Over in the Lesson they don't know. Do you?

When I google I only see this: https://m.reddit.com/r/hiphopheads/comments/396haf/did_tribe_called_quest_or_brand_nubian_ever/

So I'm not the only person curious.

In case you don't know about GP. It's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyKcZb5LufE

http://cypheravenue.com/a-tribe-called-homophobic-the-most-anti-gay-rap-song-ever-ever/

Did they issue an actual apology?

fcked up though...

I doubt they did, doubt they would.

Were there any songs/groups in the 90's that you just didn't rock with because they were vocal about their homophobia?



"Get ready....for your blessing....."

well, obviously b/c the 2 songs have the same beat.

'SB' might be their response to 'GP' being rejected by Jive.

the saddest part of this story is that JIVE had to refuse to release the song - the group didn't withdraw it after having thought better of it.

>fcked up though...
>
>I doubt they did, doubt they would.

i hope that's not true. Tribe is one of my favorites of all time.

>Were there any songs/groups in the 90's that you just didn't
>rock with because they were vocal about their homophobia?

dozens.

for example - i didn't buy Cuban Linx back then b/c of the abundance of 'faggot' on the album. i had forgot about that and i recently downloaded it. and then had to delete it. :-( that's just one example.

>well, obviously b/c the 2 songs have the same beat.

HA, duh FLUIDJ!...lol.

>'SB' might be their response to 'GP' being rejected by Jive.

SB is a much better song too. And the message and everything had much more importance and weight and staying power. So damn, maybe we all owe Jive a big Thank You!

>the saddest part of this story is that JIVE had to refuse to
>release the song - the group didn't withdraw it after having
>thought better of it.
>
>>fcked up though...
>>
>>I doubt they did, doubt they would.
>
>i hope that's not true. Tribe is one of my favorites of all
>time.

I feel like they'd just brush it off on some "We've grown, and matured."

>>Were there any songs/groups in the 90's that you just didn't
>>rock with because they were vocal about their homophobia?
>
>dozens.
>
>for example - i didn't buy Cuban Linx back then b/c of the
>abundance of 'faggot' on the album. i had forgot about that
>and i recently downloaded it. and then had to delete it. :-(
> that's just one example.

Something about Cuban Linx never clicked with me. I can't even put my finger on it. I know it's a classic, I KNOW it's considered one of the best hip hop albums of all times....but damn, I don't think i've ever even listened to it from start to finish...



"Get ready....for your blessing....."

damn, i've kinda missed getting SoWhat'd...


"Get ready....for your blessing....."

This version of the song doesn't even sound mixed. It was never released for public consumption.

The song is discriminatory, but it isn't "Boom Bye Bye"....

The lyrics of the song are presented like they are talking about someone that they know. What happens if they are still grossed out by the thought of homosexual acts? What if they still don't have any homosexual friends? How do you word the apology then? Again, the song never came out.... where's the proof that it was solely the record label's choice to block the song?

Very few fans had ever heard this song prior to it being leaked on the internet. It wasn't circulating like that back in 1991.

the songs is trash and, as stated above, is a rough cut. also, everyone isn't with the gay shit. the song is a bit harsh and uncomfortable to listen to but no needs to apologize.

A track by the name "Georgie Porgie" was originally on the album, but was rejected by Jive Records for being "too homophobic". The track was rewritten as "Show Business", which was added to the album.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Low_End_Theory#Reception_and_influence

>A track by the name "Georgie Porgie" was originally on the
>album, but was rejected by Jive Records for being "too
>homophobic". The track was rewritten as "Show Business", which
>was added to the album.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Low_End_Theory#Reception_and_influence

Did someone in ATCQ confirm that? This info was taken from something a Complex writer wrote.

wrote for Complex in 2013 as gospel. Where'd he get the information from? Did he get it from someone who worked at Jive? Did he get it from Tribe?

FOH...

the song was never released and even if it was so the fuck what.

unless they are trying to headline gay pride they dont need to apologize for views that may have changed over the last 2 decades.

it doesnt matter if it was released or not, they did it!

especially seeing that it was originally ON THE ALBUM but was rejected by the suits.

I don't do Twitter but i can try to reach them another way.

They're on IG too. Tip is on both as well but I know Ali and especially Jarobi will respond.

n/m

and i bet if twitter gets going they will kill this new album unless they apologize cause America

Smells like Brand Nubian to me

an entire song to them. which is weird to me. it's like he's obsessed with what he hates.

Not sure where Sadat stands today but on In God We Trust he had a few homophobic lines. Puba spit some recently. He didn't even come back to do Show Business which is how Diamond D ended up on it.

>an entire song to them. which is weird to me. it's like he's
>obsessed with what he hates.


and you know what that means

have grown from our casual homophobia from back in the day.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

90s hip-hop was super-masculine and pretty much everyone was raised to either think "I'm not with that gay shit" or "just don't bring it around me". That was the accepted mentality back then specifically within hip-hop.

I'm not saying that's right or wrong, I'm just saying that was the atmosphere back then so I'm not sure why this is surprising to anyone or why we can't assume 20 year old men grew up past that stage if they didn't continue that message afterwards.

And the fact this dude thinks he's owed a personal apology so *he* can continue to listen to Tribe is laughable.

>90s hip-hop was super-masculine and pretty much everyone was
>raised to either think "I'm not with that gay shit" or "just
>don't bring it around me". That was the accepted mentality
>back then specifically within hip-hop.
>
>I'm not saying that's right or wrong, I'm just saying that was
>the atmosphere back then so I'm not sure why this is
>surprising to anyone or why we can't assume 20 year old men
>grew up past that stage if they didn't continue that message
>afterwards.
>
>And the fact this dude thinks he's owed a personal apology so
>*he* can continue to listen to Tribe is laughable.

I'm not excusing it by any means.

I'm simply putting it in context of why no one should be surprised by this mentality from ANY hip-hop artist back then.

Because this was what was in their hearts. Late 80's early 90's or whenever. Its straight out hate. It doesn't matter what era one lives in, even a 100 hears ago. Its still hatred and ignorant. Those who derided certain folks were wrong back then as those who do it now. And from the beginning of time there were people around who refused to partake in such behavior(s). Basically, people BEEN knowing right from wrong. Context is a bullshit factor.

>I'm not excusing it by any means.
>
>I'm simply putting it in context of why no one should be
>surprised by this mentality from ANY hip-hop artist back
>then.
>
>

>Context is a bullshit factor.

>>Context is a bullshit factor.

Sound like the type of guy who would make a gay joke at age 20.

>Sound like the type of guy who would make a gay joke at age
>20.


but not thinking and writing don several verses of homophobia to record on wax, deciding to do that instead of something else with the world as my oyster at the time

I didn't realize we had so many pristine individuals around here.

>I didn't realize we had so many pristine individuals around
>here.

have to remind myself okp's shit dont stink.

whats funny tho is dude was outed for talking that bitch, hoe shit 10 years ago and the same people demanding an apology now were quicl to defend him on some "that was 10 years ago, people change"

and its true....

but those negros are hypocritical as fuck.

http://www.iccs.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/high-horse-pic.jpg

i think thats where most of us stand on this...

but IMO what will an apology really do.

"sorry I was young and dumb"

thanks Tribe, now I can go back to playing your records.

FOH.

>"sorry I was young and dumb"
>
>thanks Tribe, now I can go back to playing your records.
>
>FOH.

And like I previously said, apparently an apology isn't enough because SW himself said that he doesn't fuck with Common anymore even though the motherfucker apologized on record 14 years ago.

Moving goal posts depending on who he's trolling, of course.

>http://www.iccs.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/high-horse-pic.jpg

... better or more excusable than the ones others made IS high-horsing. So.

