My theory on why "The Money Store" is called that

So, my theory is that "The Money Store" title is personally describing MC Ride or the character he is portraying himself. Since drug addiction is a constant theme on the album, it could be that MC Ride has essentially become A "Money Store" because he gives out loads of money in exchange for drugs/alcohol/weapons/etc... Like he is notorious for abusing substances, and being the guy that will always pay up, so he goes down this rabbit hole of financial turmoil. What does everyone think?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jtmvwSKdNPQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

If you can't get a legit answer from the source itself why project upon it?

I'm basing it off of the album, MC Ride constantly mentions drug abuse. "The Money Store" is never said, not a song title, or said why it's called that. So it's a theory based off of implications. Why do you think they have an album/mixtape called "Exmilitary"? They never say "exmilitary" in their lyrics or at least as a song. So half of the fun is thinking why they name their albums.

I heard it was named after this building in Sacramento, it's nickname is The Money Store

shit forgot pic

MC Ride isn't a character

That's the exact opposite of how art is supposed to work.

youtube.com/watch?v=jtmvwSKdNPQ

I thought the whole point of becoming famous was so people GAVE you drugs. Lol

you're tellin me I put out a dope album and I still gotta cough it up for a gram on the corner?nah that shit beat son, find me some real homies with the goods just cause i feelin it then

>art works in certain way

No, your statement is the opposite of how art works. If you can just re imagine any concept in the way you want, what purpose does the creator have giving it one in the first place?

>the average deaht grips numale

rip OPs theory desu

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

Please come back after you become a bit cultured

There are so many fucking arguments against this and they are well cemented in the discourse of art criticism.

Quit before you embarrass yourself.

No no. put it like this, (I'm not him) but look at the photo of the monkey and the apples. imagine if I painted that picture. I would need to realize that it would be "seen" as a picture of monkey and apples. I would need to take this into account, my choice in rendering a subject, would no doubt be "realized" by the viewer. its not completely open. No one sees the monkey and apples, and believes its a ship at sea for example...

>implying i agree with Barthes

can you even into your own opinion or do you just parrot old critics?

All this does is let you impose whatever meaning you want over a piece of art and totally trashes the blood and sweat that go into the concept of it. Why have any concept at all if it's all relative? Fucking first year college trash

>No one sees the monkey and apples, and believes its a ship at sea for example...
Pleb. The monkey is clearly the ship and the apples are the passengers. It's a metaphor you uncultured FUCK.

average Sup Forums meet-up

me on the right

is this a ruse?

It's not about getting to impose any old interpretation, it's just about not giving shit the artist's interpretation any special weight.

i would think this would be all the more obvious when the artist is sort of into trolling their audience.

wasn't this dude arguing that there's no point in trying to interpret it if MC Ride won't come out and clarify the meaning? or am I missing something.

are all of Kubrick's films pointless to discuss and interpret because he was purposefully vague about them?

would I give a fuck if Dylan, in his old age, came out and said "Visions of Johanna was actually about post-sex-change-op Trump running for reelection"?

You will hear artists assert that they feel varying degrees of control over their product. Some set out with a specific concept in mind, and achieve something else entirely. Sometimes they don't realize that this is the case.

Also, if you've ever sat in on a group critique in a studio art class, you'll realize that artists tend to be more full of shit than anybody else when talking about their own work.

etc etc. so i don't know what the fuck you guys are talking about with thinking the ape is a boat or that I can't form my own opinion.

If art is completely subjective in how you view it, why is any sort of concept or subject important in the first place? You still base your metaphors upon the concept of the initial art, so its not totally free of the initial concept

I could posit the LEGO movie being about a goth subculture based on projections of what i want to see but does that make it true?

ruse

it depends on if you can substantiate your view based on what happens in the lego movie.

it wouldn't matter one bit what the creators of the movie said in interviews and shit like that.

the whole point is to stress the text itself, not to ignore it and imagine stupid shit.

I can literally connect any dots in linking any interpretation with a piece of art. Literally any. At what point to stop and ask yourself why the art was created in the first place?

and how "substantial" is a non-participants opinion on any piece? Why is it even expressed in the first place?

If you can substantiate this interpretation of the lego movie, by all means do so. What would be invalid about it? What if the artist tells you that you're right, but he secretly believes that you're wrong?

Explain to me how you could possibly interpret this as a ship at sea. Everybody looks at it and sees a monkey with apples. Those are valid perspectives. It doesn't matter if the artist says it's a ship at sea.

>What would be invalid about it?

What would be valid about it?

>What if the artist tells you that you're right, but he secretly believes that you're wrong?

Then he is lying to me?