Hip Hop Is Not Art

I think US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart had it right when he defined obscenity as: "I know it when I see it."

hip hop lyrics are self-indulgent, crude, sexist, and, in my mind, obscene. why? i know it when i hear the lyrics and watch the videos.

but according to ghideon no on is privileged to make an absolute statement about music, let alone artful music, because what defines these categories is by its very nature subjective. but we know that this is just patently false. value judgments are made every day and the basis of American law and jurisprudence makes such determinations defined by evolving standards of decency. you can't urinate in public; you can't curse in class; you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. in America, you can't walk down a residential street without clothes. you can't drink in public. certain forms of sexual representation are prohibited (child porn), the FCC regulates radio/tv broadcasting. fines are often rendered for lewd or licentious acts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghideon

One of my deepest concern is that each one of us admits that all they have to base their opinions on is what they have learned, read, heard, saw, been taught and what they have lived through. Given that reality it is, imho, close to impossible to make absolute statements when it comes to subjective issues. And the determination of the value or worth of a particular form of music is by its very nature a subjective not absolute determination

---

according to this attitude, absolutely everything is beyond the reach of a value judgment. the relativist thinking propigated by ghideon is quite alluring because there is a tendency to distrust government, let alone the idea of a censorship board that bans hip hop. i've said in another thread, however, that i see absolutely no literary, artistic, political or scientific value in Hitler's Mein Kampf or The Turner Diaries. if they were banned, the world wouldn't lose any sleep. they espouse hate and create subdivisions and have caused more than one hate crime.

the liberal Us Supreme Court of the 1960s and 1970s embraced ghideon's relativism (almost) in the court's evolving standard for "obscenity." check out the case, "miller vs. california - early '70s, quite interesting. it leaves many things unanswered. it's sets forth a social value "test." i don't remember it but it's three-pronged, and cases are considered all the time against it.

i strongly believe that "man is NOT the measure of all things." there are certain abiding truths in the world. plato established this philosophically over 2000 years ago. if you haven't all ready, i recommend reading his book, "Meno." and this thinking of certain "inalienable rights (self-evident truths)" is the basis of our democracy.

ghideon also goes on to admit that he can't 'entirely' identify with a woman's perspective because he's not a woman (interestingly he identifies with the black man's plight). its abundantly obvious that hip hop objectifies women; everybody knows that it doesn't make the lives of women any easier either, especially in light of their oppressed history.

i disagree. we CAN identify with each other because human beings are tied together by an empathetic cord and thereby allows access to one another's emotional space. we "feel" the grief of parents whose sons and daughters are killed in war.

relativism has been chipping away at all forms of public authority for at least the last century. what's at stake is not only authority but the very notion of a "public."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

I think US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart had it right when he defined obscenity as: "I know it when I see it."

hip hop lyrics are self-indulgent, crude, sexist, and, in my mind, obscene. why? i know it when i hear the lyrics and watch the videos.

but according to ghideon no on is privileged to make an absolute statement about music, let alone artful music, because what defines these categories is by its very nature subjective. but we know that this is just patently false. value judgments are made every day and the basis of American law and jurisprudence makes such determinations defined by evolving standards of decency. you can't urinate in public; you can't curse in class; you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. in America, you can't walk down a residential street without clothes. you can't drink in public. certain forms of sexual representation are prohibited (child porn), the FCC regulates radio/tv broadcasting. fines are often rendered for lewd or licentious acts.

---

You can not randomly ban things because you feel they are inappropriate. That censorship is what fueled the governments of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam Hussein, The Ayatollah, the Taliban, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Mussoulini, the First Republic under Robespierre, Qadafi, Mugabe and many others. You do have the right not to listen to rap, but never the right to tell another person not to.

You can not make value judgements on what another person likes, to do so implies a superiority of taste and to assume any superiority of taste is degrading to the integrity of a free society. Certain prohibitions may be made against ACTIONS, the making and keeping of child pornography, urinating in public, etc because these actions, by their very nature, harm another person by themselves. They do not merely inspire injurous action, they ARE injurous action. As for FCC regulations, they don't stop anybody. Most networks keep an escrow funds just to pay the fines they inevitably incur every year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

according to this attitude, absolutely everything is beyond the reach of a value judgment. the relativist thinking propigated by ghideon is quite alluring because there is a tendency to distrust government, let alone the idea of a censorship board that bans hip hop. i've said in another thread, however, that i see absolutely no literary, artistic, political or scientific value in Hitler's Mein Kampf or The Turner Diaries. if they were banned, the world wouldn't lose any sleep. they espouse hate and create subdivisions and have caused more than one hate crime.

