The Wedding with some thoughts on Nickelback

annnnndddddd.....

I'm going to check in really quick. For those of you who haven't given up yet, who keep clicking on this shit every day hoping for some brand new mind-blowing insight (all negative three of you), I just wanted to let you know that for my part I will be back in the middle of July. I'm getting married in two weeks (!), and am contemplating a move so things are extremely up in the air.

However I will be back with a vengeance when that is over, whether on this blog or in another form. I'm working on what tack to take and it depends, to some extent, on what the headspace of the other contributors are.

Until then I just wanted to say that when i was driving back from Toronto my MP3 player ran out of batteries. I found Ryan Seacrest's top 40 on the radio and decided to educate myself on what the "top" songs in the country were. I think I caught like 32-24 or something. Somewhere in that range was a new Nickelback song that I had (thankfully) avoided. It was called "If Today was Your Last Day". It is essentially just a series of cliches strung together in a typically boring Nickelback motif. However it struck a chord with me because Glass Animal and I were once in a band called "Ben Flash and His Boyish Good Looks". We wrote a song called "Everyman's Opus" which attempted to do the same thing, except as a joke.

It got me thinking if our central failure as a band was not to have pretended to be more serious. I mean there is no way Nickelback wrote those lyrics with a straight face, yet it is pulled off with such awful oomph, that I guess it struck a chord with a couple of 14 year olds. The thing is that was our target demographic... I just don't know where we went wrong.

Anyway, I'm seriously considering suing them for the co-opting of our idea. It may be the my in roads in to blogging full time.

I'm working on including a copy of Everyman's Opus, when I do I will post it here. It looks like I may have to use pod-casting software, which is OK because I want to do that anyway.

WORD

Ohio

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/us/31border.html

I'll go out on a limb and say this is the most outrageous news story I've read this year, at least from within American borders.

Can anybody tell me how it makes legal sense for a couple of Mexican guys making $4-500/wk selling drugs in Ohio (to a "ready customer") to end up with a 16 year sentence in a cage for fucking MANSLAUGHTER? Other than "something has got to be done" and "[putting these men in jail is] ... like sweeping sunshine off the roof" (real quote), I'm not seeing any legal OR practical justification. I suppose the feds have succeeded in sending a non-existent message to an incredibly violent and profitable industry that these "killers" have basically nothing to do with. I'm guessing the drug cartels aren't exactly trembling with fear.

At least we've ruined the life of the guy answering the phones in order to feed his family!

Hypothetical: If Henry buys a gun from an illegal dealer, and then Henry shoots someone in the head, is the guy who pulled the trigger somehow not responsible for the death? OH WAIT, BUT WHAT IF HENRY IS A REALLY NICE PERSON AND THE DEALER IS MEXICAN? CAN'T WE HAVE A SWITCHEROO?? LULZZZ :P

Too bad the dead guy's mother isn't a Mexican, because they could charge her with manslaughter for giving her son money to buy the drugs. If only.

(Final note, if we had a sensible health insurance system in this country, the "victim" would still be alive. So...can we charge Richard Nixon as an accomplice?)

Mm

Pyroclast
for Craig Arnold


A poet makes the news
for wandering off, gone
missing in search of
poems on volcanoes.
Somewhere among the cinder
cones or perhaps the calderas,

rescuers remain convinced
that you did not burn
in a lava lake, or dome,
but met heavy vegetation
or a steep ravine on your
way down. Beneath rock

magma pools as crustal plates
converge. Are you here, where
the new earth cools? Did you
melt with the mantel plumes?
Or are you ash, floating above
a ring of fire? From the photo

you took yourself in mud
they follow your footprint
and a viscous hope: that
you are yet made flesh,
not disappeared like mollusks
from a thousand empty shells.

Guess Who's Back/Back Again/Flash is Back/Tell a Friend

I'm just going to pretend that I didn't say anything about a longish new topic appearing last week. I'm reading Stephen King's dark tower series right now, so in that vein lets just say that "time works differently here". I just hope the world isn't moving on.

ANYWAY, Mike's point is well taken. I can think of a specific example of "Bad Art" made by four strapping teenagers in one Mike Mahoney's basement. The first record we made as Ben Flash and his Boyish Good Looks ("Kids Find 'The Boot' Buried in the Trash") is a perfect example of something that meant a great deal to the creators (at least Mike and I) but certainly was not deserving of larger critical acclaim. I worked with a guy at the Monroe Library in Rochester, New York who was a big fan, but he also loved The Church more than anything in the world so I don't think I should take it as a huge compliment.

The thing is that album still works for me. Which does make it inherently valuable, just not widely valuable. I have gladly given some away in recent years if someone expressed interest. Unfortunately the feelings of almost everyone I've given it to has bordered on disgust.

Which annoyed me because they got it for free. See this is where capitalism mucks everything up. I (subconsciously) felt like their disdain was undeserved because they hadn't paid for it, and I had warned them, fervently, that they wern't going to like it. Yet they insisted. I try to(conciously) judge things, at least a little bit, in terms of how much I paid for them.

For instance, I was in Paris recently and went to the Pompidou centre. The lower floor was made up of the modernest of modern art and much of it irritated me. If only because I had paid a goodly amount of Euro's to get in to see a bunch of red blow up furniture (I did manage to take the picture at the top of this pos, which made it all worth it... i think).

Upstairs however was a chronological exhibit that ran from Van Gogh up through the modern day. This I enjoyed much more because, I think, someone had already done the art criticism for me. When I go to a museum, part of what I am paying for is for someone to have made the decisions of what is worthy and not worthy FOR me. If I was attending such an event for free my level of acceptance would have been much higher.

All of this said, I'm an enormous hypocrite because I am as guilty as anyone for ripping on a shitty song that I got for free. Mike and I send bad songs on myspace pages back and forth from time to time and giggle at the self-righteousness. This is probably unfair.

Which is why I think Mike is on the money when he talkes about "Great" art versus "good and bad". The question is how effective we are at discerning that distinction. Both of us have had the experience at working at college radio stations and I found that it was exceedingly easy to miss the trees for the forest, as it were. I was so deluged by new music that I often missed out on stuff I really liked because I would listen to it once and if it didn't grab me I would move on the next thing without thinking twice. As such, I'm not sure that I was really capable of making fully formed judgements about anything that I heard.

This problem applies generally across the field of critisism. I happend to read an article in the NYTIMES reveiw of books about a poetry critic who hates almost everything and as such waters down the quality of his opinions (unfortunatly I can't find the link now because my drug addled brain can't remember his name and Nytimes.com has "moved on"). The point is that his critisism has become very difficult to take seriously, because SOMETHING must be good. I think that critisism is a field that is very easy to do badly and very difficult to do well exactly in light of my expirience at the radio station.

Yet in the interent age critism is much more diffuse. It is good that a handful of people are not determining what we read and see and hear, yet there is so much noise it is difficult to pick the good from the bad.

So obviously I am conflicted on the issue. It is clearly important not to discard things out of hand, but at the same time there needs to be way we can discern good from bad, and I do think that while there may not be such a thing as EMPIRICALLY good and EMPIRICALLY bad we can come damn close. The new Eminem song, for instance, is very close to being the new philosophical definition of "The Bad", which makes my heart cry just a bit.

I recognize that this post doesn't quite have it's shit together. This is why I need to get back to posting all the time, apparently my mind has been percolating on this topic while I "listend" to discussions of shoes and pictures and flowers and hotel arrangements and meals.

One final example of everyone; critics, the general populace, hipsters, news agency's etc. getting something wrong. The movie King Kong. I went with my fiancee to see this a few years back and it was the only movie I have ever walked out of. I essentially decided that it was worth 10 bucks to keep two hours of my life that I would otherwise have lost. It angered me that no one told me this movie sucked. Everyone loved it. What the hell!?

Art!

To draw on what I've been learning in my Creative Arts Therapy schooling, I would offer that the creative process is important in and of itself as a way for the creator to express himself, especially the parts of one's "stuff" not expressible with language.

Of course it's not practical for every casual art fan to witness every single work of every single amateur artist in the world, or even in his own home city. Luckily, there's a distinction to be drawn: Some art (in accordance with your question, we'll call this "good art") is accessible to a wider audience, allowing the viewer or listener to work out his unresolved tensions by way of the tension and release implicit in the artwork. Most art ("bad art," to put it bluntly), however, is not accessible to a wider audience and it remains connected only to the creator, and maybe his pals as well.

(By 'accessible,' I'm talking about a quality of the art itself, and not its placement in a gallery.)

This is not the end of the discussion, though (unless the continued absence of EVERYBODY proves me wrong). "Bad art" by the definition above is often just fine for what it is supposed to be and what it is meant to do. A handmade Valentine's Day card could look like hell, but hit the spot perfectly. So is it really "bad?" Art is often so deeply connected to its creator that calling it "bad" feels intuitively wrong, because it's sort of like calling that person "bad," or denying he put the work in. Then again, many great artists HAVE been pretty rotten people in a lot of ways.

Anyway, I think the real split I'm talking about is between great art and the rest of art. Not good and bad, so much. Still, this is an attempt to define the art that you should look at, or at least try out. Obviously, everyone in the world will never agree on the greatness of anything.

