Entertainment For Lively Minds

Word RSS FeedsWord Magazine on YouTubeWord Magazine on Last FMWord Magazine on Share My PlaylistsWord Spotify PlaylistsWord Magazine on FacebookWord Magazine on Twitter

Rob Fitzpatrick's review of Tyler, The Creator

Grant's picture

An extended white liberal apology for sexism, rape fantasies, homophobia and general nastiness that would never be tolerated if the artist was
a) White
b) English
c) Working Class?

If so, can I look forward to an overview and reappraisal of the Macc Lads back catalogue as a true representation of English white working class attitude in the 80's and 90's?

32

sadly

When I read the review, my initial thought was that it might have been a parody.

1
DC Eisenhower | 12 June 2011 - 8:38pm

yep.

Embarrassing, to be honest.

7
DougieJ | 12 June 2011 - 9:51pm

I have not heard Tyler's album...

... or a note of his music at all.

But Rob's points about hearing NWA for the first time certainly struck a chord. I'm still probably not going to bother with Tyler though. Because I'm 37 and a bit tweedy.

1
ganglesprocket | 12 June 2011 - 8:41pm

Me too.

I've listened to some foul stuff in my time: a ton of gangsta rap, quite a bit of horrible stupid metal, and I knew what RF meant with that reference too.

I'm not sure class or colour have much to do with it, Grant. I think you're right that Tyler's status as an American probably gives him some undeserved cultural cover, but on the other hand Eminem's first LP was just horrible (albeit brilliant) too, and he was white and poor as can be imagined. No shortage of misogyny, violence, imagined rape/murder on "The Slim Shady LP". But despite being nasty as all get-out, it remains an excellent record. I almost wish it wasn't, but it is.

I do take your point in part though: I think US hip hop is given a free ride by the centre-left media far too often.

2
Bob | 12 June 2011 - 9:01pm

I'm not trying to come over all "Daily Mail"

and I'll freely admit that I'm no rap expert, but having a long memory and a love of Noise means that (mounting my hobby horse) acts like Throbbing Gristle / SPK / Whitehouse / Death in June got absolutely pilloried for a lyrical content that was deemed unacceptable, but the same rationale is not applied by the critical fraternity to music produced by non-english musicians.

I thought that music journalism had moved a bit further forward than this "Gee, it's so wrong but it's alright because it's American".
Re: Your comment about metal. Critically loathed and beaten with the stick of "adolescent sexism" but popular with white working class males therefore ignored / dismissed. The same adolescent sexism is regarded as "keeping it real" in Hip-Hop and therefore applauded.
Arguably some of the most interesting and adventurous music being made at the moment is in the "Heavy" genre. May I direct listeners to Altar of Plagues Newie "Mammal" and Ulver's "Wars of the Roses".

3
Grant | 12 June 2011 - 9:24pm

I didn't think you were.

You'd be the last person I'd accuse of Daily-Mail-ism, Grant.

Something just occurred to me, though: Plan B. His first album had some pretty unsavoury stuff on it. So maybe it's not a race, class OR nationality thing at all, but a genre thing. We expect it from hip-hop more than we do from anyone else, and are able to see it more as artifice than autobiography.

I'm not excusing the Tyler record, particularly, but it does sound pretty cartoony in its way. I suppose I'll wait until I've heard it before I judge it - but to be honest, it's immaterial to the thread. We're talking about white liberal rock critics and their attitudes, not so much the content of the music.

(Interesting, btw, that - as Jimmy says - people seem quite prepared to tolerate horrendous behaviour from their rock stars as long as it doesn't make it into the songs. To go back to Jim's own John Martyn thread: there's a man who didn't sing about being a misogynistic, violent shit, but manifestly was. Why are we more comfortable with it being that way round, I wonder?)

2
Bob | 12 June 2011 - 10:04pm

but are people quite prepared

to tolerate horrendous behaviour from their rock stars? In the case of John Martyn, his behaviour wasn't widely known. Certainly I knew he was a very heavy drinker but that was about it. Only since his death has the more damning stuff come out.

0
DougieJ | 12 June 2011 - 10:08pm

And yet...

...it doesn't seem to affect people's view of his output. I don't necessarily think it should: I just find it interesting that *some* people are prepared to listen to sensitive, beautiful music written by an absolute shit and not have it colour their view, but if the horror makes it into the songs, they don't want to know.

0
Bob | 12 June 2011 - 10:12pm

I'm not

as I'd mentioned on the Martyn thread. It completely changed my view of him. Not in a good way.

2
Grant | 12 June 2011 - 10:21pm

Art and artist

Isn't there a dimension of trusting the art not the artist though? "Solid Air" is a beautiful album regardless of Martyn's behaviour. An ugly unpleasant record made by an angel is still ugly and unpleasant, and vice versa. Rob say this is, by most measures, an unpleasant record (REALLY horrible it sounds to me, not having heard it but going by the review) but he enjoys it. Fair enough, if rape fantasies and violence get you off. Personally they don't, but it takes all sorts.

1
Twangothan | 13 June 2011 - 9:39am

Well, but...

...he also says it sounds brilliant. He's not saying that the nastiness is what makes it worth listening to: he's saying that it may be uncomfortable listening but he thinks the effect is brilliant regardless.

0
Bob | 13 June 2011 - 9:45am

Isn't that the same thing?

He says the instrumentation is a bit shonky, the beats are a mess, the words are repetitively nasty, but nonetheless it sounds great. It's all part of the deal isn't it? I mean, what rappers are saying is the central point isn't it? Speaking as someone with 2 Eminem albums and a dozen or so tracks purchased after asking the Massive for what rap to buy :-)

1
Twangothan | 13 June 2011 - 9:54am

I'm not sure...

...that the content of what rappers say is any more the point than the content of what singers sing. Much of the delight I get from hip-hop is usually about flow and style - half the time I can't entirely make out what's being said.

Even though I do stand by my position that it should be the art that counts, and that we can't judge Solid Air by the horrible life lived by its creator, I still can't help feeling like there's something a bit more honest about the likes of Tyler.

Didn't you think, just a little bit, after finding out about John Martyn, "how could such a monstrously awful man make such beautiful music?" Didn't Solid Air sound just a little bit like a deceit afterwards?

I don't pretend it's logical, or that I'm wholly consistent on this subject, by the way.

0
Bob | 13 June 2011 - 10:03am

Yes, a little bit

of course I did. But I still like the music because it is beautiful. You can't completely separate the two.

0
Twangothan | 13 June 2011 - 1:18pm

Agreed, entirely.

:-)

0
Bob | 13 June 2011 - 1:23pm

Just watch those up arrows go.

Apparently in music you can be a misogynistic bastard but as long as you don't sing about it you are OK.
What should he be rapping about with his vast life experience?

2
jimmyshoes01 | 12 June 2011 - 8:59pm

Maybe..just maybe

he shouldn't be rapping at all?

We're very quick to bemoan "landfill indie" as a waste of time and effort and that those particular bands should just "give up" as they don't add anything to the genre.

Why the hell can't we say the same thing about rap?

2
Grant | 12 June 2011 - 10:13pm

Who says we can't?

Of course we can! Rap's not above musical criticism in the slightest. It gets pasted in the press all the time. But perhaps people aren't prepared to get aerated about silly lyrics because they've been a real feature of the genre for some time now and much moral panic has been expended on rap lyrics to very little effect in any direction.

Anyway, I've not heard the record, so I'd be wary of calling it landfill anything. It might be really, really good while still having questionable lyrical content.

0
Bob | 12 June 2011 - 10:20pm

Not disagreeing in the slightest

but, again, what interests me is the critical double standard handed out when it comes to rock / rap.

One given far more credence than the other. James Blunt sings about being in love = hated. Hymning homophobia = Respect! Keeping it real!

2
Grant | 12 June 2011 - 10:28pm

But this is far from

landfill. I have been listening to hip hop for over 20 years and haven't heard anything like this and that's exciting. I shamelessly live by Peel's adage that I want to hear something I've never heard before and Tyler has managed to tick that box and then some.
He has created an album that ranks alongside Cannibal Ox, MF Doom and Jedi Mind Tricks. His lyrical content is generic but that is probably a life lesson that he will pick up as he moves away from like a minded peer group in a not very nice part of the world.

3
jimmyshoes01 | 13 June 2011 - 6:54am

Have a point for listening before posting

And now that you've mentioned Tyler in the same sentence as Cannibal Ox I'm going to have to listen too.
You make a good point about rappers growing up - Beastie Boys, KRS One and Public Enemy (Sophisticated Bitch, anyone?) had some early howlers - but I do believe that being repeatedly called on lazy lowest common denominator material has a major effect in nudging an artist's development. Giving dumb shit a free pass helps nobody. But that's a general comment - I haven't heard this record...

0
STD | 13 June 2011 - 7:06pm

Isn't this the same chap

Isn't this the same chap who nailed Adele to the Guardian Naughty Step by deliberately distorting - through highly selective quotation - her remarks about taxation in a Q interview?

For those not familiar with Macc Lads oeuvre, I'd recommend "Fluffy Pup" from Macc Lads Anthology as a suitable "taster" (it's on spotify). Perhaps a special Newsnight Late Review could be convened to compare and contrast with this Tyler, The Creator cove.

0
Richard Lowe | 12 June 2011 - 9:05pm

Compare and contrast, as you say.

Tyler, The Creator and his ilk know no better, you see. Whereas Marshall Mathers and Adele, being white and civilised, should be intrinsically aware of the correct way to think about issues like sexism, homophobia and taxation.

2
DougieJ | 12 June 2011 - 10:02pm

I think that's way off.

Regardless of what you think of white liberal attitudes, Dougie, I think you go too far in essentially accusing Rob Fitzpatrick of paternalistic racism.

0
Bob | 12 June 2011 - 10:06pm

mebbes aye, mebbes naw...

If so, I'm sure it would be unconscious. But it's hardly a stretch to point out, as Grant did in the OP, that this kind of double standard is quite widespread in the liberal media (witness the open loathing of 'chav' culture). Contextualising it (rap misogyny), as Rob Fitzpatrick and countless others have done, does nobody any favours, imo.

4
DougieJ | 12 June 2011 - 10:27pm

where is the why?

