***Jay-Z and Ja Rule are in the studio***

[QUOTE="elcamino72"]

Ya that was a typo i had to edit it. It was suposed to be people that diss rap and listen to rock.

And i agree people probly do not listen to rap for its complexity. i can also see your point about how subjectivity and objectivity are clasing ideas. But objectivity is based on opinion. For instace people might find abortion morroly wrong and that is opinion, so the right for a woman to choce. You chose weather you think certain music is "good" in your own mind. People might find different things they like about music. For instace you say you listen for the lyrics. Other people might listen to it for how closly the artist has a "relashanship" with the beat(for instace when Biggie can say his own name almost right in line with the beat). Its all in the mind what is good or not.

EDIT: Thank you for not trying to pwn me in the last post.

fat_rob

Objectivty applies to morals too, but the weight of the discussion is much "deeper" and asks much tougher questions then whether music is objective. Ultimatley the objectivity is there, but it takes a lot to prove what the objective stance is and whether someones morals are in line with that objective stance.

"But objectivity is based on opinion"....uh no, objectivity is based on the empirical nature of things. Opinions can be based on those things, but it also based on likes and dislikes. Opinion can be based on objectivity, but the converse of that statement is not true.

what constitutes good and bad then? What causes objectivity? Obviously we can point outh the good and bads in socioty(george bush for instace;))liike murder and rape but how can you point out something as bad in music? Is it considerd bad when many people don't like it? Not acording to what you say. Is it bad by what the people who have more of a voice then you think? You just make more questions the more we contradict each other. If music is not based on subjectivity what is the standerd?

the million dollor question, what makes something good or bad when it comes to music (objectively of course). Whatever the described tenets of the music is determines what is good or bad. Anything that advances or improves upon those tenets can be seen in varying degrees of goodness, and things that regresses them (the tenets of the genre) can be seen as bad, and something that neither improves or impedes is seen as "alright".

Progression of things also plays heavily into this, music has progressed (and regressed) in many different ways and that progression (and regression) means that definition of good and bad changes as people get better (or worse) at doing certain things. Ultimately something is good or bad, but things can be "good for the time period that it was in".

And no, just because many people consider something to be bad doesn't mean that it is bad. Popular vote as no bearing on empirical things...

And no, just because many people consider something to be bad doesn't mean that it is bad. Popular vote as no bearing on empirical things...

fat_rob

the million dollor question, what makes something good or bad when it comes to music (objectively of course). Whatever the described tenets of the music is determines what is good or bad. Anything that advances or improves upon those tenets can be seen in varying degrees of goodness, and things that regresses them (the tenets of the genre) can be seen as bad, and something that neither improves or impedes is seen as "alright".

Progression of things also plays heavily into this, music has progressed (and regressed) in many different ways and that progression (and regression) means that definition of good and bad changes as people get better (or worse) at doing certain things. Ultimately something is good or bad, but things can be "good for the time period that it was in".

And no, just because many people consider something to be bad doesn't mean that it is bad. Popular vote as no bearing on empirical things...

fat_rob

I think that put the nail in the coffin.

[QUOTE="fat_rob"]

And no, just because many people consider something to be bad doesn't mean that it is bad. Popular vote as no bearing on empirical things...

Aljosa23

that was unneccesary

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"][QUOTE="fat_rob"]

And no, just because many people consider something to be bad doesn't mean that it is bad. Popular vote as no bearing on empirical things...

elcamino72

that was unneccesary

[QUOTE="elcamino72"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"][QUOTE="fat_rob"]

And no, just because many people consider something to be bad doesn't mean that it is bad. Popular vote as no bearing on empirical things...

Aljosa23

that was unneccesary

Its the high altiude.

"Ja's lack of lyricism, weak content, awful flow, wanna be melodic voice, and pointless (and repetitive) song messages clash with his decent hook writing ability."

are you telling me this is objective? how is ja, or anyone for that matter, bad or good objectively? i really dont see how this doesn't stem right back to subjectivity. to say someone is bad, you must be basing that statement on something right? you cant have an objective viewpoint unless you specify a certain standard. and youre acting like there actually is a universal standard that rappers are measured by which then consequently determines them as 'good', 'average' or 'bad' etc. The statement Ja is wack is not true, nor is it false because you havnt given a specification as to what he is wack at. to say ja is wack as a rapper is like saying van gough is wack as an artist (and by no means am i saying ja is the equivalent of van gough musically lol). van gough is not terrible as an artist. if you wanted to make that argument, youd have to say it like this - 'van gough is terrible at a certain form of art.' nothing has meaning until you give it meaning. ja is wack. based on what? even if you are basing it on something, does that make it true? for that basis yes, but as soon as you apply a different basis your argument goes out the window. 'Ja has weak content'. What constitutes good content? Do you mean Jas content isn't very diverse? Then yes that would be true, but that is totally different to saying he has weak content. It is not set in stone, it is not a fact that good content is measured by its diversity or creativity or whatever the case may be. Do you see where im going with this?