Mike

Mon absence

I want to apologize for a few things. First: I am tres desolee that I am unable to write something as incisive and interesting as what Z and Glass just wrote.

Second: I am now not able to make snarky comments about others not posting because I have been AWOL for a week an a half now. In my defense I am getting married and that combined with a number of other things that have been going down over the last week or so have caused me to lose momentum. It shall return, but it may take some time.

Part of the reason I didn't respond to Z's post is that it didn't pose any questions. He just happened to make a compelling arguement (which I am all for). I wanted to come up with a question like "If Art is the sheath then what is the scabbard?" or some nonsense. But what I will ask instead is: How broadly does one define "art"? Can art be sport? Can art be politics? It seems to me we define art too narrowly much of the time.

The question that came to me in reading Z's post is what the difference between "good" art and "bad" art is. I have had an occasional arguement with my sister about the mertis of art for art's sake. She is of the mind that the sheer act of creation is worthy in and of itself. To which I don't disagree, but does it mean I have to LOOK at it? or WATCH it? or LISTEN to it? This conversation was in regards to modern visual art but I think it applies more broadly.

Alright I gotta go, this was my 10 minutes of internet time, but I promise if this conversation gets rolling I'll get in on it. And if it doesn't then I will post something long on Monday.

Pulp Fiction and Prescription Drugs

CZ's post comes at a really interesting time.

Most specifically, I happened to be finishing up another viewing of Pulp Fiction as I read it. We were on the last sequence in the diner, where Jules has decided leave the organized crime business so that he may "walk the earth, like Caine in Kung Fu." His partner Vincent is critical of this mindset and says the people Jules is describing are nothing more than bums who beg for change, live in dumpsters and eat what the rest of us throw away. But by this point of the film, we have already seen what happens to Vincent, and how Jules' insight almost certainly saved him from being slain in Butch's apartment along with his partner. It appears Quentin Tarrantino shares your opinion of right brain thinking.

Also, I have been getting clobbered for the past few weeks by one of my new courses: Behavioral Research. Something I have picked up is the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research. All of science is based on quantitative research, which appears to work beautifully on concepts in nature, mathematics, chemistry, biology, etc. But I'm discovering that the human condition is so much richer than those things, it's just not sensible to use quantitative (questionnaires, ratings scales, removing the researcher from the process completely) research only to study people. If you really want to understand what people are like, you need to incorporate qualitative research as well, where you learn about the perspective of the person or social group you are studying in order to find out more about what questions you should be asking.

I think our culture's intense focus on "serious" non-artistic academic subjects comes from a mistaken focus on the quantitative side of measuring human progress. Sure, you can measure the scientific achievements easier, but art has the capacity to better our society in a less measurable but much richer way.

This conflict is a big deal in my music therapy program. You see psychologists throwing different drug cocktails at patients instead of taking the time to really talk to (or hey, play music with) the person and actually address the root of the trouble. The drugs just alleviate the symptoms, but between the measurable amounts of drugs (quantitative) and being able to decrease the number of days the person is under care (quantitative), drugs are still the priority of the people with the greatest influence over the mental health community. Bummer.

A quick word on utilitarianism: I dismissed utilitarianism pretty much right when I learned about it. I think the trouble is that utilitarianism is fundamentally incapable of judging the human experience on the individual level (the only way it is experienced) and only focuses on the group level. If you took $100 from everyone in a city, but handed over double the total amount to the wealthiest person, it could be argued that you have increased the overall good (in dollars) in the community, even though this act would be almost 100% unpopular.

More practically, it always seems like the person deciding on what the "good" is, is always some kind of psychotic person with terribly unethical ideas (Like killing 100 homeless people! Kidding!). Hitler decided the holocaust would be beneficial for the general good, using principles of utilitarianism.

As far as the question, I'm going to completely cop out and opt to spread the hurt. Let's give all 108 people (was that a hidden LOST reference?) 1/36 of a fatal beating.

Art: The Sheath for Technology's Double-Edged Sword, or, The Ariel Analogy

I've been doing a lot of complex analyses of society's ills recently. I think about these things mostly when I sit on the bus or ride the train or just walk down the sidewalk, which is a borderline dangerous thing for me to do in the neighborhood where I work. Anyway, I find myself walking out of class at night all charged up with intellectual energy, trying to figure out the causes of everything around me and then, how to bend the causal chain to meet my preconceived notions of what is right and good. I have many, many thoughts--too many thoughts, one might say--about what is happening around me and why it is happening in just that way. I'd like to explore some of my observations, beginning this week with a little theory I like to call "The Janus-faced Nature of Scientific Progress" or "Art! Who Goes There?" (Rocky and Bullwinkle style. Oh yeah).

Walter Benjamin, I'll see your "Age of Mechanical Reproduction," and raise you one "Age of Instant Gratification, Instant Communication and Instant Pretty Much Everything Else."

The theory goes something like this:

Define art however you will--most people do. Art is the means by which humans understand and express their experience in and understanding of the world. That is to say, art is way we make sense of our world. Art is our method of making meaning. It is where we find a certain psychic or spiritual comfort in releasing some part of ourselves into whatever we create. We record our history through art. We create and honor culture. We tell our life stories or woo a lover or mourn the death of a loved one through art.

We paint. We sculpt. We mold and shape. We act. We dramatize. We sing. We play. We write. We "do art" and we do it like no other animal does--because no other animal does. (Well, except for a handful of exotic trained painting zoo animals. But I don't think that really even counts. They learned from us. I think. Consider this an invitation for someone with actual biological knowledge to chime in and teach me something new here...)

As I was saying, art is, in so many ways, the lens we use to look at our world, to understand our place and our purpose. Art is our most powerful and productive means of introspection, and also of outward expression. It is vital to our understanding of the world. We could not make sense of the world fully without art. In fact, we are currently lacking the proper quorum of artists and artworks to be making good sense of the world we are living in. We are neglecting the right side of the brain.

We are inordinately concerned with the functions of the left side (according to oversimplified popular psychology) and its linear reasoning. What happened to cultivating a child's creativity? What happened to art and artists having their proper place in schools? What happened to painting and sculpture and music class? What happened to the the band concert, the poetry reading, the school play? In so many of America's urban and rural public schools--and even some suburban ones--arts programs have been bearing the brunt of budget cuts for years. Deemed "non-essential" in comparison to the "core academic subjects," arts have largely gone by the wayside.

Larger culture mirrors--or determines, depending on your point of view--the school system's priorities: funding for the arts, for public television, public radio, the NEA, and all kinds of local art initiatives and organizations outside of schools are coming up short too. We raise our kids to seek their dreams, but at the same time insist that they be something respectable, something that makes decent money--a lawyer, a doctor, a white collar professional. A college-educated middle-class person who has children, pays taxes, and spends money they don't have. We don't raise artists, because so few artists can make a living doing their art, and in this "free market" society where everything is a commodity--including health care the and the quality of human life, which are both for sale to the highest bidders--we hope that our children grow up to be profitable adults. Hence, art is largely discouraged as a career choice--and subsequently, in the eyes of many, debunked as a valid way to spend one's time or express oneself.

Yet, somehow, we are ever vigilant in our quest to find the next great mathematician, scientist, or techno-geek who can propel our lifestyles forward another few decades before we even have time to know what hit us. We spend literally hundreds of millions on math and science initiatives in school, trying to develop more scientists and more "reasonable" thinkers. Don't get me wrong--I am in no way saying that science, math and technology aren't wonderful things, or that the require any less creativity or intelligence or ability of any kind than art. They, too, are worthy of funding and energy and enthusiasm as they are imparted to children in the educational process. They are, however, all united by their utilitarian nature, and the essential purposefulness of their products. They are more than aesthetic.

In the last two centuries, science and technology have brought us what seems like lightyears ahead of where we were just a second ago, historically speaking. Human flight, the automobile, the atomic bomb, medical technology, pharmaceuticals, cell phones, the Internet, e-mail, wireless, television...the list is long and impressive and frankly mind-blowing for such a short period of time. I can barely claim to grasp its significance myself, for we know so little now about how each of these developments will affect us in the long term. The impact of new technologies affects us socially, economically, politically, psychologically, culturally, and personally.

But we do not yet fully understand this. (As I type this, I am trying to understand the computer's need to guess which word I'm typing before I've finished it. Now when "technologies" pops up after the stroke of the h key, I will never know how the computer's predictions affect what I may or may not have meant to say. Is the computer aiding me, or leading me? Can I trust myself to know the difference? Am I just techno-paranoid?)

We need the arts to serve as the lens through which we understand our day to day experiences, and these days, those experiences increasingly revolve around or rely on a technology that is, at worst, a half a century old (television) and at best, a year old (iPhone). Either way, we're like Ariel, with our "gadgets and gizmos aplenty...whose-its and whats-its galore." '(That's right, I quoted The Little Mermaid. Suck on it.) We've got lots of great stuff, but it's nothing compared to the chance to understand what it is like to be a human. (That's right...the soon-to-be-famous Ariel Analogy continues. Ahem.) And that's what we need--a little more understanding of our own humanity, including the technologies that are impacting our lives in myriad and possibly dubious ways.

