What Will Kill Hip-Hop?

no cosby, no credibility

soulja boy and snap rap

Forgot about Beastie Boys and Eminem - they should be in there (or "white people" even)

This feels like a subliminal.

poll threads will kill hip-hop

Geir hate to disappoint you but hip-hop isn't likely to die anytime soon. People have been predicting it's demise for the past 30 years and it's a damn sight more popular now than rock and roll was in 1985, and that's still twitching.

geir you cannot kill what you comprehensively don't understand. its more likely that hip hop will kill you.

I dunno, he offed that tiawanese hooker pretty easily.

should be noted that Bill Cosby has defeated Hip Hop so all these other people are too late

racists like you.

called out!

lolz no white people option

I dunno, he offed that tiawanese hooker pretty easily.

^^^^quality lolz would lol again

rapey mo did u just lol at a joke about a dead hooker!?!?

no music really ever dies

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/514X7EX5NEL._SS500_.jpg

"Hip-hop fans growing up and getting kids not wanting to be like dad"

i remember being all "wha??!?" when back in '98/'99 Ego Trip said you couldn't kill hip hop cause it was already dead, but now I think they were right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7JXjcW9xjs

If you asked me for a serious answer to this question, the best I could venture would be that elements of hip-hop would just keep on being assimilated into other types of music, so that a hip-hop beat doesn't mean "hip-hop" because everything uses a hip-hop beat at some point, and rapping isn't purely "hip-hop" because lots of things have some rapping on them, on and on until eventually some point is reached where doing "pure" traditional beats-and-rhymes hip-hop seems somehow retro and purist and, like, curatorial.

I don't think that would mean we'd stop using the word, though. It'd more likely be something like what you could say today about a lot of music from the early 60s (old soul, rockabilly, early r&r), where the elements of them exist in all sorts of music, just a common foundation of popular music as a whole, but anyone who actually played them as they originally were would seem sort of period or revivalist or just old -- and we still use some of the terms ("soul," "rock and roll") to refer to stuff now that's not really formally like the old stuff in the least.

my dad actually introduced me to Snoop Doggy Dogg.

If you asked me for a serious answer to this question, the best I could venture would be that elements of hip-hop would just keep on being assimilated into other types of music, so that a hip-hop beat doesn't mean "hip-hop" because everything uses a hip-hop beat at some point, and rapping isn't purely "hip-hop" because lots of things have some rapping on them, on and on until eventually some point is reached where doing "pure" traditional beats-and-rhymes hip-hop seems somehow retro and purist and, like, curatorial.

I don't think that would mean we'd stop using the word, though. It'd more likely be something like what you could say today about a lot of music from the early 60s (old soul, rockabilly, early r&r), where the elements of them exist in all sorts of music, just a common foundation of popular music as a whole, but anyone who actually played them as they originally were would seem sort of period or revivalist or just old -- and we still use some of the terms ("soul," "rock and roll") to refer to stuff now that's not really formally like the old stuff in the least.

― nabisco, Wednesday, June 24, 2009 8:03 PM (56 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

but there's all sorts of supposedly "curatorial" stuff that is super vital and great, even if it's in a style that isn't like supposedly "relevant"...

all these "dying" threads are dumb. no forms of music die. they just change or evolve or not, but these threads aren't about music they are about how we have some idea that some things are or should be like "cutting edge" or "relevant" or whatever...it has nothing to do with music

also, i always remember that usually you start to think something is "dead" or creative moribund because you personally stopped paying attention...like you could just be a casual observer and say "jazz is dead" but then the jazz d-bags link to all sorts of cool stuff that's out there that you never even hear about....or the metal threads, or the rolling punk thread or the autogoon thread, or the country thread...there's always good stuff out there, you just have to find it....and let go of this idea that there needs to be some critical consensus about what music is like "important" today....nothing is important or everything is important

Obama???

I didn't say curatorial or revivalist or "purist" stuff couldn't be perfectly great! Just trying to invent any plausible mental scenario where anyone might consider hip-hop to not be around anymore in quite the way it used to be.

What Will Kill Hip-Hop?

