The NY Times Magazine (May 20, 2007) - "Back In the Day" pg. 28
Did anyone read that this morning? What a crock load of you-know-what and a waste of paper. Why do people who aren't qualified (are displaced from hip-hop and do not live it) seem to always want to write articles and essays about hip hop? These are usually middle-aged, academic scholars and university officials that write these reports, essays and articles.
There was seemingly no point in the article. Just to give you a summary, the article was about the usage of the phrase "Back in the day." It analyzed the meaning of it and tried to group the people that use the term. There is nothing to analyze, "back in the day," simply means back in the day. The author William Safire, whoever the hell he is, at times makes a mockery of the people that use it today, he even mentioned Don Imus.
The analysis of hip hop by fogeys who know nothing about it needs to stop. They are only perpetuating the negative attitude towards it and throwing fuel on the fire. Let US debate hip hop and if you want to come and hear us out, then you are invited, but don't turn hip hop into your little psychological experiment unless there is a valid point behind it. That point can't be to just use it as a filler for your magazine because talking about hip hop is the cool thing to do right now.
Simply garbage and it has hip hop tagged onto it.
__________________ I smell so good, I take a whiff of myself, but if I smelled like Sharpies, that'd be bad for my health.
So you don't think hip-hop should be subjected to formal analysis? As quite possibly one of the most important cultural phenomena in the past few decades, it's only natural that people of all social and intellectual backgrounds try to better understand it.
So you don't think hip-hop should be subjected to formal analysis? As quite possibly one of the most important cultural phenomena in the past few decades, it's only natural that people of all social and intellectual backgrounds try to better understand it.
I didn't say that. If you would read what I said, you would see that I addressed that.
__________________ I smell so good, I take a whiff of myself, but if I smelled like Sharpies, that'd be bad for my health.
Did anyone read that this morning? What a crock load of you-know-what and a waste of paper. Why do people who aren't qualified (are displaced from hip-hop and do not live it) seem to always want to write articles and essays about hip hop? These are usually middle-aged, academic scholars and university officials that write these reports, essays and articles.
There was seemingly no point in the article. Just to give you a summary, the article was about the usage of the phrase "Back in the day." It analyzed the meaning of it and tried to group the people that use the term. There is nothing to analyze, "back in the day," simply means back in the day. The author William Safire, whoever the hell he is, at times makes a mockery of the people that use it today, he even mentioned Don Imus.
The analysis of hip hop by fogeys who know nothing about it needs to stop. They are only perpetuating the negative attitude towards it and throwing fuel on the fire. Let US debate hip hop and if you want to come and hear us out, then you are invited, but don't turn hip hop into your little psychological experiment unless there is a valid point behind it. That point can't be to just use it as a filler for your magazine because talking about hip hop is the cool thing to do right now.
Simply garbage and it has hip hop tagged onto it.
__________________ I smell so good, I take a whiff of myself, but if I smelled like Sharpies, that'd be bad for my health.
I didn't say that. If you would read what I said, you would see that I addressed that.
Right, I just don't think anyone (e.g., you) is qualified to state what arguments are or aren't intellectually valid. Furthermore, I don't believe lack of direct involvement in a particular culture should preclude one from scrutinizing it.
Right, I just don't think anyone (e.g., you) is qualified to state what arguments are or aren't intellectually valid. Furthermore, I don't believe lack of direct involvement in a particular culture should preclude one from scrutinizing it.
It's not about validity, my point is about PURPOSE! It is not hard to tell whether an article has been written for understanding or for filler or to just produce something that takes advantage of a current hype.
Like I said, no one said anything about not scrutinizing. And I stand by what I said. It especially SUCKS when an article that is trying to analyze or research is poorly-written. There is NO focus, just banter. Was your English teacher wrong when she told you that there seemed to be no point or focus in your paper? That is my point, these articles seem to be so lacking focus on an actual idea of hip hop, just observations that are not fair because of their lack of understanding.
__________________ I smell so good, I take a whiff of myself, but if I smelled like Sharpies, that'd be bad for my health.
<--- Lotame Behavioral Tags --- >
<--- Lotame Behavioral Tags --- >
The NY Times Magazine (May 20, 2007) - "Back In the Day" pg. 28
