Thank God for all my dopest rhymes!

[sinmantyx]

This idea came about from the thread concerning race, but it's definitely a topic onto itself.

What is your opinion about negative or socially vacuous lyrics and art? Should the artists hold some responsiblity for shaping culture, or hold NO responsibility simply because they have a right to artistic expression?

The court case against Judas Priest comes to mind, but I'm not asking about legal issues, I'm talking about basic ethical issues.

Is it a good and responsible thing to innudate popular culture with female-image-objects and angry violent words and actions; romanticizing extremely unhealthy behaviors and actions to a wide audience; in order to make money?

btw...I love this song. Thank God

[Homicidalheathen]

Thank god I don't have to hear it again myself.

No, yah um......no. If your stupid enough to jump off a cliff because wile e coyote did it then you are the weakest link good bye.

You heard shooting niggaz in a song was cool so you tried it? Next. Bye.

[Melova]

I've never heard the song...but the lyrics do make me grin a bit.

[Paper Hearts]

It is a far worse and more dangerous society that suppresses artists.

Art is a reflection of culture; People don't blame German Expressionism for World War 1, for instance. Having said that, not all artists are great, in fact the vast majority are really terrible and sometimes what you're seeing is just really bad art and that should be realized. But all societys are malleable (whether it's in their mandates or not) because ethics are simply imagined, they are not real. -Differences in laws between this country and it's greatest allies can be dramatic, differences in law within this country in just the last half century are dramatic, differences in law presently from state to state include things as dramatic as punishment via execution, and things we do everyday here would land you in prison for a very long time in other nations or...the other way around. There's just no absolute when it comes to ethics or being a reasonable human being. When you allow for freedom of expression you are acknowledging this principal and you are allowing for imperfections in law to find improvment. Improvment, however will always be subject to whatever present mass hysteria...and "improvment" is always temporary--even borders fluctuate, with time.

I think the issue of abusing the female image is worth it's own topic...but I won't get into it here, because it's kind of off point.

[Blackmail]

I mentioned this in the other thread regarding rap music's influence in society.

I don't think a kid is gonna listen to Eminem and then decide to stuff his wife into his trunk and and throw her off the cliff in front of his daughter like Eminem talks about. However I think gangsta rap has created a culture that celebrates some of the negative stereotypes of ghetto life and even disguises itself as 'black culture'. So while not one lyric or one artist makes people shoot someone, when you have the economic conditions some people live in and add a poor family life and add constant references to bitches, money, guns and weed, well, you have lots of kids who refer to women as bitches and play with guns, etc

That said, I am not into legislation of the lyrics. Enough of the older (and some younger) rappers themselves do not like the lyrics in today's rap songs. Public Enemy, Krs One, Rakim, Will Smith, Jeru the Damaja, Nas, The Roots - all have complained about gangsta rap.

I guess my point is that people should police themselves. If you're a black metal band talking about demons and shit, no one is going to care. If you're a popular rapper and you know kids listen to you, why are you bragging to these kids about how many bitches you have unprotected sex with (like biggie did) or that you shoot people (snoop)?

Krs One is probably the most outspoken and in my opinion he is the greatest rapper of all time and this is perhaps the best, non politically correct interview I've ever read:

http://www.avclub.com/content/node/22755

O: Do you feel like people have a bias against older rappers?

KRS: Just black people do. Just black executives have a bias against older artists. We don't respect our elders. Besides artists, we don't respect Frederick Douglass. We don't respect Martin Luther King. You look at every Martin Luther King Boulevard out here, and it's a crack block. That's not because of white people. That's because of black leadership

O: What do you think is the biggest problem with hip-hop today?

KRS: The fact that everyone believes that all of hip-hop is rap music, and that, when you say "hip-hop," it's synonymous with rap. That when you say "hip-hop," you should be thinking about breakdancing, graffiti art, or MCing—which is the proper name for rap—DJing, beat-boxing, language, fashion, knowledge, trade. You should be thinking about a culture when you say, "hip-hop." I think that hip-hop should be spelled with a capital "H," and as one word. It's the name of our culture, and it's the name of our identity and consciousness. I think hip-hop is not a product, but a culture. I think rap is a product, but when hip-hop becomes a product, that's slavery, because you're talking about people's souls. To me, that's the biggest problem.