Context is important and it is not mutually exclusive with excusing the deplorable song they made. Both can be true. You can provide the context to help explain the thought process behind why Tribe may have felt they were OK to release a (disgusting) song like this at 21 years of age in 1991 and still find it inexcusable and abhorrent to make such a song.

and I'll be that then..because at 21 Id never think of doing such or writing shit like that..even at 16. In a cipher etc

>... better or more excusable than the ones others made IS
>high-horsing. So.
>
>Context is important and it is not mutually exclusive with
>excusing the deplorable song they made. Both can be true. You
>can provide the context to help explain the thought process
>behind why Tribe may have felt they were OK to release a
>(disgusting) song like this at 21 years of age in 1991 and
>still find it inexcusable and abhorrent to make such a song.

People in their teens and early 20s very much so follow the crowd and are still searching for acceptance.

And as Brew already pointed out, your responses are very telling of what kind of youth you were.

But we already know it's always the 'holier than though' crowd that always has the most dirt in their past and usually present life.

>People in their teens and early 20s very much so follow the
>crowd and are still searching for acceptance.
>
>And as Brew already pointed out, your responses are very
>telling of what kind of youth you were.
>
>But we already know it's always the 'holier than though' crowd
>that always has the most dirt in their past and usually
>present life.

yall so perfect.

It's one thing to be "casually homophobic" on some "don't talk about it around me, keep it to yourself" shit.
It's whole other thing to make a hateful song specifically targeting gays. Not just using homophobic slurs or anti-gay one-liners in lyrics like many 90s rappers did, but going all the way in on some "we hate gays" shit. You'd have to be actively homophobic to make song like this one. Like, "let's go and beat this faggot's teeth in after we finish this beer" level homophobic.

Maybe they don't feel that way at all anymore because they were really young when this was made. As disgusting as some things are, should we really be judged by things we may have ignorantly said while young?

This whole apologize thing is crazy too. Should I apologize for saying "yo mama" jokes on the school bus as a kid? No, we did dumb kid shit and got over it.

Meanwhile some people said some fucked up shit a few days to a year ago and ain't held to the same standards.

>Maybe they don't feel that way at all anymore because they
>were really young when this was made. As disgusting as some
>things are, should we really be judged by things we may have
>ignorantly said while young?
>
>This whole apologize thing is crazy too. Should I apologize
>for saying "yo mama" jokes on the school bus as a kid? No, we
>did dumb kid shit and got over it.
>
>Meanwhile some people said some fucked up shit a few days to a
>year ago and ain't held to the same standards.



You're trying to be rational and most folks want an EMO war.


.
.
.

.
.
.

had an unreleased song from 25 years ago and on it they were saying all kinds of racist stuff and using the N word, and that song came out now, even if they DID apologize we would be looking at them with a side eye. And we definitely wouldn't be accepting excuses for no apology because "they were young" or "it was a different time" or "they've grown now".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chd8VzL2soY

WAAAAAY Left...lol..
But freestyling be like that sometimes...just gotta roll with the awkward until you get back in the groove...
unfortunately he didn't get back in the groove until 10 years later lol...


"Get ready....for your blessing....."

.
.
.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/10/Chris-Rock-HUH-WTF.gif

.
.
.

http://i.imgur.com/sDFTx5y.jpg

.
.
.

http://goo.gl/tb7PBl

I'm glad that hey haven't discovered OKP yet
.
.
.

>I'm glad that hey haven't discovered OKP yet
>.
>.
>.

.
.
.

>
>.
>.
>.

The plight of the black man in America is a ***LOT*** different than the plight of the gay man in America. Both examples of discrimination are terrible and wrong. But one group has been oppressed at a FARRRRRRRRR deeper level than the other.

Again, both are wrong. But whether you're willing to admit it or not, there are degrees, and one is way more extreme than the other.

>Both
>examples of discrimination are terrible and wrong.

I didn't say anything about levels of how bad the different groups have had it. Yes this is not a one to one comparison on who has it worse - I don't think you can really compare that because it's a different thing. Also as a straight black man I am not as informed to even know everything the LGBT community has to deal with.

But this is about the fact that bigotry and discrimination are WRONG in both cases, and it isn't unreasonable at all to expect at least an apology. The fact that something was done in the past when someone was young shouldn't be an excuse in either case.

>I didn't say anything about levels of how bad the different
>groups have had it. Yes this is not a one to one comparison on
>who has it worse - I don't think you can really compare that
>because it's a different thing. Also as a straight black man I
>am not as informed to even know everything the LGBT community
>has to deal with.

Right but you don't need to be intimately familiar with their struggles to know how different the two groups' situations were.


>But this is about the fact that bigotry and discrimination are
>WRONG in both cases, and it isn't unreasonable at all to
>expect at least an apology. The fact that something was done
>in the past when someone was young shouldn't be an excuse in
>either case.

This is where reading comprehension comes into play. I've said about 3 million times in here that Tribe's age nor the time period are an "excuse" nor do they afford them a pass for their disgusting bigotry. BUT, the context of their age and time period (being that homosexuality was MASSIVELY misunderstood by pretty much the entire planet at the time, as well as just the general attitude towards homosexuality within the hip-hop community as an extension of that) DOES provide some important detail as to why a group like Tribe, otherwise viewed as socially conscious and positive, might have thought it OK and acceptable to create a song like that AT THAT TIME. THIS DOES NOT EXCUSE THE BIGOTRY. It just provides some background. This isn't all that difficult to understand.

So, as it relates to your analogy, my point is that by 1991, while racism was (and is, in 2016) still very much alive in many pockets of the country, a white person, and specifically, a white rapper, would ABSOLUTELY have been well aware of how fucked up and wrong it would've been to create a song attacking the black community and using racial slurs. I don't really think the same can be said about a group/artist attacking the gay community because like I said, it was still largely a misunderstood human element at that time. And on top of that, the internet hadn't really taken hold yet so it's not like a misinformed/ignorant person could just go online and read about the fact that homosexuality is totally normal and natural, and not some biological disorder or whatever the fuck stupid people used to think it was.

Context is important, to this discussion in general and to your specific analogy. And the context makes your analogy a poor one. I see what you were getting at to an extent, all I'm saying is that it's way more nuanced than you presented it to be.

song. If your problem with the analogy is that in 1991 people weren't fully aware of homophobic bigotry, then imagine the hypothetical racist song to be from a time when racist bigotry was more mainstream. Take a Frank Sinatra or Johnny Cash and let's say they did a blatantly racist song in the 50's that was uncovered 25 years later in the late 70's. Would it be appropriate for their black fans in the 70's to have wanted an apology?

Again, in my original post I wasn't getting into the specifics of every situation - I was just saying that Tribe was wrong for that song and that it's reasonable for an LGBT fan to want some kind of an apology. I also think that it's pretty tone deaf for people in this post who are straight to be dictating how a gay person should feel after hearing the song.

Your initial response read: "If a white singer had an unreleased song from 25 years ago and on it they were saying all kinds of racist stuff and using the N word..."

So you did reference the time period of said hypothetical song.


>song. If your problem with the analogy is that in 1991 people
>weren't fully aware of homophobic bigotry, then imagine the
>hypothetical racist song to be from a time when racist bigotry
>was more mainstream. Take a Frank Sinatra or Johnny Cash and
>let's say they did a blatantly racist song in the 50's that
>was uncovered 25 years later in the late 70's. Would it be
>appropriate for their black fans in the 70's to have wanted an
>apology?
>
>Again, in my original post I wasn't getting into the specifics
>of every situation - I was just saying that Tribe was wrong
>for that song and that it's reasonable for an LGBT fan to want
>some kind of an apology. I also think that it's pretty tone
>deaf for people in this post who are straight to be dictating
>how a gay person should feel after hearing the song.