---

Even suggesting banning these books shows a hatred against history. Should we should ban everything that we find offensive on a knee-jerk reaction, regardless of what important information they can shed on the darkest days of our history?

You know what, you're right. We shouldn't even try to understand the Nazi's from their own perspective, after all, what can we learn from a bunch of Fascists? We should just forget it ever happened, we should outlaw the very words 'Fascist,' 'Third Reich,' 'Hitler' and 'Nazi'. We shouldn't even teach about them in school, except to say that the Righteous US and her Glorious Republican (Vengeful France, Just great Britian and forget Russian because it's history is too ugly) allies overcame the power of a dark, sinister evil that was threatening to overcome the Great, Glorious True world. Why it was evil we don't really know, but why's not important. Just trust me. It was bad, real bad. So bad, we don't even remember.

After all, there have been lots of governments that have banned books they found offensive, Soviet Russia for example, where according to the Criminal Code of 1926 rap would have been illegal, under Section Ten, spreading propoganda, and since they are making money, section 4, aid to the international Bourgeoisie, Section One, counter-revolutionary activity and Section 8, terror. They would have gotten at least twenty-five years in the Gulag, because remember, thought is the same as action. Oh I forgot one, since it was distributed and ivolved more than one person, Section 11, criminal organization. You wouldn't even need a trial. You could just sentance them, the seditious, inappropriate criminals, without a pesky judge.

Not nearly as rough, in Iran they'll just arrest you and beat you to a pulp in some interrogation cell for listening to western rap, that is if you don't have the connections to get out of it.

You know what, Soviet Russia is another one of those bad places I'd rather not think about. Communism could always come back if people read about it and it'll be just as bad then. Better not give people ideas. Better outlaw that too, no Gulag Archipelago, no One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch, throw them all out. Mayakovsky ESPECIALLY. We don't even want to think about it. Better get rid of Marx while we're at it, might inspire a reduction of the country-side Pol Pot style, or even Chairman Mao style. We can't have any more Greal Leaps Forward, too many people died. Oh and all those books about British Imperialism. The US gov't might get ideas about India. I'd better start throwing away everything I have by Kipling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

the liberal Us Supreme Court of the 1960s and 1970s embraced ghideon's relativism (almost) in the court's evolving standard for "obscenity." check out the case, "miller vs. california - early '70s, quite interesting. it leaves many things unanswered. it's sets forth a social value "test." i don't remember it but it's three-pronged, and cases are considered all the time against it.

i strongly believe that "man is NOT the measure of all things." there are certain abiding truths in the world. plato established this philosophically over 2000 years ago. if you haven't all ready, i recommend reading his book, "Meno." and this thinking of certain "inalienable rights (self-evident truths)" is the basis of our democracy.

---

And I reject your 'truths.' We are a species of individuals for a reason, it is not in our biology to operate as a hive of ants dancing out messages to insure conformity as we march on to the sugar. Your post here has no where even hinted at the fulfillment of our 'inalienable rights.' In fact, you have pretty much said let's throw the First Amendment out of the window. Tear it out of your Constitutions, folks, we'll wad it up for toilet paper, or at the very least we'll just color over the "abridging free speech" part.

As I said before, the greatest works of art of the past two hundred years came about as a result of non-comformity, came about as an attack on the establishment. Manet's Dejeuner sur l'Herbe was called smut when it was displayed, his Olympia was called pornography. Modigliani was lambasted for the eroticism of his portraits. Matisse was caled a 'fauve' because he used colors 'like a wild beast' and had no eye for 'true art.' If we had censorship the like of which YOU recommend we would have no great art, merely repititions of the past.

Examples of this kind exist not just in art, but in everything. Women being allowed to vote was considered obscene, women in pants, women in PUBLIC in some places was considered obscene, and that never would have been allowed if we were protecting the moral standards of the time by outlawing everything we viewed as contrarian and abided by 'true' 'objective' values. They even had scientific evidence of why women were inferior.

