That said, if hip-hop was ever a legitimate subculture or culture, it's almost entirely besides the point. Hip-Hop music, the cradle and inspiration for this culture, has been poisoned by materialism, thereby undermining any culture legitimacy that it may or may not have had.
Yeah but what you're saying here hardly is unique or specific to hip-hop.
Consider: the very global appeal of hip-hop is inherently based on materialism insofar as no one outside of New York would have heard about hip-hop if not for the fact that it went from a cultural form performed in clubs to RECORDED by the music industry. Especially given how completely manufactured a song like "Rappers Delight" was, you'd have to say that hip-hop, since its expansion outside of the South Bronx, was in bed with corporate interests since day one.
After all, where does the term "POPULAR" in "popular culture" comes from? THe idea of popular culture requires some level of complicity with industrial forces capable of mass producing and distributing cultural forms to begin with.
Basically: I'm not buying your argument here since it practically argues that the only "legitimate" culture is something that's pre-modern.
I agree with you Odub, and I think you know that. Forgive me for saying so, but you're being glib and missing the point because I'm not disagreeing with you at all when you say that corporate interests have been in bed with hip-hop since day one. I'm simply addressing Ross' original question: is hop-hop a culture? I say yes with the caveat that the original unifying values that had little corporate influence and gave it its cutlural legitimacy, have been stolen [read: pimped] by corporate america.
I'm also not offended by hip-hop becoming a popular form of music. I am not the cloistered kind of guy that wants everything to remain underground. I appreciate success. Musical culture, like anything else, is meant to be shared, appreciated, and participated in. Okay, so now we have modern hip-hop that has undergone an evolution...is this legitimate hip-hop culture? Not so much. Let me explain.
I'm saying that most kids who identify themselves with modern hip-hop culture aren't identifying themselves with hip-hop culture--they're identifying themselves with "corp-hop". This gets at your characterization of my argument that the only legitimate cultures are those that are beyond the scope of popular influence and are defined as "pre-modern". That was a bit of of an exaggeration, don't ya think? So let me clarify. My message about the cutlural evolution of hip-hop is this: some assemblance of the original set values of a culture should be visible when looking at a modern form of culture that had undergone said evolution. I just don't see it so much. Like I said, the modern, dominant, and most visible form of hip-hop is "corp-hop" and has undergone so much sculpting by men in suits that it is not recognizable to me as what I consider to be hip-hop.
I thought implicit in Deej's quesiton re: "gangsta" was the idea that the latter is a pose rather than a self-identification. I guess it can be both but in contrast, I think people who see hip-hop as a culture are able to cross-identify with one another, despite differences in class, race, geography, etc. in a way that, say, 13 year old myspace thugs from New Jersey wouldn't be able to do with some MS-13 member living in South L.A.
Hold up, Oliver: this guy's almost done typing his reply:
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
I thought implicit in Deej's quesiton re: "gangsta" was the idea that the latter is a pose rather than a self-identification. I guess it can be both but in contrast, I think people who see hip-hop as a culture are able to cross-identify with one another, despite differences in class, race, geography, etc. in a way that, say, 13 year old myspace thugs from New Jersey wouldn't be able to do with some MS-13 member living in South L.A.
Yeah, I'm not really considering fake gangstas, just the real deal...and there are plenty enough to go around.
Also, I'm not sure what part of going to jail for selling drugs constitutes a "pose".
At any rate, the g-code isn't just the name of a Geto Boys album.
All respect due but you're repeating the same point.
You're trying to argue that there's some kind of clear line between "legitimate" vs. "illegitimate" hip-hop culture and your main rationalization is that "legitimate" should be defined as "visible, original set values".
If that's the critiera, how would you differentiate between "hip hop and corp hop"?
To me, the visible, original set values of hip-hop are as follows: Have fun. Get money.
Seems to me, that hasn't changed at all. What's changed is the scale but not the basic value system.
