Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop?

Moderators: ken6199, Dirk, Domejandro, zimpy27, bwgood77, BombsquadSammy, Yuri Vaultin, PockyCandy, Prez

Are 90's Fans Killing Hip Hop?

Yes
6
10%
No, Shaq is
53
90%
 
Total votes: 59

freethedevil
Analyst
Posts: 3,598
And1: 1,893
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#241 » by freethedevil » Wed Oct 9, 2019 7:25 am

Funcrusher wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
Funcrusher wrote:
Yes, you quoted two songs. Everything else you said here is bull.



Nonsense. The instrumental isn't a **** standalone piece, it doesn't have to carry the narrative on it's own, it's giving the narrative, i.e. lyrics, an ambience, that's not salad dressing :banghead: And again, Instrumentals that are a narrative unto themselves did not begin with TPAB, so stop with this unprecedented crap. But even if it was, that wouldn't diminish the value of past eras, you're making the assumption that producing something "unprecedented," is equivalent to reaching the apex of that medium. And quite frankly, scrutinizing music to such a clinical degree is just lame and unproductive, and betrays the whole point of said music. Music is made to be understood yes, and dissected, but ultimately it has to strike a chord that extends beyond conscious thought. This fallacy that more extensive detail = it's doing more is wrong and yes, elitist. If both songs resonate with me why the **** should I care that one is a more all around extensive piece.



Complete nonsense, again. What does it do that Kendrick doesn't do? Well it's infinitely more dense lyrically, and yes that matters to me more than "cinematography" and "syncopathic instrumentals." And really, I don't care if an entire album has more technical elements than one song, and again, that doesn't equate to it "doing more," because doing more isn't weighted on the individual parts, it's weighted on the whole, and there's no objective definition of doing more. But keep digging your own grave, fam, and talk to me like you are the all knowing arbiter on innovative music.

1. Literally said:
the poem acts as an allegory for the album as a whole

Notice, how I'm contextualizing it with reference to the album? :o

Literal bull if you can't read.

2.You can bang your head all you want, but it's only "nonsense" if we ignore this is a comparison., One song's ambiance only serves as ambiance, The other song's ambiance is able to have an impact outside of mere "ambiance". It is not "nonsense" fo rme to favor a song which is able to do more with it's salad dressing than another's. No it doesn't have to do anything, but it's being compared to a song that does it anyway, so it's perferctly fair for me to give credit that does more anyway and not give credit to the song which doesn't do that. What part of this is "nonsense" outside of you being pretentious about it? And f off, if you can scrutitize the math of how many rymes a lyric rhymes with another one, I'm more than free to scrutinize the instrumentals since they are a featured aspect of the track.

Also, the "unprecedented" comes from the combination of elements. Nothing is unprecedented really if we just break down singular elements. The apex is reached when you combine the different elements. TPAB is not the first album to use instruments narratively. It is the first album to combine steady layering with drastic jumps in layering AND use a variety of vocal sounds to represent different characters, AND use a hoe as a metaphor for America AND mix drastically different lyrical styles AND make use extensive set of silence to offer a carthasis AND base its ultimate payoff on the set up of onomonopia which itself ties itself to a meta poem allegory which itself is tied to an instrumental crescendo that itself progresses itself in way akin to the progression of the metaphor that is used as an allegory for the album. If what i just said isn't unprecedented, no song in the history of music has been "unprecedented". It takes storytelling to extreme lengths, instruments to extreme lengths, and lyrics to extreme lengths whiile, when it makes sense for its story, maintaining strong lyrical complexity. And it has done all that while mantaining high level execution. It's an album that aims for the moon and lands and hence I consider it well above albums that are able to land much shorter jumps. If you aren't impressed, that's your perogative, but acting like it's somehow not "unprecedeted" is hilarious. It's like space oddyssey isn't unique because we've already seen movies where they have scenes which a bunch of colors.


3. And if lyrical density is your criteria for hip hop, you're welcome to it, but to say this implies i don't know about hip hop is beyond hilarious. I don't know less because I don't care so much about how dense something is. Sensity only matters to me if it goes somewhere. Kendrick's album isn't lyrically dense, but when looked at holitically is far more "dense" and complex than the song you linked. I also don't know why you cherrypicked two elements when i listed several
-> narratively significant diversity of lyrical structure
-> narratively significant diversity of instrumentation
-> narratively significant diversity of vocal delivery
-> well executed use of multiple different characters
-> narratively significant use of various metaphors, motifs
-> narratively significant use of a meta
-> meaningful variation in the pace of instrumentation and lyrics

I care for lyrical complexity when it acheives something. And hence, imo, connecting back to my pretenious stance, modern music's greater emphasis and capacity on storytelling, wider range and instrumental versatility gives it's greatest products an edge over the great products of earlier eras. That's as valid of an opinion as your "everything's equal cause i say so".

Regardless, as there's a wider talent pool of musicians to draw from now, and a wider history of music for them to draw from, I do expect thoseat the top to be better logically then the top of prior eras.


What I do find hilarious is when people prop up the 90's because of lyrical density being more frquent. And hence I responded accordingly, I think it's silly and pointless. But at least I don't go around questioning people's knowledge because i don't like their criteria

1. Literally said:
the poem acts as an allegory for the album as a whole

Notice, how I'm contextualizing it with reference to the album? :o


Wow, that's so much contextualization, saying the poem acts as an allegory for the album without even **** posting the album or going any further in depth really proves your point :roll:

2.You can bang your head all you want, but it's only "nonsense" if we ignore this is a comparison., One song's ambiance only serves as ambiance, The other song's ambiance is able to have an impact outside of mere "ambiance". It is not "nonsense" fo rme to favor a song which is able to do more with it's salad dressing than another's. No it doesn't have to do anything, but it's being compared to a song that does it anyway, so it's perferctly fair for me to give credit that does more anyway and not give credit to the song which doesn't do that. What part of this is "nonsense" outside of you being pretentious about it? And f off, if you can scrutitize the math of how many rymes a lyric rhymes with another one, I'm more than free to scrutinize the instrumentals since they are a featured aspect of the track.


No, it's **** stupid and it's not doing more, for the umpteenth time. You are assigning made up values for what the instrumentals accomplish, ambiance can be just as **** important as actively establishing a narrative, especially since as I've said many times, IT'S NOT ACTING AS A STANDALONE PIECE. King Kunta is basically all instrumental, so of course it's going to carry the song by itself, that's not groundbreaking or unprecedented. And I don't care if you assign more credit to one song over the other, you can feel any **** way you want. But don't act like the victim when you are literally pushing your opinion as fact down everyone's throats, just to flex and say, "HiP HOp wASn'T bETteR iN pASt EraS" Yes, I can bang my head all i want, and don't tell me to **** off when you are the one talking out of your ass. Did I ever say i was scrutinizing the lyrical density of Aesop? I said it was something he did that was "unprecendented" compared to Kendrick, I didn't say that makes his music superior and that he's "doing more"

3. And if lyrical density is your criteria for hip hop, you're welcome to it, but to say this implies i don't know about hip hop is beyond hilarious. I don't know less because I don't care so much about how dense something is. Sensity only matters to me if it goes somewhere. Kendrick's album isn't lyrically dense, but when looked at holitically is far more "dense" and complex than the song you linked. I also don't know why you cherrypicked two elements when i listed several
-> narratively significant diversity of lyrical structure
-> narratively significant diversity of instrumentation
-> narratively significant diversity of vocal delivery
-> well executed use of multiple different characters
-> narratively significant use of various metaphors, motifs
-> narratively significant use of a meta
-> meaningful variation in the pace of instrumentation and lyrics

1) I never said lyrical density is my criteria for hip hop. This is an argument you've invented entirely on your own
2) Most everything you claim Kendrick did Aesop did, and in one song no less.

I care for lyrical complexity when it acheives something. And hence, imo, connecting back to my pretenious stance, modern music's greater emphasis and capacity on storytelling, wider range and instrumental versatility gives it's greatest products an edge over the great products of earlier eras. That's as valid of an opinion as your "everything's equal cause i say so".

