Profile
Search
Register
Log in
is rap poetry?
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
Krang
THE ORC BREATH


Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Posts: 811
Location: NSW, australia
 Reply with quote  

Rap is a verbal art form in which poetry CAN be delivered.

how does that sound? lol
Post Mon May 05, 2003 1:06 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Nope



Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916
 Reply with quote  

iamjoao wrote:
well i just don't see any objective standard by which we can judge what's a poem and what's not, for everyone. i don't see any point in calling something Not poetry... unless it is prose, or perhaps a large building.


there is no objective standard by which we can judge anything for everyone.

because there will always be some asshole that says that the sound of shit coming out of his ass is music

and he'll be right...hey it's music to him...so whatever

you can take subjectivism all the way if you want...you'll be basically drifting in nothingness, though

I think it gets to a point when you just need to cut the crap and realize that not everything written in verse and with meter is poetry...but that's just me. Because I have my own standard of what poetry is.
Post Mon May 05, 2003 1:09 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
mortalthoughts
LAME KID


Joined: 12 Dec 2002
Posts: 11613
Location: MI
if you dont know what 'plur' is your not missing out  Reply with quote  



Last edited by mortalthoughts on Mon May 05, 2003 2:15 am; edited 2 times in total
Post Mon May 05, 2003 1:32 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
iamjoao



Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 92
Location: northern california
 Reply with quote  

i think if you take subjectivity all the way, that's the only way to tap into something real at all. i say that subjectively anything can be art to someone, or anything can be poetry to me, but i'm also going to have my very subjective standards of what's good or what's worth my time. and as long as i know those standards are subjective, i'll always be aware of my own fallibility, ya know? that's the main thing.
Post Mon May 05, 2003 2:10 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

RAP = Rhythmn And Poetry

Correct me if I'm wrong.
Post Mon May 05, 2003 4:19 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Jesse



Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6166
Location: privileged homeless
 Reply with quote  

FireFly> that's one of those after-the-fact acronyms, like Gifted Unlimited Rhymes Universal or Witty, Unpredictable Talent And Natural Game.

--

Random> I think you and I are saying similar things, or that we're saying some of the same stuff, but I definitely disagree that that lump of crap you posted wasn't poetry.

Very often, when people get into defining what does or does not fall under the definition of a word, they bring their critical faculties into play where they're not neccessary. This happens with words like "art", "love", "hip hop", "punk", "human" "poetry" and many other concepts that people idealize.

They are (usually unconsciously) defending the purity of a concept that either they hold dear or has been taught to them by someone who values that supposed purity.

It's not correct, though. Awful poetry is still poetry. When you arrange words, especially in verse, you create a poem. The poem may very well be complete garbage, execrable, worthless and contemptible - but that doesn't change WHAT it is only HOW it is. A glass of juice that tastes disgusting is still juice. Quality is rarely part of a categorical definition.

People fall in love and it doesn't work out so they go "I thought I was in love, but I was wrong" because that way the concept of love remains untainted. People look at abstract art and declare it not art because if it's art and they don't understand it they must be uncultured rubes, so they preserve the term "art" as being stuff people make that they DO understand. People look at the acts of a depraved personality, shake their heads and say "that's just not human, he deserves to die" because if they reclassify a heinous offender as something other than what they know themselves to be, they escape the taint of their actions.

A shitty poem is a poem. Shitty (or oblique) art is art. An inhumane human is a human. Failed love is love.

Poetry is no kind of exclusive club, they let anyone in there.
Post Mon May 05, 2003 5:14 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Nope



Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 1916
 Reply with quote  

like I said, I have my own standards

I remember a bit back I posted 2 "things" of mine which were not meant to be read as poems, even if they looked the part

guys were like "they're not well written"...but on what context? Were you expecting some abstract use of words with obscure meanings for aesthetic value? Were you expecting less "direct" lines when in reality those lines were meant to be aggressive and direct? maybe you could have just read it as some thoughts on a certain subject put onto paper with rhyme schemes up the ass?

maybe I should have told people not to read them as poems?

Somebody might have considered those "things" of mine, two shitty ass poems...but to me they were more like a collection of thoughts creatively put to paper...never intending to be poems

I still think it's all very subjective...I don't think that crap about the cat was a poem....and if I showed it to most people, they wouldn't think so either.

