the golden age of hiphop?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

it's a common reference point to say that the 'golden age' of rap music was 1986(ish) to 1992(ish), the time at which the entire culture was at an artistic, musical, and lyrical peak (kind of like 1963-1969 to boring rock critics). my own personal 'golden age' is 1990-1996, the period which i find the most music that i love. i was talking with fred about this and he somewhat jokingly theorized that i shifted the range to include 'myself', or at least my active participation (which begins in 1994, just outside the mythical age). i dispute this, because i think music of the same caliber of the 'golden' early 90s stuff was being made up until at least 1996, and i'm not even including gangsta stuff, which is often the critical reason for the death of 'good hiphop' in 1993. i personally think the major cultural change didn't occur until around 1997 and whether it was good or bad (ahem), it's certainly different from what i love the most. so, what do you people think? does hiphop have a 'golden age'? is it 83-86? 86-92? 87-93? 90-96? 97-01? none? (no seriously if you think that then just fuck off). is the concept of a 'golden age' of music valid or just plain wrong?

― ethan, Saturday, 2 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

It seems to me that Hip Hop was at its most interesting and progressive period during the early 90's, with artists as diverse as Public Enemy, A Tribe Called Quest, the Dream Warriors, the Black Sheep and Digital Underground (just to cite a few). Gangsta (that word later to be replaced by Player, but it's all the same crap ) Rap seemed to usher in the yawnsome concentration on the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR (the acquisition and subsequent flaunting of easy wealth and "booty"), leaving more interesting subject matter to artists otherwise banished from the mainstream for daring not to "keep it real." How boring. With precious few exceptions today (Outkast, Anti-Pop Consortium), Hip Hop seems as bereft of creative life as hair metal did in the early 90's. The Golden Age is long gone, if you ask me.

― alex in nyc, Saturday, 2 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

DJ Kool Herc - that was the real shit! As soon as any of it got recorded, it was dead already!Golden Age = pre 1979!

― tarden, Saturday, 2 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Don't really buy into the concept. Of course there are individual years with either a glut or a surfeit of good records, but hip-hop is, for me, too vast to have a "golden age".

Individual strands *within* hip-hop obviously have golden ages, though (gangsta 92-94 probably, "conscious" rap and Afro-centricity maybe just before that, 91 or so, and so on.)

― Robin Carmody, Saturday, 2 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Great question, Ethan, & one that needed to be asked. Very off the top of my head here, but it seems like the critics' standard "golden age" of rap was a time when it just started to be picked up by middle- class, college-educated artists, which I think critics find easier to relate to. PE, De La, Tribe, Jungle Bros, KRS-One (he didn't go to college, but still) all gave rap a new lyrical angle, from neo-hippie goofiness of DLS to the layered political rhetoric of PE & KRS.

These were big changes from rap's lyrical roots, and (let's face it) a hell of a lot more sophisticated than "White Lines." And more to the point, this literate strain of rap sold pretty well in the early 90s, unlike today (where undie types sell in numbers comparable to inie rock.) I wouldn't describe it as "better," but "more likely to appeal to college-educated critics."

I was in college during this period & I do have a tendancy to see that time (more '89 to '95 for me) as special. But what is happening in rap now is so much more interesting sonically than the sampled jazz/James Brown school. The Bomb Squad were masters, but they didn't exactly have a ton of range. Much less than Outkast, I would imagine (though I only know the songs from them on the radio.) Lyrcially, things have changed a lot once again, & not neccesarily for the better in my opinion. But that probably has more to do with my losing faith in words in general.

― Mark, Saturday, 2 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

"The Bomb Squad were masters, but they didn't exactly have a ton of range. Much less than Outkast,..."

While this may be true, I think it's important to note that (true to their name) OutKast are *NOT* the norm, these days. Much to their considerable credit, their sound, lyrical content and overal aesthetic owes precious little to the majority of today's most highly touted hip hop.

― alex in nyc, Saturday, 2 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

I'm sorry Alex, but I'd have to disagree strongly with the assertion that Outkast don't sound like everyone else. One of the things I liked so much about "Stankonia" was that it *did* sound a great deal like contemporary hip hop. The snappy beats, the acid bass sounds, the squealing synths etc. are all standard gangsta fare these days, especially with Organized Noise producing kids like Ludacris and Outkast themselves producing Mystikal. Not to mention the fact that Outkast are as happy to go on about gangstas as anyone else, albeit to a lesser degree.

― Tim, Saturday, 2 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

I'm just starting to really get into hiphop, and while I'm going back and checking out the older 'intelligent' stuff like Tribe and De La Soul, what got me into it (besides listening to the Beastie Boys for years) is new stuff like Handsome Boy Modeling School, Mos Def, and Talib Kweli.

Interesting comments about Outkast above, kind of like how Kweli has a really unique, clear sound while Mos Def has much more mainstream production (but subverts it with some live instrumentation and interesting sounds, etc). I like both a lot, and Mos Def makes me wonder if I could enjoy mainstream hiphop a lot more if I gave it a chance.

― Jordan, Sunday, 3 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

The metallic ages concept comes from Greek myth, yes (Hesiod IIRC) - the point about a Golden Age being that its an unrecoverable past which was golden essentially because nothing (no conflict) happened in it - a huge unchanging block party which is (like the Greek GA) actually constituted from latter-day (Age of Iron) mythmaking. So Golden Age = Old Skool but it derives its quality from the impossibility of its existence now, i.e. the ppl trying to imitate it are onto a loser.

Also implicit in the Golden Age concept was the notion that the latter ages were when everything interesting happens.

Oh, OK, hip-hop. I think it's fine at the moment, and now is really the only time when I'm even remotely starting to get any kind of coherent grip on 'what's happening'.

― Tom, Monday, 4 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

The late 80's, early 90's Native Tongues period was, I think, the least interesting period in hip-hop history. Tribe, De La Soul, Brand Nubian, all that shit, it's all very interchangable and homogenous-- they all had distinct sounds, but their attitudes and approach to their music was creepily pod-person-esque. In 1998 "underground" hip- hop was the bomb--the Stones Throw Bay Area stuff was just hitting the East Coast, Rawkus signed a deal with Priority, people were starting to make money but the music was still challenging and interesting and most of all _fun_. That was my hip-hop golden age. It's all over now that Mos Def licenses to Nike and has recorded a rap-metal album.

― adam, Monday, 4 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

You're far too cynical, Adam. Though the idea of Mos Def taking the style of "Rock'n'Roll" further is not something I want to imagine.

Very *very* good analogy, Tom.

― Robin Carmody, Monday, 4 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

tom, how does a scene with 'no conflict' ('huge unchanging block party') affect the quality of the music? are you implying that there should be conflict (or PAIN) for music to be good or interesting? isn't this a bit close to all the defenders of music because it has 'soul', unlike all 'the britneys of the world'? eh?

― ethan, Wednesday, 6 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Sorry, 'no conflict' was a reference to how the Greeks conceptualised the golden age, being as their own one involved much local warring, internecine strife, low life expectancy etc. etc. Clearly the idea of a time with no conflict is a fantasy, albeit an appealing one: the point was to underscore the impossibility of the 'golden age' and to remind ppl that the term originated as a reference to something placid and event-free.

― Tom, Wednesday, 6 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Ethan, are you trying to say that there's isn't conflict between Britney and Christina? What would you call it?

― Tim, Wednesday, 6 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

well, just as much conflict as there was between tribe and wreckx-n-effect. they fucked up q-tip's eye, man!

― ethan, Wednesday, 6 June 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.