Regardless, as there's a wider talent pool of musicians to draw from now, and a wider history of music for them to draw from, I do expect thoseat the top to be better logically then the top of prior eras.


What I do find hilarious is when people prop up the 90's because of lyrical density being more frquent. And hence I responded accordingly, I think it's silly and pointless. But at least I don't go around questioning people's knowledge because i don't like their criteria

:lol: you really think modern music has evolved past previous generations? You realize how absurd that sounds, right? And way to compress my argument into something as shallow as "everything's equal cause i say so," i'd like to return the favor, because everything you've said basically boils down to, "today's music is better cause i say so." I fail to see how KL's music puts a greater emphasis and capacity on storytelling than AR because he changes his **** delivery, please explain to me how that makes any sense, and again, instrumental versatility doesn't mean the instrumentals are actually doing more or serve a greater purpose. That's false equivalency 101.

And i never said the 90s are superior to current music because "lyrical density." Don't put words in my mouth, man. I'm not questioning your knowledge, i'm questioning your arrogance and dick wagging. Pretending to be above everyone else in regards to musical preference is pathetic.

You literally said me talking about **** you don't consider indicates i lack in knowledge, get off your high horse already.'

2. I don't know how you keep missing the point. Aesop's instrumental is ambiance? Cool, SO is kenrick's. It works just as well, probably better as ambiance(as it accelerates and decellerates according to the stakes of what's in the lyrics), it ALSO is able to introduce unique story elements and is able to this both in lyric heavy songs in the album and lyrically empty ones. So keep banging your head, my criterion is no more nonsensical. One's instrumentals can dunk, the other's instrumentals can dunk better while running the offence. You don't like my criteria, great, as I've been consistent and made clear what my criteria is, you whining about the arrogance of my stance means nothing to me. "Everything is subjective" if you don't offer clear criteria. I have, and so I can objectively grade songs according to it. You dont' like it< whatever, I'm fully free to make "objective" judgements based on it.


3. Accept that as I've outlined, aesop's song does none of the things i listed to the extent kendrick does and is outright missing elements altogether(like meaningful variation in vocal delivery), but off course you missed that because when I explained the difference bewteen their instrumenrals all your response was like
1. I don't care
2. Syncopathic sounds! Lol that indicates you don't know.

Saying that aesop does all the things i listed for kendrick is the equivalent of me saying kendrick's rhymes are as complex as aesop. If you can list an album that is able to do all these things that kendrick's does, go ahead. but your songs don't even come close, hence why you've turned to "okay but who cares."


4. It sounds absurd if you can't logic i guess, but the most basic application of logic would tell you that as something gets more extensive and varied contribution and a wider sample of prior knowledge to inform future choices, it would grow. Hence why equating "90's music was better than modern music" and "Modern music is better" is a false equivalency.

And honestly I'm amused you feel emboldened because you've neglected to take a stance. "Look at me, I'm not taking sides, there fore i'm above this pettiness". You're welcome to not take a side, but you choosing not to have an opinion doesn't suddenly make your posts worthy of a "ding ding ding" and people who actually offer opinions and reasoning as petty or arrogant.
User avatar
Funcrusher
Veteran
Posts: 2,625
And1: 3,149
Joined: Apr 14, 2017
Location: Stolen from Africa
     

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#242 » by Funcrusher » Wed Oct 9, 2019 8:11 am

freethedevil wrote:
Funcrusher wrote:
freethedevil wrote:1. Literally said:
the poem acts as an allegory for the album as a whole

Notice, how I'm contextualizing it with reference to the album? :o

Literal bull if you can't read.

2.You can bang your head all you want, but it's only "nonsense" if we ignore this is a comparison., One song's ambiance only serves as ambiance, The other song's ambiance is able to have an impact outside of mere "ambiance". It is not "nonsense" fo rme to favor a song which is able to do more with it's salad dressing than another's. No it doesn't have to do anything, but it's being compared to a song that does it anyway, so it's perferctly fair for me to give credit that does more anyway and not give credit to the song which doesn't do that. What part of this is "nonsense" outside of you being pretentious about it? And f off, if you can scrutitize the math of how many rymes a lyric rhymes with another one, I'm more than free to scrutinize the instrumentals since they are a featured aspect of the track.

Also, the "unprecedented" comes from the combination of elements. Nothing is unprecedented really if we just break down singular elements. The apex is reached when you combine the different elements. TPAB is not the first album to use instruments narratively. It is the first album to combine steady layering with drastic jumps in layering AND use a variety of vocal sounds to represent different characters, AND use a hoe as a metaphor for America AND mix drastically different lyrical styles AND make use extensive set of silence to offer a carthasis AND base its ultimate payoff on the set up of onomonopia which itself ties itself to a meta poem allegory which itself is tied to an instrumental crescendo that itself progresses itself in way akin to the progression of the metaphor that is used as an allegory for the album. If what i just said isn't unprecedented, no song in the history of music has been "unprecedented". It takes storytelling to extreme lengths, instruments to extreme lengths, and lyrics to extreme lengths whiile, when it makes sense for its story, maintaining strong lyrical complexity. And it has done all that while mantaining high level execution. It's an album that aims for the moon and lands and hence I consider it well above albums that are able to land much shorter jumps. If you aren't impressed, that's your perogative, but acting like it's somehow not "unprecedeted" is hilarious. It's like space oddyssey isn't unique because we've already seen movies where they have scenes which a bunch of colors.


3. And if lyrical density is your criteria for hip hop, you're welcome to it, but to say this implies i don't know about hip hop is beyond hilarious. I don't know less because I don't care so much about how dense something is. Sensity only matters to me if it goes somewhere. Kendrick's album isn't lyrically dense, but when looked at holitically is far more "dense" and complex than the song you linked. I also don't know why you cherrypicked two elements when i listed several
-> narratively significant diversity of lyrical structure
-> narratively significant diversity of instrumentation
-> narratively significant diversity of vocal delivery
-> well executed use of multiple different characters
-> narratively significant use of various metaphors, motifs
-> narratively significant use of a meta
-> meaningful variation in the pace of instrumentation and lyrics

I care for lyrical complexity when it acheives something. And hence, imo, connecting back to my pretenious stance, modern music's greater emphasis and capacity on storytelling, wider range and instrumental versatility gives it's greatest products an edge over the great products of earlier eras. That's as valid of an opinion as your "everything's equal cause i say so".

Regardless, as there's a wider talent pool of musicians to draw from now, and a wider history of music for them to draw from, I do expect thoseat the top to be better logically then the top of prior eras.


What I do find hilarious is when people prop up the 90's because of lyrical density being more frquent. And hence I responded accordingly, I think it's silly and pointless. But at least I don't go around questioning people's knowledge because i don't like their criteria

1. Literally said:
the poem acts as an allegory for the album as a whole

Notice, how I'm contextualizing it with reference to the album? :o


Wow, that's so much contextualization, saying the poem acts as an allegory for the album without even **** posting the album or going any further in depth really proves your point :roll:

2.You can bang your head all you want, but it's only "nonsense" if we ignore this is a comparison., One song's ambiance only serves as ambiance, The other song's ambiance is able to have an impact outside of mere "ambiance". It is not "nonsense" fo rme to favor a song which is able to do more with it's salad dressing than another's. No it doesn't have to do anything, but it's being compared to a song that does it anyway, so it's perferctly fair for me to give credit that does more anyway and not give credit to the song which doesn't do that. What part of this is "nonsense" outside of you being pretentious about it? And f off, if you can scrutitize the math of how many rymes a lyric rhymes with another one, I'm more than free to scrutinize the instrumentals since they are a featured aspect of the track.