Don't forget jazz music, which grew up next to the brothels of New Orleans and was nearly as primitive as rap before it was taken to the heights it later reached. If censors had had their way it would have been nipped in the bud before it could have grown into what will be the classical music of two hundred years from now, unarguably the most advanced music form created in the twentieth century! But of course, I assume those critics then didn't know nearly as much as we do now, and our taste and moral refinenment is infinitely more sophisticated than theirs.

Lastly I would ask you who establishes these truths? Who dictates to humanity what they should do? Should we establish a committee? Only the most virtuous citizens should sit on it. Virtue, we'd have to figure out what we meant by virtue too, but I'm sure we won't have to look for for our new nomenklatura! It'd be twenty years before they were hoarding pornography in their own closets, for their own edification on the nature of the problem, of course.

In a society with censorship there is no evolution of ANYTHING. Society becomes a stagnant morass until someone stands up and fights it, and that person is ultimately labeled an unconventional, seditious, dangerous traitor by his contemporaries and a noble, moral, just man by the people of the next generation who want to impose the same restricting standard that he fought against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

relativism has been chipping away at all forms of public authority for at least the last century. what's at stake is not only authority but the very notion of a "public."

---

What is the 'public'? Is not the rights of the individual the very thing that assures the prosperity of a 'public'? Has not history, not twenty years ago, proven that an unfettered society with a FREE exchange of ideas is infinitely stronger than a bloc with no freedom of speech and a 'unified' public? There are few places where things were welded into such a block as in the USSR, and despite their huge population, massive resources and their strangle hold on 'seditious' freedoms, such as freedom of speech, the inability of the government to encourage the work of an INDIVIDUAL choked their ability to produce, destroyed their ability to innovate and locked them in a cycle of reaction to what the West did as opposed to allowing the USSR the freedom to move on its own.

A public need no more unity than recognizing that at certain times it need be united for the common defence and for the regulation of the HARMFUL ACTIONS of its members, not for the thought-crimes of those same people. The censorship of rap would indeed be recognition of thought-crime, and the banning of Mein Kampf, that would be even worse. It would be an insult to everyone who died in the Holocaust or who was killed in WWII. That book exists as a testament to the madness of one man and the insanity of his blinded single-mindedness and lack of perspective. I don't know if you have ever read Mein Kampf (I hope you have since you claim enough authority on the subject to ban it), but I have. It's drivel. It's mindless, and it's very unlikely to make anyone a Nazi who is not already in jack boots. But even worse, Mein Kampf wasn't banned in this country during WWII and you would suggest banning it NOW sixty years AFTER the conflict and AFTER true Fascism, not the Franco version, which is debatable as to whether it actually was Fascism, has died?

What you are suggesting is nothing more than vengeful attack on history, a subject that deserves respect not just for our country but for the entire world, and indeed, for every member of the human race, not just those alive now, but even for those who will be born after us, an uncountable number, exponentially larger than we can even understand. You would steal what is by the very fact of humanity's existence its birth-right. The understanding of themselves, where they came from, and what we've come OUT OF. You would steal ourselves.

I'm just going to say a simple little quote here, and I think it is the single most relevent and amazing quote I've ever come across:

Quote:

---

I may strongly disagree with what you have to say, but I will die to defend your right to say it

---

The point that makes, is that if you have the right to censor others opinions, they by default have the right to censor your opinions.

Just wanted to add that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghideon

Dramas et al:

I would actively support any inteligent and forceful statement or act that rebukes, in no uncertain terms, the sexism/vilolence against women that is glorified in rap and hip-hop songs.

I also have to own up to the fact that I am a man and so, while I can try to understand what a woman feels in relation to songs about rape, the truth is I will never be able to actually switch places and know from the inside out.

I am white. I assume most others here are although please correct me if that is mistaken. However, whatever may be the case, I do see a difficulty in terms of white people and insitutions coming down on the glorification of violence in a music that is rooted in the African-American community. It is not that I would say that nobody but black people are worthy of their comments. And certainly gender has to be taken into a huge consideration as well. It is simply that given the amount of violence blacks have suffered from the hands of whites the whole issue of violence needs becomes complex both in terms of class, gender and race.

