I like to play with my money.
I like to play with my money.
I like to play with my money.
I like to play with my money.
I like to play with my money.
I like to play with my money.
I like to play with my money.
This is because I am a cool, talented, and rich man.
I am a cool, talented, and rich man.
I am a cool, talented, and rich man.
I am a cool, talented, and rich man.
I am a cool, talented, and rich man.
I am a cool, talented, and rich man.
I am a cool, talented, and rich man.
Hey,
I have a large necklace, an important name, a black timepiece, and a blue sport utility vehicle
In my performances, my crew is generally about 50 persons deep, similar to that of Wu-Tang
Driving around with no roof and television screens, a shiny metallic mouth guard, and a golden ring
I earn approximately a million dollars, and I will distribute that money amongst my team
Every gun can do damage, and every man has a vision.
Because every empire has an exceptional individual with a dream.
We make money, smoke a green plant, and drink copious amounts of alcohol.
We measure out our product with cutting edge equipment;
We are done with triple beam mechanical balances.
Hey,
I have the timepiece from an expensive and cool brand, and I have a shirtsleeve shirt from that same brand.
We have expensive hard alcohol and more expensive shirtsleeve shirts for girls.
My powerful weapon is fully loaded.
I stay focused.
I have international connections; meanwhile you all, my competitors, are provincial
There are plaques and certificates on my wall, expensive and large shiny metallic hubcaps on my car, and the best designer decorations in my home.
I have money; the kind of money to buy very expensive cars, which with the press of one button will release the roof.
Hey,
I assume you are aware that Lil' Flip, meaning I, sell enough albums that each time I earn Platinum status.
I enjoy making and having money so I am often working.
I am doing well. Once, I took a break, but now I have come back.
I will defeat you as though you were a bug and I were a rolled up magazine smacking you.
I keep myself high most of the time, am vocal about how much better I am, and I reinforce these claims with action.
Because I am a cool, talented, and rich man; you cannot match the amount of money I have.
-approximately Lil' Flip's "I'm a Balla"
This was my favorite line: "I have money; the kind of money to buy very expensive cars, which with the press of one button will release the roof."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure which is weirder--when (young, self-aware, hip) white people mock hip-hop culture or the braggadocio of said mocked hip-hop culture itself. Young white people have become so ironic that they have disappeared into a sea of pop culture. They seem so full of snarky references and "wit" that they no longer have a personality of themselves, since they just try to be cool.
One example is music. Everyone wants to spread their wings as wide as possible to know as many cool bands as possible, to try to listen to as many songs as possible in as many genres, but ultimately I feel that this breeds only a superficial understanding of music (and art itself). When we just try to listen to as much stuff as possible--so that we can make ironic and witty comments condemning certain bands for not being as cool as others--I feel that we diminish art's capacity to make us learn about ourselves. For I feel that is truly the point of art. By studying it, it helps us learn more about ourselves and develop our own personalities.
At the moment, I see a generation of people without a personality of their own. Everyone tries so hard to be "unique" and "liberal" and "politically correct" and I'm sure many other adjectives that I don't possibly know since I'm not very in-tune with the whole thing that they ultimately are just as bland as the "man" they are fighting against, the conservative bigots or the corporate fat cats of the world. I see a proliferation of art everywhere I look, but I see a loss of real, deep interest. Art has become tied to an image, to a culture, when it should be about nothing but art itself.
A strong and leading-to-much-more comment if I've seen one. I do feel a little bit of hesitation at the thought of falling into the "(young, self-aware, hip) white people (who) mock hip-hop culture", but I feel like regardless of me trying to be hip or deal with my whiteness, the more extreme of songs like this, where it's simultaneously ridiculous, fun, and funny, I can't help but jump in. Obviously there are many cases of the white hip/unhip guy mocks/embraces hip hop like ben folds singing bitches aint shit or dynamite hack singing boyz in the hood, and as superficial as it may seem I tend to like renditions of other genres in one's own genre, as Iron Horse has covered a bunch of rock and pop in the form of blue grass, to give my own white to white examples. Aside from my own personal grievances, justifications, and attempts to shed me guilt, I point back to my post about trying to be modern music fan when there is a lot going against us like Edward pointed out.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that art has become very tied to image, especially in terms of music. However, I also believe that with youtube making it possible for artists and fans to basically go where ever they please with music and still be able to be found - meaning if I find a few bands in particular that I like that are nowhere near big enough to have radio airtime, I can follow the bands through the internet and enjoy them that way. I feel like given the time and way of music distribution, it's the best bet I have (along with satellite radio), since I cannot really rely on pop culture lining up with the music that I find to be quality as it did in previous decades.