Word. I never said that they shouldn't apologize. But there's some nuance to that as well:

Unless prompted, why would Tribe open up that can of worms ? Seems kind of unnecessary. Were the group members to be ASKED about it by an interviewer or something, and ignore or inappropriately answer the question, that'd be one thing. But to expect the group to just randomly dig up a hardly-known 25 year old song and self-snitch and apologize seems like kind of a ridiculous request for anyone to make, gay community or not.

But with all that said --- I do think that this should be brought to their attention, that way they will be kind of forced to answer to it and hopefully that will put everyone's minds at ease.

In other words, I don't think it's ridiculous for members of the gay community who are aware of this song to want some sort of acknowledgement from the group about it. But I think, like someone mentioned earlier in the post, that it will need to be brought to their attention by some people for that to happen. Can't expect them to hang themselves.


Lastly, I agree that it's tone deaf for people to tell people how they should feel in response to hearing a song but I *don't* think it's overstepping any boundaries to expect that someone wouldn't say they will "piss on Phife's grave" in response to something like that. That type of comment deserves just as much vitriol as the song.

>Your initial response read: "If a white singer had an
>unreleased song from 25 years ago and on it they were saying
>all kinds of racist stuff and using the N word..."
>
>So you did reference the time period of said hypothetical
>song.

I feel you. It wasn't my intent to have it be directly the same time period, I just meant that the song was uncovered 25 years later. But the way I typed it I see what you mean.

>Word. I never said that they shouldn't apologize. But there's
>some nuance to that as well:
>
>Unless prompted, why would Tribe open up that can of worms ?
>Seems kind of unnecessary. Were the group members to be ASKED
>about it by an interviewer or something, and ignore or
>inappropriately answer the question, that'd be one thing. But
>to expect the group to just randomly dig up a hardly-known 25
>year old song and self-snitch and apologize seems like kind of
>a ridiculous request for anyone to make, gay community or
>not.

Yep, I agree. I don't blame them for not bringing up an unreleased song. But yeah - this is something that should be asked to them directly to give them a chance to respond.

http://www.mtv.com/news/1480512/the-source-digs-up-tape-of-eminem-using-racial-slurs/

was never released. even though he made the song when he was a dumb 15 year old kid. he APOLOGIZED.

*clears throat*

"Ray Benzino, Dave Mays and The Source have had a vendetta against me, Shady Records and our artists for a long time," Eminem said in a statement. "The tape they played today was something I made out of anger, stupidity and frustration when I was a teenager. I'd just broken up with my girlfriend, who was African-American, and I reacted like the angry, stupid kid I was. I hope people will take it for the foolishness that it was, not for what somebody is trying to make it into today."

http://www.mtv.com/news/1480512/the-source-digs-up-tape-of-eminem-using-racial-slurs/

But he ain't apologize for talking about murdering his moms and babymamma, did he?
.
.
.

Probably the most often-used excuse in modern times for people to not take responsibility for something (or to absolve someone else from responsibility).

>Probably the most often-used excuse in modern times for
>people to not take responsibility for something (or to absolve
>someone else from responsibility).

So how may apology letters have you sent out for all the dumb kid stuff you did, said and got away with?


.
.
.

Both Tip and Phife were born in 1970, and that song was made in 1991.

Better man than I.

.
.
.

We recorded songs when I was 21 (shit, when I was 16), but I wasn't dumb enough to record myself using a bunch of slurs, or making any hateful statements, etc. I also wasn't dumb enough to allow photos of myself while holding weed, liquor, drugs, guns, etc. I also avoided doing anything that would land me in jail or make the papers in a negative way because I knew that wouldn't help me in life, only hurt me.

The concept of a "reputation" and how one cultivates that has existed for thousands of years, but now folks want to act brand new on some "I was just a kid!"

foh. If folks do dumb shit then they reap what they sow.

Should we forgive the teen killers that prowl the city as "just kids" as well?

>We recorded songs when I was 21 (shit, when I was 16), but I
>wasn't dumb enough to record myself using a bunch of slurs, or
>making any hateful statements, etc. I also wasn't dumb enough
>to allow photos of myself while holding weed, liquor, drugs,
>guns, etc. I also avoided doing anything that would land me in
>jail or make the papers in a negative way because I knew that
>wouldn't help me in life, only hurt me.

You should be awfully proud. Most people make mistakes. Sounds like you never did. Your parents must be proud, champ.

Also, I note that you said you never RECORDED yourself using a bunch of slurs or making hateful statements ... which would lead me to believe that you used them, just not on record. Cool.


>The concept of a "reputation" and how one cultivates that has
>existed for thousands of years, but now folks want to act
>brand new on some "I was just a kid!"
>
>foh. If folks do dumb shit then they reap what they sow.
>
>Should we forgive the teen killers that prowl the city as
>"just kids" as well?

Uhm, well, yes we kinda do. The legal process for people under 18 is a LOT different than it is for people over 18. For a reason.

lol, this discussion is a race to the bottom.

©

You on that feminine shit, trying to make the discussion about me, huh?

... 20 minutes later just to recycle a (bad) joke you already made in response to someone else ?

Shit is transparent, b.

Don't backtrack now.

Anyway, your reading comprehension is poor to quite poor.

.
.
.

What does MY age matter? You want to try some feminine shit and make the discussion about me?

.
.
.

plenty of 21 year old rappers are in jail right now for dumb shit.

.
.
.

Cool "rationalizing" bro.

I'm out tho. Not gonna slow down this circlejerk with logic anymore.

>I'm out tho. Not gonna slow down this circlejerk with logic
>anymore.

.
.
.

.
.
.

lol

I forget sometimes that most people don't see their word as their bond. SMH

at least I hope not.

I would really hate for people to bring up my early 20's/late teens on some gotcha bullshit.

What's up with that?
.
.
.

After all you got it as an MP3.

The Beasties didn't have to, but their refusal to play "Girls," and Ad Rock apologizing to homosexuals in Time Out magazine in 1999 speak incredibly highly of them as people. I don't think we should necessarily demonize Tribe for this song, but should people be disappointed? yes.

and almost titled License to Ill 'Don't Be a Faggot'. still the group APOLOGIZED. publicly, even.

look at that!

>and almost titled License to Ill 'Don't Be a Faggot'.

I never knew this. I couldn't even see anyone rocking w/ a song with a title like that.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/222302/the-beastie-boys-almost-named-their-first-album-dont-be-a-faggot/

http://www.ew.com/article/1999/12/15/beastie-boys-apologize-past-homophobia

WOW.

Not sure if you are aware....but the Beastie Boy's first album was intended to be a PARODY of frat-boy culture. They were coming from a punk-rock background that had progressive values....so songs like 'fight for your right to party' were satirical in nature....they were projecting an image and persona with tongue-in-cheek. So naming the album 'Don't be a faggot' was an extension of this satirical theme. The Beastie boys themselves have admitted that as time passed...what began as a parody became more and more 'real' sort of speak. And they had fallen into the trap of becoming what they had originally set out to making fun of or satirize. This point has been part of their multiple public apologies throughout the years.

>

http://naturalgasnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Moving-the-goalposts-300x2402.jpg

>http://naturalgasnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Moving-the-goalposts-300x2402.jpg

>a shame I have to

from writing a full on homophobic song...Ill was a full on "act"..GP was something different

>Not sure if you are aware....but the Beastie Boy's first
>album was intended to be a PARODY of frat-boy culture. They
>were coming from a punk-rock background that had progressive
>values....so songs like 'fight for your right to party' were
>satirical in nature....they were projecting an image and
>persona with tongue-in-cheek. So naming the album 'Don't be a
>faggot' was an extension of this satirical theme. The Beastie
>boys themselves have admitted that as time passed...what began
>as a parody became more and more 'real' sort of speak. And
>they had fallen into the trap of becoming what they had
>originally set out to making fun of or satirize. This point
>has been part of their multiple public apologies throughout
>the years.

