Why? Anti-intellectualism is a good part of it. But there's another motive out there that bothers me even more: a desire to keep all popular music forms in the "not serious music" box. This kind of thinking has poisoned the whole scene- fans, musicians, critics and industry people. It lowers everyone's expectations. I think it's the reason you don't see any Sly Stones or John Coltranes or Beatles any more. Music has become disposable and if you treat it like anything else, in society's eyes, you've got egg on your face.

TRUTH A.W. ... the biggest problem over all outside of balance is making those who listen stupid so they do not have a desire to find what most would call cerebral music.

Part of it is because those discussions often become what you were railing against earlier, "real vs. fake." I don't have a problem with music analysis, but taken to the extreme, you end up with the people having the music over-intellectualized away from them. Like what's happened with jazz. The hardcore jazzheads have so defined and restricted and analysed what jazz is, that the average person feels too stupid to even try to listen to it.

A personal example: up until "Donuts," I didn't care for Jay Dee. I thought his beats were boring. When I listened to Jay Dee, he put me to sleep, literally. But whenever I said something like that on any message board, I was attacked as "not understanding" his music, not knowing how to properly listen to what he was trying to do, needing to learn more about music theory. I was told to go back and listen to Puffy et al, cause it was obvious that I wasn't sophisticated enough for "real hip hop." I could have argued theory til I was blue in the face, but none of that explained my reaction to Jay Dee better than what I said above: he put me to sleep, and nothing they said changed that.

Now, I'm a grown man, with a college degree from a prestigious school, well-read, been listening to hip hop since 1980. But since I didn't bow down to the greatness that these other intellectuals had conferred upon him, I must just be an idiot. And in the end, who needs to hear that?

People are still tripping on some Cartesian dualism bodily enjoyment v. mental enjoyment as though the two things are somehow different.

Fear. Fear of change. Fear of growing. Comfort zone too small. Asleepness. Not wanting to be awake and see the world as it is.

Shame at being closed-minded. Pride of not wanting to admit close-mindedness. Not wanting to admit one is wrong.

Bad habits. Grade school mentality. Believing that standing up for myths equals being a righteous person. Believing that one is fighting ignorance, while in fact promoting it.

Laziness. Not wanting to do the work of thinking about something different.

Jealous. Of those who have greater understanding, you hassle instead of acknowledgin, learning, and changing... being stubborn and doing the opposite... promoting ignorance to make you feel less insecure.

Imitation. Having seen others perpetuate this behavior/thinking and either not knowing better, or not being independent, or simply going with what others do for no real reason at all. No reason at all.

You know, basically all the same types of thinking that support the war in Iraq, partisan politics, bigotry, etc.

And part of it is that analysis of anything is rejected by many, especially if it might require them to think about something they take for granted.

Of course, a lot of expert analysis does seem like an advanced version of filling out crossword puzzles.

Yeah, what David said :)

I don't think it's the debate itself that puts me off as much as the type of people who often engage in it.

If anything, I think a lot of the so-called "analysts" are the ones who are close-minded and usually of the "if you don't agree with me you don't know what you're talking about" variety. And internet users, who can pose as anyone from anywhere and pull any kind of credentials out of their a$$ at any time, are the worst offenders. I know that's at least what keeps me away from those types of discussions.

Not to mention that many "underground" forms of music and art (not just hip-hop) by their very nature resist definition and analysis. To start breaking it down and intellectualizing it kind of defeats its purpose. Takes it out of context. Like Lao Tze wrote, "If it had a name, it would not be Tao."

Of course, I'm too old to get my a$$ on my shoulders when I see the debates raging on the Internet. I just chuckle, shake my head & go elsewhere. But I can see where a few Rabelasian types would want to jump in and disrupt the critics' tea party. ;)

I don't think the message of Lao Tzu was that people should not analyze. I think it is simply taking point with how we label things.

The expression "has no name" simply means you can't pin it down (meaning varies, things change). It does not mean "don't analyze". After all, the book is both a product of analysis, and its principal suggestion is that one should be keenly aware of one's relationship with the world. For most of us, this means analysis.

What would Lao Tzu (or whoever wrote that book) say about hip hop? Lao Tzu might say real hip hop can only be "real" once and then a few moments later it is "real Jr." and then it is "Real the II" and then Emperor Ceaesar Augustus Real, and then Real the Impaler, Real the Viking, Minister Real, Chairman Real, etc.

