Week 8: Owners, Markets, and the Narrowing of Hip Hop Creativity

First of all, the movie about the "Amen Break" was really interesting. It had a lot of interesting analysis of the position and utilization of the specific 6-second drum break and the appropriate balance of copyright law and cultural production freedom.

Anyway, for this week, I had two ideas I wanted to discuss. Dimitriadis had an interesting thesis on the overall project of hip hop that seems obvious after studying the art form for 8 weeks, but he put it very well. He proposed that "Rapper's Delight" was a fundamental turning point for hip hop. Before RD, hip hop had primarily been a "live" art that was more focused on crowd interaction and engaging the public space, than content. After RD is published, not only did rap music acquire more of a focus on the narrative and content-driven songs, but also this narrowed the terms of hip hop. After the commodification of rap began, it became clear that other elements like break dancing or graffiti would be difficult to commodify in while maintaining their artistic integrity (arguably the graffiti on canvas is a potential avenue for graffiti commodification, but this would not have the same public accessibility and individual ownership as rap). This changed how people were exposed to hip hop. If people knew about hip hop pre-RD, you were locationally situated to have directly interacted with performers and music scenes. In a post-RD world, hip hop gained "exposure by way of an 'institutional context'" (425). One of the most interesting parts for me was the block quote on 427 by Mr. Wiggles from the Rock Steady Crew going to see Run-DMC, expecting to see b-boys break dancing, but only saw the two-man crew "jam". This moment of redefining the culture and creating an "Old-School" is interesting because this article makes it clear that there were two different agendas: the Old School was to rock the crowd and develop a "party community", and the New School was focused on lyrical structure and rap, exclusively. After reading this article and the early skepticism of people like Grandmaster Flash about people's desire to listen to a record re-recording onto another record makes me notice that the earliest aesthetic of hip hop was the connection with people and the ability to keep the groove going (is this still a focus today? At least something that rapper brag about in their lyrics?)

The second part I really enjoyed was theme and brief part from Schumacher's piece, which was a quote from Frith (1986): "Digital technology is 'disrupting the implicit equation of artists' "ownership" of their creative work and companies' ownership of the resulting commodities--the latter is being defended by reference to the former'" (454). I think what Schumacher best examines in his piece is the myth of the "island artist". Schumacher really addresses the idea that recordings of all kinds today, even live ones, involve technology and the studio in some capacity. Also implied in his argument, I believe, is that musical patterns or forms are part of a longer continuum of cultural ideas about musicality and artistic worth, not individual inventions. Therefore, the music industry is relying on this myth of artistic genius in order to "secure the rights of capital" at the expense of cultural creativity (453). This is a powerful idea, especially with Western conceptions of genius and creation, emphasizing individual input and ingenuity. But I believe Schumacher correctly identifies that these arguments are less about ethical issues and more about the politics of appropriation and economic control of capital. I do not think that Schumacher is saying that artists aren't individuals, creative, or talented. What I think is going on here is that Schumacher is questioning to what extent people are creating new music, and what it means to "own" any one part of the musical process.

Whew! Good stuff. Really excited for tomorrow evening!!

Week 7: Perry and "Prophet"eering

This week's readings was probably the most challenging readings that we have done because they were really theoretical and relied a lot on postmodernism and postcolonial criticism.

In generally, I really like Perry's work. I felt like she answered a lot of questions that I had been asking, such as reoccurring rap lyrics, such as her explanation of the heritage of the Mos Def line that he riffed from Rakim (54). I also liked her distinction between social science analysis of the function of hip hop lyrics and the artistic ritual of hip hop. I think the quote she used from bell hooks is such an important theme that I have picked up from the analysis of hip hop, especially after this week's readings (39). It is crucial to analyze the artistic value and cultural impacts of hip hop, not just try to understand the sociological circumstances of the music because that eliminates the agency and wit of hip hoppers, which is ultimately dehumanizing.

I was a little uncomfortable with Perry's analysis of the role of consumerism and hypercapitalist ideology in hip hop lyrics. On one level, I think she makes a fair point. Artists like Lil' Kim are able to use money as a way to subvert traditional race and gender roles by transgressing expectations. This can be said for any number of African American rappers who use "bling bling" as a way to demonstrate their ability to maneuver, manipulate, and ultimately control their own economic destiny within a white supremacist society. And to be fair, Perry clarifies that this notion of transgression does not inherently imply liberation, and the transgressive nature of their action is lost in the racism and sexism of broader society.

However, this was not entirely convincing. First of all, I felt like she gave the hyperconsumerism that defines much of hip hop today a pass because it was a metaphorical transgression. But I think that it also is intended as a marketing tool to sell products and ideas of wealth to youth. Therefore, though it may have merit, it is not entirely excusable. Focus on material gain leaves people feeling their self-worth is connected to their bank account and their individual needs, not a collective discourse on the future of culture or identity. Second, I wonder if the idea or existence of a community conversation that centers around rap, art, and blackness in America is lost or belittled if rap is flooded with consumerism, commercialization, and commodification. Is it still a legitimate conversation about society if the artists is being sponsored by Pepsi Cola and Sprint? I liked the ideas Perry (and Schur) had about the transformative power and aesthetic of hip hop to shift and reinvent meaning, but I wonder how much of that is lost in a consumerist-content hip hop...

Anyway, I look forward to discussing lots of profound ideas tomorrow!