I think it was Rick Rubin's influence. The sexism and obnoxious frat boy thing might have been a joke in the beginning....but it wasn't a joke or parody for Rick. And I think they were kinda following his lead. I know their original drummer kate Schellenbach (later co-founded Luscious jackson) had a falling out with them because the line between satire and reality was becoming questionable. They apologized and reconciled with her later on and were generally ashamed for what they became for a few years.

As a sidenote....RIP to MCA. I usually hate when artists get political but he found a way of doing it that just appeared to be so genuine and heartfelt without being self-aggrandizing or opportunistic. This clip is so touching. I love watching him getting ready knowing what he was about to do before talking. Focused:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT1FT-zXtDw

And let me add that I have no problem apologizing for using phrases like "that's gay/ghey" and "no homo." I was never anti-gay, just immature and stupid. I've long removed them from my vocab, but an apology always goes a long way.

that say Don't Be A Faggot on them.

the STORY is not that they were homophobic but that they simply wanted an album title that would get attention and shock everyone.

their goal would have got accomplished, but i'm glad they changed it.

You're the only person I've ever heard bring it up. In fact I'd never heard of that lost song until you posted about it.

I'm sure we still got enough juice on OKP somewhere to make this happen.

FTR, I think it should happen. I want to believe that this is more a sin of omission rather than commission (re: the apology).

even though the song was never released it's out there floating around on the Internet. ppl have heard it. but if he hasn't been asked in an interview then he hasn't had a chance to speak on it. i bet if given the chance he'd make it right.

.
.
.

It seems like the very few people, even among us playery types who constitute Tribe's core fanbase, knew about of had heard this song.

In that sense, they've been able to kind of skate on this.

They should fully and completely renounce this, though. It would be a really easy thing to do. This is from 25 years ago. They could talk about how they don't feel that way anymore and that they were wrong to have thought that way or made such a song in the first place.

then I'm done with them.

Tribe could potentially lose ALOT of their base for this. Not just because they are a staple in gay hip hop scenes (which exist) but also because I'd contend the average Tribe fan tends to be more progressive and politically-minded than the average overall hip hop fan.

This is a threat to their brand in a way that it would not be to Easy E. fact is....they have made alot of money being the hip hop group that Phish fans like. And that part of their audience is not gonna like this.

But in a way it makes me feel proud/hopeful that our 2016 reaction to a song like this comes from a far more inclusive/evolved place than our reaction would be in 1991.

Any of them who participated in the song, knowing what the message would be are responsible for it.

I don't give a damn if they were in their 20s. They were old enough to have record deals and put their voices down for people around the world to hear. They're responsible for what they say.

If they regret the song, they should renounce it.

EDIT - some of the arguments y'all are making regarding this issue (here & in the Lesson) are really embarrassing. Has OKP really become that bad? We used to have some real provocative thinkers. The level of discourse in this place has become pathetic.

why cant we just debate the topic?

why does OKP have to agree on everything or it means this place has fallen off?

It's not about whether folks agree with me or not. The topic is certainly worthy of being debated. I'll listen to any argument from either side that makes sense.

It's the way that people go back and forth these days. It's the corny ass personal vendettas. It's the lack of logic and reading comprehension.

Folks on here have got to be sharper than what they show. They just have to be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R94t8E71Ct0&feature=youtu.be&t=13s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYsHhf97hrE

> EDIT - some of the arguments y'all are making regarding this
>issue (here & in the Lesson) are really embarrassing. Has OKP
>really become that bad? We used to have some real provocative
>thinkers. The level of discourse in this place has become
>pathetic.

Talk to the OP if you want to dive into that rabbit hole. People responded with non-confrontational, thoughtful responses expressing their own opinions on the matter and all we got in return was "good for you" and "k.", aka the same condescending, trolling bullshit he's known for.

And the conversation(s) devolved from there. No one's fault but his own.

... the equivalent of "TOKP"

© you

you also made two posts, yet we're the clowns

>you also made two posts, yet we're the clowns

No one said that it was "OK". Not a single person.

>No one said that it was "OK". Not a single person.

I know that but I can see where SW would make the statements he made about Phife as the lyrics that were GP say as much the same damn near

I didnt say the denizens here think that way as the song

on some SOWHAT SAID XXX SO HE POSSIBLY CAN'T HAVE A POINT, HE'S TROLLING US

If SoWhat was exposed to be Lord Jamal's ghostwriter the main point of the post still stands that Porgy remains an extremely problematic song from an era when using the term 'fag' was still seen as fine, from a band that made positivity one of their big themes. I can't think of a more homophobic song from beginning to end in hip-hop, or in music in general, lol. Its quite a juxtaposition from the rest of their career.

I understand the allure to expose on the summerstage screen in OKP fashion, but imho its dodging a legit post and debate.

>No one said that it was "OK". Not a single person.

But like I said to Marbles, people are just responding to the OP in kind. Dude made a thinly-veiled bait post (albeit regarding a subject I know he has strong feelings about and with good reason) and people responded with their opinions on the matter, to which he responded with "k." and the like. That's infuriating. So the post devolved because he allowed it to. I mean if "I piss on Phife's grave" isn't bait posting I'd love for you to tell me what in the entire fuck is. To expect the rest of the forum to respond to some bullshit like that with "I understand how you feel" is just disingenuous on your part.

But despite that - interspersed throughout the "TOKP" stuff *IS* the discourse everyone claims to be so desperate for, but those same people pining for thoughtful discussion are ignoring the posts that include that very thing.


>on some SOWHAT SAID XXX SO HE POSSIBLY CAN'T HAVE A POINT,
>HE'S TROLLING US
>
>If SoWhat was exposed to be Lord Jamal's ghostwriter the main
>point of the post still stands that Porgy remains an extremely
>problematic song from an era when using the term 'fag' was
>still seen as fine, from a band that made positivity one of
>their big themes. I can't think of a more homophobic song
>from beginning to end in hip-hop, or in music in general, lol.
> Its quite a juxtaposition from the rest of their career.
>
>I understand the allure to expose on the summerstage screen in
>OKP fashion, but imho its dodging a legit post and debate.
>
>>No one said that it was "OK". Not a single person.

numerous times by the same OKP. it's an old tired routine he pulls out whenever i post som'n w/which he disagrees and i make fun of him. i dunno what his point is and i don't give a fuck.

the internet has made it possible for anyone's stupidity from 25 years ago to be uploaded
that doesnt mean said stupidity is okay
it does mean that it was 1991

SoWhat is 40 pretending shit he said or did at age 15 should matter today, meanwhile he'll type repugnant beliefs today just for a reaction

and lord knows, particularly in today's era, 'unreleased' songs are par on course. And like I said before they weren't that young; this was their sophmore album after a world tour at the height of their career...I give the Beasties more of a pass because they were still refining their sound and evolved musically and theme was...this was at peak Tribe.

And you know that.


>I give the Beasties more of a pass because they were still refining >their sound and evolved musically and theme was

Dude ..... what ?! So "refining your sound" is a solid excuse for homophobia but age and time period isn't ? (To be clear: neither is an "excuse" for that type of behavior). What in the blue fuck ?

"Ahhh they were still fine tuning their sonic landscape so they can be excused for a atrociously homophobic album title"

Good god. You guys are tripping all over yourselves.

Like, id understand cause there was some five percenter shit going on and it's not hard to see Brand Nubian being an influence.

