Letters to the Editor
Subtext
Published Letters: 8
-
Enough about this guy but
[Read the article: Craig to cop: "I'm a respectable person"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]this part here: Karsnia says, "You're sitting here lying to us ... I'm just disappointed in you, sir. I just really am. I expect this from the guy we get out of the 'hood. I mean, people vote for you." is just wow -- but kinda not given the types of people who tend to become cops.
-
A decent Jay-Z album, yes. Best hip hop album of 2007, oh HELL naw.
[Read the article: Crazy for Jay-Z]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not that 2007 will be looked at as a golden year in hip hop but one of the biggest flaws of Jay's "American Gangster" is his utter inability to rhyme about something other than himself. He can't even rhyme as Frank Lucas. Especially when the NYTimes article came out about this record, it was poised to be "Superfly"-esque soundtrack that fleshes out characters and ideas in the movie. Instead we get Jay rhyming about Jay. Also, the assessment that Jay is much responsible for the muting or dulling of hip hop (esp. what comes out of NYC) is spot on and not said often enough for fear of hating. THANK YOU for saying that so well.
That said, Jay-Z is easily one of the most talented (and smartest) emcees of all-time and he may well be one of the last truly great hip hop artists. "Fallin'," "Success" (where Nas kinda eats him on the mic), "American Dreamin'," "No Hook" are all stand-out cuts and I'm glad he re-did "Ignorant Shit" (which hip hop heads have cherished as the great Jay-Z cut that never appeared officially) with the Imus lines.
And on a final note/gripe, "Reasonable Doubt" is NOT a hip hop classic. Hip hop classics are lauded in their time (Dre's "The Chronic"), have great influence on everything that came after (see Raekwon's "Only Built 4 Cuban Linx"), and are revered well beyond (see Nas' "Illmatic"). "Reasonable Doubt" did none of those things. It's only referred to as a classic AFTER everything Jay-Z did AFTER it came out. In '96, no one gave a shit about that album (cuz sans a few cuts like "Dead Presidents" and "22 2's" it was boring as hell). Like A.G., good album, but not a classic or best of anything.
-
@xavier and one guy: get familiar
[Read the article: Crazy for Jay-Z]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]i can't quote everything you both said in my reply (1000 word limit and all) so pardon me for having to quote selectively but both of you are parroting the most inaccurate assumptions about hip hop so i have to address them.
1 (xavier): "And for his stand against opponents of hip hop's misogyny, whom he calls moralists "pulpittin'", one must realize that rap's entire empire is based on glorifying the moral condemnation of (black) women and girls simply for existing, since slurs are used as synonyms ("'ho," for one), while rap "artists" justify, even sanctify, their "hustler" ways. Where's his crusade against that hypocritical moralizing?"
what jay-z is criticizing is don imus trying to blame hip hop for HIS dumb-ass 'mistake' when hip hop had nothing to do with what he said when he said it. it was a scapegoat. and jay is calling that out. nothing wrong with that. also, your sweeping generalization of what rap's 'empire' is built on exposes the fact that you clearly know next to nothing about the music, its history, and its nuance. and the fact is that it's art (and its artists don't need quotes when referring to them). it doesn't moralize and shouldn't be expected to. it doesn't have to. it's art.
it is not strange that you (or many others) would want hip hop to be a moralizing force. there is quite a long history of outrage at black art for NOT being moralistic (blues and rock especially) because there is an implicit assumption in this society that a black audience a) needs moralizing and b) isn't capable and can't be trusted to interpret artistic expression for itself.
and don't get me wrong. criticize hip hop all you want (shit, i do) and criticize jay-z but doing so with blatant misconceptions and by exhibiting an utter lack of familiarity with the music renders those criticisms essentially meaningless and empty.
2 (xavier): "he's trying to protect his cash cow by blaming everyone else as if he's still some powerless boy living in the projects of New York and not an extremely wealthy and influential businessman who's nearly 40."
this is music meant to go along with a film about a major drug kingpin created by a guy who came up hustling in brooklyn who found some creative resonance with some of his own experiences. you expected "shiny happy people"? this is part and parcel of what i'm talking about: the refusal to allow rappers the creative license allowed to virtually every other artist you can think off. he's making music meant to go along (even if unofficially) with a film called "american gangster."
3 (from that guy): "Very well said. Rap gets away with all kinds of prejudice and violence-mongering, and rather than criticize it the left tends to sanctify it. I understand that there are millions of people in this country whose lives are made very hard by conditions sung about in rap, but that doesn't make the approach taken in a lot of rap music okay. And it doesn't mean that rap music is helping those people in any substantial way. Quite the opposite, for the most part."
this goes back to what i said above about the implicit preference that black art be a moralizing force. no one expects metal or jazz or opera or any other form of music or art to help anyone in "any substantial way" so why is that expectation placed on hip hop?
as a genre of music and an artform unto itself, hip hop is more nuanced and more complex than either of your cookie-cutter criticisms would give it credit for. as is jay-z. again, hip hop is not and should not be above criticism but that criticism -- like criticism of ANYTHING else -- should be informed.