Is Rap Music Dead?

miroslav said:
They should introduce some melody/harmony to it...becuase that's about the only thing that can give it a new spin, otherwise, just the beats and looped backing tracks with monotone rapping.... :yawn:
Click to expand...

They did, that was the original definition of "Hip Hop" in the late 80's which, as you said, got bastardised and overly recycled to what it is today.

And yeah, i think the big stand out difference between older and new, and between good and less good, rap is the use of the same generic loops and samples. i can't remember the tracks but a couple of years back i remember hearing three songs all in the chart at the same time with the same sample. one was slightly sped up, one was only half the riff, and the other was a straight "rapping over another song". saying that, the latter is how rap started (heck, "rappers delight" has already been mentioned).
 
Justsomeguy said:
and the other was a straight "rapping over another song". saying that, the latter is how rap started (heck, "rappers delight" has already been mentioned).
Click to expand...
Yeah, "Rapper's delight" was the Sugarhill gang rapping over Chic's "Good times". That then began this fad circa 1980 where guys rapped over the big disco hits of the day. I can't remember the title but I clearly remember one of the raps being over McFadden and Whitehead's "Ain't no stopping us now".
The general consensus among those who took hip hop seriously was that the Sugarhill gang were a bunch of slimy charlatans for cheapening, sweetening and commercializing hip hop which was an underground happening. But in retrospect, those of the sugarhill ilk sowed some important seeds in terms of eventual accessibility.
Often when we say "Rap", we talk as if there's only one version but in truth, "Rap" is as broad a term as "Rock" or "Jazz" or "Folk". We all kind of know what we mean but rarely appreciate the sheer depth of the words and genres.
The mainstream is not always the best representation of any genre.
 
"Ghostbusters"="I Want a New Drug"

"Can't Touch This"=" Superfreak"

"Funky Cold Madina" has Van Halen's "Jamie's Crying" samples

Not really rap, but Kid Rock's "All Summer Long" is "sung" over a combination of "Sweet Home Alabama" and "Warewolves of London"

That's off the top of my head. It would be fun to think of more.
 
Jaxxhits said:
This is a survey for everyone. and I want to know your perspectives about Today's rap music.

"A recent study by the Black Youth Project showed a majority of youth think rap has too many violent images. In a poll of black Americans by The Associated Press and AOL-Black Voices last year, 50 percent of respondents said hip-hop was a negative force in American society" theledgerdotcom

Is it dying or dead?
Click to expand...

Even if 50 percent of black Americans find "hip-hop" a negative force in American society," 50 percent don't. On top of that, they may see it as negative and still consume it. Then there's whites and other consumers of rap/hip-hop. So is it still commercially viable? Hell yes. Even if popularity receded back into a niche genre (which I truly don't believe it is in the next decade or more), it'll still be around in one form or another.
 
Melvin McSnatch said:
Even if 50 percent of black Americans find "hip-hop" a negative force in American society," 50 percent don't. On top of that, they may see it as negative and still consume it. Then there's whites and other consumers of rap/hip-hop. So is it still commercially viable? Hell yes. Even if popularity receded back into a niche genre (which I truly don't believe it is in the next decade or more), it'll still be around in one form or another.
Click to expand...

At least we have something to look forward to then. :D

It's fitty fitty. :D
 
fat_fleet said:
Every Led Zeppelin song
Click to expand...

I loved what the Beasties did with Rhymin' and Stealin' over When The Levee Breaks drum sample. I always regarded today's version as hip-hop, not old skool rap. Kind of like labeling Slipknot or Electric Wizard's music as rock and I don't care for the new stuff as much. That includes hip-hop or most of the metal variations. Just my personal taste.
 
Track Rat said:
I shouldn't comment on Rap as I don't like anything about it. Useing existing hits to talk over bothers me. Sampled drums bothers me. The subject matter bothers me. Oh well, to each their own. However, this is an interesting video.
Video explains the world's most important 6-sec drum loop - YouTube
Click to expand...

This one is also interesting:




Yes, sampling was the foundation for Hip Hop/Rap music...but it is also what makes most of it sound the same after all these years. The endless recycling of samples/beats doesn't IMO showcase originality or imagination, but rather the lack of.
If the original artists were able to come up with certain beats and sounds without sampling from someone, why don't more of the Rap beat makers do the same? Many create their music from constructor sets, like so many Legos, which in the end are just Legos.

Yes, it sells and it permeates everything these days, but it's become just common, every day "fashion"...and that is why it's dead.

It's like all the chicks with their boots the last couple of years. They don't all wear them because they love boots...they wear them because everyone else is wearing them.
Same thing with Rap music.
 
No...I don't think so.
It's actually a quick read (took about 2 minutes)...and it talks about how "popular culture" is the tool of capitalism to keep the sheep in line.