Without wishing to focus exclusively on Mr Fitzpatrick's review, I'd be interested to hear why this sort of thing shouldn't be labelled as 'paternalistic racism'.

It is simply not enough to describe it as mere 'double standards'. It's so clear that these double standards exist, that to make the observation alone adds nothing to the debate. It merely re-states the bleeding obvious.

I think an inquiry into 'why' these double standards exist might reasonably start with at least a question about paternalistic racism.

2
DC Eisenhower | 12 June 2011 - 11:47pm

But we all have double standards!

We're all prepared to tolerate things which, in another context, we'd find unacceptable.

In music, do I consider that the lifestyle described in "Appetite For Destruction" or "Straight Outta Compton" or "My Sharona" is acceptable? Obviously not. Am I prepared to overlook that because they're great? Yes.

Do I know that "American Psycho" is reprehensible on almost any level you care to mention, and that it dresses up Brett Easton Ellis's Eli Roth-style fascination with torture as knowing satire, while actually just being well-written pornographic violence? Course I do. Did that stop me being a little fascinated by it? Nope.

Do I expect a better and more moral standard from my elected representatives than the ones I hold myself to? Betcha'ass I do. I try not to, but I do.

Am I, moreover, hypocritically judgemental on a regular basis, vilifying people for words, thoughts and deeds of which I know myself to be capable?

Yeah, sorry. I am. It's called being human.

I thought it came across absolutely clearly that Rob Fitzpatrick is only too aware of the unpleasantness of the lyrical content of this record, but he liked it anyway.

I think if you're going to wave accusations of racism around, you'd better be damn sure you've seen to your own ethical house first.

Let he who is without sin, etc.

4
Bob | 13 June 2011 - 9:56am

Point of order

My Sharona is a bit crap.

0
Leedsboy | 13 June 2011 - 10:02am

Ha

I've always had a soft spot for it.

1
Bob | 13 June 2011 - 10:04am

Interested in your American Psycho point.

I always thought that that book was classic "unreliable narrator" stuff. Given that I have always suspected that most rappers act out "in character" perhaps I now have a classic riposte when I hear an offensive sounding hip hop tune which I like. Thanks Bob!

0
ganglesprocket | 13 June 2011 - 10:09am

"He liked it anyway"

Isn't that the nub of this though - that there are some artists, authors, actors etc whose work people will still attempt to be open-minded about, regardless of the baggage they bring, and others where that doesn't happen?

Would a critic be just as happy to point out that a white supremacist band's lyrics were unsavoury but that he liked them anyway? Probably not. Just as people wouldn't be too keen on positively reviewing the works of a convicted paedophile. So there's a line drawn somewhere, and that's clearly necessary.

The question being asked here is: why does this bloke with his rape fantasies and whatever get a fair review when others might not? I'm never quite convinced by the justification that such artists are reflecting their environment, their youth or whatever; that strikes me as spectacularly patronising, and could only really stand up if one was prepared to equally acknowledge the environments that lead to the espousal of unpleasant outlooks from every sector of society.

And yet... I thought the review was pretty interesting and made me want to hear the record, just so I could understand why Rob was so happy to ignore the lyrical content. It sounds dreadful, but I have to hear it at least once, and I'd never have thought that if it wasn't for this review. Which makes it a perfect article for the magazine.

(By the way, Bob, I agree with your concerns re. accusations of racism)

3
Uncle Monty | 13 June 2011 - 10:53am

Books I have read

about hip hop at street level (Triksta and Westsiders being just two examples) would back up the argument that they are reflecting their environment and it's not a patronising point of view at all.

0
jimmyshoes01 | 13 June 2011 - 11:29am

I don't disagree with that

I'm sure they are reflecting their environment. I don't think I was very clear.

What I meant was that I find it patronising that only certain groups are given 'permission' to present otherwise unpalatable attitudes as a result of their environment.

1
Uncle Monty | 13 June 2011 - 11:51am

still on the why

I don't think anyone doubts that we will probably all have been, at one time or another and to one extent or another, guilty of using double standards.

It's more interesting, IMO, to consider exactly why a heavy metal group from Barnsley (for example) would be crucified for using lyrics which, in American rap (for example) would be celebrated, or at least excused.

You can argue that it's just about 'liking' or 'not liking' the music. That's fine, but I'd suggest that it makes all music criticism more or less redundant.

My understanding of criticism -in the proper sense- is that, among the other qualities required to do the job properly, one is required to have at least a degree of discernment and good judgement. Merely 'liking' or 'not liking' requires neither.

The John Martyn comparisons in an earlier post are, I feel, not particularly relevant. Martyn was -by all acounts- a horrible man who made beautiful music. I'll never meet him or be in his company, so I'll judge him on his work.

There might be a particular rapper or songwriter who is the nicest guy in the world, but chooses to glorify mysogyny in his work. I'll never meet him or be in his company, so I'll judge him on his work.

5
DC Eisenhower | 13 June 2011 - 12:50pm

I haven't

read the piece yet, but having immersed myself in a lot of Odd Future's music over the last week including both Tyler albums, I admire the dexterity of the rhymes and most of all the musical adventurousness whilst finding the lyrical content a bit depressing.
Hopefully, as Eminem largely appears to have, they'll grow out of it (most of them are still teenagers) and channel their undoubtedly incredible creativity in more worthwhile directions soon.

0
KDH | 12 June 2011 - 10:13pm

Peace

0
Jed Clampett | 12 June 2011 - 10:14pm

Tyler the Average

I don't have a problem with this album being reviewed in The Word. It's a magazine that covers interesting things as they occur in culture, and this is easily the biggest story in rap this year - a guy who was a virtual unknown 12 months ago and has now had a top five US album - and certainly the most anticipated rap album. If anything, I'm pleased it wasn't avoided.

Nor do I think the review was an apology for the lyrics. It was a fairly frank and honest examination of why this kind of thing appeals to some people in the first place - there's no point on pretending that it doesn't. Straight Outta Compton has sold over 3 million copies, and not all, I imagine, were bought by English, white, middle-class, liberal music journalists.

I'm just disappointed that Rob liked it because I'm convinced it's rubbish. It's monotonous, one-dimensional, unimaginative, over-long, and Tyler is an extremely poor rapper. I wish The Word would cover more interesting, positive rap, of which there is plenty, but I don't really expect it to.

2
Bela Legosis Dad | 12 June 2011 - 11:02pm

Listened to a bit of this last night...

For all the farrango about the dubious lyrical content, morality, creed etc etc, when it comes down to it, it is a really, really shit record.

Sounds like it was recorded on a Bontempi organ by an 11 year old.

2
Six Dog | 14 June 2011 - 9:51am

The aesthtic sense is amoral

I read Rob Fitzpatrick's review of Goblin earlier today and remained resolutely unoffended, mainly because I disingenuously assumed that he listened to the album a few times and then wrote down his honest opinion of it.

Was he supposed to pretend that didn't enjoy the music because of its unsavoury misogynist tone. I would have thought less of him as a music critic if he had. If you can't be honest with your feelings then you have no business writing about art.

I love the band Anal C**t who have shown themselves capable of writing a line as puerile and homophobic as "London's calling and they're calling you gay," or a song as unpleasant and violent as Women: Nature's Punching Bag.

I don't know why I like this band. I just do. My appreciation of their music neither reflects nor informs the way that I think about or treat women, different sexualities, races, or religions.

On the other hand I find Under My Thumb by The Rolling Stones so horribly offensive that I cannot bear to listen to it.

Appreciation of art isn't about morality, or maybe it is but in a weird selective and inconsistent way.

Rob Fitzpatrick is a family man. He has a wife and kids. I doubt there is much cross-over between his world-view and that of Tyler, The Creator. He liked the album and that's that.

Any white knights here should give their own record collections a quick once over before they consider putting the boot in.

12
backwards7 | 12 June 2011 - 11:02pm

Seconded

With a Up!

0
Springer Bell | 12 June 2011 - 11:50pm

It's not about being "offended"

it was about the disproportionate favour and perceived suspension of any aesthetic criteria given to aspects of American culture that, if(and indeed, when) such art forms are practiced by artistes in the UK earn the practitioner only a critical mauling.
US artist raps about shootings and "Faggots" = okay. UK rappers mentioning knife crime = irresponsible.
It was just an observational statement and one that's found at least a modicum of agreement with some of the bloggers.
There was no personal slight intended against Rob in any way, only a questioning of his professional aesthetic criteria, and by extension many other music critics. That should be obvious.
Finally - since when were the critics above criticism? Labelling those who take issue as "white knights" is slightly patronising, isn't it?

7
Grant | 12 June 2011 - 11:54pm

Interesting

Could you point me in the direction of some UK critical maulings for British rappers mentioning knife crime? Earlier you said you weren't a rap expert, but you appear to be much more widely read than you're letting on.

2
Bela Legosis Dad | 13 June 2011 - 12:18am

No, I'm not, seriously

Much of the criticism levelled at hip-hop comes from the glorification of violence and less specifically knife crime per se.

I don't listen to any underground rap, so can speak from no position at all.
A search revels little in the way of hard information or direct links to lyrical content -
However, the community recognises the issue itself
http://www.musicagainstknives.org/

The cancelling of Giggs tour
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/content.php?show=18978
(but that's for violence by itself)

There's the So Solid crew trouble-but that's not a critical mauling thing...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2006/jun/11/popandrock.prisonsandprobati...

Plan B review (Guardian)in which Alex Petridis does a good job of analysing the UK hip-hop scene within the context of the review.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2006/jun/23/popandrock.urban1?INTCMP=SRC...

I'll gladly hold my hands up and say that the Lethal Bizzle stuff is as much as I really know. As for Grime and Channel U -
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/music-video-violence-should-grim...
http://politicalpromise.co.uk/2010/03/03/grime-doesnt-pay/

Has this further convoluted the discussion? Probably, sorry...

0
Grant | 13 June 2011 - 8:57am

Only insomuch

As none of the things you link to back up your point, which was that UK critics maul UK rap that talks about knife crime. You're making an statement that simply isn't backed up out by any kind of digging, including your own.

2
Bela Legosis Dad | 13 June 2011 - 9:31am

I didn't deny that

and maybe my claim was spurious, in which case, if it has caused such offense, I apologise.