At the same time they lived in New York City (!!!). 1991 is when Magic announced he had Aids, when Freddy Mercury died. Gays still ran NYC nightlife..its not like these niggas grew up in Kentucky. On top of the fame they had would have just exposed em to just the niggas on the block, which is why I give them more sideeye then your avg corner boy at the time.

Like I have no doubt that they grew out of it...but I don't think you can just put it to youth alone...you kinda had to be willfully ignorant.

>Like, id understand cause there was some five percenter shit
>going on and it's not hard to see Brand Nubian being an
>influence.
>
>At the same time they lived in New York City (!!!). 1991 is
>when Magic announced he had Aids, when Freddy Mercury died.
>Gays still ran NYC nightlife..its not like these niggas grew
>up in Kentucky. On top of the fame they had would have just
>exposed em to just the niggas on the block, which is why I
>give them more sideeye then your avg corner boy at the time.
>
>Like I have no doubt that they grew out of it...but I don't
>think you can just put it to youth alone...you kinda had to be
>willfully ignorant.

Beasties were from NYC as well weren't they ? Soooooo ... why do they get a pass ?

Agree with your last point though. Any example of a song like this includes some sort of willful ignorance, no matter where you grew up.

as sad as it is; homophobia and misogyny fits right in hand with what they were trying to project...it made misguided sense, lol. Kinda like Id give NWA a pass.

Besties were also refining their sound/image and were a totally different band from that point on.

Mixing D.A.I.S.Y age shenanigans and Native Tongues positivity while making a homophobic classic is a harder thing to balance, lol.

Like I said it was at the height of their powers and when the band was fully formed musically which is why such a left turn feels forced and intentional. If we were talking people's instinctive demos id feel a bit differently, but this was Tribe at their best when they dropped this ball...thats why I find it so odd...who it came from and how many signs show that they should have known better because they were further advanced then many of their peers when it came to portraying fake street imagery.

>as sad as it is; homophobia and misogyny fits right in hand
>with what they were trying to project...it made misguided
>sense, lol. Kinda like Id give NWA a pass.
>
>Besties were also refining their sound/image and were a
>totally different band from that point on.

Fine. Still doesn't "excuse" the homophobia and misogyny but explains why they were willing to "go there". But if you're willing to establish and accept context when it comes to Beasties, then ....


>Mixing D.A.I.S.Y age shenanigans and Native Tongues positivity
>while making a homophobic classic is a harder thing to
>balance, lol.
>
>Like I said it was at the height of their powers and when the
>band was fully formed musically which is why such a left turn
>feels forced and intentional. If we were talking people's
>instinctive demos id feel a bit differently, but this was
>Tribe at their best when they dropped this ball.

.... why can't you/rdhull/etc. consider the FULL context in regards to Tribe ? Sure, setting aside the FULL context of the time period and looking at this situation with 2016 eyes only, I agree that homophobia coming from an otherwise "positive" or "socially conscious" group is a strange look. But in the FULL context of the time period, even the most socially aware and righteous hip-hop folks were STILL homophobic, basically all of them. I bet if you go back and listen to early lyrics from any golden-era MC, each and every one of them, regardless of their "shticks" or "brands," spit some form of homophobic lyrics at some point. Tribe was no different. Why can't we judge them with the same lens you are willing to judge BBs with ? Why is is OK to spit homophobia on your first album but not your second ? Why is it more OK / passable to support your "brand" than it is if it, in your opinion, goes against the brand a group is out there portraying ?

In other words, Tribe came up in a time when nearly everyone was homophobic. THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. It simply provides context and explains why an otherwise socially aware group like Tribe may have had those deplorable beliefs at the time of this song's conception.

Neither is more worthy of a "pass" than the other, IMO. The word "faggot" stings and is wrong no matter the context.

>In other words, Tribe came up in a time when nearly everyone
>was homophobic. THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. It simply
>provides context and explains why an otherwise socially aware
>group like Tribe may have had those deplorable beliefs at the
>time of this song's conception.
>
>Neither is more worthy of a "pass" than the other, IMO. The
>word "faggot" stings and is wrong no matter the context.

They went above and beyond with that track, nahmean? It's above and beyond the hip-hop homophobia at the time. We can make the arguement that homophobia is homophobia and that throwing in a 'fag' in a rap bar to show how tough you are is as damaging as dedicating a song to avtively hating LGBTQ

But Phife dropped some homophobic lyrics in Oh My God and we gave em a pass. Imho its less about the fact that they were homophobic, its that they set the gold standard in hip-hop for abhorrent songs dedicated to gay bashing, lol.

This song is, all things considered, one of the more offensive songs I've ever heard. It's gotta be top 3, and right now I can't even think of a more offensive song. And I'm straight. So I can only imagine how disgusted the gay community would be hearing this. Which is just about the only thing I agree with the OP about. It's disappointing for sure, and like you said, goes above and beyond your standard pre-00s homophobia of tossing a slur in one bar in a song about something else.

Just a gross song. Gross concept. Gross that one of my favorite groups made it. Hadn't heard it before yesterday and kinda wish I never had.



>They went above and beyond with that track, nahmean? It's
>above and beyond the hip-hop homophobia at the time. We can
>make the arguement that homophobia is homophobia and that
>throwing in a 'fag' in a rap bar to show how tough you are is
>as damaging as dedicating a song to avtively hating LGBTQ
>
>But Phife dropped some homophobic lyrics in Oh My God and we
>gave em a pass. Imho its less about the fact that they were
>homophobic, its that they set the gold standard in hip-hop for
>abhorrent songs dedicated to gay bashing, lol.

this is supposed to make it more acceptable to rappers who used to hang with 5%???

that makes no damn sense.

when Magic made that announcement damn near everyone was accusing him of being gay (kissing Isaiah on the lips and shit). We were mad ignorant to HIV and didnt have any compassion over Freddie Mercuries death.

once again you guys are viewing these rappers thru a 2016 lense.

didnt we get an apology for slavery a few years ago? Did that make us sleep better at night?

Why not just stop fucking with them instead of asking for a fake ass apology so you can continue to enjoy Tribe.

once again we see our "heroes" are normal people with flaws and instead of accepting it yall demand an apology so you wont feel guilty for rocking to Electric Relaxation.

right on.

i liked the suggestion about reaching out to Ali and/or Jarobi on Twitter/IG. we'll see what happens.

.

>....

Me: you said this crazy shit in 2015

SoWhat: *no response*

you: stop bringing that up

>Me: you said this crazy shit in 2015
>
>SoWhat: *no response*
>
>you: stop bringing that up

because youre taking shit out of its proper context (the statement)nand you know it..or maybe couldnt understand it. Or decline to so you can attempt to use ish for leverage, to troll, or whatever

come on now, be grown

there *has* to be extra nuance, there's no way he really brushed off masturbating in front of children only to be mad about an unreleased gay bashing song

except that's exactly what happened.

the post is still up, you can go read it yourself

He in no way advocated for men to expose themselves to children. Jesus Christ.

because "I think it's okay to corrupt kids" and "I dont see anything wrong behavior that could potentially corrupt kids" are REALLY that different

below are the exact 2015 words copied and pasted from someone mad about a 1991 gay bashing song. take up for this psychopath if you want to



but i'm not overly concerned about kids seeing someone masturbate. i can't tell from your narrative if the kids could even see him. though if they could i wouldn't be too troubled - masturbation is part of life and kids either already know what it is or will know soon enough.

i think we make too big a deal of public masturbation - even in front of kids. i think we work too hard to 'protect' kids from the idea of sex not for their own good but for ours. i dunno that kids would be scarred by seeing a guy masturbate. b/c what's the big deal about masturbation? kids do it too.

i genuinely don't think public masturbation is a big deal - even if kids see it. i genuinely think we expend way too much effort attempting to 'shield' kids from sex unnecessarily. i genuinely don't believe kids will be scarred if they see a guy manipulating his penis for his own pleasure. i genuinely believe we attempt to keep kids from sex b/c we think sex is dirty and we want kids to exist as some repository of 'innocence' for OUR benefit more than for theirs. i genuinely think kids have no reason to make a big deal of sex unless WE give them reasons by panicking about it.

