smoothcriminal12 said:

Graycap23 said:

His is a smart guy. I wonder what's really going on him as it relates 2 that debate?

Perhaps he wasn't ready for hwat they were going to throw at him? Who knows. It honestly just seemed as if it was one big "hate hip-hop" campaign.

It was in some ways.

Graycap23 said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Perhaps he wasn't ready for hwat they were going to throw at him? Who knows. It honestly just seemed as if it was one big "hate hip-hop" campaign.

It was in some ways.

It's crazy they're still having debates like this. It's been done so many times already and we all know hiphop aint destroying the youth. I think the reason why KRS-one sounded kinda off was because he never had the time to explain what he meant and also because at one point the debate went kinda bizare. Why not put "teen boy bands on trial" lol...

smoothcriminal12 said:

Graycap23 said:

His is a smart guy. I wonder what's really going on him as it relates 2 that debate?

Perhaps he wasn't ready for what they were going to throw at him? Who knows. It honestly just seemed as if it was one big "hate hip-hop" campaign.

[Edited 6/29/12 13:58pm]

His viewpoints are not mainstream ones and he would have been attacked in an open arena like that. However, he always keeps it real whenever I watch him speak on current and past hip hop. I didnt listen to all of it to have an opinion on what was different about this. But I have notice that lately he hasnt been as radical in his comments.

GoldDolphin said:

Obviously that's an opinion, but it's quite surprising when the producers don't like their own work but do it because "it pays my bills" then as a thinking person, I have to question their reasons. Music is art and hence it can be discussed as good or bad but like all types of art, there is no right or wrong answer. Yes well music is about getting it out and make others listen to it. Just because a book such as Harry Potter sells in millions doesn't qualify it as something good, nor does a poetry book that sold 500 copies bad. Like I said, music has always in a way reflected the society people are living in and I dont personally feel that this type of music today, represents the time we are living in. I sometimes like to compare the music scene today with the 80s, because much of the 80s was a colorful/fantasy type of world where music was escapism from reality and what was really going on, not until the end of the decade artists started to reflect on what had happened.

I don't understand the thinking that an entertainer is supposed to have control over what they do or like what they're doing. It's a job like any other job. They're an employee of a company. Why are they supposed to be different than people working anywhere else? Does an employee at McDonald's tell their boss, "I think the fries should be cooked in coconut oil", because he or she think it's better? Do most people who work actually enjoy what they're doing?

These debates don't lead to nowhere. They just sound like whining and complaining to me. And why KRS-One is always asked to debates like this, I'll never understand. He probably acted a fool on purpose because he was tired of the genre being attacked very lopsided-like.

mjscarousal said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Perhaps he wasn't ready for what they were going to throw at him? Who knows. It honestly just seemed as if it was one big "hate hip-hop" campaign.

[Edited 6/29/12 13:58pm]

His viewpoints are not mainstream ones and he would have been attacked in an open arena like that.

Better that than to look like a fool.

MickyDolenz said:

GoldDolphin said:

Obviously that's an opinion, but it's quite surprising when the producers don't like their own work but do it because "it pays my bills" then as a thinking person, I have to question their reasons. Music is art and hence it can be discussed as good or bad but like all types of art, there is no right or wrong answer. Yes well music is about getting it out and make others listen to it. Just because a book such as Harry Potter sells in millions doesn't qualify it as something good, nor does a poetry book that sold 500 copies bad. Like I said, music has always in a way reflected the society people are living in and I dont personally feel that this type of music today, represents the time we are living in. I sometimes like to compare the music scene today with the 80s, because much of the 80s was a colorful/fantasy type of world where music was escapism from reality and what was really going on, not until the end of the decade artists started to reflect on what had happened.

I don't understand the thinking that an entertainer is supposed to have control over what they do or like what they're doing. It's a job like any other job. They're an employee of a company. Why are they supposed to be different than people working anywhere else? Does an employee at McDonald's tell their boss, "I think the fries should be cooked in coconut oil", because he or she think it's better? Do most people who work actually enjoy what they're doing?

Obviously not all entertainers will have control of what they do, but if a person goes into the industry; you should like your job or give it to someone who's actually interested in doing a good job. A person who doesnt do a good job, gets fired eventually. I would think that most people want to improve and reach different goals in their working life and not stay the same all their lives. Also being an artist is not like working at McDonald's, becuase they are making art hence the name artist(at least that's what I would want it to be) . If modern day music is like McDonalds I dont want part of it, because you can make good food that doesn't make you fat and still keep it cheap, same with music. I honestly think you have to love doing music, to work with it, just like sports. It's alright to get tired of it but the intention should always be to make things better not worse.

Timmy84 said:

These debates don't lead to nowhere. They just sound like whining and complaining to me. And why KRS-One is always asked to debates like this, I'll never understand. He probably acted a fool on purpose because he was tired of the genre being attacked very lopsided-like.