---

I felt I had to respond to the last part of this quote, especially because I think, from what I've read elsewhere, the person posting it seems to be thoughtful and well intentioned, and I've heard other well intentioned people use similar logic. This logic appears to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that since black men have been opressed, it's O.K. for them to sing songs about the opression of women. I don't see how that helps things. Aren't black women then doubly oppressed? I'm sorry, but songs glorifying gratuitous violence against another human being (woman or man) should be criticised (I will not say censored) by black and white alike. Note, I am not claiming that all hip hop necessarily falls into this category, but I've heard songs that certainly do, and it's those I object to. There is no justification I can think of for lyrics like the second one that Shadowsarin posted, describing the violent rape and murder of another person, apparently for no better reason than entertainment for a group of guys, and some bizzare initiation ritual. I don't care if it's describing a bunch of white, ivy league frat boys commiting this act, or a black gang in the ghetto. It's not right, and I think everyone regardless of skin color has not only the moral justification, but the moral obligation to say it's nothing to sing about.

Quote:

---

I think US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart had it right when he defined obscenity as: "I know it when I see it."

---

OK. You "think" he had it right but do you "know"? The very construction of your sentence leans towards a non-absolutist perspective.

Quote:

---

hip hop lyrics are self-indulgent, crude, sexist, and, in my mind, obscene. why? i know it when i hear the lyrics and watch the videos.

---

No. That is not a fact. The facts are more complex. One fact is that hip-hop lyrics have not always been as crude and sexist as they are now. Another fact is that not "all" hip-hop lyrics are self-indulgent, crude, and sexist and others have already posted examples. It is true that most of the hip-hop songs that you have listened to are as you describe. It is true that most of the songs played on the radio and played on MTV...display crude, sexist and self-indulgent attitudes.

But you see no need to actually think critically. You make absolute statements that are not. Now you may differ with me in many ways but irregardless, I believe you owe it to yourself and all readers to be clear about what is true and what is not. If you lean more towards the importance of definitive statements then fine go ahead and make them. But I suggest that when you do you do so wisely. At this point you are making it too easy to negate them. Again and again you ignore context. While your actual language is full of phrase constructions such as "I think" "in my opinion" you then go on to make pronouncements about the entire history of hip hop. Not thinking at its best.

Quote:

---

but according to ghideon no on is privileged to make an absolute statement about music

---

I did not say that nor would I.

In my post one example of an absolute statement that I would support was "Picasso was one of the most influential artists of the 20th century." That was about a visual artist but there are many similar statements I could make about music. "The Beatles Sgt Pepper album in both lyrics and musical construction reflected the rising importance of drugs, particularly LSD, and altered states of consciousness of that era."" I could go on and on. So do not put words unless you know they fit.


Now, do I have a grave problem with granting individuals and institutions "priviliged" authority above all others to define what is considered good art, decent art, art of worth. You bet I do! Are you so absolutely confident that nobody could ever think that some of your posts are worthless and self-indulgent. I am NOT saying they are. I am simply asking you if you could imagine a person in a position of authority thinking of your writing in that way and thus taking acts to silence it?

Quote:

---

you can't urinate in public; you can't curse in class; you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. in America, you can't drink in public

---

The "cursing in class" bit is close to sci-fi. My God have you even been in a HS class these days? Cursing? Folks are worried about bullets.

Now "yelling fire in a crowded movie house" is against the law and, I would assume, almost always enforced, I would hope so. I can not imagine a situation in which that could not lead to some real problems and that is probably why I have never experienced such.

Quote:

---

there is a tendency to distrust government, let alone the idea of a censorship board that bans hip hop.

---

Er...yea...yes,yup. You bet there is, actually tendency is not putting it strongly enough, to distrust government and the idea of a censorship board. Are you actually, on the one hand asserting the virtues of the founding principles of this nation and on the other hand suggesting that this distrust of both govt and acts by the government should simply be trusted at face value? What are you actually saying here? I actually do want to know? I am not a historical scholar but wasn't there a general agreement that the citizens of a nation should always think about their nation and its institutions and not simply blindly go along with them. Wasn't that one of the key things that the founders wanted to be different then other nations.

