Talk:Rapping/Archive 1

Please read and understand Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources before making additions to this article, or making suggested additions on this article's talk page. Additions made without references which meet this criteria may be deleted as vandalism. Blogs, emails, fansites and statements made on the radio do not meet this criteria.

I'm moving this to rapping. It's more natural and less potentially controversial (if rap alone is music, then so is spoken word poetry) Tuf-Kat

Random tangential thought from the apologetically suburban white chick -- where (if anywhere) should there be a mention of Debbie Harry and other more mainstream white acts that helped to bring at least the sound of rap to the radio? 4.61.199.148

A reference here wouldn't be bad, but it needs more context first. She's already mentioned at hip hop music. Tuf-Kat

Removed

I removed the following, which states that Much early rap did not contain any samples: "probably due to the fact that at the time (1979-1985) the equipment was not as readily available."

However, as turntables and single pole double throw switches had been around for a while, were widely available, and were the basis of hip hop music... Hyacinth 01:34, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is Rap Music?

YES.

Evolution of Rhyme Styles

I haven't seen much discussion in this article about the evolution of rhyme-styles from the late 70's, the mid 80's, the 90's, to the present. For example, the generally simple structure of Run-DMC rhymes compared to Chino XL, Nas, etc. Alexander 007 06:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be interesting. TimMony 06:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

redirecting

Rap music, since it references the genre, should redirect to hip hop music. [[Rap]] should arguably redirect to rapping, although it might be best to link-check and disambig each article manually (not a one-person task by any means). --b. Touch 00:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Negative Aspects of Rap

I am removing the following:

Rap may be a multi-million dollar money-making industry, but it does have its detractors. Those who have an indepth understanding of music and all of its styles see rap as a regression from melodic and creative innnovations. Rap needs very little talent and requires no vocal abilities other than speaking quickly and rhyming. Rap and Hip-Hop are less about music and more about the use of language and attitude. Rock and Roll was certainly depised by the right wing when Elvis "The Pelvis" Presley began his career swinging his hips, but Rap has come at a time when people's expectations of talent are lower than ever. With the Music Video, Rap is all about artifice and the superficial nature of the "gangsta" lifestyle. Rap "artists" need no musical instruments and only use a turntable to perform their "scratches". Rap relies heavily on the ghetto attitudes and lives within it's own cynical world of violence and sex. It may even qualify today as the equivalent of the 1960's "counterculture" movement. Unlike the Beatles and other rock acts of the 60's that spoke of revolution and social change, Rap does not influence young people to make positive statements and challenge modern day society. If it did, we would see a portion of young people looking for peaceful ways of dealing with international conflicts like the one in Irag. Rap is self-defeating in it's own negative messages. Rap does not create a positive listening atmosphere with it's lyrics. The Music Industry has used Rap as a tool to make money easily and quickly. Without the need for long studio time to record an album and the lack of muiscians, Rap artists have attempted to make themselves sound more "musical" by using (some would call "stealing") musical samples from other more legitimate musicians. Many Pop and Rock artists have had their music lifted and inserted into Rap music, including Steely Dan ("Black Cow", from their 1977 album, "Aja") and even Michael Jackson. What is even more surprising is that there has not been more of a backlash to this kind of parasitic action. Usually the samples are lifted from much more older popular music, probably because the youth of today are much less likely to be familiar with these older musical artists and will not be able to make the connection. Popular music is at a stand-still during this era. Over the past thirty years, there have been many fads that have come and gone, usually because the general public wanted something new and fresh. The 1970's began with light pop, went to disco, the 1980's saw the brief movement to "Punk" music and the New Wave artists like Duran Duran, and the latter part of the 1980's saw the beginnings of Rap entering the mainstream. Somehow, we now are at a place where really experienced musicians are no longer seen in the Top 40. The public really wants a fresh face. American Idol, Canadian Idol and programs like this have created an industry where the talent need not be that of experienced musicians. We now have very young and inexperienced people signing contracts who have never even taken a music lesson in their lives. Their knowledge is also deeply in question. This has benefited record companies who no longer have to deal with strong-minded and experienced musicians who expect the appropriate pay and contracts for their services. Now, the record companies need not worry about such confrontations when it comes to signing their talent. When someone who is only 16 comes to the bargaining table, what kind of life-experience can they bring to that situation? Ultimately, the record companies can dictate the terms and the young person, generally naieve, will probably sign anyway. And get a raw deal, with promises of an amazing career. Somehow, believing that they will stay in the business longer than five minutes. The public needs musical education and should expect changes in the music industry. This is what keeps popular music fresh and vital. Right now, we are seeing very little of this in an industry that no one longer values. Not even the record compaines themselves.

