Between GOD and Gangsta Rap

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Email This Page

Author Message   Abm "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Abm Post Number: 2123 Registered: 04-2004 Rating: N/A Votes: 0 (Vote!) Posted on Saturday, November 20, 2004 - 12:08 pm:        I just finished reading Michael Eric Dyson's "Between GOD and Gangsta Rap" (For convenience: "BGGR"). The book is a loosely connected series of essays that explore Black life up to the later part of the 1990's that culminate into a examination of hip-hop music/culture, with particular emphasis of the often-derided 'gangsta rap' phenomenon. I like Dyson's writing; he engages his readers with a robust, muscular literary style (that is partly reminiscent of James Baldwin). Dyson love for with the majesty of ALL forms - written/oral/musical - discourse, even at its most rudimentary levels, is virtually evangelical. Highlights of BGGR are as follows: @ Reference to Martin Luther King, Jr. having once presciently admonished Blacks from fully integrating with the White culture for fear of our loosing our sense of and capacity for independence. @ Black Christians apparent refusal to visit/minister to prisoners. @ Blending/relating the mutual/dynamic origins/influences of Black literature and Black music. @ Belief that authentic intellectualism requires one to embrace a diversity of artistic influences (including music/literary/graphic), irrespective of race/culture/time. @ Assertions that all popular American singing is born from the music of the Black church, Black church music is rooted in Blues/Jazz and that Blues/Jazz is born from Black American slaves. @ Confusion over what qualifies as Black music, especially when the performer is partly/wholly non-Black and/or when a Black person's musically stylings deviate from stereotypically Black genres (e.g., Black 'rock' group "Living Color"). @ There are no purely White or Black Americans. We all are assorted/varying blends of essentially the same mix of humanity. @ A candid autobiography of Dyson's failures as a man and husband. I don't FULLY agree with ALL of what Dyson appear to say. But I think Dyson provides ample fodder for further discussion/study. My criticisms of BGGR would include the following: A) Some of his essays were too brief. They begged further expansion. (His editor should have required he either expands the size of the text or reduces the number of areas upon which Dyson would deliberate and then deepen those areas.) B) Related to "A)": Some of his assertions and those of others he cited lacked empirical/anecdotal support. C) However, Dyson often utters variations of essentially the same subject matter, often within the very same paragraph (and sentence, even). D) Related to "C)": He at times appears SO caught up in his command of the word, they Dyson appear self-congratulatory (BTW: He often appears that way in the media as well). E) Perhaps BGGR should have included either footnotes or a bibliography. Either would have allowed the reader to more easily expand his/her studies of parts of the book. F) Dyson makes no assertions that relate church and gansta rap. The above criticism do not outweigh the overall benefit of BGGR. I would still recommend reading Dyson's "Between GOD and Gangsta Rap" because it provides a fine basis point from which one might explore myriad relevant/timely Black social/cultural phenomena.   Chrishayden "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Chrishayden Post Number: 846 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A Votes: 0 (Vote!) Posted on Monday, November 22, 2004 - 12:35 pm:        I first came in contact with Dyson when I read this book Dyson wrote about Malcolm X that the literary establishement tried to tell us was the best thing since sliced bread. After I was finished I had no idea why people as disparate as Clarence Thomas and Chuck D admired Malcolm X, which question he had promised to clear up. He spurts out these books on subjects I know he can't have thought or studied much about. On the one hand I can see that he may be trying to make black cultural icons palatable and understandable to a wide (white?) audience--on the other hand he seems to drain them of substance. He's a fast and good talker, got credentials that they all love and got his game down. The literary establishment loves him and wants to make him the soupe de jour, though what function he is supposed to serve I don't know. I think he's more style than substance.