No, it's **** stupid and it's not doing more, for the umpteenth time. You are assigning made up values for what the instrumentals accomplish, ambiance can be just as **** important as actively establishing a narrative, especially since as I've said many times, IT'S NOT ACTING AS A STANDALONE PIECE. King Kunta is basically all instrumental, so of course it's going to carry the song by itself, that's not groundbreaking or unprecedented. And I don't care if you assign more credit to one song over the other, you can feel any **** way you want. But don't act like the victim when you are literally pushing your opinion as fact down everyone's throats, just to flex and say, "HiP HOp wASn'T bETteR iN pASt EraS" Yes, I can bang my head all i want, and don't tell me to **** off when you are the one talking out of your ass. Did I ever say i was scrutinizing the lyrical density of Aesop? I said it was something he did that was "unprecendented" compared to Kendrick, I didn't say that makes his music superior and that he's "doing more"

3. And if lyrical density is your criteria for hip hop, you're welcome to it, but to say this implies i don't know about hip hop is beyond hilarious. I don't know less because I don't care so much about how dense something is. Sensity only matters to me if it goes somewhere. Kendrick's album isn't lyrically dense, but when looked at holitically is far more "dense" and complex than the song you linked. I also don't know why you cherrypicked two elements when i listed several
-> narratively significant diversity of lyrical structure
-> narratively significant diversity of instrumentation
-> narratively significant diversity of vocal delivery
-> well executed use of multiple different characters
-> narratively significant use of various metaphors, motifs
-> narratively significant use of a meta
-> meaningful variation in the pace of instrumentation and lyrics

1) I never said lyrical density is my criteria for hip hop. This is an argument you've invented entirely on your own
2) Most everything you claim Kendrick did Aesop did, and in one song no less.

I care for lyrical complexity when it acheives something. And hence, imo, connecting back to my pretenious stance, modern music's greater emphasis and capacity on storytelling, wider range and instrumental versatility gives it's greatest products an edge over the great products of earlier eras. That's as valid of an opinion as your "everything's equal cause i say so".

Regardless, as there's a wider talent pool of musicians to draw from now, and a wider history of music for them to draw from, I do expect thoseat the top to be better logically then the top of prior eras.


What I do find hilarious is when people prop up the 90's because of lyrical density being more frquent. And hence I responded accordingly, I think it's silly and pointless. But at least I don't go around questioning people's knowledge because i don't like their criteria

:lol: you really think modern music has evolved past previous generations? You realize how absurd that sounds, right? And way to compress my argument into something as shallow as "everything's equal cause i say so," i'd like to return the favor, because everything you've said basically boils down to, "today's music is better cause i say so." I fail to see how KL's music puts a greater emphasis and capacity on storytelling than AR because he changes his **** delivery, please explain to me how that makes any sense, and again, instrumental versatility doesn't mean the instrumentals are actually doing more or serve a greater purpose. That's false equivalency 101.

And i never said the 90s are superior to current music because "lyrical density." Don't put words in my mouth, man. I'm not questioning your knowledge, i'm questioning your arrogance and dick wagging. Pretending to be above everyone else in regards to musical preference is pathetic.

You literally said me talking about **** you don't consider indicates i lack in knowledge, get off your high horse already.'

2. I don't know how you keep missing the point. Aesop's instrumental is ambiance? Cool, SO is kenrick's. It works just as well, probably better as ambiance(as it accelerates and decellerates according to the stakes of what's in the lyrics), it ALSO is able to introduce unique story elements and is able to this both in lyric heavy songs in the album and lyrically empty ones. So keep banging your head, my criterion is no more nonsensical. One's instrumentals can dunk, the other's instrumentals can dunk better while running the offence. You don't like my criteria, great, as I've been consistent and made clear what my criteria is, you whining about the arrogance of my stance means nothing to me. "Everything is subjective" if you don't offer clear criteria. I have, and so I can objectively grade songs according to it. You dont' like it< whatever, I'm fully free to make "objective" judgements based on it.


3. Accept that as I've outlined, aesop's song does none of the things i listed to the extent kendrick does and is outright missing elements altogether(like meaningful variation in vocal delivery), but off course you missed that because when I explained the difference bewteen their instrumenrals all your response was like
1. I don't care
2. Syncopathic sounds! Lol that indicates you don't know.

Saying that aesop does all the things i listed for kendrick is the equivalent of me saying kendrick's rhymes are as complex as aesop. If you can list an album that is able to do all these things that kendrick's does, go ahead. but your songs don't even come close, hence why you've turned to
"okay but who cares."

1. I said that because you claimed Kendrick's music was factually superior, and listed a bunch of garbage to support your claim. I firmly stand by what I said.

2. I don't care about your criteria. You can feel any way you want, that's not the issue. The issue is your dick wagging attitude, the issue is creating this thread to make some cockamamie statement about music evolving, that's the issue. You're strawmaning by claiming my argument boils down to "everything is subjective," my argument is that one instrumental doing two different things isn't objectively better than an instrumental doing one specific thing, especially when both instrumentals serve different purposes and accompany different songs. You can keep going with the same trash argument but i will keep saying it is a false equivalence. You're not the adult in the room, by any stretch of the imagination. And again, you can have your criteria, I can readily respect your opinion without the dickwagging, but having a criteria based on made up values isn't any better than having no criteria at all as you claim i do (which is false, my criteria is in fact similar to yours without the pointless additives). "It works just as well, probably better as ambiance(as it accelerates and decellerates according to the stakes of what's in the lyrics)" You're going have to treat me with kid gloves and explain why that matters, why that seperates the two instrumentals as ambience, or yes, i'm still inclined to believe you are talking out of your ass.

3.No, you've outlined nothing besides the fact that Aesop doesn't change his delivery, which doesn't make Kendrick better, unless you can explain that to me like i asked in my previous post. And let's see what Aesop does and doesn't do:

1.
-> narratively significant diversity of lyrical structure

yep, Aesop does that.

2.
-> narratively significant diversity of instrumentation

no, though i don't see why this matters, at all

3.
-> narratively significant diversity of vocal delivery

already addressed and similar to 2

4.
-> well executed use of multiple different characters

Aesop does that, too

5.
-> narratively significant use of various metaphors, motifs

you serious?

6.
-> narratively significant use of a meta

Again, he does that

7.
-> meaningful variation in the pace of instrumentation and lyrics

You're just regurgitating 3 and 2 here

But sure, Aesop doesn't even "come close." :lol:
gh123 wrote:Zion lucky if he gets 18 ppg on decent efficiency. Midget big man is a no-career in NBA. Chuck being the only wonder. Zion is the next Tractor Trailer at best.
User avatar
Funcrusher
Veteran
Posts: 2,625
And1: 3,149
Joined: Apr 14, 2017
Location: Stolen from Africa
     

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#243 » by Funcrusher » Wed Oct 9, 2019 8:22 am

freethedevil wrote:
Funcrusher wrote:
freethedevil wrote:1. Literally said:
the poem acts as an allegory for the album as a whole

Notice, how I'm contextualizing it with reference to the album? :o

Literal bull if you can't read.

2.You can bang your head all you want, but it's only "nonsense" if we ignore this is a comparison., One song's ambiance only serves as ambiance, The other song's ambiance is able to have an impact outside of mere "ambiance". It is not "nonsense" fo rme to favor a song which is able to do more with it's salad dressing than another's. No it doesn't have to do anything, but it's being compared to a song that does it anyway, so it's perferctly fair for me to give credit that does more anyway and not give credit to the song which doesn't do that. What part of this is "nonsense" outside of you being pretentious about it? And f off, if you can scrutitize the math of how many rymes a lyric rhymes with another one, I'm more than free to scrutinize the instrumentals since they are a featured aspect of the track.

Also, the "unprecedented" comes from the combination of elements. Nothing is unprecedented really if we just break down singular elements. The apex is reached when you combine the different elements. TPAB is not the first album to use instruments narratively. It is the first album to combine steady layering with drastic jumps in layering AND use a variety of vocal sounds to represent different characters, AND use a hoe as a metaphor for America AND mix drastically different lyrical styles AND make use extensive set of silence to offer a carthasis AND base its ultimate payoff on the set up of onomonopia which itself ties itself to a meta poem allegory which itself is tied to an instrumental crescendo that itself progresses itself in way akin to the progression of the metaphor that is used as an allegory for the album. If what i just said isn't unprecedented, no song in the history of music has been "unprecedented". It takes storytelling to extreme lengths, instruments to extreme lengths, and lyrics to extreme lengths whiile, when it makes sense for its story, maintaining strong lyrical complexity. And it has done all that while mantaining high level execution. It's an album that aims for the moon and lands and hence I consider it well above albums that are able to land much shorter jumps. If you aren't impressed, that's your perogative, but acting like it's somehow not "unprecedeted" is hilarious. It's like space oddyssey isn't unique because we've already seen movies where they have scenes which a bunch of colors.