Though this is for the most part very unencyclopedic writting, it does bring up some points that could be expanded upon. So I am leaving it here and if I find some time or somebody else wants invest the time, we can use this to create a higher quality section of the negative aspects of rap. TimMony 17:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

But this is an artcle about the practice of MCing, not the music genre. The music genre is at hip hop music. And none f this large chunk of heavily POV writing has anything truly informative to it; it's just a long rant from someone who doesn't like hip-hop music. --FuriousFreddy 03:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

agreed. there are no paragraphs in the articles for punk, death metal, classical, jazz, reggae, etc devoted to covering the opinions of people who hate them (let alone opinions as flawed and misguided as the above). many people dislike hip hop, but that's not important to the evolution of the genre (as with the dislike of free jazz) or its place in society (as with dislike of rock and roll) or its relevance to music as a whole (as with prog rock) so it is simply not worth covering here. --Jamieli 22:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why common criticisms of the subject of any article should not be included in the article regardless of whether or not a precendence has been set. TimMony 23:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The stuff about negativity, sexism etc is already covered at gangsta rap. Including something like "Some feel rap needs very little talent" is about as sensible as including something like "Some feel rap isn't that good and prefer other genres." It's very subjective and very non-specific. Some coverage of popular criticism of and misconceptions about sampling is probably indeed needed in the sampling article. The rest of the above stuff is nonsensical enough not to bother with (has the Top 40 ever been populated largely by "experienced musicians"? Have record companies ever not taken advantage of hungry, unexperienced young artists?) not to mention a lot of it has nothing to do with rap specifically. I'll accept "no musical instruments are needed" as a criticism provided I can put exactly the same criticism in the singing article. --Jamieli 2 July 2005 19:32 (UTC)

Criticisms are fine, but they should be presented in the appropriate context. The "negative aspects of rap" are referring to a specific kind of hip hop, loosely gangsta rap, and so information on specific criticisms cited to individuals who hold them belongs in that article. My opinion is that this page, rapping, should take a broader focus and be about the lyrical form, which is not unique to hip hop. Tuf-Kat 01:20, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

hiphop used to bed much more focused on the mesage not like a 50 cent or ja rule fuck it up nowadays, hiphop until i would say 1997 was great, krs-one and the wu-tang-clan fro example had messages even gansgta rap made comments that wer actaul, sush as NWA's parental disrection advised. hiphop should focus more on the message cause when it's talklike music peoplec an understand it better so you better have something to say, nowadays it's all cars and girls, 50 cent for example isn't really hiphop he is just weak garbage of what hiphop can be - lil'boy

---

I removed this:

It may also be considered as a more layed-back form of Hip Hop music, centered around the skill or lyricism of the MC.

...this doesn't even make sense. Rapping by itself is just rhyming without any music or a beat. --FuriousFreddy 3 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)

Move to "Emceeing"

