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).
I deleted the part where you said that was a gross generalization, shyt I don't even remember why I did it now to be completely honest. But at the time I remember having a reason because that was deliberate. But looking back, even if I included that portion of it, it wouldn't make much of a difference. I didn't really take you to task for making that generalization anyhow. At least I don't recall doing so while making my point. But you're right, neither one of us have the time to write papers. But, I will say this, for something to have the "seeds of revolution" in my eyes, it has to be more than just scattered statements or general anti-establishment attitudes. At some point it has to have the ability to put that into action or potential for it, like we both agree about. My point was simple, if we consider the seeds of revolution to have been in anyway ensconced within the antecedents of Hip-Hop then we would softening what "seeds of revolution" mean. Now, to push back against myself a bit, you're it does not have to be a "coherent" mass, the Arab Spring shows us that revolution often arises from the coalescing of the unexpected visceral reactions of myriad individuals into a mass of opposition in response to a triggering event representative of a an evil that is collectively opposed by a significant sector of a society.
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.
Well if I misunderstood you, then you're largely correct. But when I think you're softening your stance. Because you were largely making the point that one has the right to mourn for the loss of an artform that once represented a subculture that was a powerful opposition to the dominant capitalist institution. My point, perhaps not worded as eloquently as I could have, is that art is not given that affect by material resistance or any resistance at all. All art has ever been in any capacity is the theme song to the zeitgeist a reflection of the reverberations. Thus, mourning the change in the art form is pointless. We should be mourning the change in society. I think the anger is misplaced. We can go into all the other causal factors another time. the radio is not without blame.
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.
You're misunderstanding me. When I say "classic Hip Hop," I meant that in the sense of traditional, the antecedents, etc. Like when you turn on a "classic Rock" station. I don't mean "classic" as in this song is a classic or a classic album. Thus, a genre's "ideology" or from whence it arose represents its "classic" form or original form. In that way it is an identifier. The point was, that the anti-establishment vein of Hip-Hop can be regarded as "classic Hip Hop," the origins, the rebellious nature, etc. BUT that ideology's prevalence was short-lived and not reflective of a long-term trajectory and present existence of the genre. Thus, the complaints about departure's from that position are overstating what that period meant. This is where I said "I'm talking at you and AROUND you...and at the entire train of thought." That was more a general critique than just at you. That's what I said in the beginning.
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.
Again I fail to understand your argument. The crux of the article is that Jay-Z is not Hip-Hop because he is no longer the underdog and does not represent it. He is "the beast." I find that foolish, as do many others. But you responded to that stance with a somewhat sympathetic argument and said that's it's even fair to want a return to that or to want that prong to exist. My stance about good or bad music is simple. Either music is good or it isn't based on the merits of the music itself and what it sought to achieve and how effectively it accomplished those goals. Deciding that something isn't Hip-Hop or not good Hip-Hop based on one's notion of what should be Hip-Hop is a very poor heuristic through which one should evaluate the merits an artist and their efforts.
I don't see how that is an anyway denying "critical responsibility."
BTW, thanks for not biting on that "why are you so mad bait." I only pop shyt at people I know can take it.
He has every right to desire that love.
He's supposed to be number 1 on everybody's list, we'll see what happens when he no longer exists.
Nobody said any of this. All I said was dude can do what he wants, but IMO its wack that he is jumping on the side of gentrification that hurts people like who he was 20 years ago
