The Stephin Merritt 'controversy,' is an example of everything that is wrong with the internet, and kind of null and voids that entire response, IMO.
True indeed, but my point is more that this dumbshit writer/reviewer can just get this thrown up on a website by a big name publication is what's wrong with the internet and the fact that people can voice their own reactions right then and there because they can at least offer some knowledge on the subject is what is right about it.
Except the dude that commented appeared to be even less informed/articulate than Breihan.
But the fact that people have access to call someone on their own bullshit on the spot is what makes this whole system of nuts and bolts and bits of information so cosmically sound. In a magazine, those comments (while chosen from much more articulate hate mail, agreed) would be in a paragraph on page two in reaction to last month's coverage, this happens instantaneously. Please read slowly, i don't want to have to say the same thing for the third time.
No, you slow down. What you said was "the fact that people can voice their own reactions right then and there because they can at least offer some knowledge on the subject is what is right about it."
That moron was not "offering some knowledge on the subject"... he was just flapping his fingers across the keyboard under the misguided belief that the world has some interest in the vacuous mess inside his skull.
What you're saying is that you like the fact that the internet is interactive, regardless of the value of what either party to the interaction is actually saying. That's neither what's right about it, nor what's wrong about it--it's simply the nature of it.
flat out errors and gratuitous/ignorant name dropping
the most incredible beatboxers, Last Poets-style ("style" because the favorite [whatever]esque just doesn't sound right.
This kind of shit is par for the course in "music journalism" *cringes* these days--across genres and getting worse.
i think that's part of the reason why so many musicians (most artists for that matter) are turned off by reviews, interviews, etc. These aren't the people they are making music for and if anything, many of them contribute into the music being mishandled. That guy complains about the Roots doing the same live show and etc etc, but seriously, think about how they were handled in the Geffen days, tours were the only way they could get theirs properly.
It is a real shame that people even use the words "I" & "Me" in reviews, it is no longer a review at that point it is just an opinion. I don't care how the album/show/movie/book makes you feel because i am going to have my own reaction and connection.
The Stephin Merritt 'controversy,' is an example of everything that is wrong with the internet, and kind of null and voids that entire response, IMO.
True indeed, but my point is more that this dumbshit writer/reviewer can just get this thrown up on a website by a big name publication is what's wrong with the internet and the fact that people can voice their own reactions right then and there because they can at least offer some knowledge on the subject is what is right about it.
Except the dude that commented appeared to be even less informed/articulate than Breihan.
But the fact that people have access to call someone on their own bullshit on the spot is what makes this whole system of nuts and bolts and bits of information so cosmically sound. In a magazine, those comments (while chosen from much more articulate hate mail, agreed) would be in a paragraph on page two in reaction to last month's coverage, this happens instantaneously. Please read slowly, i don't want to have to say the same thing for the third time.
No, you slow down. What you said was "the fact that people can voice their own reactions right then and there because they can at least offer some knowledge on the subject is what is right about it."
That moron was not "offering some knowledge on the subject"... he was just flapping his fingers across the keyboard under the misguided belief that the world has some interest in the vacuous mess inside his skull.
What you're saying is that you like the fact that the internet is interactive, regardless of the value of what either party to the interaction is actually saying. That's neither what's right about it, nor what's wrong about it--it's simply the nature of it.
No YOU slow down (joke).
What i am saying is that yes, the fact that the internet is interactive in that way is very good, cool, healthy for the pace at which we live, but what i am not saying is that the two people who wrote replies are speaking from a well informed and intelligent voice. i see where your comment is coming from, i see where what i said translates into what you're saying. No i don't think the Merritt guy and the non-charisma guy are dropping knowledge on some foll who will think twice the next time he writes and hip-hop piece.
We agree that this article is garbage. Relax, listen to a record, interact on the internet, do whatever.
To me the thing that is so frustrating about Breihan, is that, in 2006, he has the means to do the knowledge and prevent these embarassing mistakes. He is getting paid (i asssume?) by a major publication to write about hip hop. He should learn his craft. Read a fucking book. Talk to some people who were there. Shit, fire up google, dude is probably sitting at a computer all day anyway.