O: Do you feel like people in general—and particularly the media—tend to focus on the negative aspects of hip-hop?

KRS: The question is a little unfair toward the media, only because if it bleeds, it leads in the media. That's how they make their money. Nobody's gonna buy a newspaper that says, "KRS does a mentorship program at the Riverside Church for young men 13 to 16." Nobody cares about that. On another level, you don't do those things for publicity, so the media, especially the print media, are in a very difficult position. They have to sell because they've got to make some money, they've got to feed themselves, and the way they sell is by constantly telling bad news. Bad news sells, so with that, it's a difficult position to be in. However, there is, I would say, a responsibility that's due. I think that all journalists, specifically print journalists, have a responsibility to educate the public. When you handle a culture's intellectual property, like journalists do, you have a responsibility not to tear it down, but to raise it up. The depiction of rap and of hip-hop culture in the media, I think, is one that needs more of a responsible approach from journalists. I think we're going to get there, but we have to grow up a little more—and not grow up in a slang sense, I mean grow up. We need more 30-year-old journalists. We need more journalists who have children, who have families and wives or husbands, those kinds of journalists. And then you'll get a different depiction of hip-hop and rap music. Really, you'll get a different depiction of the world, period.

O: Do you feel like the media pay too much attention to people like Eminem, Puff Daddy, and Jay-Z, who are seemingly in constant trouble?

KRS: Yes and no. Yes, they pay attention, because they have to print controversy to sell, but those people pay more attention to the media than I think a conscious rap artist does. Eminem's publicity agent is obviously aggressive about getting him out there, and getting controversial stories out there. In a way, Eminem benefits from all of this, especially with the image he's portraying. If you're an outlaw, you want the media to print the fact that you got arrested for gun possession. You want the media to print that you slapped up your girlfriend, that you smoked a blunt and ran down the block. You want that, and I think the media have done a great service to Eminem and Dr. Dre, and so on. The real problem is not so much what The New York Times or USA Today or any of the major news media do. The real problem is with The Source, which claims it's "the magazine of hip-hop music, culture, and politics." Yet when you open it, the culture and politics is all about pimps and hoes. To me, that's incredibly damaging, because if hip-hop's own publication is saying that all we're about is bitches and hoes and pimps and guns and drugs, what do you expect more intellectual, more mainstream, more academic writers and journalists to take from this culture? These writers are looking at Rap Pages and XXL, who claim they're hip-hop on a higher level, but at the same time, KRS-One will never be on the cover of XXL. KRS-One will never be on the cover of The Source—unless, of course, I sell a million records. Then, of course, I can be on the cover. To me, that's the real problem. Hip-hoppers are not interpreting what hip-hop is, and when we do interpret it, we interpret it as something immature, unorganized, and outlaw.

O: Do you feel like the police are targeting rappers?

KRS: Why, certainly. Certainly, just turn on the TV. I think BET and MTV are one of the main reasons why we have racial profiling in this country today, because police officers are human beings, as well. They themselves may disagree, they may think they're above that, but they're human. They go home, they have to buy their son or daughter the latest rap CD, they listen to it, and they listen to rappers confessing crimes, saying how they got away with murder. They listen to that. Any responsible man or woman with a family cannot respect that, and so if you watch BET and MTV, and then you put on your uniform and go out to patrol the street, you're like, "I know what you're all about. You're really only about shooting guns, smoking blunts, and promiscuous sex." It's just hypocrisy on hip-hop's part to cry racial profiling when your race is on TV acting like fools.

[Paper Hearts]

^I agree. I wouldn't put the responsibility on artists at all. I'm more apt to blame the television stations or radio stations that distribute poor art...but I wouldn't propose placing restrictions on the materials they chose to distribute either...because if people are ridiculous enough to demand programming like that, it's just none of my buisness, I simply will not watch television, etc.

On a personal note, I think a show like American Idle is far more damaging to a society than a song that has lyrics like "Bitch, get out the way", and far more offensive...I also feel that a film that glorifys war is more dangerous than all the gay marriages in the world--but very fortunately, I don't often agree with society. But I won't force a rap artist to do rehashings of 'I've got you babe' by Sonny and Cher and I just don't feel fit to control anyone but myself and my own child.