3. And if lyrical density is your criteria for hip hop, you're welcome to it, but to say this implies i don't know about hip hop is beyond hilarious. I don't know less because I don't care so much about how dense something is. Sensity only matters to me if it goes somewhere. Kendrick's album isn't lyrically dense, but when looked at holitically is far more "dense" and complex than the song you linked. I also don't know why you cherrypicked two elements when i listed several
-> narratively significant diversity of lyrical structure
-> narratively significant diversity of instrumentation
-> narratively significant diversity of vocal delivery
-> well executed use of multiple different characters
-> narratively significant use of various metaphors, motifs
-> narratively significant use of a meta
-> meaningful variation in the pace of instrumentation and lyrics

I care for lyrical complexity when it acheives something. And hence, imo, connecting back to my pretenious stance, modern music's greater emphasis and capacity on storytelling, wider range and instrumental versatility gives it's greatest products an edge over the great products of earlier eras. That's as valid of an opinion as your "everything's equal cause i say so".

Regardless, as there's a wider talent pool of musicians to draw from now, and a wider history of music for them to draw from, I do expect thoseat the top to be better logically then the top of prior eras.


What I do find hilarious is when people prop up the 90's because of lyrical density being more frquent. And hence I responded accordingly, I think it's silly and pointless. But at least I don't go around questioning people's knowledge because i don't like their criteria

1. Literally said:
the poem acts as an allegory for the album as a whole

Notice, how I'm contextualizing it with reference to the album? :o


Wow, that's so much contextualization, saying the poem acts as an allegory for the album without even **** posting the album or going any further in depth really proves your point :roll:

2.You can bang your head all you want, but it's only "nonsense" if we ignore this is a comparison., One song's ambiance only serves as ambiance, The other song's ambiance is able to have an impact outside of mere "ambiance". It is not "nonsense" fo rme to favor a song which is able to do more with it's salad dressing than another's. No it doesn't have to do anything, but it's being compared to a song that does it anyway, so it's perferctly fair for me to give credit that does more anyway and not give credit to the song which doesn't do that. What part of this is "nonsense" outside of you being pretentious about it? And f off, if you can scrutitize the math of how many rymes a lyric rhymes with another one, I'm more than free to scrutinize the instrumentals since they are a featured aspect of the track.


No, it's **** stupid and it's not doing more, for the umpteenth time. You are assigning made up values for what the instrumentals accomplish, ambiance can be just as **** important as actively establishing a narrative, especially since as I've said many times, IT'S NOT ACTING AS A STANDALONE PIECE. King Kunta is basically all instrumental, so of course it's going to carry the song by itself, that's not groundbreaking or unprecedented. And I don't care if you assign more credit to one song over the other, you can feel any **** way you want. But don't act like the victim when you are literally pushing your opinion as fact down everyone's throats, just to flex and say, "HiP HOp wASn'T bETteR iN pASt EraS" Yes, I can bang my head all i want, and don't tell me to **** off when you are the one talking out of your ass. Did I ever say i was scrutinizing the lyrical density of Aesop? I said it was something he did that was "unprecendented" compared to Kendrick, I didn't say that makes his music superior and that he's "doing more"

3. And if lyrical density is your criteria for hip hop, you're welcome to it, but to say this implies i don't know about hip hop is beyond hilarious. I don't know less because I don't care so much about how dense something is. Sensity only matters to me if it goes somewhere. Kendrick's album isn't lyrically dense, but when looked at holitically is far more "dense" and complex than the song you linked. I also don't know why you cherrypicked two elements when i listed several
-> narratively significant diversity of lyrical structure
-> narratively significant diversity of instrumentation
-> narratively significant diversity of vocal delivery
-> well executed use of multiple different characters
-> narratively significant use of various metaphors, motifs
-> narratively significant use of a meta
-> meaningful variation in the pace of instrumentation and lyrics

1) I never said lyrical density is my criteria for hip hop. This is an argument you've invented entirely on your own
2) Most everything you claim Kendrick did Aesop did, and in one song no less.

I care for lyrical complexity when it acheives something. And hence, imo, connecting back to my pretenious stance, modern music's greater emphasis and capacity on storytelling, wider range and instrumental versatility gives it's greatest products an edge over the great products of earlier eras. That's as valid of an opinion as your "everything's equal cause i say so".

Regardless, as there's a wider talent pool of musicians to draw from now, and a wider history of music for them to draw from, I do expect thoseat the top to be better logically then the top of prior eras.


What I do find hilarious is when people prop up the 90's because of lyrical density being more frquent. And hence I responded accordingly, I think it's silly and pointless. But at least I don't go around questioning people's knowledge because i don't like their criteria

:lol: you really think modern music has evolved past previous generations? You realize how absurd that sounds, right? And way to compress my argument into something as shallow as "everything's equal cause i say so," i'd like to return the favor, because everything you've said basically boils down to, "today's music is better cause i say so." I fail to see how KL's music puts a greater emphasis and capacity on storytelling than AR because he changes his **** delivery, please explain to me how that makes any sense, and again, instrumental versatility doesn't mean the instrumentals are actually doing more or serve a greater purpose. That's false equivalency 101.

And i never said the 90s are superior to current music because "lyrical density." Don't put words in my mouth, man. I'm not questioning your knowledge, i'm questioning your arrogance and dick wagging. Pretending to be above everyone else in regards to musical preference is pathetic.

You literally said me talking about **** you don't consider indicates i lack in knowledge, get off your high horse already.'

2. I don't know how you keep missing the point. Aesop's instrumental is ambiance? Cool, SO is kenrick's. It works just as well, probably better as ambiance(as it accelerates and decellerates according to the stakes of what's in the lyrics), it ALSO is able to introduce unique story elements and is able to this both in lyric heavy songs in the album and lyrically empty ones. So keep banging your head, my criterion is no more nonsensical. One's instrumentals can dunk, the other's instrumentals can dunk better while running the offence. You don't like my criteria, great, as I've been consistent and made clear what my criteria is, you whining about the arrogance of my stance means nothing to me. "Everything is subjective" if you don't offer clear criteria. I have, and so I can objectively grade songs according to it. You dont' like it< whatever, I'm fully free to make "objective" judgements based on it.


3. Accept that as I've outlined, aesop's song does none of the things i listed to the extent kendrick does and is outright missing elements altogether(like meaningful variation in vocal delivery), but off course you missed that because when I explained the difference bewteen their instrumenrals all your response was like
1. I don't care
2. Syncopathic sounds! Lol that indicates you don't know.

Saying that aesop does all the things i listed for kendrick is the equivalent of me saying kendrick's rhymes are as complex as aesop. If you can list an album that is able to do all these things that kendrick's does, go ahead. but your songs don't even come close, hence why you've turned to "okay but who cares."


4. It sounds absurd if you can't logic i guess, but the most basic application of logic would tell you that as something gets more extensive and varied contribution and a wider sample of prior knowledge to inform future choices, it would grow. Hence why equating "90's music was better than modern music" and "Modern music is better" is a false equivalency.

And honestly I'm amused you feel emboldened because you've neglected to take a stance. "Look at me, I'm not taking sides, there fore i'm above this pettiness". You're welcome to not take a side, but you choosing not to have an opinion doesn't suddenly make your posts worthy of a "ding ding ding" and people who actually offer opinions and reasoning as petty or arrogant.

