When you add on that a lot of people writing about hip-hop didn't necessarily grow up in the thick of it, the frame of reference can become "what I think about it" rather than "what it is".
The thing is though: a lot of the writing that's come out over the last 10, even 15 years comes from people who DID "grow up in the thick of it." I would wager that it's a small minority of folks doing hip-hop scholarship who didn't actively grow up with hip-hop being their primary cultural influence. These aren't the days of the "Spectacular Vernacular" folks anymore.
To me, the issue isn't a earnest dedication to hip-hop or basic knowledge base about the artists, the records, etc. etc. I really think a lot of it comes back to the allure of theory ESPECIALLY for young scholars of color (or any young scholar) who wants to "prove" themselves by wielding the latest theory-of-the-month. Believe me, it's so easy to get caught up in that and I certainly did in graduate school. For real, this hardly applies to every scholar interested in hip-hop, but I guarantee you that, in that community, there are a lot of folks who are aspiring intellectual hotshots. And for better or for worse (read: for worse), talkin' theory >>> data collection.
Don't get me wrong - I think theory is great and useful but not in the absence of data. And as people are saying: analyzing lyrics gets way played after a while (even though we've all done it).
People have wanted to write the next "Black Noise" when they should have been trying to research "Can't Stop, Won't Stop."
Why is research so underrated in this sort of scholarship? Lyrical analysis ain't enough.
It's a lot easier to (often, mis)interpret lyrics in the comfort of one's own home (mind garden?) than to track down people, some of whom may not want to be found, to reconcile stories from various sources that may completely contradict each other, to glean the truth from someone's account about someone else who they may hate to their core, and to interact with folks who may be in a completely different world than the writer - let alone may be cracked out/in jail/homeless/dead.
Re: Oliver's post, I guess "not growing up in the thick of it" is not really what I meant, so much as not actually being part of or having access to the/any scene. How do you begin to write about an album where not only were you not in the sessions, but you weren't in the neighborhood, maybe in a different city entirely, you didn't know the local studios, the guys who worked the local record shops, the hang out spots, the clubs, promoters, the DJs who would go on to break the records, the gangsters who bankrolled the studio sessions... I mean not only not knowing them personally but not even knowing who they were, or that they existed at all. It's easy enough to say, "writers bench" or "Eric B" or what have you. Common knowledge. But looking forward, documenting the last 20 years of this music... the kind of info that guys dig up trying to source some old funk record is not what most writers are working with.
I'm not pointing the finger at any writer in particular, nor am I trying to say that I somehow am any different. Just that the kind of things that this research would seem to entail just aren't at the fingertips of your average academic. No matter their skin color, locale, or the length/depth of their fandom.
(there are shelves' worth of unreadable, not-worth-the-paper-they're-printed-on books about almost any musical genre...)
My perspective is this: I think the vast majority of the hip-hop scholarship that's been written tends not to be for people who "get" hip-hop.
I think the problem is more that it's been by people who don't "get" hip-hop.
My embarassing undergraduate contributions included.
Let's just say it's probably quite fortunate many of us were writing papers in a PRE-google world.
I am particularly embarrassed of a certain honors thesis which was accompanied by a headphone-melter of a mixtape, featuring the likes of Adagio, Siah & Yeshuah and the Rawcotics.
But looking forward, documenting the last 20 years of this music... the kind of info that guys dig up trying to source some old funk record is not what most writers are working with.
I think this is coming...eventually. Certainly, there are academic publishers who would HAPPILY embrace something that approaches hip-hop in the same way of, say, Rob Bowman's book on Stax or Suzanne Smith's book on the cultural politics of Motown.
why intellectualize something that doesnt need to be intellectual.
I wont go that far. Hip Hop can be "intellectualized".
The problem sometimes lies w/ the intellect of said writer whom comes to the table w/ Rockist/Euro-Centric/Sterile Academic styles that dont mesh w/ the material their covering.
why intellectualize something that doesnt need to be intellectual.
I wont go that far. Hip Hop can be "intellectualized".
