Top 5 Eminem Rhyme Schemes In My Opinion

[Innovation]

I'm loving all of the TES songs in there.

That Square Dance verse is fucking fantastic. It's yet another example as to why I think Eminem was at his lyrical peak during TES.

Is this topic based around what verses you believe have the most complex rhyme schemes?

[dR3]

Windows tinted on my ride when I drive in it
So when I rob a bank, run out and just dive in it
So I'll be disguised in it
And if anybody identifies the guy in it
I'll hide for five minutes
Come back, shoot the eyewitness
Fire at the private eye hired to pry in my business
Die, bitches, bastards, brats, pets
This puppy's lucky I didn't blast his ass yet

[Devil'sAdvocate]

mine are all from SSLP bar LY and Music Box.

[Innovation]

Shrink pencil me in for my last visit
Drink gin til my chin's full of splashed whiskers (whoosh)

I never really noticed that multi. Wow, that's crazy.

[EminemBase]

I don't care if you didn't mention any of the verses I posted. Don't know why you're apologizing.

My original point in my first post: Eminem has tried thousands of rhyme schemes in his lyrics. It's weird to say how one rhyme scheme is better than another one. For example, the gym class/swim laps/Slim Fast rhyme scheme... how is it better than the pervert/sherbert/nerves hurt scheme?

You have to pick arbitrary things to compare them like how long he keeps the scheme going. And often if he keeps a scheme going for a long time, some rhymes might be forced...so that isn't a reliable measure.

It will suffice to say some of his rhyme schemes are brilliant and some of his over-used ones (like Shady/baby/lady/crazy/Jay-Z, shoulder/over/boulder/soldier, psycho/Michael) aren't.

I wouldn't say it's absurd or weird to rate a rhyme scheme. It's certainly a lot more gooey and ambiguous than trying to rate some other aspects but not totally implausible.

For example, you could use the amount of words he rhymes per line within the scheme to qualify a rating to some extent. Like, if he rhymes three words consistently to keep the scheme going instead of two, you could say it's 'better' or more difficult / impressive at least.

Or, like with your example with the "Bad Meets Evil" hook, another qualifier could be the fact that in that... he emphasizes an 'e' sound constantly through choice of words, making it sound more appeasing, and ultimately more satisfying. Therefore making it better again.

Like you say these things are somewhat arbitrary but... I suppose you could say many factors for 'rating' any aspect of art are pretty arbitrary as there's often so many perspectives, undertones, implications, subtle nuances etc. etc. which make an easily objective surface definition or rating possible. I don't mind this thread / idea, as I do love when he keeps a certain scheme going throughout a verse, it sounds so awesome.

His 'Fuck the Law' freestyle verse is a great example, and one of my favourites. Oh, and you could also say, the length of time he keeps a scheme going or whether it's for only a proportion of the verse, or the entire length. There's numerable ways you could qualify a rating or preference to a scheme, and I think many have merit / could make sense.

[Mr Change]

Yes, but even that's arbitrary.

For example: he rhymes 14 syllables per line on Stay Wide Awake, but his rhyme schemes on Brain Damage (which are usually 3 to 5 syllables) were more impressive. The loose concept of killing people gives him a lot of leeway to rhyme entire lines. But vividly narrating a true story from his childhood while crafting the rhymes he did on Brain Damage is more difficult, from experience.

I'd much rather a rhyme scheme of smooth, purposeful, short multis than long, aimless strings of multis that don't say much.

Totally agreed

You see, people don't realize that even though his Relapse-era work was more technically impressive, it wasn't impressive as his old songs were he flawlessly and smoothly told a story.

If you give Eminem an accent and a concept about killing someone or something theres just no way to expect him not to spaz out and drag on complex rhymes because he simply has no limit to what he can rhyme with. Compare that to a smoother, progressing story that rhymes and well, I believe the latter is more impressive.

[DƎRDYPK]

god bless you for not highlighting dem muLLeTiZ & hidden rhymezZz

[EminemBase]

For example, you could use the amount of words he rhymes per line within the scheme to qualify a rating to some extent. Like, if he rhymes three words consistently to keep the scheme going instead of two, you could say it's 'better' or more difficult / impressive at least.

Yes, but even that's arbitrary.

For example: he rhymes 14 syllables per line on Stay Wide Awake, but his rhyme schemes on Brain Damage (which are usually 3 to 5 syllables) were more impressive. The loose concept of killing people gives him a lot of leeway to rhyme entire lines. But vividly narrating a true story from his childhood while crafting the rhymes he did on Brain Damage is more difficult, from experience.

I'd much rather a rhyme scheme of smooth, purposeful, short multis than long, aimless strings of multis that don't say much.

Did you not see me say these factors are arbitrary? like I said, so are a lot concepts of rating or grading art or creativity.

You saying it's more difficult is not objectively true. You could generally assume that, as a linguist or language enthusiast you could say that choosing words in the context of something automatically vivid (brutal murder) to rhyme is easier than something that you could say is automatically more normal and generally dull - childhood.

But that's not objectively true and one person may find it extremely hard to write anything at all about murder or write in that context, some people find things most people find extremely hard, extremely easy. And some find things most find extremely easy, very hard.

So that's not a definitive truth and saying that 'it's easier to rhyme long words about murder than it is about childhood' is arbitrary too. But that doesn't mean you can't rate things within a certain rule barrier.

So you could say, "okay, if we accept that we're rating which is 'better' based purely on how many words he rhymes per line, THIS verse is better". Then you could add, "though, I personally think the other is still more impressive due to..." and so on. But most rating and grading of art works like this and rarely can you make stone cold statements that aren't rooted in preference or which can't be extended or argued in another direction to.

[EminemBase]

But that's not objectively true and one person may find it extremely hard to write anything at all about murder or write in that context, some people find things most people find extremely hard, extremely easy. And some find things most find extremely easy, very hard.

So that's not a definitive truth and saying that 'it's easier to rhyme long words about murder than it is about childhood' is arbitrary too. But that doesn't mean you can't rate things within a certain rule barrier.

But I wasn't specifically talking about murder. I was talking about loose frameworks in general. It's much harder to stay within a narrow conceptual framework (writing about one thing) than it is to stay within a loose conceptual framework (writing about random stuff). That is objective fact.

No that's not objective fact.

Some people's brains are systematic and some people think sporadically. For somebody with ADHD it may be ten times harder than it is for the average person to stay within a solid, single framework or story. For somebody with Autism, it may be near impossible for them to do anything but stay within one line of thinking, or along one storyline or idea.

It's nowhere close to an objective fact that it's easier to write on one thing than it is to write sporadically, or about everything / anything. Depends on the person.

So you could say, "okay, if we accept that we're rating which is 'better' based purely on how many words he rhymes per line, THIS verse is better". Then you could add, "though, I personally think the other is still more impressive due to..." and so on.

But we weren't talking about better verses. We were talking about better rhyme schemes, which is completely weird, since verses are composed of rhyme schemes.

I meant to say rhyme scheme though. It was a typo not a different point. So my original point stands. You could just as easily and arbitrarily rate a rhyme scheme as you could a verse, or song and there's no reason why it's anymore weird.