[Blackmail]

^I agree. I wouldn't put the responsibility on artists at all. I'm more apt to blame the television stations or radio stations that distribute poor art...but I wouldn't propose placing restrictions on the materials they chose to distribute either...because if people are ridiculous enough to demand programming like that, it's just none of my buisness, I simply will not watch television, etc.

On a personal note, I think a show like American Idle is far more damaging to a society than a song that has lyrics like "Bitch, get out the way", and far more offensive...I also feel that a film that glorifys war is more dangerous than all the gay marriages in the world--but very fortunately, I don't often agree with society. But I won't force a rap artist to do rehashings of 'I've got you babe' by Sonny and Cher and  I just don't feel fit to control anyone but myself and my own child.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

GLAAD said that Eminem set gay rights back 20 years with his lyrics and said he promotes violence against gays. I'll try to dig up the article today.

If that is true, if lyrics can instigate violence against gay people, should something be done?

And how is American Idol damaging?

[Paper Hearts]

GLAAD said that Eminem set gay rights back 20 years with his lyrics and said he promotes violence against gays.  I'll try to dig up the article today.

If that is true,  if lyrics can instigate violence against gay people, should something be done?   

And how is American Idol damaging?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's another question:

Should a state that does not allow gay marriages be allowed to ban the making or showing of films that have instances of gay people living together as if they were married?

This is just one more example of where art conflicts with some of the 'ethics' or the laws of our society. I only use that illustration to ask where does it end if you begin this type of censuring?

[sinmantyx]

I think the issue of abusing the female image is worth it's own topic...but I won't get into it here, because it's kind of off point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not off-topic at all. I would like to hear your views.

As far as law, I think almost everyone here is most likely very opposed to government enforced censorship. I just want to know if the opinion is that artists have no responsibility, ethically, for what they produce and the real consequences of their work gaining mass-appeal.

[Gauge]

Just my thought but. . .

in many instances i think that maybe society shapes music instead of the other way around, that the violence in music is just a reflection of how they see the world. im not saying eminem saw someone stuff a chick into a trunk and throw it off a cliff but maybe the violent tendancies he has against her and the way he expresses it is just a spin off of how he saw females treated and he went toward the negative of it instead of learning from it.

just one example to throw out and hear thoughts on and again just my opinion =)

[sinmantyx]

I'm not so sure about art always being a reflection of someone's life. You chose how to present yourself and your experiences.

Many times the people buying the media, buy because it appeals to very base human wants such as sex, anger, and a sense of belonging.

I appreciate much of Eminem's work. If you actually bother trying to "get it" much of it can be frighteningly insightful. However, most is just part of the sell-sell engine. Shock value sells and in-and-of-itself is a basic emotional manipulation to gain attention and make money.

Record companies know that when you drive along the highway, you can't help but slow-down to look at a car accident to see what horrible thing might be there. A responsible person says, there is nothing to see here and then puts it on the news in a respectful way. An opportunist charges $20 for a gander at the dead guy.

[Paper Hearts]

It's not off-topic at all.  I would like to hear your views.

As far as law, I think almost everyone here is most likely very opposed to government enforced censorship.  I just want to know if the opinion is that artists have no responsibility, ethically, for what the produce and the real consequences of their work gaining mass-appeal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if I think that something is being abused then naturally, I also say it is wrong...but if we'd jailed every artist that a society found offensive there'd be no such subject as art history, there'd be nothing left for the books.

I'll repeat:

Should a state that does not allow gay marriages be allowed to ban the making or showing of films that have instances of gay people living together as if they were married?

This is just one more example of where art conflicts with some of the 'ethics' or the laws of our society. I only use that illustration to ask where does it end if you begin this type of censuring?

[sinmantyx]

I'll repeat:

Should a state that does not allow gay marriages be allowed to ban the making or showing of films that have instances of gay people living together as if they were married?

