Hahah, that doesn't matter.
It's still music in every sense of the word.

It's your opinion, that rap music is so horrible that it doesn't "qualify" as music.

music requires musicians. check and mate.

Rappers are musicians
Check and mate


That was fallacy of false cause I believe.

under no circumstances are they musicians. a musician is an artist, and artist has something to contribute to the world, not just talk about how their undeserved wealth. i can understand certain pop singers, but the majority of mainstream rap?
no. absolutely not.

Another fallacy
Dude, seriously...

A musician is a person who writes, performs, or makes music. Musicians can be classified by their roles in creating or performing music.

One of the types of musicians are vocalists.

Rappers are vocalists.

i believe the word youre looking for is misconception, fallacy means inherant flaw. and i profoundly disagree with you, your arguments fail to refute mine, and therefore we are are arguing a null point.

No, for my first 2 replies fallacy is the perfect word, however for the third you may be right.

What?
My arguments directly refute yours.

Your argument: Rap isn't music, because X and Y
My reply: X and Y are not definitions of music

Your argument: Music requires musicians
My reply: Rappers are musicians

Your argument: They're are not musicians because Z and W
My reply: Z and W do not define a musician.

by your logic i could scream into a microphone with no musical intent and call myself a vocalist. where is the art?

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.
You won't be good (although you might), but you will still be making art.

What you will be doing could range from artistic reading, to poetry, to music.

Art is the creation of something to aesthetically please yourself and/or others.

art is expression, art is a science, art is hard work and passion, art is something that DOES NOT come easy.

Art - the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

tl;dr, if you think making a piss drawing in the snow is aesthetically pleasing - it's art.

look it up in a dictionary. -first definition from merriam-webster

1. The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty and emotional power.

2.Works produced by such skill and imagination

thanks for playing.

>recites what I just said
>Proclaims victory

Yeah, cool

what? youre delusional. those were both different sides to the argument "what is art?" aesthetics vs. skill and imagination. what i said is in no way similar to what you said.

"appreciated primarily for their beauty and emotional power."

Isn't that aesthetics though?

no. aesthetics would be something like slash's tophat while his art would be the music.

Aethetics - a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of beauty, art, and taste and with the creation and appreciation of beauty

Art is aesthetics, or rather a part of it.

that is an unsatisfactory definition and therefore argument. i dont plan on continuing this.

Well since you're finished, let's sum up our stuff.

I say that rap is art and also that anything that is aesthetically pleasing to the creator and/or other people is also art. Unless built with another specific purpose
EG: I think a ship of the line looks really beautiful, but none of it was intended to be beautiful, it's only a side effect of it being a powerful weapon.

You say that rap is not art, because most of it isn't created with the use of artistic talent(s).


Here's why I think I'm right: my system of classifying art encompasses all things created by man to be aesthetically pleasing After that we make the distinction of "high" art and "low" art, with "high" being fine tuned and generally hard to make (needs use of artistic talent, vocal/drawing/architectural skill). While "low" art would not require any sort of talent or skill to create, thus resulting, most of the time, in the low quality of the final product.

The system you propose works with talents and skills ONLY, while most skills are measurable to a degree, talents are not. This results in a classification by opinion. EG: I really like Van Gogh's paintings, they are art. I really hate Picasso's paintings, they are not art. Then, I could use a ridiculously huge amount of accusations to "prove" myself right, I could state that Picasso has no talent, and NOBODY would be able to prove me wrong. Because everyone has his own opinion on what falls into "talent" and what falls into "skill"

Your system works from opinions and thus are flawed from the start.
My system works with facts, and THEN applies public opinion to classify the arts within the broad term "art"

use to have that pic on my ipod

Its called a copypasta, they're everywhere