Originally Posted by Chris92

Alright I'm quoting you because I want to hear your side of the story. Why post this in this fashion? Was the "stupid" tag or that .gif really necessary? I don't expect this site to be impartial and occasionally it's funny when you guys post news in a non-traditional way (this is a website, not a newspaper after all), but I don't see what's so outrageous about this.

I'm assuming you have in fact listened to Nas, or at least Illmatic right? I know you're not a big fan of mainstream hip-hop at all (or most hip-hop), but I would think you'd be familiar with that record.

Because he's not the greatest lyricist of all time.

Originally Posted by CS Lewis

Yes, because CNN is not the hip-hop authority that Absolutepunk is...

There is no such "in hip-hop" attachement to this statement.

Originally Posted by Chris92

Right, because music is not subjective at all. At the very least Nas is a fantastic lyricist, so what makes someone arbitrarily declaring him "the greatest" so outrageous?

Lyrics are different than the all encompassing "music."

And to answer your question, you basically give my answer ... it's "someone arbitrarily declaring" it.

Originally Posted by Dustin Harkins

By reading the article and seeing that all the references to his competition for the title are in hip hop, it's pretty obvious that that's what they meant.

I would disagree.

Those words were carefully chosen: "lyricist" over "rapper" or "hip-hop artist;" "greatest" instead of "most successful;" "all time" rather than "today."

Of. All. Time.

Originally Posted by Chris92

So hip-hop lyricists are by nature second-rate lyricists? Or am I misinterpreting you?

You're willfully misinterpreting me.

Originally Posted by Dustin Harkins

All he was saying with that is that he wasn't trying to say he had the best rhythmic flow (as in "rapper") or music (as in "hip hop artist") in hip hop.

He also said:

"OK, no lists then; just a strong case for Nas being the best rhymesmith ever, the GOAT, numero uno, and a humble concession that this is but one man's opinion and yours are enthusiastically welcomed below."

Ok? He said a lot of things ... I don't really care about those -- others can discuss that all they want. I think the statement that Nas is the greatest lyricist of all time is ridiculous ... that's the only statement I am talking about.

Originally Posted by Chris92

Okay fine, I'll accept that distinction. Are you saying there is now subjective element to what makes lyrics good or bad?

Well you could say Morrissey is the greatest lyricist of all time (not saying you think that, just a guess) or I could say Springsteen, but that's still someone arbitrarily declaring an opinion. I don't think your reaction to CNN's pronouncement was based solely upon the fact that they arbitrarily declared someone the greatest lyricist of all time with little evidence. If they had done the same thing for oh I dunno...Dylan or Lennon or somebody from the world of rock music I doubt you would have reacted like you did. If you don't agree with it, fine. But why is it so ridiculous for one to think Nas is the greatest lyricist of all time? You still haven't really answered that.

I believe, as to most literarily scholars and critics, that there is an objective element to critiquing writing.

Man, gotta love the not-so-subtle attempt to just paint me with a broad brush there. I wouldn't have had the same reaction because Dylan is a better writer than Nas, not because of the music they play - the music has little to do with the lyrical capabilities ...

I answered it with my first post.

Originally Posted by Dustin Harkins

Pretty much what Roshan said. You can interpret it how you want, and yes the context he used it in was inaccurate as Roshan said, but his intended opinion with his statement was very, very clear.

If it was so clear ... he should have added the caveat in the sentence.

... is the greatest lyricist of all time - PERIOD.

Originally Posted by Chris92

Okay then, what did you mean since I misunderstood you?

Exactly what I said: there is no such "in hip-hop" attachement to this statement.

Originally Posted by CS Lewis

Yes, but seeing that Absolutepunk holds no weight and carries no credibility in hip-hop culture whatsoever, you mocking CNN's claim that a rapper is the best lyricist of all time also holds no weight and no credibility.

What's this have to do with hip-hop? My commentary is about music in general ... and you can decide for yourself if my thoughts on music and lyrics in general have credibility. Yeah, I think Dylan and Springsteen are better lyricists than Nas. That's a commentary on the lyrics in general, not hip-hop specific.

Quote:

If they were to have named Morrisey the best lyricist of all time and you mocked that, then sure it may have some sort of significance, but reporting this news report is the equivalent to HipHopDX posting a mocking news article saying "CNN names Lou Reed the best lyricist of all time" in a mocking fashion.

They can do that if they want.

Originally Posted by Dustin Harkins

It was clear thanks to the bold headline at the top of the article (which Roshan already pointed out).

Notice who added the " - PERIOD". Not the author of the article but your own interpretation of it.

This is the same thing you complain about people doing about news posted on Absolutepunk yet now you're doing it, haha.

Uh ... that looks like a "." to me ... I just spelled it out to call attention to it. The author definitely added the period.



It's still right there.

Originally Posted by Chris92

Well yes, there is an obvious objective element to critiquing writing I agree with you. But do you disagree that there is also a subjective element? Because if so, we're just not going to agree about this and we can carry on, and that's fine.

In writing? I've always held pretty close to the New Criticism view on literary critique -- which does not give way to much subjectivity in the analysis of writing.

Originally Posted by Chris92

I wasn't trying to pigeonhole your tastes so I apologize if it came off like that. I know you listen to a wide variety of music, I just picked an artist I knew was one of your favorites as an example, and then one of my personal favorites, and then two who people who "know about this stuff" (aka RS, Christgau, etc.) would often point to as examples of top-notch lyricism.

And what I was trying to say was that I don't think my personal tastes have much to do with lyrical ability. I think there are some phenomenal writers, that I don't listen to because I don't like the music. Subsequently, I do think Nas is a good writer. I do not think he is the greatest lyricist of all time.

Originally Posted by Dustin Harkins

Exactly! You're calling attention to it because you want it to make a point that it's not making as is shown through simple context clues!

So you're saying that the author really meant to say: "is the greatest lyricist of all time in hip-hop." And just left out those three words in that important sentence, which is its own paragraph, and then goes on to point out how much care was taken in forming that sentence? That he took all that effort ... and then just didn't type "in hip-hop" because the entire article mentions other hip-hop artists, and therefore we're all supposed to just know it's hip-hop inclusive ONLY?

Hmmm. Ok. Fine. I'll read this as "is the greatest lyricist of all time in hip-hop" from now on and only roll my eyes instead of completely think it's ridiculous.