This is just one more example of where art conflicts with some of the 'ethics' or the laws of our society. I only use that illustration to ask where does it end if you begin this type of censuring?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course not, but that hasn't anything to do with the quesiton. "Ethics" and "Laws" are two very separate things. That's like saying white supremecy movements are "ethical" because we have the freedome to assemble peacefully.

Why does everyone confuse ethics with laws? Can't we have a conversation about ethics without talking about whether or not there should be a law?

[Paper Hearts]

Of course not, but that hasn't anything to do with the quesiton.  "Ethics" and "Laws" are two very separate things.  That's like saying white supremecy movements are "ethical" because we have the freedome to assemble peacefully.

Why does everyone confuse ethics with laws?  Can't we have a conversation about ethics without talking about whether or not there should be a law?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well what then do you propose to mean by "responsibility"? And what do you mean by citing a specific trial? It's not worth comment really, if it's not pertaining to anything valid, because otherwise, of course, we only hold responsibility unto ourselves...because again, what is ethical and not, is open to interpretation.

[Paper Hearts]

Further:

I have no idea what you feel is right or wrong and frankly, niether does Snoop Dogg...I may support you in what you believe, I may not...but people have no ability to control what they feel is ethical, artists or otherwise. How can you dictate to people 'paint this, because it is right'? Or 'don't sing this because it is wrong'?

I do not agree with abuse of female image...but some artists, however tasteless we find, do not feel the same ways we do. If they do not feel it is wrong, how, explain to me how they would have a responsibility to act any differently? (outside of laws, of course, which this thread is NOT about, despite itself)

[sinmantyx]

Well what then do you propose to mean by "responsibility"? And what do you mean by citing a specific trial? It's not worth comment really, if it's not pertaining to anything valid, because otherwise, of course, we only hold responsibility unto ourselves...because again, what is ethical and not, is open to interpretation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I cited the trial as an example of what this thread is not about.

[Paper Hearts]

I cited the trial as an example of what this thread is not about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Further:

I have no idea what you feel is right or wrong and frankly, niether does Snoop Dogg...I may support you in what you believe, I may not...but people have no ability to control what they feel is ethical, artists or otherwise. How can you dictate to people 'paint this, because it is right'? Or 'don't sing this because it is wrong'?

I do not agree with abuse of female image...but some artists, however tasteless we find, do not feel the same ways we do. If they do not feel it is wrong, how, explain to me how they would have a responsibility to act any differently? (outside of laws, of course, which this thread is NOT about, despite itself)

[Blackmail]

Well, if I think that something is being abused then naturally, I also say it is wrong...but if we'd jailed every artist that a society found offensive there'd be no such subject as art history, there'd be nothing left for the books.

I'll repeat:

Should a state that does not allow gay marriages be allowed to ban the making or showing of films that have instances of gay people living together as if they were married?

This is just one more example of where art conflicts with some of the 'ethics' or the laws of our society. I only use that illustration to ask where does it end if you begin this type of censuring?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, alot of anti-gay-marriage people support civil unions, so I am not sure what your point is - John Kerry and Gw Bush both support civil unions. No one except the far right homophobes think they shouldn't be allowed to live together.

[sinmantyx]

Further:

I have no idea what you feel is right or wrong and frankly, niether does Snoop Dogg...I may support you in what you believe, I may not...but people have no ability to control what they feel is ethical, artists or otherwise. How can you dictate to people 'paint this, because it is right'? Or 'don't sing this because it is wrong'?

I do not agree with abuse of female image...but some artists, however tasteless we find, do not feel the same ways we do. If they do not feel it is wrong, how, explain to me how they would have a responsibility to act any differently? (outside of laws, of course, which this thread is NOT about, despite itself)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The way we deal with what is right and what is wrong is that WE as people who have power in our own right, either as industry people (lots of DJ's here), parents and teachers, or the almighty consumer --- say it's not right. The police are not the only ones who hold people responsible for their actions.

If you believe there is no responsiblity (however much researchers say there are extremely strong connections between exposure to media and behavior), then you don't act against these artists in any way. If you believe it is wrong, your everyday actions (such as your purchasing choices and your words) will impact the machine behind it all.

There are many artists here as well. This is an issue that many of us have faced head-on. Do you or I have responsibility for what we produce as artists?