However, as stated by myself above and others there remains an inconsistency with regards to lyrical concerns that would be "approved" if put forward by rap artists, but found objectionable if put forward by a Metal band.

That was the original point, after all.

3
Grant | 13 June 2011 - 1:15pm

Only one thing is certain

And that's that there's no consistency to the inconsistency you refer to. There are plenty of examples of the opposite occurring, including Dorian Linsky reviewing the Tyler album in the Guardian only recently and saying that "any attempt to wave away the unpleasantness is bogus". Whereas Slayer's Reign In Blood regularly appears in best album polls despite featuring plenty of content many see as objectionable.

1
Bela Legosis Dad | 13 June 2011 - 1:28pm

Hypothetically, were you to...

...analyse every piece of music criticism that Rob Fitzpatrick has ever written, glaring inconsistencies three-times the size of the grand canyon would rapidly emerge. Some artists would be forgiven things that others were mercilessly pilloried for. It would be a gloriously illogical body of work. That's just human and natural.

When it came to penning his review of Goblin would I have wanted him to adopt the stance: ‘There has been a tendency for the British media to allow rappers from the US to get away with more than their British counterparts. I should bear this in mind and adjust my perception of this record accordingly.’

Of course I wouldn’t. Does anyone really want that kind of artificial, counter-intuitive critical framework applied to reviews of any kind?

Should Kate Mossman, Mark Ellen or whoever’s in charge of the WORD magazine Deciding Coin have said: “Now Rob, when you write this review I want you to perform a thought experiment where you imagine that this chap lives next door to you and is a white skinhead, originally from Leeds.”

As an avid reader of music journalism since the age of 18 all I want from a critic is for them to give as honest an appraisal of a record as they can. Say why you like or dislike an album and some give some supporting evidence. What I don’t want is a reviewer second-guessing their own gut instincts by asking themselves: ‘Is this what I really think or am I sub-consciously parroting the established position of the media towards this kind of record?’

Rob liked Goblin and was able to explain why he liked it in a way that seemed genuine. That’s good enough for me. I know from his review that I am unlikely to enjoy the album. It’s his honesty that led me to that conclusion. I've read plenty of music reviews that take a moral stance. They invariably come across as untrustworthy as you can never tell if a critic is genuinely offended, has adopted their position because they think its the right thing to do, or is afraid that expressing a fondness for something deemed morally reprehensible will alienate their readers.

My patronising white knight comment was a variation on the adage that people in glass houses should be careful about throwing stones. Anyone who thinks they don't show similar inconstancies when it comes to judging art is either kidding themselves, or is Cliff Richard. I illustrated this point with an example of my attitudes towards two different bands, which depending on your outlook is either typically human, or the rank hypocrisy of an awful person who deserves to be hounded from polite society and into the nearest abandoned windmill by a pitchfork-wielding mob.

I find certain works of art offensive; others I like, or in the case of Goblin am indifferent towards. There's no coherent moral framework to my tastes; not one that I can discern anyway. Maybe one day Adam Curtis will construct a three part documentary that will how explain how the hermaphrodite author of bodice-ripping romance novels from the 1880s shaped our modern day attitudes towards rap music from the US, while also providing the underlying philosophy of 2nd generation social networking websites. Duly illuminated we will see Straight Outta Compton through new eyes and consign our aging copies to hermetically sealed barrels which we will dump deep in the North Sea.

In the meantime, I reckon the best a music critic can do is look people in the eye and be honest about what they like and dislike, in the hope that their readers are intelligent and capable of discerning whether something a given writer has enjoyed is something that they will also like.

6
backwards7 | 13 June 2011 - 7:35am

Let's not

take it too seriously chaps

1
Dave Amitri | 12 June 2011 - 10:58pm

From Bristol Zoo

to B&Q

0
Spartacus Mills | 12 June 2011 - 11:11pm

Why not take it seriously?!

It's a serious issue, and thus far this is an intelligent and mature debate and nobody is getting nasty or personal, just passionate and opinionated about a topic which arouses a lot of passion and opinions.

3
Dr Volume | 13 June 2011 - 12:29am

Just a flippant comment from me as usual

with a Goldie Looking Chain video added, not to be taken too seriously in itself. Take the thread as seriously as you see fit, I've enjoyed reading it, I wish I had something of worth to offer, I did buy a 50 cent album once and quite enjoyed it. Some of us remember the great Rob Fitzpatrick FAQ thread that ended in acrimony, flouncing and dismissal of members, sorry times indeed.

1
Dave Amitri | 13 June 2011 - 1:02pm

Humbert Humbert

Worse still, I bought a Goldie Looking Chain album once, and quite enjoyed it.*

Message title designed to remind us that moral and aesthetic values not always aligned in all art forms.

And by the way, what's wrong with My Sharona?

*Admittedly, as a present for a Young Person.

0
LastRoseofSummer | 13 June 2011 - 2:11pm

My Sharona

Isn't it just a trifle... um... paedoey? I've always understood the chap to be singing "such a dirty mind / I always get it up for the touch / of the younger kind", and interpreted the song as a starry-eyed paean to the joys of knocking off underage girls.

Maybe I've misheard. I might Google it in the morning.

0
Bob | 14 June 2011 - 12:00am

See also "Walk This Way"

'schoolgirl sleazy with a classic kinda sassy, little skirt hanging way up her knees'.

Should this other Tyler be room-mates with Mr Gadd?

0
Six Dog | 14 June 2011 - 9:50am

Oh dear, didn't realise there was

past 'form' on this type of thread. Kid A the goat better be on standby!

0
Dr Volume | 13 June 2011 - 6:36pm
Dave Amitri | 13 June 2011 - 9:59pm

Now that

Was in/unadvisable.

5
Leedsboy | 13 June 2011 - 10:26pm

Personally

I much prefer Your Mother's Got a Penis.
Nice Yellow Magic Orchestra sample :)

0
illuminatus | 13 June 2011 - 10:27pm

Rob Fitzgerald is the new Andrew Collins!

I've admired both of them at times and found them deeply annoying at others. But RF does seem to have taken over AC's role as house controversy generator / magnet.

The mag is generally a fairly genteel place of good vibes and quiet if deeply-rooted obsessions. I find the occasional vehemently held opinion, such as on the 'worst' page of the Best/Worst feature, to be quite jarring and sometimes misanthropic. I realise that I've been 'guilty' of introducing a note of controversy myself at times on here, as have many others, but even so...

0
DougieJ | 13 June 2011 - 10:38pm

Squirrels...

Makes "squirrelgate" seem rather tame by comparison.

0
Doug B | 14 June 2011 - 10:44am

.

.

0
Doug B | 14 June 2011 - 10:45am

With no apologies

to my bosses at work, I have just spent the morning reading the aforementiond Rob Fitzpatrick FAQ thread. Lovely stuff. What is squirrelgate? I have an afternoon spare.

0
jimmyshoes01 | 14 June 2011 - 2:12pm
stimpy | 14 June 2011 - 3:46pm

Very good article on this

from the Quietus, which interesting name checks Whitehouse and Backward7s faves, referred to earlier in this thread.

http://thequietus.com/articles/06232-tyler-the-creator-goblin-review

1
Dr Volume | 12 June 2011 - 11:55pm

Yes, that's a very good review

which sums up many of the above discussion points quite succinctly.

0
Grant | 13 June 2011 - 9:00am

"Backpack rap"??

Wassat then?

0
stimpy | 13 June 2011 - 9:04am

Escapism

Isn't that the root of this? Rob Fitzpatrick escapes into the music of Tyler. Fine. The next critic escapes into the music of Anal C**t or The Macc Lads or John Martyn and is pilloried for it. Not fine.

The OP's point is valid. There is an inconsistency in music criticism between the tolerance of coarse working class black music and the tolerance of coarse working class white music but the inconsistency doesn't lie with Rob Fitzpatrick. As backwards7 says, it's an honest review and I don't think it merits criticism of itself. Nor do I think the OP was doing that.

I've listened to a few Tyler tracks and there is something interesting going on there but it's not radical by any stretch of the imagination. All Rob Fitxpatrick should be challenged with is whether or not Tyler is more than a fad and has the chops to outgrow the controversy of his lyrics. Does Tyler warrant the lead review in Edition 101?

Like I say, perhaps it's simply escapism. In the review there is a strong sense of Rob Fitzpatrick investing a great deal of rose-tinted romanticism in Tyler and his craft. And he knows it and he implies it. In simple terms there is an allure to a foul-mouthed LA hipster that hits the spot in a way that, perhaps, beery lads from Macclesfield don't. It's definitely a fan-boy review. In fact the thing it reminded me of most was Andrew Collins' gushing man-love for The Arctic Monkeys expressed in Word a couple of years ago. Both men appear to have reconnected with a love of a genre from yesteryear as rekindled by a new act of the day triggering something dormant in them both.

In truth I suspect both men are revisiting their own teenage selves through their respective musical choices from the here and now, discovering a new musical expression of what stirred them up in their "prime" as the years of marriage and fatherhood pile up and take them further away from the salad days.

And if escapsism at 30/40+ isn't a valid basis upon which to give an opinion about new music then probably two-thirds of the Massive had better just stick to leafing through old copies of NME stored in the loft.

3
Ahh_Bisto | 13 June 2011 - 12:06am

I thought it was a bit patronising

there's an 'aw bless him' tone to the whole thing, like Rob finds Tyler's attempts to shock us endearing, which is not only condescending but sounds a bit phoney to me. I bet it wouldn't be so ridiculous and thrilling in a shopping centre on Saturday afternoon. It would be what it is -- lame, and a bit of a drag.

4
Albert Edward | 13 June 2011 - 11:18am

I've read the review now

I thought it was fine. I honestly can't see what all the fuss is about. Rob liked it. What was he supposed to say?

0
Leedsboy | 13 June 2011 - 9:12am

Twenty years ago, I listened to The Macc Lads

and assumed the lyrics to be a spoof, even a parody. Does that make a difference? Is this lyric more or less worthy of disapproval than a (formerly) poor, black kid from South Central LA?

"I walked into the Nag's Head for to sustinate me belly,
There was a fit crack in the corner but I knew her cunt was smelly,
She smelt of rotting fish heads and old and crispy sick,
Said her name was Charlotte and she wanted suck me dick.