Oy. I'm sorry but his verbatim language below only underscores my point, not yours. What are you even reading? To be clear, my point is he said nothing that in any way suggests he advocates for masturbating in front of children. Point me to where he says it's a good idea or that he's in favor of it. That said, I kind of get why you're pearl-clutching -- you think that kids seeing adults masturbate corrupts them. He clearly disagrees. Fair enough. But to suggest that he's advocating for it is completely debunked by what he says. Like, it just isn't a fair assessment. You don't have to agree with his POV -- his thinking on this is super liberal/leftie/progressive, and most would disagree and take Cyren's approach (I remember the post). But to suggest that he's in favor of it is completely misrepresenting what he's saying. Worse, you took it a step further by saying that he's OK with corrupting kids? Seriously? C'mon. He never said that. In fact, his point is just the opposite -- that he thinks the impact is pretty minimal.

Like, if you're gonna have a credible go at him (a psychopath? really?), then you can't be disingenuous and try to point to shit that didn't happen. Disagree where the real disagreement is: your conflicting POVs on the impact on kids.

But beyond all that, WTF does this have to do with his original question about the Tribe song? I'm super confused by that.



>
>but i'm not overly concerned about kids seeing someone
>masturbate. i can't tell from your narrative if the kids could
>even see him. though if they could i wouldn't be too troubled
>- masturbation is part of life and kids either already know
>what it is or will know soon enough.
>
>i think we make too big a deal of public masturbation - even
>in front of kids. i think we work too hard to 'protect' kids
>from the idea of sex not for their own good but for ours. i
>dunno that kids would be scarred by seeing a guy masturbate.
>b/c what's the big deal about masturbation? kids do it too.
>
>i genuinely don't think public masturbation is a big deal -
>even if kids see it. i genuinely think we expend way too much
>effort attempting to 'shield' kids from sex unnecessarily. i
>genuinely don't believe kids will be scarred if they see a guy
>manipulating his penis for his own pleasure. i genuinely
>believe we attempt to keep kids from sex b/c we think sex is
>dirty and we want kids to exist as some repository of
>'innocence' for OUR benefit more than for theirs. i genuinely
>think kids have no reason to make a big deal of sex unless WE
>give them reasons by panicking about it.

to avoid freaking out the kid. And I'd use the moment to teach the kid a lesson about private vs public activity - that activity is best done privately. Etc. it's all there in the original post. The bottom line is a kid has no reason to freak out there unless the adults around him/her freak out. So as long as the masturbator isn't touching the kid (and that one was NOT) I would not make a big deal of it in that moment. Again - it's all there. Turdbrain can try twisting it but ppl can read. Lol

Like the seemingly deliberate misrepresentation is weird.

In 2015 he said there's nothing wrong with what most agree is foul and perverted behavior

I threw the flag on the field, you're saying Im calling him an advocate. I make money communicating and expressing myself clearly, if I wanted to say "you advocate this" I could and would have.

my official stance on SoWhat: he plays devil's advocate for horrible things, covers it up in drawn out mumbo jumbo and occasional legalese, all while finger popping himself watching people get mad, either because he's bored or he hates it here that much

now follow closely here: I threw the public masturbation flag on the field because he's 40 and being offensive, mad at what someone 6 years older than him said when he was 15

if you need me to break this down logically: at 40 you should be less prone to offending people than a rapper was when they were 21

and finally yes psychopath if you're just like "eh, not such a big deal" about behavior that winds up having people register as sex offenders

But do you honestly think that having your child be amongst many other people who witness a mentally ill person masterbating in public is akin to actual molestation?

I actually agreed with the basic idea that I THINK he was saying....which is that our reaction as parents to a scenario like that is more likely to cause trauma/have negative consequences than the circumstances themselves. If we, as parents, freak out in that situation than we are signalling to the child that this is a big deal....and really, it's not.

Honestly, if I was walking my boys down a street and we witnessed some random dude jerking off....I would very calmly remove them from the situation and i really wouldn't be that upset about it. I imagine my 9 year old would say 'what was that man doing'...to which, like Sowhat said, i would use an opportunity to broach the subject of masterbation. And the message would be masterbation is perfectly normal and something that everyone does. But it's something very special that you only do when you're alone. It's something you do to give yourself pleasure because it feels really good. So the mistake that the man had made was that he was doing something out in public that should be done in privacy. I would also point out that the man probably has a mental illness....and that the mental illness sometimes makes people forget to follow the rules that everybody else does. I would stress that what the man was doing was perfectly natural....that I do it too....that you will also do it eventually....and that there's nothing wrong with it but it should be done in privacy.

I really don't see any potential for trauma or anything like that because of that scenario as long as the parents don't respond in a needlessly melo-dramatic way.

i dont agree with some of your parenting choices so I will just agree to disagree.

but gay men and women, who might be affected by this song, yes, they owe them a simple apology. why is that so hard? there is no reason that Tip couldn't tweet "I was a part of this song, and i'm sorry i was." Simple. Real men/women can admit their faults and apologize for them.

the folks in here pushing back are really pushing back against all the GAINS us gays have made on 'em.

and also they're pushing back against ME b/c i've been merciless on plenty of them as i've ridiculed their foolishness over the years.

this ain't even about Tribe, really.

>the folks in here pushing back are really pushing back
>against all the GAINS us gays have made on 'em.

my stances on gay equality are pretty well documented. I never stood for Case One trolling and called him out on it numerous times

>and also they're pushing back against ME b/c i've been
>merciless on plenty of them as i've ridiculed their
>foolishness over the years.

I have 0 fucks to give about whatever you think is ridiculing me

>this ain't even about Tribe, really.

except it is. If you didnt use a 1991 incident to completely shit on an act we hold near and dear, none of this would have happened. it's called accountability "Fuck Tribe", "Im glad Phife is dead" these are things typed by you, which is why you got personal backlash.

you did the same trolling bullshit when Dilla died only to finally see the light and understand when Michael Jackson was no longer amongst the living.

He may have spoken to people he's close to.

Who says he needs to apologize directly to SoWhat?

And honestly, Tip can feel any kind of way he wants. Maybe he stands by the song.

Then what?

SoWhat is up in here demanding that Tribe apologizes for recording a song which he feels until they do, represents their belief. What if Tribe wants him to apologize for his beliefs?

People offend me every day with their dumb ass beliefs...I don't need a fucking apology. I simply state how I feel or ignore it and then keep it moving.

You see how this shit works?

he popped alotta shit that you would think woulda got him banned from hollywood

>he popped alotta shit that you would think woulda got him
>banned from hollywood
>
>

he paid for his sins

And even Heller later said he didn't really think Cube was being anti-semetic, he was just young and dumb at the time. They still don't like each other much though. And Heller still sued Cube and Dre and Tomica over the movie.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/PAGE-ONE-After-15-Years-Actor-Apologizes-For-2982557.php

>Murphy said he was young and "misinformed" back then. Referring >specifically to his 1981 HBO special called "Delirious," Murphy >said, "Just like the rest of the world, I am more educated about >AIDS in 1996 than I was in 1981. I think it is unfair to take the >words of a misinformed 21-year-old and apply them to an informed 35->year- old man.

I realize the Tribe situation still deserves some sort of apology / recognition from the group but still.