But we don't need a newspaper article, or a textbook, or an online encyclopedia, or a lecture about the impact of technologies on our life. We need poems and songs, paintings and dances, sculptures and screenplays, textiles and glassblowing and carving and pottery and animation. We need all these arts--even and especially those reliant on technology--to understand technology. And in order to generate the quality and quantity of art which the soul of this country--and the very survival of humanity--depends on, we need to raise up a generation of young artists alongside our young scientists and mathematicians. We need a balance between the left side and the right side of our collective brain. We need the small freeze in time art creates, the moment when we make meaning of something with all of our senses, with all of our selves, with our guts and our hearts and our heads. We need that heady pause, where time melts like Dali's clocks and space fragments like Picasso's staircase, where we connect and communicate with something greater than our selves: the human condition, expressed through art.

The "Good"

Let me just take a moment to revel in the fact that we won you over to Lil Wayne's dark side.



OK I'm done. I apologize for my absence over the past few days but we've been in wedding overdrive and I wasn't near a computer for any extended period of time. I am sorry I missed that Nova/Pitt game, seeing as I had Villanova in the the Final Four.

ANYWAY, you were asking me about the definition of good and how the 100 homeless people would be able to provide that utility. I guess it is a question of what one would be willing to invest in them. My suspicion is that the diversity of skills they would be likely to have would provide great utility. Within that group, even accounting for a generous amount of irretrievable mental disease, I bet that a number of them would be capable of being teachers or doctors or police officers (or plumbers/contractors, really anything). Lots of circumstances can lead to homelessness and the problem has to do with the amount that we as society invest in them. Now, your (obvious) point here is going to be "Who is going to teach these homeless people these trades?". However, the hypothetical does not require us to get rid of ALL teachers versus ALL homeless people, so I suspect there would still be a solid number of teachers.

Which brings me to the definition of "good". It is obviously a difficult question, but I think I would start by saying that "good" is that which provides the greatest amount of happiness and quality of life for the greatest number of people (however I would distinguish between happiness and pleasure but that is another topic). There are multiple problems with this definition but I'll let you tease them out. However, I think that the diversity of skills which the 100 homeless people would likely have, would be able to contribute across society. There is something to be said for having your toilet fixed quickly and effectively, or your bus or subway run on time. I'm not making a better or worse valuation, I just think that there is greater chance for good to come across the spectrum of culture from the greater number of people who are being saved. I guess I would also say that I do believe there is something inherently important about life and if at all possible it is important to save the greatest number of people.

I'm going to leave this for now so you can respond and we can gain some momentum. I'm also going to go back to my old philosophy textbooks so I can back some of this up with textual examples.

Confound it all

First of all, my ringtone is now set to "Phone Home" by Lil Wayne.

Second, yeah, I deliberately went with the teachers on that one to see where it would get me. But your response is interesting, and it is actually exactly what I wanted, because it gets us closer to the root of the question: what the hell are we talking about when we say "the good?" You made the claim that the random sampling of 100 homeless folk could contain more utility than the other two groups, what kind of good are they bringing about? (I am not asking that question because I think the homeless have no value, but because I think it could get us closer to our meaning of "the good")

See, here is something interesting that you may not know, I had plastic surgery (technically) twice, same procedure and all, just twice. I can honestly say that it boosted my confidence incredibly, so even plastic surgeons can have some utility, even if they mostly just pander to stupid women and men who needs lots of actual plastic in their bodies, and they can have negative effects on people when they screw up, which they do all the time.

Even a random sampling of teachers, and I mean real teachers not driving instructors, I wouldn't allow them in the pool, I think have the potential to do some real good work. Especially when it is K through 2nd grade, even just having a decent attitude most of the day and speaking with kids that young can do wonders for their development. But yeah, some teachers suck ass, especially in America, but if it is a random sampling then it can be international, if so the stock of good teachers may grow in size, or diminish, hmmmm.

So what "good" does a homeless person contribute?

100 Homeless People

Jeremy Bentham! A "Lost" reference! "No" you say? Jeremy Bentham came before "Lost"? So this isn't an excuse to write about "Lost"? Damn.

It is a good topic, Kyle. Yet you surprise me. I am shocked you have such faith in the ingrained educational system. This is the problem with the hypothetical in my opinion. Doesn't it matter what KIND of doctors or teachers they are? If they are fifteen of the smartest, most forward looking, outside-the-box teachers, then I agree. However, if it was a random sampling of fifteen teachers I suspect the utility would be severely less. I mean I had a useless driving instructor once, he wouldn't let us go on the highway. I would definitely save ONE homeless person over that guy. I think the same thing applies to the doctors. Yes, if it was pediatrician, a neuro-surgeon and a clinical psychiatrist, they would be worth saving. But if it was a random sampling of doctors (which would almost certainly contain a plastic-surgeon) then the utility would be less. To this end, I think based simply on sample-size the hundred homeless people would be most likely to produce the most utility because, based on what I just wrote, I think a random sampling of homeless people would be likely to have more then five useful members (especially in the shitty economy).

This question is represents both what I love about Philosophy and why I decided not to pursue a graduate degree. I need my philosophy to have some direct contact with the real world and too often in spins out of control. But the question is undeniably a fascinating one. We obviously make social utility decisions every day. Every war is, on a base level, about this (even if it is about one person determining that he or she is more important then a million others).

Kyle, as I said above, I'm surprised that you think teachers would provide the highest utility. I would love for you to elaborate on why, if you faced this question in the real world, you would chose the fifteen teachers. Can you name fifteen teachers period who you would save? Maybe you are less cynical then you seem.

Where my people at?

So Ben took us in a different direction last week, music, now I shall take us in another completely different direction: Philosophy. In the heading of our blog it says that it is a blog about (partly) philosophy, so it is about damn time we got cracking on some of it.

My query revolves around the ethics of utilitarianism and its application to population issues. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that was championed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill back in the 1800's. In gist form it can be understood like so: Act in such a way so that the consequences of your actions are likely to yield the greatest amount of good (Mill used the word "good" Bentham used the word "happiness.") Probably the most famous (or infamous) decision ever made using utility as a defense was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. America made the decision to decimate two Japanese targets in order to "save a million lives."

But I don't really want to get into applying utilitarian ethics to the problem of overpopulation just yet, we can save that for a little later, let the ethical juices marinate over the topic while we handle some smaller utilitarian issues.

It is obviously very important how one chooses to define the "good" in Mill's formulation of utilitarianism. For example, in a hypothetical situation where you are forced to sacrifice one group in order to save another, where the first is a group of three doctors (brain surgeon, heart surgeon, and a pediatrician) and the second is a group of fifteen teachers (five elementary, five middle school, five high school), how does one make a decision that maximizes the "good." Is it better to save the doctors due to the fact that they can help to save more lives in the future and provide care that will improve the general health of many people? Or is it better to save the teachers who will be able to enhance the minds of several future generations potentially providing an incredible amount of good to their students (hell, maybe even due to the teachings of one of these educators one of their students becomes a doctor)? Perhaps we don't even bother to think about the potential benefits of saving either party, but simply go on numbers. Sacrificing 15 lives to save 3 seems like a decent trade, and it seems reasonable to think that, given the predicament, saving the 15 is the best way to maximize the "good." Yet what if a third group was added: 100 homeless people. You can still only save one group. Now it seems odd to go just on numbers because (and this is a bit harsh) it seems as if the doctors and teachers will clearly produce more good if they are saved than the homeless will produce.

For my money, I save the teachers, even with the presence of the 100 person homeless group, I think the potential benefit that the teachers could have on their students will reap benefits that may never end. If through their work the teachers help produce students who get decent jobs and start families (or maybe become doctors or environmental scientists), then the potential spider web of goodness seems almost infinite. The doctors on the other hand specialize on keeping people alive and healthy. This has clear benefits and certainly falls under the category of "good," but the teachers whole job is focused around expanding minds and growing individuals, the doctors don't really get into that aspect of life, they are more concerned with keeping people alive and healthy, which can have a sweet spider web of goodness attached to it as well, but looking at the purpose of a doctor next to the purpose of a teacher I think the teacher has a leg up on producing more "good."

So, what do people think of utilitarianism in general, what group would you save (teachers vs doctors........teachers vs. doctors vs. homeless)?

PHILOSOPHY!

I forget

whose week it is to topic-start. I'm glad you came around. I think this marks our second successful conversation in that we started at disparate points and managed to find some middle ground. So good on us. I think it is on you Kyle and not to put to much on your plate between commissionering the fantasy baseball league and work, but I bet there is more material to be mined in and around this topic.

So i'll leave it for now while I ponder the conversation that just transpired.

Oh! and Kings on NBC is a totally alright show. It's the first new major network show I've liked since Pushing Daisies went under.

Plus a news story to file under "Real Life and 'The Onion' are Now Indistinguishable"

FUCK

I have listened to the third Carter album again, its pretty fucking awesome. God Damnit.



I still prefer Nas for all of the aforementioned aesthetic reasons, but this album is pretty awesome, tie my hands, mr carter, a milli, and a bunch of other tracks are just god damn fire.