Here's a nice recent breihanism:
It's worth noting that Premier wasn't considered to be true/distilled hip-hop when he first emerged with Gang Starr; with "Jazz Thing," that group pretty much announced itself as a part of the jazz-rap subgenre
Can we get a rape_donkeys SPEAK NOT ON WHAT YOU KNOW NOT graemlin already?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Completely random and inappropriate reference points like that pretty much give away that the author has only ever heard maybe five rap albums.
How does the following reference-intensive review of a Roots show stand up to the above cirtiticism?
The Roots Zilker Park, Sept. 19, 2004 Utilizing hip-hop reference points as the means to reconcile their newly adopted guitar-oriented sound, the Roots put on a historical clinic for those uninitiated in the ways of musical reconstruction. Jumping right out the box with "Boom!" and Black Thought masterfully invoking the flows of Big Daddy Kane and Kool G Rap, the band followed suit by cloaking themselves in the well-tested comfort of Jimmy Castor's "It's Just Begun," the Incredible Bongo Band's "Apache," and the majestic intro from Santana's "Black Magic Woman." With guitarist Captain Kirk's jangling loop standing in for Scott Storch's electro appropriation of the "Knight Rider" beat, "Don't Say Nuthin'" fit nicely within the Roots' instrumental format. Beyond Black Thought dropping lines from Mountain's "Long Red," James Brown's "Give It Up or Turn It Loose," and the Wattstax soundtrack, Kamaal elicited an Iron Butterfly-esque organ swirl that rubbed shoulders with a guitar solo built off of a riff from Chicago's "25 or 6 to 4." After ?uestlove had his Buddy Miles impersonation matched by the Escovedo flair of Fisticuff's percussion explosion, Leonard Hubbard took his turn at the helm with a bass medley of his own. Drawing allusions to Cymande's "Bra," Melle Mel's "White Lines," and the dissonant explorations of Jaco Pastorius, the trainspotter's wet dream of a set concluded with a blend of Sugarhill Gang's "Rapper's Delight" and Chic's "Good Times." More so than mere fun under a blazing Sunday afternoon sun, KRS One said it best: "So grab the sphere of life and aim it; and you'll be guided by edutainment." ??? Robert Gabriel
Every time I've seen the Roots live before, they've had DJ Scratch as their beatbox, and that guy is incredible.
and with that one error, Tom Breihan once again proves that he's another douche who started listening to hip-hop last year. This is why I hate the internet, because it provides a forum for ignorant uninformed newbooties to come off like experts.
Seriously--I e-mailed Noz about this the other day. Dudes wanna get ass-hurt that he called the Roots boring (which they are) and then completely ignore this gaffe, which is the part of the piece that's genuinely offensive.
the article is bullshit. him calling scratch "dj scratch" =
keep in mind, i am someone who is asshurt over the article, but not the dj scratch part.
DJ Scratch is a major, major dude in rap. Maybe the general public doesn't know that, but anybody that's purporting to blog about rap "professionally" should. Offering yourself up as some kind of an expert and then slighting a rap legend like that (yeah I said it--ask some DJs) is a terrible look.
As far as the Roots go, I agree with the thrust of the article: they are boring. Sorry. But I don't understand why if Breihan feels that way he would go out of his way in order to see them perform twice a year every year for the past half decade. That's suspect to me.
It is a real shame that people even use the words "I" & "Me" in reviews, it is no longer a review at that point it is just an opinion. I don't care how the album/show/movie/book makes you feel because i am going to have my own reaction and connection.
this wasn't even an opinion, it was a recycled collection of Roots' criticism from the "what's hot in the world of white bloggers who make sure to keep it real" school of hip hop journalism. i've never read another one of his reviews, but if you gave me a list of artists i could tell you right now who he liked and disliked. also wouldn't surprise me if his "secret" ipod playlist contained the roots entire collection.
