That whole list could be applied to any of the various genres who have been largely overtaken by cooperations and fat-cat record companies, not just hip hop.
Boycott? Seems to me you either listen to it or you don't. But it's always a bit risky to condemn an entire genre. You may think you hate a type of music and before you know it someone may come up with something you really like.
I used to listen to rap/hip hop therefore i know what i am talking about hip hop and rap is one of the problems today such as the violence,disrespect and so on.
I've been boycotting rap and hip hop my entire life, and it has nothing to do greed or lack of altruism or excessive misogyny and/or violence. It's a pretty one dimensional art form that has, and probably always will have, merely unfulfilled potential. If you want to hear what the music could sound like, check out Pete Townshend's reworking of "Who Are You?" in the Lifehouse Chronicles. The rap portion starts a little after the one minute mark.
A lot of rap and hip-hop is all too generic now - same tired topics, same 'attitude', same tired 'moves', same bling, same clothes, same babes gyrating near a pimpmobile...most of what is aired now is lowest common denominator push-button bullsh*t. Watch any bog-standard rap or hip-hop vid released these days and it could be from any year between now and 1991. Probably why more semi-feral juveniles like it now more than ever - the musical cul-de-sac that the genre finds itself in keeps them in their chavvy comfort zone while they fantasise about being from Compton or the Bronx. It goes without saying that any intelligent and thought-provoking stuff (i.e. like quite a lot of it used to be) remains underground - away from the mainstream charts and to a large degree away from the hoodie-wearing losers who aren't interested in anything that goes beyond the same old sex, weed and violence cliches.
I think it should be noted that the OP's blog consists of six posts, each calling to boycott something different. Along with hip-hop, the OP is boycotting the music industry in general, sports, religions (with a picture of Hitler), "evil Asians," and the rich.
I think I'll boycott HIP, or boring wig operas at least. A friend was dragged along to one here recently by his partner and he was in a comatose state by the end of the first half. So give me hip-hop over that any day, & I don't mind some things like Kanye West once in a while. More relevant to my life than some guys in wigs standing around singing about the gods...
Sid James, you constantly say that people who bash and attack modern music are disrespectful. Yet, in this occasion, even though no one has particularly bashed any of your favorites, you go and show the exact same disrespect, but this time towards the music that you don't like.
It doesn't have to be this way, is all I'm saying.
I've been here for a while and had heaps of stuff thrown in my face from the other direction (the HARD conservative direction I mean). People who insinuate that if you don't like certain types of music they like, you're not a "real" classical listener. Or if you like things they don't, then that's a problem.
We all make value judgements, but usually I talk from experience, or a degree of it. We all have our own ideologies and ways of seeing the world. But these people don't understand - there are many ways, not just THEIR way.
BTW, the guy who started this thread, his avatar is Beethoven. I love Beethoven's music, he's one of my favourite composers. Just listened to his Fidelio after like 10 years. A joy. But one must understand that there are a hell of a lot of people out there who don't care about Beethoven, they prefer something like hip-hop. Just as I prefer hip-hop, or some types of it, over wig operas.
So that's all I'm saying. There's an element of tongue in cheek, but also giving back these jokers a taste of their own medicine. But I get the message, and I'm trying to not rant that much, it's become cliche as well now...
I absolutely dont like hip hop and rap. But I like young people that find it as a part of their integration an selfe esteem. But looking to that article..... I must say that I found it ironical...
I think I'll boycott HIP, or boring wig operas at least. A friend was dragged along to one here recently by his partner and he was in a comatose state by the end of the first half. So give me hip-hop over that any day, & I don't mind some things like Kanye West once in a while. More relevant to my life than some guys in wigs standing around singing about the gods...
Hip-hop is about saying what's on your mind to a beat. if you can't understand that, well i don't know what to tell you. take it for what it is -- if you don't like the commercial aspect of the whole thing, then go live in a communist country. or maybe actually try to figure out what hip-hop is all about, before opening your mouth and sounding like a fool.
Instead of boycotting an entire genre of music, why not just boycott the artists or songs that your description applies to, and seek out the ones that it doesn't?
I think that hip-hop has become kind of more commercial as elgar's ghost says, and as mtmailey implies. It is less political now than it used to be. I'm talking here from perspective of someone not ever fully into hip-hop, just an outside casual observer. I listen to a good amount of non-classical on radio, incl. hip-hop, but it's a side thing to my main area of music, which is of course classical...
Are we certain we understand what this so-called "Creative Commons" is? I'm familiar with copyright and trademark law (as well as international conventions, such as the Berne Convention), but I've never heard of Creative Commons. Nor have I ever heard of a law or other agreement that would permit the holder of a copyright/trademark such as the one in question to sue someone for the kind of non-commercial display that appears to be at issue here.
From what I can gather from the internet, Creative Commons appears to be some sort of vehicle to help artists license their copyrighted material (somewhat like ASCAP or BMI for music). If that is correct, that would make Creative Commons a mere licensing agency. The substantive source of the artist's rights - assuming his or her work would qualify for protection - appears to be applicable copyright law, not Creative Commons.
Really? For a discussion that's about respect rather than the law, I see an inordinate amount of discussion about who can sue whom, licensing agreements, consulting lawyers, etc.
Thread is 'under review' and temporarily closed. Sorry folks.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Classical Music Forum
2.6M posts
40.6K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to classical music for musicians and other enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about composers, compositions, arrangements, collections, recordings, techniques, instruments, styles, reviews, classifieds, and more!