FLOG

Needless to say, the cunningly ambiguous title had me completely fooled.

As for the punks, hell, it was Year Zero! (That trick will always work. Like, was Year Zero 1976 or 1977? Who can tell?)

But isn't rap *supposed* to be disposable? Who beyond hipsters and snooty music critics still listen to "Raisin' Hell"? Rap is the music equivalent of a blog as rappers talk about current trends, personal issues, violence, rivalries, etc. And just like a blog these albums have timestamps.

Blah, blah, blah...see the first track from "Things Fall Apart." It sums the whole phenomenon up pretty well.

If Year Zero has to be one of those, I choose 1977. For reasons.

Also, I agree with th sentiment. When I lived in Carolina, there was a house called The Hippy House. Since it was 1999, it got the name "H-squared 2K." Needless to say we all feel very ashamed about that now and it has been shortened to the much less silly "H-squared." Oh, the caprice of youth.

Does anyone know how to make superscript, if indeed that is what it is called? Zerlesen I am looking at you.

Don't you know rappers can time travel?! That's what makes them rappers!

And as for the title, that threw me a little. But, then I remembered Flog only dates law school, the OC, and his computer. We have an agreement.

Brandon,

Why should rap be any more "supposed to" be disposable than any other pop music? Do other pop stars not talk about current events (e.g., The Rising, What's Goin' On, "Ohio," "Bullet the Blue Sky," "Revolution Blues"), personal issues (e.g., Blood on the Tracks, "Under the Bridge," and every other painful confessional from Hank Williams to Rob Fucking Thomas), violence (e.g. "Street Fightin' Man," "Guns of Brixton," "Saturday Night's Alright") or rivalries (e.g., "Southern Man," "Sweet Home Alabama," and "Walk On")?

Cute theory comparing rap to blogs, but nothing rap talks about is any different than what rock or soul or country talk about. Like I said, I don't think any pop music sets out to be timeless, but without a date stamp it stands a chance.

I don't own Raisin' Hell, but I still listen to Straight Outta Compton.

Brandon, I'm curious as to how the first track from Things Fall Apart sums this up. It's a lengthy dialogue sample from Mo' Better Blues bemoaning the fact that challenging material doesn't attract a large enough audience (specifically, a large enough black audience). Then, as a counterpoint, "Bullshit! The people don't come because you grandiose motherfuckers don't play the shit that they like!" I see how it applies to the Roots' career pre-Things Fall Apart, but I'm not seeing what you're getting at otherwise.

Zerlesen: I should have probably been more specific. I was not even vaguely alluding to the goofy professor guy on the track that talks about rap being "disposable." That sample comes after the "Mo' Better Blues" stuff. And, for the record, I still listen to "Raisin' Hell" and "Straight Outta' Compton." On the other hand, I'm lily white. To ask a blunt question, do black hip-hop fans still listen to NWA, Run DMC, etc.? I don't think so.

Danimal: But the lyrics in most of the songs you mention are timeless. They tackle themes relevant to their era and the artists' personal issues but don't delve into specifics. "Under the Bridge" could be about a junkie living in any era. Same deal with "Street Fightin' Man." Folks have been getting drunk and mean for centuries. Hank Williams' songs were timeless odes to heartbreak and being poor. He didn't throw out lyrics like "It's 1959, three months ago I got into a bar fight with Johnny Cash and Chuck Berry, I got shot three times in the crotch and I really want to kill those assholes."

No shout-outs, no specifics, just general locations and timeless themes. But does this apply to a song like "Ohio"? Nope. It's pretty blatant what that song is all about. Why do people still listen to it?

Because they don't pay any attention to the lyrics. They know the chorus and hum the rest. Most U2 Fans probably have no idea what "Bullet in the Blue Sky" is really about. With rap, it's all about the lyrics. The spotlight is on the words and the rhymes, not the music and the whole industry has more soap-opera drama, rivalries and violence than the WWF. That's why these albums have a shelf-life of roughly six months.

