLITICAL RECORD media hype but to observe why critics tend to line up IN GENERAL & IN LARGER NUMBERS on one side rather than the other. i could prefer pt 1 (i dont) & still make this argument

maybe if you want to have that argument in general, this thread isn't the best place for it? it's a worthwhile topic but i don't think it's going to get anywhere here.

but my point was that in discussing the record i think its an important concept to be aware of

being self-aware of that kind of thing is kind of what ilx is all about at its best

i'm with deej here, i think there are elements of pt 2 that are better executed than on part 1 (melodies, clarity, etc.), but i don't think it's particularly shocking statement to say that the album that's more formally ambitious and artier is going to get more critical attention. and this isn't to say that anyone who likes pt 1 better is wrong or likes it for the wrong reasons.

come to think of it, arguing about that as the main point of a thread would be real obnoxious, making it as a contextual argument when discussing a record to which it applies is useful, unless dudes get unneccessarily butthurt abt it

i will say this, you characterize pt. 2 as more "personal", and while it may or may not be more personal to erykah (i'm sure she poured as much of herself into pt. 1, but being that i'm not erykah badu, i can't exactly say which is more personal to her) but pt. 1 is sure as hell more personal to me, which is to say i more directly identify with it and feel it says more about myself than pretty much any album i've heard

i'm not butthurt, just kind of annoyed

but keep up w/ the ad homs

i'm not butthurt, just kind of annoyed

New board description.

when i called pt2 "personal" - scare quotes intentional as it's totally reductive shorthand - it was more going with erykah's own left brain/right brain distinction between the two

i've actually brought up the inevitability of an album w/pt1's qualities getting more critical praise than an album w/pt2's qualities elsewhere on ilx, but i think a more appropriate comparison might be between pt 1 and mama's gun, which i think of as a monumental work on or near pt1's level, but which got a fraction of the critical luv.

but i think a more appropriate comparison might be between pt 1 and mama's gun, which i think of as a monumental work on or near pt1's level, but which got a fraction of the critical luv.

― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Wednesday, August 25, 2010 2:39 PM (35 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

thats just not accurate

callin u butthurt is not ad hom, im not tying yr butthurt state to the quality of your argument

& i havent had any arguments about REV at all itt! thats the problem w your argument, it seems to be assuming im saying all this personal stuff that im not.

callin u butthurt is not ad hom, im not tying yr butthurt state to the quality of your argument

― NOT FUNNY NEEDS MORE GUCCI (deej), Wednesday, August 25, 2010 12:41 PM Suggest Ban Permalink
Bookmark

that's laughable. argue that your direct attacks and general arguments are unconnected all you want, but that doesn't mean the former doesn't weaken the latter.

and yeah, mama's gun is brilliant, but it certainly got its fair share of adulation both at the time and now

im calling u butthurt to troll you, not to suggest that yr argument is not legitimate bcuz of your butthurtedness -- look up 'ad hominem'

yr getting butthurt for no reason -- u keep assuming i was making personal attacks on you & yr opinions on these records. so i said you were butthurt for no reason, which you then argued was a continued personal attack

http://api.ning.com/files/dkqsBrTDVZKY2*2OkzJvHn4bIcfPWvqDCxw8IxgysFruGKwM1jB-hxhHaMBVOqBYu18bIMWpnARKZvsm3kv*qrhyn1hGtzls/MobiusStrip.jpg

sorry i forgot intentional trolling is conducive to quality discussion, but if you're going to admit to that, i'm just going to call a dnftt and say goodday.

now im convinced youre trolling

deej be kinda jabbing the finger here but given some of the moronic stuff said before re "half-assed" and "no songs" or whatever it's fair & reasonable game imo

not quite sure how sex love & intimacy add up to a narrower aesthetic bandwidth than underwater stovetops but ok

― r|t|c, Thursday, 1 April 2010 18:38 (4 months ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i never said either of those things so ¯\(°_o)/¯

hey mr butthurt did i even mention you

ha

wtf is going on here? When did this turn into a Kant discussion?

New Amerykant

there are things I like about pt. 2: there's a lot of respect to be gained by repping for the hopeless--the pornstars, thugs, and prescription pill addicts--but the fact that she's also willing to identify (at least somewhat) with the gold-digger in "Turn Me Away" and the two-timing girlfriend in "You Loving Me"--I don't really hear a lot of condemnation in either of those tracks--there's something kind of special about that...

haha you may not hear the condemnation but it's there, when i asked her about "turn me away" she was pretty clear on that. i guess that's why she sings it in that mocking girlish voice

oh well

been listening to na pt 2 a lot lately