Remember your hero Emerson. Why don't you imagine that you are sitting across from him and explaining why you believe people are in error when they have distrust or why you believe that a censorship board needs to be created. I suppose he would have a quixotic expression and say something to the effect "Well. You seem to be thinking independently, I admire that. I have always had great respect for those who can and do." at which point he would pause, look out the log cabin window at the Oak and Maples and go on to say "I am troubled though that such an independent spirit wishes to move our great nation away from that very act. You are one breath of independence yearning to choke the very inhalations and exhalations of others. I pray you never go, through some act of Apolo, from a breath to a storm."



"So I eschew 'selectivity' and follow free association
of mind into limitless blow-on-subject seas of
thought, swimming in seas of English with no
discipline other than the story-line and the rhythm
of rhetorical exaltation and expostulated statement,
like a fist coming down on a table with each complete
utterance, bang!"
-Jack Kerouac


You eschew free association of mind? limitless blow? swimming in seas of English with no discipline other than the story-line and the rhythm"?

Or am I wrong in assuming a relationship of affirmation between you and your signature.:lol:

Quote:

---

hip hop lyrics are self-indulgent, crude, sexist, and, in my mind, obscene. why? i know it when i hear the lyrics and watch the videos.

---

Really? Well apparently Rock Music promotes Satanism and causes kids to go out and either kill themselves or shoot up a school.

Don't generalise, its extremely fallacious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowsarin

Really? Well apparently Rock Music promotes Satanism and causes kids to go out and either kill themselves or shoot up a school.

Don't generalise, its extremely fallacious.

---

i'm not generalizing. i lump all the smut together. remember mrs. gore's initiative, putting labels on such smut and the music industry was up in arms? does anyone recall the suicides ozzy ozbourne's music triggered and his music being on trial?

that will be the day when i die defending a person for writing lyrics that degrade women and spit in the face of authority. all hip hop/gangsta rap music does not do this, but a great deal being broadcast by major radio stations/tv does. it's quite interesting - even laughable - how ghideon is a civil libertarian when it comes to free speech but when it comes to free markets he's bent on the view that "corporations are taking over the world," exploiting workers, etc. can't i easily say that the word, "exploitation" is as malleable a word as "art"? ah! another double standard...of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghideon

You eschew free association of mind? limitless blow? swimming in seas of English with no discipline other than the story-line and the rhythm"?

Or am I wrong in assuming a relationship of affirmation between you and your signature.

---

as far as my signature, if you knew anything about jack kerouac you'd know that your analogy is quite off the mark. there's a big difference between violating a mode of writing - formalism, as his generation did, and embracing musical forms which embellish violence and misogyny. a great deal of their work was actually banned initially (e.g. Ginsberg's Howl), dealing with the drug references, anti-establishment rhetoric, etc. but the totality of their work says something far greater. the same can't be said for hip hop. first read kerouac's on the road and then the Norton Anthology for black literature---particularly its section on hip hop, then tell me they strive toward the same end.

hip hop is a social pariah, feeding on misogyny, the glorification of drug dealers, and a provocative sexual imagery. it offers nothing beyond a four-minute cheap-listening thrill and soils far more minds that has a domino effect socially. in the area of tort law, courts use what's known as reasonable person standard. and the reasonable person can be applied to defining such defiant modes of expression.

lastly, this argument about works of art that were early on banned or rejected by the public only later to be deemed great just doesn't resonate anymore to give free license to a hip hop industry that thrives on controversy. to sit there and suggest that hip hop and gangsta rap have no negative bearing on the populous is to walk through life with a blindfold on. that's giving up under the guise of free expression.

i wonder if ghideon and abdullah would adhere to the same civil libertarian sensibility if a certain form of (white) rock music became widespread that stereotyped blacks and arabs in a hostile, negative way. i'll just take a pot shot guess how it would be dealt with: the ACLU for one would run to the courts and invoke the standard of 'fighting words' in an effort to have it banned. surely the ACLU would -- in high ghideon fashion -- point to the institution of American slavery as evidence for making the distinction between the kind of stereotyping hip hop makes and that new brand of rock music against blacks.

For the first part:

No I do not see Rap/Hip Hop as art (OT: although I have still not decided on what exactly I feel does constitute art - Is it enough that it art creates an emotion inside of us when we are exposed to it?). I agree that the wide majority shown in the mainstream media is crude & bordering on the obscene (but as has already been mentioned Rap/Hip Hop is not alone in this respect) As a result I make a concious decision not to listen to it.

