Bulletin Board Archive

Topic: David Drake's The Death of Hip-Hop

1. Feb 1, 2006 12:41am by Krisna - "We live in an intensely political age and theory and historical experience show us that the condition of any artistic development is an uncompromising hostility to the values of Stalinism and to those of American bourgeois society." -CLR James
   This is a new piece I wrote which was just published in the KC infoZine. Let me know what you think. Peace. http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/12520/ reb[/i]
2. Feb 1, 2006 06:45am by DEMENCHA
   Very wordy article. But writers pointing fingers at each other doesn't amuse me. I almost wrote an article bashing Ann Coulter a while back, but thought better of it, cuz that shit's probably played out. I'm gonna fast forward from the disco chapter in "Last Night A DJ Saved My Life" and go to the first hip hop chapter...RIGHT NOW. *rubs hands with glee* PEACE
3. Feb 1, 2006 03:11pm by Reach. - Peace and oneness, www.emceereach.com www.myspace.com/reach www.twitter.com/emceereach www.youtube.com/reachtv www.cdbaby.com/cd/reachmusic2 www.cdbaby.com/cd/reachmusic Location: Kansas City
   Excellent piece...
4. Feb 3, 2006 03:30am by Krisna - "We live in an intensely political age and theory and historical experience show us that the condition of any artistic development is an uncompromising hostility to the values of Stalinism and to those of American bourgeois society." -CLR James
   Demencha, I would agree that the piece is very wordy. The process of developing a much more accessible language is indeed a process. As a matter of fact I wrote two pieces. One is much more mild in that respect because I want regular folks to relate to it. I'm not sure what you meant by fingerpointing, however. I don't know what context you place that in. I certainly am not trying to point fingers, because actually, David Drake's original piece is amazing. It is incredibly advanced. But in the interest of understanding hip-hop better, I choose to engage in critical conversation. My article is an answer piece which draws out the strengths and weaknesses of the original in order to advance my own thinking. Quite possibly, he may write a response which builds on my contributions while bringing in his own independent analysis. If you are interested in a different version let me know. But you should definitely critique the ideas in a much more thorough fashion. Peace. Krisna. By the way, anyone watch The Office tonight? That show is the most amazing analysis of workplace and other relations that I have ever seen. That shit is hilarious.
5. Feb 6, 2006 07:31pm by DEMENCHA
   Yea, let's see the other version PEACE
6. Feb 7, 2006 04:46am by Krisna - "We live in an intensely political age and theory and historical experience show us that the condition of any artistic development is an uncompromising hostility to the values of Stalinism and to those of American bourgeois society." -CLR James
   Demencha, here is the toned down piece as requested. Thanks. Feel free to be ruthless. -Kris In reply to Stylus Magazine’s broad theme, THE DEATH OF HIP-HOP, David Drake writes unquestionably one of the most advanced interpretations of hip-hop music and culture. How? Because he considers hip-hop as a mass of contrasting ideas and influences. While refusing to fashionably reduce hip-hop, he places it, not as something unchanging, but as a democratic and participatory organism; as something alive which is created by people and which constantly undergoes change. Thus, he tries to break from hip-hop’s narrow definitions with a revolutionary view which frees it from the claws of traditional understanding. There are some slight shortcomings in this 1,000-word piece, shortcomings which could have terrible costs, but we shall deal with these later. For now, we will begin with its contributions. Drake’s piece begins with some popular views of hip-hop: hip-hop as something that was; modern hip-hop as a rejection of its intent; hip-hop as “a dramatic arc from rise to fall to eventual death—and a shot at redemption.” There are others; hip-hop as once “revolutionary”, but is now a disgrace of its former self; hip-hop as naturally anti-capitalist or pro-capitalist, etc. There are a few popular and opposing angles of hip-hop, and they all fall short for an equal amount reasons: the refusal to consider hip-hop as a whole (e.g. the self-righteousness of those who decide what hip-hop is and isn’t); the thought of hip-hop in a non-existent past (e.g. hip-hop was more “positive” or more “revolutionary” in the late 80s and early 90s); the complete rejection of it altogether (e.g. the idea that hip-hop is a mouthpiece for materialism and sexism). Drake attempts to show from the beginning that capitalism and hip-hop are, and have always been, joined at the hip. Hip-hop is a culture that exists in motion with the ideas and institutions of capitalism. A case could be made for each, and often individuals fall on one side of the coin that either hip-hop is “capitalist” (which is not even grammatically correct, let alone logically) or it exists in opposition to capitalism. Any responsible and dialectical approach would show that hip-hop is indeed an offspring of people of color and poor folks living under capitalism, but that within hip-hop exists a mass of contradictory ideas which are pushing it forward. Often what happens is that one writer whose intention is to paint hip-hop as sympathetic to capitalism irresponsibly pieces together quotes from various rappers to strengthen their argument; the same being done by writers arguing from the other side. The result is that hip-hop is presented one-dimensionally and while there is truth to these arguments, they can never embrace the whole of hip-hop. What the author is at war with in this short and bittersweet essay is all the above positions which will be dealt with in some detail. A constant theme in Drake’s piece is the tendency among writers to preserve hip-hop in an imagined past. In the EIGHTEENTH BRUMAIRE OF LOUIS NAPOLEON, Marx writes, “The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.” There is a tendency among people unable and/or unwilling to understand the present, to attempt to relive the past through the observable pointers: customs, language, dress. But it would be near respect should anything more than fifty words be written to show the illogic and silliness of this portrayal. Another dominant view is that “commercial” hip-hop, as opposed to “underground” hip-hop (so large a category that it really says nothing) is negative and/or conservative, while the latter is positive and/or revolutionary. This argument can immediately be dismissed once the conflicting nature