It was about degrading gay people because they were gay



>>Murphy said he was young and "misinformed" back then.
>Referring >specifically to his 1981 HBO special called
>"Delirious," Murphy >said, "Just like the rest of the world, I
>am more educated about >AIDS in 1996 than I was in 1981. I
>think it is unfair to take the >words of a misinformed
>21-year-old and apply them to an informed 35->year- old man.
>
>I realize the Tribe situation still deserves some sort of
>apology / recognition from the group but still.

>I think it is unfair to take the words of a misinformed 21-year-old >and apply them to an informed 35-year-old man.

>>I think it is unfair to take the words of a misinformed
>21-year-old >and apply them to an informed 35-year-old man.

I clicked on this wondering what Tribe had to do with that Mc Lyte track

So yeah, nothing to contribute

Seriously? I can't say I've apologized for some 25 year old shit... But that's because I'm 30... Give me another 15 years and I'm sure I will... I have definitely apologized for some 10 year old shit... Ran into this guy a couple years back at a bar and he told me I had said some fucked up shit to him in junior high, which I didn't even remember... He said he had never forgot that I said this to him and it really affected him after... He let me know he wasn't mad at me and was past it... Like I said, I had no idea... But I knew when I was younger, I talked crazy shit...to everyone... and fought a lot of people over it... This guy and I had seen each other numerous times at bars and restaurants after we were 21... As far as I knew, we were cool... Then one night at a bar he told me what I had said to him... Even though he said he was past it and acknowledged that we were kids, I still apologized, and meant it... Kids/young adults don't understand the power of their words, but as you mature, you can still take responsibility for your wrongs and try to make amends...


EDIT: Shouldn't have said "none"... I meant this for the people that think an apology is unnecessary...

you cant connect the goddamned dognut dots?

This shit is about ME. And fatigue over the way us gays have come up on the come up. We GAININ and they mad about it.

like...just be ok with being wrong and keep it moving.

it started yesterday in The Lesson and traveled here

it has all of the ingredients for the perfect storm of fuckery:
1) a bored person
2) a bored person who finds a reason to offend people on OKP
3) said reason having something to do with a thing site visitors worship
4) victim playing after people lash out

I promise it has nothing to do with a gay bashing song and everything to do with trying to rile people up (Fuck them, fuck yall, Im glad the guy you love is dead etc.)

maybe he needs to feel there's some personal vendetta, but nah he's being an asshole and people are telling him so

i didnt get this vibe at all.

He cleaned it up a bit for GD

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=5&topic_id=2971418&mesg_id=2971418&page=

I dont like when people trying to sell me bullshit though and dude is good for that

....for '60s/'70s artists messing with young teenaged girls back in the day? On some 'it was normal in that era ' tip? If so, this post is hypocritical.



Since 1976

as opposed to the hatchet strawman job above.

However, id say it still was different. Ive heard gay slurs hundreds of times in hip-hop songs, but only one time have I heard a song completely dedicated to hating on the gays and it was Tribe, the happy negros. This was above and beyond what was seen as acceptable as the time...hence why the label blocked it.

Its not like you expect Redman to come with a Supaman lover remix where he dedicates 3 verses to flying around beating up gay people with bats.

Its like someone in the 70's 80's not just fucking underage groupies, but making it a point ONLY to fuck underage groupies (although sadly enough typing that out, Its probably not hard to find dudes only doing that)

>as opposed to the hatchet strawman job above.
>
>However, id say it still was different. Ive heard gay slurs
>hundreds of times in hip-hop songs, but only one time have I
>heard a song completely dedicated to hating on the gays and it
>was Tribe, the happy negros. This was above and beyond what
>was seen as acceptable as the time...hence why the label
>blocked it.
>
>Its not like you expect Redman to come with a Supaman lover
>remix where he dedicates 3 verses to flying around beating up
>gay people with bats.
>
>Its like someone in the 70's 80's not just fucking underage
>groupies, but making it a point ONLY to fuck underage groupies
>(although sadly enough typing that out, Its probably not hard
>to find dudes only doing that)

it's all about debate, rational thinking and possibly nuance.

Because if that's the case; Prince, Marvin Gaye and David Bowie are AS big pieces of shit as R. Kelly (which we could def. make an argument for too, to be honest)

Album: Standing on the Verge of Getting It On
Released: 1974 (RELEASED...not reworked)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WdSSy7hBYk

In the Lesson I once (within a few years) asked about the current-day reaction to his song, and it was thoroughly excused by some of the folks in this post arguing against tribe

Jimmy's got a little bit of bitch in him
The bitch in him
Upsets the Jim
Jimmy's got a little bit of bitch in him
The bitch in him
Outweighs the Jim
Jimmy's got a little bit of she in he
But when he pee, he see

Reality can be a-stiff sometimes
But then again it can be flexible
Depending on the angle of the dangle
Increased by the heat of the meat
And with the proposition that all men are not created equal
So why frown?
Yeah, even the sun go down
We'll call it mixed emotions for now
Play on, Jimmy
Jimmy's got a little bit of bitch in him
The bitch in him
Upsets the Jim
Jimmy's got a little bit of bitch in him
The bitch in him
Outweighs the Jim
Jimmy's got a little bit of she in he
But when he pee, he see

Reality can be a-hard
But then again it can be a-swinging
Like I said, depending on the angle of the dangle
Increased by the heat of the meat
And with the proposition that all men are not created equal
So why frown?
Even the sun go down
We'll call it mixed emotions for now

Jimmy's got a little bit of bitch in him
The bitch in him
Upsets the Jim
Jimmy's got a little bit of bitch in him
The bitch in him
Outweighs the Jim


My first impression and the most relevant point.....is that this lyric doesn't even come CLOSE to the derogatory nature of Georgie Peorgie. In fact...I'm not even sure this Funkadelic song is derogatory or mean-spirited at all. There's an interesting discussion to be had there though. I haven't thoroughly analyzed it...but there might even be a contention that the song is not a critique of Jim but rather a critique of social norms. ie 'Reality can be a-stiff sometimes But then again it can be flexible'. I'm not completely convinced one way or the other yet....but I think there's an argument that the Funkadelic song might even be gay/trans-positive. You could read it as a 'let your freak flag fly' type of message. (Play on, Jimmy)

I'm interested to see what other people think....but the more I read the lyrics, the more I think that this song might even be way ahead of it's time in specific relation to queer theory.

One thing's for sure....there is a HUGE difference between this song and Georgie Peorgie.

>Jimmy's got a little bit of bitch in him
>The bitch in him
>Upsets the Jim
>Jimmy's got a little bit of bitch in him
>The bitch in him
>Outweighs the Jim
>Jimmy's got a little bit of she in he
>But when he pee, he see
>
>Reality can be a-stiff sometimes
>But then again it can be flexible
>Depending on the angle of the dangle
>Increased by the heat of the meat
>And with the proposition that all men are not created equal
>So why frown?
>Yeah, even the sun go down
>We'll call it mixed emotions for now
>Play on, Jimmy
>Jimmy's got a little bit of bitch in him
>The bitch in him
>Upsets the Jim
>Jimmy's got a little bit of bitch in him
>The bitch in him
>Outweighs the Jim
>Jimmy's got a little bit of she in he
>But when he pee, he see
>
>Reality can be a-hard
>But then again it can be a-swinging
>Like I said, depending on the angle of the dangle
>Increased by the heat of the meat
>And with the proposition that all men are not created equal
>So why frown?
>Even the sun go down
>We'll call it mixed emotions for now
>
>Jimmy's got a little bit of bitch in him
>The bitch in him
>Upsets the Jim
>Jimmy's got a little bit of bitch in him
>The bitch in him
>Outweighs the Jim
>
>
>My first impression and the most relevant point.....is that
>this lyric doesn't even come CLOSE to the derogatory nature of
>Georgie Peorgie. In fact...I'm not even sure this Funkadelic
>song is derogatory or mean-spirited at all. There's an
>interesting discussion to be had there though. I haven't
>thoroughly analyzed it...but there might even be a contention
>that the song is not a critique of Jim but rather a critique
>of social norms. ie 'Reality can be a-stiff sometimes But
>then again it can be flexible'. I'm not completely convinced
>one way or the other yet....but I think there's an argument
>that the Funkadelic song might even be gay/trans-positive.
>You could read it as a 'let your freak flag fly' type of
>message. (Play on, Jimmy)
>
>I'm interested to see what other people think....but the more
>I read the lyrics, the more I think that this song might even
>be way ahead of it's time in specific relation to queer
>theory.
>
>One thing's for sure....there is a HUGE difference between
>this song and Georgie Peorgie.

