KilledInADuel posted:

junk

1. the idea of the "gangsta rap explosion" fuelled by white consumption was a largely outdated marketing gimmick. there has never been reliable data on music consumption by ethnicity, but "top 40" stations throughout the period where this supposed boom was taking places forwarded white papers based on intentionally shaky metrics (such as using evidence of music being purchased in predominantly white neighbourhoods - i.e. where record stores were in the first place) as indicative of the supposed fact that the most influential market for this music was white suburbia

this was done specifically to capitalise on the fact that predominantly black oriented or owned radio stations were under pressure by advertisers not to play this music for exactly the same reasons you've been stating here. black stations were only allowed small windows in which they were able to actually play new rap records, but were unable to have them in regular rotation. mainstream radio stations were in a unique position of being able to seize the audience of black stations while also being able to assuage advertiser concerns by promoting the largely fabricated narrative that the primary driving audience for this culture was harmless white escapism

2. the record labels responsible for the rise of "gangsta" - or more broadly, "street" - rap were almost to a rule locally and independently owned. cash money, no limit, rap-a-lot, hypnotize minds, so so def, death row - received little major label backing. most did not sign distribution deals with majors until well into their history when they were largely forced to by the decline of independent music industry in the early 2000s

the distribution networks responsible for the success of "street" rap in the 90s - most notably the efforts of priority records - were successful because they almost solely focused their promotion on local communities and audience while practically refusing to deal with conventional music media and especially major label dominated radio stations

of the labels associated with this boom that still actually exist in some consistent form, most notably rap-a-lot, are infamous for refusing to send even basic press releases to media outlets because their promotion is focused entirely on real life local audiences

3. the infrastructure involved in the distribution of this music - particularly in the past decade or so, but definitely even earlier - have existed almost entirely outside conventional markets. mixtapes were the fundamental medium behind the rise of any of the significant figures in "street rap" in our recent history, and until the permeation of the internet, these were distributed through car boots, swap meets and barbershops. that is, almost exclusively in black neighbourhoods

with all this in mind - who are you actually talking about when you suggest the white puppet masters behind the promotion and distribution of this music? what white audiences are so influential in determining the culture of this music? the role of record sales in street rap today is functionally negligible - it's dominated by freely downloadable mixtapes. careers are sustained almost entirely by live performances - and if you go see migos or future or whatever in a club in atlanta, what percentage of the audience do you think is likely to be white?

4. the music you are summarily dismissing are so frequently more explicitly political than those in the genre deemed "respectable" - or for that matter, almost any other popular music culture. resentment and aggression towards state institutions complicit in the slow genocide of the american black population - the police and corrective institutions - are some of the most well trodden subject matters explored within these cultures. you know what protestors at ferguson protests were blaring and singing along to at police? lil boosie

blinkandwheeze posted:

c_man posted:

sections of gangsta rap were also promoted because of the neoliberal "self made man" trope that got promoted (not to mention glorifying the CIAs dirty work selling drugs)

the sections you're talking about here are and were more endemic to classicist, "respectability politics" cultural attitudes than associated with "gangsta" rap. you're going to see more outright contempt of the latter in this milieu than anything else. the article you link talks about jay-z and kanye west, for christ's sake - are you really trying to pass them off as sections of gangsta rap

kanye is fairly spurious but are you trying to tell me that the black album thru, say, american gangsta isn't gangsta rap? and i'd definitely put people like biggie in the same boat, rapping about dealing drugs and building up their personal fiefdoms

c_man posted:

kanye is fairly spurious but are you trying to tell me that the black album thru, say, american gangsta isn't gangsta rap? and i'd definitely put people like biggie in the same boat, rapping about dealing drugs and building up their personal fiefdoms

yes? "gangsta rap" is a real thing and specific cultural tendency, not just referring to anyone that has ever written about moving weight. i don't think i've ever heard anyone refer to jay-z as a gangsta rapper that wasn't on like, a fox news show

regardless, it should be transparent that jay-z is obviously not the same figure as even a biggie - jay-z is aesthetically conservative and classicist. his points of reference were specifically gangster, the suits and cigars of mafioso movies. his vision was always elitist and almost purely aspirational

there are a few exceptions in his discography i would consider g rap though - big pimpin, probably - because hov fundamentally was and is an opportunist

i probably wouldn't consider biggie a gangsta rapper but the difference between jay-z and someone like him should be pretty clear - where hov was building figurative empires, biggie's "fiefdoms" were vehicles for suicidal thoughts just as often as they were home to anything of solace. if you think biggie's records are consistent with the aspirational individualism of forbes magazine, you simply aren't listening hard enough

blinkandwheeze posted:

hyperbole m8. no i have not literally only heard fox news presenters call jay-z a "gangsta rapper" - but it should be obvious what i am implying by that comment. what outlets actually actively aware of rap music and culture would refer to him as such?