[Blackmail]

Further:

I have no idea what you feel is right or wrong and frankly, niether does Snoop Dogg...I may support you in what you believe, I may not...but people have no ability to control what they feel is ethical, artists or otherwise. How can you dictate to people 'paint this, because it is right'? Or 'don't sing this because it is wrong'?

I do not agree with abuse of female image...but some artists, however tasteless we find, do not feel the same ways we do. If they do not feel it is wrong, how, explain to me how they would have a responsibility to act any differently? (outside of laws, of course, which this thread is NOT about, despite itself)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here is the bottom line: Rap music's violent lyrics and anti-women imagry has had an impact on how some young people view violence and how they view women.

So what should we do about it?

Some rappers like Chuck D and Will Smith have come out and said that those rappers are stupid for doing that.

No one is suggesting there should be laws to stop these lyrics. But many black leaders and responsible rap artists and politicians have come out and spoken against the lyrics. Hell, even Maya Angelou and Rosa Parks spoke out against some violent rap music. They must actually feel there is a problem and a connection between violent lyrics and society.

So what should we do about it? Nothing? Speak out against it?

[Blackmail]

The way we deal with what is right and what is wrong is that WE as people who have power in our own right, either as industry people (lots of DJ's here), parents and teachers, or the almighty consumer --- say it's not right.  The police are not the only ones who hold people responsible for their actions.

If you believe there is no responsiblity (however much researchers say there are extremely strong connections between exposure to media and behavior), then you don't act against these artists in any way.  If you believe it is wrong, your everyday actions (such as your purchasing choices and your words) will impact the machine behind it all.

There are many artists here as well.  This is an issue that many of us have faced head-on.  Do you or I have responsibility for what we produce as artists?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with pretty much all of this. Not to keep harping on KRS One, but he's the most outspoken on this subject, he said "Don't blame Snoop Dog for making records about beating women, blame all those people who buy his cd's and are paying him to talk about beating women." By the way, Krs One's partner Scott LaRock was shot and killed in the 80's. His group -- Boogie Down Productions - was a gangster rap group until this happened and he changed his tune 180 degrees. He then started the 'Stop the violence' movement.

[Paper Hearts]

Here is the bottom line:  Rap music's violent lyrics and anti-women imagry has had an impact on how some young people view violence and how they view women. 

So what should we do about it?

Some rappers like Chuck D and Will Smith have come out and said that those rappers are stupid for doing that.

No one is suggesting there should be laws to stop these lyrics.  But many black leaders and responsible rap artists and politicians have come out and spoken against the lyrics.  Hell, even Maya Angelou and Rosa Parks spoke out against some violent rap music.    They must actually feel there is a problem and a connection between violent lyrics and society. 

So what should we do about it?  Nothing?  Speak out against it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Try asking them politely, I suppose.

[sinmantyx]

I've never heard the song...but the lyrics do make me grin a bit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

MSI

Yeah, it's basically a song making fun of people who "Thank God" in their acceptance speech for awards, awarding them for producing thuggish music.

[Scary Guy]

Art imitates life. Idiots imitate art.

Art shapes the culture to a degree. But to censor art is indeed a greater crime and is a mark of a fascist government. Once we start doing that then everything turns into 1984 and we start arresting people for "crimethink".

Freedom of espression is so important the founding fathers of the U.S. put it in the first amendment right next to the freedom of speach.

It's not our fault that people in the urban culture these days are too stupid to actually make a positive artistic influince on society.

As far as the nazi art goes, I like it. I don't like what they stood for as a political party but I do like the artwork and the fashion (I always throw that in when a thread mentions german art).

[sinmantyx]

As far as the nazi art goes, I like it.  I don't like what they stood for as a political party but I do like the artwork and the fashion (I always throw that in when a thread mentions german art).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes...and Propoganda magazine is HOT!

*sorry*

Anyway, how about a hypothetical question for you. Let's say you are a DJ. *grin* A new song just came out that is the most homophobic misogynistic violent shit you have heard in a long time. (Assume it's about average to good in general quality.) You get about one or two requests for it each night, among many many other songs that people want to hear.

Do you play it?

...or, and do you have any respect for the artists? Do you decide to play any of that artist's shit?

I'm just curious.