Hip-Hop Found Dead in Bronx Home
- Popular and influential music culture was 33
- Foul play suspected
- Authorities seek pro-chords Norwegian activist for questioning

- Popular rapper Nas declines comment

But a genre can die in the sense that it's no longer vital to the culture, right? I mean, it's all relative because there could always be scattered pockets of appreciation for every genre, but it wouldn't be incorrect to say, for example, that polka is "dead", at least in popular American culture in the year 2009. Maybe it's the way that Latin is a "dead" language, even though some people can still speak it and it's influence is evident in modern languages. It still exists, but for all practical purposes, it's irrelevant outside of a very small circle. Also, I don't think this thread is really being serious.

If you want to know how hip hop is doing, then ask yourself: How am I doing? Where am I going? -- Mos Def

^^ hip-hop is around 30, regretting eating that whole burrito, its right knee is a little achy, and chances are it'll die during the next 50 years

autotune

M@tt totally OTM w/the serious posts btw

voted Lack of melody. Excellent poll!

polka is "dead", at least in popular American culture in the year 2009

These guys are great

polkencyde

It still exists, but for all practical purposes, it's irrelevant outside of a very small circle.

fuck you and your mass-market relevancy

Blah blah blah, like I didn't parse my explanation to death for you anyway. We can't even have a conversation about pop music if we're going to pretend that polka and rap music are equally popular in North America.

And the mass market isn't a reliable indicator of relevancy in a capitalist, consumer-driven country? I'm not saying it's the only one, but sheesh, we have to ignore it- u r dumb.

I just don't see any point in debating what's "relevant" - the entire concept is flawed and useless

like why should I care more about a certain subsection of the population that likes hip-hop than about a certain smaller subsection of the population that likes polka music

It's easy to say this when you have access to the type of music you like regardless of what's popular.

exactly. we're not living in the age of a few record companies and a handful of national television stations and regional radio anymore - the "center" of mass culture is getting steadily diffused thx to the internet/technology.

haha xpost but shakey just said it

i would hold that the idea of a mass market "relevancy" is gonna mean a whole lot less going forward than it did in the past....what with the audience fracturing into a million subcultures and niche tastes.

plus i know this thread was a joke, but all the "is rock n' roll dead" stuff or "how do we save it" stuff just seems well...irrelevant to ME. like i don't care really and i don't think it's a question that means very much.

there's no reason why YOU should care about it, but if you want to draw an arc of a music style's history it'd be lacking if it didn't contain info on "ok this is when nobody did it, this is when a few people did it and were into it, this is when the most amount of people did, this is when it started tailing off, and this is when only old people in dank vfw halls did it"

I know we're all waaay above caring whether music is considered cool or relevant or whatever, but it's impossible to ignore that almost every aspect of culture is affected by perceptions of relevance. It might seem vague and intangible but it still looms over pop music.

I just don't see any point in debating what's "relevant" - the entire concept is flawed and useless

^^ ok this is flatly not true -- you are arguing with someone on a thread whose title is pretty clearly concerned with the death/relevance of something

I mean this is like barging into a bathroom stall and yelling that you're not interested in toilets

But a genre can die in the sense that it's no longer vital to the culture, right? I mean, it's all relative because there could always be scattered pockets of appreciation for every genre, but it wouldn't be incorrect to say, for example, that polka is "dead", at least in popular American culture in the year 2009. Maybe it's the way that Latin is a "dead" language, even though some people can still speak it and it's influence is evident in modern languages. It still exists, but for all practical purposes, it's irrelevant outside of a very small circle. Also, I don't think this thread is really being serious.

First of all OTM about the thread being a joke thread (a response to those not very serious either threads about rock's death).