This point's been made many times before on this site, but when people feel nostalgic for what they see as hip-hop's origins, what they're really bemoaning is that specific cultural moment has passed but I'm not at all convinced that hip-hop's cultural system of values is that much fundamentally different. Would Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five have turned down a Sprite ad back in the day if the paper was right? Would Kool Herc have been down to spin a Scion-sponsored park jam?
Hip hop is only a culture so Sprite can make $$$$
That said, if hip-hop was ever a legitimate subculture or culture, it's almost entirely besides the point. Hip-Hop music, the cradle and inspiration for this culture, has been poisoned by materialism, thereby undermining any culture legitimacy that it may or may not have had.
Yeah but what you're saying here hardly is unique or specific to hip-hop.
Consider: the very global appeal of hip-hop is inherently based on materialism insofar as no one outside of New York would have heard about hip-hop if not for the fact that it went from a cultural form performed in clubs to RECORDED by the music industry. Especially given how completely manufactured a song like "Rappers Delight" was, you'd have to say that hip-hop, since its expansion outside of the South Bronx, was in bed with corporate interests since day one.
After all, where does the term "POPULAR" in "popular culture" comes from? THe idea of popular culture requires some level of complicity with industrial forces capable of mass producing and distributing cultural forms to begin with.
Basically: I'm not buying your argument here since it practically argues that the only "legitimate" culture is something that's pre-modern.
I agree with you Odub, and I think you know that. Forgive me for saying so, but you're being glib and missing the point because I'm not disagreeing with you at all when you say that corporate interests have been in bed with hip-hop since day one. I'm simply addressing Ross' original question: is hop-hop a culture? I say yes with the caveat that the original unifying values that had little corporate influence and gave it its cutlural legitimacy, have been stolen [read: pimped] by corporate america.
I'm also not offended by hip-hop becoming a popular form of music. I am not the cloistered kind of guy that wants everything to remain underground. I appreciate success. Musical culture, like anything else, is meant to be shared, appreciated, and participated in. Okay, so now we have modern hip-hop that has undergone an evolution...is this legitimate hip-hop culture? Not so much. Let me explain.
I'm saying that most kids who identify themselves with modern hip-hop culture aren't identifying themselves with hip-hop culture--they're identifying themselves with "corp-hop". This gets at your characterization of my argument that the only legitimate cultures are those that are beyond the scope of popular influence and are defined as "pre-modern". That was a bit of of an exaggeration, don't ya think? So let me clarify. My message about the cutlural evolution of hip-hop is this: some assemblance of the original set values of a culture should be visible when looking at a modern form of culture that had undergone said evolution. I just don't see it so much. Like I said, the modern, dominant, and most visible form of hip-hop is "corp-hop" and has undergone so much sculpting by men in suits that it is not recognizable to me as what I consider to be hip-hop.
HAZ is right. It's a facet of culture (for people at a certain age. mostly teenagers - 40 year-olds.)
There are many other things like Hip Hop. Punk, Goth, Rock'n'Roll, Rockabilly, etc. Hip Hop is just more popular.
This raises the question: has any musical genre legitimately given rise to its own culture?
Punk and goth have both earned the title of "subcultures" by many participants and analysts...if that's the case, why wouldn't hip-hop also achieve the same status?
I've always though of the term "subculture" as a pejorative term, one that people use to describe elements of popular culture that they find socially abhorant.
I tried to stay away from responding to this thread. Especially since so many good points have already been made. The way I see it, a "culture" can never be created or defined by a genre of music. The more powerful and influential genres have indeed sparked what I would define as sub-cultures.
Having said that, this phenomena can be broken down further in terms of credibility.
Hip Hop is a product. It is meticulously packaged and marketed. Lyrically and visually, it deals almost exclusively in labels, cars, jewels, homes, TV's, etc.... In a much different way than their predecessors, who rapped about what it would be like to live that way. In a jovial, daydream, good times, party-jam type of way. IMO, it's humble roots hold much more integrity, credibility and cultural nuance than what it's unfortunately morphed into.