Oh, I thought now lad, times are hard, and it's nearly closing time,
I'll put a bag on her head, and a peg on me nose,
And I'll grummage through the slime...

Charlotte is the biggest slag in Macc,
She'll do anything to get you in the sack,
With her legs spread wide she opens up her crack,
Spends her life just lying on her back."

0
stimpy | 13 June 2011 - 8:43am

I will dip my toe in here

Like Stimpy I listened to the Macc Lads (they seem to be the example being held up, so I'll run with it) and thought of them as so comically and exaggeratedly offensive that they could only be parody. How offensive or otherwise you find Tyler's material depends on how many layers you think the material is working through; how much is honest and unfiltered, and how much is a work of artifice, playing through the eyes of another character.

Earlier, someone mentioned the Macc Lads being seen as a social document in a slightly sneering way. The weird thing is that, in their way, those songs really do (whether we like it or not) document a kind of sexist, misogynist culture that existed (especially in the North) in the 1980's. To sing about it in this way doesn't necessarily mean that either artist or listener must accept the lyrics at face value or consider them as the actual beliefs of the artists themselves. The question becomes: how far does the concept of "performance" go?

I haven't heard the Tyler album. Indeed, given what some have said about it just being a bit dull and one-dimensional, I'm not sure I really want to. But I guess it all boils down to context and what you think the artist is trying to say; only in that way can you decide whether you think it truly offensive, and thus, by extension, how you interpret those who review it.

0
illuminatus | 13 June 2011 - 8:21pm

Read it last night..

..biggest editorial miscue since the Dido cover.

2
Prestonia | 13 June 2011 - 8:41am

I don't think so

I don't have much time for the album, but it's a big story, and is precisely the kind of thing the magazine should be covering. Any magazine that ignores controversial albums because they're controversial isn't worthy of the name.

0
Bela Legosis Dad | 13 June 2011 - 9:29am

Although the reason

why Rob Fitzpatrick's review is interesting to a large degree is because it doesn't try to take on the controversy. In fact what his review succeeds in doing is taking the sting out of the controversy by simply acknowledging it in a resolutely innocuous fashion but not dwelling upon it. The overriding impression I have is that the reviewer finds the whole Tyler phenomenon quite absurd which in itself is a large part of his appeal to the reviewer. It's best summarised in the way he juxtaposes the fact that Tyler lives with his gran but sings about killing other kids who have mums and dads.

The controversy, if indeed there is one, about Rob Fitzpatrick's review is that it doesn't seek to contextualise Tyler's album from any moral position. I'm not sure that UK rap gets a critical mauling from music critics, in terms of glorification of certain lifestyle choices, but it does from other sections of the media and from politicians. So it's refreshing to read a review that attempts to focus on a foul-mouthed youth with disturbing fantasies that doesn't feel the need to strike an apologist's moralising tone.

Ultimately Rob Fitzpatrick's review is a stirringly personalised endorsement of free speech. Here is a white, British male 30something going for a joy-ride in the mind of a 19 year old black American rapper through his music and - shock, horror - coming away from the experience with his aesthetic sensors stimulated and adrenalised but his moral compass undamaged.

The more I think about it the more I think it's quite a brave review for the reasons above.

3
Ahh_Bisto | 13 June 2011 - 10:46am

How do you know

RF's "moral compass" is "undamaged"?

1
Chris G | 13 June 2011 - 11:10am

I don't

I just assume based upon the outcome of his listening to Tyler as expressed in his review.

Funnily enough I go through much of my life with assumptions and opinions that may actually be completely wrong.

The comment was as much to reflect the idea that embracing freedom of speech in all its palatable and unpalatable manifestations doesn't necessarily imply that hearing about bad things makes us want to go out and do those bad things ourselves.

0
Ahh_Bisto | 13 June 2011 - 11:45am

It puzzles me this one

we openly admit that certain songs, films etc will cheer us up, move us, enlightened us. But the converse is never true Mark kermode regualry justifies the grimmest of horror films on the basis that as yet he's not been led into the back of Crown Court under a blanket.
Can't see why being engaged by the music of rhyme of song in enjoyable way won't lead us someone to also give some space to whaever views are being espounced there in. I'm not calling for censorship just some honesty, if a song can cheer up it could also reinforce mysogyny even in the ost outwardly liberal criticetc.

1
Chris G | 13 June 2011 - 11:45am

How we respond to art is complex.

There are different levels on which art (good or bad) engages us, some of which are transitory and short in cycle (e.g. cheer us up) and others which are deep-rooted and permanent and beyond direct external observation (e.g affect our perceptions of right and wrong, of ourselves, of our relationship with the world). Some responses we can externalise through rationalisation, others we cannot, it depends largely on how articulate we are.

A critic has to bring a higher degree of rationalisation to his or her impression of a piece of art because he or she has to act as a conduit between the art and the punter. So Mark Kermode, for example, has to put his opinion of something into a wider rational context, he can't just internalise it. His justification of horror porn is based on an argument that has been so rationalised it is now part of the mainstream consciousness: watching horror no matter how perverse doesn't make you abnormal. Indeed there is an argument - something both you and backwards7 have alluded to - that the more subtle the negative content of music or film the more likely it is to filter through our levels of internalised response and become subsumed into our own psyche and affect our judgement and actions. Saying all that I don't think the debate is anywhere near over and done with. In the context of Rob Fitzpatrick's review I can imagine some people trying to rationalise how someone can rationalise music with that kind of lyrical content!

In truth it comes down to the idea that actions really do speak louder than words. The only real way of knowing if someone has been adversely affected by art is how they behave and not how they rationalise a response verbally.

0
Ahh_Bisto | 13 June 2011 - 1:39pm

Rob Fitzpatrick

I don't know where people get this idea that he gives rappers an easy ride. He was once particularly critical of MC Clure.

4
Spartacus Mills | 13 June 2011 - 8:46am

Just read it

It sounds like an album I wouldn't like. But then glorifying rape and violence ain't my bag. Sounds like an even more unpleasant adolescent purile black version of Blink 185 who of course wouln't have got a Word review in a million years. Wonder why that is?

1
Twangothan | 13 June 2011 - 9:09am

Blink 182

I think you're doing them a disservice here. Their 'unpleasantness' never went beyond wanking gags and prank calls. Daft as a brush, yes, but nowhere near as bad as a glorifying rape or (gasp!) moaning about the 50p tax rate.

I agree with your wider point though.

If a band like Brother, The Twang or Hard-Fi came out with lyrics like Tyler's, they'd be blacklisted from music mag and broadsheet alike.

1
Spartacus Mills | 13 June 2011 - 9:23am

Yes

That's what I meant but posted a bit sloppily - Blink ranted on about their adolescent purile fanasies too, like Tyler is here. Not at all that B182 glorified rape etc. And as you say, even chugging beer and wanking are probably too rarified for the sophisticated Word, where joys like this album and the Human Centipede are to be celebrated.

0
Twangothan | 13 June 2011 - 9:29am

Because Blink 182

is a bunch of turgid crappy old punk revivalist drivel. The Tyler record has some artistic merit in that what I've heard of it is musically very creative, and I was really interested in reading a perspective on it from The Word. I can't get past the lyrical content on this which is a shame as I think the music is quite exciting but I'm a wooly liberal when it comes to stuff like this . I'd much rather the Word also cover stuff like this and not just the latest bit of Fleet Foxes hey nonny nonny banjowank.

1
Dr Volume | 13 June 2011 - 10:04am

Inevitably...

...Hey Nonny Nonny Banjowank: TMFTL.

0
Bob | 13 June 2011 - 10:06am

Up

Question: Your girlfriend leaves you. Do you...

a) Teach that bitch a lesson?

or

b) Go to the woods and have a cry?

If you answered mostly a) you are Tyler. If you answered mostly b) you are him from Midlake / Fleet Foxes / Bon f-ing Iver

6
Spartacus Mills | 13 June 2011 - 10:13am

or

(c) Walk these lonely streets with a loaded six-string on your back?

You're Bon Jovi.

6
stimpy | 13 June 2011 - 10:52am

Very good!

That made me snort like a pig.

0
Patrick Crowther | 13 June 2011 - 12:25pm

I couldn't agree more with Grant's original post

I can't think of anything else to add that hasn't already been posted above.

0
Handsome.P.Wonderful | 13 June 2011 - 9:30am

Whether The Tyler album is good or not is not the point

Grant is making is it? In response to his question, I would say he's right, there is no question that it would not be tolerated. Witness what happened to Morrissey when he draped himself in a Union Jack and recorded Bengali in Platforms to pick just one example.

As to the whether the Tyler album is any good artistically - that is a different question. The fact that people like MF Doom have been mentioned in comparisons has piqued my interest. On the hand mentions of Eminem have seriously put me off. Can that guy just stop his whiney moaning about how hard is life is please?

1
BigJimBob | 13 June 2011 - 11:03am

Conversely...

I don't think Tyler is in the same league as Doom. He's certainly not as talented an MC, or as imaginative, lyrics-wise, and the backing is more industrial and abrasive.

0
Bela Legosis Dad | 13 June 2011 - 11:10am

I used Doom

as a point of evolution in hip hop and not as a comparison to Tyler's style. The artists I mentioned introduced a new dimension to the genre.

0
jimmyshoes01 | 13 June 2011 - 11:25am

Yes, I realise that

I just don't think Tyler is introducing much that's new. I don't see the new dimension you refer to.

0
Bela Legosis Dad | 13 June 2011 - 11:49am

Mainly

the music. If it's not new to you maybe you can recommend something similar for me to investigate?

0
jimmyshoes01 | 13 June 2011 - 11:56am

Check out...

King Night by Salem from last year. Or going back anything by Clouddead. in fact most anything on the Anticon label. Fantastic Damage by El-P, plenty of stuff on Def Jux, The Infesticons, Anti Pop Consortium.

0
Albert Edward | 13 June 2011 - 12:11pm

I hear bits of...

cLOUDDEAD, ONYX, some horror-core, Cannibal Ox you've already mentioned... it sounds like a fair amount of late 80s/early 90s stuff to me.

0
Bela Legosis Dad | 13 June 2011 - 12:17pm

I have cLOUDDEAD's

Ten album and I love it but have never put it down as a hip hop album. Last listened to Onyx many moons ago. Thank you both for the recommendations I will now attack Amazon with gusto.

