Thursday, April 13, 2006

Is hip hop dead?

I had an op-ed in the Famuan published yesterday asking this question.

Check it.

9 Comments:

Blogger Matt Gilmour said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4/13/2006 1:26 PM  
Blogger Matt Gilmour said...

It's a well-written piece (though there was one sentence that confused me), but like I told you at the KRS-One show, I find this type of thinking misguided, in spite of the good intentions.

The number one contributors to the supposedly lingering smell of death surrounding music--be it hip-hop or rock--aren't the corporations, the fans, or the musicians themselves, it's the people who keep trying to proclaim its demise (who, not surprisingly, are usually music critics with little to no actual involvement in the creation of music or the industry itself).

Relax and stop worrying. You're too young to be whining this much. This shit ain't going anywhere.

4/13/2006 1:28 PM  
Blogger Konflict of Interest said...

It's more posing the question of death, really. Hip-hop is more of a business than an art form now, that's obvious. In its purest form hip hop is definitely dead. As far as DEAD dead... I don't know. I'll just pose the question.

4/13/2006 1:56 PM  
Blogger Matt Gilmour said...

Any music being created and sold is equal parts business and art. Anyone who says otherwise is completely deluded (self-righteous indie artists, I'm looking in your direction). So by your logic, hip-hop died the moment the first vinyl single was sold or when people paid admission to a soundsystem concert.

Seriously, this discussion is so inane it borders on nauseating (particularly the use of the word "purest" :hurl: ). I think I'd rather hear you bitch about cultural appropriation in comparison--at least THAT topic is productive.

And seeing how just last week you proclaimed hip-hop and electronica the only current genres showing any artistic growth, I find this column to be just a tad bit contradictory.

But then again, I've gotten used to you making incongruous statements and shruggin them off--hell, you also posted that High on Fire "aren't even that good," then told me at the KRS show how great they are.

4/13/2006 2:35 PM  
Blogger Matt Gilmour said...

PS: I love how I don't have one post on my own blog, but somehow find time to knock out fairly intelligent responses to YOUR entries. I think I need help.

4/13/2006 2:37 PM  
Blogger Konflict of Interest said...

Yes, in the purest sense, that is true. Hip-hop DID die the moment the first vinyl single was sold or when people paid admission to a soundsystem concert. Talking about purity all stoically and shit is a useless argument, sure, and I may be guilty of that. I may have skirted that with my editorial, but there comes a point when you can't even recognize the music you used to love anymore. That's when you need to speak up. That's what I did.

When a genre is "pure" it is completely base, meaning it hasn't grown because its in its infant stages. For hip hop to naturally grow, like it has in spades over the last 30 years, it has to become inherently diluted and impure. Its like a child, becoming less innocent as he/she grows up. I know this may seem insane to you, but it makes sense to me.

"Hell, you also posted that High on Fire 'aren't even that good,' then told me at the KRS show how great they are." I remember telling you at the show that High on Fire are "pretty cool" or "cool" or "that will be an awesome show," because it probably will be, but (and I think I told you this explicitly) I wasn't going to see them live Thursday (tonight) like I had previously planned. This is partially to do with Passover and school assignments.

I certainly wouldn't gush over High on Fire, I can't think of a pheasable reason, and I don't believe I did. Its hard to hear in there, though, so maybe you misheard/misread me. I know I probably did the same to you a couple of times that night and pretended to know what you were talking about. Sorry about that.

In the interest of full disclosure, I haven't heard "Blessed Black Wings" in a while. I've heard it three times. For the record, High on Fire, as cool and talented as they are, run a formula into the ground a lot. Yet, metal-curious indie hipsters seem to like them. A small fraction of a reason I won't attend the High on Fire show. And HOF's formula (stoner-rock Motorhead, essentially) isn't even one I like that much... I don't like it so much that I want to hear it 12 times over in a CD done in 12 different (and rockin') ways.

There are times, however, where I want to rock the fuck out so I'll play "Blessed Back Wings" until I can't stand it (which is about... five songs). To their credit, High on Fire do rock, though. I can't stress this enough. They. Do. Rock. In their own way.

4/13/2006 3:26 PM  
Blogger Matt Gilmour said...

You just said two things at the beginning of that post that I cannot concisely (nor coherently) respond to in written format. Hopefully next time I see you we can continue this discussion, cause my ability to reason just suffered a stroke.

4/13/2006 3:32 PM  
Blogger Matt Gilmour said...

PS2 (not the game system): I REALLY want to hear Scott's take on this. Hopefully it's something more substantial than "you're both fucking crazy" (which is true).

4/13/2006 3:37 PM  
Blogger Konflict of Interest said...

Ok.

4/13/2006 3:37 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home