The problem sometimes lies w/ the intellect of said writer whom comes to the table w/ Rockist/Euro-Centric/Sterile Academic styles that dont mesh w/ the material their covering.
Like a Wine Geek talkin' bout Moonshine.
I gotta disagree with this. I've seen really mind-blowingly smart work done on music like hip-hop by people coming from the most traditional of disciplines. Robert Fink at UCLA is a classically trained musicologist but his papers on the ORCH 5 chord (think "Planet Rock") and the evolution of James Brown's "Soul Power" are flat-out brilliant and believe me, he's far from a "head."
I don't think there's anything implicitly wrong with, say, a wine geek talking 'bout moonshine UNLESS the wine geek is insisting his/her set of critical tools are the best or only ones one should use or if people don't also recognize that the moonshine geek has something to say here too. I think it comes back to balance (something sorely missing in academia).
And Johnny: you should look for Joseph Schloss' new book, coming out later this year on Oxford Press, about NYC b-boys. I've read some of it and he's presented on it a few times and it is really, really, really great stuff, both in content and the thoroughness of Joe's research.
I remain surprised that this book is thought of as highly as it is among rap diehards. I think it expends its energy pretty early, and I think it's telling that while a number of folks seem to come away from it with, for example, newfound interest in dancehall culture or a sudden, urgent desire to see 80 Blocks From Tiffany's, not many folks seem to come away from it with any deeper understanding of or any real excitement about hip-hop itself.
why intellectualize something that doesnt need to be intellectual.
I wont go that far. Hip Hop can be "intellectualized".
The problem sometimes lies w/ the intellect of said writer whom comes to the table w/ Rockist/Euro-Centric/Sterile Academic styles that dont mesh w/ the material their covering.
Like a Wine Geek talkin' bout Moonshine.
I don't think there's anything implicitly wrong with, say, a wine geek talking 'bout moonshine UNLESS the wine geek is insisting his/her set of critical tools are the best or only ones one should use or if people don't also recognize that the moonshine geek has something to say here too. I think it comes back to balance (something sorely missing in academia).
The UNLESS is what im highlighting. Or that perspective is woven inside the writing w/out being obvious.
I remain surprised that this book is thought of as highly as it is among rap diehards. I think it expends its energy pretty early, and I think it's telling that while a number of folks seem to come away from it with, for example, newfound interest in dancehall culture or a sudden, urgent desire to see 80 Blocks From Tiffany's, not many folks seem to come away from it with any deeper understanding of or any real excitement about hip-hop itself.
it does fizzle by the middle, but his resaerch of the early BX days was IN THERE.
I remain surprised that this book is thought of as highly as it is among rap diehards. I think it expends its energy pretty early, and I think it's telling that while a number of folks seem to come away from it with, for example, newfound interest in dancehall culture or a sudden, urgent desire to see 80 Blocks From Tiffany's, not many folks seem to come away from it with any deeper understanding of or any real excitement about hip-hop itself.
it does fizzle by the middle, but his resaerch of the early BX days was IN THERE.
Yeah, that part was really interesting and well done, and talked about the tension and the energy of those early days in a tone that itself had tension and energy, and managed to do so while conveying a lot of real-deal research. I was hooked. The fact that the book didn't reach that level again (let alone maintain it) over the course of the hundreds of pages that followed left me really disappointed.
Comments
This is becoming contagious, you've caught one of O-dubs annoying, you know, "habits".
Jesus, what? I can't be a lil sarcastic once in a while?
The thing is though: a lot of the writing that's come out over the last 10, even 15 years comes from people who DID "grow up in the thick of it." I would wager that it's a small minority of folks doing hip-hop scholarship who didn't actively grow up with hip-hop being their primary cultural influence. These aren't the days of the "Spectacular Vernacular" folks anymore.
To me, the issue isn't a earnest dedication to hip-hop or basic knowledge base about the artists, the records, etc. etc. I really think a lot of it comes back to the allure of theory ESPECIALLY for young scholars of color (or any young scholar) who wants to "prove" themselves by wielding the latest theory-of-the-month. Believe me, it's so easy to get caught up in that and I certainly did in graduate school. For real, this hardly applies to every scholar interested in hip-hop, but I guarantee you that, in that community, there are a lot of folks who are aspiring intellectual hotshots. And for better or for worse (read: for worse), talkin' theory >>> data collection.
