GameBanshee Forums

I consider associating rap to a specific race, so much so that you consider it racist to not like it, to be rascist.

And, ignoring the above, I dont like gang violence or drugs, does that make me rascist?

I feel it needs to pointed out that the argument is not so much a person is racist for not liking rap/hip hop, or black artists, but rather that this is a person in a position where he reviews such material, and is widely read. The point is that he is not giving a certain culture of music a chance, on account of personal preference. In this politcally correct world we live in, when a person in the spotlight does just that, it is deemed unacceptable, and in this case, racist.

@ Tony: Because, people don't appreciate good music. They don't make tunes like they did 20, 30 or even 40 years ago. Now it's about how hard you can play, or how fast you can sing, or how loud you can shout.

Everyone knows my position on music, go Queen, or go home.

That said, my head is a rap free zone, thankyouverymuch.

I've listened to it (both new, and old, but I dont really know who or what it was) and I dont like it, or the kind of "gangstaghetto" culture it supports. If that makes me racist, so be it.

[QUOTE=ch85us2001]Everyone knows my position on music, go Queen, or go home. [/QUOTE]

Isn't that "go Queen, or go to the toilet quickly due to laxaties put in your drink"?

[/deadly seriousness]

OMG!!!

Let me provide everyone with my thought

Rap or not, it does not determine whether you are a racist or not, its just music that i dont care for but that does not mean that i am a racist or not

Racism is a common, unfortunate quality that many ppl exhibit and it simply means that you, the person who thinks that anyone who doesn't like rap is racist, are simply insecure. No offense intended at all

[QUOTE=Aegis]I feel it needs to pointed out that the argument is not so much a person is racist for not liking rap/hip hop, or black artists, but rather that this is a person in a position where he reviews such material, and is widely read. The point is that he is not giving a certain culture of music a chance, on account of personal preference. In this politcally correct world we live in, when a person in the spotlight does just that, it is deemed unacceptable, and in this case, racist.[/QUOTE]
Well with all do respect many publications that review music like Rolling Stone utilize specific people to review specific albums: if there' a guy who prefers country and folk music and is more familiar with it than others he tends to review the country and folk music released, where somebody else who prefers rap music and is more familiar with it reviews the rap albums. If what you said is truly the argument presented then it still is pointless: don't ask me to review a metal or rap album because I don't know anything about or particularly like either genre and so I won't be able to write an informative review. I'm not saying I'm a blues or rock expert, but I'd be much more adept at reviewing something along the lines of a Red Hot Chili Peppers album (their new one is pretty darn good By The Way ) than by some guy named L'il Wayne. It just makes sense in other words. Personally I think we all had the right of it to begin with, but if that was your take then I still think the case is just as translucent.

TonyMontana1638 wrote:Well with all do respect many publications that review music like Rolling Stone utilize specific people to review specific albums: if there' a guy who prefers country and folk music and is more familiar with it than others he tends to review the country and folk music released, where somebody else who prefers rap music and is more familiar with it reviews the rap albums. If what you said is truly the argument presented then it still is pointless: don't ask me to review a metal or rap album because I don't know anything about or particularly like either genre and so I won't be able to write an informative review. I'm not saying I'm a blues or rock expert, but I'd be much more adept at reviewing something along the lines of a Red Hot Chili Peppers album (their new one is pretty darn good By The Way ) than by some guy named L'il Wayne. It just makes sense in other words. Personally I think we all had the right of it to begin with, but if that was your take then I still think the case is just as translucent.

I want to point out this particular passage from the article:

The final count in Merritt's indictment is a Playlist he wrote for the New York Times' Sunday Arts and Leisure section in May 2004. According to his band mate Gonson, the Times presented Merritt with a stack of forthcoming CDs to write about. He chose seven, and all of them were by white artists. To which Frere-Jones responded: "The new idea for Playlist at the New York Times is to find some rockist cracker and let him loose. … Let's watch Stephen [sic] Merritt swing a scythe through the fields of popular music with a blindfold on. Huh! Seven 'great' new pop records and not a person of color involved in a single one. That's one magical, coincidence-prone scythe you got there, Stephen."

