Popeye_Card wrote:
I don't think the folks hanging testicles on their hitches are big rap fans. Which is more vulgar--songs or rubber testicles in plain view?
This thread isn't about those people. What is the point of your question?
My point is that the hip hop culture isn't the only culture being vulgar in public. Socnorb11 has made mention that nothing in country music is nearly as vulgar as rap/hip hop. I'm not certain, but I'm fairly sure that a lot of men riding in large trucks with testicles hanging from their trailer hitch likely have many country radio stations on their pre-sets.
So which genre should be avoided for being vulgar?
Sure. And priests can be bad, too. But this is about music, not testicles on bumpers. I don't condone testicles on bumpers. That doesn't mean that country music is vulgar.
By the way, I've checked out some of the David Allan Coe stuff, and it's horrible,vulgar, and inappropriate. Not as bad as some of the rap stuff that I've read, but still bad enough to be highly inappropriate. So I stand corrected on that.
Is Kidd Rock considered "hip hop"? Because honestly, I've heard a couple of his songs that I really enjoy.
Breaking this down into more simpler terms. Let's say you have a genre of art, we'll call it Genre X. Within that genre is a number of sub-genres:
Genre X
1 = good
2 = bad
3 = unknown
4 = bad
5 = unknown
Is it fair to label Genre X as appropriate or inappropriate for a general audience (let's say a public art gallery) base on the information at hand? Would it be fair for someone to dismiss the genre as a whole because of a few bad sub genres?
You could go even further by dividing sub-genres into individual artists.... which is ultimately why artists hate labels anyway.
Why not just make judgments about artists as you come to hear them? Why the need to lump them into a genre and make a general judgment about that genre? Doesn't that seem, at it's root, an unfair process of evaluation?
maddash wrote:Breaking this down into more simpler terms. Let's say you have a genre of art, we'll call it Genre X. Within that genre is a number of sub-genres:
Genre X
1 = good
2 = bad
3 = unknown
4 = bad
5 = unknown
Is it fair to label Genre X as appropriate or inappropriate for a general audience (let's say a public art gallery) base on the information at hand? Would it be fair for someone to dismiss the genre as a whole because of a few bad sub genres?
You could go even further by dividing sub-genres into individual artists.... which is ultimately why artists hate labels anyway.
Why not just make judgments about artists as you come to hear them? Why the need to lump them into a genre and make a general judgment about that genre? Doesn't that seem, at it's root, an unfair process of evaluation?
That seems reasonable.
And after reading the David Allan Coe lyrics, I think it probably seems MORE than reasonable.
maddash wrote:Doesn't that seem, at it's root, an unfair process of evaluation?
Isn't that the way we form opinions most of the time? Do people make a systematic investigation of something like Chinese food, or do they try it a couple times, dislike it, and move on? Of course most people wouldn't go from that to claiming that Chinese food is some of the worst cuisine in the world...