True. Yes I kinda felt that he was putting up an act when they started talking about the cars and bitches.

GoldDolphin said:

Obviously not all entertainers will have control of what they do, but if a person goes into the industry; you should like your job or give it to someone who's actually interested in doing a good job. A person who doesnt do a good job, gets fired eventually. I would think that most people want to improve and reach different goals in their working life and not stay the same all their lives. Also being an artist is not like working at McDonald's, becuase they are making art hence the name artist(at least that's what I would want it to be) . If modern day music is like McDonalds I dont want part of it, because you can make good food that doesn't make you fat and still keep it cheap, same with music. I honestly think you have to love doing music, to work with it, just like sports. It's alright to get tired of it but the intention should always be to make things better not worse.

None do, even Michael Jackson had problems with Tommy Matola at Sony. Then there was The Artist with Slave on his face. Maybe someone who self releases their own records has control of the music, but they don't have the money for payola, nor do they have the distribution power of a big company. An act can't do whatever they want. The company has the money, so they make the rules. If the company doesn't like what the act has turned in to them, they can reject it and not release it. Record companies have also remixed material without the performers knowledge, until they hear it after it has been released. They tell the act what to do, if the employee doesn't want to do it, then the company can try to kill their career by not promoting their records, which puts them in debt to the company. If it wants to, the company can also blacklist the act.

[Edited 6/29/12 14:58pm]

MickyDolenz said:

GoldDolphin said:

Obviously not all entertainers will have control of what they do, but if a person goes into the industry; you should like your job or give it to someone who's actually interested in doing a good job. A person who doesnt do a good job, gets fired eventually. I would think that most people want to improve and reach different goals in their working life and not stay the same all their lives. Also being an artist is not like working at McDonald's, becuase they are making art hence the name artist(at least that's what I would want it to be) . If modern day music is like McDonalds I dont want part of it, because you can make good food that doesn't make you fat and still keep it cheap, same with music. I honestly think you have to love doing music, to work with it, just like sports. It's alright to get tired of it but the intention should always be to make things better not worse.

None do, even Michael Jackson had problems with Tommy Matola at Sony. Then there was The Artist with Slave on his face. Maybe someone who self releases their own records has control of the music, but they don't have the money for payola, nor do they have the distribution power of a big company. An act can't do whatever they want. The company has the money, so they make the rules. If the company doesn't like what the act has turned in to them, they can reject it and not release it. Record companies have also remixed material without the performers knowledge, until they hear it after it has been released. They tell the act what to do, if the employee doesn't want to do it, then the company can try to kill their career by not promoting their records, which puts them in debt to the company. If it wants to, the company can also blacklist the act.

[Edited 6/29/12 14:58pm]

This is partially why most artists are lucky when their music comes out if they actually have people who support it. Otherwise, folks' confidence gets shook up when some label executive tells them "this won't sell." Can you really blame folks who end up having commercial folks on their products? They're put into a corner. They never gave a damn about your art unless they saw money signs. If they don't think something will make money for the company, they'll tell you.

smoothcriminal12 said:

mjscarousal said:

His viewpoints are not mainstream ones and he would have been attacked in an open arena like that.

Better that than to look like a fool.

Of course because anything besides that is simply foolish for some one like KRS.

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

None do, even Michael Jackson had problems with Tommy Matola at Sony. Then there was The Artist with Slave on his face. Maybe someone who self releases their own records has control of the music, but they don't have the money for payola, nor do they have the distribution power of a big company. An act can't do whatever they want. The company has the money, so they make the rules. If the company doesn't like what the act has turned in to them, they can reject it and not release it. Record companies have also remixed material without the performers knowledge, until they hear it after it has been released. They tell the act what to do, if the employee doesn't want to do it, then the company can try to kill their career by not promoting their records, which puts them in debt to the company. If it wants to, the company can also blacklist the act.

[Edited 6/29/12 14:58pm]

This is partially why most artists are lucky when their music comes out if they actually have people who support it. Otherwise, folks' confidence gets shook up when some label executive tells them "this won't sell." Can you really blame folks who end up having commercial folks on their products? They're put into a corner. They never gave a damn about your art unless they saw money signs. If they don't think something will make money for the company, they'll tell you.

Yep I'm aware of that. There's always been a balance in the music industry tho, which I don't see in todays mainstream music. Like I said it's just my opinion tho, everyone's entitled to their own. Record labels havent always worked that way, they wanted to sell records yet find artists that were really talented.

[Edited 6/30/12 11:24am]

^ Yeah they've might cared about talent but money was still numero uno on their list.

Timmy84 said:

^ Yeah they've might cared about talent but money was still numero uno on their list.

Yep ^^

.