But I guess dead depends on how you define it. And also if a genre is virtually dead it may still come to life. For instance, I would say prog was pretty much dead during the 80s, but it woke up again, and is now very vital, although maybe in somewhat different forms (prog metal, prog indie) than the symphonic rock of the 70s. (And, well, even revivalist bands like Flower Kings and IQ are indeed quite popular too in terms of having a loyal fanbase who will buy their records)

But, using prog as an example here, I still feel that the same thing will happen to hip-hop that has happened to other "black" genres: White people start doing their own thing on it, and black people move on to something else. I mean, it happened with rock'n'roll and funk (disco) before and it may happen with hip-hop too. Although the Eminems and Justin Timberlakes of the world haven't quite gotten there yet.

i just took a dump on the floor fwiw

But, using prog as an example here, I still feel that the same thing will happen to hip-hop that has happened to other "black" genres: White people start doing their own thing on it, and black people move on to something else. I mean, it happened with rock'n'roll and funk (disco) before and it may happen with hip-hop too. Although the Eminems and Justin Timberlakes of the world haven't quite gotten there yet.

Dude, Asher Roth.

combination pizza hut and taco bells killed hip hop

i believe geir is saying that once white people get ahold of something it gets stale and uncool?

I mean this is like barging into a bathroom stall and yelling that you're not interested in toilets

lolz will try this and get back to you

xpost

well the rock bands he likes are proof enough of that

ut it's impossible to ignore that almost every aspect of culture is affected by perceptions of relevance. It might seem vague and intangible but it still looms over pop music.

not only vague but also arbitrary

"relevance"

frame it, hang it on your wall.

Strikes me that it's already dead, no?

Oh, whoops, didn't notice that was already one of my options. Carry on.

i believe geir is saying that once white people get ahold of something it gets stale and uncool?

Not for the critics no. At least not in the first 5-10 years.

I mean let's break it down what constitutes "relevance" in the pop landscape for the last couple decades - selling a certain number of units to a specific subset of the population i.e., pre-teen/teenage girls, young gay guys, young usually male self-appointed "music critics", and a random smattering of other people who care about what these other three groups care about, all of whom are wrapped up in a hyper-monetized market that requires continual infusion of "new" product in order to continue to generate money. Now let's be clear that this does not constitute a majority of the population or even really reflect what the majority of people listen to. Why should I care about the self-absorbed machinations of this industry in terms of what kind of aesthetic has temporarily captured their limited, glassy-eyed attention spans? As if what this subset deems "important" is somehow indicative of "quality" in a broader sense, or reflective of some kind of major social dynamic I should be aware of...?

x-posts

you get that there are markets aimed at yr demographic too, yes

X-post Well. Adult contemporary isn't dead, although it has never been alive following that definition.

I mean, that pop argument is kind of sneering and despicable and seems to come from a lofty standpoint that has never had Radiohead or LCD Soundsystem thrown at it.

i would be a lot easier to throw thom yorke than james murphey IMO

james murphy is pretty big.

you get that there are markets aimed at yr demographic too, yes

indeed I do, but I don't go around telling other people that they have to care about my market in order to be "relevant" now do I

Robo-Americans trigger unexpected baroque revival in 2030.

for ex I really like the new Akron/Family album but calling it "relevant" is a coded argument obliging you to listen to it regardless of whether or not I think you would actually enjoy it, which is obnoxious.

x-post

Hip-hop linked to grand mal seizures in clones.

"Melodic speaking" fad sweeps nation.

Crunk rebranded as computer language.

rip hip hop

Rap lyrics consist entirely of misheard lyrics to Danish children's songs.

i killed hiphop. it needed put out of its misery.

dude, Shakey, I don't think "relevance" in a dead/alive way is some kind of industry/market thing

like I could refer to the classic "crooner" style as not really being a modern going concern no matter how many units Mr. Buble managed to sell

lolz but that's never gone away - there were others before Buble and there will be more after him, the only thing that makes him "irrelevant" is that he does not fit into aforementioned parameters currently en vogue among teenage girls/young gays/"critics" etc.

I mean apart from those explicitly market-based parameters, why is he not "relevant"? Dude has tons of listeners and obviously is emotionally connecting with a large portion of the music-buying audience.

isn't essentially that real estate agents and housewives and retirees or whoever are "not relevant"?

isn't IT essentially...