Every time I've seen the Roots live before, they've had DJ Scratch as their beatbox, and that guy is incredible.
and with that one error, Tom Breihan once again proves that he's another douche who started listening to hip-hop last year. This is why I hate the internet, because it provides a forum for ignorant uninformed newbooties to come off like experts.
Seriously--I e-mailed Noz about this the other day. Dudes wanna get ass-hurt that he called the Roots boring (which they are) and then completely ignore this gaffe, which is the part of the piece that's genuinely offensive.
the article is bullshit. him calling scratch "dj scratch" =
If you can't see how this should disqualify him from writing about rap music...
the band followed suit by cloaking themselves in the well-tested comfort of Jimmy Castor's "It's Just Begun," the Incredible Bongo Band's "Apache," and the majestic intro from Santana's "Black Magic Woman." With guitarist Captain Kirk ??? Robert Gabriel
I'll make an assumption--forgive me--that this guy is talking about the live band and not the "beatboxer". Therefore, the proper reference would be Peter Green's "Black Magic Woman".
Every time I've seen the Roots live before, they've had DJ Scratch as their beatbox, and that guy is incredible.
and with that one error, Tom Breihan once again proves that he's another douche who started listening to hip-hop last year. This is why I hate the internet, because it provides a forum for ignorant uninformed newbooties to come off like experts.
Seriously--I e-mailed Noz about this the other day. Dudes wanna get ass-hurt that he called the Roots boring (which they are) and then completely ignore this gaffe, which is the part of the piece that's genuinely offensive.
the article is bullshit. him calling scratch "dj scratch" =
keep in mind, i am someone who is asshurt over the article, but not the dj scratch part.
DJ Scratch is a major, major dude in rap. Maybe the general public doesn't know that, but anybody that's purporting to blog about rap "professionally" should. Offering yourself up as some kind of an expert and then slighting a rap legend like that (yeah I said it--ask some DJs) is a terrible look.
ahh. i'm assuming it was a typo. your saying he actually thought DJ scratch= scratch from the roots. maybe, but i find that doubtful.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
the band followed suit by cloaking themselves in the well-tested comfort of Jimmy Castor's "It's Just Begun," the Incredible Bongo Band's "Apache," and the majestic intro from Santana's "Black Magic Woman." With guitarist Captain Kirk ??? Robert Gabriel
I'll make an assumption--forgive me--that this guy is talking about the live band and not the "beatboxer". Therefore, the proper reference would be Peter Green's "Black Magic Woman"
The guy is me.
I was talking about the live band.
I didn't realize that Peter Green wrote Black Magic Woman. Thanks for the heads-up.
But the live band played it as does Santana, so I *think* the original reference still stands.
Every time I've seen the Roots live before, they've had DJ Scratch as their beatbox, and that guy is incredible.
and with that one error, Tom Breihan once again proves that he's another douche who started listening to hip-hop last year. This is why I hate the internet, because it provides a forum for ignorant uninformed newbooties to come off like experts.
Seriously--I e-mailed Noz about this the other day. Dudes wanna get ass-hurt that he called the Roots boring (which they are) and then completely ignore this gaffe, which is the part of the piece that's genuinely offensive.
the article is bullshit. him calling scratch "dj scratch" =
keep in mind, i am someone who is asshurt over the article, but not the dj scratch part.
DJ Scratch is a major, major dude in rap. Maybe the general public doesn't know that, but anybody that's purporting to blog about rap "professionally" should. Offering yourself up as some kind of an expert and then slighting a rap legend like that (yeah I said it--ask some DJs) is a terrible look.
ahh. i'm assuming it was a typo. your saying he actually thought DJ scratch= scratch from the roots. maybe, but i find that doubtful.
If it were somebody else, that would be a safe assumption, but this dude has a history of such "typos"...
Every time I've seen the Roots live before, they've had DJ Scratch as their beatbox, and that guy is incredible.
and with that one error, Tom Breihan once again proves that he's another douche who started listening to hip-hop last year. This is why I hate the internet, because it provides a forum for ignorant uninformed newbooties to come off like experts.