"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture" - Source unknown though this quote has been said by the likes of Frank Zappa, Steve Martin,
William S. Burroughs, Elvis Costello, Frank Zappa,
Charles Mingus, Thelonious Monk, Nick Lowe, Martin Mull, Miles Davis, George Carlin, Mark Mothersbaugh of Devo,
John Cage, and who knows how many other artists who have expressed the same sentiment.

I love Joseph Campbell. What he says about the structure of this world and its relation to myth, I feel can be applied to the structure of language and its mythological elements. In the second of his interviews with Bill Moyers, for example, he says the following:

"What's the meaning of the universe? What's the meaning of a flea? It's just there. That's it. Your own meaning is that you're there. We're so engaged in doing things to achieve purposes of outer value that we forget that the inner value. the rapture that's associated with being alive is what it's all about. We want to think about God. God is a thought. God is a name. God is an idea, but its reference is to something that transcends all thinking. The ultimate mystery of being is beyond all categories of thought. My friend Heinrich Zimmer of years ago used to say, "The best things can't be told," because they transcend thought. "The second best are misunderstood," because those are the thoughts that are supposed to refer to that which can't be thought about, and one gets stuck in the thoughts. "The third best are what we talk about." And myth is that field of reference, metaphors referring to what is absolutely transcendent."

"(Moyers) What can't be known or can't be named except in our own feeble attempt to clothe it in language."

"And the ultimate word in our language for that which is transcendent is God."

OK, so it's not OK to "dance about architecture," but presumably it's OK to write about architecture. Architects are required to read and write extensively about architecture. But apparently it's not OK to write about music. Brings up an obvious question... what are you doing here? And you are writing.

And how about that writing about music. Until recently, most musicians knew how to "read and write music." It was a big part of how musicians communicated with each other. You might say it is different, but it is also a visual representation/analysis of music.

And, with all due respect to its many critics, why not "dance about architecture"?

There is a big difference between attempting to find truth and basic analysis and discussion.

Speaking for myself, I don't write about music to find or express some notion of "truth".

When I discuss or write about music, I am participating in a multilevel, multipurpose activity... whose purpose is usually to group artists of a similar style and to document/analyze changes within and between those groups.

What's funny is that usually, in order for someone to make a determination as to whether or not they like a song, they first have to analyze and critique it to see if it fits their personal subjective standards. LOL

There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them.
-Louis Armstrong

...so here's a take from a guy who writes ABOUT music, professionally:

"I hate talking about music in person with people who I don�t know that well. I really hate talking about music. Go back to point no.1, right? When a stranger or vague acquaintance starts talking to me about music because they�ve found out that I write about it, the conversation is never actually about music. So what�s it about? It�s about that person�s favourite music, and every statement and response is couched very tightly within the strict milieu of what that person likes.
...Anytime I do end up talking about music with someone, they almost invariably seem to assume that I�ll have the same taste as them, or at least that my tastes will be consistent in one direction�that if I like so-and-so then I must like such-and-such because maybe they sound a little bit alike (perhaps they both use guitars) or have some kind of cultural link. But it doesn�t work like that�hell, it�d be so much easier if it did. It�s a cop-out when asked �what kind of music do you like?� to say �allsorts� but it really is the only answer in most cases. The favourite album question is a swine, too, because the honest answer is generally �the one I just listened to.� What I actually generally say is �Spirit of Eden by Talk Talk,� a response designed to either end the discussion there and then or else direct it somewhere at least palatable.
The reason I talk about music with anyone (when I actually do) is very rarely to come to a better understanding of music and never to find out about what someone else likes; it�s to come to a better understanding about myself. �Why do I like so-and-so?� is the question I�m interested in, a; because it might help me figure out what other stuff I might like and, more importantly, b; it might help me figure out who I am more."
By: Nick Southall
Published on: 2006-01-10

btw Eric...writing music and writing ABOUT music - have nothing to do with each other...it's like saying giving birth and giving birth certificates are of the same nature.

To reiterate the Joeseph Campbell excerpt from the interview with Bill Moyer:
"My friend Heinrich Zimmer of years ago used to say, "The best things can't be told," because they transcend thought. "The second best are misunderstood," because those are the thoughts that are supposed to refer to that which can't be thought about, and one gets stuck in the thoughts. "The third best are what we talk about."

Anything written about music, AT BEST, was stuck on the third.