Do you think the rap-equivalent of someone like Thom Yorke or Kurt Cobain would go far? No, because no one can understand a fucking word that comes out of their mouths. People listen to their bands more for the music than the lyrics. If you doubt this, do you think there's anyone alive that can understand all the words to "Smells Like Teen Spirit" or “Paranoid Android� without looking at the linear notes?

Brandon,

Dude, your first two paragraphs are my point exactly: songs are timeless when they aren't specific about their time. If you're trying to argue with me, it ain't working here: all I'm saying is rappers should also do this.

Saying that rap is all about the lyrics doesn't mean that rap can't be timeless. Bob Dylan is all about the lyrics. Bill Shakespeare is all about the lyrics. This does not equal disposable. All I'm saying is, stop mentioning the date and see if your song lasts longer. Jay-Z's latest salvo at whoever he was mad at last night might not stand the test of time, but I can think of some tracks that would. For example: "The Message," the most classic and timeworn rap track of all time, has nothing to say about 1982.

And this Cobain/Yorke thing? What in God's name are you on about there? Where did I suggest . . . whatever that is?

We aren't in agreement here and, not to nag, you never said "specifics" you just mentioned "timestamps" in your original post. And remember this? "Cute theory comparing rap to blogs, but nothing rap talks about is any different than what rock or soul or country talk about." One minute you say rock and rap tackle the same ground and should equally timeless, the next you say they only qualify when they don't get specific? Make up your gosh 'dern mind, man. Which is it?

Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that while rock and rap may cover similar issues, rock stands the test of time because 1. no pays attention to the lyrics and 2. it's all about the music. If you've got a catchy hook and a good chorus, you can sing about Harriet Meters and people will still be listening to your song in 50 years.

That's why people are still listening to Nevermind, OK Computer, etc instead of, say, Grandmaster Flash's first album. See the relevance of Thom and Kurt to this argument now?

Rap ain't art like Billy Shakes. Macbeth was about a particular guy in a particular place but it's still being performed because it's a great story chock full of all sorts of themes, imagery, etc. Where's raps "out damn spot, out" or "I can't get no satisfaction"?

Most rap is like a newspaper editorial. It's "gee, let me get a backbeat and I'll just bitch for five minutes about whatevers getting on my nerves and maybe I'll make some of the words rhyme." This is one of several reasons why you're average Jay-Z song has a shelf life of ten minutes whereas "Ohio" will be playing on radio until the end of time.

That's not to say rap can't be timeless but, again, there's more at work here than timestamps like you're saying ( or at least what you were saying to begin with). "Fuck the Police" is timeless because people are going to resent cops and the justice system for a long, long time. I think "Blowout Comb" is brilliant because the music's great but I can't tell you what any of the songs are about.

In short, if you want your music to last, you've gotta ditch the specifics (not just the timestamps) and get some catchy cords.
"Hey Yeah," for example, is going to last forever.

As for Dylan, yeah, the lyrics, blah, blah, blah. But "Like a Rolling Stone" is timeless because it doesn't mention specifics or who he's singing about and that organ is incredibly catchy. You can get together with your pals and shout "like a rollin' stone" as you cruise down 101 and do your best job to recreate a Volkswagen commercial. "Hurricane," on the other hand, doesn't get much airplay on classic rock stations these days because it's six minutes long, not catchy, about a particular incident and nobody can relate to it. If you think about it, the only songs by Dylan that anyone listens to anymore are the vague ones with all the catchy cords during his electric years. Not too many are still dusting off his wannabe early Woody Guthrie songs.

I spent the last 20 minutes typing this, now I'm running behind on my own dammed blog. Thanks, Flog!

Okay, I think you've produced enough hundreds of words on your side alone that we can let this one rest right where it is.

You've got a point, but it's simply a broader version of my point -- the less a song is tied to its particular time, the more universal it can be. Of course. While you focus on the pettiness of much of rap, of which I suppose the timestamp is a symptom, this doesn't mean all rap has to be that way. Rap is rhythmic spoken rhyming over a beat. That's a pretty limitless template, as a few albums have shown.

But honestly, having never intended a snarky post about a pet peeve to blow up into one of our "We Both Wish We Were Music Critics For The Village Voice" arguments, I say we move on . . .

Agreed. Now let us never speak of this again.