Lyricism as a Gimmick, Why is it not as ridiculed as other perceived Gimmicks?

  • Thread starter Thread starter New Editor
  • Start date Start date
Threadstarter went full retard with this one. Couldn't read past the 2nd sentence. Since when was lyricism considered a gimmick?

You do know that lyricism is not only a hip hop thing, right? It applies to all genres of music. I done heard metal heads argue about how this singer is not as lyrical as that singer in the same way we do bout rap
 
Last edited:
GSonII;3593654 said:
The feeling is mutual

aint my fault you cant articulate a point. Seriously, are you saying lyrics are a gimmick or are you saying we should judge ppl who say they are lyricist more harshly?
 
Last edited:
FoolTime;3593720 said:
Threadstarter went full retard with this one. Couldn't read past the 2nd sentence. Since when was lyricism considered a gimmick?

You do know that lyricism is not only a hip hop thing, right? It applies to all genres of music. I done heard metal heads argue about how this singer is not as lyrical as that singer in the same way we do bout rap

You never go full retard! Im still trying to understand the point of the thread, what hes saying to me is like a pilot saying "landing a plane is a gimmick, shits MADDD over rated"
 
Last edited:
FoolTime;3593720 said:
Threadstarter went full retard with this one. Couldn't read past the 2nd sentence. Since when was lyricism considered a gimmick?

You do know that lyricism is not only a hip hop thing, right? It applies to all genres of music. I done heard metal heads argue about how this singer is not as lyrical as that singer in the same way we do bout rap

You do know that the hip hop definition of lyricism is totally different than the definition in other genres. Smart dumb guy.
 
Last edited:
ibedamned;3593723 said:
aint my fault you cant articulate a point. Seriously, are you saying lyrics are a gimmick or are you saying we should judge ppl who say they are lyricist more harshly?

Go beat your meat to a average bitch. You are too dumb to understand the thread or read where I have articulated several times exactly what I mean. It's very simple, when these dudes claim to be lyrically superior to other rappers that is there gimmick once they start to get people to tune in to hear this lyrical superiority just like someone making the other claims I spoke on, so why are they not hated on to the point of the other rappers, when they actually fail at making any impact more times than not? If you don't want to discuss that or feel that the premise is wrong go kick rocks. I found the answer and it is that claims of superior lyricism is the preferred gimmick in the so-called real hip hop world.
 
Last edited:
its over: 2012!;3594993 said:
I think someone was correct, that you worded your argument wrong.

Because now you arguing nonsense, at me, so stay on topic....

My earlier response only applied to rappers who are real intelligent lyricists...I don't even count niggz who Clearly are not lyrically-astute, despite their claim, so...

Your argument makes no sense in terms of rappers who really are lyrically gifted and use that as their M.O. to rap

Your argument makes no sense. If I listen to the same rapper that you think is lyrically gifted and uses that as his or her M.O. and think that said rapper is pure wack, than he or she is pure wack to me. So, there claims of lyrical supremacy, which is the reason I chose to listen to them for, in hopes of finally hearing it failed. When they continue on with those false claims as a way to get people to listen they are now gimmicks to me, and the gimmick begins and ends with there supposed lyricism. That's there gimmick, listen to me because I am lyrical, and they failed. Why, are they not ridiculed to the extinct of other gimmicky rappers. I have my answer so whatever at this point. I just can't believe how slow most of you are.
 
Last edited:
its over: 2012!;3595008 said:
You don't understand lyricism, as rap. Thats the corner stone of your mea culpa here.

When a rapper is a lyricist, he just is. Everyone can tell, so it's not about if everyone liked it or claimed it's whack. If he's a lyricist, then that didn't change bcuz you thought his subject matter or persona was whack...i

That's the dumbest thing I ever read. Wack is just wack son, you can't be a true lyricist worthy of using that as your claim to supremacy or the reason why you stand out as a rapper but be wack overall and noone really feels you. That would mean that you are not lyrically superior because you don't have the ability to express yourself lyrically and make most people feel you. If you are wack you are wack, bottomline. Your argument gives even more credence to most of these dudes using there claims of lyrical supremacy as gimmicks rather than really being nice lyrically.
 
