Kendrick Lamar wins 2018 Pulitzer Prize in music

I guess I'm just an old out of touch white male, but I absolutely HATE whatever it is you want to call what he puts down (music, hip-hop, rap, noise, etc) and I had to keep myself from hurling when I read he won the Pulitzer...

But my teenage daughters love it, and because of that I have to listen to it whenever we're in the car together!!!!!

Now, get off my lawn!!!!!!!! : - )

 

In matters of taste, I think there are usually reasonable parameters as to what certain things categorically are. There is some fluidity to that concept, of course (there is a "fusion" genre for everything now, it seems), but in broad strokes, the differences between rap and rock are as apparent to even the casual listener as the differences between an orange and a cheeseburger. True, they're both "music"; true, they're both "food." So they can both be subjected to some of the same general criteria: Do I like how this sounds? Do I like how this tastes? Would I spend money on this? But in the end, the things are categorically different.

Beyond that, people tend to follow one of two avenues of criticism: they either criticize something for being a poor version of what it actually is, or they criticize it for failing to be something else altogether that would go against the DNA, or at least the widely accepted
norms, of what it is. An MC that isn't looking out from behind a guitar or piano, a writer with a list of cowriting credits (typically a necessity to clear samples) -- this stuff is woven into the fabric of what rap is. Not to say there are never exceptions, but ultimately, someone who levels these accusations at a rap record is someone who doesn't have realistic expectations of a rap record. Might as well criticize an orange for failing to taste delicious on a sesame seed bun and covered in melted cheese.

Rap is a genre of music with unique, defining traits, and it is possible that those objective traits are not what any given listener looks for in music. That's fair. But because we are slaves to our own biases and experiences, we often assume that all music ought to be held to the same standard as that which we think is important, and while this is certainly a reasonable yardstick to use when spending your own money, it's ludicrous to expect the world to operate this way. The whole "writing your own songs" thing in particular is a tell-tale sign of post-1960's rockism, as few other genres at any point in history have placed such a high price on writing credits for their own sake.

So to answer your question, I am sure you could plug some variables into that equation that would render the logic useless. But especially in matters of taste, faulting an orange for not adhering to the tenets of a cheeseburger, faulting a comic book for not adhering to the tenets of a Russian novel, faulting a rap record for not adhering to the tenets of a rock record -- these are critical dead-ends and ultimately instances of bum logic, true though they may be for any one person's individual preferences.

 

You'd have to not at all understand what I'm saying/what my stance is to think that I'm denying that or that I'd be forced to.

 

That is a totally subjective judgement

 

I have enjoyed this thread. I am not a fan of hip-hop music but I am trying to understand it, and why it is relevant today. My main criticism of the genre is that there is little scope for individual interpretation. People say what they feel, and if you don't get exactly on their wavelength, you are on the outside. That's not how I see the human condition. I think we are all searching for answers, but they are not being supplied.

 

More relevant than the Beatles for sure

Congratulations Mr. Lamar

 

And? You're simply not interested in understanding the view beyond a straw man?

 

While trying to avoid getting into a big philosophical discussion on yet another topic, what I was getting at was the ideas that:

(1) Anything we fault we're faulting for not being something different than it is, and
(2) Pretty much everyone is going to feel that some things don't deserve accolades for being what they are; for example, a lot of people feel that serial murderers wouldn't deserve accolades for being a serial murderer rather than having qualities that lead to not wanting to murder other people.

It might be impossible to get very much into this without getting into a big philosophical discussion, though, because the different views about it might come down to whether we're "type" realists versus nominalists. (I'm a nominalist.)

 

Well I would hope so. I guess no one told you the band broke up 50 years ago?

 

I actually prefer D'Angelo's Black Messiah to Lamar's Damn because I'm more of an R&B fan. That said, Damn was the album that really got me into Lamar. The whole thing is just really compelling though I am not the intended audience. Yes, I am bothered by the repetition of the N word -- on this album and in rap generally -- but I get why it's used by the artist. I hope the Pulitzer continues to open the award to a mix of music. It should have done that 50 years ago.

P.S. I don't see how Bitch Don't Kill My Vibe is any more or less offensive than, say, Under My Thumb. Just more profane is all.

 

Yes, I understand this. My point, as I attempted to illustrate in my post (without success it seems), is that there is a difference between saying "this rap song stinks because the flow is limp and the beat is weak" and saying "this rap song stinks because the rapper isn't wearing a cowboy hat and extolling the virtues of pickup truck ownership." Both of these things ultimately fault the work for not being somehow different than it is, but one addresses a shortcoming in the work as it exists and the other reflects a shortcoming in the consumer's expectations.

Yes, I thought of exactly this type of example (my example was rapists, but tomato-tomahto) which is why I repeatedly clarified "in matters of taste" and also said:

 

That part I don't agree with. The supposed difference seems completely arbitrary to me. But maybe the difference will end up being related to you being a type realist . . . I don't know, I'm just speculating whether that would be the case.

 

Arbitrary how? In one case, the work is criticized for not possessing traits that it *could* reasonably be expected to possess; in the other case, it is criticized for not possessing traits that it *could not* reasonably be expected to possess. Again, not to say the world isn't full of blurred lines and exceptions, but an overwhelming majority of MC's do not personally play instruments on their records, and share their writing credits with many cowriters (this is just the nature of sampling). You may be pleasantly surprised when someone within this genre does this, and you may choose to see this exception as an example of a certain artist rising above what you perceive to be the genre's mediocre standards. But at some point, to *expect* this evinces a poor understanding of the tenets of the art form on the part of the listener more than it does a shortcoming on the part of the artist for failing to be an anomaly.