I agree somewhat that "pop culture" is a mass-driven thing...but I don't agree with the notion that true expression and originality in art can only come from some extreme deviation and abandonment of with is considered popular in any culture.
Most things that become "pop culture" start out as something new/weird/original. The problem is that once it gets to a point of pure "fashion" for a culture to choose to embrace that art, that's when it can turn into a slippery slope.

Also...the notion that only capitalism drives pop culture, as some "conspiracy" to control us...I'm not buying. Yeah, capitalism will certainly try and profit off of it, but it's also up to individuals to look/learn/find new things...though it is true that many are just lemmings looking for "fashion".
 
miroslav said:
No...I don't think so.
It's actually a quick read (took about 2 minutes)...and it talks about how "popular culture" is the tool of capitalism to keep the sheep in line.

I agree somewhat that "pop culture" is a mass-driven thing...but I don't agree with the notion that true expression and originality in art can only come from some extreme deviation and abandonment of with is considered popular in any culture.
Most things that become "pop culture" start out as something new/weird/original. The problem is that once it gets to a point of pure "fashion" for a culture to choose to embrace that art, that's when it can turn into a slippery slope.

Also...the notion that only capitalism drives pop culture, as some "conspiracy" to control us...I'm not buying. Yeah, capitalism will certainly try and profit off of it, but it's also up to individuals to look/learn/find new things...though it is true that many are just lemmings looking for "fashion".
Click to expand...

lol, yeah like most philosophers/theorists some of the points he makes are bang on, but he got slated a lot for the reasons you suggested (well, that, and it was the 1930's and left wing idealism was frowned upon in the west). he was unbelievably elitist but the idea of things being mass produced and, in turn, watered down seems truer today than ever. one of the best examples i can think of of this, and one i often use, is the band "Franz Ferdinand";

in the early 2000's (i think 2004) "take me out" got to number one in the charts. that summer, franz ferdinand toured europe, played high up the bill at some very big festivals, and everywhere you turned it was "franz ferdinand this" and "franz ferdinand that". at the height of their fame, NME ran on their front page the headline "Franz Ferdinand; the biggest band in the world". now, this was at a time when Michael Jackson, U2, Madonna, AC/DC, etc etc were still selling out world tours in and hand more hit singles and albums under their belts than franz ferdinand had had hot dinners. nearly 10 years later, the band have basically disappeared off the face of the world. they realised four albums, although i've yet to meet anyone who has even heard of this, let alone bought any of them! infact, when i explain this story to 100 16 year olds every year, i start by asking "how many of you have heard of the band Franz Ferdinand?" 6 years ago most did, this year no one in the whole group did! even when i played them "take me out" only two said that it sounded familiar. so, my question is always "why did they disappear?". were the songs bad? were their haircuts wrong? or was it because when franz ferdinand rose to success nearly every record label in the uk found their own version of franz ferdinand. within weeks the charts was full of identical sounding songs by bands with the same hair cuts, fashion sense, and attitude. the record labels mass produced a product that had been proven to sell in the short term. looking back over the short history of popular music, these trends and fads in music are fairly obvious, but the past 15 years has seen these trends change on an almost year basis rather than decade by decade. thinking about what adorno says, i do agree that the idea of the government playing a leading role in manufacturing popular culture to sedate the masses seems ridiculous, but the record companies (who, let's face it, are the top of the music industry) do seem to do exactly this, although not for the same sinister reasons adorno suggests, but purely for monitory gain! it is an industry after all

one of the dangers of the internet, imo, is that now it's not only record labels who are doing this; young bands are doing the same. they hear something they like that is popular and imitate it perfectly, rather than using it as a starting point and evolving it. don't get me wrong, there are alot of bands and artists who do take their chosen genre and evolve it, but for every one of these there are 1,000 bands who do the opposite and just work on what is popular right now.

now, there are others out there who see these trends but rather than evolve music from where music is, they look back into the past and reinvent music from a time gone by. however, often these bands don't evolve the genre, they just continue to imitate. This seems to work on the premise that there enough people who are young enough to not remember it the first time around, and seeing as it's this market that have the most buying power in the music industry, this tactic seems to work very well in the short term, until grumpy old men like me go "oh, so you're new band sounds exactly like The Smiths, remind me how original you are!?".

sorry for my cynical grump, and this is all just my opinion, but it just frustrates me so much when musicians take their talent, skill, and personal expression and put all of their energy in to imitating someone else's talent, skill, and personal expression.
 
I bloody well just wish it would hurry up and die.
It sounds rubbish and the intellectual pigmys that write some of the stuff that is put forward under the name of rap should be hung, drawn and quartered.
They are playing with the minds of adolecents that are still trying to figure out if they want a lolly pop or a real drink.
It's OK to be hard core but lets do it with people that can fight back not pick on the smallest kid in the sand pit.

Sorry for the diatribe but I think Rap is basically Crap with the "C" removed, but I guess you figured that out?
 
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
 
moresound said:
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
One of us - we except him.
Click to expand...

You so funny! I must give rep for funny! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top