I'd rather not take a side than spout uneducated crap and label it educated because you feel obligated to be opinionated. You're embarrassing yourself with this pseudo-knowledge drivel. And I'm glad you feel amused, that's exactly what i was going for :)
gh123 wrote:Zion lucky if he gets 18 ppg on decent efficiency. Midget big man is a no-career in NBA. Chuck being the only wonder. Zion is the next Tractor Trailer at best.
User avatar
liamliam1234
Junior
Posts: 448
And1: 409
Joined: Jul 24, 2019
         

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#244 » by liamliam1234 » Wed Oct 9, 2019 8:43 am

freethedevil wrote:
liamliam1234 wrote:Real storytelling and instrumental complexity peaked over a century ago with Strauss and Wagner and Verdi and Puccini and Rossini. And of course all of them arguably never even made it out of Mozart’s shadow. Tragic how true musical artistry declined so severely in the past century.

Lol what? If by "real storytelling" you mean less nuanced, less creative, and less varied, then yes. If you're talking about the elements of craft then thhat a lol worthy no.


Oh, **** right off. You have zero clue about operatic narratives, so do not pretend effing Kendrick Lamar surpassed the all-time greats because he spliced together an interview from a corpse and wrote about, “Wait, what if God was in a homeless person?”

As for "instrumental complexity", that makes sense if we use a very narrow definition of "complexity" like "lets count down how many notes/chords/key measures are used!" But when we consider the variation of elements, set up and payoff, and contrast, the most "complex" instrumental compositions of today are far more dynamic than what we'vs seen in the supposed "golden age" for such things.

THis song for example:


Is it as "complex" as mozart using your criteria? No. But it's variations are vastly more effective due to how they're used.


Oh, yeah, Mozart is in ****ing shambles, he has nothing on the ****ing Seatbelts.

Unbelievable.

Take this up with anyone with even a freshman understanding of music theory and get laughed out of the room.

Performance art trolling.

freethedevil
Analyst
Posts: 3,598
And1: 1,893
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#245 » by freethedevil » Wed Oct 9, 2019 9:27 am

liamliam1234 wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
liamliam1234 wrote:Real storytelling and instrumental complexity peaked over a century ago with Strauss and Wagner and Verdi and Puccini and Rossini. And of course all of them arguably never even made it out of Mozart’s shadow. Tragic how true musical artistry declined so severely in the past century.

Lol what? If by "real storytelling" you mean less nuanced, less creative, and less varied, then yes. If you're talking about the elements of craft then thhat a lol worthy no.


Oh, **** right off. You have zero clue about operatic narratives.

Storytelling is universal. An "operative narrative" does not suddenly escape narrative analysis because you want to use a qualifier. Please explain where this higher quality of storytelling comes from? Because there is nothing "narratively" that has been done by Mozart that has not been done by late musicians. :roll:

Oh, yeah, Mozart is in ****ing shambles, he has nothing on the ****ing Seatbelts.

I'm sorry, are you seriously citing "popularity" and reputation as an indication of quality? I suppose we should take Justin Beiber over the vast majority of professional musicians then. If you don't like the comparison, then you should actually be able to compare the contents of their songs. If you're done being incredulous we can look at the music, you know, the thing we're comparing?

What makes the higher quantity of notes present in mozart superior to sace lion's usage of it's choir. The former is denser yes, however the latter's drastic change from a sax to a choir offers a more distinct source of carthasis. Density is not an objectively superior form of quality. A simple but well timed combination of vastly distinct elements is no less sophisticated then taking a single kind of sound into a wide variety of variations.


Take this up with anyone with even a freshman understanding of music theory and get laughed out of the room.

Well that's interesting to hear, because I've taken several years of music theory, and at no point has a professor ever tried to assert that mozart is objectively superior to anything that's come since, or that what he's produced as somwhoe not been built upon in the centuries since. It seems you're trying to sound smart again, but as usual, you don't actually have any idea what you're talking about. Yes Mozart's compositions are more dense as I literally already said, thay is the one, and only thing you've said any professor worth their salt would agree with. However your assertion that density is an objective indication of quality is not something anyone has ever said in a well taught music class. Classical music is taught primarily as a baseline in music classes. It is never ever asserted that classical music need be the final form of whatever you end up making.

Ancient work is revered by the intelligent because it inspired and impacts future work, not because it is some unattainable level of craft that can't be matched or surpassed in future centuries.

The only one in shambles here would be you it seems. :(
freethedevil
Analyst
Posts: 3,598
And1: 1,893
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#246 » by freethedevil » Wed Oct 9, 2019 9:41 am

Funcrusher wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
Funcrusher wrote:

The problem is you keep accusing me of saying things I never said. Post a receipt. Spoiler: you won't, because you're just making **** up
1. I said that because you claimed Kendrick's music was factually superior, and listed a bunch of garbage to support your claim. I firmly stand by what I said.


No i did not. At no point was "factually". Or do you think objectively is synonymous with factually(it's not). If you disagree, feel free to post the receipt. Spoiler: you won't, because it doesn't exist. I shouldn't have to say "imo" for you to understand an opinion i give is an opinion.

You creaed this thread to...

To make fun of shaq, as you already have acknowledged. Again, read the OP, or literally just read your own post. The thread very clearly is making fun of shaq and people arguing shaq beat lillard with his diss. 90's vs now started with a bunch of Lol 90's better from posters too lazy to read the op.

Dick wagging became a thing when clyde tried to say he knows more about rap then me. Afterwards I quoted him ridiculing him for trying to engage in ad-hominem despite having done nothing to warrant being treated like an authority. No, it seems the only reason you have an issue with my posts is they're lengthy and offer detailed reasoning. The only one in our posts whose ever questioned someone's knowledge regarding rap was you.


And you've gone on multiple times claiming "all eras are equal" is the only valid viewpoint which is as much "dick wagging" as any one arguing one era's music was superior. Being in the middle does not make you right. But saying I've said things I haven't said makes you factually wrong.
User avatar
Funcrusher
Veteran
Posts: 2,625
And1: 3,149
Joined: Apr 14, 2017
Location: Stolen from Africa
     

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#247 » by Funcrusher » Wed Oct 9, 2019 9:51 am

freethedevil wrote:
Funcrusher wrote:
freethedevil wrote:The problem is you keep accusing me of saying things I never said. Post a receipt. Spoiler: you won't, because you're just making **** up

No i did not. At no point was "factually". Or do you think objectively is synonymous with factually(it's not). If you disagree, feel free to post the receipt. Spoiler: you won't, because it doesn't exist. I shouldn't have to say "imo" for you to understand an opinion i give is an opinion.


To make fun of shaq, as you already have acknowledged. Again, read the OP, or literally just read your own post. The thread very clearly is making fun of shaq and people arguing shaq beat lillard with his diss. 90's vs now started with a bunch of Lol 90's better from posters too lazy to read the op.

Dick wagging became a thing when clyde tried to say he knows more about rap then me. Afterwards I quoted him ridiculing him for trying to engage in ad-hominem despite having done nothing to warrant being treated like an authority. No, it seems the only reason you have an issue with my posts is they're lengthy and offer detailed reasoning. The only one in our posts whose ever questioned someone's knowledge regarding rap was you.


And you've gone on multiple times claiming "all eras are equal" is the only valid viewpoint which is as much "dick wagging" as any one arguing one era's music was superior. Being in the middle does not make you right. But saying I've said things I haven't said makes you factually wrong.

post receipts? post receipts of me ever saying or even implicitly stating that in this entire thread. post receipts of me questioning your knowledge of rap without provocation, please, I beg of you.