Seriously--I e-mailed Noz about this the other day. Dudes wanna get ass-hurt that he called the Roots boring (which they are) and then completely ignore this gaffe, which is the part of the piece that's genuinely offensive.
the article is bullshit. him calling scratch "dj scratch" =
keep in mind, i am someone who is asshurt over the article, but not the dj scratch part.
DJ Scratch is a major, major dude in rap. Maybe the general public doesn't know that, but anybody that's purporting to blog about rap "professionally" should. Offering yourself up as some kind of an expert and then slighting a rap legend like that (yeah I said it--ask some DJs) is a terrible look.
ahh. i'm assuming it was a typo. your saying he actually thought DJ scratch= scratch from the roots. maybe, but i find that doubtful.
If it were somebody else, that would be a safe assumption, but this dude has a history of such "typos"...
I don't believe that Breihan thinks DJ Scratch = Scratch from the Roots; I think Breihan doesn't know that DJ Scratch exists.
the band followed suit by cloaking themselves in the well-tested comfort of Jimmy Castor's "It's Just Begun," the Incredible Bongo Band's "Apache," and the majestic intro from Santana's "Black Magic Woman." With guitarist Captain Kirk ??? Robert Gabriel
I'll make an assumption--forgive me--that this guy is talking about the live band and not the "beatboxer". Therefore, the proper reference would be Peter Green's "Black Magic Woman"
The guy is me.
I was talking about the live band.
I didn't realize that Peter Green wrote Black Magic Woman. Thanks for the heads-up.
But the live band played it as does Santana, so I *think* the original reference still stands.
Carlos Santana lifted everything--even the solo--note for note from Peter Green.
faux, does this count as a mad schooling?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Completely random and inappropriate reference points like that pretty much give away that the author has only ever heard maybe five rap albums.
How does the following reference-intensive review of a Roots show stand up to the above cirtiticism?
Every time I've seen the Roots live before, they've had DJ Scratch as their beatbox, and that guy is incredible.
and with that one error, Tom Breihan once again proves that he's another douche who started listening to hip-hop last year. This is why I hate the internet, because it provides a forum for ignorant uninformed newbooties to come off like experts.
Seriously--I e-mailed Noz about this the other day. Dudes wanna get ass-hurt that he called the Roots boring (which they are) and then completely ignore this gaffe, which is the part of the piece that's genuinely offensive.
the article is bullshit. him calling scratch "dj scratch" =
keep in mind, i am someone who is asshurt over the article, but not the dj scratch part.
DJ Scratch is a major, major dude in rap. Maybe the general public doesn't know that, but anybody that's purporting to blog about rap "professionally" should. Offering yourself up as some kind of an expert and then slighting a rap legend like that (yeah I said it--ask some DJs) is a terrible look.
ahh. i'm assuming it was a typo. your saying he actually thought DJ scratch= scratch from the roots. maybe, but i find that doubtful.
If it were somebody else, that would be a safe assumption, but this dude has a history of such "typos"...
I don't believe that Breihan thinks DJ Scratch = Scratch from the Roots; I think Breihan doesn't know that DJ Scratch exists.
Probably.
I was keeping my fingers crossed for a reference to Ahmir "Questionmark Asylum" Thompson, but I don't think his rap knowledge goes back far enough to bless us with that particular malapropism.
It is a real shame that people even use the words "I" & "Me" in reviews, it is no longer a review at that point it is just an opinion. I don't care how the album/show/movie/book makes you feel because i am going to have my own reaction and connection.
How does the following reference-intensive review of a Roots show stand up to the above cirtiticism?