On the other end of the spectrum...
Jazz however, has had a much more organic growth process. It's luminary grounbreaking artists are still held in the highest regard by artists and fans alike. This differs greatly from hip hop in the sense that a large number of hip hop fans either don't know the history of the music enough to acknowledge the contributions of the old school or worse, disregard these roots as wack garbage. This is a huge rent in the fabric of the argument that Hip Hop is a culture. Furthermore, the basic idea and theory of the music (Jazz) has managed to change very little over the years. Jazz has also managed to evade the trappings of mass commercialization. Thus making it easier for it to maintain its integrity.
Rock & Roll, while becoming massively commercialized almost from its very inception has managed to remain as possibly the most vital and influential of all music genres. This could be attributed to its inherent rebel spirit. Whereas, the many deviations from the original template have spawned an endless array of sub-genres (and in some instances, sub-cultures). That's not to say that Rock has been able to evade the spectre of dilution through commercialization. Just look at the ugly emergence of "mall punk" and "emo". Devoid of rebellion, music made by and for complacent, spoiled suburban youth. This anomaly will hopefully run its course and fade away soon... but I digress... I could write about this at length, but I shant bore you any longer with my acumen.
I've always though of the term "subculture" as a pejorative term, one that people use to describe elements of popular culture that they find socially abhorant.
Really? I've never heard the term used pejoratively - in the media, it's always used in the sociological/anthorpological meaning of the term which has no value put on it, positive or negative.
I was asking about 'gangsta culture' which does not differentiate between REAL and FAKE! I find it fascinating that archaic still lives in a world untouched by semiology.
Furthermore, the basic idea and theory of the music (Jazz) has managed to change very little over the years. Jazz has also managed to evade the trappings of mass commercialization. Thus making it easier for it to maintain its integrity.
I was asking about 'gangsta culture' which does not differentiate between REAL and FAKE! I find it fascinating that archaic still lives in a world untouched by semiology.
Archaic may be uber-connected in all other spheres real but I think he's ok being from semiology.
Furthermore, the basic idea and theory of the music (Jazz) has managed to change very little over the years. Jazz has also managed to evade the trappings of mass commercialization. Thus making it easier for it to maintain its integrity.
This is absurd.
Why do you think this is absurd?
Jazz has a lot of sub-genres but the classic form of jazz is still practiced and IMO has deviated very little froomthe original concept(s).
I think this is whole post is best just left alone.
10 pager indeed.
I tried to stay away from responding to this thread. Especially since so many good points have already been made. The way I see it, a "culture" can never be created or defined by a genre of music. The more powerful and influential genres have indeed sparked what I would define as sub-cultures.
Having said that, this phenomena can be broken down further in terms of credibility.
Hip Hop is a product. It is meticulously packaged and marketed. Lyrically and visually, it deals almost exclusively in labels, cars, jewels, homes, TV's, etc.... In a much different way than their predecessors, who rapped about what it would be like to live that way. In a jovial, daydream, good times, party-jam type of way. IMO, it's humble roots hold much more integrity, credibility and cultural nuance than what it's unfortunately morphed into.
On the other end of the spectrum...
Jazz however, has had a much more organic growth process. It's luminary grounbreaking artists are still held in the highest regard by artists and fans alike. This differs greatly from hip hop in the sense that a large number of hip hop fans either don't know the history of the music enough to acknowledge the contributions of the old school or worse, disregard these roots as wack garbage. This is a huge rent in the fabric of the argument that Hip Hop is a culture. Furthermore, the basic idea and theory of the music (Jazz) has managed to change very little over the years. Jazz has also managed to evade the trappings of mass commercialization. Thus making it easier for it to maintain its integrity.
