Will the Rap/Hip-Hop generation music become the new standard?

[Kaylor]

Why do people like rap? How can they stand it?

Jazz used to be the most popular, then Rock N' Roll came in, became most popular, and evolved. Will Rap/Hip-Hop take the same path? I sure as hell hope not, but so did those Jazz lovers when Rock came in.

I am very much so against Rap, but could it evolve into something listenable?

Where is music going?

[Compugasm]

Where is music going?

Why does it matter? You don't like where it is now, so it's not likely you will like where it's headed. I hear Guns N Roses has a new album coming out, someday, so have hope. In the meantime, try Andrew Bird.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Kaylor Why do people like rap? How can they stand it? Jazz used to be the most popular, then Rock N' Roll came in, became most popular, and evolved. Will Rap/Hip-Hop take the same path? I sure as hell hope not, but so did those Jazz lovers when Rock came in. I am very much so against Rap, but could it evolve into something listenable? Where is music going?

You're sounding like you think those other styles are dead. I play in a Jazz ensemble and still listen to classic and alternative rock so... I don't get your point.

[Jack]

After jazz, hip-hop is the only other authentically American musical style.

Every generation loves their music and despairs over the "new" music of the next generation. Then you've got those of us like you and I (I love jazz as a former DJ at a jazz radio station in college, and classical). We tend not to like much that happened after 1940.

I never really got into R&R but did find I was attracted to electronic music, perhaps because at my core I'm a geek.

Musical tastes are too personal, in my opinion, to make grand generalizations about where music is headed.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Kaylor Why do people like rap? How can they stand it ?

It's not a matter of "different tastes", because the tastes of peoples are the tastes of musical propaganda: easy to make, easy to sell, easy to replace.

Quote by: Kaylor Jazz used to be the most popular, then Rock N' Roll came in, became most popular, and evolved. Will Rap/Hip-Hop take the same path? I sure as hell hope not, but so did those Jazz lovers when Rock came in.

Blues (and its son, pre-nirvana rock n' roll) and especially jazz are music requiring talent. It's much more easy to make a 2 note music with a lot of propaganda and replacing it 6 months latter with another crap than finding somebody like Miles Davis or Buddy Guy. There is such people, like Allan Holdsworth, Greg Howe, Buckethead and stuff, but they are playing underground, behing the shadow of easy music.
I love evolution. I love weird jazz fusion, avant guarde music and stuff, but mainstream music is just new, not original.

Quote by: Kaylor I am very much so against Rap, but could it evolve into something listenable?

Of course it could! But it won't. I know some underground rap artists who do real good, soulful, and sometime technical music. But as I said they are underground, and they will reamain underground.

Quote by: Kaylor Where is music going?

What about music? Did I hear somebody saying music?

Quote by: Isherwood Every generation loves their music and despairs over the "new" music of the next generation.

I'm 15 and I'm despaired.

[Jack]

It's not a matter of "different tastes", because the tastes of peoples are the tastes of musical propaganda: easy to make, easy to sell, easy to replace.

I don't think that applies to everyone. I respond to music that moves me in some way, that I emotionally respond to. Some people may follow the trends as set forth by the music companies, but they're just cheating themselves.

[Kaylor]

How does it become mainstream?

For instance, take Soulja Boy. Who the hell decided he would become popular? He has no means to be popular, people just need to sit down and think about what they're listening to.

[Kite]

Thats simple: marketing. If you can get a good team together, people with the right connections, you can turn any talentless hack into a superstar. The music industry is no longer asking, "Is this good music?", they are instead asking, "Is this music we can market easily to the general public and turn a profit on?"

[phoenix_fire]

I hate rap. Loathe it. Even on the rare occasions when it has a message that doesn't make me despair at the degradation of society, I still just don't like the style. I'm a musician myself and in my opinion, rap has little in common with music.

[triad]

The music industry decides what the new generation likes, therefore the music industry decides where music will go.

I think they are pushing this new 'emo', 'my dad hates me and my mom likes drugs' crap on youth these days. Its so bland - boring, and repetitive. Amazingly enough, people think the same way about the music I listen to (see grundge era).