The Roots Zilker Park, Sept. 19, 2004 Utilizing hip-hop reference points as the means to reconcile their newly adopted guitar-oriented sound, the Roots put on a historical clinic for those uninitiated in the ways of musical reconstruction. Jumping right out the box with "Boom!" and Black Thought masterfully invoking the flows of Big Daddy Kane and Kool G Rap, the band followed suit by cloaking themselves in the well-tested comfort of Jimmy Castor's "It's Just Begun," the Incredible Bongo Band's "Apache," and the majestic intro from Santana's "Black Magic Woman." With guitarist Captain Kirk's jangling loop standing in for Scott Storch's electro appropriation of the "Knight Rider" beat, "Don't Say Nuthin'" fit nicely within the Roots' instrumental format. Beyond Black Thought dropping lines from Mountain's "Long Red," James Brown's "Give It Up or Turn It Loose," and the Wattstax soundtrack, Kamaal elicited an Iron Butterfly-esque organ swirl that rubbed shoulders with a guitar solo built off of a riff from Chicago's "25 or 6 to 4." After ?uestlove had his Buddy Miles impersonation matched by the Escovedo flair of Fisticuff's percussion explosion, Leonard Hubbard took his turn at the helm with a bass medley of his own. Drawing allusions to Cymande's "Bra," Melle Mel's "White Lines," and the dissonant explorations of Jaco Pastorius, the trainspotter's wet dream of a set concluded with a blend of Sugarhill Gang's "Rapper's Delight" and Chic's "Good Times." More so than mere fun under a blazing Sunday afternoon sun, KRS One said it best: "So grab the sphere of life and aim it; and you'll be guided by edutainment." ??? Robert Gabriel
See what i mean? Which style would you rather read, this or the VV?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Completely random and inappropriate reference points like that pretty much give away that the author has only ever heard maybe five rap albums.
How does the following reference-intensive review of a Roots show stand up to the above cirtiticism?
Poorly. Good math, bad writing.
Plaese to expound.
Actually, let me amend that, as I was answering a different question: In terms of the above criticism, it stands up very well.
But it's still bad writing?
I could see that. I made a choice at the time to try to educate the Becky-types who were at the show on what they were actually hearing. Therefore for the most part style went out the window in favor of jam-packing it with information.
I could have written about the ~8 dudes who were openly passing a giant houka around for the entirety of the show, but that would only placate the hacky-sack contingent who instead needed to learn themselves something.
I don't get enough feedback on my writing, so thanks for playing along.
the hacky-sack contingent who instead needed to learn themselves something.
You're wasting your time.
Roots shows are predominately parties for the fratsafarian set. They couldn't give two of their daddy's cents about references and quotes placed throughout the show--even if it's "Franklin's Tower."
solid. that's close to two years ago though and hovers around the time white bloggers unified in their quest to show the world that they are keeping it real.embarassed of who they really are[/b]
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
solid. that's close to two years ago though and hovers around the time white bloggers unified in their quest to show the world that they are keeping it real.embarassed of who they really are[/b]
solid. that's close to two years ago though and hovers around the time white bloggers unified in their quest to show the world that they are keeping it real.embarassed of who they really are[/b]
Y'all really need to name names...or you're soft.
You could talk about why The Roots are better than this:
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
solid. that's close to two years ago though and hovers around the time white bloggers unified in their quest to show the world that they are keeping it real.embarassed of who they really are[/b]
Y'all really need to name names...or you're soft.
You could talk about why The Roots are better than this:
I can't see what that is until I get home. Care to fill me in now?
solid. that's close to two years ago though and hovers around the time white bloggers unified in their quest to show the world that they are keeping it real.embarassed of who they really are[/b]
Y'all really need to name names...or you're soft.
i really don't bother to pay attention to such cornballs , but you know it's probally some dude who was writing about turntablism and dr. octagon a few years ago (YOU KNOW THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN' INTERNET) and woule be completely overly self-conscious hanging around "that element". Dudes who probally don't even go to clubs to hear the same stuff the put on a pedastol (but that's being a lil' nit-picky)
solid. that's close to two years ago though and hovers around the time white bloggers unified in their quest to show the world that they are keeping it real.embarassed of who they really are[/b]
"who they really are" = headwrap rockers and incense burners?
Completely random and inappropriate reference points like that pretty much give away that the author has only ever heard maybe five rap albums.