I think it's in the vein of Lola and Honky Tonk Women

general commentary(off topic for a sec):

thanks for not being part of the problem (with me at least).

every engagement I have had with you, you have been thoughtful, well reasoned and civil. you don't go lowest common denominator and rant and rave and throw e-tantrums. you make your points, and when you disagree you do it without forgetting there is an actual person - worthy of respect on a basic human level - without being condescending, or petty about it. you don't lower yourself, even when everyone else is doing it. you aren't so punch-drunk that you think every comment is an attempt at a gotcha moment and swing all wild to defend yourself (or your cause) when it's unnecessary. you actually do dialog, and not soundbites. that is rare here these days

i sincerely appreciate that. stay gold ponyboy.

now...onto the post

>My first impression and the most relevant point.....is that
>this lyric doesn't even come CLOSE to the derogatory nature of
>Georgie Peorgie. In fact...I'm not even sure this Funkadelic
>song is derogatory or mean-spirited at all.

Note: I made no assertion that this was akin to GP (which, by the way, isn't some pearl-clutching shock 20+ years later because I have actually have been a tribe fan since "Buddy" and actively listen to their songs, b-sides, bootlegs, and all).

I also didn't say Jimmy was derogatory (or anything else one way or the other), because I wanted to discuss it in the context *OF* the GP discussion.

i think this entire post is a shameful mess. In my opinion, it doesn't speak well of most of the frequent posters within. But, it isn't surprising either. Rather than jump into the crapfest and start slinging, I wanted to try and juxtapose it with another song that - when you listen casually *might* be mistaken as something it isn't. You took the time to post the lyrics so we can see, parse, and analyze. Thank you for helping the post - or at least the sub-thread - to move forward in a "lets build" way (back when we use to actually have that as a goal with these interactions)

The reference to the previous lesson post - where I mistakenly thought the "music analysts" would be willing to actually analyze the song - fell flat and into "it ain't bad" without any real discussion of why. My actual thought this time wasn't "gotcha" but that songs from/by straight people about their views on sexual preferences and gender definition have been around a long time. We could do an entire post on how within "black music" there have been songs all over the opinion spectrum (yes - some even worse than GP). Sadly but honestly - I am more and more convinced that OKP as a whole is really into *discussing* much of anything anymore. I referenced those who responded before (not by name, lest they feel attacked) HOPING this could be a chance to actually discourse this time with them on the differences, if they remembered. or maybe with others if they were just down to try. hope springs eternal that maybe this isn't 100%, but "know your audience" is very much a real thing. "Why you didn't say all that before?" Because it wiser to test and see if it's worth bothering with before typing and just getting cosigns or drama back - let others share their analysis then dialog.

>There's an
>interesting discussion to be had there though.

Again, I hoped someone else would think so, hence the post about it

>I haven't
>thoroughly analyzed it...but there might even be a contention
>that the song is not a critique of Jim but rather a critique
>of social norms. i.e. 'Reality can be a-stiff sometimes But
>then again it can be flexible'.

don't skip verse one though, cuz it helps set up verse 2

"Jimmy's got a little bit of bitch in him
The bitch in him
Upsets the Jim"

paraphrase - jimmy is bothered by the "bitch in him"

what does that mean?

does it mean he is effeminate (phrase used = historical perspective of the time) and doesn't like that about himself?

how come the equation of femininity (if that is what it is) is equated with a pretty traditionally derogatory term "bitch". why does that get a pass? should it? or have we just gotten to the point where that term has been neutered into a compliment and we can remove it from its original context?

"Jimmy's got a little bit of bitch in him
The bitch in him
Outweighs the Jim"

paraphrase - his femininity is more prevalent than ("outweighs") his masculinity, or alternately, just is the dominant aspect of his personality

this part seems to be a support for the first part mailny showing the degree of Jim's issue

"Jimmy's got a little bit of she in he
But when he pee, he see"

paraphrase - this part is interesting because it *could* be introducing an actual physical characteristic ("when he pee, he see") is jimmy a hermaphrodite, is jimmy actually someone with the genitalia of a woman, who is presenting themselves as a man?

not really clear

but, again, it shows that Jimmy's issue isn't just in Jimmmy's mind but also spreads to *his* view of his body

now. looking at verse two we have the perspective of the singer which is essentially "it ain't all black and white, do whatever you want" which is a sentiment whch pretty much fits within the general philosophy of the group

the interesting thing is that, the singer's view notwithstanding, their is still tension within Jimmy because the rest of the world doesn't necessarily play that game (reality can be a stiff/hard sometimes)

>I'm not completely convinced
>one way or the other yet....but I think there's an argument
>that the Funkadelic song might even be gay/trans-positive.
>You could read it as a 'let your freak flag fly' type of
>message. (Play on, Jimmy)

agreed, but there is still a weird undercurrent of uncomfortability (or maybe non-full-acceptance) in the reference to the issue as some seemingly invasive and unwelcomed "other"-ness that's "in him"

to a degree it kinda plays both sides

>I'm interested to see what other people think....but the more
>I read the lyrics, the more I think that this song might even
>be way ahead of it's time in specific relation to queer
>theory.

maybe. maybe not. i don't think so though. i think folks like to consider themselves as "progressive" and some kind of trailblazing vanguards of whatever-ness, but the deeper you dig the more likely you are to find that there really isn't anything new. that attitudes and prevailing philosophies just cycle in a pendulum swinging kind of way

>One thing's for sure....there is a HUGE difference between
>this song and Georgie Peorgie.

and it was never stated otherwise. as much as we talk about "critical thought" basic application of that would make that assertion moot relative to anything *I* said

thanks again for being decent

homosexuality,
because this isn't even an apt comparison.

denny nailed it so I don't have to.

.

i am (was?) a big fan of Tribe. i'm also gay as a motherfucker.

learning that the group has this song in their background really hurt. i remain thoroughly disappointed that the group would record this filth AND that the only reason it was withheld from release is b/c the label, Jive, insisted on it. Tribe was ready to go full steam ahead w/releasing this mess on The Low End Theory.

anyway, i want to know whether the group has addressed it in a statement or an interview or a song lyric...SOMETHING. so far i've found nothing. i posted it here b/c OKP has some in touch folks who might have this info. and/or OKP has some connected ppl who might be able to get to Tribe or their ppl and find out what's up. that's all that's going on here. nothing more nothing less.

so if you know som'n let me know.

the rest of the hubbub in here is bullshit i couldn't care less about. the point is i wanna know if Tribe has addressed that 'GP' mess.

by your logic: perverts exposing themselves to kids is "just a penis"

it's just rap lyrics

his life wont go on until he finds out if rappers we love addressed controversial unreleased lyrics from 1991

Despite being glad Phife died, SoWhat isnt trying to shit on our excitement and upset us. he just needs this addressed that badly

please address it, make this unearthed story go viral. please do something