Rock & Roll, while becoming massively commercialized almost from its very inception has managed to remain as possibly the most vital and influential of all music genres. This could be attributed to its inherent rebel spirit. Whereas, the many deviations from the original template have spawned an endless array of sub-genres (and in some instances, sub-cultures). That's not to say that Rock has been able to evade the spectre of dilution through commercialization. Just look at the ugly emergence of "mall punk" and "emo". Devoid of rebellion, music made by and for complacent, spoiled suburban youth. This anomaly will hopefully run its course and fade away soon... but I digress... I could write about this at length, but I shant bore you any longer with my acumen.
Furthermore, the basic idea and theory of the music (Jazz) has managed to change very little over the years. Jazz has also managed to evade the trappings of mass commercialization. Thus making it easier for it to maintain its integrity.
This is absurd.
Why do you think this is absurd?
Jazz has a lot of sub-genres but the classic form of jazz is still practiced and IMO has deviated very little froomthe original concept(s).
In what way do you disagree?
Jazz changed a lot throughout its history. Yes some folks still do N.O. revival music but there are plenty of jurassic 5's and ugly ducklings to go around too.
Jazz has always been commercial to some degree or another, it basically WAS the hip-hop of the 30s&40s, and if you don't think that from that period through today's Ken Burns-marketed product (where you're being sold that DUKE ELLINGTON IS GENIUS and WYNTON MARSALIS IS FUTURE) that capitalism isn't involved then you are fooling yrself. Its just different audiences - where the highbrown NPR+Public TV audience likes its advertising a little less crass and a little more cheesecake+tea-eating friendly.
All of the funky rare groove "jazz" records that the denizens of this site hold so dear are total and complete sell outs. Shit, even Electric Mud and shit.
All of the funky rare groove "jazz" records that the denizens of this site hold so dear are total and complete sell outs. Shit, even Electric Mud and shit.
Face it. You like SELL OUT MUSIC.
Ssssh...don't pull the curtain back. Headz ain't ready.
All of the funky rare groove "jazz" records that the denizens of this site hold so dear are total and complete sell outs. Shit, even Electric Mud and shit.
Face it. You like SELL OUT MUSIC.
Ssssh...don't pull the curtain back. Headz ain't ready.
Through that example you can see that sell-outs can make some damn good - or at least fun - music. I don't know why folks don't apply the same standard to rap though, I think it's because of things already mentioned in this thread: issues with legitimacy and romanticized notions of the past.
Furthermore, the basic idea and theory of the music (Jazz) has managed to change very little over the years. Jazz has also managed to evade the trappings of mass commercialization. Thus making it easier for it to maintain its integrity.
This is absurd.
Why do you think this is absurd?
Jazz has a lot of sub-genres but the classic form of jazz is still practiced and IMO has deviated very little froomthe original concept(s).
In what way do you disagree?
Jazz changed a lot throughout its history. Yes some folks still do N.O. revival music but there are plenty of jurassic 5's and ugly ducklings to go around too.
Jazz has always been commercial to some degree or another, it basically WAS the hip-hop of the 30s&40s, and if you don't think that from that period through today's Ken Burns-marketed product (where you're being sold that DUKE ELLINGTON IS GENIUS and WYNTON MARSALIS IS FUTURE) that capitalism isn't involved then you are fooling yrself. Its just different audiences - where the highbrown NPR+Public TV audience likes its advertising a little less crass and a little more cheesecake+tea-eating friendly.
Agreed.... I was speaking in terms of comparing the commercialization of Jazz versus Hip Hop.
Advertising and marketing were also much less sophisticated and much less invasive than it is today.
I don't buy into the whole Ken Burns thing either. Nor do I align myself with that audience.
OG graffiti writers listened to Bar-Kays and Black Sabbath more than listening to any hip-hop.
UBB CODE IS HATING ON MY HAND OF DOOM
T.C. Step into a World. Step in the Arena. Step up if you wanna get hurt. Step up to get your rep up. But, no matter how you step, there Ain't no Half-Steppin. Step in the Name of Hate in 2005.
Re: new element of hip hop: being frisked at the door.
To me, the visible, original set values of hip-hop are as follows: Have fun. Get money.