Last edited:
GSonII;3594964 said:
You do know that the hip hop definition of lyricism is totally different than the definition in other genres. Smart dumb guy.

you the first one i hear saying this. so can u give me ur definition on lyricism and "hiphop" lyricism? because i dont see it.

an artist is lyrical or he isnt. whats the difference to other genres? of course, a pop/rock/whatever song is structured different from a rapsong/verse and the delivery is different but this doesnt change anything on the definition of wheter its lyrical or not.
 
Last edited:
sboogie;3593022 said:
I truly regret reading that wall of text...

LOL.

AS for t/s on a real statement, an artist who is lyrical ONLY, isn't really an artist. If I sit down to listen to someone, lyricism isn't subjective, I have to have it. There's no point, to me, to sit down and listen to an album when someone is spouting line after line of sub-par rhymes.

However, it's the lyricists that also come with the subject matter, flows and a good selection of beats, who surpass the glorified artists in the charts who really can't masterfully create a project that surpasses this low bar that we have nowadays in hip hop.

For instance, Deacon the Villain is a lyricist who hasn't broken the charts, but that doesn't mean someone can ridicule him, his product is generally better than most artists out there… he is one of the best at creating a concept and he's back by Natti, who is another great emcee and one of the best underground producers in Kno.

That said, there are lyricists in the underground who are flawed because they come with a formula that's already been and gone, they rhyme about things well, but I don't really care what they're saying.
 
Last edited:
EuropeanAndWhite;3595029 said:
you the first one i hear saying this. so can u give me ur definition on lyricism and "hiphop" lyricism? because i dont see it.

an artist is lyrical or he isnt. whats the difference to other genres? of course, a pop/rock/whatever song is structured different from a rapsong/verse and the delivery is different but this doesnt change anything on the definition of wheter its lyrical or not.

That seams to be a common argument with people in this thread, but it is quite a silly one. Some claim that 2Pac was a lyricist and some claim he was not one. So, how is it a either a artist is a lyricist or he is not situation? If you go by the dictionary definition and the definition used by other genre's of music 2Pac definitely is one. East Coast Hip Hop distorted the meaning of lyricism to something they wanted to be popularized and have failed to popularize it.
 
Last edited:
RuffDraft;3595032 said:
LOL.

AS for t/s on a real statement, an artist who is lyrical ONLY, isn't really an artist. If I sit down to listen to someone, lyricism isn't subjective, I have to have it. There's no point, to me, to sit down and listen to an album when someone is spouting line after line of sub-par rhymes.

However, it's the lyricists that also come with the subject matter, flows and a good selection of beats, who surpass the glorified artists in the charts who really can't masterfully create a project that surpasses this low bar that we have nowadays in hip hop.

For instance, Deacon the Villain is a lyricist who hasn't broken the charts, but that doesn't mean someone can ridicule him, his product is generally better than most artists out there… he is one of the best at creating a concept and he's back by Natti, who is another great emcee and one of the best underground producers in Kno.

That said, there are lyricists in the underground who are flawed because they come with a formula that's already been and gone, they rhyme about things well, but I don't really care what they're saying.

*looks up Deacon the Villain*

Yeah, like I said in my previous post, there are plenty of rappers that are quick to tell people they're lyrical so they'll listen to their shit, but they have nothing interesting to say, or are just borderline wack, but hide behind their ability to string together some multis. Pap is the prime suspect of this... I hate that "spit 16 bars of the same scheme just to set up a wack punchline" shit he does. There's this dude I know called Sin Tha Lyrical God who's wack as all fuck. There's nothing lyrical about this dude... he just uses the term "lyrical" cuz it sounds cool. And every other "bring NY back" ass nigga, I despise them on a cellular level. I get TS's point, don't know why people are shitting on him. I guess he couldv'e used more examples, but I understand.
 