Let us take an example. I am an orchestra conductor and I do not play violin. I have a violinist who is not playing a piece I wrote as I want it to be played. Obviously, the violinist can read music. But it is when I tell them that I want the note to be played in a "haunting" or "menacing" way that they understand what I want, not only be slightly off-key but also to have a certain intensity and a certain vibrato that can't be expressed in the notation. In this case, the notation and the descriptive words each have something to add to the understanding of the music.

Now I understand that people are complaining about writing ABOUT music, especially those who judge music. Tough shit... that's life. People love music and people disagree on what is good and what is not. No one is telling you that so and so's review is worth shit, but to write off the whole practice of analyzing and judging music is like saying let's close down all radio stations because most are playing crap (I think we can all agree here ;). But yo... that's life... most art is crap because many are called and the chosen are few.

One of the reasons why I look favorably on intellectual discussions about music is that we should encourage people TO INTELLECTUALLY DISCUSS ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING. I'm not saying intellectualism doesn't have its problems. But just as we should encourage artists to be fearless in their creative pursuits, we should also encourage intellectuals to boldly intrude upon every aspect of life, including the artistic, moral, and spiritual.

I would liken this desire to silence music "critics" as being akin to right wing desires to censor music. Let people express themselves and the people can make up their minds. And if we promote a culture of intellectual discussion, then maybe people won't be so stupid and they will read these fluff pieces more critically.

Sigh,

Love the Joseph Campbell quote. Gotta remember that one next time someone asks me what I'm doing w/ my life. ;)

I oughta add that another thing I find ironic is how so many folks, in a bid for "legitimacy" to their arguments, put themselves forth as "authorities" on hip hop, conveniently forgetting that going against authority was a large part of what the music is about.

Kami - there is so many important aspects, especially in this society, that can be understood by what you just said regarding authority(cuz "it's bigger than Hip Hop").

to quote Joeseph Campbell again..."Art is the clothing of a revelation."

Eric - the silencing of critics is genuinely desired more when it is as a result of them (critics) havin nothing to analyze. The EXPERIENCE of the piece (in this case: music) trancends words and language and the limitations they impose. It even goes beyond the realm of the senses, and into the realm of essence, and possibly further...[there was something else i wanted to add but i gotta hit the road - Knitting Factory tonight]

but Ill leave you with this, "Don't Mistake the Finger pointing at the Moon for the Moon"

I think everyone see's the music they like in their own way, and anyone that come's to one of these websites just to insult someone's idea's on that are just hypocrits (coz thats what they're doing wen they post their messages on here) and clowns. I mean, i love rap music, but i dont go into Rock music sites just to insult people's taste, ild rather discuss my music with people with similiar or even clashing views on the matters at hand. It piss's me off when im in, say the Ice Cube "Laugh Now Or Cry Later" page, and someone comes in to insult me and the person im discussing Ice Cube with, so now i have to drop all my conversation just to get rid'da this loser? It can be agrrivating. So unless you're in a page to discuss your music, then dont insult people on their tastes unless its providing a logical debate, "o that group are a bunch'a pussy wimps and any1 that listens to them are losers" is not a logical debate, thats just some loser, bitching bout the tastes of other people's likes. And if im ever cought doing sumthing as such, i urge everyone, im simply looking for that logical debate i enjoy so much...
R&R C.D.K.

And dont be so hard on critics, alot of them just missed a few hugs from their ma's and pa's wen they were just little paracites ;)

O and, just to further make it seem that i have no life and needa spend ages on this site ;), i think the only people that are aloud to judge music are the people that listen to that genre, otherwise itss to bias and cant be based on logic or taste of the music..... Tell me what all ya'll think....

no doubt, musicians are notoriously bad self-critics.

like i was saying, it seems like some people are just as preoccupied with some notion of "authenticity" (aka realness) as they are with respect for people in the community. i'm not saying the current music scene couldn't use some improvements (a lot, in fact). but you aren't going to make the world a better place by harassing people over their taste in music.

if people actually cared about the community (which is what this is about, right?), it would be better spent UNITING people and GIVING BACK to the community. I mean, what is the goal of promoting "real" hip hop? To support the artists? To uplift the community? Your own peace of mind?

true i see what your all trying to get at but i think its a little easier to explain it like this, they just think what ever they are into is perfect and needs no changes ... but when they here different they lash out at the critics for not having the same view.

sometimes it's nice to just talk shop. theory and analysis can be used to talk about technique but also to attempt to explain why something hits you where you live (really!). it can also, like most things, be abused for the purpose of putting others down and keeping others out. you just have to have enough self-knowledge to tell which is which.

you should have actual facts and things that are very useful