Gnat said:
because although hip-hop, to me, was about "making it big" and "coming from nowhere" and partying all at the same time,
We agree. Right?
Dub said:
You're trying to argue that there's some kind of clear line between "legitimate" vs. "illegitimate" hip-hop culture and your main rationalization is that "legitimate" should be defined as "visible, original set values".
I say: Dood. There is a distinction. I think that you've had too many of the same arguments on ths board to appreciate the subtlety of what I was saying. Let break it down real simple: Dominant Corp-Hop is seriously more focused on money and less on fun. That is painfully obvious. Can't you feel that? This occurance has taken place because the people who originally made the music and who embraced the fun and the money have been usurped by money grubbing capitalists that are soooo far removed from its origins its not even funny. Hence, a new corporate dynamic that compromises the original set of values and the advent of "corp-hop".
I'm repeating myself because you aren't picking up what I'm putting down.
You said:
This point's been made many times before on this site, but when people feel nostalgic for what they see as hip-hop's origins, what they're really bemoaning is that specific cultural moment has passed but I'm not at all convinced that hip-hop's cultural system of values is that much fundamentally different. Would Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five have turned down a Sprite ad back in the day if the paper was right? Would Kool Herc have been down to spin a Scion-sponsored park jam?
Of course they would and I would encourage them to do so. I'm nostalgic but I'm not a moron. I just wouldn't try to scupt their shit such that it sounded like everyone else's shit that embraces a culture of materialism.
As a totally unrelated aside, Odub, what are you doing right now? I always picture people at their computers and multi-tasking between various things that fits my idea of their internet/real persona. I imagine you to be having office hours with a painfully bad writer and typing on SS at the same time.
I'm making eggs and in my pajamas. Yes its 12:36pm. I'm re-embracing a flexible student schedule and I love it.
this is a real good post. See to me a culture is defined by having some set characterisics. There is a dress, there is a sound (music), there is art, there is dance, there is behavior, there is history. Too many of you are just focusing on the music. I think this goes beyond what jazz laid down. There wasnt people that decided to start doing art or dance and elevate that to the next level thru the jazz movement. Hip hop went beyond the music and resonated deep with people and now kids are being born into that way of life. So there is like a lineage. I dont like to put labels on people or myself and wouldnt declare that "i am hip hop", but in reality i am. It is what you make of it. I think outside of the race aspect and just think of myself as a young creative person that is trying to make the best out of what i have and try to elevate myself thru music and expression. And share common bonds with people that are into that way of life. That to me is "hip hop". And i feel that there are others that feel the same way as i do, on a international scale, so that would be a culture in my eyes. Im not reading out of the keeping it real guidebook, but that is how i get down. The music, the art, the emotion is what inspires me, so blaaaaaooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwww.......
oh and that commericalized bullshit is just explotation and if you fall for that then you are a clown. So too all you myspace thugs from the burbs, you are just toys, and arent down with a culture, you are just playing yourselves like assholes and will look back 10 years later and be like, damn i had red hair and a doo rag, what the fuck was i thinking? These people are toys and dont register high with me, so i wouldnt consider them a part of any culutre, just sheep following the flock. Just misguided and 9 times outta ten, ignorant motherfuckers that dont know no better. So if they are considered within the culture, them motherfuckers are the black sheep.
Comments
I agree with you Odub, and I think you know that. Forgive me for saying so, but you're being glib and missing the point because I'm not disagreeing with you at all when you say that corporate interests have been in bed with hip-hop since day one. I'm simply addressing Ross' original question: is hop-hop a culture? I say yes with the caveat that the original unifying values that had little corporate influence and gave it its cutlural legitimacy, have been stolen [read: pimped] by corporate america.
I'm also not offended by hip-hop becoming a popular form of music. I am not the cloistered kind of guy that wants everything to remain underground. I appreciate success. Musical culture, like anything else, is meant to be shared, appreciated, and participated in. Okay, so now we have modern hip-hop that has undergone an evolution...is this legitimate hip-hop culture? Not so much. Let me explain.