However

I do not believe it should be banned just because I dont agree with, or enjoy listening to it. There would be very little left to listen to if these were the general parameters.

Right, thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

Don't generalise, its extremely fallacious.

---

Now, you said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by you

all hip hop/gangsta rap music does not do this

---

And in that, you yourself have said that not everyone in the hip hop community is a violent racist rapist like you seem to be implying.

However, you contradict that point by, oh dear, generalizing with quotes such as:

Quote:

---

i lump all the smut together.

---

Quote:

---

hip hop is a social pariah, feeding on misogyny, the glorification of drug dealers, and a provocative sexual imagery.

---

...Which are implying quite strongly that all Hip Hop is this evil you say it is. Not a good way to keep an argument together really.


Now, the white power thing. I haven't defended white power lyrics in the past, no, but I have, in line with the quote I adore, defended the BNP in a philosophy class. The BNP aren't a white power band, they are a white power political party. I think that kind of superseeds your point about me being a hypocrite (Ok, it wasn't exactly aimed at me, but the point still stands)

Oh, and I'm not even going to bother with the Ozzy Ozborne thing. I can just imagen you, when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did their little rampage in 1999, leading the protest saying it was Marilyn Manson and Rammstein and Doom that caused it. Never mind the fact the kids had an obvious history of mental problems. It just has to be Marilyn Manson and Rammstein and Doom.

shadowsarin,

for whatever reason the system is not letting me quote your series of quotes that crescendos with the pronouncement that i somehow "contradicted" myself because i suggest in one part that "all" hip hop is smut and elsewhere its not the case. i figured that smart people, presumably you included, would get the message that i was conceding that not all hip hop emulates misogyny, death to police, etc. when i also said, "Hip hop is a social pariah" i was not IMPLYING, i meant the whole ball of wax, that's correct, the industry as a whole. the hip hop that falls short of what i deem to be HIGHLY OFFENSIVE is not necessarily immune from what's OBSCENE and vile. there are gradations of obscenity and i was acknowledging that.

you suggested i used the word "evil" to describe hip hop. i don't ever use that word for reasons i'm not going to discuss in this thread. just know that that's not a good way for you to keep an argument together either.

shadowsarin said,
"Oh, and I'm not even going to bother with the Ozzy Ozborne thing. I can just imagen you, when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did their little rampage in 1999, leading the protest saying it was Marilyn Manson and Rammstein and Doom that caused it. Never mind the fact the kids had an obvious history of mental problems. It just has to be Marilyn Manson and Rammstein and Doom."

of course they had mental problems, i don't deny that. and i didn't claim that minus the musical/video influence that somehow that they wouldn't have necessarily committed that despicable act. undeniable is that manson and rammstein and doom and those video games allowed them to cultivate their aggressions. they used some games to hone their shooting skills.

let's face it, the music and video games don't contervail the aggressive tendency in human beings, it often exacerbates it. it's always easy to just say, "well they had mental problems---they were sickos, so what do you expect? but the vile music fuels hate---maybe not necessarily to the point where every such person predisposed to violence will act, but it draws on the worst attributes in human beings, and the potential for public harm is real.

Quote:

---

you suggested i used the word "evil" to describe hip hop. i don't ever use that word for reasons i'm not going to discuss in this thread. just know that that's not a good way for you to keep an argument together either.

---

However, what you are accusing Hip Hop of could be considered evil in a lot of peoples books. Its easier to write a single umbrella term than to copy out word for word what you said. Also, different words have different meanings to different people. I didn't quote you as saying it was evil so I'm hardly putting words into your mouth.

Quote:

---

let's face it, the music and video games don't contervail the aggressive tendency in human beings, it often exacerbates it. it's always easy to just say, "well they had mental problems---they were sickos, so what do you expect? but the vile music fuels hate---maybe not necessarily to the point where every such person predisposed to violence will act, but it draws on the worst attributes in human beings, and the potential for public harm is real.

---

I first watch a really violent movie when I was seven (Aliens). I first played an arcade shooting game when I was nine (Time Crisis). Since then, I have watched all manor of violence, played all manor of violence, and listened to all manor of violence.

Yet why haven't I shot up my school yet?

