Imma vent rq
 

How to write a bar, and the basic components of any bar, should go like this:

1. Concept (oronym, homonym, metonymy, etc)
2. Proliferations (tie ins, set up/payoffs, scheme working.)
3. Multisyllabic rhymes, wording, etc.

This is why homonym/oronym logs and rhyme logs are useful.
You can do step 1 and 3 without relation and later connect them, which helps with step 2 immensely

how to write a bar

1.be dope
2.cut half your syllables
3.delete txt file

Also technique is more important than subject matter. Mentioning the fact that I was on kik? Well that’s fucking fantastic @Incredible but do it well. I def should’ve won that fucking battle looking back.

I didn't know retards had emptions tho...this changes everything

if this needs to be said....there is no formula to dope artwork

ur so far removed from the culture of hiphop its really useless for u to even attempt an interpretation on it.....let alone attempts to break it down into a formulaic blueprint to help u realize it in actual practice

this shit out of your reach

u don't deserve to have it anyways. its beyond u.

Bet

Now that I’ve more thoroughly pondered this, this makes no fucking send at all.
Either:

1. “Dope artwork” is completely “subjective” and there’s no real “dope artwork”

2. It’s not subjective, there are some quantifiable, measurable, objective things to it, in which case

3. In can be formulized

Aight let's fucking go

1. How are we defining art/music/lyrics?

2. What, within these definitions, are measureable and objective?

3. Is it possible that there is a formula unique to each person experiencing the artwork?

Yeah man I re-read Dewey's Art As Experience recently and I'm jazzed enough to put that shit in ITALICS

I’m defining art as expression and communication and lyrics as a grammatical system’s art.

Music is obv mathematically based in a sense and so we won’t get into that.

It’s a possibility there’s a “unique formula” to everyone, but there’s also a better formula and a worse one when taking 2 and comparing. Within the context of a grammatical system, density is measurable in allot of aspects.
Rhyme density is your rhyming syllables/total syllables count (RS/TS), double entendre’s are just 2 concepts being condensed into 1 sentence, tho density isn’t the only thing. This is the main problem with really vague metaphors.

Everything is math if you break it down enough dude

But right there, better and worse, is subjective. When to rhyme vs when not to. When to use wordplay vs when not to. Content. You're not gonna crack the universal code since there isn't one

art:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7bKe_Zgk4o

I jus rap on the weekends

I’m aware everything’s “math”,

Also better and worse isn’t subjective by definition, nor is it subjective here. Some systems will create better forms and more efficiently than others.
Going from foundation to 3rd story is way harder in reverse.

Sure, but there's also an artist's intent to consider. Art is full of people looking for the ugly, absurd, 'bad', etc in different media because it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Think Piss Christ or Kanye's 'scoop Diddy woop poop' verse. There's a different 'formula' for different context which is why you can't, in any sweeping statement, settle in a formula for art

That makes sense ig, but such a formula would be worse, which makes it better.
This formula only refers to the form and technique, the structure, I completely agree no formula can be applied to creativity. Doing ‘bad’ isn’t a form of doing ‘good’ in any context

This thread would be more appropriate if I made it.

But in any situation the artist may want to evoke different things, by which being technically perfect isn't the best option. You're talking about the technical writing side of things, which is valuable and can be well-put together, but there's also a huge piece of art that's dedicated to context (for the artist, the work, and the audience) that can really make a bar 'great'

Still time

Went from coffee to wine so I'll get you to at least 100 posts

I’m aware I’m only looking at technique, which is what the formula is for.

But your op is how to write a bar, any bar, which is a pretty flawed way to look at things

Thas true

I should have clarified, tho it does seem obv b/c of step one, that this only applies to bars with themes/concepts, in which case it can be applied to a singular bar or multiple