Now, I am not sure how familar you are with the review process, or even with specifics like the New York Times review process, but I would like to bring your attention to comment about how he had been given a stack of albums, and he choose very specific albums, all with a common trend: white performers. Now, let us ignore the comments made by Frere-Jones, and let us assume Merritt is not a racist (for the record, I do not believe he personally is). The paper he reviewed these albums for, the New York Times, does not cater simply to white middle/upper class. It is a paper which has attainen, for the most part, international acclaim, and has down so in a locale which is one of the largest multiethnic centres in the world.

Logic would then dictate that a suitable mixture should be reviewed, as to not alienate a certain demographic. This was not the case, however. Instead, seven 'white' albums were chosen an reviewed. Combined with his already public opinion of rap/hip-hop, the question of Merritt's validity and qualifications to review for such a paper come into question. From there, questions of racism do emerge. In this case, there was no attempt to give him a certain genre of music to review, unlike how it would occur in Rolling Stone (Which is a poor defense, considering Rolling Stone is completely dedicated to music, whereas the publications Merritt was with when accused are not solely music oriented).

Lastly, the point of reviewing something is to not always review what you like. I have written many reviews (Games, Books, Movies, Journals), many of which I did not like, many of which I did. The point, however, is that you have to give everything relevant to your task a chance, without dismissing it out of hand. Because Merritt did not do this, as I have stated, question of racism appear, and his integrity as a reviewer.

The Pseudo-Left minds that inhabit SYM can denauce the evils of judgement and racism all they want, but make sure you understand completely the whole story behind the discussion. Now, it appears the general discussion has moved in a direction discussing racism in regards to rap, and not directly about the article. As I had said, I merely want to mention the real issue behind the (poorly written, mind you) article that was presented here.

..yes... :shadey:

[QUOTE=Athena]..yes... :shadey:[/QUOTE]
Ha! I was going to respond with that too. Then my interest in this thread was replaced with interest in alcohol.

Hah! It appears we are on the same wavelength.

(there was really no other way for me to respond to this thread.)

Good argument, but then what it boils down to, according to you, is that he is being labeled a racist for not reviewing music he doesn't like: any person with a firm grasp of logic would then realize that, as you've pointed out, he is not doing his job. But how does that make him racist in and of itself, as you've said? If I don't flip the burgers at McDonalds fast enough am I racist? I certainly hope not, but if I were to refuse to sell balck people those same burgers... Ah, then I'm boned because of my (really misguided) personal preference. This is the same case with Merritt, it all comes back to the music. The case could (and should) then be made that his position with whatever publication he works for should be reevaluated because he is not reviewing a wide panorama of music, but it's still the fact that his personal opinion of rap music has gotten him labeled a racist, not the fact that he isn't doing his job. Do you see what I mean?

I feel it needs to pointed out that the argument is not so much a person is racist for not liking rap/hip hop, or black artists, but rather that this is a person in a position where he reviews such material, and is widely read.

This is then, in fact, not true at all. His preferences have lead to this neglect for 'black' music, therefore it's those same preferences that have gotten him in trouble and labeled racist. If he didn't review the rap music, hypothetically, because nobody cared about rap reviews and that section got low reviews he wouldn't be labeled racist: "Hey I'm sorry it just doesn't sell". He's racist according to Hopper and Jones because his own opinions regarding rap music are that it sucks, which is what we've been arguing all along and what the article was too: is that a legitimate reason to make such a claim? I say no.

Therefore let us "Pseudo-Left minds" continue our argument because we all had it right to begin with, you've just pointed out for us an unfortunate instance of when personal-meets-business and personal wins when business should and thereby missed the point yourself.

Before anything else is said or down, calm down. I did not say you missed the point. There is obviously some poorly guided conceptions of what denotes racism in that article, of which I neither confirmed or denied on a personal level. Nor did I say you missed the point. What I was stating was that the direction this discussion was heading was one which ignored a very relevant aspect of the article, being the nature of Meritt's position, and the public raminfications it holds.

You will notice that much of the argument used by those who would criticize Merritt is from some time ago, and as such, the situation has obviously changed (be it for reasons brought forth in this article, or not, I cannot say). This was the reason why I was not basing my entire post around the accusations made towards him, but rather the importance of these accusations, and very likely why they have come about. These are important factors to understand, otherwise any discussion which is bred from it becomes nothing more than left-wing rhetoric.