This move needs to happen, because people are mistakingly confusing this as the page for "rap music" which, again, is at hip hop music. --FuriousFreddy 17:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree....becausenot all rap is done by an Emcee. Im not an Emcee just by busting a rhyme. Also, not all Emcees rap. Some beatbox. I think the solution to all this is just to make specific at the beginning of the article that this is part of Hip-Hop(which has also been called Rap) and that by itself it is merely poetry, and not a genre.Urthogie 17:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I have. But that doesn't stop people from using robots to add links to the other Wikipedias's pages on rap music, nor does it stop them from piping links to "rap" (when referring to the music) here. Perhaps we should form a team and completely disambiguate every link pointing here? --FuriousFreddy 20:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• As mentioned above, I'd prefer to have this page be about the act of rapping, which is not unique to hip hop. Emceeing then, could be just about the things emcees do in hip hop, and other kinds of rapping could go here. Tuf-Kat 20:03, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • If we keep Rapping here, the things emcees do in hip hop should be discussed here as well. --FuriousFreddy 20:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • That way someone looking for emceeing could find it with ease. Tuf-Kat 21:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • theres nothing wrong with crossover between hip hop and rapping...if you feel the need to mention something about emceeing in either one thats ok, but theres no need to change shit. as far as disambiguation, i think thats definitely worth doing. what's the situation wit what links here and what we have to disambiguate? Urthogie 01:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I have decided not to move this page, and record this as a "no consensus", seeing as there has been no discussion for a few weeks. -- Francs2000 01:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

But is it music?

Uh, Yes. We already said that.

Is it music?

YES.

This unfairly limits the scope of rapping to its use in contemporaneous popular culture.

Rapping was a term in popular use in the 1960s and 1970s, used synonymously with both casual, open-ended conversational dialogues (often called "rap sessions") and beat poetry. I wonder if, in fact, the initial use of the term by hip hop music artists reflected a recognition and extension of that previous common usage?

--Markzero 12:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

But that's essentially a dictdef. And that use of the term is still common (though probably not as common). And as far as the use of the term "rapping" having been derived from the earlier definition, it's very possible, especially since the term "hip-hop" predates the use of "rapping" to mean what MCs do by a few years. --FuriousFreddy 21:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new; I don't really know what's wrong with using a dictionary-style definition, when appropriate. I just don't believe that the introduction, "Rapping, the rhythmic delivery of rhymes," is completely truthful, because it immediately limits the term, ignoring its valid use as a term for a sociological phenomenon that predates hip hop and rap music, and is still in use today by some people when they talk about sitting down in freewheeling discussions, whether performance-oriented or casual and personal. Not that I'm trying to give the musical artform a "bad rap," or anything. --Markzero 07:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I'll address this, right now.--Urthogie 19:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

first rap/rock collabs

does someone have a source on run DMC being the FIRST group in rap-rock? cus im pretty sure they were just the first ones to be noticed for it- after all, from what ive read from bambataa, punks and new wavers were bringing their music to the clubs in the inner city all the time.

also, wasn't there someone(was it ice-t) who did some first ever collab with the rock/metal group, anthrax? just want to make sure this is all sourced...im hoping to get this article featured eventually if we work it up!

We have a featured article on hip hop music, where you'll find much of that information. --FuriousFreddy 02:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh..Its definitely relevant to this article because of the following: "Rapping is one of the four elements of hip hop: MCing (rapping), DJing (mixing, cutting and scratching), graffiti (tagging), and breakdancing. However, in the course of rap's history, new musical styles developed that use rapping - especially rapcore, also known as rap/rock or rap/metal, first introduced by crossover pioneer Run-DMC's collaboration with Aerosmith in 1986. Some alternative rap has musically very little to do with mainstream hip hop music. Often consisting of bizarre soundscapes and vivid lyrics, abstract hip-hop has developed, largely in the underground." Urthogie 03:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

That whole paragraph needs to be revised. Will do it now. --FuriousFreddy 03:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

consideration of another article

Shouldn't we create a page devoted to hip hop production, yknow the part of hip hop that focuses on the beat only, not the raps, or the djing techniques of turntablism? If we're gonna have a page like this focused on the history and techniques of rapping, why not of beat production as well.

As a sidenote, I was wondering if youre an emcee, or dj, or whatever in real life, and if so, where you representin. peace, --Urthogie 03:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

We have articles on DJing and turntablism, and hip hop music goes into detail about the time signatures, types of swing, and production style of hip-hop music. Take a little while and browse around Category:Hip hop, to get an idea of what kind of coverage we currently have. Perhaps the coverage of production at hip hop music could be spun off into an article called Record production in hip hop music (we already have an overall article for record producer). By the way, to answer your other question, I'm a producer and engineer, and I live in Florida. --FuriousFreddy 04:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that just like rapping, the beat production of hip hop should have its own place away from the main Hip-Hop article. It only follows to give as much value to intricacies of beat production as it does to rapping. The reason i was thinking this is because in doing this article(rapping) we found that the rapping and hip hop articles overlap a lot, which allowed us to sort out certain things from this article...i was thinking the same could be accomplished by sorting out the things not related to scratching, and spinning records from the DJing article. Also, leaving the music production aspects of hip-hop to rest on the shoulders of turntablism would be asking too much of that article. turntablism is actually more of a movement in Hip-Hop to bring the focus back on the DJ. While it is heavily focused to Hip-Hop production, it is not synonymous with it.