0
jimmyshoes01 | 13 June 2011 - 12:50pm

Re. Eminem.

You only need his first record, which is sensational. Once you cut out the "fame is really hard work" tracks out of the second, that's OK too. But The Slim Shady LP is genuinely great stuff.

0
Bob | 13 June 2011 - 11:16am

Eminem

I enjoyed his early stuff. It was humourous. It was fun. Now, whenever he pops up on the radio, he just seems angry. His guest rap on Rihanna's album is a case in point. I think he's suffered the worst vocal decline since Liam Gallagher lost the ability to sing consonants.

1
Spartacus Mills | 13 June 2011 - 11:20am

An up for the Gallagher comments....

Just plain laziness...

0
Six Dog | 14 June 2011 - 9:57am

I tried

at the time, but I just didn't like it... the clincher was the Dido track. It's just not the kind of rap I like.

Okay, I am Spotifying Goblin so maybe I can make an informed opinion later

0
BigJimBob | 13 June 2011 - 11:49am

Stan

I liked that track, and thought Dido's part was excellent. Really quite haunting. Then I actually heard the full track from which it came (Thank You), and it's one of the most insipid records ever made. A Purple Ronnie card in musical form.

I conclude that Eminem is an evil genius.

Edit:
Q What's the difference between Eminen and Word Magazine.
A Eminem had success with a Dido cover*

* Ok, ok, it was a sample. Coat got.

3
Spartacus Mills | 13 June 2011 - 11:54am

And anyway, Stan...

...is on the second album - The Marshall Mathers LP. The one I'm recommending is The Slim Shady LP, which is his first.

0
Bob | 13 June 2011 - 12:18pm

yeah I know

still don't like it. Just not a fan of that style. The Dido track is one that stopped me from trying to like him.

0
BigJimBob | 13 June 2011 - 1:09pm

THANK YOU!

The merits of the album do not concern me in the slightest. I'm only interested in what I perceive to be the double-standard employed by music critics when it comes to musics from "other" cultures with lyrical concerns that some may find "questionable" if used by artistes from our own shores.

That was it.

3
Grant | 13 June 2011 - 1:23pm

When reflecting is indistinguishable from revelling

It's one thing to reflect "the urban reality" or whatever we're calling the bleak day-to-day grind of the underclass this week. The Wire and, even more so, The Corner did that. But whenever the misery, injustice and hopelessness of life at the bottom is reflected in art it's usually with the aim of drawing attention to it in the hope that someone might - you never know - do something about it. And I don't get the impression (at least not from the admittedly tiny amount of TTC that I've listened to and the handful of lyrics that I've skip-read) that this is the case here. I may, of course, be wrong.

Dickens could have presented the bludgeoning to death of the prostitute Nancy by her pimp in whatever the equivalent Victorian terms for "Pop the bitch in the motherfuckin' mouth jus' for talkin' shit" or "Bitch work for me; she my dishwasher" were. But he didn't, did he?

I think it's wise never to underestimate the ability of the record-buying public to grasp with remarkable enthusiasm the wrong end of any given stick - - remember the gung-ho appropriation of Springsteen's "Born in the USA"? - and if TTC really is only "telling it like it is" in order to decry, ridicule or otherwise do his bit to erode that "it" rather than entrench it even deeper, then he seems to be making a right balls-up of it, doesn't he?

17
Archie Valparaiso | 13 June 2011 - 1:24pm

Popped a cap in the ass

of the issue Archie. :-)

1
BigJimBob | 13 June 2011 - 1:31pm

Just Finished listening to Goblin

Don't think I'll listen again. Really NOT original or just good enough to justify holding the lyrics in abeyance. But then it's not designed to be music that I would like, is it?

0
BigJimBob | 13 June 2011 - 1:45pm

Crikey, what a palaver.

I haven't read the review or heard the record, as I tend to be of the opinion that most rap is monotonous, one-dimensional and unimaginative, sadly mirroring the lives of many of those who create it. I'd find it far too depressing a soundtrack to my day.

Perhaps I should investigate in the cause of artistic curiosity. Is it the kind of record you would wish your wife or servants to play?

3
Vulpes Vulpes | 13 June 2011 - 1:53pm

Given the lyrical content

I would recommend resisting playing the bally thing until after the ladies have withdrawn from the dining-room. If one of them should accidentally re-enter the room in search of the correct opinion from her husband on a political matter and should happen upon the sound of Mr.Tyler in mid-flow regarding his predilection for oral stimulus from the fairer sex then a vial of smelling salts to hand from the First Footman would be advisable in case the dear little thing takes fright and faints. After all, one must, despite the inconvenience, think of the other ladies who will undoubtedly suffer unduly if there is an extended absence of their fourth for Bridge.

2
Ahh_Bisto | 13 June 2011 - 7:40pm

By jingo, I believe I shall take your advice.

I'll have Simmons play it in the servant's quarters this evening, and observe the effect upon the boys and maids. Even cook will be obliged to listen. If my poached egg is not perfect in the morning, I shall return it to the emporium from which it was purchased. I shall remain in your debt, good Sir, until this matter is concluded.

1
Vulpes Vulpes | 13 June 2011 - 7:46pm

A splendid idea my good fellow

But pray tell, is it the cook or the egg you intend to return to the emporium should the poaching be of a poor standard? Apparently there are laws governing these things these days though I declare it an insufferable burden upon my nerves that one can no longer shoot and maim a servant for their laxness. In particular I find that cooks these days are of a decidedly dissolute temper and have a distinct tendency to lay blame for sub-standard egg preparation at the feet of the fowl. Pish.

2
Ahh_Bisto | 13 June 2011 - 8:00pm

Zounds! My grammar is undone.

'twas the wax cylinder recording that I had intended to return to the merchant, should its effects prove to have upset cook so much as to have deleteriously affected her egg poaching on the morrow.

Cook is very dependable, but modern art seems to affect her in a most alarming fashion. Only yesterday was she quite distressed by one of that ghastly Mr Dickens' ludicrous penny dreadful tales. Such cheap sensationalism really should not be allowed to sully the pages of the popular journals, lest one's servants be disturbed and prevented from properly performing their duties.

2
Vulpes Vulpes | 13 June 2011 - 8:37pm

What about...

when Buju Banton released Boom Batty Bye - a homophobic reggae tune that got the music press up in arms. It was actually clearly inciting people to shoot gays. No double standards there, there was widespread outrage.

I think you have to able to distinguish between advocacy and humour/ entertainment. Like it or not - some people find offensive jokes funny. The likes of South Park etc are a testament to that. I'm growing out of it now, but in my 20s, my friends and I revelled in each other's ability to say the most offensive thing possible. Still do from time to time.

People enjoy being shocked. Some more than others. For Eminem, NWA or whoever to write those songs is not much different from Tarantino's script for Kill Bill.

There's a difference between that and something like Skrewdriver which actually advocates White Power and racism in the same way that there's a difference between writing Mein Kampf and writing Kill Your Friends.

It's a fine line and one which is very difficult to articulate but the intentions of the songwriter are the distinguishing factor, which is why there's always been such controversy about Morrissey's comments in regard to immigration.

2
Chimney Singing... | 13 June 2011 - 1:57pm

Goblin

Of course this the only Goblin you need:

1
ip29 | 13 June 2011 - 6:51pm

I'm with the OP

Rob sometimes writes really good stuff, and sometimes he seems to think that he is Hunter S Thompson educating Daily Mail readers.

But he isn't. He really isn't.

4
Monsignor_Bonehead | 13 June 2011 - 7:04pm

There's a whole generation of Gonzo wannabe's

out there. Time was they were everywhere. I was once afflicted thus myself, but a kindly editor told me to lay off the ether and try a little harder.

0
Vulpes Vulpes | 13 June 2011 - 7:41pm

And, as as the good Doctor himself said,

there's nothing quite so depraved as a man in the depths of an ether binge.

0
stimpy | 13 June 2011 - 8:31pm

Ad nauseam

As far as I can gather from the review, this is the latest Derek & Clive-type effort for adolescent boys to titter over.

I've no problems with the review as such - there can be few things more cheering than someone successfully translating their enthusiasm for a piece of music into print.

0
Lando Cakes | 13 June 2011 - 10:30pm

Looks like the Massive's Collective Goat has been got.

Well done, Grant. You have to keep Kid A now until another thread generates as much heated debate as this one. I would like to point out that I'm enjoying the intelligent and robust arguments being put forward here. As usual, my level of contribution stoops to stoopid.

14
drakeygirl | 13 June 2011 - 11:09pm

I'll see your bitches

and raise you some hoes

some hoes, yesterday

9
illuminatus | 13 June 2011 - 11:14pm

No, O's

O's for the gate, Mon Repose...

1
Ruff-Diamond | 13 June 2011 - 11:36pm

Thank you. All shall be fed, watered

and safely housed until the next furore starts.

My Cristal stocks are low. How do the Posse feel about some Dom?

0
Grant | 14 June 2011 - 5:10am

Some Dom?

0
stimpy | 14 June 2011 - 9:13am

Shall we hear from the man himself?

Here he is, tinkling the ivories

1
Dr Volume | 14 June 2011 - 3:05am

This has all been very entertaining

But it might be worth clarifying a few things. For one, I can't see anywhere in the review that I apologised for anything. I specifically attacked conflicted liberals in the first paragraph. I'm not apologising for anyone, nor am I a conflicted liberal (I'm probably not liberal enough to be conflicted, tbh).

The point I was trying to make is that pop music has spent decades outraging people and it is actually hilarious to me that some people still insist on giving it that power. Tyler is a 19-year-old boy. He's swearing and showing his bottom and the world is playing its part by lifting its metaphorical skirt and screaming. Doesn't that seem a little, well, silly to you?

As far as I'm aware Tyler, rather like Ice Cube before him, has never committed any violent crime. It's all just things he made up. For fun. To get a rise out of people. It seems to be working quite well as far as I can see. I don't feel the need to join in the chorus of hand-wringing disapproval because I'm an adult with other (real) stuff to do and to think about, but if anyone else wants to feel upset about some naughty words they heard (or, more often, haven't heard) ON A POP RECORD then go ahead, enjoy yourself.