This is then, in fact, not true at all. His preferences have lead to this neglect for 'black' music, therefore it's those same preferences that have gotten him in trouble and labeled racist. If he didn't review the rap music, hypothetically, because nobody cared about rap reviews and that section got low reviews he wouldn't be labeled racist: "Hey I'm sorry it just doesn't sell". He's racist according to Hopper and Jones because his own opinions regarding rap music are that it sucks, which is what we've been arguing all along and what the article was too: is that a legitimate reason to make such a claim? I say no.

And let me ask you this in response, then. If he were just a man on the street, would this even matter? The reason this is such an issue is because of his position, and his career as a reviewer of music. He has a position in which he may influence the movement of music, and as such (as long as he is the sole reviewer for a publication/media source) is obligated to withhold much of their own personal bias, and focus on the technical.

I'm sorry if I seemed upset or bothered at all in my last post because I honestly wasn't; this happens alot whenever I debate anything with people here, and it's nobody's fault but mine (it was also about 1:30 in the morning). My posts just inadvertedly give off an edgy feeling at times: you couldn't count on two hands the number of apologies Fiona's levelled my way. Anyways, I'm perfectly calm on this end for the record, so sorry if I gave you reasons to believe otherwise.

And let me ask you this in response, then. If he were just a man on the street, would this even matter? The reason this is such an issue is because of his position, and his career as a reviewer of music. He has a position in which he may influence the movement of music, and as such (as long as he is the sole reviewer for a publication/media source) is obligated to withhold much of their own personal bias, and focus on the technical.

Probably not, and I agree with everything you've said here: this man is not doing his job correctly.

I feel it needs to pointed out that the argument is not so much a person is racist for not liking rap/hip hop, or black artists, but rather that this is a person in a position where he reviews such material, and is widely read.

My only real contention with your argument is as follows: I interpreted this statement of yours to mean that this man is being accused of being a racist because he isn't doing his job, and not because he doesn't like music as we've all been saying. If that was a misinterpretation on my part then I am sorry, I just want to again stress that it is his personal opinion that's getting him labeled racist and not the fact that he isn't doing his job correctly: him not being an objective reviewer is just an unfortunate consequence that should (possibly) be the real issue in question here, not the fact that he doesn't like rap music. If I were Hopper and Jones I'd be petitioning for him being fired on the grounds that he isn't being as partisan with his review choice as he should be, instead of dredging up stuff like his affection for the song "Zip-a-Dee Doo-Dah" in order to label him as a person racist. Maybe this is where the article not being of the best quality comes into play as you've said, who knows.

*Offers freshly caught herring as a peace offering*

Question though, why do you keep labeling stuff "Left-wing" all the time?

I would like to thank Aegis for at least reading the article, but for the fact that he actually hasn't read it acurately...

Sorry, Merritt is not a professional music critic/reviewer so most of your comments coming from that angle (and that's majority of them) are simply invalid.

If he was racst against black people wouldn't it be more likely for him to hae chosen CDs that were all by black artists and just gie them terrible reiews without een listening to them?

[QUOTE=Lestat]I would like to thank Aegis for at least reading the article, but for the fact that he actually hasn't read it acurately...

Sorry, Merritt is not a professional music critic/reviewer so most of your comments coming from that angle (and that's majority of them) are simply invalid.[/QUOTE]

He has a platform, but. That makes a difference, surely?

[QUOTE=Fiona]He has a platform, but. That makes a difference, surely?[/QUOTE]
He is given a platform. There is a difference.

I read the article, but I also participated in the discussion at hand.

I would just like to point out that anybody who doesn't like Zydeco music obviously hates all Cajuns. Anybody who doesn't like rugby, loathes the British. Anybody who won't eat snails, detests the French. And if you refuse to eat McDonalds, you obviously discriminate against America.

[QUOTE=fable]I would just like to point out that anybody who doesn't like Zydeco music obviously hates all Cajuns. Anybody who doesn't like rugby, loathes the British. Anybody who won't eat snails, detests the French. And if you refuse to eat McDonalds, you obviously discriminate against America.[/QUOTE]I'm happy to do all of this except for hating Zydeco music.