Fuck

The Bubblegum Perspective

Hi,

You guys have written far too much for me to comment on it all, but that's okay because I don't know nearly what you both do about hip hop. Here's my definitive hip hop post:

1. I come for the hits, I stay for the fun. Unlike the two of you, I am a beats, rhythms, melodies and hooks guy first and foremost. I had a really interesting conversation with a girl at a party last night who couldn't even tell her friend recently if one of her favorite albums had drums on it because she is so tied up in the words, what they mean and how they sound. I am completely the opposite way. I suppose I trust Coke Machine Glow not to steer me in the direction of any white power music, because I'm sure some pretty questionable lyrical content could slip by me pretty easily. Anyway, this conversation qualified as "really interesting" because we had both just finished writing long papers about our own character structures, and we were able to look at our preferences in that context and find a lot of meaningful connections between our listening styles and ourselves.

2. One of my main requirements for remaining engaged in hip hop for longer than a few minutes is a lot of variation in sound and tone. My MAIN main requirement for getting really engaged with music in general is the presence of key moments that I can latch onto (I started a blog once about these moments, and it's still sitting there on the Internet. I'm still pretty happy with the writing, especially the Eddie Money article. I can't promise I won't take it up again someday).

My preferences steer me much harder in the direction of Wayne than Nas. Which means absolutely nothing from the hip-hop perspective, and absolutely everything from the pop perspective. Kyle, given what you said about Nas' not caring about the Billboard charts and defying pop hop and that you can't believe what he has dared to include on his album (your admiration of which is the best window among these posts into your process as a real fan, and the one thing here that makes me want to go back and listen more carefully), it makes sense that I wouldn't be hooked as a casual listener. I feel like Ben was right on in saying that hearing one of the newer Nas records is like being preached at for an hour. There's never been a great big hook to make me want to get into his world and explore. It doesn't help that he makes it sound ridiculously easy so much of the time. Wayne lets you know the work he's doing.

Thankfully, I missed out on "Lollipop" completely -- I've never heard the song -- but I heard a LOT of "Got Money," "A Milli," "Mr. Carter" and "Mrs. Officer" last year, all songs with production that really pops, super memorable hooks and most importantly for me, a lot of key cathartic moments throughout. Additionally, Wayne was guesting on like every other track being played on Philly's hip hop station (I'm using the past tense because I had a car last summer, and got familiar with the big hip hop hits as I was driving around). I never got tired of hearing Wayne, because there's just so much joy bursting out of his rhymes. He seems to laugh (well, cackle) at the very idea of feeling ashamed of himself and I think some of that absurdly pure happiness he deals in so well really serves to lift people up.

I used the word "absurdly" on purpose. Because I think it's the key difference between Wayne and Nas: Absurdity versus Reverence. Which rapper you want to hear could be tied to which principle you choose. Celebration vs. Examination. Letting Go vs. Holding On. Maybe?

You could argue that Eminem rose to prominence using a multiple-personality version of this very dilemma. You didn't have to pick.

3. I think we've missed a learning opportunity here. I saw a reference to "ho's" earlier. I notice that no one ever writes about "hos," no, it's always "ho's," with an apostrophe. If only there was a contributor on this blog with the grammatical know-how of an 18th Century English Lord who could enlighten us with the use of the apostrophe in this and other situations where a word is simply written in the plural and not the possessive. If only.

4. Some hip hop albums that I can fully get behind. I notice a lot of different kinds of production and presentation across these records, and of course, tons of killer cathartic moments:

Jay-Z - The Black Album
Outkast - Aquemini
The Streets - A Grand Don't Come For Free
The Streets - Original Pirate Material
Beastie Boys - Ill Communication
Public Enemy - It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back
Kanye West - Late Registration

I never hear anyone talk about The Black Album, but I love listening to it. I never get sick of it. I would probably include The Chronic too, but I only had a cassette copy for a week when I was in high school before it got lost forever.

A list of my Own

Word, this conversation reminded me to go back and listen to my De La Soul albums. Stakes is High is an awesome, awesome record.

Here is a quick top five for me in no particular order (I'm going to see Great Big Sea tonight in a small venue (they are very, very Canadian and not at all hip-hop, but it will be fun nonetheless).

Blueprint-Jay-Z
Supreme Clientele-Ghostface
Aquemini-Outkast
A Grand Don't Come for Free-The Streets
Things Fall Apart-The Roots

I've mentioned all of these in passing during the course of this conversation. I'm sure that I'm forgetting some but there we go.

And I'm really glad this covnersation led me to pull out Stakes is High. Sooooo good.

NCAA Tourney

It is hard to pull away from, but I just wanted to say that "Tie My Hands" is a pretty good song, the metaphorical connection between the flooding in New Orleans and black struggle is well executed, the weeping guitar is nice too.

Just throwing out some of my all time favorites:

Illmatic, Nas.
Reasonable Doubt, Jay-Z
Ready to Die, Biggie Smalls
36 Chambers, Wu-Tang
Art Official Intelligence, De La Soul
Blackstar, Talib Kweli and Mos Def
Xzibit, Restless

A quickie

Yeah man, this week's a real good one, I shall post after 16 games of basketball are consumed.

The Masta Ace album I mentioned earlier might be an interesting one to check out, Disposable Arts. Tracks like "Every other day" and "Take a walk" are pretty solid, and the skits are honestly kind of good, and I hate skits.

Subjective Joy

I'm getting a little forced into a corner here on Lil Wayne. I do think he's a touch overrated and I am no fan of "Lollipop". I also understand that Nas is consistently listed in the pantheon of great rappers by his peers. He certainly is capable of doing very interesting things with language. This is why I didn't claim to be an expert on hip-hop. I do not consume it ad hoc. I tend to like what I like, but I'm will not claim to be well-versed in all of the intricacies and history of the genre. I will say that just because a rapper or group was important doesn't mean that their current material is still important.

As far as old-school hip-hop, I appreciate it a great deal but, you're right, I do not listen to it of my own volition very much. I love "Paul's Boutique" but I'm not sure that counts. I will listen to the song you recommended.

If we are talking about depth and meaning, I think we can interpret this in different ways. For instance, I love the Ghostface album "Fishscale" in part because of the several tracks that represent a tired old rapper sill slinging rocks. It may be a touch disingenuous but there is a depth to his story-telling. There is a sadness and a reality that comes across. It may not be touching per say but it is meaningful (he lost a lot of this on "Big Doe Rehab"). The Streets "A Grand Don't Come for Free" is just a masterpiece. The story telling is consistent and it wraps up in a beautiful little package at the end. I genuinely feel like that album told me something about life, about the relationships people have and the small lies and confusions that break them apart. That album moves me.

I think my specific problem with Nas, and this may not be fair, is my sense of his genuineness. I gotta say I've heard "I Can" and I wasn't impressed. Maybe the sentiment is nice but it doesn't feel real to me coming out of his mouth. Like I said this isn't particularly fair and is completely subjective. But I don't feel passion from Nas, I feel pseudo-anger, pseudo-humor, pseudo-political interest, etc. I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree about this.

I will take your bet on Lil Wayne, especially when compared to 50 Cent. However, this is going to come down to our differing views about what is "conventional" and my previously referenced views on rappers being genuine. There is no joy in 50 Cent's music and besides "In Da Club" no songs that really matter.

Anyway, I'm enjoying this discussion a great deal and it is leading me to a bunch of good tracks.

Hippity Hop

So let me answer the question posed at the end of your post. I don't really think of the aural experience and the lyrics as separate. Sure there are songs that have just nonsensical lyrics and have a fun beat that I can get into for a time, but nothing that stays in my playlist for more than a month (tops).

We are clearly working off two very different rubrics here, and I know this because you said that "Tha Carter III goes places that conventional Hip-Hop generally doesn't." And, predictably I suppose, I would say that Tha Carter III is a perfect example of a Hip Hop album doing nothing different than scores and scores of albums from people like Juvenile, Birdman, Juelz Santana, and Dipset, I find almost nothing new about it. When I listen to Lil Wayne I am just incredibly turned off, there is nothing that I like, and I don't really know how to explain why I wasn't gripped by any of the beats (I would say that it is because they are played-out, and not new at all, but you seem to think they are new and interesting, so I don't really know how to explain such a huge degree of differing opinion). I'm not real interested in going back and finding a entire list of songs that sound exactly like "Lollipop" that existed before Tha Carter III, but I am extremely confident that I could. I don't know man, when I listen to Lil Wayne I think he embodies everything that is bad about Hip Hop, his beats seem extremely similar from album to album, his themes have shown almost no variation, and the themes that he has are very overdone. Now I understand and agree that every rapper out there just talks about how awesome they are, that is part of it (although there are some guys out there that do not do that very much, like Masta Ace from the juice crew, his album Disposable Arts actually contains and incredibly introspective song titled "Dear Diary" and the skits on the album are some of the first skits I have ever enjoyed), but I was shocked when I saw the verse from "Hero" used to buttress your point about Nas and Lil Wayne saying the same thing. Nas' next verse in that very song deviates from the traditional bitches, ho's and money and actually says some interesting things, while at the same time remaining very poetic:

This universal apartheid
I'm hog-tied, the corporate side
Blocking y'all from going to stores and buying it
First L.A. and Doug Morris was riding wit it
But Newsweek article startled big wigs
They said, Nas, why is he trying it?
My lawyers only see the Billboard charts as winning
Forgetting - Nas the only true rebel since the beginning
Still in musical prison, in jail for the flow
Try telling Bob Dylan, Bruce, or Billy Joel
They can't sing what's in their soul
So untitled it is
I never change nothin'
But people remember this
If Nas can't say it, think about these talented kids
With new ideas being told what they can and can't spit
I can't sit and watch it
So, sh!t, I'ma drop it
Like it or not
You ain't gotta cop it
I'm a hustler in the studio
Cups of Don Julio
No matter what the CD called
I'm unbeatable, y'all
Lets go!