I also think that there are a lot of fans that truly get into a few bands here and there and while it may be tempting and easy with youtube to run away chasing as many bands as possible, I assure you that they (as I have) will return over and over to the bands they really connect with. It also leads back to live shows, which in my mind, are a redeeming factor of music today, because bands can only really earn money through playing shows; people want to see them more in the flesh and feel a certain reward since the band has not been fed to them.
I just think that despite the obsession with wit, sarcasm, image that the hyper aware media/internet culture breeds, people still hunger for something deeper and more genuine from their art, which is why live performances or putting youtube clips on repeat endlessly gives me hope.
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that you were in the group I was bashing. This post just lead to a stream-of-consciousness rant, which is what the best comments are (other than the obligatory, "What the fuck," "This is weird," or "Nice post, bud" ones, of course). I've asked this before, but let's jump into it again. Do you feel that music is as important to people now as it was in the '60s and '70s?
ReplyDeleteAnd I wouldn't say most think there is a lot going against you guys. I would say that most think there is a lot going FOR you guys. You just have to listen to me. I am not most people, for sure. I'm an outdated dinosaur. I probably just don't know enough about the subject to go on rants about it, but this is our blog, so that what it's here for.
I'm focused more on what this conversation undoubtedly brings up... the debate as to whether art exists for art's sake, or art exists as a tool for symbolic expression. If we're following Edward's line of thought with regards to art and image, it can be wholly asserted that he is of the Aesthetic/Bohemian movement, which purports that Art should exist outside the realms of man and thought. Art, in this manner, should stand alone and should not be embedded with moral/social/cognitive/communicative/etc ambiguities and assumptions. It should be received only viscerally, immediately, and through the human senses. If it moves you, it moves you, if it doesn't, it no longer exists within the realms of your psyche. Daniel, it should seem, follows a more Post-Modern ideology wherein the Dadaists/Surrealists/Fluxists seem to be unfulfilled by the Oscar Wildes of the Modern movement. In this camp we see a need to regain some sort of meaning and message to be carried along within the context of the art that is produced. Art exists as a didactic means of reaching the masses, urging them to move, think, react, and act. Art should do more on this earth than please you aesthetically.
ReplyDeleteNow, with regards to rap music and "young, self-aware, hip white people"... I think this is just another example of the aforementioned debate. In this scenario, Lil Flip is most certainly a pupil of the Aesthetic movement, wherein he spits rhymes for rhymes' sake. He doesn't consider the moral message in his lyrics or actions, but rather the overall feeling produced by the work of art itself. Now, the "young, self-aware, hip white people" would most certainly be cast as the Dadaists in this sick, twisted fantasy of mine. For the indie scenesters of the world, art must mean something-- and that something must do more than please... it must enlighten the listener in such a way as to provoke a higher level of cognitive awareness. I, myself, am more than absolutely aware of the amount of declarative, over-arching notions I've developed here, but I do think that the modern reception of music and what it's "worth" or how it's "appreciated" can most certainly be led back to this discussion regarding the essence and purpose of human artistic expression.
This is clearly a time-tested debate. Yes, I would consider myself an aesthete at heart. I wasn't aware that Dadaists used art for didactic means, but then again, I don't know that much about art history. Like I said, I'm trying to find a book to teach me more about it. I find it fascinating. What are Fluxists? I'm assuming it has something to do with change....
ReplyDeleteOscar Wilde is of course the poster child of art for art's sake, but even though he's awesome and a great writer, I do think it makes my side look a little weak, when in comparison with writers like Dante or Milton who wrote with didactic purpose. So I will hold up Shakespeare as the ultimate aesthete. You can never really discover his personality or his "moral messages" from his work. He remains an enigma. Personally, I see that as the way art ought to be, but I also see nothing wrong with making art that has a moral message (something like Orwell or whoever). I DO see something wrong with those who blame art that doesn't have a message. Why does it need to have one?
I don't think art has to have a moral message shoved upon the reader (or viewer--clearly I'm out of my element when it comes to the visual arts, so I will leave that up to others) for it to produce a greater cognitive awareness. I think that truly great art to me involves learning something about yourself, and that's what I was talking about in my original comment. People are too busy trying to fit into some sort of mass movements, and we have all these kinds of multicultural writers that we support blindly simply because they are part of some group movement that we identify ourselves with. But great art I think speaks to you on a deeper level than cultural studies or whatever you call this mass of people trying to be politically correct. It speaks to your humanity. I don't read Shakespeare for any sort of moral message. I read him for his insight into humanity. Even though Proust was gay, I don't read him for some sort of gay rights schtick. He is there for his profound insight into human psychology. And that is why I think art for art's sake is more important than art for a political/social message's sake. We have other things for that. Art is there for cognitive growth, indeed, but not necessarily for anything else (at least other things come second).
