Odds and Ends 007
Hip-Hop Doesn't Have to Try to Be Hard--It Damn Well Is Hard
Speech Debelle: Freedom of Speech (Big Dada)
Atmospheric rapper conveys advanced thought and warm feelings with pliant voice, enveloping beats, and lyrics that have their sharper moments ("Studio Backpack Rap," "Collapse," "Shawshank") ***
Danny Brown: XXX (Fool's Gold)
"No apologies/For the misogyny," although students of the class system and serious cunnilingus fans might forgive him anyway ("Scrap or Die," "I Will") ***
Common: The Dreamer/The Believer (Think Common/Warner Bros.)
Still on a major label, he's damn well gonna act it ("Raw [How You Like It]," "The Believer") ***
Atmosphere: The Family Sign (Rhymesayers)
More memorable than many more interesting rappers as he singsongs medium-tempo of his mature values, his life as an entertainer, and his lost dog ("Became," "She's Enough") ***
K'Naan: More Beautiful Than Silence (A&M/Octone)
Too much to prove, and neither Nelly Furtado nor Nas can help ("Nothing to Lose," "Coming to America") **
Dark Time Sunshine: Vessel (Fake Four Inc.)
Seattle MC Onry Osborne ne Michael Martinez d/b/a Cape Cowen meets Chicago beatmaker Zamara for grown-up illbient that makes the most of the world's and its own incomprehensibility ("Vessel," "All Aboard") **
Tinie Tempah: Disc-Overy (Capitol)
Finally grime-ragga-whatevs produces one of the mildly likable commercial rappers we thought we had such a monopoly on ("Till I'm Gone," "Simply Unstoppable") *
Buck 65: 20 Odd Years Volume 4: Ostranenie (Warner Music Canada)
Maybe it's me‑-well, almost definitely it's me‑-but I like him better on baseball than on romance and on album than on EP ("Joey Bats," "Legendary") *
that doesn't mean that new norms can't work for new media.
Of course. But my feeling is that what's going on now isn't working.
I cite the long-standing (10 years, maybe?) ilxor series of discussion boards, where few people go by their real names, yet everybody seems to know each others' identities, and even if they don't, they treat each other with respect and have developed effective ways to weed out bad apples. They've blown past the anonymity issue; at this point it's tired ground.
Okay, excellent point. I'd love some details. How can this be spread around?
Anyway, I was happy to meet a bunch of you folks at the Wussy show, and I expect I may meet more of you if things go well and I make it to the EMP conference. I'm glad y'all call me sangfreud here.
warrant for your arrest
dealing with the government
[Little scratching sound on list.]
About using real names: I may decide to use my real last name sometime, but not right now, and I reserve the right to think about it.
How did I come up with my the name I use for this blog? Actually, by trial and error. I was trying different combinations of "John DM" and "John DC", as the last 2 metro areas I lived in were DM (Des Moines) and DC (District of Columbia), and I stumbled upon "John_DMDC". I took this name because it was the first one I tried that no one else was using, and because I was getting tired. John is my real first name.
what is the 'ethical' standard?
The warrant for your arrest uses the Momma name.
You know, it's the one you're held accountable for.
How would that make Bris any more or less responsible for things said?
I thought the point was that Chris Christiansen could talk about gay identity without anyone knowing it was, in RL, Pat Patterson.
Feel a bit trivial posting this amidst the anonymity controversy, and it is a bit late, but here's a good joke about Wings from Steve Coogan (in his Alan Partridge - cheesy/slimy chat show host - persona):
"Wings - the band the Beatles could have been."
I don't quite get this argument. Let's say Bris' real name was Pat Patterson, but went instead by the name Chris Christiansen on this blog, and you thought it was Bris' real name. How would that make Bris any more or less responsible for things said? Isn't it actions first that define such things?
How in the world would you propose doing that? Everyone has to send in a certified copy of their birth certificate?Just a system no more onerous than the requirement for getting a letter to the editor published, I would say.
I consider those who toss around hate speech and vile personal insults behind a pseudonym to be cowards. Simply a statement about owning your words.
Who are we to stop it now? Let's face facts, most of us don't care enough about what people say on the internet to care who's saying it. Have you read through most message boards?
I know. I can seem like a crank about this, but I resist throwing up your hands in despair. Jaron Lanier made an excellent point in his You Are Not a Gadget that through force of habit and inaction, norms get "locked in" to systems until they are unchangeable in practice. Anonymous letters to the editor were rejected as a norm in newspapers. Anonymous posting has become accepted on the internet. And not too long from now the internet is going to be the dominant way that people say everything.
Now for a point I wanna support --
The increased access, information, contribution and utility that the internet provides are values to individual people and from individual people, not to and from unknown and unknowable secret sources. Masking that individuality strikes me as very unhealthy.Rat on -- it's also extremely important to resist the tendency of the internet to become the Mother of All Misinformation. (There's interesting trade-offs: the first time I heard a "birther" theory, it was from somebody who read about it on the internet; but I'm glad the same medium can tell me how many still believe this particular piece of propaganda.)
you can't fire a person for being a jerk. Unless a person's homophobia or racism is affecting their work it doesn't matter what they believe
How in the world would you propose doing that? Everyone has to send in a certified copy of their birth certificate?
I told you, Bris. I was born in Hawaii. Not Kenya.
But you can't call me unethical or a coward.I normally make jokes about this kind of stuff, but this argument isn't funny. Really, I have no idea how cowardliness came into this. To "not be a coward" is a completely overrated personality trait, especially compared to mercy, empathy, and understanding.
I shouldn't have to explain my reasons for wanting to be anonymous.
But ... but ... you just did.
And who is supposed to judge whether or not a person has a legitimate reason for posting under a psuedonym?
I think those who host sites should have a lot of say-so over who posts comments there.
But it's only by forcing people to post under their "real life" identities online that a person's opinion links them back to their employee.
If you read the entire post, including Jason G.'s quote, you'll see that was my whole point.
Reading Milo on online etiquette is like listening to a sobriety lecture from Malcolm Lowry.
(And people wonder why I lack enthusiasm for real-life meetups.) It's not about etiquette -- it's about ethics. You can call me rude all you want. But you can't call me unethical or a coward.
about the blogger
Starting in 1967, Robert Christgau has covered popular music for The Village Voice, Esquire, Blender, Playboy, Rolling Stone, and many other publications. He teaches in New York University's Clive Davis Department of Recorded Music, maintains a comprehensive website at robertchristgau.com, and has published five books based on his journalism. He has written for MSN Music since 2006.
live local music on
Enter your ZIP code to see concerts happening in your area.
Data provided by Zvents