And the biggest receipt is the **** thread title, "Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop?" Talk your way out of that fam.
gh123 wrote:Zion lucky if he gets 18 ppg on decent efficiency. Midget big man is a no-career in NBA. Chuck being the only wonder. Zion is the next Tractor Trailer at best.
freethedevil
Analyst
Posts: 3,598
And1: 1,893
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#248 » by freethedevil » Wed Oct 9, 2019 9:56 am

gst8 wrote:It's absolutely correct that great artistry can come from any generation. Still, there are certain points of delineation you can find with regard to the evolution of any art form. A before and after affect. This is my point about Illmatic. That album changed hip-hop immediately. And not in the same sense of groups like Run DMC or NWA where rappers saw a new avenue of commercial viability. There are quotes from Nas’s contemporaries talking about literally throwing their rhyme books in the trash after hearing Illmatic because of how it raised the bar. Guys were forced to evolve out of personal pride. So, while albums like TPAB are undeniably great I really haven’t seen that same immediate effect on the art since Illmatic. That’s why it always finds itself in the GOAT album conversation and why it’s difficult to take seriously anyone that calls it unworthy of such consideration. Now excuse me, I have to go kick a kid off my lawn.

And again, you're arguing that "impact"= quality/
For example, I can hold citizen kane as one of the most impactful films ever in term of the industry while also saying I don't think it's on the same level as a film like End of Evagellion.
User avatar
liamliam1234
Junior
Posts: 448
And1: 409
Joined: Jul 24, 2019
         

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#249 » by liamliam1234 » Wed Oct 9, 2019 9:58 am

Strawmen out the ***.

freethedevil wrote:
liamliam1234 wrote:Lol what? If by "real storytelling" you mean less nuanced, less creative, and less varied, then yes. If you're talking about the elements of craft then thhat a lol worthy no.


Oh, **** right off. You have zero clue about operatic narratives.

Storytelling is universal. An "operative narrative" does not suddenly escape narrative analysis because you want to use a qualifier. Please explain where this higher quality of storytelling comes from? Because there is nothing "narratively" that has been done by Mozart that has not been done by late musicians. :roll:


It is a great deal more than whatever Kendrick has done, which, in case you forgot, was your original contention. Funny how quickly Kendrick’s concept album “advantage” falls apart by comparison with composers actually working with a unified concept. And much of that is a product of the market — operatic narrative styles are generally not en vogue, and those that attempt to mimic them tend to do so obliquely (e.g. rap concept albums, a lot of prog rock) — but even those that succeed in reproducing a cohesive narrative (e.g. Hadestown) still comfortably trail in the musical “complexity” you initially professed to care so much about.

Also, when are you going to learn how to close a quote code?

Oh, yeah, Mozart is in ****ing shambles, he has nothing on the ****ing Seatbelts.

I'm sorry, are you seriously citing "popularity" and reputation as an indication of quality? I suppose we should take Justin Beiber over the vast majority of professional musicians then.


Strawman, strawman, strawman, strawman.

And a poor one at that, given how “popular” Mozart is with the demographic most likely to listen to Kendrick or the Seatbelts. :roll:

If you don't like the comparison, then you should actually be able to compare the contents of their songs. If you're done being incredulous we can look at the music, you know, the thing we're comparing?

What makes the higher quantity of notes present in mozart superior to sace lion's usage of it's choir.


... You...

......................................

Casting aside my initial comment for a second...

Jesus, I do not even know where to begin with this oblivious take.

Mozart used choirs. And in a conversation about opera, pray tell, what exactly is Mozart’s disadvantage in how the Seatbelts use vocals?

The former is denser yes, however the latter's drastic change from a sax to a choir offers a more distinct source of carthasis.


Yes, Mozart was famous for his lack of cathartic release.

Density is not an objectively superior form of quality. A simple but well timed combination of vastly distinct elements is no less sophisticated then taking a single kind of sound into a wide variety of variations.


Strawman, strawman, strawman.

Take this up with anyone with even a freshman understanding of music theory and get laughed out of the room.

Well that's interesting to hear, because I've taken several years of music theory, and at no point has a professor ever tried to assert that mozart is objectively superior to anything that's come since, or that what he's produced as somwhoe not been built upon in the centuries since. It seems you're trying to sound smart again, but as usual, you don't actually have any idea what you're talking about. Yes Mozart's compositions are more dense as I literally already said, thay is the one, and only thing you've said any professor worth their salt would agree with. However your assertion that density is an objective indication of quality is not something anyone has ever said in a well taught music class. Classical music is taught primarily as a baseline in music classes. It is never ever asserted that classical music need be the final form of whatever you end up making.[/quote]

An entire paragraph of strawmen. And some comical “throwing stone in glass houses” material to boot.

Tell me, how many music professors assert that Kendrick is the pinnacle of rap?

Ancient work is revered by the intelligent because it inspired and impacts future work, not because it is some unattainable level of craft that can't be matched or surpassed in future centuries.

The only one in shambles here would be you it seems. :(


Yet another strawman. Truly one of your most embarrassing posts, and in a thread filled with them!
freethedevil
Analyst
Posts: 3,598
And1: 1,893
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#250 » by freethedevil » Wed Oct 9, 2019 9:59 am

Funcrusher wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
Funcrusher wrote:

To make fun of shaq, as you already have acknowledged. Again, read the OP, or literally just read your own post. The thread very clearly is making fun of shaq and people arguing shaq beat lillard with his diss. 90's vs now started with a bunch of Lol 90's better from posters too lazy to read the op.

Dick wagging became a thing when clyde tried to say he knows more about rap then me. Afterwards I quoted him ridiculing him for trying to engage in ad-hominem despite having done nothing to warrant being treated like an authority. No, it seems the only reason you have an issue with my posts is they're lengthy and offer detailed reasoning. The only one in our posts whose ever questioned someone's knowledge regarding rap was you.


And you've gone on multiple times claiming "all eras are equal" is the only valid viewpoint which is as much "dick wagging" as any one arguing one era's music was superior. Being in the middle does not make you right. But saying I've said things I haven't said makes you factually wrong.

post receipts? post receipts of me ever saying or even implicitly stating that in this entire thread. post receipts of me questioning your knowledge of rap without provocation, please, I beg of you.

And the biggest receipt is the **** thread title, "Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop" Talk your way out of that fam.


Yet another example of you willfully leaving out context:
freethedevil wrote:This was the comment of a 90's fan who, for his own safety, won't be named regarding a rap battle.

This is a battle who cares about technical rap ability.


No wonder good music is dying, :noway:


Bonus question:

Shaqtin a Fool or nah?:
[So the only thing left now, kill these cats
Soft ass, I'ma kill these cats
Already won, I'm too smart for these cats
While you spittin' metaphors, I'm spittin' up facts

:clap:

So unless you posted without reading the op, you would have no reason to get triggered by the title. Alas people did so, and then they got triggered. Not my fault people can't be bothered to read.
User avatar
liamliam1234
Junior
Posts: 448
And1: 409
Joined: Jul 24, 2019
         

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#251 » by liamliam1234 » Wed Oct 9, 2019 10:00 am

^ Too bad you perpetually undercut yourself by turning this thread into a one-man mission to argue nothing in the 1990s approached the “brilliance” of To Pimp a Butterfly. :roll:

freethedevil wrote:
gst8 wrote:It's absolutely correct that great artistry can come from any generation. Still, there are certain points of delineation you can find with regard to the evolution of any art form. A before and after affect. This is my point about Illmatic. That album changed hip-hop immediately. And not in the same sense of groups like Run DMC or NWA where rappers saw a new avenue of commercial viability. There are quotes from Nas’s contemporaries talking about literally throwing their rhyme books in the trash after hearing Illmatic because of how it raised the bar. Guys were forced to evolve out of personal pride. So, while albums like TPAB are undeniably great I really haven’t seen that same immediate effect on the art since Illmatic. That’s why it always finds itself in the GOAT album conversation and why it’s difficult to take seriously anyone that calls it unworthy of such consideration. Now excuse me, I have to go kick a kid off my lawn.

And again, you're arguing that "impact"= quality/
For example, I can hold citizen kane as one of the most impactful films ever in term of the industry while also saying I don't think it's on the same level as a film like End of Evagellion.


:lol:
User avatar
Funcrusher
Veteran
Posts: 2,625
And1: 3,149
Joined: Apr 14, 2017
Location: Stolen from Africa
     

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#252 » by Funcrusher » Wed Oct 9, 2019 10:14 am

freethedevil wrote:
Funcrusher wrote:
freethedevil wrote:To make fun of shaq, as you already have acknowledged. Again, read the OP, or literally just read your own post. The thread very clearly is making fun of shaq and people arguing shaq beat lillard with his diss. 90's vs now started with a bunch of Lol 90's better from posters too lazy to read the op.