In that one verse Nas talks about some real ass shit, maybe corporate control is played out for you, but it is still an issue in the industry that he addresses eloquently. Also, if you want to find where Nas is really talking about issues that are interesting or using Hip Hop to uplift his listeners then I would point you to a song like "I can." This is a song that LW will never every even think to put out, but how often do you hear a rap song telling kids to go study and learn about their past as a way to liberate themselves, not that often, and certainly never on a LW track. What are your thoughts on "Black President" the last song on the Untitled album where he uses a tupac line "no matter if its heaven sent, we ain't ready to see a black president" in the hook for the song combining the past attitudes of one of the greatest rappers ever (from about 1992 I think) with the current scene of politics and race. That shit is real interesting to me, and I thought the song was well executed in its concept, but LW just rarely deals with this kind of stuff.

I can keep naming song after song that give examples of Nas talking about real issues beyond making it rain (although "make it rain" was a fun song, but now it is novelty and unimportant). You know though, I think the genesis of our differences comes from something you mentioned in your first post, about how you don't really get into a lot of hip hop from the 80's or early 90's, EPMD, Gangstarr, Boogie Down Productions, Marley Marl, Busy Bee and such, and most importantly Rakim. My favorite hip hop song of all time is Rakim's "Know the Ledge" off the Juice movie soundtrack, I be interested to hear your thoughts on it. But I started with Wu-Tang's "36 Chambers" and went back to Rakim and went from there. I love the old stuff, and I would imagine you wouldnt find ANY of those beats interesting, just a guess, but I doubt you would like it.

If it is a question of durability, the greats of the industry pretty much universally regard Nas as one of the greatest of all time, if you asked Dr Dre, Ice Cube, Biggie, Tupac, Big L, KRS-one, Jay-Z, and the like, they would all say that Nas is one of the greatest MC's of all time. On the other hand, Lil Wayne keeps the company of pretty awful rappers (juelz santana is a perfect example), artists that are just inferior in all aspects to the greats of Hip-Hop. We can agree, however, that Kanye has owned the Hip Hop world of late, he is ubiquitous. Nas will go down as one of the greatest ever, and when it is all said and done I think Lil Wayne will be an afterthought, much like 50 Cent (by the way, what do you think of 50 Cent?)

But I don't know how to remedy our differences on this seeing how wildly they diverge. You think Nas is ok, but has gotten weaker over time. You also find the Lil Wayne albums interesting to listen to, and think he has matured quite nicely. However, I think Nas is the greatest MC of all time (at least in the top 5), and I feel that he has evolved as an artist and has produced some very different shit from the status quo, like the aforementioned "Queens get the money." You will just never hear a song like that from 99% of the industry, that is awesome to me that he put that on his album. I also don't really think Nas is looking to be relevant in the current state of his chosen field, I think his albums are more of a commentary on things, and he knows that this is not going to sell nearly as many records or carry much "influence" on the radio, but he wants to say it all the same, and I respect that, its not about the billboard charts for him anymore, and it is still completely about the billboard charts for Lil Wayne. As someone who hates all commonplace standards of excellence I find Nas' attitude much more appealing.

I love Outkast, although I like "ATLiens" more than "Aquemini," I think the latter is an incredible album. But Lil Wayne is not even in the same universe as Outkast, they might even be in different dimensions.

As for "Ether" and "Takeover" I will stand firm by "Ether" but I love both songs. And I really do come for the lyrics and hope for a sweet beat, but I am mainly concerned with sweet lyrics, which is why I gravitate towards the MC's who have lyrics that could stand alone, without any music, as straight poetry. Lil Wayne just will never fit that.

What We Want and What We Get

Really? None of the hooks grab you? I just think the "The Carter III" is so much more interesting to listen too (until the end). No he's not terribly quotable but neither was Andre 3000 until "Hey Ya". He got more out of his phrasing and his persona then he did out of his flow. Big Boi was always the more conventional rapper but Andre was the better rapper, in that he did things with language and music that no one else was doing.

Honestly, I think we're arguing past each other. "The Carter III" goes places that conventional hip-hop generally doesn't. I'm not saying he's the better MC. I'm saying the music that he's making is more interesting to listen to. Even "Lollipop", the subject matter of which is completely lame, didn't sound like anything else on the radio when it came out. It does NOW but that speaks to his influence.

And honestly I can cherry pick lame Nas rhymes as easily as I can good ones. I think, if we're going to get to the heart of the matter, that Nas is just as disingenuous as anyone else. I mean if you want to say Lil Wayne has nothing to say except "I'm rich" by his third album, what is Nas saying at this point in his career?

Take this (from "Hero"):

And of course I've been the boss since back when
Rocking D Boy, Fila, velour in 190 black Benz
Now they shut down the stores when I'm shopping
Used to be train robbing, face covered in stocking
I'm him

I mean come on, he's arguing the same thing. He's just pretending to be important. Lil Wayne makes grand statments about his place in the history of hip-hop but his music is not self-important. I mean EVERY rapper talks about how great he (or she) is. The question is what music is enduring. Now, I'm not going to make the argument that Lil Wayne's music is enduring because I'm not sure. The artist of the decade who is going to be remembered above everyone else is Kanye, but this is a conversation for another time. Nas has his seminal moment. It past a long time ago and honestly, if we're talking about content, I feel like every passing album is another attempt at current relevancy and as such it generally falls flat. It comes off as contrived to me. That is what is fresh about Lil Wayne both when it's good and bad. I have no doubt he made the record that in his heart he really wanted to make and he has fun doing it. Nas never sounds like he's having fun. This is obviously not a requirement, a bunch of artists I like never sound like their having fun (Conor Oberst comes to mind) but the songs tend to make up for it. Bottom line, I just don't get anything out of being preached at by Nas.

I should make something else clear, all those records I listed earlier that I would take over "Illmatic" would beat out "The Carter III" as well. I just think in some ways he's picking up where Outkast left off. Is he their equal yet? No, absolutely not. But he's a hell of a lot more culturally relevant then Nas at this point. Is that a comment on where we are as a culture? Maybe, but there it is.

As I said before I shouldn't have been so dismissive of "Stillmatic" it is a solid hip-hop record. But it doesn't rival "Illmatic" or any other of the great hip-hop records of the decade and I'm sorry but "Ether" is no "Takeover".

That this Gay-Z and Cockafella Records wanted beef
Started cocking up my weapon, slowly loading up this ammo
To explode it on a camel

and thats so LAAMMMEEE.

Whatever. This gets to my question. Do you really listen for the rhyme's first and the total aural package second? I'm just curious. I'm a lyrics guy, beyond the shadow of a doubt. I love folk music and most of that is due to the content of the songs rather then the melody, but I tend to want something different out of my hip-hop.That is why I love "Be" even though I don't think Common is at his best. The album is just beautiful to listen to. Maybe it is also that I tend to go to other genre's for my "serious" music. Most of the hip-hop I like because it puts me in a good mood. Nas just gets on my nerves. This is not a "better or worse" argument, I guess we're just looking for different things.

Ask the bitch her name and tell her go board the plane

Mike Wit appears to have stole some of my thunder, because I think that he is dead on with his analysis of LW and Nas. In an attempt to be as charitable as possible to Lil Wayne I re-listened to the Carter trio of albums and my favorite mixtape from LW called "I can't feel my face" (its about crack and cocaine, mmmm, nice) yesterday. And honestly, it is hard to get through. There wasn't a single song on any of the three albums that gripped me in such a way so as to make me listen to it three times, or even twice. And that is essentially the problem for me, when I get into music, I super consume it, and there is nothing that I can super consume when it comes to Lil Wayne. Perhaps there were a couple of decent songs, "tie my hands" is ok, but it is one of the only songs with a coherent and consistent rhyme theme, and if that what you want (a song with a chilled out guitar beat) I would easily go with Nas' "thugz mansion" off the "God's Son" album.