I guess, though I see both sides to the argument clearly and with compassion, if forced to choose... I am also of the mindset that art should stand alone in it's ability to move the viewer on an intimately personal and humanistically aesthetic level. It doesn't have to or need to speak to mass audiences in order to produce some sort of trend to latch onto in terms of cultural movement. The more apt a viewer is to blindly accept the trendy ideologies behind the latest buzzword or social happening, the less likely they seem to be to actually feel the intrinsic nature of art that works to lead us down the path of introspective self-awareness. The self has been ruthlessly disregarded as of late, and instead in its place lie virtual carcasses building up and up as technology replaces face-to-face connection and youtube fame is the stand-in for gifts of genius accepted universally as art. We live in a time where having taste and being exclusively elite in said tastes is deemed as an act of close-minded snobbery... whereas this was once considered the norm in terms of the classical reception of artistic expression. It's sad to me, that I feel at once forced to be all-accepting of any variety of art, and also discouraged from having a shortlist of likes and dislikes when it comes to my cultural tastes. I wish I could have lived in a time where going on "The Grand Tour" with Lord Byron would be the ultimate definition of acquiring "good taste." Sigh.
ReplyDeleteAlso: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluxus
ReplyDeletetough to provide a follow up to these comments, but I agree with Edward in the importance of art allowing for me to learn something about myself. This growth and change and deepening in ways of the self is truly a powerful effect of experiencing art. However, in the sense that I am not finite but rather an amalgam of all the influences within me and surrounding me (both time and space), I believe that the context that I experience the art has a unique effect on me just as I feel experiencing the same piece of art later in my life will give me a new and different result (although with ties to the original feelings), but will still be attributed to the power of the art itself. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but basically I believe that there is a difference in the innate content of separate pieces of art and I also believe in the difference between the context of experiencing this art even if that context is my own shifting internal looking glass. But all of these elements add up to the power that the art has.
ReplyDeleteIn listening to an interview with the lead singer of the National, who is a band with somewhat intangible and looping lyrics, he mentioned that he liked the idea of someone listening to his lyrics, mishearing them, and interpreting them based on the misheard words as that is as correct of an interpretation as whatever comes from the actual words of the song.
To spin off of that, I like to try and understand the source and meaning for the artwork I'm experiencing, but at the same time I know there is no possible way for me to know exactly everything about the creation of the art so I take comfort in experiencing the art without knowledge as well, and the idea of finding quality for yourself regardless of how "accurate" it might be to the artist, critics, friends, strangers, that is a truly liberating feeling and a great way to experience it all.
also, I'm not sure what good it is to state, but I actually really like this song, well this song mashed up with another, because that was the way I initially heard it. I love his enthusiasm of breaking down his money with his team. Maybe it's just me, but I find that really endearing and not usually thought or spoken of in most I'm-really-rich rap songs.
ReplyDeleteBethany, I'm glad you liked the idea from my book about Byron's "grand tour," haha. I too long for the days of classical and Renaissance culture that seem to never be coming back. Call me politically incorrect.
ReplyDeleteAnd, Daniel, for sure, the most important thing you bring to art is yourself and your own experiences. So obviously if you revisit something meaningful, it will change what it says to you. But something less powerful will probably still have the same message. I have a feeling if you go back and watch Transformers, it will always provide the same message to you. But if you read Hamlet when you are young and when you are old, you will draw totally different meanings from the play. It is that ambiguity and possibility for multiple interpretations that makes some art timeless. Personally, I don't think we have any way of judging what modern things coming out right now will be timeless or not. It's cliche, but only time will tell. And I'd be curious to see what lasts.
Also, here is my rap song contribution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv_0k8dxhQw&feature=fvst.
ReplyDeleteFor sure there is no way of knowing what will last, and even if we're pretty sure it won't be transformers 3, I think it's important to take it for what it is, a spectacle and a pile of hollywood, hype, money, celebrity, internet, and nostalgia guts, similar to what became of the first ape in the The Fly. The only ambiguity will come from where the pop culture surrounding this type of absurdity is going, whether to darker more superficial places or off in some other tangential direction. In spite of these wildly popular spectacles I can't imagine there not being more people who crave and appreciate better quality as seen on RT and your literature forums. It becomes more a matter of separating yourself from the throngs of noise on the internet and other media alike long enough to sit down with just you and the art at hand, and immerse yourself.
ReplyDeleteLOLWUT
ReplyDeleteHAIGHVITE
ReplyDelete