Jay-Z is 1%, Not Hiphop

[dennis roadman]

Hip Hop, especially mainstream, is the closest entertainment equivalent to Rand's views. Made a thread about on the other site. It's usually a strict Libertarian, strictly capitalist mentality, except the investment phase is usually not implemented (aside from Jay-Z and a few others).

let's not view things in black and white. the fact that rappers have been putting on their friends and family members regardless of business or musical skill conflicts with your idea.

 

[No1]

Man, I hope you're arguing past me and not at me, because you missed the point of what I wrote. Which I clarified above. Hell, you missed the fact that I actually agree with a lot of this.

But I will say this: Good and Bad music is not the be all and end all of anything, and to think so is ridiculously reductionist. In making certain types of music, however you judge it qualitatively, those songs (and its the same for any type of artform) contain within them certain types of ideologies that accord to the form you give it and the language that you use, among other traits. To deny this in relation to Hip-Hop and to say that Hip-Hop can't be criticized beyond what people ignorant of the culture think of it is mere apologetics. To just shove it off by saying that people would rather dance than listen is a denial of critical responsibility (admittedly, one that goes quite beyond just Hip-Hop).

(Oh, and no one make this into a Nas/Jay-Z thing. Their music is more equal when analyzed in this context than you'd think.)

Look, as verbose as you may be, You essentially were making that argument. It's hilarious that the guy below used Michael Eric Dyson because you tend to write the way he speaks. No offense, but both of which, often come across as trying too hard. It's just not an effective means of communication. If this wasn't this board you would have lost anyone you were talking to. This is from someone who was in every spelling bee ever and loves the English language.

So trapped in your (IMO) unnecessarily colorful and expansive language was essentially that argument. You tried to backtrack by relying upon your usage of the "the seeds," but you missed what I was getting at. I was critiquing your entire thought process, your entire argument is wrong. Everything that you are suggesting is incorrect based on empirical evidence. You can bring up South Africa and what have you (which is why I said in a Western society) but bringing up minor case studies does not prove anything. My argument was at you, and around you. It was at that entire thought process. I wasn't referring to your latter messages because I responded to that message without ever reading them/before they were posted. But do not hide your hands. This is what you said:

You know what, I'll actually agree with this. But the fact that this is true speaks more to how Hip-Hop has changed from genuine subculutral expression that contains the seeds of resistance, if not a method of resistance itself, to a pacifying, capitalist spectacle of denigrating garbage perpetuated endlessly

If this is true, then honestly, those attempting to resist through subcultural forms need to either permanently change the context in which Hip-Hop in seen and formulated in, or abandon it entirely.

So what was I telling you? Hip-Hop did not change from a genuine concrete subcultural expression that had the seeds of resistance nor as a method of resistance itself. To even suggest such is to overstate the power that Hip Hop had. Hip Hop was merely reflecting a certain ethos felt by certain sectors of the community at that time, but it was never a concerted effort or a unified from. How can it devolve into pacifying garbage that is contrary to its initial form when its initial form was never in a position to spark an uprising or counter-cultural revolution in the first place? Are we to equate every medium that has some anti-establishment rhetoric or ethos as having the seeds of rebellion?

It has nothing to do with Jay-Z and Nas. It has to do with people who believe that in an increasingly modernized society with so many different channels and distractions and a culture with a 2 second attention span that Hip-Hop, let alone any genre of music can effectuate any type of cultural change. No one with any common sense or analytical ability is looking at Hip-Hop or any genre of music as the conduit through which to effectuate change in modern society. So that entire statement that you made was an unnecessary cry and a moot point. If you're abandoning Hip-Hop, then you're abandoning all genres of music. Change is not brought about through these mediums so I don't even understand what the point of the discussion is. It's melodramatic, pedantic and an increasingly factually incoherent plea that is is representative of a breed of nostalgia and revisionism that needs to fade into obscurity.

To your latter point about good and bad music, once again, I have no idea what you're talking about. No one denied Hip-Hop or any genre of music critical responsibility. But in your words "those songs (and its the same for any type of artform) contain within them certain types of ideologies that accord to the form you give it and the language that you use, among other traits." That's a maybe proposition. Sure every type of music has its characteristic traits but that does not mean that must limit the music into a certain framework in which you check off whether or not it meets certain prerequisites from an ideological standpoint. It's especially preposterous to do that with Hip-Hop which does not have a universal ideology. The ideology only serves as a means to define whether or not something is "classic" Hip-Hop or Punk, etc. But not the merits of the musician or the emcee. Besides, music evolves just like cultures do.