In fact, I have major beef with your dismissal of Stillmatic as "weak." There have been points when I wondered if it rivaled "illmatic" (those moments passed, but I still pondered it for a while). How can you say the album is weak when it contains one of the best battle songs ever in "Ether", "Got yourself a Gun" is a better gangster-esque song with a better hook and better lyrics than any of the songs on Carter 1, 2, or 3. "Smokin" is great, especially with its oath breakdown, "You're Da Man" is one of the best songs Nas has ever put out, same goes for "One Mic." Jesus H Christ, I am only through the first few songs and they are all incredible, "one mic" is a lyrical achievement that is way beyond the capabilities of Lil Wayne, and let's not even mention (haha, no let's mention it) one of the most interesting and incredible lyrical expositions ever created in Nas' "Rewind." In the song he tells a story in reverse and keeps the rhyme moving backward perfectly throughout the entire track, Lil Wayne doesn't have any where near the talent to achieve something like that, Lil Wayne is not a poet, he may be a rhymer, but he is far from a poet, and I like the poet MC's better (Talib, Mos Def, Nas, Tupac, Slug, etc). After "One Mic" comes "2nd Childhood" a very good song that is a self-reflective anthem (something else Lil Wayne rarely attempts), followed up by "Destroy and Rebuild" a song about the state of queensbridge and hip hop. In many of Nas' songs he is very aware of the history of Hip Hop, and I love that about Nas', he really knows a lot about his industry, and he isnt afraid to talk about it. Maybe you don't like a song like "Queens get the money" but it is better than Lil Wayne saying "shorty wanna thug, bottles in the club" for the 100th time on the third Cater album, I mean really is there nothing else you have to say on your THIRD album than "I make money?". Back to Stillmatic, the next songs "The flyest" and "rule" are strong songs, I honestly don't know why Stillmatic could be seen as weak, I think it is right on to consider it a classic album, if for no other reasons than "Ether" "One Mic" and "Rewind."

It is hard to get through Lil Wayne, maybe if I was at a party and wanted nothing intelligent on in the background I would play Wayne, but I don't even like his beats, not a single beat grabbed me and pumped me up like the beat off of "Hero" on "untitled".

My title is a Lil Wayne line, I will end with a Nas line from "If I ruled the world" off the album "it was written" (which is a very strong album that I am not sure you even mentioned)

You'd love to hear the story how the thugs live in worry
Duck down in car seats, heat's mandatory
Running from Jake, gettin chased, hunger for papes
These are the breaks many mistakes go down out of state
Wait, I had to let it marinate we carry weight
Trying to get laced, flip the ace stack the safe
Millionaire plan to keep the gat with the cop camera
Making moves in Atlanta, back and forth scrambler
Cause you could have all the chips, be poor or rich
Still nobody want a nigga having shit

Lil Wayne recently claimed "I am Hip Hop", Nas recently claimed "Hip Hop is Dead"...........and that pretty much sums it up for me.

Dont know why the font is so big, that is unintentional

Shout out to Korea

Mike, i'm curious which Nas song is that line from? Because you're right it is not bad. I need to be careful here because i'm not argueing that Weezy is a better rapper then Nas, I'm argueing that RIGHT NOW I think he's the more interesting artist. I think there is a lot more going on in his music top to bottom. I also think what he's done in terms of releasing a steady stream of music for free online is interesting. I just generally think that the music on the whole is more appealing.

I would argue about the status of hip-hop in general because while it may be that great mainstream hip-hop is in "steady decline" as you put it, I don't think we're comparing apples and apples. Music generally is a great deal more diffuse then it was in the mid-ninties.

Hootie and the Blowfish sold like 10 million albums, you are NEVER going to see that again. Also, I would hardly have called The Roots in 1994 mainstream hip-hop. In fact other then Biggie none of those guys were mainstream at that point. Now, that is a function of the fact that almost no rap besides Will Smith and Vanilla Ice was mainstream at that point, which is just further to my point about us living in different era's.

I like "Hip-Hop is Dead" better then anything he did since "Illmatic" but I just think we are listening for different things.

The View from Korea

I got an e-mail from our boy Mike Witmer on this topic this morning. I'm going to post it now and respond when I get home from work.

"Ben, far be it for me to criticize one who actually makes music and has been involved in the actual creative process. I've listened to far fewer genres of music and probably would be only to be able to talk intelligently about hip-hop. I'm not surprised you didnt like the new Nas but you pinpointed exactly why. Most dont come to hip hop for good songwriting but that is exactly what makes Nas great. He has held on to these garbage producers for such a long time mostly out of loyalty (I believe) and his last 18 albums have suffered for it. However, no one in hip hop with maybe the exception of a couple underground guys and Black Thought even warrant a second listening. I cant remember the last time I stopped something I was listening to and rewound with the exception of Nas. The way he puts certain words together positions them may not always even be that deep but sound so nice together. I dont think one thing that L'il Wayne has said would cause this. And the new album "Untitled," I agree seemed to want to make more waves then he is capable of doing anymore but "Hip Hop is Dead" made a good point. I dont think he was talking about hip-hop as an art form but that the strong albums in the mainstream scene have disappeared. 2008's best selling artists were L'il Wayne, T.I., Young Jeezy and Flo Rida. 1994 best selling were BIG, Nas, Common, Jeru, Roots, Outkast and Gangstarr. I may not know who the fuck Kings of Leon are or own the latest "Now! That's what I Call Music" but if it aint dead its in a steady decline. This may be an unfair comparison and he has many a line but Nas "Through the lights cameras and action, glamour glitters and gold I unfold the scroll, plant seeds to stampede the globe, When I'm deceased, by then the beast arise like yeast to conquer peace leaving savages to roam in the streets."
L'il Wayne "Suck the lollipop"
The blog is awesome, especially you saying Fuck you! to any who doesnt like that dog video. Churn that shit out!
Holla Mike

"They Diminish, I Replenish": Hip-Hop and Meaning

I think it’s time to radically shift the conversation. We began by discussing ourselves, followed by several weeks of sports talk. The last few weeks have been focused on political issues. Thus, I think it is time to touch on another aspect of our everyday lives.

Zach and Kyle came up to visit us in Montreal for New Years. We had an outstanding weekend of essentially doing nothing, except talking, watching TV while talking, talking and playing board games while listening to music and talking. It was in many ways the impetus for getting this blog rolling. We were in the midst of a contentious game of “Dirty Board” (also known as Tock or Super Tock), which is essentially a more complicated precursor of Sorry, it is not unlike Parcheesi except it is played with cards not dice. For our listening pleasure I put my I-Tunes on random. Now, Alli and I share our I-Tunes and while we have a great deal of common taste, our differences lead to some humorous juxtapositions (think “Rain Dogs” by Tom Waits followed by “Any Man of Mine” by Shania Twain). ANYWAY, a Lupe Fiasco song came on which caused Kyle, Zach and I to fall into a conversation about hip-hop. This conversation revolved around the relative merits and demerits of Lil Wayne and Nas.

The central issue was that Zach and Kyle directed a surprising degree of vitriol towards Lil Wayne. I, on the other hand, was no big fan of the most recent Nas record.

Now, I’m not claiming to be an intense hip-hop expert. I don’t listen to a lot of Peanut Butter Wolf and I won’t pretend to be well-informed about obscure 80’s music. But our differences in opinion got me thinking about the reasons why we listen to music generally and hip-hop more specifically.

The first hip-hop I loved was The Roots. As Mike will recall we had a ritual at the end of each week of summer camp where we would get all the counselors to come into our cabin and blast the live version of “You Got Me” with Jill Scott. I was definitely in the midst of my jam-band hippie phase and The Roots were the ideal bridge between that often vapid genre of music and more thoughtful hip-hop.

The next big hip-hop record I loved was Jay-Z’s “Blueprint”. From “Girls,Girls,Girls” to “Heart of the City” that album is loaded with huge beautiful production, of course it turned out later much of it was produced by Kanye West (who it should be noted also produced the beat for “Get By” which is easily the best Talib Kweli song ever). My interest in the rapping came second, which should be obvious from my referencing of “Blueprint”. For example, Jay-Z let Eminem guest on “Renegade” and Eminem just tears his ass to shreds. That Eminem verse makes it painfully clear that Jay-Z was in the process of losing his lyrical fastball, what makes that record great is the production.

Bad rapping can ruin a good song, however time and time again a great hook can save mediocre rapping (see West, Kanye-career of). Now GREAT rapping can save a weak hook there is no doubt, but unless the flow is outstanding it can rarely carry a song on its own. It is production, not flow, which got me into hip-hop in the first place. I came for the hooks and stayed for the flow and now the flow is at least as important to me as the hook. As such, it is the writing that has impacted my own music

Now, as far as I can tell Zach and Kyle’s main criticism of Lil Wayne was that he was not nearly as great as he thinks he is. I hope that there is more to it then that because that criticism could be levied at nearly every rapper’s persona. But I have to say that much of The Carter III smokes. The record is full of hooks which in some cases save pretty weak songs. I would be hard pressed to find ANY Nas song that I liked as much as “Mr. Carter” and “Tie My Hands” is certainly more moving then anything on “Untitled”. I will say that the album lags badly towards then end, starting with Lollipop (I agree that song isn’t so great) and bottoming out with “Pussy Monster” which is just awful. I will go as far as to say there is no Nas song I hate as much as “Pussy Monster”. Please see the comments for a further note on this song that I didn’t feel was appropriate to put in my main post.

“The Carter III” is really fun to listen to, even as you are cringing at some of his subject matter. However, that has been a central tenant of hip-hop since the beginning, the subject matter is SUPPOSED to make you cringe. My problem with Nas is that too often it is not the subject matter that makes me cringe but his actual flow. I was going to quote extensively from both, but I realized that it is easy to cherry pick good and bad lines. I want to see where this conversation takes us, in order to better refine which quotes I choose.