But the dictionary says it's a poem

you know what I think of the dictionary
Post Mon May 05, 2003 5:51 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

bobbythebear wrote:
sneeb, futurist, etc . . . all I can say is I'm disspointed. Poetry was spoken before it was written. I'll take the Oddessy example - Homer was blind. Remember that? Blind as a fuckin bat, so he c ouldnt "see" the words on the page, he just knew what he wanted to say. It was an oral poem long before it was a written poem, passed down through the oral tradition.

the same with Beowulf (which, incidentally, was presented in a kind of song form before it was written down). seriously, someone knows this besides me, right? your all just doing this shit for the sake of arguing, right?

on a side note . . . when is ponspeens dropping his chapbook? :wink:


none of this means anything. Milton was blind as a fucking bat too when he "wrote" paradise lost. He told somebody the lines as he wanted them on the page since he couldn't write them himself. And he like a lot of people READ Homer's works not listened to them.

Poems are written down. Sorry. That's the breaks. Anything can be art, but not everything can be poetry.

good day.
Post Mon May 05, 2003 6:24 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
bobbythebear



Joined: 29 Jul 2002
Posts: 254
 Reply with quote  

[quote="futuristxen"]
bobbythebear wrote:
Poems are written down. Sorry. That's the breaks. Anything can be art, but not everything can be poetry.

good day.


okay, if you want to get technical, open up a book concerning the history of language.

words were an oral device before they were written, and since poetry is the manipulation of words into verse and other such techniques, it is HIGHLY unplausible to assume that the written poem existed before the spoken poem. many of the myths of our culture and other cultures are the result of the oral tradition, not written down until long after their creation. and Milton lived in a time long after Homer. Remember, the printing press was invented before Milton dictated Paradise Lost, and before the printing press writing materials were affordable only to the upper class. The English language in itself was not committed to the page until after the Latin Church sent missionaries and a whole bunch of wars besides, and yet Beowulf, a poem of one of the languages that shaped English, had been long in existence before written in that language. true, it was transcribed from a written source, but the original source of the poem has never been identified.

The mead halls were places where poems were sung. Poetry used to be the term for theater before it became the poetry that has "always been written down". Music is derived from "Muse", encompassing anything "inspired by the muses", poetry, music, art, rhetoric, etc . . .

if your going to argue this any further, pleeease come at me with more than poets from the last half millenia, and leave your bullshit "thats the way its always been" until you can back it up. otherwise admit your ignorance
Post Mon May 05, 2003 7:04 am
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

bobbythebear wrote:

okay, if you want to get technical, open up a book concerning the history of language.

words were an oral device before they were written,


I acknowledge this. Obviously the roots were in an oral tradition before they could be written down. But poetry didn't come into form as presently constituted until it became a written tradition. There is a great diffrence between something that you read and something that you hear. When you listen to something you are taking into account things that have nothing to do with the words that are written and thus are not focusing directly on the content. Think of how many people hate dose one because of his voice. Voice and appearence are two variables that a written work don't have to contend with. When you want to judge something on it's literary merits, you have to look at the words as they are written down, otherwise you are biased by the performance.

I contend that even the oral tradition rooted poetry of beowolf and the illiad in spite of their roots, are judged based upon their words on the page. That's how they are discussed and analyzed as poetry...because again, poetry is a literary term that has to do with words on the page.
Post Mon May 05, 2003 7:19 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
bobbythebear



Joined: 29 Jul 2002
Posts: 254
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:

But poetry didn't come into form as presently constituted until it became a written tradition. There is a great diffrence between something that you read and something that you hear. When you listen to something you are taking into account things that have nothing to do with the words that are written and thus are not focusing directly on the content. Think of how many people hate dose one because of his voice. Voice and appearence are two variables that a written work don't have to contend with. When you want to judge something on it's literary merits, you have to look at the words as they are written down, otherwise you are biased by the performance.