Good or bad music is a simple concept. If it's good, people will listen. If it's bad, people won't. Regardless of subject matter. The point about certain music being more easily accessible didn't warrant any discussion, it's really the least debatable thing I've ever said on this board or any other messageboard for that matter. It's why people introduce individuals to certain songs before others when introducing them to a new genre, etc. How you took that and decided to somehow say that I'm excusing people of critical responsibility brings me back to my very initial point. You're reading to much into things, you're overanalyzing things that don't need to be over thought.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Look, as verbose as you may be, You essentially were making that argument. It's hilarious that the guy below used Michael Eric Dyson because you tend to write the way he speaks. No offense, but both of which, often come across as trying too hard. It's just not an effective means of communication. If this wasn't this board you would have lost anyone you were talking to. This is from someone who was in every spelling bee ever and loves the English language.

So trapped in your (IMO) unnecessarily colorful and expansive language was essentially that argument. You tried to backtrack by relying upon your usage of the "the seeds," but you missed what I was getting at. I was critiquing your entire thought process, your entire argument is wrong. Everything that you are suggesting is incorrect based on empirical evidence. You can bring up South Africa and what have you (which is why I said in a Western society) but bringing up minor case studies does not prove anything. My argument was at you, and around you. It was at that entire thought process. I wasn't referring to your latter messages because I responded to that message without ever reading them/before they were posted. But do not hide your hands. This is what you said:



So what was I telling you? Hip-Hop did not change from a genuine concrete subcultural expression that had the seeds of resistance nor as a method of resistance itself. To even suggest such is to overstate the power that Hip Hop had. Hip Hop was merely reflecting a certain ethos felt by certain sectors of the community at that time, but it was never a concerted effort or a unified from. How can it devolve into pacifying garbage that is contrary to its initial form when its initial form was never in a position to spark an uprising or counter-cultural revolution in the first place? Are we to equate every medium that has some anti-establishment rhetoric or ethos as having the seeds of rebellion?

It has nothing to do with Jay-Z and Nas. It has to do with people who believe that in an increasingly modernized society with so many different channels and distractions and a culture with a 2 second attention span that Hip-Hop, let alone any genre of music can effectuate any type of cultural change. No one with any common sense or analytical ability is looking at Hip-Hop or any genre of music as the conduit through which to effectuate change in modern society. So that entire statement that you made was an unnecessary cry and a moot point. If you're abandoning Hip-Hop, then you're abandoning all genres of music. Change is not brought about through these mediums so I don't even understand what the point of the discussion is. It's melodramatic, pedantic and an increasingly factually incoherent plea that is is representative of a breed of nostalgia and revisionism that needs to fade into obscurity.

To your latter point about good and bad music, once again, I have no idea what you're talking about. No one denied Hip-Hop or any genre of music critical responsibility. But in your words "those songs (and its the same for any type of artform) contain within them certain types of ideologies that accord to the form you give it and the language that you use, among other traits." That's a maybe proposition. Sure every type of music has its characteristic traits but that does not mean that must limit the music into a certain framework in which you check off whether or not it meets certain prerequisites from an ideological standpoint. It's especially preposterous to do that with Hip-Hop which does not have a universal ideology. The ideology only serves as a means to define whether or not something is "classic" Hip-Hop or Punk, etc. But not the merits of the musician or the emcee. Besides, music evolves just like cultures do.

Good or bad music is a simple concept. If it's good, people will listen. If it's bad, people won't. Regardless of subject matter. The point about certain music being more easily accessible didn't warrant any discussion, it's really the least debatable thing I've ever said on this board or any other messageboard for that matter. It's why people introduce individuals to certain songs before others when introducing them to a new genre, etc. How you took that and decided to somehow say that I'm excusing people of critical responsibility brings me back to my very initial point. You're reading to much into things, you're overanalyzing things that don't need to be over thought.

I agree with most of this and your previous post in response to True Epic, but why you so mad though? Weren't you just criticizing people for approaching debate with their knives out? Relax...jeez.

 

[No1]

I agree with most of this and your previous post in response to True Epic, but why you so mad though? Relax...jeez.

