Jump to content

Talk:Gin and Juice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(untitled)

[edit]

In regards to the flavor of the juice. At the Mtv VMAS in 1994 or 1995, Snoop performed "Murder was the case" the song features the lyrics "No more endo, gin and juice" but because he was performing the song on tv he could not say "endo" which is slang for marijuana, so instead he said "No more blueberry gin and juice" Since then i've always thought the juice was in fact blueberry, even if that doesn't seen like a good mixer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.109.181 (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seagrams

[edit]

What is this 'Seagrams' poppycock? Only Tanqueray ('and chronic, yea i'm f_ked up now') is mentioned by name. I have karaoke'd this song a few times, I am certain no other brand of gin is mentioned. EAE (Holla!) 19:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

verse 2, line 1, snoop raps "now, that I got me some seagrams gin"--BubbleBabis (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC) 24.253.158.88 (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC) in regards to the above about "blueberry gin & juice" blueberry is also i slang for marijuana, so blueberry is in fact not the flavor mixed with the gin; it is cranberry juice.[reply]

24.253.158.88 (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The description of the song

[edit]

This may be the best song description I have ever read. User:Annonymous 11:45, 24 August 2010 (CST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.107.254 (talk)

It's... it's... awesome, great job. All rap songs need to be done like that. Beam 19:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the thumbs-up button from Youtube? 91.47.252.172 (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best thing ever. 72.153.202.77 (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To all the above comments, sorry to spoil your fun, but it's clearly inappropriate humor that doesn't belong on Wikipedia and will most likely be deleted soon if not rewritten. -- Ϫ 09:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 against 1. The consensus has it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.153.237 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

[edit]

LOL! Whoever wrote that section was clearly taking the piss. -- Ϫ 08:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We contend that the style is innocent in its entirety. I,E • Wouldst thou speak? 00:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, you're not helping by copyediting it.. -- Ϫ 03:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot abide grammatical flaws. How could I ignore them? I,E • Wouldst thou speak? 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone decided to remove it entirely. A (serious) rewrite would've been more preferable but whatever, it had enough time. I have to admit though, it made me laugh. -- Ϫ 02:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a description of the music video, why would you take it down?

[edit]
Extended content

"The song begins with a sound effect of a human urinating, followed by an interlude in which an unknown male is speaking, denouncing one of his associates for either committing mater-sodomy in the immediate vicinity or for having bad breath, it remains unclear which. The unknown male requests some bubblegum, presumably to remedy the situation.

We are then introduced to the narrator, Snoop Dogg, as he discusses the exigencies of his life; his hometown of Long Beach, California, is very dramatic. He finds the will to create his unique musical style amidst all this drama, and does so daily. He then entreats the listener (affectionately called a “g”) to enjoy his tale in said musical style.

Mr Dogg's tale starts at 2 am in his home, where a party has been taking place and is continuing late into the night, because his mother is away. Women are copulating in his living room, presumably in a lesbian fashion, and intend to do so until 6 am, when they will leave. Mr. Dogg and his associates decide to join the sapphic women. Ever-prepared, they pull condoms out of their pockets before turning off the lights and shutting the doors behind them.

After making it clear that his regard for the females does not involve love, Snoop Dogg and his associates decide that the use of one ounce of marijuana would be a fitting tribute to the act and his regard of the situation and the women. Rather than go into details of what is taking place behind closed doors, he tells the listeners (affectionately called “motherfuckas”) to reminisce of revelry in general, preferably while bouncing.

The said revelry consists of the chorus line and the subject of the song title: cruising down the street, smoking marijuana, and sipping on gin and an unnamed juice. The unnamed juice is likely of citrus origin, though the properties of gin are agreeable to all fruit juices. It is possible that the previous scene, and the upcoming scenes, are projected memories of the narrators told in the present tense. Mr. Dogg then attempts a palindrome about his constant preoccupation with pecuniary matters.

In another memory, Snoop Dogg has procured a bottle of Seagrams brand gin, and is intent on consuming it himself, but his associates have worked up a thirst as well. They present their empty cups for Mr. Dogg to fill, but have not offered any payment for the alcohol. Mr. Dogg is angry at the prospect of sharing his alcoholic beverage without consideration, as these requests happen all too often. He acknowledges their requests, but reminds them that his needs come first.

