| |
|
Is it all right for rappers to carry on in the way that they have been?
Except there's more than one way in which rappers have been "carrying on", that is, presenting themselves, choosing subject matter, etc., and more than one opinion on this within the rap discourse. One would not conflate David Bowie with Pantera just because they're both involved in making some sort of rock and roll, and likewise, the idea that the phrase "rappers" uncomplicatedly contains Pimp C and Andre 3000 and KRS 1 and Flava Fla V, the idea that they all "carry on" in the same way because "rappers", is pretty ridiculous.
So, that said, are these ways, plural, of carrying on "all right"? Some yes, and some no. Many in between - just like every other interesting music scene ever. One would need to look at it in a case-by-case study, not just ask if "rap" is all right or not, which is like asking if "blue" or "bees" are all right or not.
Do hip-hop artistes who routinely inflict their troubling ideas about murder, insanity and sexual humiliation on the general public get an easier ride, critically, than sad young men with guitars?
1) Surely "Do the section of hip-hop artistes who ..."
2) Depends what you mean by critics. Do we mean people who write for Pitchfork or people who write for the Mail? Or the BBC? Or Vicars?
Even then, I think the answer to the question, in most cases, is no. The overwhelming majority of critics are white. This probably has an effect on their opinions, willingness/capability to understand where an artist is coming from, and so on. Rappers get mocked, or outraged over, for violence and etc while a rock band saying the same or worse is lionised for being challenging.
Of course white/not hip-hop artists cause controversies of their own. The difference is there are a) nearly always as many people raving about them as there are decrying them, and b) for the same reasons - Metal being probably a good example of this. Metal-hater says: "Noo! This music is devillish and agressive", whereas Metal-lover says "Yeeah! This music is devillish and agressive".
Whereas people who like rap clearly see something different in it to what the Mail sees. The difference in opinion is probably this, or appears to be in my experience: the Mail reads promotion of violence, where before there was none, i.e. music precedes violence; whereas rap fan probably reads discussion/comment on, and lamentation of, violence that has existed before the music, by people who are intertwined in said violence and thus are less able to make art from a position outside of it.
Bob Dylan might write one kind of song about Vietnam, and a Vietnam vet might write another kind. Both might be saying the same things in very different ways. |
|
|