I'm not mad, that's how I type in an argumentative format. Maybe it's a law student thing, given dikk-headed professors who state things in matter-of-fact terms Me annoyed is that JBO thread the other day, but you never venture there (for good reason). That's just how I saw things plainly when I lose the buffer of "not stepping on anyone's toes." Every once in awhile I just say what I feel with no buffer. I can't help it. True's one of my favorite posters on here, and he knows that. I didn't bring out knives, that Eric Dyson quote stuff is a joke (I just re-read my post to see what you could be referring to), please don't equate me with what's been going on with you and Mowgli, etc. You guys straight up hate each other, I'm jabbing at his typing style (which I've said before when he was writing articles before he ever posted here in HL regularly....it still stands, the smart/brilliant stuff he says gets lost in his diction at times).

 

[StatUS]

It seems only hip hop music brings up so much debate. Why does it seem like it's the only genre that people want to try and define and put in a specific box? People hate on what it's become but in the same breath disregard anything positive about its artist if it doesn't seem to fit into their little box.

 

[No1]

It seems only hip hop music brings up so much debate. Why does it seem like it's the only genre that people want to try and define and put in a specific box? People hate on what it's become but in the same breath disregard anything positive about its artist if it doesn't seem to fit into their little box.

Because Hip-Hop is tied in some capacity to the culture of Black Americans and discussions about it are parallel to other discussions about the roles of leadership and messaging in the black community.

What is considered "blackness" has always been defined by the "bottom" as opposed to other cultures where it is defined by "the top." Thus, the premiere mainstream projection of African-American culture is criticized because it often promotes negative images and passivity. It's just an extension of the debate about the direction of black community and its perception of its self and the projection of that self to society at-large. No other mainstream genre carries that historic and present baggage.

 

[MooseMouthMthafuga]

Because Hip-Hop is tied in some capacity to the culture of Black Americans and discussions about it are parallel to other discussions about the roles of leadership and messaging in the black community.

What is considered "blackness" has always been defined by the "bottom" as opposed to other cultures where it is defined by "the top." Thus, the premiere mainstream projection of African-American culture of a subculture is criticized because it often promotes negative images and passivity. It's just an extension of the debate about the direction of black community and its perception of its self and the projection of that self to society at-large. No other mainstream genre carries that historic and present baggage.

You, TrueEpic, and VictorVonDoom are on some heavy shyt in this thread, man


Even when y'all disagree, the rebuttals are pretty damn profound on this subject.


It's some intelligent brothers on this site, man.....I'm just soaking it all up

 

[StatUS]

Because Hip-Hop is tied in some capacity to the culture of Black Americans and discussions about it are parallel to other discussions about the roles of leadership and messaging in the black community.

What is considered "blackness" has always been defined by the "bottom" as opposed to other cultures where it is defined by "the top." Thus, the premiere mainstream projection of African-American culture of a subculture is criticized because it often promotes negative images and passivity. It's just an extension of the debate about the direction of black community and its perception of its self and the projection of that self to society at-large. No other mainstream genre carries that historic and present baggage.

I'm saying though, why should Jay-Z be considered "not hip hop" because he has some capitalist beliefs? Just the fact that he supported Obama even though his platform doesn't fully support him individually is just as good as saying something politically or worldly on wax. Hip hop is just a form of music that accentuates our style and rhythm in an easily accessible form.

Anyway, this piece just seems like another conspiracy against Obama. Like using Jay-Z in his campaigns is an attempt to brainwash people into subscribing to some naive view that everyone can make it because this rich ass rapper from Marcy did. And maybe that's true but that has nothing to do with hip hop music or what it should be.

 

[TrueEpic08]

So what was I telling you? Hip-Hop did not change from a genuine concrete subcultural expression that had the seeds of resistance nor as a method of resistance itself. To even suggest such is to overstate the power that Hip Hop had. Hip Hop was merely reflecting a certain ethos felt by certain sectors of the community at that time, but it was never a concerted effort or a unified from. How can it devolve into pacifying garbage that is contrary to its initial form when its initial form was never in a position to spark an uprising or counter-cultural revolution in the first place? Are we to equate every medium that has some anti-establishment rhetoric or ethos as having the seeds of rebellion?