Put it another way: You really want to get a dog. But you don't want to incur the expense, so you buy a fish. But then you take the fish out, and instead of running over to you, jumping up on your lap, licking your face, etc., the fish flops around on the floor for a minute and dies. Is this the fish's fault for not being a dog, or your fault for expecting the fish to be something it isn't?

Or put it this way: You are the janitor at a big company with no managerial duties, and you get low marks on your performance review because the company's full-time payroll is over budget. Is this your fault, or are you being held to a standard that is inappropriate for your category?

 

at least for me, Lamar's latest album "DAMN" explores large themes (lust, ego, loyalty, etc) the same way that "Dark Side of the Moon" does.

 

Because, aside from "reasonable" being subjective, which I'll avoid getting into if we don't have to get into that, what makes it reasonable to expect any work to have characteristics that it doesn't have?

 

Quite possibly true, but the real test is how (or if) he's viewed 40-50 years from now (like the Beatles). I don't expect to be around but am comfortable concluding he won't have that shelf life. Let's check back in 10 years and see how things are going.

 

What makes you think he won't last that long?

 

I'm lost, man -- feels like we're getting into Bill Clinton "depends on the what the definition of 'is' is" territory, subverting reason in favor of semantic absurdity.

I'll tell ya what I do agree with you on, though -- your username and avatar. I was just listening to some '77 Dead the other day. A glorious noise!

 

The idea is that (while critiquing a hip-hop album, say)

(a) "This stinks because it does have guitar solos"

is really no different functionally than

(b) "This stinks because this rapper doesn't have good flow."

In both cases, the person issuing criticism wants the work to be something different than it is, something that's closer to their own preferences/ideals. That's because what makes flow good to someone evaluating it is that it has properties they prefer rather than properties that they don't prefer. Well, that's all the guy who said (a) is saying, too--they want it to have properties they prefer rather than properties they don't prefer.



Glad you enjoy the Dead by the way. ;-)

 

He may be around physically (if that's what you're asking) -- my comment concerns whether he'll be a strong enough "legacy" artist that people still buy his records, or create an entire Las Vegas show around (Circue "Love"), or release to great demand remastered versions of 50-year old albums that still sell well. There are legions of bands that sold out stadiums that you don't hear about now, even 20 or 30 year later. So it seems fair -- when someone somehow declares the Beatles are not relevant today -- to say Lamar's "relevance" may be shorter-lived than one expects. He has a lot of decades to go to match the Beatles' history. Just saying.

 

No I wasn't talking physically lol

Anyway, it's true plenty of people have played sold out stadiums & have been forgotten, but I don't think Kendrick will be anytime soon. His album, Good Kid Maad City, is still highly revered 6 years later & is considered a classic album. Not many forgettable acts in the past could say the same thing back when.

I'm not sure his legacy will be as great as the Beatles, cause I'm not sure he is as beloved by millennials as the Beatles were by boomers, meaning the future generations might not get as exposed to his music as they were to the Fab four. He is important enough to this generation to not be lumped with the other legions of forgotten bands, no way. For many he hasn't had a mistep yet in his career.

 

Historically, hip-hop artists have had trouble retaining anywhere near the same cultural cachet long-term, though. I'm not saying that at all as a knock against the music. And I don't know exactly what makes the difference. But even Run-D.M.C., Public Enemy, the Notorious B.I.G., Tupac, Jay-Z etc. have nowhere near the stature that they once had, while many, like NWA, Ice Cube, Snoop Dogg, Busta Rhymes, Eminem, OutKast, etc. almost seem to be treated as a joke now instead (and of course some that were very popular--like MC Hammer, Vanilla Ice, etc. are considered a joke/embarrassment now). In fact, the only hip-hop artist that I'd say has anywhere near the same stature decades later is Wu Tang Clan.

Maybe that will change in the future when it comes to folks like Kendrick Lamar, Kanye West, etc. But I'm skeptical that it will change. The hip-hop community seems to have fickle tastes for some reason, and the community doesn't seem to revere/deify its past in the same way that some other music fan communities do, like the rock community, the jazz community, the classical community, etc.

On the positive side, this could be part of why hip-hop in general has retained about the same degree of cultural cachet for four decades now. By not deifying its past, the community continues to think of it as a cutting-edge phenomenon, where they continually think of it as something that is just emerging, something just on the verge of mainstream recognition (an attitude we've seen in many posts earlier in this thread). If Kurtis Blow were treated like Chuck Berry instead, the Fat Boys like the Beach Boys, LL Cool J like Buddy Holly, Public Enemy like the Rolling Stones, etc., then maybe hip-hop would have trouble moving forward for decades on end and it would gradually lose popularity. The deification of rock's past is probably a big part of what has made it wither in popularity over the last 20 years (and the same with jazz, etc.)

 

Rapture (Blondie song) - Wikipedia.

 

Well, your avatar gave that away

Was never a Raiders fan, but I love the Snake.

 

Tastes in music vary tremendously, and I perceive musical genres to be more segregated than ever before. Hip-hop and rap have never been my thing. I've lived long enough though and experienced the evolution of music to see that awards are rarely an indication of talent and quality especially in today's climate of inclusivity. Live and let live. Cary on...