why would you expect them to? it's like bringing up a national chain to a bunch of foodies nerding out trying to impress each other.

c_man posted:

why are you approaching the phenomenon rap music entering the mainstream of US music right as it starts to center on the violent exploitation of the most vulnerable communities in the US becoming via the promotion of the people doing it as though its something you have to analyze by itself and not as a social product? whether its melancholic or aspirational it's what was allowed to become successful on the larger market. why then? was it total coincidence?

i have been analysing it as a social product, unless you missed my large post that focused on the actual material and social processes of the practical processes and distribution of this music? rap music entered the mainstream long before gangsta rap existed as a real trend, and gangsta rap did not achieve mainstream recognition until it had already become a financial success through bypassing mainstream media or distribution networks and instead promoting itself to the communities it directly concerned

gangsta rap was not allowed to become successful by any means that wasn't a largely impersonal financial calculus. that is, this music was seized on by major distribution networks and consolidated by financial interests until well after it had proven the ability to move records in substantial amounts, break artists and hits, through its own infrastructure and distribution networks

why that happened is a bigger question but i don't think it's that perplexing why a music that actually addresses the social context and cultures of a large, marginalised communities saw success by engaging directly with these audiences. why did the cultural product that was developed and promoted within these communities embrace the subject matter it did? because that was the reality of the social context that this music existed in relation to. no, it's not a coincidence that the culture of rap music shifted alongside the destruction of black communities through the crack epidemic... what's curious is why anyone would expect it not to, or that it would have required any outside intervention to make that push

c_man posted:

you missed the point. people who know a lot about hiphop dont have to classify jayz because its so obvious and pervasive, not because he is or is not anything in particular. i know people who feel the same way about the "gangsta rap" label in general

that's precisely why jay-z has to be classified by people who know a lot about hiphop - it's, in relative terms, an extremely young genre with very few artists that have been able to reach the stature he has. more ink has been spilled regarding his career than most other figures in the entire history of the music. it's ridiculous to assume that none of that has dealt with his categorisation and attempting to situate where exactly he is in the cultural landscape and what that means

this is, in any case, a mostly meaningless semantic distinction - even if you want to use a broader and fluid definition of "gangsta rap" that would include jay-z, that doesn't change my argument at all. the difference between someone like jay-z and the vast majority of gangsta rap (other gangsta rap, if you're insistent on this) is that jay-z is aesthetically classicist and purely aspirational. much of the latter reflects, instead, melancholia, paranoia, desperation and precarity. the nature of the former sees hustling as purely a process of individual self-betterment - whether within the drug trade or out of it - and is both implicitly and explicitly tied to notions of respectability politics. the latter tendency rejects every possible tenet of respectability politics, presents success as implicitly isolating and self-destructive, is clear about the role of desperate conditions as motivating influence, and does not shy from examining the role of violence and state repression in consolidating that desperation

these are distinct explorations of similar subjects, and it is in no way coincidental that the perspectives of figures like jay-z and kanye west are those that are being institutionally embraced and upheld as positive role models

blinkandwheeze posted:

why that happened is a bigger question but i don't think it's that perplexing why a music that actually addresses the social context and cultures of a large, marginalised communities saw success by engaging directly with these audiences. why did the cultural product that was developed and promoted within these communities embrace the subject matter it did? because that was the reality of the social context that this music existed in relation to. no, it's not a coincidence that the culture of rap music shifted alongside the destruction of black communities through the crack epidemic... what's curious is why anyone would expect it not to, or that it would have required any outside intervention to make that push

saying the culture shifted during the epidemic is one thing but claiming that the natural consequence of that is to promote the people selling the crack is another. but i agree that this is a stupid argument and should probably not continue