I contend that even the oral tradition rooted poetry of beowolf and the illiad in spite of their roots, are judged based upon their words on the page. That's how they are discussed and analyzed as poetry...because again, poetry is a literary term that has to do with words on the page.


fair enough. but here you are admitting to another fault in your logic - you are judging poetry by the academic (read: academic according to the European standards) definition, which still only accounts for the past several hundred years, rather than for poetry in its entirety. the user of the printing press and centralized education has given such elitism a dominant voice, which is a primary factor in why spoken word has become the new literary rebellion. this approach is only one standardized approach, and poems of the oral tradition are compromised by being judeged along the same lines.

the criteria for judging poetry evolves with the seasons. as I stated before, Shelly did not live long enough to hear the stuffy academic mouthpieces praise him as a "great poet", same as Milton (sympathizing with Satan was a big no no). your definition of poetic criteria is at least a century gone. you can hold on to it if you want, but times change, and all things change with it, even art

furthermore, the written poem presents as many extraneous obstacles as does the oral. the composition of a poem can turn off a reader after the first verse, because not everyone enjoys the structure of a sonnet, or blank verse, or prosaic poetry, or the tyoe of poetry Cummings wrote . . . etc. the eyes are every bit as biased as the ears, from the small print to the face of the speaker.
Post Mon May 05, 2003 7:36 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Reggie



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 5765
Location: Queens, NYC
 Reply with quote  

Poetry can be performed. It's not like e e. cummings was a rapper or anything. When you perform metered poetry over "Funky Drummer," it becomes rap. Sometimes. Other times, you need to use "Impeach the President." And other times you don't need to use a funk break at all. Tune in tomorrow when I explain what "neo-soul" is and how P.M. Dawn does or does not relate to it.
Post Mon May 05, 2003 7:39 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

bobbythebear wrote:

this approach is only one standardized approach, and poems of the oral tradition are compromised by being judeged along the same lines.




I see what you are saying on the whole. But this is the basic problem I see with lumping all of these things together.

Wouldn't the easiest solution be to categorize oral performance in a seperate category with its own merits, rather than lump it in with literary poetry?

I think the fear is that if we seperate them that one will be considered inferior to the other. But if we get beyond that fear and recognize an equality of mediums, each with their own strengths and weaknesses, then wouldn't we be in a better position to examine each work?

Wouldn't it be better to have this category of literary poetry, of which there are many many subdivisions, with which things could be compared; and then have this other category of oral performance(ayo)?

If this criteria doesn't work--what criteria can we use?

I know, I know, art isn't made to be judged--but without any criteria I think we lose context, and we lose progression and movement.

I don't know. I'm asking, though.
Post Mon May 05, 2003 11:27 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
bobbythebear



Joined: 29 Jul 2002
Posts: 254
 Reply with quote  

I do understand what you are saying, and to a degree I agree with you. my concern is that the term "poetry" has been at the heart of this whole discussion. it was not "literary poetry" or "oral poetry", but simply "poetry".

certainly there are divisions and subdivisions as with any art and any defined practise, from music to law to religion to labour. each divison, however, is a branch of one basic concept. in that sense, literary poetry and oral poetry are equal divisions of poetry. I argued for oral as a question of history, and if you are going to go into what poetry has been, you must look to the earliest recorded examples of it, and the history that goes with them, rather than simply the past several hundred years. that is what I saw you, sneeb, and the fuckin loser responsible for this misunderstanding, doing in the beginning, and no one took any great pains to correct it. that does not make one better than the other, it merely clarifies a false arguement (ie - what poetry is and always has been).

but yeah, the fear issue is on the money.
Post Mon May 05, 2003 12:23 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
sequence



Joined: 21 Jul 2002
Posts: 2182
Location: www.anteuppdx.com
 Reply with quote  

I just want to say that the sole person who responded to my previous post brutally misunderstood what I was saying. Also, I think it is hysterical when someone who is in the process of wetting their pants over an argument on the internet regarding something about which no 'objective' definition is possible calls people illogical teenagers when they disagree with him. Fantastic.

That said, if you're conceiving of poetry as a historically constructed and understood category, precisely that which is used to categorize texts into their respective canons in academia, then, sure poetry is written down. But that seems like a rather unfulfilling conclusion to draw from all the argumentation that went down regarding this subject. Instead of all the arguing you should have just said, I accept what my high school text books told me poetry was, I respect other forms of literary expression, even if oral, however I only consider those things poetry which fall under the rubric introduced to me by my high school english teacher.

Bah, I said it before, I don't care about poetry. I just don't feel like working on a paper right now, which is what I am supposed to be doing, thus I'll take cheapshots and argue.
Post Mon May 05, 2003 12:34 pm
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:40 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon