Anybody notice the parallels between the 2, through the first 30 years or so?
1. Both were Afro-American art forms. Contributions by other races were notable, but still small, relatively speaking. (Bix Beiderbecke as Eminem? Benny Goodman = The Beastie Boys?)
2. Music critics of the time weren't even sure it was music for the first few years, and later chalked it up to a "novelty" that would only be around a short while.
3. Both started out as "party-time" entertainment, and later evolved the mystique of "serious" art. ( Mos Def as Miles Davis? The Roots as Parker / Gillespie?)
4. Earlier works in the idiom are generally "naive" sounding in comparison to the advancements of later artists.
5. Both were co-opted by large corporate entities and made palatable to the public at large ("swing" rhymes with "bling bling").
6. These corporate groups generally toned down the musical sophistication, while embracing uniformity. (All the swing bands wore uniforms, and we all know what the uniform is for an MTV ready rap video.)
If history is a valid guide, what does it tell us about the future of hip hop?
1. The corporate groups will hold sentimental value as their fan base get older, but they will most probably not be recognized as leaders of the music by future generations of historians and fans. (Does this mean Puff Daddy will have a Vegas act down the line?)
2. Eventually, the public taste in entertainment will change, and corporate hip hop will be by and large a thing of the past. (It may be given a sendup from time to time, as Janet Jackson parodied the Cab Calloway swing era in one of her videos.)
3. Only the true innovators / artists will be left doing hip hop, to increasingly smaller audiences, until it ends up in a museum some place, pontificated over by various members of the tweed jacket set.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Dec 06 2001 - 19:34:51 CET