On a personal note, Im an MC in my junior year of high school in the boring midwest(im going overseas soon fortunately). Am I right to say youre producing Hip-Hop? If so, I was wondering if you could tell me what's the main focus locally over there, or if any new artists are popping up out of the area?

--Urthogie 05:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I do both hip-hop and R&B, but haven't done too much in recent months because of work schedules. I've been sort of out of the loop as of late, hope to get things reorganized in the new year. --FuriousFreddy 05:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources.

When we say "add sources", we mean the way you would for a professional paper. See Wikipedia: Cite your sources. --FuriousFreddy 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Also:

1. Do not capitalize "hip hop".
2. Articles should not be in a parent category and its child category. Rapping is categorized in Category:Hip hop culture elements, which itself falls under Category:Hip hop. Rapping should therefore not be included under Category:Hip hop.
3. Be sure to prevent adding your point of view to an article. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

--FuriousFreddy 21:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Id like you to please cite the rule which says not to categorize things in both categories. From what I understood, theoretically and logistically, it made sense to add rapping the category of hip-hop(which i created). I capitalize hip-hop because I refer to it as a culture, but Im okay with doing this the way you want to, cus its not a big point to me. I will do the sources at some point, I just did them like this as a temporary solution Urthogie

• From: Wikipedia:Categorization: An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, for example Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software. An article with the same name as a category should usually belong only to that category, for instance, Deism belongs only in Category:Deism.
• Hip hop is not capitalized because, even as a culture, it is not a proper noun.

--FuriousFreddy 07:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

In that case I am opposed to our current category for aspects of hip hop culture. It's a given that the things in Hip-Hop will be related to Hip-Hop culture in one way or another. Not to mention that any article such as Rapping which is about one of the central elements of Hip-Hop makes it explicit in the article itself. What do you think of that category? --Urthogie 14:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The hip hop culture elements category exists so that the articles for the four main elements of hip hop, and the extended elements as well, are grouped together and organized. Categories exist siply to organize articles in the Wikipedia, so that they can be associated with related articles, and so that they can be easily found. --FuriousFreddy 17:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I think that the current organization is counterintuitive. An accessible, logical organization would show rapping and the other elements right away. Not to mention, why is rapping in the rapping category AND in the hip hop culture elements category.

Lemme elaborate: our current categories fit the rules of wikipedia, but that doesn't mean theyre accessible. One of the first things people want to see when they think of hip-hop is the page on rapping. and yet its in its own category. thats the equivalent of having an article on the white house, and having a separate category inside that for white house officials. People want to see President RIGHT AWAY! Same goes for rapping in the hip-hop category.--Urthogie 19:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The categories are organized so that Category:Hip hop isn't overloaded with articles. Ideally, Category:Hip hop should be empty (because hip hop is a very broad subject), and only filled with subcats: I just haven't been able to figure out what to do with the remaining articles. There are at least seven articles on hip hop elements, so it makes sense to have a category for them. Rapping is in the hip-hop elements category, and has its own category as well, which is used to organize articles related to rapping like freestyle rap. That is the way Wikipedia articles are organized.

