Kendrick Lamar wins 2018 Pulitzer Prize in music

Heh! It may take me several years to understand it. But, i'll revisit it one day.

 

Is there a reason they have to be Black? There are a lot of White R&B artists I would put above any Black ones.

 

The Monkees won the 'Pool It-zer' prize in 1987.

 

FIFY.

Here's a recent example where things got a bit dicey, at one point : Paul McCartney’s solo discography - Where To Start?

As for Kendrick Lamar, I personally don't care about criticisms as long as the poster in question has actually listened to his albums. But I'm sure that hasn't been the case here and that all the dissenters have done that already.

 

Thanks for posting this. It proves that there was no socio-political agenda in the selection process like a couple of posters have alleged.

 

No you're misunderstanding, I'm saying that I tend to like the style that Black artists have in the arenas of Blues, Jazz, Hip-Hop, R&B and some Pop. I don't choose based on Race but I seem to be drawn more to the style and vibe and spirit but it's not written in stone, I listen to a lot of music.

 

Before I respond to your comment I'd like to acknowledge diverting the thread, which is supposed to be about Kendrick Lamar something called a "Pulitzer Prize for music." I've known about Pulitzer Prizes since I was 10 years old, but I had no idea that there was even a subcategory for music until this Kendrick thing hit my screen a week or so ago. I think it's superfluous. An artifact of a Zeitgeist gripped with social-status pathology. I think it's hugely ironic that the hip-hop commentariat has gone weak in the knees for such trappings of Establishment Respectability. I feel roughly the same way about the Rock'n/Roll Hall of Fame. (The National Baseball Hall of Fame, that I get. I get it for sports, which have cleanly delineated rules and standards for achievement.) Although the Pulitzer Prize- now that is serious Eastern Establishment Cred. And I can't help but wonder- cui bono? (I doubt that KL gives a ....)

As far as my last comment: I need to emphasis that my primary critical condemnation was directed at the loathsome Zero Tolerance Prohibition War on Drugs, not at the rappers who celebrate and profit from the criminal antisociality resulting from that policy. I don't want my remarks to be viewed as equivalent to those of Henry Ford during the Roaring '20s- a leading supporter of alcohol Prohibition who blamed the rampant criminality and disrespect for the law during that era on Hollywood's film glamorization of booze and the partying lifestyle.

Now, to your comment; I'm aware of rappers who don't rely heavily on those themes. Some don't rely on them at all, although few of them skyrocket into popularity. But most rappers evidently feel an obligation to at least allude to the drugs trade/gunplay/violence and the antisocial values associated with a career criminal lifestyle. Even if the gangs/drugs game is being critiqued and condemned, it's still a primary focus, both in terms of subject matter and metaphorical allusion. Arguably THE primary focus, the one with the most enduring appeal. The heroic archetype of hard street rap is Dope Dealer.

(It's worth noting for historical purposes that Dope Dealers were at the top of the social status hierarchy in my mostly white, middle income high school in 1973, too. Even though I detected little or no interest by any of them in pursuing it as an adult career path to upward mobility, a significant difference in perspective that's worthy of a lot more discussion than it's gotten over the last 45 years.)

"I would say that it [reliance on reference to criminality/drugs/violence for lyrical material] isn't nearly as common at the moment as in the past."

I would say that it's at least as common as it ever was. Moreover, with an increasing number of examples, the narratives (such as they are; there's often little story, it's merely boasting) these days carry little or no sense of moral ambiguity or ambivalence about the nature of criminal profiteering or ingesting hazardous substances. A large number of top-download hits by rappers with massive fan bases and multiple album drops read like a laundry list drawn from a felony-based lifestyle.