Last edited:
Emma Watson shields herself from the rain with her umbrella as she walks to the gym on Wednesday (October 6) at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.

Later in the afternoon, the 20-year-oldHarry Potter actress went for a walk bundled up in a winter coat and Ugg boots.

The next day, Emma¡¯s mother brought her some supplies for a new pet cat!

Emma has definitely been making good use of the campus gym. Last week she was spotted going for a workout with some friends before going to class.

emma-watson-rainy-workout.jpg
 
Last edited:
GSonII;3595047 said:
That seams to be a common argument with people in this thread, but it is quite a silly one. Some claim that 2Pac was a lyricist and some claim he was not one. So, how is it a either a artist is a lyricist or he is not situation? If you go by the dictionary definition and the definition used by other genre's of music 2Pac definitely is one. East Coast Hip Hop distorted the meaning of lyricism to something they wanted to be popularized and have failed to popularize it.

before we can argue about that, you have to give me those definitions.
 
Last edited:
lol this @ this shyt......so back in the 80's kool moe dee thought lets make up this lyricall shyt to discredit tupac in the future......lol we've known for the longest time that when rappers said i got skills, lyrics, bars etc they was talking about the technical aspect of this shyt....if you dont agree then dont agree but this conspiracy shyt is crazy......lol for you to say lyical was twisted to not include rappers not from the eastcoast is crazy lol so this is wat you've been gettin at this whole time....well lets use the dictionary definition for all slang then...lol.......lyricall rap was popular during the late 80's all the way up to the early 2000's

jay-z,nas,rakim,krs one,biggie,wu-tang and a host of others have popularized lyrical rap lol.....never thought that being creative lyrically would be frowned upon
 
Last edited:
This post my come across as biased to the viewer all these claims are disputable and are left open ended to stimulate discussion

Honestly the difference between Slaughterhouse and a guy like Lupe is quite distinct .Lupe has a complete skillset as far as rapper imo .He can rock a party,make a conscious songs,Spit with some of and hang with any type of artist on beat.Dude is a complete artist in every since.Unlike Slaughterhouse who it seems out of group of 5 members non can make a song to rock a party at all.Most times it comes down to them dissing their imaginary rivals,enemies and just random shots and barbs thrown out.They truly are just battle rappers spitting over wax.All together these guys dont have half the ability lupe has solely because of the fact they arent hip hop artist they are just battle rappers.
 
Last edited:
supersajinfo;3595581 said:
This post my come across as biased to the viewer all these claims are disputable and are left open ended to stimulate discussion

Honestly the difference between Slaughterhouse and a guy like Lupe is quite distinct .Lupe has a complete skillset as far as rapper imo .He can rock a party,make a conscious songs,Spit with some of and hang with any type of artist on beat.Dude is a complete artist in every since.Unlike Slaughterhouse who it seems out of group of 5 members non can make a song to rock a party at all.Most times it comes down to them dissing their imaginary rivals,enemies and just random shots and barbs thrown out.They truly are just battle rappers spitting over wax.All together these guys dont have half the ability lupe has solely because of the fact they arent hip hop artist they are just battle rappers.

are you related to the t/s?
 
Last edited:
bankrupt baller;3595601 said:
are you related to the t/s?

I think some artist use lyricism as a crutch and an excuse for not being well rounded artist.Even LL and Big Daddy Kane where lyricist they knew how to Rock the crowd and where capable of switching styles.Rakim who is lauded for being the hip hop lyricist can't do that.He usually spits in one style and many folks said he didnt really put on great shows.
 
Last edited:
shit now a battlerapper is not a hiphop artist anymore? thats just retarded.

and lupe is a lyricist as well as slaughterhouse are lyricists. whats your point? lupe has more mass appeal, he wraps his lyricism into pop sounds.
 
Last edited:

Members online

Trending content

Thread statistics

Created
-,
Last reply from
-,
Replies
61
Views
24
Back
Top
Menu
Your profile
Post thread…