Talk:Jurassic 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Hip hop, an ongoing effort to improve articles related to hip hop culture and hip hop music. The goal of the project is to bring this article, along with all others to featured status. If you have any questions, concerns or wish to participate you can visit the main project page here.

Contents 1 Jurassic 5 EP vs album 2 Caption 3 Changed Dr. Octagon to Kool Keith 4 External Links 5 NPOV 6 Origin of the name Jurassic 5 7 Slight inconsistency 8 Floetry reference in Collaborations

[edit] Jurassic 5 EP vs album

I listed the album in the discography rather than the EP, but both could be added. My intention would be to link the albums with track lists and pics, so is it worth having these for both the EP and the album? Gram 16:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• I've now added both to Jurassic 5 LP

Gram 13:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caption

Perhaps someone could add a caption to the picture listing the band members names?
- Camster342 19:29 29 May 2003 (UTC)

left to right from what i know:... Cut Chemist, Zaakir, Akil, Marc 7, DJ Nu-Mark, Chali2na, ... not adding this to the page because i might be wrong about Zaakir and Akil.

• Caption added. - you did have Zaakir and Akil the wrong way round, but otherwise correct.

Gram 14:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changed Dr. Octagon to Kool Keith

Some halfwhit apparently thought Dr. Octagon was a rapper, rather than a project/collaboration between Kool Keith & Dan the Automator. I fixed it. *MAYBE* Dr. Octagon could be considered a rapper if 1 - Kool Keith didn't have a dozen other personalites. 2 - Thier other collaboration had also been released under the same name (which it wasn't)

[edit] External Links

Why remove the official site link? I understand removing the lyrics link as it is neither an official site, nor is it complete, but the official linking to the band's official site is standard practice isn't?

I'm gonna put it back, unless you have a reason it should be removed? Gram 13:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Since there's no discussion of the non-neutral point of view here, and the addition of npov was just because "article is biased towards em", I'm removing npov. I don't think there's a problem with an article being "biased towards em" if they've received mostly positive criticism. Instead of calling this article non-neutral, it might help to add some criticism. For that matter, on rereading the page... there's nothing I can tell that's even positive about them, it's all just bland fact. --Keflavich 02:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Positive and inventive lyrics, rather than relying on sex/drug/violence/gang clichés"

A lot of their songs are about cliches, such as being slick on the mic, perhaps the most cliched thing to talk about beyond all those others.

• "note: lyrical inventiveness is the hallmark of Jurassic 5"

This is a completely subjective statement.

That's why its pov, those two parts.--Urthogie 09:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a clean-up tag would be more appropriate than a POV one?--Rockero 17:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Article looks pretty clean to me, but those statements are POV.--Urthogie 21:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thatnks for pointing that out, Urthogie. I added a qualification to the first comment and removed the second, which was pretty much useless. You think it's OK now? --Keflavich 00:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Positive and inventive lyrics, rather than relying on sex/drug/violence/gang clichés (though they often rap about their own skills, which is sometimes seen as arrogant and clichéd)"

I think this could use some improvement. Even with the parentheses, "inventive" and "sex/drug/violence/gang cliches" are both a bit POV. Also, one could argue that "sometimes seen as arrogant and cliched" is kind of weasel wordish. Lastly, although this is a style issue and not a content issue, parentheses don't add much to great prose. My suggestion is instead of talking about what they dont do (i.e "cliches"), talk about what do they rap about. Simply say: "They often talk about their life, at times braggadociously, but almost always with a positive touch." Well...I'm a crappy writer, but at least thats NPOV. Basically, things become POV whenever you make value judgements, such as the judgement that sex, drugs, and violence, and gangs, are cliches (they may well be, but its not up for an encyclopedia to decide. more the realm of a music reviewer).--Urthogie 12:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Good comments. You're right that on the first it's a bit weaselish, but I don't really have a good source to cite either way and I was just trying to qualify the statement a bit. I would trust your writing a bit more - make that edit, it's better than what's there. However, when you point out that the judgement is up to a music reviewer... I've seen in other articles that statements coming from music reviewers were accepted as encyclopedic/neutral even if the statements they made weren't neutral. Perhaps a better way to deal with this problem would have been to find and cite sources. Oh well, I think it's neutral enough now, though in need of improvement. --Keflavich 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• "This song features frequent use of alliteration, rhyme, word-plays and assonance; these literary techniques are so pervasive that the song is difficult to decipher in spite of relatively clear diction and medium tempo."

This is a great improvement from last time, and is basically NPOV. One thing I'd change is the claim that its difficult to decipher-- to some people it might be, to others not. A better way of putting it would be, "this can have the effect of making the lyrics difficult to decipher." Hope this helps, --Urthogie 12:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"Positive and inventive lyrics, rather than relying on sex/drug/violence/gang clichés (though they often rap about their own skills, which is sometimes seen as arrogant and clichéd)".

This definitely needs changing. First, the "clichés" separated by slashes looks pretty ugly. Second, the vast majority of rappers / hip hop groups rap about their own skills. That's a huge part of what rapping is about - self-promotion. To say one band are "sometimes seen as arrogant and clichéd" is frankly moot. Third, "sometimes seen" is a pretty dodgy claim. Fourth, it says "cliché" and "clichéd" in subsequent sentences.

I'll give the re-writing a go, but feel free to chip in. Gram 14:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I ended up just scrapping the whole "cliché" reference as it seemed to stand Jurassic 5 alone against gangsta rap, when in fact there are many modern hip hop artists who don't use gangsta clichés, and artists who rap about gangsta-esque issues without necessarily doing so in a clichéd manner. Gram 14:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of the name Jurassic 5

Can anyone say why their name is Jurassic 5? Just wondering. --Soetermans 20:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slight inconsistency

In 2006, Jurassic 5 toured without Cut Chemist, who is rumored to have left the group to pursue a solo career. The remaining 5 members have recorded and are set to release their 4th album Feedback on July 25th, 2006.

Makes it sound as if he has left the group. Yet on Cut Chemist:

According to the official Jurassic 5 website, Cut Chemist will not be appearing on their forthcoming album (due June of 2006). This is said to be due to Cut Chemist's solo album and he is not out of Jurassic 5, nor does he wish to leave.

So is he still in the group or not? Tromboneguy0186 05:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This is now fixed in both articles, with sources. CC has left J5. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Floetry reference in Collaborations

1996 - Nu Mark appeared on two tracks with Floetry.

According to the Floetry page, They began their career as songwriters in 1997, which in context implies that this was the very beginning of their career. That page also says Years active: 2002-present.

So how can Nu Mark have appeared on two tracks with them one year before their career started, and six years before their 'debut'? Which page is wrong? Pearce.duncan 05:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I got the Floetry info from Discogs. They have a Floetry 12" single called "4 Ya 3rd Eye" with the release date of 1996. It contains 4 tracks, 2 of which, "Chunk a Da Funk" and "Floetic Skills" feature Nu Mark. I thought it may be possible that the date is wrong on Discogs, and looking at the Floetry page there (http://www.discogs.com/artist/Floetry) all other releases were between 2002 and 2005. However, it is also listed elsewhere, with a more specific UK release date of 23 August, 1996 (including http://www.shopireland.ie/music/detail/B00000B3HR/4-Ya-3rd-Eye-/). Finally, I went to the Floetry website and scanned the forum for "3rd Eye". Therein, it appears that one of the members of Floetry infers that this 12" was from another band called Floetry - "that's someone elses art". So which page is wrong? Well, it seems like neither, but confirmation of the original Floetry is needed, and mentions need to be made! Gram 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)