of both of these broad categories are recognized. I have often seen the comparison of rappers like Lil Jon, Jay-Z, The Game, and Ludacris to artists like Common, Mos Def, and Talib Kweli. It would not take much to show the conservative and/or sexist tendencies of the latter group of rappers through the popular means of quoting. You will find, in almost equal percentage to the former artists, just as much sexism, materialism, and conservatism among underground artists. On the flip side, because “hip-hop is a large and contradictory animal” you will find as much, give or take, radical and progressive tendencies in “commercial” artists. In “Hate It Or Love It”, The Game raps, “Waitin on shop money to lamp, sittin in the Range/ Thinkin how they spent 30 million dollars on airplanes/ when there's kids starvin/ 'Pac is gone and Brenda still throwin babies in the garbage/ I wanna know what's goin' on like I hear Marvin/ No schoolbooks, they used that wood to build coffins.” Any writer who quotes The Game and fails to include rhymes like these are negligent at best and just a straight-up hater at worst. There are other arguments which could be given some attention, but in the interest of time we will move on to some of the essay’s flaws. The possible shortcomings of Drake’s essay are contained, as sharp as it is, in his first paragraph. “Everyone loves a story. The problem is that every person’s story is its own truth, omitting and observing the facts as they see fit. Oftentimes hip-hop is forced into this literary structure, a dramatic arc from rise to fall to eventual death—and a shot at redemption. This classicist story is linear, a dialectic approach of dominant ideologies reacting to outdated modes of thought. Old school begot hip-pop begot gangsta begot native tongues begot bling-bling. It is a story of the rise, fall, and eventual death of rap music. (The story often concludes with redemption (i.e. the “underground,” where the old spirit is kept alive.) In actuality, hip-hop is a large and contradictory animal these days, and it defies such generalizations.” His beginning is clever and clear-cut, but immediately falls from grace when he abuses the term “dialectic”. In fact, his mistake is twofold. On the hand, his approach is mainly dialectical. It considers all of hip-hop’s contradictory tendencies in a process of change, but like Antonio Negri, the Italian author responsible for EMPIRE and MULTITUDE, he misunderstands the word itself. Like Negri, he represents the dialectic as a simple-minded, inflexible, twofold, and partial process of transformation which material things experience, only Negri believes the dialectic was, at one time, applicable, and is now outmoded. On the other hand, Drake does not see that there is some truth to the idea that “Old school begot hip-pop begot gangsta…” etc., etc. First, if there is such a view of hip-hop, it is certainly not a popular notion. Never have I encountered it in my years of research. Second, while it may exist, this view, as rigid as it is, is much more objective and advanced (though still not as advanced as his) than the views previously described. There are dialectical parts in Drake’s approach, though he is not aware of it. His dismissal of the term “dialectic” is based in his misunderstanding of it, which, to him, simply categorizes hip-hop. His definition of dialectics might be similar to the likes of Mao or Stalin whom contributed nothing to the method of dialectics, but in fact distorted them. But dialectics, materialist dialectics, doesn’t view history or things as moving forward in a straight line, but as many different tendencies working themselves out through motion and interaction. Another drawback in his essay is the failure to see hip-hop’s regional developments as making up an organic, national unity; a totality. Drake states, “The real story of hip-hop isn’t…hardcore rap rejecting pop or “positive” Native Tongues rappers rejecting gangsta; hip-hop’s story is regional.” While Drake is able to explain that hip-hop is a bunch of contradictions and tendencies, he falls short of showing the communication between the regional versions of hip-hop which includes and has set in motion a national whole. Hip-hop is not simply a fragmented and regional culture, but a unity of many independent developments. Drake unknowingly contributes to another form of crude categorization which is the equivalent of saying “gangsta rap begot native tongues”. The recognized spokespersons of hip-hop (that is the popular rappers, DJs, and producers) are only representations not just of local, but of national circumstances and thought. The independently valid, regional examples of hip-hop are creating the starting point for a national hip-hop, a hip-hop which is uniquely American. On the other hand, these local examples were pushed forward by others, beginning with New York, which, when NY was the only regional sound, it was at the same time the national sound. It is this unending interplay between the local variations and national unities which creates a higher form and expression of hip-hop’s totality. This is precisely why you can listen to modern East Coast or West Coast rap and find the difficulty in labeling either as such. In fact, the terms East Coast and West Coast have lost their importance. For example, within the last year the cover story of a popular hip-hop magazine was titled, “East Coast vs. West Coast? Who Cares?” There is without a doubt a regional hip-hop, but there is also a national hip-hop which grew dialectically out of an interregional relationship. Jay-Z is a perfect example of an artist with a national sound. This is not just because of his nationally-acclaimed success, but because of hip-hop’s many internal developments. If you listened to a Jay-Z song from ten years ago, say “Da Graveyard” on Big-L’s “Lifestylez Ov Da Poor and Dangerous” you could immediately cast him as an artist with a completely regional sound. Music nowadays, while there are new regional sounds, the South for example, is developing a similar sound. The strength of Drake’s piece, despite its shortcomings, is its break with the traditional views of hip-hop and should not be dismissed based on the criticisms above. His essay is a critical and sorely needed insight into the contradictory nature of hip-hop. The settlement of the contradictions in his piece can only be worked out through future exchange. The topic of “the death of hip-hop” in-itself is quite unclear, which leaves a gaping hole for broad interpretation. Its very title is assuming and easily forces writers to fall on either side of the dual choice: hip-hop is dead or it is not. Drake says, “‘hip-hop’ is dead. Long live hip-hop.” Amen.