To the bolded: I never said anything, ANYTHING about any type of concentrated effort inherent in the genre of Hip-Hop, everything I said was about a latent quality inherent in it, whether it would be used or not, as a result of what it is. What it is has changed (and it HAS changed as its status in society has changed. 30 years ago, no one could even fathom Hip-Hop being a or the dominant form of popular music, but here we are) and thus qualities in it has changed. Think about even the most ridiculously ignorant music in Hip-Hop that existed before a certain point and think about it now. A lot of the times, there's a fundamental shift in point of view that accords to Hip-Hop taking a central place in the pop music spectrum. Once it lost that point of view, one essentially from below and from an underclass, the ideological content changed, from an underclass making its way in an impossible situation to would could be described as hypercapitalism as Black consciousness (Big generalization just like the post you quoted. And I like how you deleted the part where I myself said that was a blatant generalization just so you could say I was making more of a totalizing argument than I was. Any more fine-grained argument for either of these would just be a paper, and neither you or I want that. Neither of us have the time).

It has nothing to do with Jay-Z and Nas. It has to do with people who believe that in an increasingly modernized society with so many different channels and distractions and a culture with a 2 second attention span that Hip-Hop, let alone any genre of music can effectuate any type of cultural change. No one with any common sense or analytical ability is looking at Hip-Hop or any genre of music as the conduit through which to effectuate change in modern society. So that entire statement that you made was an unnecessary cry and a moot point. If you're abandoning Hip-Hop, then you're abandoning all genres of music. Change is not brought about through these mediums so I don't even understand what the point of the discussion is. It's melodramatic, pedantic and an increasingly factually incoherent plea that is is representative of a breed of nostalgia and revisionism that needs to fade into obscurity.

Again, I said nothing in the way that you were saying. I mean, I literally said that art made in ideological contrast to dominant narratives without respective praxis is no type of resistance. I literally said that Hip-Hop was no type of actual resistance. Which implies by itself that art, by itself, can effectuate no type of change, but that more material resistance gives art that affect. You're not even really arguing with me, to be honest.

To your latter point about good and bad music, once again, I have no idea what you're talking about. No one denied Hip-Hop or any genre of music critical responsibility. But in your words "those songs (and its the same for any type of artform) contain within them certain types of ideologies that accord to the form you give it and the language that you use, among other traits." That's a maybe proposition. Sure every type of music has its characteristic traits but that does not mean that must limit the music into a certain framework in which you check off whether or not it meets certain prerequisites from an ideological standpoint. It's especially preposterous to do that with Hip-Hop which does not have a universal ideology. The ideology only serves as a means to define whether or not something is "classic" Hip-Hop or Punk, etc. But not the merits of the musician or the emcee. Besides, music evolves just like cultures do.

Good or bad music is a simple concept. If it's good, people will listen. If it's bad, people won't. Regardless of subject matter. The point about certain music being more easily accessible didn't warrant any discussion, it's really the least debatable thing I've ever said on this board or any other messageboard for that matter. It's why people introduce individuals to certain songs before others when introducing them to a new genre, etc. How you took that and decided to somehow say that I'm excusing people of critical responsibility brings me back to my very initial point. You're reading to much into things, you're overanalyzing things that don't need to be over thought.

You're misunderstanding me. I never said anything so totalizing and drastic. Ideology isn't just one thing, and the forms it can take are certainly not one thing, so there would never just be any one shot analytical process. When did I ever imply this? It's just a matter of finding out what it is and what it does within the cultural context it inhabits.

The bolded, thus, is also reductive, and if it has anything to do with a judgment of certain work's "classic" status, it has to do with whether a work accords to a certain definition of "good music" or not.

The last paragraph: "Good and bad music is not the be-all and end all of everything." Where did I deny any of what you wrote? The only thing to deny in what you wrote on that topic is the point that Hip-Hop exists in sealed off bubbles, and you didn't even say that. All I'm saying is that to limit analysis to good and bad is to deny critical responsibility, not that saying something is good and bad is doing so.

 

[daze23]

but why you so mad though?

could have something to do with the thread title saying Slave-Z isn't hip-hop

 

[TrueEpic08]

Don't compare me to any type of doctor of anything though. That requires some type of restraint on these types of things, which, as you can see, I don't have.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

could have something to do with the thread title saying Slave-Z isn't hip-hop

Yeah...don't mess with his camel.

 

[TrueEpic08]

Yeah...don't mess with his camel.

It can't be that serious. I'm just having some fun with this, really.