Then why is rapping in category rapping??(sign next time)--Urthogie 00:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I did sign; you replied in the middle of my paragraphs. And the rapping article is the first article in its category, just as Hip hop culture and hip hop music are in Category:Hip hop and Marvin Gaye is the first article in Category:Marvin Gaye, so that a person who finds the category can get to the article about the category. Again, that is just the way Wikipedia articles are organized. --FuriousFreddy 22:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Another reason that was done is because people continuously mistake rapping as being an article on "rap music", and it needed to be made specifically clear that it is not. The article is perfectly accessible, as is Disc jockey, breakdancing, hip hop fashion, etc. from that category. There is no reason to recategorize. --FuriousFreddy 22:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

If they have that misconception they could just read the article, so that doesn't seem to be an issue.--Urthogie 00:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Chances are they won't (and don't) read it, so everything should be made explicity clear from the start. --FuriousFreddy 22:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

modern era section edit still pov

"Outkast combined old school rapping with funk reminiscent of Earth Wind and Fire, while Eminem channelled the rage and angst of hard rock into melodic hip-hop songs featuring his tortured rants."

That's a POV claim, and very unencyclopedic considering its unsourced. If you can find a more reputable source to backup those claims(even though I agree with them, that doesn't mean their encyclopedic), we can put them in the article. Thanks, very much--Urthogie 08:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

genre box?

Genre boxes (of the type that was previously in the upper right hand corner of the article) are only for articles about music genres. It doesn't belong here or at hip hop culture. --FuriousFreddy 06:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I read about genre boxes. One sec, I'll get a quote that says all relevant pages should have one.--Urthogie 11:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, my mistake, wikiproject music does suggest putting it only on the main page. I thought it helped navigation though. If you plan on removing them from all the articles besides genre pages, I can help you. Here's a list of pages I put it on[1](--Urthogie 11:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The horizontal infobox at the bottom is the one to use for navigation for each hip-hop related page. But it's all good. --FuriousFreddy 17:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup of mention of uses outside of hip hop

I am converting the table of other genres that use hip hop into prose paragraphs, as prose is almost always preferable to lists for an encyclopedia article. --FuriousFreddy 04:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good(I'll do some minor copy-edits, but nothing big). One questions, though-- whyd you restore traditional forms? These aren't even traditional forms. Theyre all a)subgenres or b)completely unrelated.--Urthogie 10:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

They're examples of similar forms of expression in other cultures. I changed the header. --FuriousFreddy 12:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think the section should be there. It seems like any poetry can be compared to rapping in some way or another.--Urthogie 13:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

According the articles on those forms, they are indeed similar enough to rapping that they deserve mention. Not all forms of poetry or vocalization are. --FuriousFreddy 01:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Urdu rap isn't a traditional form-- its a fusion genre(similar to say..Hip house or Electro Hop). Also, I don't think we should use wikipedia articles as an authoritative source for anything. Until these are verified by outside, authoritative sources as being similar to rapping, they shouldn't be there on that list.--Urthogie 09:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Top image.

I removed the Kid-n-Play picture, not because it's Kid-n-Play, but because it's a production still from Class Act. We need a picture of a rapper (don't care who, but I'd actually prefer it be a non-famous rapper or even just a photographic model) onstage wit ha microphone in their hands, looking like they are rapping. --FuriousFreddy 06:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A picture of a rapper in a studio would be best I think.--Urthogie 16:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer onstage to in a studio (or on a streetcorner), but the important part is that it be a person in the process of rapping, and that it be a free pic. Tuf-Kat 18:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

sound links

What is the best way to link to media in this article?--Urthogie 22:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

permission to use SPM lyric

Just in case anybody is wondering, I asked permission to use the SPM lyric:--Urthogie 19:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