The worst part is the new music videos. They are just 3 minute long iPod commercials for f*sakes. Are all the new artists so busy that they can't not use their cellphone while recording a music video? Oh wait - thats just product placement for ya. I hate it, it disgusts me and makes me want to set the tv on fire. Don't even get me started on bands like simple plan, they make my entire body physically hurt and my brain tries to kill itself everytime I hear one of their songs.


Uggghhh, its soooo pathetic. But hey, thats just my opinion and to each their own.


As for rap, give me a break - sales are dropping every year. Make way for 'my chemical romance' because they represent the new "Rock n' Roll" genre. Someone shoot me.

[gela]

Will the Rap/Hip-Hop generation music become the new standard?

I was wondering the same thing.

Rap and hip hop isn't just mainstream, and it isn't just being pushed by big shot record companies. There is a massive underground scene for it.

It bothers me aswell..

but there are still other kinds of music emerging..
Dance music will always be popular.. because people have to dance. Hopefuly that leaves techno. Im not a techno fan but its far better then rap and hip hop.

I hope rock sticks around

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Kaylor For instance, take Soulja Boy. Who the hell decided he would become popular?

I've never heard of him, so I listened to figure out what you're talking about. It sounds like Gangsta Rap for pre-schoolers. From that marketing angle, he has a "hardcore" sound, but raps about dancing, and comic book heros. So there is nothing for parents to be offended by. Of course, I might be wrong because I only listened for two minutes of one song. I couldn't stand more than that. Soulja Boy is as fake as a Simpson.

[Muckraker]

If everyone starts paying for their music then there will be a more accurate representation of demand and that will drive music producers to roll the dice on artists that aren't so much of a sure thing.

Many of the people with more eclectic musical tastes that I personally know are extremely cheap and have no problem stealing music through "file sharing." This means that their dollars are never casting a vote and they are essentially a non-entity when it comes to measuring what "people" want musically.

I do the best that I can. I pay full retail price for CDs from established retailers. I try to purchase an average of one or two discs a month. If I think a friend would like one of my discs I will purchase them a copy instead of burn them a copy.

The problem you see with "popular" music is the same problem that exists with books, movies, television, and anything else left up to personal taste. The things that are popular are aimed at the lowest common denominator - the people who will spend the most money on what they like.

This is also why we have an incredibly powerful "tween" market.

The only thing you can do is continue to vote for what you like with your dollar bills and hope that other people like you follow suit. If you have "fringe" tastes, however, expect to spend a long time hoping because the number of others like you is either low or the others like you aren't voting with their cash.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Muckraker ...stealing music through "file sharing."

First, I find it impossible to belive you have paid for every song you have ever heard in your entire lifetime! Additionally, that a deserving portion of your small fortune has ended up in the hands of the artist, rather than the record label, who pays the artist a pittance of what they deserve.

Second, the argument that file sharers do not spend money on albums has been debunked. They not only buy albums, but go to concerts and buy related merchandise. In fact, those "in control of the media" are using the people of the internet to do their marketing for them. That is why YouTube and MySpace, etc... are blowing up in popularity. If anything, you could argue that all this free content is exactly why we have to put up with Brittany Spears nonsense.

If your stealing argument was true, then the first recordable cassettes in the 1970s would have destroyed the industry. Burnable CDs didn't destroy music, and niether will the internet. In fact, I don't see how you can claim that file sharing is a bad thing for anyone who makes music. Unless you work for iTunes or Disney.

In my first post I promoted Andrew Bird. I couldn't have done that, unless that video and his songs were available, for free, on the internet. Not only have I talked about him and Gregory Page every chance I can, I've gone to both their concerts. Additionally, I bought every album Gregory Page has made (15 and counting) and put the cash right into the mans hand, not a record label. While I realize this is just my personal story of consumer spending, I would have never found them had it not been "illegally stolen" with said file sharing. If something is worth buying, people will pay for it.

Would it make any difference if I had heard a song on the radio, and then decided to take the same course of action in going to concerts or buying albums? No, except that Andrew Bird and Gregory Page would never be on corporate radio. Companies like Clear Channel and Time Warner ruin almost everything they touch... well, all that is a whole separate argument. My point is Muckraker, your argument is based on a false premise.