I'm saying that most kids who identify themselves with modern hip-hop culture aren't identifying themselves with hip-hop culture--they're identifying themselves with "corp-hop". This gets at your characterization of my argument that the only legitimate cultures are those that are beyond the scope of popular influence and are defined as "pre-modern". That was a bit of of an exaggeration, don't ya think? So let me clarify. My message about the cutlural evolution of hip-hop is this: some assemblance of the original set values of a culture should be visible when looking at a modern form of culture that had undergone said evolution. I just don't see it so much. Like I said, the modern, dominant, and most visible form of hip-hop is "corp-hop" and has undergone so much sculpting by men in suits that it is not recognizable to me as what I consider to be hip-hop.
yeeee.
Hold up, Oliver: this guy's almost done typing his reply:
Yeah, I'm not really considering fake gangstas, just the real deal...and there are plenty enough to go around.
Also, I'm not sure what part of going to jail for selling drugs constitutes a "pose".
At any rate, the g-code isn't just the name of a Geto Boys album.
You hear that Oliver?
Archaic is not concerned with the fake gangstas.
Peep the landscape.
All respect due but you're repeating the same point.
You're trying to argue that there's some kind of clear line between "legitimate" vs. "illegitimate" hip-hop culture and your main rationalization is that "legitimate" should be defined as "visible, original set values".
If that's the critiera, how would you differentiate between "hip hop and corp hop"?
To me, the visible, original set values of hip-hop are as follows:
Have fun.
Get money.
Seems to me, that hasn't changed at all. What's changed is the scale but not the basic value system.
This point's been made many times before on this site, but when people feel nostalgic for what they see as hip-hop's origins, what they're really bemoaning is that specific cultural moment has passed but I'm not at all convinced that hip-hop's cultural system of values is that much fundamentally different. Would Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five have turned down a Sprite ad back in the day if the paper was right? Would Kool Herc have been down to spin a Scion-sponsored park jam?
I've always though of the term "subculture" as a pejorative term, one that people use to describe elements of popular culture that they find socially abhorant.
yeah but I'm pretty sure Deej was asking about the wankstas.
Having said that, this phenomena can be broken down further in terms of credibility.
Hip Hop is a product. It is meticulously packaged and marketed. Lyrically and visually, it deals almost exclusively in labels, cars, jewels, homes, TV's, etc.... In a much different way than their predecessors, who rapped about what it would be like to live that way. In a jovial, daydream, good times, party-jam type of way. IMO, it's humble roots hold much more integrity, credibility and cultural nuance than what it's unfortunately morphed into.
On the other end of the spectrum...
Jazz however, has had a much more organic growth process. It's luminary grounbreaking artists are still held in the highest regard by artists and fans alike. This differs greatly from hip hop in the sense that a large number of hip hop fans either don't know the history of the music enough to acknowledge the contributions of the old school or worse, disregard these roots as wack garbage. This is a huge rent in the fabric of the argument that Hip Hop is a culture. Furthermore, the basic idea and theory of the music (Jazz) has managed to change very little over the years. Jazz has also managed to evade the trappings of mass commercialization. Thus making it easier for it to maintain its integrity.
Rock & Roll, while becoming massively commercialized almost from its very inception has managed to remain as possibly the most vital and influential of all music genres. This could be attributed to its inherent rebel spirit. Whereas, the many deviations from the original template have spawned an endless array of sub-genres (and in some instances, sub-cultures). That's not to say that Rock has been able to evade the spectre of dilution through commercialization. Just look at the ugly emergence of "mall punk" and "emo". Devoid of rebellion, music made by and for complacent, spoiled suburban youth. This anomaly will hopefully run its course and fade away soon... but I digress... I could write about this at length, but I shant bore you any longer with my acumen.
I'm predicting a ten-pager....
Really? I've never heard the term used pejoratively - in the media, it's always used in the sociological/anthorpological meaning of the term which has no value put on it, positive or negative.
