Hip hop studies Blog #2

The selected articles from the hip hop studies reader had a general theme of authenticity, roots and culture. Dyson's article outlined the birth and evolution of hip hop from the Sugar Hill Gang's "Rapper's Delight" to the social-conscious works of Grandmaster Flash like "the Message" and "New York, New York" to Run DMC's 1987 well-received Raising Hell album. As "hardcore" hip hop become more "pop", it became devoid of meaning and roots and leaned towards the lights of commercialization. But the commodified and public version of hip hop has had a negative effect on the perceptions of hip hop, pinning it as a source of violence, misogyny and stereotypes. Rap as a tool to highlight social isolation, economic hardship, political demoralization and cultural exploitation, either wise known as your conscientious rap, was then replaced by forms that produced images that worked against the rising Afrocentric ideal, replacing it with a more ghettocentric one. It is almost a catch twenty-two: the images rapped about, those being realistic incidents or situations that would have been experienced by "authentic" rappers is then appropriated by the listeners, whom for the most part are middle-class suburban white youth. Hip hop has become a consumer of its own product. Samuels article likewise targets the issue of black music that is no longer black, but rather a modified form that appeals to a white audience, whose tastes in turn articulate the music that is being produced by black artists to create "gangsta" music. Such music is self-glorifying for whites and self-depreciating for black, for the images of ghettocenricity only feed the disparity between classes: what blacks live and what whites could only hope to live. It defines the white audience in contrast to the message within the rap. It is clear that this form is not the authentic form of rap, but why should one form of rap, create a bad rap (no pun intended) for the other rap genres? This constant battle to be authentic continues to jump from its original party intentions to nation-conscious rap to gangsta rap back to conscious rap and to the black aesthetic rap of the American Dream as mentioned in Baldwin's article; a constant state of flux ( J ).

I have to admit that my reading of Gilroy's article seemed to be above my head as to what I could properly discern from it. The idea of Afrocentricity and national identity as opposed to the hegemic norm is based within the construct of the home, not the nuclear home, but the home belonging to race. Home can no longer be considered a static place, as the diaspora and the general displacement of race across boundaries, including those other than America, demands a more opening, inclusive term that allows for an identification of a "greater" home. Personally, I think nationalism in general creates divides that exists only in our contrast to other races or countries. But race itself is a debilitating term that contends one group of people against another. Afrocentricity is a means of placing oneself in contrast to the hegemic norm, by finding a home within a displaced home. If we consider ourselves as one human race, then these notions of identification based on color and differences in appearance and origin will bear no weight. Likewise, if I consider myself a world citizen, rather than a citizen of Canada, then my connections with culture is a broad one that allows for the appropriation of other forms without the conception that I or that previous form is no longer authentic. I realize I am probably off topic of what Gilroy was getting at, but I think this tangent is important when considering hip hops authenticity internationally, which surely ties into Forman and Bennett's discussion of the genre. Bennett states the earlier schools of thought of hip hop's authenticity but proposes that modern theories now include the idea that hip hop is a mobile culture that is constantly being re-made to meet the needs of each new group or country that appropriates it.

I would like to take his theory one step further with an interpolation of my own and propose that if this mentality of world citizenship was adopted, then the notion of culture as a global commodity that is constantly being reshaped through interactions and appropriations would deem more appropriate for it allows authenticity not to be rooted in one specific place, or attached to one race, but rather be a global term than is never fixed. This may seem like an over-wash of a highly complicated spatiality that Forman uses as an organizing principle, for if we perceive ourselves with no boundaries than space is a limitless entity that we may weave ourselves through without questioning whether or not what you have "incorporated" or "appropriated" is truly you, or an amalgamation of others identities. This is an interesting point I would like to pursue at some point, but not for my current research at hand. As we have seen in these articles, locality greatly influences the sound that is being produced and how it is taken on by new groups. It is not my place to deem the hip hop that is being created in Regina is an authentic form of the culture overall, but it is authentic to Regina as a place, because the individual and communal experiences that take place within Regina are authentic to the rappers who rap about them. It is not like the Bronx or Harlem has to be packed up and shipped up here in order for someone to rap about similar experiences, so there is no doubt in my mind that hip hop here can be claimed as authentic in its new form. How does Forman's idea of place, space and race fit into my research? Well, I can make an early observation and say that it affects things dearly. But what about this idea of begin a world citizen? Does the artists and producers I am going to interview have the same world view, or do they likewise define their sound by their space? And if so, do they consider their sound as authentic to hip hop culture, or authentic to the place in which they live?