Don't get me wrong - I think theory is great and useful but not in the absence of data. And as people are saying: analyzing lyrics gets way played after a while (even though we've all done it).
777 posts = lurking though?
I think the problem is more that it's been by people who don't "get" hip-hop.
My embarassing undergraduate contributions included.
It's a lot easier to (often, mis)interpret lyrics in the comfort of one's own home (mind garden?) than to track down people, some of whom may not want to be found, to reconcile stories from various sources that may completely contradict each other, to glean the truth from someone's account about someone else who they may hate to their core, and to interact with folks who may be in a completely different world than the writer - let alone may be cracked out/in jail/homeless/dead.
Let's just say it's probably quite fortunate many of us were writing papers in a PRE-google world.
Amen to that.
I'm not pointing the finger at any writer in particular, nor am I trying to say that I somehow am any different. Just that the kind of things that this research would seem to entail just aren't at the fingertips of your average academic. No matter their skin color, locale, or the length/depth of their fandom.
go for some jump-rope raps and street raps...like
Brother D. and Collective Effort - Dibee dibee Dize (sp?)
Sayin'...I prefer the term "infrequent contributor".
I heard Paychex bangs this in the boudoir.
WILDE CONSCIOUS!
I am particularly embarrassed of a certain honors thesis which was accompanied by a headphone-melter of a mixtape, featuring the likes of Adagio, Siah & Yeshuah and the Rawcotics.
I think this is coming...eventually. Certainly, there are academic publishers who would HAPPILY embrace something that approaches hip-hop in the same way of, say, Rob Bowman's book on Stax or Suzanne Smith's book on the cultural politics of Motown.
"La ciudad.... respirando."
You inspired a generation
DO IT!!! that would be very hiphop. maybe just sample and interpolate.
im agreeing with harvey and jp.
plus, do something for a masters thesis that might actually matter to the world. why intellectualize something that doesnt need to be intellectual.
I wont go that far. Hip Hop can be "intellectualized".
The problem sometimes lies w/ the intellect of said writer whom comes to the table w/ Rockist/Euro-Centric/Sterile Academic styles that dont mesh w/ the material their covering.
Like a Wine Geek talkin' bout Moonshine.
I gotta disagree with this. I've seen really mind-blowingly smart work done on music like hip-hop by people coming from the most traditional of disciplines. Robert Fink at UCLA is a classically trained musicologist but his papers on the ORCH 5 chord (think "Planet Rock") and the evolution of James Brown's "Soul Power" are flat-out brilliant and believe me, he's far from a "head."
I don't think there's anything implicitly wrong with, say, a wine geek talking 'bout moonshine UNLESS the wine geek is insisting his/her set of critical tools are the best or only ones one should use or if people don't also recognize that the moonshine geek has something to say here too. I think it comes back to balance (something sorely missing in academia).
And Johnny: you should look for Joseph Schloss' new book, coming out later this year on Oxford Press, about NYC b-boys. I've read some of it and he's presented on it a few times and it is really, really, really great stuff, both in content and the thoroughness of Joe's research.
I remain surprised that this book is thought of as highly as it is among rap diehards. I think it expends its energy pretty early, and I think it's telling that while a number of folks seem to come away from it with, for example, newfound interest in dancehall culture or a sudden, urgent desire to see 80 Blocks From Tiffany's, not many folks seem to come away from it with any deeper understanding of or any real excitement about hip-hop itself.
The UNLESS is what im highlighting. Or that perspective is woven inside the writing w/out being obvious.
it does fizzle by the middle, but his resaerch of the early BX days was IN THERE.
Yeah, that part was really interesting and well done, and talked about the tension and the energy of those early days in a tone that itself had tension and energy, and managed to do so while conveying a lot of real-deal research. I was hooked. The fact that the book didn't reach that level again (let alone maintain it) over the course of the hundreds of pages that followed left me really disappointed.