Dick wagging became a thing when clyde tried to say he knows more about rap then me. Afterwards I quoted him ridiculing him for trying to engage in ad-hominem despite having done nothing to warrant being treated like an authority. No, it seems the only reason you have an issue with my posts is they're lengthy and offer detailed reasoning. The only one in our posts whose ever questioned someone's knowledge regarding rap was you.


And you've gone on multiple times claiming "all eras are equal" is the only valid viewpoint which is as much "dick wagging" as any one arguing one era's music was superior. Being in the middle does not make you right. But saying I've said things I haven't said makes you factually wrong.

post receipts? post receipts of me ever saying or even implicitly stating that in this entire thread. post receipts of me questioning your knowledge of rap without provocation, please, I beg of you.

And the biggest receipt is the **** thread title, "Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop" Talk your way out of that fam.


Yet another example of you willfully leaving out context:
freethedevil wrote:This was the comment of a 90's fan who, for his own safety, won't be named regarding a rap battle.

This is a battle who cares about technical rap ability.


No wonder good music is dying, :noway:


Bonus question:

Shaqtin a Fool or nah?:
[So the only thing left now, kill these cats
Soft ass, I'ma kill these cats
Already won, I'm too smart for these cats
While you spittin' metaphors, I'm spittin' up facts

:clap:

So unless you posted without reading the op, you would have no reason to get triggered by the title. Alas people did so, and then they got triggered. Not my fault people can't be bothered to read.

I clicked on this thread when i initially saw it. I read your post. I'm not sure what context that provides for the thread title, you'll really have to treat me with kid gloves, dumb it down for me if you will. Because to me, you seem to be implying that it's the people that enjoy hip hop from past eras that are killing hip hop, and nothing in the op establishes anything to the contrary.
gh123 wrote:Zion lucky if he gets 18 ppg on decent efficiency. Midget big man is a no-career in NBA. Chuck being the only wonder. Zion is the next Tractor Trailer at best.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 30,626
And1: 18,932
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#253 » by E-Balla » Wed Oct 9, 2019 10:27 am

freethedevil wrote:
E-Balla wrote:
freethedevil wrote:This was the comment of a 90's fan who, for his own safety, won't be named regarding a rap battle.



No wonder good music is dying, :noway:


Bonus question:

Shaqtin a Fool or nah?:

:clap:

90s fan? My dude I'm 25. :lol:

And you think illmatic is the undisputed goat. You don't have to be from the 90's to be a 90's fan you know :roll:

Just because something is your favorite it doesn't mean it's the GOAT. Illmatic is an album with 9 songs, 8 classic songs, 7 of the songs were singles (or practically singles because they leaked prior to the album's release and playing everywhere), and it marked multiple firsts in rap history. D. Wade is my favorite player ever but he's not the best. I like Doggystyle more than Illmatic personally if we're going with rap albums released around 94 but I don't nearly see the same impact as Illmatic. It's the Jordan of rap albums.
"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." - Martin Luther King
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 30,626
And1: 18,932
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#254 » by E-Balla » Wed Oct 9, 2019 10:32 am

freethedevil wrote:
BoardCrusher wrote:

This always gets cited for mob deep, but honestly, imo, it doesn't hold a candle to this:
.



You're both objectively wrong here. This is the clear best Mobb Deep song. :D
"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." - Martin Luther King
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 30,626
And1: 18,932
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#255 » by E-Balla » Wed Oct 9, 2019 10:34 am

freethedevil wrote:
E-Balla wrote:Truth is 1994 is still the best year in rap history. Outkast, Common, Nas, Biggie, and Scarface can all be argued top 10 all time and they dropped their debut albums that year. For Nas, Biggie, and Scarface it was their best album.

Next closest year is probably 2011 (Take Care, Section.80, WTT, XXX, Goblin, Dr. Lector, Covert Coup, Live.Love.ASAP, Blue Slide Park, Random Axe, Black and Brown) but most of those releases I put there are mixtapes. Rap nowadays has less classics and more depth.

Ewww

Bro I'm not having any conversation about modern rap from anyone denying the impact and quality of Live.Love.ASAP. That's one of the more impactful mixtapes of the last decade.
"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." - Martin Luther King
freethedevil
Analyst
Posts: 3,598
And1: 1,893
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#256 » by freethedevil » Wed Oct 9, 2019 11:03 am

liamliam1234 wrote:Strawmen out the ***.

freethedevil wrote:
liamliam1234 wrote:

Storytelling is universal. An "operative narrative" does not suddenly escape narrative analysis because you want to use a qualifier. Please explain where this higher quality of storytelling comes from? Because there is nothing "narratively" that has been done by Mozart that has not been done by late musicians. :roll:

It is a great deal more than whatever Kendrick has done, which, in case you forgot, was your original contention.

Uh yes, compared to other hip hop artists
:roll:

Never did I assert it was the height of storytelling in music. strawman is made of straw.
If you're looking for that, I direct you to:
;list=PLKaO0QIZsLUNlJElZfktTuyjMJUO31qOP

;list=PL3PhWT10BW3Urh8ZXXpuU9h526ChwgWKy

Or you know, any number of fantastic stories we've seen delivered musically.



... You...

......................................

Casting aside my initial comment for a second...

Jesus, I do not even know where to begin with this oblivious take.

Mozart used choirs.
[/quote[]
Whose singing did not contrast or clash with his insrumentation. I'm going to take it you didn't even bother to listen to the song I linked, so I'll just get the relevant time frame:


https://youtu.be/USAQQnQzaSs?t=266

Now lets make some observations. First note the nature of the choir. It is crowded with a mishmash of sound. Compare this to the saxaphone which is smooth and builds from the start of the piece gradually. We have a smooth calm that is suddenly filled with a streak of energy. This can be treated as an inciting incident(set up with the escalation of the percussion). From here we can then track how these two elements develop over the course of the song itself:

First, lets look at the set up. Before this intersection, we see the sax, which to this point has been smooth with minimal tangents here and there suddenly stretches out offering this chaotic raspiness. Much like the choir linked above the sax suddenly sounds more crowded:

https://youtu.be/USAQQnQzaSs?t=237

If we go back to the first clip we see that this is brought back when the choir sets in. The second link establishes that the sax can branch out and then it does use what is set up with the first link. This allows it to mix and gel with the chorus despite it being drastically different from the tone of the song we've heard so far. IOW, neither the sax, nor the chorus really fit each other, but the both contort and develop allowing for a sudden shift in emotion.

Now let's compare this to a Mozart choir:
https://youtu.be/L0yV_BNLzlg?t=81
The choir starts perfectly fitting the instrumental's grooves. There's less room to grow here and hence less room for emotional fluctuation.

Back to space lion. This sudden change doesn't give us everything. While the saxophone makes room for the choir, it has to be greatly toned down to make room for it's new friend. So as of now, while we can feel the vastly different things we feel when we hear either sound, but we can't feel them at the same time. However now exposed to radically different sonic stimuli, we see the vocal and the sax change:
The vocal:
https://youtu.be/USAQQnQzaSs?t=293
Now suddenly we get smoothness we were accopanied to expecting from the sax
The sax:
https://youtu.be/USAQQnQzaSs?t=351
And with the solo, the sax starts to fluctuate becoming more and more crowded.


Now having grown to accommodate each other, the sax and the chorus, which we've attributed distinct feelings can be combined together for the final payoff:
https://youtu.be/USAQQnQzaSs?t=384
Now these two distinct feelings can be felt fully and simultaneously. As if like characters, faced with other the sax and the choir have grown and learned to bond with each other generating a powerful carthasis many minuites in the making.


The **** seatbelts did not make a composition as dense as mozart's classics, but with timing and by combining two drastically different sounds, they were able to create a payoff far more powerful than what you'd get at an opera. Music does not need to be dense to be complex.