In Pitchforkmedia’s review of “808 and Heartbreak” they said that Kanye West’s music was always about “the specific experience of being Kanye West”. I think this applies to Lil Wayne as well. He brings a perspective that I find intriguing because he is TRULY a career rapper. This is not a person who has had a normal upbringing. He started making records at 16. He’s been around forever and he’s only 26. As such he has a ridiculous amount of output for someone his age. He has ravaged Nas’ “One hot album every ten year average” already.

Which brings me to Nas. I’ve never liked Nas as much as I would like to like Nas (if that makes any sense). In fact I’m a little ashamed to admit, that while I DO really like “Illmatic”, I still don’t like it enough to listen to it over any number of other records. Just off the top of my head if I was forced to pick five of my favorite hip hop albums “Illmatic” wouldn’t beat out Jay-Z’s “Blueprint”, Outkast’s “Aquemini” and “Stankonia”, Ghostface’s “Supreme Clientele” and “Pretty Toney” albums, The Roots “Things Fall Apart” and “Do You Want More”, Cadence Weapon’s “Breaking Kayfab” and The Streets “A Grand Don’t Come for Free” just to name a few. It is not necessarily that these albums are better (though I would make a strong case for “A Grand Don’t Come for Free”), it’s just that they are more fun to listen to.

Now this obviously weakens my case off the bat. I may not be the best person to discuss what makes a hip-hop album great. There is no doubt that “Illmatic” is among the great hip-hop albums ever made. The problem is that ever since then Nas has been casting about for a new muse. He has increasingly tried to become meaningful and as such his meaning has become forced. “Illmatic” is meaningful because it represents a specific experience. That album is beautifully concise. It has no filler beginning to end, and set a standard of hip-hop albums without mindless skits in between (for which I am painfully grateful). So as an ALBUM it is genius and a lot of the rapping is great. Though with the exception of “Life’s a Bitch” I’m not sure any individual song has ever meant anything to me.

However since then I think it is hard to argue that his output was anything but very weak. “Stillmatic”: ok, but overrated (god bless The Source magazine for giving it a “classic” rating). “God’s Son”: awfully weak. “Hip Hop is Dead” was alright but it’s premise was so obviously flawed as there is still good flourishing hip-hop, it is just that Nas isn’t a central player any more. I won’t bother to critique “Nastradamous”.

All of this brings me to “Untitled”. I think I like the title “Untitled” better then the original album name, which was “Nigger”. The whole brouhaha over the title explains exactly how I feel about the album on the whole. He was going to give it a proactive title, just for the sake of giving it a provocative title. There is no interesting meaning behind calling your album “Nigger”. There was no interesting point to be made that has not been made a million times before. It is not that the word is not awful and offensive; it’s just that this concept has been tackled time and time again. This is precisely how I feel about the subject matter of the album. It attempts to be “meaningful” but his ideas are not fresh or interesting. There is far more interesting music being made about the plight of black-America. In fact I would argue that Ghostface’s “Fishscale” brings this reality to the fore better then the entirety of Nas’ career. Honestly, Kanye West did more in this vein by just saying “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” then Nas did on this entire album.

You guys told me that I just heard the wrong song, but to be honest, I felt the same way about “Sly Fox” that I did about “Hero” and “America”. They are all high on concept but low on execution. None of them had hooks that stuck with me, and the rapping was stale.

I don’t think ideas need to be capital “I” important to be meaningful and insightful.

But that is just me, which brings me to the question I want to discuss this week. What was it about this Nas record that moved you? What is it about Lil Wayne that causes you to discount him? Why do you listen to hip-hop? Do you come for the lyrics and stay for hooks or vice-versa? This week I want to really dig into what it is we like about music.

6 overtimes

My apologies for my long absence, I was struggling with how exactly to respond to Zach's post about people not taking us progressives seriously, then my tickets to the Big East tournament were the next day and I had no time to blog whilst watching 15 games of basketball in 5 days. And yes, I was there for the six overtime game, it was the greatest single sporting event that I will ever witness in my entire time on this earth. Nothing will ever top it. That is kind of depressing and kind of fucking awesome. And now I am about to find out the field of 64, er, cough, 65.

Lost. I watch Lost, and I really enjoy it, but only because I have consciously given in to it. There was a brief period of time when I decided to stop watching Lost. I realized that it is a show essentially built upon nothing. I read novels for the story and the character and (hopefully) the metaphorical meaning that I can elicit from the text. I watch comedic television shows because they are funny. I watch dramatic shows and movies for the same reasons I read novels. However, I watch lost in the same way I would watch a freak show at a carnival. I honestly don't give a fuck about the characters, not a single one. If the show ends with the world ending, or beginning, or maybe it is all in a dream or a snow globe, I really don't care. I am going to watch, and relish in the nonsense of the show, but it is worth nothing. (Keep in mind that I have seen every episode and I also do a season recap before new seasons begin)

Shows (novels, movies, etc) that use wild interconnection to fuel their plots are fun, but if the interconnection is not intentionally planned out by the writers before the show begins then I feel as if the interconnection loses a lot of value. The writers and producers of Lost are essentially just making shit up ad hoc to keep this franchise going, again, that makes me just not give a shit. (I am also not saying that they needed to plan every single detail, but I don't think they had anything planned beyond the first 2 seasons when the show started, and now look where the fuck we are)

I am back. Who's turn is it?

Zach, if you like that Hero show you will like Lost.

Netflix this...in time for the final season!!

LOST is great! Cliffhangers and mystery abound with hints of philosophy, psychology, religion, literature, science, fate, more. Fun to theorize about! Also, a major emphasis on rich and complex characters in the past and present, and the interactions between them which often display in beautiful and compelling ways.

Plus: Kate!

50 words? Who the hell are You?

Amazing. You, Zach, of all people would presume to limit me to fifty words on why you should watch Lost? You of the twelve page blog post and the 10 minute voice mail messages?

Nonetheless here is an attempt.

You will appreciate the litany of literary references ranging from C.S. Lewis to Stephen King. You will also like the intentional lack of clarity. It is a show worth THINKING about while still being very entertaining. Finally, it is WAY better then NCIS.

There, 42 words. I also wanted to quibble with you about Studio 60. I really liked it but I think all of the criticisms of it were completely valid. Having a sketch comedy show without funny sketches was a big problem. Like I said I enjoyed it, but it was no where near as great as Sports Night and the first four seasons of the West Wing (though it was better then the last three).

I have to get back to work, so on the matter at hand i will only say that I would definitely be open to a conversation about the pluses and minuses of unionization. It seems to me that they have become as much a part of the structure of enforcing the status quo as any other unwieldy bureaucratic organization. This is not to say that they can not be positive or necessary but I would be careful about criticizing the powers that be without criticizing many of the big unions because in some cases they have become completely integrated into the powers that be.

Saving the Blog from becoming "Lost"

Ben--thank God you won a donut! Is it too much to hope that it might be a magical spell-checking donut? Zing! Okay, I have no legs to stand on, haven't been around for a few days. But I got your "tag," so here I am. And can I just say...someone else read our blog? Holy crap! We have an audience. Well, had an audience. I can't say I am surprised it was a self-described hippie--this is a demographic I am expecting a lot of support from. (Joyce--if it was in any way advantageous to describe myself as a hippie, I would, but it's kind of frowned upon these days. I guess I'll have to call it "progressive leftist with a wardrobe barely above hippie").

First off, a big fat welcome to Mike. (Well, alright, a big husky welcome--I'm trying to be less of a self critic these days). But seriously, it was great to have another contributor get involved, even someone who wants to take cheap shots at my erudite lexicon. (And, with his use of "erudite lexicon," his fellow bloggers began to suspect that Zach was making overzealous use of a thesaurus when constructing his posts). And I appreciate that you described Isaac Brock as "a dude with a squawky scream and a terrible lisp," because it shows your capability for brutal honesty. You'll need that here.

Anyway, Mike, your extensive pop culture knowledge and musical background will make you an excellent contributor, as I have a hint that things are moving in that direction for next week, when Ben gets to choose topics. It also makes you a nice counterweight, along with Ben, to Kyle and I, whose styles tend to be, perhaps, a bit academic, overly analytical and serious. I mean, I can only speak for myself, but...oh, who am I kidding? Kyle is full of it too. This certainly isn't to say you guys are any less capable of writing the way Kyle or I do--it means you guys have way too much common sense to do it. I mean, I'm complaining that I don't know how to reach people, and then I use words that belong in the mouth of an eighteenth century English lord...it is kind of fishy on my part. Then again, I guess being a nerd is one of the few things I'm going to cling to unabashedly, so...expect more big words. It just makes me all fuzzy inside when I use them.

Now, to get back to serious matters, while we still can, before you guys turn this into a blog about a show I've never watched a full episode of...okay, not just yet. People say I will love "Lost." Can someone explain to me why? I seem to be either extremely on or extremely off in my television choices. For instance: I was all over The West Wing, and people who weren't into it at first came around. I tend to be a snob about my shows and think I have pretty good taste in television. I like all the "good" shows: Arrested Development (I hate you, FOX), It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Sports Nite, Studio 60 (I hate you, NBC), Flight of the Concords, and others that most people seem to agree are in good taste. Then again, I run into people who disapprove of my taste when I explain that I am still watching Heroes, that this season of 24 is really gripping, or try to expound on the simple pleasures of NCIS. Anyway, I really don't want this to turn into a "Lost" blog, but if you could each, in fifty words or less, explain why I should get up off my couch and go rent the first season, I am open to being convinced.

