i've noticed this while trying to contribute my critical thoughts on more than one occasion. a motherfucker like sasha frere jones can break down the prehiphopstoric genres, describe them, and put out an opinion on them that makes sense and gives you a sense of where he's coming from, no problem, through the written word, but you can't really do that with 1/5th (or 1/4th, whatever krs thinks nowadays) of the elements.
there's definitely a standard of what's good and what isn't, and a consensus on what would qualify in the canon, but it seems hard to communicate. a quality critical ear has been passed down through the generations, as brief as they might be, but no one can really make it tangible (or tangible enough to be documented beyond binary banging/softly-knuckle-grazing).
a lot of people complain about the preservation of what hip-hop's really about and what's really good and a significant amount of the problem to me seems to be communication as much as the ignorance of the young nahright-surfing youth. how do we accurately and intelligently portray what we really feel about this shit and why we like it?
this belongs in a random:, i suppose.
there's definitely a standard of what's good and what isn't, and a consensus on what would qualify in the canon, but it seems hard to communicate. a quality critical ear has been passed down through the generations, as brief as they might be, but no one can really make it tangible (or tangible enough to be documented beyond binary banging/softly-knuckle-grazing).
a lot of people complain about the preservation of what hip-hop's really about and what's really good and a significant amount of the problem to me seems to be communication as much as the ignorance of the young nahright-surfing youth. how do we accurately and intelligently portray what we really feel about this shit and why we like it?
this belongs in a random:, i suppose.