Archaic may be uber-connected in all other spheres real but I think he's ok being
Fool, it's about Swishahouse, not Saussure!
Why do you think this is absurd?
Jazz has a lot of sub-genres but the classic form of jazz is still practiced and IMO has deviated very little froomthe original concept(s).
In what way do you disagree?
10 pager indeed.
Jazz has always been commercial to some degree or another, it basically WAS the hip-hop of the 30s&40s, and if you don't think that from that period through today's Ken Burns-marketed product (where you're being sold that DUKE ELLINGTON IS GENIUS and WYNTON MARSALIS IS FUTURE) that capitalism isn't involved then you are fooling yrself. Its just different audiences - where the highbrown NPR+Public TV audience likes its advertising a little less crass and a little more cheesecake+tea-eating friendly.
Need we continue?
Face it. You like SELL OUT MUSIC.
Ssssh...don't pull the curtain back. Headz ain't ready.
Through that example you can see that sell-outs can make some damn good - or at least fun - music. I don't know why folks don't apply the same standard to rap though, I think it's because of things already mentioned in this thread: issues with legitimacy and romanticized notions of the past.
Agreed.... I was speaking in terms of comparing the commercialization of Jazz versus Hip Hop.
Advertising and marketing were also much less sophisticated and much less invasive than it is today.
I don't buy into the whole Ken Burns thing either. Nor do I align myself with that audience.
T.C.
Step into a World. Step in the Arena. Step up if you wanna get hurt. Step up to get your rep up. But, no matter how you step, there Ain't no Half-Steppin. Step in the Name of Hate in 2005.
Re: new element of hip hop: being frisked at the door.
Gnat said:
We agree. Right?
Dub said:
I say: Dood. There is a distinction. I think that you've had too many of the same arguments on ths board to appreciate the subtlety of what I was saying. Let break it down real simple: Dominant Corp-Hop is seriously more focused on money and less on fun. That is painfully obvious. Can't you feel that? This occurance has taken place because the people who originally made the music and who embraced the fun and the money have been usurped by money grubbing capitalists that are soooo far removed from its origins its not even funny. Hence, a new corporate dynamic that compromises the original set of values and the advent of "corp-hop".
I'm repeating myself because you aren't picking up what I'm putting down.
You said:
Of course they would and I would encourage them to do so. I'm nostalgic but I'm not a moron. I just wouldn't try to scupt their shit such that it sounded like everyone else's shit that embraces a culture of materialism.
As a totally unrelated aside, Odub, what are you doing right now? I always picture people at their computers and multi-tasking between various things that fits my idea of their internet/real persona. I imagine you to be having office hours with a painfully bad writer and typing on SS at the same time.
I'm making eggs and in my pajamas. Yes its 12:36pm. I'm re-embracing a flexible student schedule and I love it.
I can answer this for you. Hip-hop is a movement.
Also, can we review what the elements of Hip-hop are??? I want to know if the NBA is an element of hip-hop.
In all seriousness though, rappers do refer to the NBA more often than any other sport though right? Kicks...Mike....etcx2
2. Keeping it real
3. Not keeping it real
4. Arguing on the internet about what is 'real'
Some of the stuff in there looks like it belongs on a New York Subway car painted by Blade.
Wicked. Hip-Hop music is part of a culture with no name. Somebody make a name for it, write a paper, and get some press.
Ready. Ho.
Not any more, Maggie.
oh and that commericalized bullshit is just explotation and if you fall for that then you are a clown. So too all you myspace thugs from the burbs, you are just toys, and arent down with a culture, you are just playing yourselves like assholes and will look back 10 years later and be like, damn i had red hair and a doo rag, what the fuck was i thinking? These people are toys and dont register high with me, so i wouldnt consider them a part of any culutre, just sheep following the flock. Just misguided and 9 times outta ten, ignorant motherfuckers that dont know no better. So if they are considered within the culture, them motherfuckers are the black sheep.
really looking forward to it.
here's the Reader article:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/ourtown/060929/sunra/