>From: "Anthony Monclova" <webmaster@dopehouserecords.com>
>To: "'MYFULLNAME(privacy reasons)'" <MYEMAIL(to prevent spam harvesters from getting it)>
>Subject: RE: permission to reprinthttp://by106fd.bay106.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/compose?type=r&msg=0F92CA4F-4C2A-45A8-BB89-832B18568B18&start=0&len=2417&curmbox=00000000%2d0000%2d0000%2d0000%2d000000000001&a=ff515c8ee79f1fc325eb7f11cdb4b7fc09f1215450340d67824db29c670e5754#
Send
>Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:56:50 -0600
>
>SPM Says: "Absolutely and thank you for thinking about us."
>We don't see a problem that it is applied in that way.
>
>Regards,
>
>M. Anthony Monclova, WebMaster
>Dope House Records
>Ph: 713-862-4052 ext 16
>Fax: 713-862-1466
>Cell: 713-806-7674
>www.dopehouserecords.com
>anthony@dopehouserecords.com
>
>ATTENTION! The information contained in this email may be CONFIDENTIAL and
>PRIVILEGED. It is intended for the individual or entity named above. If you
>are not the intended recipient, please be notified that any use, review,
>distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have
>received this email by error, please delete it and notify the sender
>immediately.
>Thank you.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: MYFULLNAME(privacy reasons) [mailto:MYEMAIL(to prevent spam harvesters from getting it)]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:24 AM
>To: webmaster@dopehouserecords.com
>Subject: permission to reprint
>
>Can I please have permission to reprint an excerpt of SPM's lyrics in an
>encyclopedia article?  It would be to show an example of complex rhyme
>schemes.
>
>Thanks,
>
>--Urthogie

Picture of The Herd right up the top.

Is this a joke?!--Greasysteve13 06:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they be there?--Urthogie 10:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

For starters the vast vast vast majority only know who they are by clicking the link. To have them up the top suggests people should know who they are.--Greasysteve13 02:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If you find a better looking picture that features people rapping on stage feel free to replace it.--Urthogie 09:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea who they are and I don't see much wrong with the picture. It's free rather than fair use, for a start, and features people actually rapping (rather than just someone icegrillin the camera). The only problem is that it's really dark. How popular they are is irrelevant. --Jamieli 10:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I just thought it was misleading.--Greasysteve13 00:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the caption should be 'An Australian rap group on stage'? He does have a point that this does a huge amount of advertising for them. (this is the first search result for rapping, and up there with on a search for hip hop)--Urthogie 11:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Check this out. I'm currently in the process of asking the BBC's permission to reprint that image of Will Smith aka the Fresh Prince. Looks very professional and much better than the current image(and no, im not favoring him over The Herd, its just that the image looks better).--Urthogie 17:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever it takes. I actually like the use of an unknown group as the lead image, because it prevents the controversy of "how come my favorite rapper is not up there?" If it comes down to it, I will go and dress a friend up in Sean John, hand them a microphone, snap, upload, and caption. --FuriousFreddy 18:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My girlfriend offered to shake her ass for a picture, so I'll work on one as well, lol. Anyways, I just feel weird knowing that I am giving The Herd a fanbase 10 times greater than what it currently has by having it on this page. Also, not to mention the picture is too dark.--Urthogie 19:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the latter. I don't suppose we couild use a screenshot of a fictional rapper (not being played by a rapper) from a movie like Hustle & Flow (though not that film)? --FuriousFreddy 01:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

To FuriousFreddy: Fair enough. But I thought the use of the picture was misleading because it may unintentionally imply that they are "somebody". As for who should be up there: I'd put either the most popular (successful) rapper in the world (whomever he may be), or someone credited with breaking rap into the mainstream (or an otherwise noted pioneer to rap).--Greasysteve13 08:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Some choices:

• http://www.citypaper.com/sb/73856/feed_krsone.jpg
• http://www.archstanton.net/g01/images/Busta0407-2109-FC1D6231.jpg
• http://www.gisters.com/top_events/img/anti_12.jpg
• http://images.jambase.com/features/Jammys/Tim_McDonald/slick_RIck1.jpg
• http://www.still.no/concert/SlickRick_Verftet_2005/SlickRick_013.jpg
• http://www.justfabulousgroup.com/Images/PosFromDeLaSoul.jpg

Which ones do you guys like? I'll work on getting whatever you think looks best.--Urthogie 10:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Numbers 2 (Busta Rhymes), 3 (Run-D.M.C.), and 5 (Slick Rick) are the best. As a compromise for Greasysteve13's suggestions, #3 (with a very, very well-worded fair-use disclaimer on the image description page) is probably the best choice. --FuriousFreddy 20:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I contacted the owners of #3 a couple days ago and I'm yet to get a response for permission. Does it say anywhere on their site that we can use it?(as a sidenote, check this out!)--Urthogie 12:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Stunning.--Greasysteve13 06:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)