Did I ever cite a professor's opinion? I don't like appealing to authority, yeah. Bringing up what you think professors say is something you would do, not me.
[quote
Yet another strawman. Truly one of your most embarrassing posts, and in a thread filled with them!

As usual, you focus on the poster instead of the post.

You have my sympathies.
:violin:
freethedevil
Analyst
Posts: 3,598
And1: 1,893
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#257 » by freethedevil » Wed Oct 9, 2019 11:07 am

E-Balla wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
E-Balla wrote:90s fan? My dude I'm 25. :lol:

And you think illmatic is the undisputed goat. You don't have to be from the 90's to be a 90's fan you know :roll:

It's the Jordan of rap albums.

Jordan isn't the goat tho.
User avatar
E-Balla
RealGM
Posts: 30,626
And1: 18,932
Joined: Dec 19, 2012
Location: The Poster Formerly Known As The Gotham City Pantalones
   

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#258 » by E-Balla » Wed Oct 9, 2019 11:31 am

freethedevil wrote:
E-Balla wrote:
freethedevil wrote:And you think illmatic is the undisputed goat. You don't have to be from the 90's to be a 90's fan you know :roll:

It's the Jordan of rap albums.

Jordan isn't the goat tho.

Image

What would you call an album where nearly every verse and every beat is iconic? Can you say that about any album other than Illmatic?

Song 1: NY State Of Mind has a classic beat, opens the song with iconic bars, ends the first verse with "sleep is the cousin of death", second verse has "I ain't the type of brother made for you to start testing, gimme a Smith and Wesson I'll have **** undressing."

Song 2: Life's a Bitch has a classic beat, AZ opens with what is arguably the best guest verse ever, and Nas follows with another iconic verse from the start (I woke up early on my born day...) to the end (that buck that brought the bottle could've struck the lotto).

Song 3: The World Is Yours has a classic beat, the first verse is one of the most iconic ever with damn near every bar being iconic, 2 of them being so iconic they were turned into hit songs, verse 2 opens with the iconic "God bless your life", verse 3 inspired the name for Will Smith's first solo album which was a big record by a top tier star in the game.

Song 4: Halftime has an iconic beat, even the intro is iconic (Nasty Nas in ya area, bout to cause mass hysteria), verse 2 and 3 of this song is the first verses on the album that aren't undeniably iconic as great as they are (I mean this was the first single).

I'm not continuing but just the fact that there's no more heavily quoted album than this 33 minute long one says enough. Other albums might be your favorite but no album had the case for GOAT Illmatic does. TPAB was years ago and you can't argue it's more iconic than even GKMC. How is it the GOAT?
"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." - Martin Luther King
freethedevil
Analyst
Posts: 3,598
And1: 1,893
Joined: Dec 09, 2018
         

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#259 » by freethedevil » Wed Oct 9, 2019 12:21 pm

E-Balla wrote:
freethedevil wrote:
E-Balla wrote:

Jordan isn't the goat tho.

Image

What would you call an album where nearly every verse and every beat is iconic? Can you say that about any album other than Illmatic?

Song 1: NY State Of Mind has a classic beat, opens the song with iconic bars, ends the first verse with "sleep is the cousin of death", second verse has "I ain't the type of brother made for you to start testing, gimme a Smith and Wesson I'll have **** undressing."

Song 2: Life's a Bitch has a classic beat, AZ opens with what is arguably the best guest verse ever, and Nas follows with another iconic verse from the start (I woke up early on my born day...) to the end (that buck that brought the bottle could've struck the lotto).

Song 3: The World Is Yours has a classic beat, the first verse is one of the most iconic ever with damn near every bar being iconic, 2 of them being so iconic they were turned into hit songs, verse 2 opens with the iconic "God bless your life", verse 3 inspired the name for Will Smith's first solo album.

Song 4: Halftime has an iconic beat, even the intro is iconic (Nasty Nas in ya area, bout to cause mass hysteria), verse 2 and 3 of this song is the first verses on the album that aren't undeniably iconic as great as they are (I mean this was the first single).

there's no more heavily quoted album than this 33 minute long one says enough.

No basketball player since george mikan has influenced the game like mikan has. Therefore he is the undisputed goat. :roll: No, see you've **** the analogy. Jordan was nowhere close to the most influential basketball player. He is/was
the most popular. That's where your analogy falls to shreds. TPAB is vastly more popular than illmatic is. Illmatic is mikan to TPAB's Jordan. TPAB, better or worse, has received far more acclaim and attention from general music audiences than any hip hop track proceeding it. Illmatic is seen as one of the greatest hip hop albums ever, TPAB is seen as one of the greatest music albums ever.
Other albums might be your favorite but no album had the case for GOAT Illmatic does.

:lol:
TPAB was years ago and you can't argue it's more iconic than even GKMC. How is it the GOAT?

Lets see, even if we just ignore analysis of the album itself, like you do, TPAB is:

-> One of the most popular music albums ever
-> One of the most highly rated music albums ever
-> Widely argued for as the GOAT hip hop album
-> Is widely considered the peak of a rapper who is widely anticipated to take jay's z mantle as the greatest

I suppose i should expect this from e "lebron has no logical case for goat" baller, 90's fanboyism at it's finest.
User avatar
Clay Davis
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,772
And1: 1,906
Joined: Nov 06, 2013
 

Re: Are 90's Fans Killing Hip-Hop? 

Post#260 » by Clay Davis » Wed Oct 9, 2019 1:01 pm

freethedevil wrote:
E-Balla wrote:
freethedevil wrote:Jordan isn't the goat tho.

Image

What would you call an album where nearly every verse and every beat is iconic? Can you say that about any album other than Illmatic?

Song 1: NY State Of Mind has a classic beat, opens the song with iconic bars, ends the first verse with "sleep is the cousin of death", second verse has "I ain't the type of brother made for you to start testing, gimme a Smith and Wesson I'll have **** undressing."

Song 2: Life's a Bitch has a classic beat, AZ opens with what is arguably the best guest verse ever, and Nas follows with another iconic verse from the start (I woke up early on my born day...) to the end (that buck that brought the bottle could've struck the lotto).

Song 3: The World Is Yours has a classic beat, the first verse is one of the most iconic ever with damn near every bar being iconic, 2 of them being so iconic they were turned into hit songs, verse 2 opens with the iconic "God bless your life", verse 3 inspired the name for Will Smith's first solo album.

Song 4: Halftime has an iconic beat, even the intro is iconic (Nasty Nas in ya area, bout to cause mass hysteria), verse 2 and 3 of this song is the first verses on the album that aren't undeniably iconic as great as they are (I mean this was the first single).

there's no more heavily quoted album than this 33 minute long one says enough.

No basketball player since george mikan has influenced the game like mikan has. Therefore he is the undisputed goat. :roll: No, see you've **** the analogy. Jordan was nowhere close to the most influential basketball player. He is/was
the most popular. That's where your analogy falls to shreds. TPAB is vastly more popular than illmatic is. Illmatic is mikan to TPAB's Jordan. TPAB, better or worse, has received far more acclaim and attention from general music audiences than any hip hop track proceeding it. Illmatic is seen as one of the greatest hip hop albums ever, TPAB is seen as one of the greatest music albums ever.
Other albums might be your favorite but no album had the case for GOAT Illmatic does.


TPAB was years ago and you can't argue it's more iconic than even GKMC. How is it the GOAT?

Lets see, even if we just ignore analysis of the album itself, like you do, TPAB is:

-> One of the most popular music albums ever
-> One of the most highly rated music albums ever
-> Widely argued for as the GOAT hip hop album
-> Is widely considered the peak of a rapper who is widely anticipated to take jay's z mantle as the greatest

I suppose i should expect this from e "lebron has no logical case for goat" baller, 90's fanboyism at it's finest.
To Pimp A Butterfly was good but too experimental to be widely considered as the GOAT. Saying this as a huge fan of jazz and Thundercat in particular

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using RealGM mobile app
We talkin' 'bout money laundering? In WEST BALTIMORE?!

Return to The General Board