And I used to love the Macc Lads. Maid Of Ale was a CHOOON.

x

14
Rob Fitzpatrick | 14 June 2011 - 8:35am

*applauds"

Couldn't agree more.

1
Bela Legosis Dad | 14 June 2011 - 9:14am

There you go

bringing in sense of perspective to the whole thing. We could have gone a couple more days on this if you hadn't done that......

1
Leedsboy | 14 June 2011 - 9:18am

Don't disagree Rob

But I think you miss Grant's point.

It's not about naughty words.

It's about the (possible) application of different standards to

a) Young white working class British males, and

b) Young black working class American males.

Anyway, having now listened to some of the album in question, I do think one essential fact has been overlooked here.

It's shite. Unremitting, inexcusable, lazy shite.

Which is all you need to know, really.

8
Paul Waring | 14 June 2011 - 9:27am

I can't speak for Rob...

...but my feeling is that if "Goblin" had been made by, say, Plan B, the review would have been largely the same.

1
Bob | 14 June 2011 - 9:32am

Missing the point

I'm assuming that Rob's "I used to love the Macc Lads" covers that point. What with them being young white working class British males and all that. Rob likes the Macc Lads, and he likes Tyler, and he's said so in both cases. That's hardly applying standards differently.

Funny thing is, after saying yesterday that I thought the album was one-dimensional and a bit dull, I listened to it twice last night and it's beginning to make sense. I still don't think it's as interesting as Bastard, but it is beginning to full into place.

1
Bela Legosis Dad | 14 June 2011 - 9:41am

I think you're both right, re-reading his post.

Which is fair enough.

But to be fair to Grant, I don't think his post was accusing Rob personally of applying double standards, more posing the question as to whether, generally, double standards are applied to (artists like) the artists in question.

1
Paul Waring | 14 June 2011 - 9:48am

Talk about getting the wrong of the stick

and beating about the bush with it.

My observation / question was (as Paul states above) that African-American Rap artistes are given greater artistic/ critical leeway than home grown talent that employ a similar vernacular.

That's it. Honest!

3
Grant | 14 June 2011 - 9:58am

Oh, come one...

The Tyler album has had it's share of lousy reviews - specifically for its lyrical content - from UK publications. Whereas the first Plan B album received plenty of good ones. Things are simply not as simplistic as you're claiming. Some reviewers will give an easy ride to some albums that other reviewers will give a hard time. And vice versa. There is no meeting to decide how liberal, or otherwise, reviews across the board will be. There is no consensus, nor any evidence of it. And Rob has told you he loves those potty-mouth, English, working class, white boys the Macc Lads.

1
Bela Legosis Dad | 14 June 2011 - 10:22am

Anyway

In my opinion, the album is not up to much. The controversy is more than it's worth. But like I said, I am a middle aged guy it's not meant for me. That said, one thing I do find interesting in Rob's review though, is that Tyler was originally ignored by the rap/hip hop crews and has only become famous from the attention of people outside that world.

0
BigJimBob | 14 June 2011 - 12:28pm

Grant isn't claiming

it's "simplistic", nor is he claiming that Rob Fitzpatrick is at fault for the inconsistency in how certain types of "vernacular expression" has been interpreted and reviewed by critics. Rob Fitzpatrick's love of The Macc Lads is, frankly, a complete irrelevance to the issue raised in the OP.

I'm sympathetic to Grant's claims that for a long time there was a trend amongst UK critics to give Stateside rap artists a pass for certain types of subject matter and lyrical content and to either ignore, dismiss or condemn equivalent content and subject matter from UK-based white artists in other genres. I used to piss myself with laughter at some UK reviewers who fell over themselves in their attempts to empathise with US rap artists, usually because they fell for the idea that it was all about "keeping it real", whatever that phrase actually means (cf Backpack rap). At least Rob Fitzpatrick's review avoided that kind of patronising approach.

1
Ahh_Bisto | 14 June 2011 - 11:37am

Clarification

It's me claiming that Grant's point is simplistic, when a cursory glance of the reviews of Goblin will demonstrate that Tyler isn't being given any kind of free ride. And I don't see how the Macc Lads reference can be a complete irrelevance to the OP when their name was mentioned in the original post itself: Grant suggested that reviewers handle two types of review differently, two acts were cited, and Rob responded by saying he loved both.

If Grant's main thrust was to talk about some kind of historical trend with reviewers - one I wouldn't disagree with, although I do think a it's somewhat out-of-date viewpoint - then perhaps a better headline might have been chosen than "Rob Fitzpatrick's review of Tyler, The Creator".

2
Bela Legosis Dad | 14 June 2011 - 12:08pm

Clarification 2

I interpreted Grant's OP as simply 2 questions for a debate. The first question - admitedly loaded with inference - is specific to the OP subject title. The second is a supplementary intended to extend the debate into the idea that there has been an inconsistency in how "working class music" has been critiqued as exemplified by the juxtaposition of Rob Fitzpatrick's "positive" review of Tyler and historical "negative" reviews of The Macc Lads. Two examples (one actual, the other anecdotal) to help conceptualise the generic questions being asked.

I should point out that Paul and I have met Grant a few times at North West meet-ups and therefore I think it gives us a considerable advantage over other posters in interpreting his OP in the way we think he meant it to be interpreted. We can go straight to the substantive part of his OP without having to second-guess his intentions or motivations which, I should state, are always good and sound. He likes to debate and discuss music etc. like this.

As for being an "out of date" viewpoint didn't Grant already imply this by asking that The Macc Lads be given the benefit of hindsight with a "reappraisal"?

1
Ahh_Bisto | 14 June 2011 - 12:21pm

Piss myself with laughing empathising with US rap artists?

IS it 'coz I'm black?

1
BigJimBob | 14 June 2011 - 2:16pm

I have read a few reviews of this record

and all of them take him to task over the lyrics, so he's hardly got away scot free. Nobody has yet come up with any hard evidence that there is some racial inequality in record reviews. Surely if you're a fan of rap, metal and other shouty art forms it's a given that you're likely to hear coarse language, offensive ideas and sexist homophobic macho bullshit. There are exceptions of course.

0
Dr Volume | 14 June 2011 - 10:00am

I don't think it's

naughty words that are the issue, it's the rape and the woman-beating. I also think it's wrong to conflate 'hand-wringing disapproval' with simply feeling that a review has failed to get to the heart of the matter.

1
Albert Edward | 14 June 2011 - 11:44am

What I don't understand

is that if Rob's review didn't get to the heart of the matter, how is it that most of the comments on this thread relate to the language, misogyny and violent themes contained within the music when I would guess that the majority of commentators (myself included) have not heard the album in question?

Rob covers those aspects in the review. He also says that it doesn't stop him enjoying the album because of the context he places those aspects in. I'm not sure what the heart of the matter in a review is any more. I thought it was whether the writer liked the album and some form of why they like it.

0
Leedsboy | 14 June 2011 - 11:51am

Yet the language..

has nothing to do with the point of the OP does it?
Let's be honest, there are posters on here who will defend Word staff whatever tosh they write. (not referring to this review in particular, just the level of sycophancy sometimes seen)

3
Doug B | 14 June 2011 - 12:22pm

I agree

The need to defend Rob Fitzpatrick seemed to me to be based on a misinterpretation of the OP's basis for debate.

My critical faculties must be much lower than yours. I can't ever recall reading "tosh" in Word. Not that I'm sycophantic or anything...;)

0
Ahh_Bisto | 14 June 2011 - 12:29pm

Oh for flip's sake...pull up a chair and I'll explain myself..

I'm so so sorry I started this discussion which seems to have turned into some sort of witch hunt for me and Rob. Yep, it's Squirrelgate all over again..

Thank you to Paul and Bisto. They know me, have endured my company on several occasions and have quite correctly understood my tone and reference(s) in the OP.

I have no issue with Rob's enjoyment of the album. As those who attended one of the many North-West Word gatherings will testify, I am not averse to smut etc. and have included tracks by Whitehouse, Peaches and other "colourful" artistes on my compilations.

I referred in a previous posting to the works of Grindcore/Noise artists whom I love, be they TG, Navicon Torture Technologies, Whitehouse, Burmese, Agoraphobic Nosebleed or Wormrot and the fact that they were given a critical mauling by the same music press that would, IN MY VIEW AND MINE ALONE, give US rap artists such as the Geto Boys a free pass with. That may be misinformed and/ or incorrect, but no-one's perfect and I am more than happy to be redirected to texts that counter my argument. We're none of us perfect and this was just a chance for me to try out a hypothesis that had been buzzing around my cranium for a while. People could just have easily ignored it, after all. They didn't, so that must mean something. At the moment, scrolling through the witty, erudite and informed commentary, I'm trying to work out what precisely...

Since the reference to the Macc Lads seems to have sparked some brow-furrowing, let me contextualise. In the mid-late 80's they were very popular, especially as another poster pointed out, in the North of England. This band could sell out the International 2 in Manchester, the same venue that hosted Nine Inch Nails, Killing Joke, Fields of the Nephilim and Voice of the Beehive, whom I all saw there (the University, would, of course, never book them). It was obvious that people liked them and yet they were given little music press coverage and they represented "something" - be it the Working-Class zeitgeist, or smutty male humour etc.

The same basic elements and lyrical conceits, the misogyny, elements of homophobia etc. are shared with rap and yet TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND I AM HAPPY TO BE SHOWN THE ERROR OF MY WAYS rap seemed to get away with a lot more with music critics, especially with the NME in the revisionist late 80's / early 90's that saw "What's Going On" pushed to the top of the "Greatest Albums of All Time" list (Or did I imagine that?)

After reading Rob's review of Tyler which touched on the colourful nature of the lyrics and their perceived possible offensiveness, I couldn't help but wonder if the same lyrical topics, expressed in the same manner, by a British artiste (whatever genre, but the Macc lads sprang to mind for some reason) who mentioned "faggots" would effectively be handed the same artistic 'get out of jail free"card?

This is why the OP was so brief. I wanted to touch on issues of race, class and nationality that I believe, can and does (subconsciously) shape a review by a critic of an artiste's work. I wanted to see if anyone else agreed with me that there is a POSSIBLE, I state again, POSSIBLE, disparity in the critical approbation given to US artists who deal with topics and use language that MAY, just MAY, not find favour with UK critics.