"Ja's lack of lyricism, weak content, awful flow, wanna be melodic voice, and pointless (and repetitive) song messages clash with his decent hook writing ability."

are you telling me this is objective? how is ja, or anyone for that matter, bad or good objectively? i really dont see how this doesn't stem right back to subjectivity. to say someone is bad, you must be basing that statement on something right? you cant have an objective viewpoint unless you specify a certain standard. and youre acting like there actually is a universal standard that rappers are measured by which then consequently determines them as 'good', 'average' or 'bad' etc. The statement Ja is wack is not true, nor is it false because you havnt given a specification as to what he is wack at. to say ja is wack as a rapper is like saying van gough is wack as an artist (and by no means am i saying ja is the equivalent of van gough musically lol). van gough is not terrible as an artist. if you wanted to make that argument, youd have to say it like this - 'van gough is terrible at a certain form of art.' nothing has meaning until you give it meaning. ja is wack. based on what? even if you are basing it on something, does that make it true? for that basis yes, but as soon as you apply a different basis your argument goes out the window. 'Ja has weak content'. What constitutes good content? Do you mean Jas content isn't very diverse? Then yes that would be true, but that is totally different to saying he has weak content. It is not set in stone, it is not a fact that good content is measured by its diversity or creativity or whatever the case may be. Do you see where im going with this?

pledgemurda

Pledge came hard with that post. Reply Rob...

"Ja's lack of lyricism, weak content, awful flow, wanna be melodic voice, and pointless (and repetitive) song messages clash with his decent hook writing ability."

are you telling me this is objective? how is ja, or anyone for that matter, bad or good objectively? i really dont see how this doesn't stem right back to subjectivity. to say someone is bad, you must be basing that statement on something right? you cant have an objective viewpoint unless you specify a certain standard. and youre acting like there actually is a universal standard that rappers are measured by which then consequently determines them as 'good', 'average' or 'bad' etc. The statement Ja is wack is not true, nor is it false because you havnt given a specification as to what he is wack at. to say ja is wack as a rapper is like saying van gough is wack as an artist (and by no means am i saying ja is the equivalent of van gough musically lol). van gough is not terrible as an artist. if you wanted to make that argument, youd have to say it like this - 'van gough is terrible at a certain form of art.' nothing has meaning until you give it meaning. ja is wack. based on what? even if you are basing it on something, does that make it true? for that basis yes, but as soon as you apply a different basis your argument goes out the window. 'Ja has weak content'. What constitutes good content? Do you mean Jas content isn't very diverse? Then yes that would be true, but that is totally different to saying he has weak content. It is not set in stone, it is not a fact that good content is measured by its diversity or creativity or whatever the case may be. Do you see where im going with this?

pledgemurda

As far as the van gough argument, painting and visual arts have very defined principals...if I wanted to say van gough was a good or bad artist, I would have VERY LITTLE problem doing so if I was well versed in the pricipals of visual art (which I am not).

[QUOTE="pledgemurda"]

"Ja's lack of lyricism, weak content, awful flow, wanna be melodic voice, and pointless (and repetitive) song messages clash with his decent hook writing ability."

are you telling me this is objective? how is ja, or anyone for that matter, bad or good objectively? i really dont see how this doesn't stem right back to subjectivity. to say someone is bad, you must be basing that statement on something right? you cant have an objective viewpoint unless you specify a certain standard. and youre acting like there actually is a universal standard that rappers are measured by which then consequently determines them as 'good', 'average' or 'bad' etc. The statement Ja is wack is not true, nor is it false because you havnt given a specification as to what he is wack at. to say ja is wack as a rapper is like saying van gough is wack as an artist (and by no means am i saying ja is the equivalent of van gough musically lol). van gough is not terrible as an artist. if you wanted to make that argument, youd have to say it like this - 'van gough is terrible at a certain form of art.' nothing has meaning until you give it meaning. ja is wack. based on what? even if you are basing it on something, does that make it true? for that basis yes, but as soon as you apply a different basis your argument goes out the window. 'Ja has weak content'. What constitutes good content? Do you mean Jas content isn't very diverse? Then yes that would be true, but that is totally different to saying he has weak content. It is not set in stone, it is not a fact that good content is measured by its diversity or creativity or whatever the case may be. Do you see where im going with this?

fat_rob

As far as the van gough argument, painting and visual arts have very defined principals...if I wanted to say van gough was a good or bad artist, I would have VERY LITTLE problem doing so if I was well versed in the pricipals of visual art (which I am not).

Ownage statement. I think its over...Rob = the best debater of OTB.