I've found it difficult to find authoritative measures of ranked popularity for players in the game of hip-hop and their top hits. Some of this undoubtedly has to do with the way music gets downloaded these days, which doesn't compare easily with hard-copy formats. And many of the hottest drops by hip-hop sensations can't be tabulated through airplay, because they're unplayable on the radio. (It's going to be difficult enough for me to quote some of the tamer passages on the SH Forum here without running afoul of the rules.) The nearest measures of success and popularity from year to year that I've been able to find in my keyword searches are those provided by various genre publications, with their "best-of" lists. Like this one by the e-zine DX (1.6 million Facebook subscribers; 564,200 Twitter followers), from the year 2017:

The Top Rap Songs Of 2017

Check the lyrics. Granted, 3 of the top 10 spots are taken by Kendrick Lamar, who distinguishes himself from the pack with his lyrical aims. But it isn't as if the rest of the spots are filled by Kendrick Lamar emulators.

Admittedly, Jay-Z gets a track, too- #10 on the list. But to the extent that the youngsters are drawing on his influence, most of them seem to be hearing only every other verse or phrase, and they're taking all the wrong lessons.

I'll also acknowledge that in most of the lyrics from the products on that top 50 list, the drug game takes second place to dominator misogyny- which is the only way to get over with b- I mean, women- in Teh Cluub, to hear some people tell it. Which in turn goes a long way toward explaining self-described "stripper ho who's all about that shmoney" Cardi B. (#2 on the DX top 50 list), with her tougher-then-thou celebrations of her celebrity.

It still needs to be acknowledged that all of those ad shout-outs about possession of brand names, various & sundry exercises in conspicuous consumption, Scrooge McDuck swimming pools of money, recurring threats of violence and gunplay, references to prison, musings about early death, etc. ultimately trace back to the House that (the war on) Dope Built:

like Future, #5 on the DX list: Future - Mask Off Lyrics | MetroLyrics

or the Migos, #6 on the DX list: T-Shirt by Migos Songfacts (annotated, to keep up with the youth, with their slang)

Apologies for taking this so far off-topic. More discussion should probably best be continued in a different subject thread.

 

What I meant is that there are many White artists who/did hold their own in those genres, like The Average White Band (AWB), Teena Marie, Michael McDonald, Dave Brubeck, Brian Culbertson, and many others.

 

In all honesty, I still don't think you get it.

 

Music Youtuber Adam Neely made a video about this very argument:


I think it's a good point to recognize that an award like this shouldn't be a charity, but I'm not sure about Neely's conclusion that letting it be a consolation prize for previously neglected genres is much better.

 

I would have no objection to doing away with all music awards. In the end they don't mean anything.

That said, the best I can offer as to why Kendrick deserves a Pulitzer now when a century of respected popular musicians have been disregarded is that there's a first time for everything. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a deliberate element of "mold-breaking" in issuing the prize in this way, and in any case, when has "because it's always been that way" ever been a good reason to keep doing something?

 

I think this is great and well-deserved. I'm not the biggest rap fan, but I do like Kendrick Lamar and Damn. Although I don't think Damn is quite the masterpiece To Pimp A Butterfly was, I do think it was definitely the best album of 2017. I really like the precedent of allowing popular musicians to win this award, instead of just jazz and classical. I don't think Kendrick Lamar's win is supposed to imply that he is better than the decades of popular musicians who have been ignored, or even that Damn is so mind-blowingly good that the paradigm-shift was unavoidable. I think the change has more to do with the judges than it does with the overall quality of Damn. There have been popular albums that are just as good as (or better than) Damn coming out for decades, but now just happens to be the time that the Pulitzer judges chose to acknowledge it. That's not to take anything away from Kendrick Lamar's win; I think he deserved it through-and-through, but it's not so cataclysmically, paradigm-shiftingly great that the judges had no choice but to pick it.

 

I think you make some good points, however, my comments had nothing to do with pop or chart rap, with which I have only a passing knowlege, if any. Perhaps that makes my comment about how common those subjects are innacurate. My comments were more about critically acclaimed albums as that is the kind of music press and music discovery I follow most.

 

The guy writes 800 plus words and that's the best you can do? 10 words.

Please tell us why you "think" he does not get it.

 

Working my way backward through this (very amusing and totally unsurprising) thread and just thought I'd leave this here for anyone still doubting Kendrick's ability to write meaningful, personal lyrics that also convey a greater sense of cultural importance.

