Mistachuck: Tribute

PART I:He doesn't seem to realize it, but that Carl Ridenhour, known as Chuck D in the rap world, is a really a right-winger with a few socialist leanings--but very few. The views expressed in his Public Enemy and other work are far more consistent with a Libertarian/Republican perspective, when they're not (mis)informed by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. From the larger side of his mouth, Chuck touts personal and sexual responsibility, berates the goverment's God Complex, preaches abstinence from alcoholic beverages and generally supports a "live and let live" philosophy. However, from the other side of his mouth, you'll hear a handful or logically fallacious, or conspiracy-based viewpoints that seem to emerge straight from the reactionary civil rights zealots bible. The points he's been heard to make include claims of government-funded covert inner-city malt liquor infiltration programs, government synthesizing of viruses like HIV and smallpox, government brainwashing of inner-city youth, and so on. It's weird that he doesn't see the dichotomy when he's writing. He essentially says "Take responsibility and don't let The Man dictate your shit" AND "Blame The Man for anything and everything, and keep your fingers well-oiled, for easy pointing." At the same time, perhaps it's the less articulate sections of his music that give it that uncomfortable edge. Take the juxtaposition of the white liberal interviewer's quote " . . . well if you had read . . . how (Chuck D) has been portrayed in the American press-" with the explosive horn-laden intro to "Welcome To The Terrordome" from Fear Of A Black Planet. Although the "evidence" is useless is any real debate, it still does its job of causing the listener to think: "Ah, so this is why Chuck howls, 'apologies made to whoever pleases; still they got me like Jesus.' It's like the American press is crucifying him. Ah-ha!" It's a parlor trick, but one that works on me - and I even know how its done.Anyway, I guess that wasn't much of a tribute. Try this: He is a master juxtaposer of sounds and inflections. Granted, his lyrics, on their own, are poetic ("It appears I shift gears to the ears of my peers"). However, his delivery is what hits you square in the jaw. You've heard it plenty since, and not necessarily ascending from his larynx; he made it popular. It's that modulation that sounds like he's riding circles around you on a semi-truck, dopplering and pitch-shifting his emotive pronouncements. Sometimes he'll growl, other times he'll howl; on the rare occasion, he'll affect a full-on character, as in "Pollywannacracka." He has been quoted as saying he modeled his style after that of the great sports announcer, Marv Albert. Once you've heard both individuals a few times each, it makes perfect sense. It's the twang/drawl that we 25-30-somethings associate with an old Nintendo game, with such memorable snippets as "Ugly shot!", "From downtown!", "Rejected", "Jams it in" and "He's on fire!" So how did a stocky, freckle-faced, badass black guy like Chuck come to be so greatly influenced by a scrawny, toupee-wearing, ass-biting Jew? No idea. It sure as hell works though.PART II:In the car this morning, I realized that my own attempts at poetry are easily most heavily influenced by, of all people, Chuck D. This could be because his methods are almost pattern-like. He likes to turn cliches on their heads, retool old adages--that sort of thing. He also tends to give stage names to people and objects, without any sort of reference or attempt at apology. In one poem, called NBA, I write:"You have to admitBeat the hell out of three-fifthsBack before the time whenthe cotton ginwas covered with skin"That little section might even be actionable for all I know; it borrows so heavily from Chuck D. Where Chuck might use figurative language to cover some social injustice, I use it as a tool for saying something not necessarily loaded, but in a more interesting way. So instead of saying "Well, at least it's better than slavery," I wrote the above passage.I realize now, to some measure of chagrin, that I break my own rule of writing, by finding a less simple way to say something. Good writing is about knowing your language well enough to choose wisely, putting the right words where they belong, and withholding the wrong ones.Whereas in the past I could have seen myself describing a woman's frock like this:"It shimmered and frolicked like it had a life of its own; it was her 'pay attention to me' dress. Its wrinkles were purposeful; its mild deviations from jet black were set with the minutest calculation . . . "It sounds kinda good, but it's mostly just me being pretensious. I'm saying "wrinkles can be purposeful on the right woman. You have to trust that I have all this uber-deep mental capacity, wherein I hide the bibliography of my superior inside knowledge. Same goes for imperfections in material; sometimes, materials intentionally vary their color, according to strict calculations, so writers can point it out." It's a wad of bullshit. I see it in lots of writing, and I used to think that's what it was all about.Now I might just say:"She wore a lively, vivid black dress. It shimmered like the gloss in her eyes."I dunno.Anyway, somehow Chuck D helped to learn me that.