[QUOTE="pledgemurda"]

"Ja's lack of lyricism, weak content, awful flow, wanna be melodic voice, and pointless (and repetitive) song messages clash with his decent hook writing ability."

are you telling me this is objective? how is ja, or anyone for that matter, bad or good objectively? i really dont see how this doesn't stem right back to subjectivity. to say someone is bad, you must be basing that statement on something right? you cant have an objective viewpoint unless you specify a certain standard. and youre acting like there actually is a universal standard that rappers are measured by which then consequently determines them as 'good', 'average' or 'bad' etc. The statement Ja is wack is not true, nor is it false because you havnt given a specification as to what he is wack at. to say ja is wack as a rapper is like saying van gough is wack as an artist (and by no means am i saying ja is the equivalent of van gough musically lol). van gough is not terrible as an artist. if you wanted to make that argument, youd have to say it like this - 'van gough is terrible at a certain form of art.' nothing has meaning until you give it meaning. ja is wack. based on what? even if you are basing it on something, does that make it true? for that basis yes, but as soon as you apply a different basis your argument goes out the window. 'Ja has weak content'. What constitutes good content? Do you mean Jas content isn't very diverse? Then yes that would be true, but that is totally different to saying he has weak content. It is not set in stone, it is not a fact that good content is measured by its diversity or creativity or whatever the case may be. Do you see where im going with this?

fat_rob

As far as the van gough argument, painting and visual arts have very defined principals...if I wanted to say van gough was a good or bad artist, I would have VERY LITTLE problem doing so if I was well versed in the pricipals of visual art (which I am not).

but see, saying content is weak based on intelligence is applying a basis. without that basis of intelligence, saying a rappers content is weak full stop, could mean a number of things. saying the topics rappers discuss are unintelligent, is traced right back to your own intelligence. the average person in the hood might think someone like nas is smart, but someone who is fully educated might think hes stupid. you could then make that argument for everyone, cos there will always be someone who is smarter than you in certain aspects. would that make you stupid or 'weak', simply because there are people who are much more intelligent than you? is it right to say the things rappers talk about are 'weak' then? maybe for someone who is fully educated, but then this judgement comes right back to the individual person and how they were brought up etc. things will differ from person to person. subjectivity. who is right? simply saying ja is wack doesnt cut it, its such a loose term and really doesnt mean anything. id like to see you 'measure' flow as well, and 'measure' the impact lyrics can have on someone while youre at it.

I'll answer the rest of your post some other time, but as for flow, I defer to one of the best rappers (flow wise) in the industry...tonedeff...F.N.S (Flow Notation System)

I'll answer the rest of your post some other time, but as for flow, I defer to one of the best rappers (flow wise) in the industry...tonedeff...F.N.S (Flow Notation System)

fat_rob

how did i know youd bring this site up... LOL. this is just what a certain person/s think is the ideal flow. i can make up one of these sites too, and then say 'this is how flow is measured and it should be done like this in order to have a perfect flow'. lol, its ridiculous. rapping was formed in the streets, there is no one reference that is the god of all references that determines what is, and what isnt. i mean damn, if youre going by things like this to tell you what to think then we might as well stop this little debate. There are people out there that like to break this down into a science and say "oh yeh, this is how it should be, the best flow is when it matches the kick and the snare at this time, and yeah every fourth bar is a 'power line'." blah blah blah. which is cool, im not dissing them for that, cos thats how they personally would like to rate a rapper or it just does something for them..who knows. but cmon man...really.

Anybody can come up with any system and claim it's legit, you maybe able to come up with a system, but what are you drawing your knowledge from? Tonedeff is one of the best rappers from a flow standpoint. Not only that, but saying "rapping was formed in the streets" does not dicredit tonedeff's system, which I only found out about this morning and am using it to show you that there are concepts of flow that are objective. Whether you like them or not is subjective, but the idea of flowing to a beat depends largely on the timing of matching rhymes with kicks and snares...how about this...you find a flow that doesn't match tonedeff's system and is generally considered a good flow. Simply saying ":lol: this is ridiculous" doesn't prove anything.

The system isn't even used as "this is how you get perfect flow" type of system anyway, it just allows rappers to visualize their flow, so their words they are writing matches the beat...it makes no attempt to say that a certain type of flow is the "perfect flow"...now, how is that even a bad thing or "ridiculous" in anyway...keeping your lyrics on beat is a central to having a good flow....the fact that you think is "ridiculous" shows you don't even understand the intent and why it is an insanely good thing...and I'm sure you didn't even read the page.

Just my opinion...

Breaking down rap mathematically or scientifically or whatever is just plain stupid. Music is made to entertain and spread beliefs or ideas. If you like the way something sounds, then listen to it. If you don't, then don't listen to it. You can justify how something is wack anyway you want, but the music is still going to appeal to the same people. It all depends on taste. Even if Ja is proved to be wack by whatever standard, the people who like his music, are still going to like it. Its natural, whatever proof you put out on the table is not capable of changing people's tastes. Its just like food. You can love beans, and people can tell you that beans are bad. But you will still like beans.

Just my opinion...

Breaking down rap mathematically or scientifically or whatever is just plain stupid. Music is made to entertain and spread beliefs or ideas. If you like the way something sounds, then listen to it. If you don't, then don't listen to it. You can justify how something is wack anyway you want, but the music is still going to appeal to the same people. It all depends on taste. Even if Ja is proved to be wack by whatever standard, the people who like his music, are still going to like it. Its natural, whatever proof you put out on the table is not capable of changing people's tastes. Its just like food. You can love beans, and people can tell you that beans are bad. But you will still like beans.

elpooz