Okay, NOW back to serious matters...you guys made a couple of excellent points that I wanted to throw back up here, beginning with Mike, who said "There are millions of Americans who will aggressively fight to defend the right of their bosses to take advantage of them and their neighbors and families. People with tons of money have used their resources to shape the opinions of poor people to make sure that a giant chunk of the U.S. population will look out for them and protect their every right to do whatever is necessary to make the most money possible. So the poor, in the name of patriotism and freedom, are looking out for the rich." This is just an awesome piece of analysis, and raises an important point: why are the poor protecting the rich? It's quite clear that they are--despite the resentment of the poor towards the rich that I see and hear around me occasionally in the Bronx. And your suggestion that the poor are motivated by ideals, such as "patriotism" and "freedom," is a good start--the poor have been sold those values, literally. (By the way, I was at that rally at City Hall last week...did anyone see it on the news? 75,000 strong, and mostly organized labor, union members, including, of course, my fellow teachers--it was awesome being at what was essentially a union rally...more on that later).

I think there is more to it than mere ideology, though. I'm going to suggest that in fact, the poor are not aware that they are protecting the rich, and that it has something to do with another point you made: "I think this has to do with a uniquely American sense of individualism, which sees 'strength in numbers' as another way of saying 'weakness and lack of industriousness in the self'...This spirit of the individual makes the country more conducive to capitalist competition and less conducive to its citizens getting together to solve problems in innovative ways." I believe this is most certainly the case--people do see individualism as an incorruptible value, as a vital freedom that defines our country. The common (and I would say faulty) logic--which can also be tied, I think, to the massive influx of immigrants at the turn of the twentieth century--is that if one person can make it, any of us can. We all have a "chance" to "make it." While we know, analytically, that this is more complicated--and less than true--it makes for a very nice piece of propaganda, because it is difficult to argue against without sounding like a fascist. (Just for the record, I have been called a fascist before, and also for the record, I would make an awesome benevolent dictator).

Also, the lack of industriousness point--this causes major psychological problems for me. When he was alive, I heard all of my grandfather's stories--his parents came over from Germany in 1904 and he was born here. He worked all his life, worked hard, and didn't stop working until he was dead. I respected the hell out of this at one time, and in some senses, still do--his "work ethic" was incredible. But spending so much time working can only happen at the expense of other things, like family, recreation, and spiritual fulfillment. Sometimes I think about how I wish I had less work--fewer students, really--and I regret how lazy I am, how pathetic my effort and my complaints about my work environment seem when compared with my grandfather's stories. I feel like I am somehow inferior. However, your point makes me feel slightly less crazy during those times, because I know that I'm not lazy--I just believe that humans were put on this earth to do more than work. I think the battle cry of one particular union from late 19th century America sums it up best: "Eight [hours] for work, eight for rest, and eight for what we will." I am not opposed to working hard. I am, however, opposed to being overworked, when I have other elements in my life that are of equal or greater importance to my overall wellbeing than my career. And I am diametrically opposed to people being overworked and underpaid when the sole purpose of their work, in some senses, is to make money for other people.

I think this also relates to Ben's point: "There is a pervasive sense in the Unites States that no matter what happens America is still better then everywhere else." This is most certainly true, in the eyes of most Americans, even among many of the working poor, and especially among immigrants. (This fact often gives me pause when I lament the state of things--but not for long. Yes, this country is great, but it could be so much more, and we shouldn't rest until it is). I think part of what makes it "better" in other peoples' eyes is the freedom of the rugged individualism our country offers to--or perhaps forces on--each of its citizens. What people need to be shown, in a way that is concrete and undeniable, is that individualism is not the holy grail of civic values or civil rights. We confuse "rights" with being an issue for individuals, but we have collective "rights" as well that might be better served by rethinking, or conceding, some of our individual rights. We simply can not expect to be economically strong, politically viable, and socially peaceful as a nation if we are only concerned with the rights of individuals, and we cannot expect to be considered morally principled leaders to the world when we are only concerned with these rights as they relate to our own citizens. We must also be concerned with the rights of people from other countries, of ENTIRE other countries, and of the sustainability of the human race on the planet earth. Of course, ecological sustainability and social justice, while becoming more mainstream issues, tend to remain squarely in the purview of the "elitist" and "leftist" among us.


Ben, I don't want you to feel left out. You also had several great points, but I am rambling now, so I am going to touch on one thing you said: "I think one of the problems we have (especially your generation) is that we've grown used to the idea that things happen instantly. We wonder why the institutions we have seem so impenetrable, but yet do nothing to penetrate them. We've given up getting to the heart of matters." I couldn't agree more. I think this has a lot to do, as you said, with our expectation--nay, our need--for instant gratification. (This may also be a point for the pot conversation, but I'll save that for later). I can speak for myself when I say that I am frustrated--often to the point of despair and apathy--that things seem to "never change," or that change that seems so obviously necessary to me--allowing gay marriage in EVERY state, for instance--takes so damn long to happen.

Here's a thought on why things are this way: labor unions. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, during America's Gilded Age, we saw the rise of socialism and labor unions--simultaneous, not synonymous, but not unconnected. Those unions were able to make precious few gains on their demands. Certainly, for most of us in this country, or for those of us who are lucky, our workplace conditions are safer, our workday shorter, and our benefits slightly better than they would have been without the union movement. But it simply isn't enough. We, all of us, need to work less and spend more time with families and on self- and community development. Most of us need to be paid more for our work. We all deserve to have health insurance, sick days, vacation, and more. Why don't we get it?

In short: because the union is dead. Precious few unions still exist. Why? Probably because the government's response to events like the Railroad Strike, Haymarket Riot, Pullman Strike, et al was to violently repress workers' rights to protest. In several cases--and you may have forgotten this, or it may have been selectively omitted by textbook publishers--the employers and/or the federal government (thanks for nothing, Grover Cleveland) actually ordered federal troops in (or sometimes Pinkertons) to end strikes. These interventions always ended in the deaths of several protesters, and also soldiers and policeman. Workers, trying to bargain collectively, have often been replaced by "scabs" and met by the barrel of a gun. That is pretty discouraging for people who want to form unions at their workplaces, or go on strike. So, people learned that collective action often led to nothing, and was quite risky, and they internalized this. They learned, in a hard way, the price of collective action. Individual achievement, however, was rewarded and encouraged. Unions be damned! It's all about "efficiency!" Hire the best and fire the rest and never give another thought to their welfare! (Okay, it's time to stop channeling the robber barons now...in rhyme, for God's sake).

This all leads me to say that while I have neither the time, nor the energy, to take us off fully on this tangent now, expect it to come up in the future: labor unions have the potential to be the saving grace of our society and a vital structure in the reorganization of America if and when capitalism finally goes completely down the toilet. Anarchosyndicalism baby, that's the name of my game. Check it out and get back to me! Tag!

Touching all the Bases

Mike I would say that there is a very good chance we could turn this into a Lost blog. I mean without any contributions from the other members, I think its safe to say we can meld this blog to our own nefarious purposes. For instance after every episode we could have a running conversation, followed by a chat (which is definitely nothing like this) or even better we could turn it into some kind of all-encompassing encyclopedia of some sort, which I'm quite sure no one has thought of yet. On the Lost front, though I will be sad to see it go I'm really glad they decided to cap it at six years. The only time this show has lost its focus was in the middle of season three when they were obviously killing time (pardon the pun). But there has been no let up since the end of season three. In all seriousness if you and I end up taking this shit over, we can have a long in depth discussion about this.

I don't have much to say about the larger topic because I'm curious about Kyle and Zach's thoughts on it. I do want to back up your point about American individualism. In the U.S. we definitely do promote individualism, but I think some of the problems spring from our "melting pot" theory. When you ask someone who is a U.S. citizen where they are from they always place the "American" first. Not in the sense of American-French of American-African, but the origin they most associate themselves with is the United Stated. Comparatively, in Canada even people who are intensely Canadian still associate themselves with their country of origin first. I remember when I moved here people used to ask me where I was from. I would say "The U.S." and they would say, "But where are you FROM?". So there is an individualism America, but only as far as that individualism is part of our larger identity as a people and culture. People from the U.S. have a hard time understanding why anyone would ever leave to live somewhere else. And I think your right that the basis of that lies in our immigrant base. Whether it is because of that or something else there is a pervasive sense in the Unites States that no matter what happens America is still better then everywhere else. That collective ego often gets us in an awful lot of trouble.

Finally, I just wanted to respond to the person who commented on my post about boomers and pot (her blog is here). I certainly did not mean to lump all boomers in to one category and it is as easy and intellectually lazy as saying "gen-x" or whatever the hell our generation is. But in the collective sense I do think they set the table for us. This is not a terribly original though but there it is. The larger marijuana conversation is an interesting one and I think worth delving into in more depth at some future time. I certainly think a pot smoking ritual would be preferable to the time honored American alcohol ritual, however I am skeptical that I will be sparking up with my mother any time soon for myraid reasons.

Oh! and I won a donut so you guys don't have to put up with that nonsense any more.

Alright Kyle or Zach TAG YOUR IT