Kendrick Lamar – Alright Lyrics | Genius Lyrics

Beware, there be foul language ahead...

 

I used to listen to a lot of underground hip hop, still do now and then. I was just wondering, if this guy gets the Pulitzer Prize, what should go to the likes of Vinnie Paz then?
If Kendrick Lamar's lyrics are so deep, then what's to be said about Jedi Mind Tricks, Non Phixion or emcees like Apathy, Louis Logic, Esoteric.. and the list can go on.

 

I think that's perfectly possible as long as it doesn't, however, leave the lyrics behind. For many listeners (obviously not for all), one of the chief pleasures of song is in the way linguistic and musical elements come at us together. It's hard to distinguish between them even for purposes of analysis because they can affect each other in such complex ways as we perceive them. It's what distinguishes the art of song from other more purely musical or linguistic arts. It's true that in Hip Hop the words matter more than in some other kinds of song (that balance can very a lot), but still, extra-linguistic, musical rhythm has a shaping and expressive function in Hip Hop that's just as important as the semantic dimensions of the words, and in Lamar's work, at least, melody also comes into play here and there (an important element of his style).

You're right to take the Times writer to task for commenting primarily about the lyrics. Any really full critical account of these recordings (including discussions of whether or not they deserve the Pulitzer) ought to at least try to take the above into consideration.

L.

 

You're welcome. I think it's clarifying in a number of ways, although I don't agree that it proves there was no socio-political agenda, really. But then I'm not sure why we should expect award choices to be somehow disengaged from social and political forces, agendas, concerns, etc..

L.

 

Right. They're all fine but I prefer how black artists express themselves in those genres.

I wasn't saying that I think certain artists are better than others, I was stating a preference.

Do you have a problem with the Black artists in those genres? I'm confused by your insistence here

 

I still don't understand the logic of your preference, unless you think that non-Blacks are somehow incapable of presenting the music in the same way.

I'm Black.

 

I'm sorry, but the quoted piece does NOT prove that there was no socio-political agenda in the selection process. Of course, the professor of African-American Literature and Music doesn't say that there was either, but does she have to? There is little in our culture today---little in society in general-- that does NOT come complete with a socio-political agenda. This is doubly true to when it comes to bestowing laurels upon artists and even more so when you are talking about academia, when the subject is race and when it's NPR. I don't believe I'm skirting the rules of this forum to state that in 2018 America everything is political. Ischwart is at least intellectually honest enough to ask why it shouldn't always be political.
But can the rest of us be intellectually honest enough with ourselves to stop pretending otherwise?

 

That's a reasonable clarification. Although I'd also point out that rappers like Future, the Migos, Young Thug, etc. have received ample "critical acclaim." For that matter, my impression is that very few critics covering the realm of hip-hop are inclined to offer negative comments about "hardcore" rappers. Most of the articles I've read exhibit a pronounced tendency toward sycophancy.

 

I’ll chime in. I would say that he doesn’t “get it”, but I question whether he has sufficient background to support his statements. He seemingly comes to conclusions based on internet searches of the ten best rap songs of 2017. He quotes lyrics from two songs in a top ten list and comes up with sweeping conclusions about lyrical content favored by rap/hip-hop artists.

If you do a similar search for the ten best pop songs of 2017, you’ll pull up tons of lists with Ed Sheeran, Camila Cabello, Sam Smith and so forth; acts with massive fan bases, for sure, but no Radiohead, no the xx, no Bon Iver, no St. Vincent and certainly no Paul McCartney. Would you quote lyrics from two random songs in a top ten list and make generalizations about the lyrical content of pop music artists in the 21st century? Probably not, right?

 

You are being willfully confused?!?! I'm not deciding to like any type of music because of the race of the artist beforehand. I'm noticing, after the fact, that for some reason, I tend to gravitate to Black artists in the genres I mentioned. It's an AFTER THE FACT realization.

 

Well, those guys don't have Kendrick's PR team, so....First comes the carefully cultivated persona though PR, then comes the Grammy's, the Pulitzer Prizes, etc.