Or stabbed a random stranger in the streets?

How come the MILLIONS of people who play and watch and listen aren't out butchering people?

And how come there were butchers and massacres and murders and all such detestable acts before such things came along?

Oh, btw, I'm curious now, what kinds of music, if any, do you enjoy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowsarin

However, what you are accusing Hip Hop of could be considered evil in a lot of peoples books. Its easier to write a single umbrella term than to copy out word for word what you said. Also, different words have different meanings to different people. I didn't quote you as saying it was evil so I'm hardly putting words into your mouth.



I first watch a really violent movie when I was seven (Aliens). I first played an arcade shooting game when I was nine (Time Crisis). Since then, I have watched all manor of violence, played all manor of violence, and listened to all manor of violence.

Yet why haven't I shot up my school yet?

Or stabbed a random stranger in the streets?

How come the MILLIONS of people who play and watch and listen aren't out butchering people?

And how come there were butchers and massacres and murders and all such detestable acts before such things came along?

Oh, btw, I'm curious now, what kinds of music, if any, do you enjoy?

---

images of violence effect people differently---this is a widely accepted precept in psychology. in fact, only a very small segment of the population is adversely affected - and many are doing time for such - but the MILLIONS (including you) indirectly suffer when innocent people are brutally murdered, raped, or robbed.that is, if you believe in community.


here's the pile of cd's sitting on top of my stereo i listened to this week:


Emily Haines
Miles Davis
Hanelei
Wilco
Tom Waits
Laura Veirs
America
Regina Spektor
heather nova
dave matthews
enya

i like music that doesn't talk about bling bling and "throwing that thang back" and smoking "J's" and guns in' da' hood and babies wrapped in garbage bags. the music i listen to has class, that has a sense of place and often grapples with difficult questions and moreso to conditions that tie us together, not divide us. and love, but a sensual love, not the gratuitous degrading hip hop version.

Petrarch:

First off I just want to say thanks for the respect your post communicated to me even while you take issue with some of what I say. That is the one ingredient most neccesary for mature discussion. And it is not nearly evident as much as we would all desire.

Now, as to your specific points. The first paragraph in my post was the following:

Quote:

---

I would actively support any inteligent and forceful statement or act that rebukes, in no uncertain terms, the sexism/vilolence against women that is glorified in rap and hip-hop songs.

---

In your response you summarized my argument as the following:

Quote:

---

that since black men have been opressed, it's O.K. for them to sing songs about the opression of women.

---

Short of censorship, if I could come up with some way of changing this horrible component of the hip-hop/rap culture I would. I am open to any suggestions. But I never implied or stated that I thought it was ok. It is not.

Quote:

---

Aren't black women then doubly oppressed?

---

You must have read my mind because just last night, after reading some posts and writing one, that is exactly what I thought of. I imagine black women are in an extraordinarily difficult position. On the one hand they are being blatantly and repeatedly disrespected, made fun of, and made into seemingly legitimate targets of violence. On the other hand if they speak out they are open, and I bet would receive, attacks that they are on "whitey's side" and seen as traitors to their culture/race.

Quote:

---

It's not right, and I think everyone regardless of skin color has not only the moral justification, but the moral obligation to say it's nothing to sing about.

---

I agree with you 100% and admire your willingness to speak about this in no uncertain terms.

Now as regards the race and gender issue that I wrote about. Any effort that is made to try and examine the causes of different violent behaviors is too often seen as making excuses or even giving justification for the acts. And as a result we only endorse measures that deal with surface issues and do not look at the deep systemic and psychological dyanamics causing the gang wars, the abuse of women, the abuse of children, and on and on...

I wish that I could wake up tomorow to a world where nobody was ever deliberately hurt by someone else. I really do. But there is considerable work to do before we can even begin to hope for that day. Hard work. Hard because the factors involved are demanding and not open to simplistic attempts at resolution. Certainly if it was easy to end violence it would have been over a long time ago. And so, while I have no problem with people speaking very clearly that using rape as entertainment is a profound betrayal of all things humane I do not think that criticism alone will be enough to solve this or other problems. I wish it was but it is not.