Mr. Dogg quickly diffuses the situation by reminding the listener that he is very good at cultivating music that captivates his listeners. He wants to know, “Who listens to the words that I speak?” This is most likely a rhetorical question. We do not learn if he ever does share the Seagrams.

Mr. Dogg leaves the party with his beverage to the middle of the street, presumably because his house party has grown beyond the bounds of his yard. He meets a young lady named Sadie who had previously dated one of his associates. He flirts with the young lady, but does not expect physical contact because the weather has remained a sultry 80 degrees Fahrenheit. As she initiates physical contact with his testicles, the heat becomes too much. Snoop tells Sadie to get off of his scrotum and informs her she will not get further contact with that part of him. He says “at ease”, likely to calm down Sadie, but also in an attempt to relax all involved. Mr. Dogg then runs off to engage in an act of mobbing with his associates (affectionately called the “Dog Pound”) in order to cool off and feel a breeze. He urges all to do the same.

We return to the chorus narration, where Snoop Dogg continues to consume marijuana and gin and juice while cruising in a vehicle. He is still concerned about his financial situation, again stated palindromically.

The narrator then recalls a memory that happened later in the same day[4], presumably at the house party. His friend, Dr. Dre[5], pays Mr. Dogg a visit, presenting him with several bottles of Tanqueray brand gin and a very well-endowed joint of marijuana. The marijuana is of a strength colloquially described as lethal, as he cleverly alludes to through a reference to the bubonic plague[6]. The combination of drugs proves too intoxicating for Mr. Dogg, and he is forced to imbibe less vivaciously, but he refuses to stop altogether. Dr. Dre then introduces Mr. Dogg to some women who he has brought from a neighboring city in Los Angeles. Snoop Dogg makes his intents to bed (or cot) the women clear, but warns them beforehand that he does not intend to make them climax nor stay with them after copulation has occurred, because he does not love them. Women whom he does not love he refers to as “hoes”, the origin of which is unclear, but is in no way related to the garden tool.

The song ends with a repetition of the chorus one more time, where some spontaneous words are uttered after the title verse (a slang word phonetically spelled BEE-OTCH). Mr Dogg's mental preoccupation with money matters is restated multiple times, likely in attempt to finally make a palindrome, but never succeeding."

If this description is in any way offensive then the person shouldnt be reading about a clearly inapropriate song in the first place. If we were all offended by this description then you are more then welcome to click the "back" button on your browser. I say we keep it up, it is clearly very well written and the fact that no description of the music video is present currently only makes the reasons for deleting it unclear.

TLDR version : KEEP THE DESCRIPTION UP, IT IS VERY WELL WRITTEN AND VERSED.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.65.18 (talk) 02:06, January 8, 2011

One problem with that description is it has very little to do with the video specifically, almost all of that relates to the song itself. Another problem is that Dogg is not a last name, therefore "Mr. Dogg" is grammatically incorrect. A third problem is there is no such thing as "mater-sodomy". A fourth problem is that every phrase that contains the word "presumably", and most of the phrases that don't, are original research. A fifth problem is that the author of this piece doesn't appear to know the meaning of the word "affectionately", but enjoys using it ("That word... I do not think it means what you think it means."). A sixth problem is that the origin of the word "hoes" is in fact clear. A seventh problem is that many of the lyrics are misinterpreted and therefore misrepresented. An eighth problem is that the entire structure of the song is being represented here as if it were a linear narrative, which it is not. EAE (Holla!) 04:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@anonIP: It's not even a description of the video, it's an original interpretation of the song's lyrics, which is against our policies on original research, plus the tone and style is clearly intended to be satirical and thus it is unencyclopedic, and that's why it must be removed, the reason has absolutely nothing to do with it being offensive or not, Wikipedia is not censored, it's just inappropriate because noone will take it seriously; we're here to educate, not mock. In fact, the original even included absurd footnotes citing unnamed "scholars" and "musicologists" debating the sound effects, or being undecided about what type of "doctor" Dre is. I agree that it's funny, and perhaps even cleverly written, but if you really believe this belongs in a serious encyclopedic article then you really need to do some growing up. -- Ϫ 12:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was funny imho. In fact, it even reached some newspapers. Perhaps we should make a short mention of that on the official page, with the proper sources? PizzaMan (♨♨) 22:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of lyrics, commentary

[edit]

Regarding this recent edit with the summary:

The sources state that those songs are about MONEY, not this song (and please read WP:UNDUE); also, who's to say the chorus is iconic? (And it still violates WP:NOTLYRICS))

Let me expand on these points in the order in which they occur in the article. The first passage removed is:

The iconic chorus is:
Rollin' down the street smokin' indo'
Sippin' on gin and juice
Laid back (with my mind on my money and my money on my mind).[1]

You're right, The Yale Book of Quotations doesn't explicitly say that the chorus is iconic, but the fact that it includes the chorus at all is noteworthy. I'll change the wording to make this more neutral.