That Rob likes the album, great. He communicated his enthusiasm to me and drew my attention to some of the issues that a listener may have with the material. I won't buy it, but that's my choice. The Quietus review, mentioned by Dr Volume also does a good job of highlighting the reviewer's reaction to such material presented and is perhaps closer to how I believe I'd respond.

That my OP has sparked this, what Alan Partridge referred to as "A Heated Debate" is both flattering (little old me 20+ up arrows, YAY!) and a slightly disconcerting lesson in how strained some threads can become.

By the way, the North-West Massive are having an informal drinkie in Liverpool on 22nd July - location TBC - and you're all welcome to come along, share a pint and take me,in all my monstrous, ill-informed, simplistic, possibly borderline racist, know-nothing-about-rap, critic-baiting glory to task over this thread.

Let us know if you're interested. X

4
Grant | 14 June 2011 - 1:49pm

I'd love to come, but

with nearly 30 up arrows you're far too popular with the critics for my tastes.

1
Ahh_Bisto | 14 June 2011 - 2:10pm

There is of course another reason yer Grindcore gets a bad press

It's because it's a bag of shite.

;-)

xxx

1
Paul Waring | 14 June 2011 - 2:29pm

Hmmm

without wishing to diss my homeboy MC Grant the Rotorvator, actually you've got a point!

Ultimately, Tyler is very hip and current and he's got loads of kids leaping around and going bonk bonk bonkers at his gigs. He's *hot*. I've only heard of a couple of the noise artistes Grant mentions, but the likes of Whitehouse (who even I find a bit extreme) were surely unlikely to be mentioned outside the pages of The Wire, Fanzines or underground press anyway. You're unlikely to read about them in The Word.

0
Dr Volume | 14 June 2011 - 11:08pm

wrong wrong WRONG

... it was Mrs Merton not Alan P.
xx

0
badartdog | 14 June 2011 - 6:09pm

Indeed

Alan P gave us "Partridge Over Britain"

Bald Brummies!!

0
Ahh_Bisto | 14 June 2011 - 6:15pm

The

headslap?

0
DogFacedBoy | 14 June 2011 - 10:09pm

I'm lost as what the original question is asking to be honest

and no disrespect toward Grant meant - I have met him down the pub and he is a fine fellow.

I read this trail before I read the review. I read the review expecting to be able to place the question in some sort of context. If I'm honest, the review was just a review - Rob liked it despite the fact that the songs were sexist, violent and potty mouthed. And despite the fact that the rhythms and songs were odd compared to other rap music.

I know with a high degree of confidence that I won't like the album because of how Rob has described it in the review. I will not buy it.

I don't think that's sycophancy - but I am highly likely to ignore something that I don't like rather than vent my spleen here. So I may be lacking in the moaning about the new cover type posts or other aspects of the magazine which could look like sycophancy I suppose. But I just can't be arsed with being negative about stuff that is largely inconsequential. Not when there are split trouser anecdotes to be made.

1
Leedsboy | 14 June 2011 - 1:05pm

You're probably right, Leedsboy

But to rephrase my point. I actually don't think there's anything 'hand-wringing' about disapproving of homophobia and misogyny. And that if you're going to going to say that homophobia and misogyny is ridiculous and thrilling and all a bit of a joke and boils down to youthful high-jinks, well then in the first instance, you're going to kill yourself laughing at the YouTube comments where this kind of shite is the default vernacular, and in the second instance you should expect people to say, 'Hang on, no it's not ridiculous and thrilling'.

Rob claims that points he was making in the review were how silly it is that we still get upset over Tyler's attempts to outrage us; that Tyler makes things up to get a rise out of people; and that he, Rob, doesn't feel the need to join in the hand-wringing disapproval. Firstly, those points are not consistent with the actual review -- certainly not the final few pars -- which are full of dewy-eyed wonder at how great it is to be a teenage misanthrope. And secondly, there's nothing at all silly about condemning prejudice and hate.

When I first saw Tyler's Yonkers video in February, I genuinely thought it was the best hip hop I'd seen and heard in ages, but that's because Yonkers is a relatively benign track. It's sonically interesting and has clever lyrics. Investigating Odd Future further and the interesting sonics and clever lyrics are far, far outweighed by the hateful YouTube rhetoric. Frankly it was about as thrilling as switching channels and finding the same thing on the other side, and ultimately I decided to take my money elsewhere.

If you don't want to challenge those kind of attitudes, fine, but celebrating them is another matter and people are going to question that. Doing so doesn't make them Daily Mail readers or people who should get out more. It just makes them people who like to question things.

9
Albert Edward | 14 June 2011 - 4:40pm

what the hells a chooon?

did I miss a meeting?

0
Sid Williams | 14 June 2011 - 11:31pm

Dates back to the late 80s Rave Era sir

simply a play on the word 'Tune' but said in an exaggerated accent, used to signify that you like a particular song. People at Raves would shout 'CHOOON!' short for 'I like this tune!'. Mark Ellen says it on the Podcast occasionally...I daresay often heard hollered from the Mixmag office next to Word HQ.

0
Dr Volume | 15 June 2011 - 2:48am

Load Of Balls

I thought the review was absolutely idiotic. The way it set up "our" default position to the provocative drivel as "anger" when in fact it was just risible. And what about the bit when we are supposed to marvel at the kid's sensitive side because of his considering of rainbows! RAINBOWS!

Should never have been run for all kinds of reasons.

7
Bodhisattva | 14 June 2011 - 10:01pm

I've got a tenner....

...says you've never heard the record and never will.

Rob's review wasn't "idiotic": you only have to look at half the posts on this thread to see that people ARE treating lyrical content like this as some kind of threat rather than as something silly to be derided. I thought RF's review made it clear that he thinks we should be deriding it or ignoring it (while still keeping an open mind on the music), but that some people will choose to get upset by it instead.

He's hardly been proven wrong. There's a lot of outrage floating about on this thread.

1
Bob | 15 June 2011 - 6:52am

I haven't heard it

but I'd wager its better than some MOR, dull as the Bible, ten a penny in Nashville nu-country singer so be loved for baffling reasons of senility.

Or Slipknot

0
DogFacedBoy | 15 June 2011 - 12:06pm

The fact

that this album with all it's nasty, abhorrent sentiment is hugely popular with the youth as a form of entertainment I find upsetting and depressing, regardless of it's merits otherwise, considering that's the kind of thing people like now - and it's not the only example. In the past there were rock acts guilty of a far milder form of lyrical unpleasantness but thankfully the world moved on some time ago, and it's not acceptable anymore - except in this genre. It's not that it's a 'threat'.

4
Sven Garlic | 15 June 2011 - 12:29pm

What's more depressing?

"The youth" trying to upset the older generation (and apparently succeeding, as they always have done since being old was invented) or the older generation - with a tedious inevitability - holding up the past as some spurious golden age of civility and making stereotypical generalisations about "the youth"?

1
Bob | 15 June 2011 - 12:40pm

*sighs*

I did not say anything about a golden age or make sterotypical generalisations. I'm just a bit troubled by the success and popularity of records which include lyrics that involve rape fantasies, violence against women and homophobia - even if this is just a wind up or is meant to be cartoonish. That's all. I think that's quite reasonable and I don't think I'm foolish for not just dismissing this as childish silliness or ignoring it.

5
Sven Garlic | 15 June 2011 - 7:58pm

Well, we disagree.

I think it's absolutely not worth getting bent out of shape about. But anyway, apologies for my misconstruction of what you said. I'm perhaps easily narked on the subject of "the youth" who I think are just fine and a lot less silly and impressionable than people - sometimes even people on here - make out.

0
Bob | 15 June 2011 - 8:40pm

.

0
Sven Garlic | 15 June 2011 - 7:56pm

Sven

I'm just a bit troubled by the success and popularity of records which include lyrics that involve rape fantasies, violence against women and homophobia - even if this is just a wind up or is meant to be cartoonish.

Sven I do think you make a valid point. IIRC, Bob (rightly in my view) raised similar objections to The Serbian Film and its possible coarsening effect on younger people's attitudes - despite the fact that it is supposed to be an "Art" film. Am I incorrect or misrepresenting you, Bob?

2
BigJimBob | 15 June 2011 - 8:14pm

Neither.

I had a bit of a stupid Daily Mail moment about that film. I'm a father of young daughters and the baby-rape aspects made me see red a bit and lose my sense of proportion and critical faculties.

Kudos for the memory / research. I'm flattered.

However, I think I was emphatically NOT right about A Serbian Film. I don't want to *see* it, and it sounds a lot nastier than a boy saying some horrid things, but ban it? Suppress it? Nah. Just let it be ignored. As it largely was.

0
Bob | 15 June 2011 - 8:43pm

Easy to remember

It was a very strongly argued opinion on something that purposely went out of its way to annoy people.

1
BigJimBob | 15 June 2011 - 8:56pm

And I rose to it.

Which was what the filmmakers wanted. It was silly of me. I was wrong.

0
Bob | 15 June 2011 - 10:49pm

"I don't want to *see* it"

You mean you condemned it without seeing it?

0
Spartacus Mills | 15 June 2011 - 9:30pm

I did.

I just admitted I shouldn't have done that. I was wrong to.

However, torture-horror isn't a genre I enjoy, so I still don't want to see it. I just hope I'll be more circumspect about getting in a froth and passing ill-considered, hurried moral judgement about stuff I haven't seen or heard in future.

0
Bob | 15 June 2011 - 10:47pm

You were wrong?

I don't think so. I don't necessarily hold with the idea that you have to watch or hear something before condemning it.

It stems from the furore over things like the Brass Eye special, or Jerry Springer the Opera. Many rightly suggested that those who complained, despite not having seen the shows, might have misread the message and got the wrong end of the stick. A fair point, I'd say, but not one that applies to *everything*.

I've never seen a snuff film, nor any child pornography, but I feel fairly justified in condemning both. Maybe that's just the Daily Mail reader in me, I don't know.

Most of Tyler's defenders on here say that he is using words like 'faggot' to wind people up. Now, if these reports are reliable, and if I find homophobic language offensive, what difference does it make if I've heard it or not?