I want to look at just why there is such violence in hip-hop. And I do not want glib answers. The men and women willing to actually think when they would much rather just strike out are the ones who show the deepest dedication to peace making and justice. I want those here in this discussion being those who are also willing to keep on thinking and asking hard questions even when it seems we need not or should not.

The violence in hip-hop music can not be understood unless it is also seen within certain specific contexts. It is clearly a gender issue in terms of what is causing so many men, both men of color and white men, to be violent to women, to sing about such violence, to be entertained by such violence.

It needs to be seen in a race context as well. There is a profound sense of worthlesness that I sense when I hear these songs. A need to pump up the self using guns, gold and violence because the self on its own is barely able to stand. One of the things I feel when I hear much of these songs and watch the videos are men who still are fighting off a core (you are my slave black boy) consciousness by running 1,000 miles in some other direction. They are running to some supposed place on the top of the mountain where they are the kings. It is a dream.

And because that dream is also a dream of a capitalist I dare say that we, I am talking about white people here specifically, can not stand on the side-line all the while not owning our own deep complicity in the very system that is profitting off of that mythic gold, adolescent fantasy, dream male mountain top. I read a ways back that the ones who are actually making the real real big big money, I am talking billions here, are the CEOs and top executives of the major record labels. There is no AK 47 pointed at radio stations or record executives forcing them to play these songs. No. There is, however, money and lots and lots of it. They know this. They want it and they are doing what they need inorder to get it.

(I just had a thought, want to share it, is it possible that part of what is going on in the hip-hop culture and music is the black man saying hey white folk I am beating you at your own game. Look. Now I have the gold chain and now I have the big house and now I have the limo. And is it even also possible that part of what white culture hates about this is the degree to which we do feel beaten by those we once led by chains and whips...I do not think this is going on at a level of day to day awareness but it just feels accurate in terms of deeper levels?)



The best way we can approach the problem of black male violence is by dealing with it from a point of true deep integrity. That is, that we make it clear we do not simply have a problem with the violence they are singing about. No. We stand against all acts of violence and that must include the violence that is going on in their communities as well.

This may not sound fair. It might not be. In a better world we would not have to work so hard at dealing with such blatant acts of rage and arrogance. And I also am not some (despite what jon may believe)I am not some Michael Moore Berkeley CA liberal (I live in Oakland) who would never speak bluntly to those poor, hurting African Americans. I am simply trying to de-construct what I see as the web of factors underneath the seemingly juvenile, unthinking cultural productions we are examining.

Quote:

---

i like music that doesn't talk about bling bling and "throwing that thang back" and smoking "J's" and guns in' da' hood and babies wrapped in garbage bags. the music i listen to has class, that has a sense of place and often grapples with difficult questions and moreso to conditions that tie us together, not divide us. and love, but a sensual love, not the gratuitous degrading hip hop version.

---

So, the great advocate of the absolute finally uses the words "I like..."

Jon...nobody else here repeatedly makes up lyrics. You do so again and again. I say this in honesty. It makes it all the harder to read what you say with any real seriousness.

As for "the music I listen to has class."

At this point in the thread there are probably more then a dozen posts that have already stated clearly and even with respect that your blatant arrogance is so obviously lacking in reason that I see no other conclusion except that at this point you are unable or unwilling to even look at yourself. Recall who said "Know Thy Self." hmmmm?

Is there anything that anybody could ever say and I mean this. Is there any author or govt official or priest or spiritual leader or artist or classical musician or poet who could help you finally wise up?

When you write "the music I listen to has class" you, and I mean this I am not simply writing this to get at you, it sounds just like some deeply insecure pseudo intelectual horrified that he may not be who he thinks he is. Look everybody I have class. Hah. Jon. Those who are actually quite self confident feel no need to make their personal likes into absolute truths. They feel no need to use such rhetoric inorder to shore up their ego.

You have written in praise of those who aspire to greatness. If you have any aspirations whatsoever can you please at least try to present your personal opinions as just that. Or is that simply beyond your current reach. If so then I think you too deserve a degree of understanding. Perhaps a tolerance or understanding that is presently beyond me.

Oh, I can not end just yet. You actually think that hip-hop fails to articulate a "sense of place." Can I then conclude that the songs are as accurate in their description of where you live as they might be for other areas? Violent? Yes. Sexist? Yes. But lacking in a sense of place?

At some points your writings do leave me beyond wor....