[Muckraker]

Since this is all off topic in this post, I created a new post located here if you would like to debate the issue.

File Sharing: Theft or Public Service?

I will very briefly respond to your points below to whet your whistle and encourage you to duke it out in the new post.

Quote by: Compugasm First, I find it impossible to belive you have paid for every song you have ever heard in your entire lifetime! Additionally, that a deserving portion of your small fortune has ended up in the hands of the artist, rather than the record label, who pays the artist a pittance of what they deserve.

What I do personally doesn't matter. This is a debate forum and claims need not be supported by real life activity. Debate claims should be supported with evidence.

You would need to supply support for your claim that internet file sharing puts more money in the artist's hands than the distribution method that they themselves selected.

Second, the argument that file sharers do not spend money on albums has been debunked. They not only buy albums, but go to concerts and buy related merchandise. In fact, those "in control of the media" are using the people of the internet to do their marketing for them. That is why YouTube and MySpace, etc... are blowing up in popularity. If anything, you could argue that all this free content is exactly why we have to put up with Brittany Spears nonsense.

Nobody claimed file sharers don't spend any money. The claim is that file sharing is illegal and falls under the category of theft.

If your stealing argument was true, then the first recordable cassettes in the 1970s would have destroyed the industry. Burnable CDs didn't destroy music, and niether will the internet. In fact, I don't see how you can claim that file sharing is a bad thing for anyone who makes music. Unless you work for iTunes or Disney.

Previous manners of copying material were also illegal, and still are. Dubbing cassettes or copying CDs and distributing as a manner of "supporting" artists you enjoy was not as dangerous since it required physical media, was bound by extremely limited and time consuming copy methods, and resulted in a physical product. The distribution audience for a teenager who buys a cassette tape and dubs a copy for each of his friends is much more limited than that of a teen who rips a CD to LimeWire and is instantly sharing the content with millions and millions of complete strangers. Regardless, both activities are illegal.

In my first post I promoted Andrew Bird. I couldn't have done that, unless that video and his songs were available, for free, on the internet. Not only have I talked about him and Gregory Page every chance I can, I've gone to both their concerts. Additionally, I bought every album Gregory Page has made (15 and counting) and put the cash right into the mans hand, not a record label. While I realize this is just my personal story of consumer spending, I would have never found them had it not been "illegally stolen" with said file sharing. If something is worth buying, people will pay for it.

Yes you could. It's called Word of Mouth advertising. You say you like something and your friends determine if your opinion warrants them paying for the product. It's great that the artist you listed chose to provide his content in that medium. That is in no way justifying people stealing content from artists that did NOT choose to provide content in that medium.

Would it make any difference if I had heard a song on the radio, and then decided to take the same course of action in going to concerts or buying albums? No, except that Andrew Bird and Gregory Page would never be on corporate radio. Companies like Clear Channel and Time Warner ruin almost everything they touch... well, all that is a whole separate argument.

Yes, it does make a difference. If the artist releases content to radio stations for promotional purposes then that is their choice. Money changes hands in the radio biz. People who listen to the radio are paying for their "free experience" by being exposed to ads, being limited in which songs they can hear, and being limited in when they can hear them. The radio is similar to the teaser clips you can hear for just about every song on every album for sale at Amazon.

My point is Muckraker, your argument is based on a false premise.

That is yet to be proven.

Since I consider your position indefensible then maybe you would like to attempt to prove your point in a more appropriate thread? I'm sure that numerous other Volconvo-ites will jump to your aid as well so you won't have to enter battle alone.

File Sharing: Theft or Public Service?

[Compugasm]

Quote by: Muckraker You would need to supply support for your claim...

Me? Since this is the "hip/hop" thread, you probably missed the arguments already presented by Prince, Andre 3000, TLC, 50 Cent... Belive it or not, Courtney Love spelled it all out.

I checked out your new thread, and you're pretty long winded. I simply don't have that kind of time to read all that and debate. I don't think you've thought through, exactly who is being protected by copywriting and how those sweeping laws will be applied. As a side note, notice how the site displaying Mrs Loves article, displays advertisements. I'm sure she isn't getting a royalty on the income generated from those ad impressions.