How does the following reference-intensive review of a Roots show stand up to the above cirtiticism?
Poorly. Good math, bad writing.
Plaese to expound.
Actually, let me amend that, as I was answering a different question: In terms of the above criticism, it stands up very well.
But it's still bad writing?
I could see that. I made a choice at the time to try to educate the Becky-types who were at the show on what they were actually hearing. Therefore for the most part style went out the window in favor of jam-packing it with information.
I could have written about the ~8 dudes who were openly passing a giant houka around for the entirety of the show, but that would only placate the hacky-sack contingent who instead needed to learn themselves something.
I don't get enough feedback on my writing, so thanks for playing along.
Well, good writing of this type should do two things: 1) Explain what's going on, and 2) explain why the reader should care that it's happening at all and why they should care whether it's being done poorly or being done well. That first part concerns the factual and will be of more interest to folks who already know what they're looking at; the latter part is more visceral, is what gives the writing heart, and is the part that should be emphasized in the interests of reaching the ain't-knowing and/or the ain't-caring.
Your review exists almost entirely in the realm of the former: It???s a pretty unrelenting tick-tock of this-happened-and-then-this-happened, with little opinion voiced, and very few descriptions that aren???t predicated on the reader???s prior knowledge of a specific song or artist. It???s referential to the point of exclusivity, and ends up being somewhat self-canceling; that is, I can???t really see all those particulars lighting a fire under anybody except sample geeks, but sample geeks probably spotted most of that shit on their own (just ask whoever was standing next to them when it dropped; I???m sure countless nonconsensual ears got bent that day on some ???Yo, thun--you know what that is, right????). I mean, I can appreciate that you were trying to jam-pack it with information, but I think it suffers from that imbalance, and misses the folks you were gunning for.
???
a blend of Sugarhill Gang's "Rapper's Delight" and Chic's "Good Times."
Comments
No, you slow down. What you said was "the fact that people can voice their own reactions right then and there because they can at least offer some knowledge on the subject is what is right about it."
That moron was not "offering some knowledge on the subject"... he was just flapping his fingers across the keyboard under the misguided belief that the world has some interest in the vacuous mess inside his skull.
What you're saying is that you like the fact that the internet is interactive, regardless of the value of what either party to the interaction is actually saying. That's neither what's right about it, nor what's wrong about it--it's simply the nature of it.
i think that's part of the reason why so many musicians (most artists for that matter) are turned off by reviews, interviews, etc. These aren't the people they are making music for and if anything, many of them contribute into the music being mishandled. That guy complains about the Roots doing the same live show and etc etc, but seriously, think about how they were handled in the Geffen days, tours were the only way they could get theirs properly.
It is a real shame that people even use the words "I" & "Me" in reviews, it is no longer a review at that point it is just an opinion. I don't care how the album/show/movie/book makes you feel because i am going to have my own reaction and connection.
No YOU slow down (joke).
What i am saying is that yes, the fact that the internet is interactive in that way is very good, cool, healthy for the pace at which we live, but what i am not saying is that the two people who wrote replies are speaking from a well informed and intelligent voice. i see where your comment is coming from, i see where what i said translates into what you're saying. No i don't think the Merritt guy and the non-charisma guy are dropping knowledge on some foll who will think twice the next time he writes and hip-hop piece.
We agree that this article is garbage. Relax, listen to a record, interact on the internet, do whatever.
Here's a nice recent breihanism:
Can we get a rape_donkeys SPEAK NOT ON WHAT YOU KNOW NOT graemlin already?
How does the following reference-intensive review of a Roots show stand up to the above cirtiticism?
DJ Scratch is a major, major dude in rap. Maybe the general public doesn't know that, but anybody that's purporting to blog about rap "professionally" should. Offering yourself up as some kind of an expert and then slighting a rap legend like that (yeah I said it--ask some DJs) is a terrible look.