I didn't say he wasn't relevant. I said that the classic crooner style is not necessarily considered a modern going concern. There are lots of reasons for this. One might be that the style is strongly linked to its heyday in a prior time, and even people who listen to it now associate the aesthetic with the past; another is that practitioners of the style usually court that, harking back to the style/image of the past in a nostalgic way, as if re-creating something, rather than treating it as some wide-open ever-modernizing thing.

My point here is basically that ... okay, no matter how much swing-revival stuff was sold in the 90s, or how relevant any of that stuff was to the period, there's a reason it was considered the swing revival and not the swing explosion -- because it was a style that had, for reasons not strictly related to the market, been largely considered to have passed.

Even though it's sometimes difficult to pinpoint the exact rise and fall of a genre's relevance, you have to play pretty dumb to act like the arc doesn't exist AT ALL.

^^ again, that doesn't mean nobody's doing it or nobody's listening to it, it just means there's a perception that to some extent it's ceased being a modern, evolving thing, whether that's because it morphed into something else or dead-ended or any old reason under the sun

all these "dying" threads are dumb

you dont say!

stuff doesn't die, it just gets relabeled. likewise, certain genres don't have a longer lifespan relative to others that "dead-ended" or whatever: nobody could ever think of a new name for the new twist it experienced. so "swing" is dead, but "soul" is not.

my point is simply that appeals to "relevancy" inherently involve the (often disguised) priveleging of one subset over another (ie, "don't pay attention to that, you should be paying attention to THIS, because THIS matters to people... or at least, people that are important. Or, at least, a LOT of people" etc) and the premises that that priveleging is based on is usually complete bullshit, either because its guided by an obsession with youth, or with wealth, or with social power, or whatever. I'm not just going to accept that something's relevant because makeitpop says it is, especially not in the cultural climate we have now, where music culture is no longer as monolithic and as commonly shared as it used to be... if someone's going to argue that a given style of music is "relevant" or "alive" or whatever then I want to know what that's based on, the WHY.

and re: Buble/swing subculture the reason it was called a revival in the 90s and not an explosion is that things can't explode twice. DUH. But this goes back to the whole thing about the pop market's obsession with youth/new-ness - anything that's been around for more than a set period of time (a decade? 20 years?) is no longer relevant because its market has been mapped out and its money-making mechanics have been locked in. It may continue on within those parameters, occasionally generating more or less cash, for generations, but it will no longer be "relevant" in the pop world because now it is familiar, and its aesthetics and demographic appeal are clearly established. Thus there is still a subculture that listens to polka music, or crooners, or folk music, or whatever - but they don't appeal to the market that cares most about whether or not something is "new" (ie, the pop market of teenage girls/gays/culture critics) and therefore it doesn't matter. Fuck that shit.

like, by the time a genre's been around for 20 years, the teenage girls/gay dudes/critics who were blown away by it when it first arrived have now grown old and therefore DON'T MATTER.

again, that doesn't mean nobody's doing it or nobody's listening to it, it just means there's a perception that to some extent it's ceased being a modern, evolving thing, whether that's because it morphed into something else or dead-ended or any old reason under the sun

Most genres stop evolving after not too long. I mean, exactly how much has rap changed since the late 80s?

this is silly shakey mo

oh really. someone point me to a genre who's "relevancy" did not rise and fall with the coming of age of a given generation. once that generation's gotten past a certain age, its preferred genres are no longer "relevant".

there could be one swing band in existence & shakey would be like WERE JUST PRIVILEGING ONE SUBSET OVER ANOTHER -- SWING IS JUST AS 'RELEVANT' AS LADY GAGA

I mean, exactly how much has rap changed since the late 80s?

^^^now THIS is fucking silly

stop

there could be one swing band in existence & shakey would be like WERE JUST PRIVILEGING ONE SUBSET OVER ANOTHER -- SWING IS JUST AS 'RELEVANT' AS LADY GAGA

except Michael Buble probably sells just as much as, if not more, than Lady GaGa.

Shakey 110% OTM.

the Lord will kill hip hop on the last day of recorded time but it will rise at the judgement call and be found awesome & ice cream tee will spit over beats laid down by jimi & kurt and it's going to be beautiful the most beautiful clouds in fact

John's been a-drinkin' again.

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

rock music.