As for the inclusion of the text of the lyrics, WP:NOTLYRICS says:

Quotations from a song should be kept to a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article, and used to facilitate discussion, or to illustrate the style; the full text can be put on Wikisource and linked to from the article.

The chorus is a reasonable length; it's 25 words. It's also used to facilitate discussion. Saying "The last line is an example of chiasmus" doesn't make any sense to the reader unless the last line is displayed. We might compromise on the presentation of the lyrics; if it makes them seem smaller, we could quote them inline, as in "Rollin' down the street smokin' indo' / Sippin' on gin and juice / Laid back (with my mind on my money and my money on my mind)." But in my opinion this format is harder to read.

The next removal was this sentence:

The focus on money is shared throughout hip hop, including "It's All About the Benjamins",[2] "Money Makes the World Go Round", "Get Money", and "Foe tha Love of $".[3]

The sources that talk about money are Banfield (2004) and Werner (2006). Banfield writes:

After Snoop Dogg's line, "With my mind on my money and my money on my mind," or P. Diddy's, "Its all about the Benjamins baby," one doesn't have to wonder what all the "Bling Bling" is about.
Hip Hop today is big business.

Werner writes:

The Wu-Tang Clan titled the most powerful rap of the mid-nineties "CREAM," and the initials passed into street currency as shorthand for the only thing the East and West Coast gangstas could agree on: "Cash Rules Everything Around Me." There's no deeper blues truth this side of "my baby left me." The amens came in from every corner of the hip-hop nation, from Houston's Scarface ("Money Makes the World Go Round"), from New York's Junior MAFIA featuring L'il Kim and Biggie Smalls ("Get Money"), from Cleveland's Bone Thugs n Harmony ("Foe The Love of $"), and from Tupac's Death Row labelmate Snoop Doggy Dog, who testified in "Tha Shiznit" and "Gin and Juice" that he had his "mind on my money and my money on my mind."

These authors not only draw a link between Gin and Juice and money, they link this song and the other songs as a pattern. The material that was removed reflected that link. Since it compresses two sources into a single sentence, it's hard to see how this runs afoul of WP:UNDUE. Besides, there is no evidence that their analysis is controversial, let alone in the minority.

That said, to avoid the appearance of supporting a POV, I'll reword the sentence to make it clearer that it's the viewpoint of the two authors. Please feel free to change the language further if you're still concerned about it. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • About the money argument (P. Diddy, et al), including that in the article is a stretch because "Gin and Juice" is only briefly mentioned in that source. If that source was mainly about "Gin and Juice" and then those other songs were mentioned, it would make sense to include it. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 17:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep some perspective; it's only briefly mentioned here, too. Two sources covered by a single sentence. If someone tried to expand it into a five-paragraph section, then yeah, that would be disproportionate in the current context.
Come to think of it, maybe I should have written multiple paragraphs. Then when you tried to delete the whole thing, I could offer a compromise: one sentence per source, for a total of two. And if you played hardball, insisting on zero sentences, we could settle on one sentence. We can't turn back the clock, but if it helps, we can agree to pretend that that's what happened. ;-) Melchoir (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. Incidentally, I agree with the song being iconic, but such a statement just doesn't fit Wikipedia standards, alas. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Shapiro, Fred R. (2006), The Yale Book of Quotations, Yale University Press, p. 717, ISBN 0-300-10798-6
  2. ^ Banfield, William C. (2004), Black Notes: Essays Of A Musician Writing In A Post-Album Age, Scarecrow Press, p. 138, ISBN 0-8108-5287-X
  3. ^ Werner, Craig Hansen (2006), A Change Is Gonna Come: Music, Race & the Soul of America, University of Michigan Press, p. 314, ISBN 0-472-03147-3
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gin and Juice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gin_and_Juice&oldid=1207266495"