0
Spartacus Mills | 15 June 2011 - 11:02pm

Of course you have to see it first

otherwise what are you commenting on? Another person's perception. That's fundamentally wrong for a basis of argument.

2
jimmyshoes01 | 16 June 2011 - 12:29am

I'm not sure you do

In the case of this album, the review clearly states that many people are likely to be offended. It then prints some of the lyrics that are likely to offend. It's not another person's perception, they're direct quotes. And if you're the type to take offence at such things - as many people obviously do - then I don't think actually hearing what you've already read is likely to make any difference to the way you feel. You're still offended. And that's fine.

2
Bela Legosis Dad | 16 June 2011 - 7:59am

Nah.

I think you're confusing not wanting to buy a record/see a film with being qualified to sit in moral judgement on the people who made it, or to say that a positive review of it (a positive review, moreover, which makes a point of not shying away from its unpleasantness) "should never have been run" as Bodhisattva said above.

I had a listen to "Goblin"; it's not the worst record I've ever heard, nor is it the best. God knows it's certainly nowhere close to the most attention-seekingly offensive. I probably won't buy it. However, I have enjoyed attention-seekingly offensive hip-hop in the past, so I thought I'd give it a whirl. If that kind of thing's not your bag, of course you have every right to avoid it entirely.

With "A Serbian Film", I have no desire to see it: everything I've heard about it leads me to believe I wouldn't like it at all. I know that much from secondary sources. But before anyone presumes to JUDGE the moral or ethical content of a record or a BBFC-approved film, they should go to the primary source: the work itself. Nobody's saying they have to buy "Goblin" if they don't fancy the sound of it. But if you want to moralise about it, or condemn Tyler himself, you have to hear his work first. Otherwise your condemnation is worth nothing.

I won't even get started on bringing snuff films or child pornography into the debate.

0
Bob | 16 June 2011 - 9:07am

Jolly good

As I never bought either into the debate, or A Serbian Film. I fear you're confusing me with another poster. I've played Goblin several rimes, and I'm starting to like it - it doesn't actually offend me - but, as I say above, I don't think it's necessary for someone who does find a quoted lyric offensive to be obliged to hear the quote spoken to confirm the offence taken.

0
Bela Legosis Dad | 16 June 2011 - 9:19am

Sorry, that wasn't really aimed at you...

...except for the "needing to see it" bit, which I do disagree with.

Anyway, I'm done donety done. I'm boring myself.

0
Bob | 16 June 2011 - 9:23am
Dr Volume | 14 June 2011 - 11:14pm

I keep thinking of Fur-Q

Fur Q: Uzi Lover...

0
Richie B | 15 June 2011 - 9:52am

Indeed

these killings are clearly ironic

1
DogFacedBoy | 15 June 2011 - 12:41pm

Having finally read the review & listened to the album

My considered Eamonn Forde style (with thanks to Patrick Crowther) review is:

Tyler The Creator's Goblin - SHIT
Rob Fitzpatrick's Review - SHIT

If only it were just a little boy saying rude words and showing his bottom. That would be far more entertaining. One thing is for sure, it's not art.

3
tiggerlion | 14 June 2011 - 11:53pm

Really?

xy - SHIT!
yx - SHIT!

Is that what we've come to? Isn't that what the rest of the internet is for?

0
STD | 15 June 2011 - 6:44am

I think Tiggerlion was referring to

another thread where Archie V (not Patrick) upheld the Eamonn Forde twitter reviews - 'shit/not shit' and then nudged the reader towards Spotify to make up their own mind as a contemporary method of record reviewing.
(apols if I'm a meringue)

0
badartdog | 15 June 2011 - 7:35am

Crap!

I remember that now. Went right over my head. Sorry everyone. As you were...

0
STD | 15 June 2011 - 3:59pm

That's correct

Apologies to Archie V, who deserves the credit

0
tiggerlion | 15 June 2011 - 9:20pm

One small point

That doesn't seem to have been made in this exhausting and exhaustive debate: seems to me that if Rob F is giving Tyler a "free pass" it's less to do with his ethnicity or nationality, and more to do with his youth. I suspect he wouldn't have been as indulgent had Tyler been ten years older.

2
Rosbif | 15 June 2011 - 8:34am

One weird thing

Tyler's first album Bastard, which he made when he was 17, is less potty-mouthed. I wonder if he upped the ante on being given "100% creative control" when signing with XL (he also got ownership of his own masters, which is unusual). It's the kind of thing a teenager might do, after all. "Really? I can say whatever I want and you'll still put it out? Right, try this", etc.

3
Fraser Lewry | 15 June 2011 - 8:51am

My album...

Fuck Fuck Cunt Fuck Shit Cunt Fucker made when I was 17 is still ripe for release, if any record label folk are reading this.

5
Patrick Crowther | 15 June 2011 - 11:43am

Maybe it should be settled like this

Mr Fitzpatrick, would you stand up a moment please....

1
DogFacedBoy | 15 June 2011 - 12:39pm

I'm shocked and stunned.

This thread, which relates both to music, and the content of 'The' Word Magazine, has received - to date - 167 replies.

That's, like, bang out of order guys. Talk about letting the side down.

We should be discussing our favourite fruit, or things that mildly annoy us, how to get an Apple thingy to work, or the loveliness of Kate Mossman, shouldn't we?

Disturbing, very, very disturbing.

4
Adman | 15 June 2011 - 12:57pm

You're absolutely right

I'm off to comment on the Apple Thingy vs Kate Mossman thread

1
Handsome.P.Wonderful | 15 June 2011 - 4:01pm

Question

Does it now take longer to read the entire Word thread about Tyler's album than it takes to listen to the entire album?

Maybe someone can perform a kind of Wizard of Oz/Dark Side of The Moon parallel "play and read" and find out whose posts get the most expletives.

Other options:

The Tyler Drinking Game:

- 2 fingers for every f**k, b*tch and n*gga
- down-in-one for every reference to oral sex

The Rob Fitzpatrick Reviewing Game:

Write a review and see how many people you can annoy by liking something they don't like.

Extra Points Award: for annoying people who haven't heard the music you've reviewed.
Mega Bonus Award: for activating Attack Dog Mode where one poster has a right old barney with another poster.
Mega Mega Bonus Award: for activating Attack Dog Mode via an issue totally unrelated to your review.
Lifetime Achievement Award: for getting somebody to leave the Blog in a huff...forever!

6
Ahh_Bisto | 15 June 2011 - 1:04pm

On and off

it took me four hours to read the Middlerabbit vs Archie thread. That's half an ELP song.

2
jimmyshoes01 | 15 June 2011 - 1:22pm

how about

a reminder of the protocols of participating on the blog from Mr Lewry
citing or linking to said protocols by Mr Lewry
gentle but chiding warning from Mr Lewry
formal warning from Mr Lewry
one more o'them and you're off from Mr Lewry ?

Surely these deserve some sort of honour.

0
Junior Wells | 16 June 2011 - 9:22am
Sven Garlic | 16 June 2011 - 6:42am

Ok

I followed the link, then I went and listened to it on Spotify. And?

God, I was bored. I couldn't wait for it end because it was the living embodiment of every Gangsta cliché in the book. It was lyrically and musically unadventurous and lazy. I persevered partly in the hope would get better, and partly because I wanted to make sure I'd heard it all so I could form a proper opinion. It was tedious almost beyond measure; a little boy holding his crotch and thrusting it at passers by, telling them how big his dick was when, in reality, he's desperately compensating for something (whatever that might be).

Whatever you think of the misogyny and the violence, this stuff has been done to death a million times, and by people with more urgency, incisiveness and even wit.

This is just dull

1
illuminatus | 16 June 2011 - 11:08am

Well I thought it worth posting

just as a taster of what it really is. Also in case anyone fancied it as a ringtone. I make no further comment.

0
Sven Garlic | 16 June 2011 - 12:57pm

And quite right

It gave me opportunity to work out what I thought for myself. Which is never a bad thing :)

0
illuminatus | 16 June 2011 - 1:14pm

Very illuminating!

I agree absolutely with your assessment. I found it utterly boring too. There's no hint of irony, no charm, no wit, nothing but dead-eyed, relentless pottymouthedness. (And I love hip-hop, believing Kanye's was THE album of 2010).

In addition, there's no redeeming feature in the music itself, which is equally unimaginative and dull.

Have an up.

0
tiggerlion | 16 June 2011 - 6:58pm

I clicked.

Goodness me, he's a potty mouth.

1
ganglesprocket | 16 June 2011 - 9:20am

I'm sold

Once again I gotta punch a bitch in her shit

0
Chimney Singing... | 16 June 2011 - 9:42am

I haven't read all of the above posts

Too many, but I think its worth posting this:

"Ok, you got me. I'm not a f**king rapist or a serial killer. I lied"

"I'm a 19 year old f**king emotional coaster with pipe dreams "

(Tyler the Creator, "Goblin")

And I couldn't find the quote, but elsewhere on the album he says (effectively), don't do what I say, I'm just talking nonsense for my own amusement.

Which is also the line he took in the NME cover article of him recently. Parallels are there with Marilyn Manson, really. He's doing it for shock and nothing more. Puerile, not sinister.

0
badger_king | 16 June 2011 - 6:24pm

I disagree that the music is rubbish.

I've always thought the beats are good. And if they weren't I don't think we'd even be having this discussion. But he's a troll, and if he came on here he'd be kicked off because violent misogyny and homophobia shoudn't even be tolerated, much less celebrated. That's what I think anyway -- I'm modern like that.

3
Albert Edward | 17 June 2011 - 8:15am

one more contribution brings this thread to 200

mercy me I think I've done it

0
Junior Wells | 16 June 2011 - 11:54pm

201

0
Seamus | 17 June 2011 - 12:03am

201

A waste of space odyssey.

6
Doug B | 17 June 2011 - 2:13pm

We shouldn't worry about this sort of thing

We should worry more that in this month's issue Peter Hook recalls watching Coronation Street in 1959.

Amazing, seeing as it didn't start until December 1960

1
Five-Centres | 17 June 2011 - 8:55am

Hooky question

How can you tell Hooky is talking bollocks? You can see his lips moving.

2
Twangothan | 17 June 2011 - 5:38pm
fedoraboy | 19 June 2011 - 9:10pm
Privacy Statement    ©  2006 - 2012 Development Hell Ltd