(I don't think you're actually mad, BN. A lot of my friends in Law School and my ex-girlfriend argue in the same manner, so I get it)

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I agree in general with the first bolded (if you separate the genres and analyze them separately, then yes, you could still find some subcultural forms. But in general? No) and completely with the second. I never said it was a method of resistance, I said it had the seeds of resistance, in that it took the lived hybrid history of (initially American) Blacks (as descended Africans, as Americans, as urban underclass, as code for religious evil ("Curse of Ham" and the like), and so on) and congealed it into a method of expression that flew in the face of dominant narratives. As actual resistance, it was about equal to the Harlem Renaissance, and not really close to, say, Negritude or the music of South Africans during apartheid (Utterly unfair comparisons, but I'm making a point. Both of those had a type of revolutionary praxis behind them, which is necessary for material or even ideological resistance. Hip-Hop didn't have that, which is why I wrote seeds).

This is why I wrote that last sentence. Because Hip-Hop both never had that practice, and has long since been subverted, those looking to it for its resistance potential either need to find a way to radically change the context in which its perceived, or give up and focus on other things. People who say Jay-Z isn't Hip-Hop miss this point entirely, and its a point that a child could understand if they spent 5 minutes in any Hip-Hop themed forum.

You still lose me with the last paragraph. Hip-hop can be used as a medium for resistance by those inclined to use it in that manner, but it's never going to be an artform or practice that is predicated upon any political movement as a whole. It's already global, diffused, amorphous, many different things to many different people, and a multi-million dollar industry. I'm not sure what specifically you mean by " those looking to it for its resistance potential either need to find a way to radically change the context in which its perceived."

As far as giving it up entirely, what would they do that for? Hip-hop is never going to be a leftist political movement of any sort. It could be used as a tool for social and political change by some. But trying to force it into something it never was or never will be is a one-way ticket to irrelevance. I think it's a good thing when "conscious" rappers (I despise that term, but you know what I mean) work with mainstream junk food music rappers. It gives them exposure and breaks down barriers of perception. Kendrick Lamar on a MMG album is a good thing. One thing I loved about the golden age is that there wasn't these pigeonholed categories rappers were placed in. LL and KRS were both dope. It didn't matter that one was a political self-styled teacher and the other was a cocky braggadocious ladies man.

 

[TrueEpic08]

You still lose me with the last paragraph. Hip-hop can be used as a medium for resistance by those inclined to use it in that manner, but it's never going to be an artform or practice that is predicated upon any political movement as a whole. It's already global, diffused, amorphous, many different things to many different people, and a multi-million dollar industry. I'm not sure what specifically you mean by " those looking to it for its resistance potential either need to find a way to radically change the context in which its perceived."

As far as giving it up entirely, what would they do that for? Hip-hop is never going to be a leftist political movement of any sort. It could be used as a tool for social and political change by some. But trying to force it into something it never was or never will be is a one-way ticket to irrelevance. I think it's a good thing when "conscious" rappers (I despise that term, but you know what I mean) work with mainstream junk food music rappers. It gives them exposure and breaks down barriers of perception. Kendrick Lamar on a MMG album is a good thing. One thing I loved about the golden age is that there wasn't these pigeonholed categories rappers were placed in. LL and KRS were both dope. It didn't matter that one was a political self-styled teacher and the other was a cocky braggadocious ladies man.

I meant give it up as a means through which political change and resistance can take any type of form. The first part of that you pretty much got, except you could think it more radically. When I say change the context in which its perceived, I'm not saying that by doing that all other forms of the practice would disappear. What I am saying is that you have to regard it within a radical context to get the most out of its ideological potential for resistance. When you put it into a hypercapitalist one, you get the Hip-Hop of today (or at least the early 2000s. Genres may have precessed too much to use today as an example, even though they try really, really hard to replicate the themes of early 2000s rap at times). If doesn't mean that Hip-Hop of another context would disappear, but you'd like to change the way its regarded to some extent.

No one uses the term "conscious rapper" anymore. At least they shouldn't, especially in contrast to the hypercapitalist, ultra-pop form of the culture. It's a marketing term for a commodity when you get down to it.

The last two sentences: Is it, though? Maybe sometimes it is, as it shows you different elements of the rappers that weren't there. But other times it tends to either blunt one or blunt both, and in the context that we're talking (and in general too), that's no good.