----- Original Message -----
From: "EggyToast" <youn0394@umn.edu>
To: "Armchair Charlie" <dubnovibrator@hotmail.com>;
<damek@earthling.net>; <idm@hyperreal.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: [idm] Scott Herren and ATL
Armchair Charlie said:
quoted 1 line So now the music is just there, nostalgic, with no coating.> >So now the music is just there, nostalgic, with no coating.
Hip-hop is
quoted 1 line wholly different. Hip-hop is culturally dependent and relevant.> >wholly different. Hip-hop is culturally dependent and relevant.
IDM is
quoted 1 line not cuz it's not clearly defined yet.> >not cuz it's not clearly defined yet.
huh? hip-hop was "invented" in the late 70's to early 80's, though i
may be mistaken. people doing it now are doing it differently from
whence they did it then. no music is dependent on a culture.
cultures and music are both dependent on people. If Scott likes his
music, so be it. Perhaps you're making the assumption that because
he's from a particular area, he must identify with that culture.
Perhaps, thanks to modern ways of life, he does not. How did hip-hop
ever get into the south in the first place?
quoted 2 lines You can't ignore your region and> >You can't ignore your region and
> >still be a powerful force in the direction hip-hop takes, because
that's
quoted 1 line not how hip-hop works.> >not how hip-hop works.
Is it? I didn't know there was a rule book. I understand what you're
saying, and I agree to an extent that an artist's context is important
to understanding their music, and even moreso I think you're trying to
say that traditionally, "true" hip-hop is about the home area of those
who are making it. If I get you right (and i know you don't want to
talk about it any more, which is convenient), then part of what
hip-hop "is" is a grouding in the roots of those who are making it. A
connection to other parts of their life, their past. It's economical,
social, political, etc.
So you're assuming that Scott (and others) has to identify with his
region's economic, social, political, etc. issues. That's wrong.
He'll identify with what he wants, and make the music he wants, and
*that* makes the music all the more "real." I would think. In my
opinion.
quoted 1 line like i said (3rd, 4th time now?), it's just something to think> >like i said (3rd, 4th time now?), it's just something to think
about. so
quoted 1 line i don't feel like talking about it anymore. it's run it's course.> >i don't feel like talking about it anymore. it's run it's course.
thanks, but now that you got others thinking about it (well done!),
just because you feel like it's run its course doesn't mean i
necessarily do. I don't think you're all wrong, nor do I think I'm
all correct. One discusses because one feels it's worthwhile.
quoted 1 line hmm, so, it sounds like you're saying that hip hop, being one of the> hmm, so, it sounds like you're saying that hip hop, being one of the
more
quoted 1 line recent musical phenomenons, and having a direct tie to a culture, is> recent musical phenomenons, and having a direct tie to a culture, is
still
quoted 1 line tied that culture, and likely will be for some time. which, to me,> tied that culture, and likely will be for some time. which, to me,
sounds
quoted 1 line a lot like the rock stuff in the 60's and 70's (where it had a very> a lot like the rock stuff in the 60's and 70's (where it had a very
direct
quoted 1 line cultural tie - the best singers/songwriters of the time seemed to be> cultural tie - the best singers/songwriters of the time seemed to be
those
quoted 1 line that were "keeping it real" in their cultures, instead of selling> that were "keeping it real" in their cultures, instead of selling
out or
quoted 1 line just coming into it by sounding like it), and sort of how electronic> just coming into it by sounding like it), and sort of how electronic
music
quoted 1 line is *starting* to be seen, where mass produced trance is starting to> is *starting* to be seen, where mass produced trance is starting to
lose
quoted 1 line flavor and the big label names like "fatboy slim" are starting to> flavor and the big label names like "fatboy slim" are starting to
lose some
quoted 1 line of their flavor since there's a lot more that sounds good that's> of their flavor since there's a lot more that sounds good that's
produced
quoted 1 line by people not in it for the money.> by people not in it for the money.
I get what everyone's saying, but the truth is that even while you
have the "relevant" stuff, you have the "irrelevant" stuff. You can
have both. If one feels that one rock star is relevant while another
is not, the truth is just that you like one and not the other. How
arrogant (of anyone) to assume that someone else's music is not
relevant or important to them just because it doesn't sound like it to
you. Some people would say the Beatles were not culturally relevant
at certain periods of their career. To who? To what culture?
Any time a genre starts out, sure it's tied to those who originated
it, but later on others will hear something for themselves in it and
make it their own. So I agree with Armchair Charlie's basic premise,
yet disagree with the idea of using that premise to judge the quality
of music.
Basically, if you're going to write about the social/cultural aspects
of any particular music, you'd better darn well know the artist, their
music, and their context as if it were your own. Hell, Ken Burns
tried to do Jazz just right and he still screwed up in so many places.
quoted 1 line now, i'm not going to argue about the validity of art, but to me,> now, i'm not going to argue about the validity of art, but to me,
doing it
quoted 1 line cos it's "cool" is not the same as doing it because you like it or> cos it's "cool" is not the same as doing it because you like it or
because
quoted 1 line it has a meaning to you.> it has a meaning to you.
i don't want to get into this either, so i'm just going to say i agree
with you, but I don't think that supports the cultural criticism of
anyone's music unless someone had some sort of evidence that he or she
*was* just doing it becuase it was "cool." And anyway, maybe doing
something just for the coolness of it is some sort of spiritual
void-filler for the artist. Therein would lie the meaning for that
person.
So basically, I don't think anyone should seriously mean it when they
go around saying someone's music is invalid because it's not "real"
without backing that up with some hard evidence, which is pretty hard
to do.
quoted 2 lines now, i'm sure someone's going to argue "oh, but> now, i'm sure someone's going to argue "oh, but
> it's an artistic statement!" bollocks. why should i care if the
artist
quoted 1 line doesn't?> doesn't?
"bollocks"? don't you still live in icy minnesota? stop stealing
from other cultures! :-p
-adam
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org