I thought I'd get on the worst comments list a time or two for my Kanye rants. Turns out enough people agreed with me (you included.) He's just that kind of a polarizing artist I suppose.
It's almost as though you've slept through the last 50 years of culture, miguelito. You might be the most uncultured commenter I've seen on here. Just sayin.
I think your problem stems from labeling Kanye as pop star, when he should simply be labeled as an "artist." You keep comparing him to rock n' roll greats, how about comparing him to artistic greats? The greatest artists in history were renaissance men, doing a little of everything and excelling at whatever their creative opportunities led them to. Kanye is an artist, who happens to have succeeded in the musical realm of creativity. Why should he be limited to that simply because that's what he's most known for? DaVinci is most known now for painting, but he was an inventor, a medical student, an engineer. In fact, he would've told you painting wasn't his strong suit, that just happened to be what made him famous (at least to us hundreds of years later.)
Side note: I am not saying Kanye is DaVinci. He might say that, but I'm just making the parallel.
I agree, actually. I think this image, is much less offensive or disgusting than the shit Miley Cyrus is whoring out. It's still sad, because this seems like an honest portrayal and it doesn't appear happy. But Miley's sexual imagery these days is a complete sell tactic. And that's much worse to me.
I've said this kind of thing in response to you before, but I really don't have a problem with Kanye wanting to put energy into multiple passions. As a creative person myself, I often feel the same urges. I want to put energy into drawing, film, music, all sorts of things. I think a lot of creative people are the same way, the difference is Kanye is one of those that has seemingly limitless energy to go in all directions, and is lucky enough to have made it big in one of them therefore affording him opportunities elsewhere.
Telling him to stick to what he's good at makes sense from an audience point of view. Obviously you like his music best so you want him to focus on that. But for one thing, Kanye's music hasn't suffered at all, so if you like it there's no worries there. On the other hand, he's not doing those to please you are an audience, at least not in the way you are expecting. Obviously the man loves praise and recognition, but I think there are other things driving his goals that have nothing to do with that. It's simply the nature of the creator.
Damn, here I go again defending Kanye. Can we change the subject? I'm not comfortable here.
Ok...time for honest me to come out. (Watch this, Raptor)
I really enjoyed this interview. I actually found myself feeling bad for Kanye during it. As much as I've ranted about him and his music (and I'm sure I still will on occasion, don't worry Luke Worle), the man is genuine. He is exactly what he seems: a creative genius that can be totally obnoxious and offensive (both musically and otherwise), but not fake. That's always refreshing when a celebrity seems so "real."
Having said all that, I still think he's an annoying egomaniac and I wish he rapped better. Even if his lyrics were more tolerable, I might actually call myself a Kanye fan. I'm still not. But, as I've said before despite that, I respect him as an artist.
True. I also think ska has always had a feeling of "silliness" to it. A sense that it doesn't even take itself seriously, so why should a critical audience? It's almost a joke genre. But, like you said, that might have more to do with the sub-par artists associated with the style more than anything else.
In a broad sense, I get that. And you are right, everything is a mix of influences from the past if you want to wax that philosophical. But it's still off base with the topic at hand. The point was never to say these groups are doing something unheard of per se. This article brings up a fair point in dissecting the pop groups today that are assimilating a very wide range with relative ease, without even thinking twice about it. The digital age has raised a generation to not only accept this more readily, but CREATE it more readily.
As much as I've disagreed with Lil Miguel in the past, I get what he's trying to say. I don't disagree with the meat of it, I just think it's the wrong direction for what this article is getting at. These Deconstructing articles are usually more about music culture from a sociological standpoint. I guess ome people just like to over-think (or under-think) the fairly simple topic at hand.
Don't misunderstand, miguelito1. If you don't like HAIM or Lorde or whatever, that's your thing. I just think you don't quite get the point of the article.
What you are willfully doing here, is ignoring the fact that we live in a world where it is easy and normal to digest multiple types of music at once and that this could possibly and likely have an effect on how music is made. You are ignoring the point of the article to make a point yourself.
http://coffeetablecongress.com/Straw-Man%20animation.gif
I agree it's not a new thing, I still don't think that's what Chris is getting at though. The idea that kids grow up to naturally process multiple genres and as a bioproduct naturally make music this way is what he's getting at. He didn't say genre mashing is new, or that these kids are the first to do it. It's about the idea that it's second nature now. It's less thought out.
Now, if you want to make the argument that former genre mashes like Michael Jackson, Beck, etc. are much better because they made the concious, creative decision to do this I can see that. Their intention was that of a pioneering spirit, and it was amazing. But it brings us back to the point of the article, kids like HAIM and Lorde aren't mashing with the same intention. They simply do it, because they gew up in a world where Beck and MJ are normal things. It's a sociological discussion, not a "who did it first" discusison.
Comments