Is Rap art?
- Thread starter Panken
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I fucking hate rap with a passion, but mostly because of alot of the people that listen to it give it a bad image, then again I have a foot long green mohawk, and I suppose I give punk a bad name. Although I dislike rap I still think alot of it is very clever and well done. I would call it art though as not everyone could write a good rap song. I also have a soft spot for Vanilla Ice because he is super awsome.
Music is art. Rap is music. Rap is art. It's art, but not all art is good, so keep that in mind.
The last half of your "definition" sounds made-up and completely opinion based. Where did you get it? Since when does poetry have to be beautiful? Have you ever read Edgar Allen Poe? Its completely morbid and strange. Its amazing, but its not "beautiful".L33tsauce_Marty said:
Since when does music period have to be "imaginative" or "elevated thoughts"? I thought music was just music. There are imaginative bands and such, but the majority of music cannot be described properly with those unmeasurable words. Think, before we start lining up genres into boxcars to go get incinerated because they don't meet your conception of "imaginative".
Here's a better definition, from Merriam-Webster: Writing that formulates a concentrated imaginative awareness of experience in language chosen and arranged to create a specific emotional response through meaning, sound, and rhythm.
In my opinion, rap fits into that description as much as any music or poetry of any kind.
I'm no expert on rap at all. Indeed I basically avoid the genre, not because I hate it universally but because one of the things I like in music is actual melodic singing, which rap does not have, nor does it have the complex live (meaning not sampled) instrumentation that I find appealing in other forms of music. That said, I absolutely love K-os. His songs are interesting, either straight up fun or thoughtful and philosophical in some way, and he can actually sings and play guitar as well. He also frequently uses live musicians on stage and when recording (or so I've been told re: recording). He manages to blend elements from other genres into his music which I admire in any artist as it shows an ability to look past the 'rules' of the genre people have labeled them as and expect them to be. As a result, he actually has a distinct sound.
As far as being art, text book definition says yes, largely because most definitions hinge on accepted forms or disciplines such that is a sub discipline of music. No useful definition of art can include anything like "has to be good" or "beautiful" etc. because not everyone can agree on an objective definition of either term so to define something like art using such subjective criteria would just be stupid. True most people will agree on a large number of works but that doesn't solve the problem of what you call the ones people can't agree on or that fall outside the norms. I'm going to stop now as I don't want to spend an hour ranting about the problem with subjective criteria, so, as others have said, yes its art. Like most art forms, the 'bad' (as determined by the conventions of the form as well as basic competency of execution) examples outnumber the good considerably. Consider the great masses of failed painters, sculptors, musicians, etc. who you never hear about because they weren't good enough. Doesn't mean they didn't create art. Just that it wasn't any good.
As far as being art, text book definition says yes, largely because most definitions hinge on accepted forms or disciplines such that is a sub discipline of music. No useful definition of art can include anything like "has to be good" or "beautiful" etc. because not everyone can agree on an objective definition of either term so to define something like art using such subjective criteria would just be stupid. True most people will agree on a large number of works but that doesn't solve the problem of what you call the ones people can't agree on or that fall outside the norms. I'm going to stop now as I don't want to spend an hour ranting about the problem with subjective criteria, so, as others have said, yes its art. Like most art forms, the 'bad' (as determined by the conventions of the form as well as basic competency of execution) examples outnumber the good considerably. Consider the great masses of failed painters, sculptors, musicians, etc. who you never hear about because they weren't good enough. Doesn't mean they didn't create art. Just that it wasn't any good.