As far as the Roots go, I agree with the thrust of the article: they are boring. Sorry. But I don't understand why if Breihan feels that way he would go out of his way in order to see them perform twice a year every year for the past half decade. That's suspect to me.
this wasn't even an opinion, it was a recycled collection of Roots' criticism from the "what's hot in the world of white bloggers who make sure to keep it real" school of hip hop journalism. i've never read another one of his reviews, but if you gave me a list of artists i could tell you right now who he liked and disliked. also wouldn't surprise me if his "secret" ipod playlist contained the roots entire collection.
If you can't see how this should disqualify him from writing about rap music...
I'll make an assumption--forgive me--that this guy is talking about the live band and not the "beatboxer". Therefore, the proper reference would be Peter Green's "Black Magic Woman".
ahh. i'm assuming it was a typo. your saying he actually thought DJ scratch= scratch from the roots. maybe, but i find that doubtful.
The guy is me.
I was talking about the live band.
I didn't realize that Peter Green wrote Black Magic Woman. Thanks for the heads-up.
But the live band played it as does Santana, so I *think* the original reference still stands.
If it were somebody else, that would be a safe assumption, but this dude has a history of such "typos"...
Poorly. Good math, bad writing.
I don't believe that Breihan thinks DJ Scratch = Scratch from the Roots; I think Breihan doesn't know that DJ Scratch exists.
Carlos Santana lifted everything--even the solo--note for note from Peter Green.
faux, does this count as a mad schooling?
Plaese to expound.
Probably.
I was keeping my fingers crossed for a reference to Ahmir "Questionmark Asylum" Thompson, but I don't think his rap knowledge goes back far enough to bless us with that particular malapropism.
Actually, let me amend that, as I was answering a different question: In terms of the above criticism, it stands up okay.
But it's still bad writing?
I could see that. I made a choice at the time to try to educate the Becky-types who were at the show on what they were actually hearing. Therefore for the most part style went out the window in favor of jam-packing it with information.
I could have written about the ~8 dudes who were openly passing a giant houka around for the entirety of the show, but that would only placate the hacky-sack contingent who instead needed to learn themselves something.
I don't get enough feedback on my writing, so thanks for playing along.
You're wasting your time.
Roots shows are predominately parties for the fratsafarian set. They couldn't give two of their daddy's cents about references and quotes placed throughout the show--even if it's "Franklin's Tower."
Y'all really need to name names...or you're soft.
You could talk about why The Roots are better than this:
I can't see what that is until I get home. Care to fill me in now?
i really don't bother to pay attention to such cornballs , but you know it's probally some dude who was writing about turntablism and dr. octagon a few years ago (YOU KNOW THE ENTIRE FRIGGIN' INTERNET) and woule be completely overly self-conscious hanging around "that element". Dudes who probally don't even go to clubs to hear the same stuff the put on a pedastol (but that's being a lil' nit-picky)
bring on the backlash , soulstrut.
"who they really are" = headwrap rockers and incense burners?
Well, good writing of this type should do two things: 1) Explain what's going on, and 2) explain why the reader should care that it's happening at all and why they should care whether it's being done poorly or being done well. That first part concerns the factual and will be of more interest to folks who already know what they're looking at; the latter part is more visceral, is what gives the writing heart, and is the part that should be emphasized in the interests of reaching the ain't-knowing and/or the ain't-caring.
Your review exists almost entirely in the realm of the former: It???s a pretty unrelenting tick-tock of this-happened-and-then-this-happened, with little opinion voiced, and very few descriptions that aren???t predicated on the reader???s prior knowledge of a specific song or artist. It???s referential to the point of exclusivity, and ends up being somewhat self-canceling; that is, I can???t really see all those particulars lighting a fire under anybody except sample geeks, but sample geeks probably spotted most of that shit on their own (just ask whoever was standing next to them when it dropped; I???m sure countless nonconsensual ears got bent that day on some ???Yo, thun--you know what that is, right????). I mean, I can appreciate that you were trying to jam-pack it with information, but I think it suffers from that imbalance, and misses the folks you were gunning for.
???
Yo, I need to hear this!