Why is there no "classic" hip-hop?

[Teddy Roosevelt]

Let's compare two recent sales charts in Billboard magazine. The "Top 200" list of the week's best-selling albums indicates that although hip-hop might not be quite as dominant a commercial force as it has been in recent years, things still look pretty healthy. Diddy, Jibbs, Ludacris and Lil Boosie (Li' Boosie? Did I miss something?) are among the seven urban artists in the Top 25.

Turn back a few pages -- or scroll a little further down the screen -- and you'll find the Pop Catalogue chart, which tracks sales of releases that have been out for at least two years. It's not quite a typical week, because as soon as the calendar hits October, the onslaught of Christmas records starts taking over. Still, the list is mostly representative: rock icons (the Beatles, Pink Floyd, the Doors), heartland favorites (Bob Seger, Journey, Lynyrd Skynyrd), some younger acts whose old albums are goosed by a new release (the Killers, Evanescence, Rascal Flatts).

Notice anything conspicuously absent from that Catalogue Top 25? Not one album by a hip-hop act. In fact, a closer look reveals not a single listing for a recording artist of color among these older releases. It's a glaring distinction and reveals a longstanding split between rock and urban audiences. Rock listeners constantly look back, grounding themselves in the music's history and core artists. Meanwhile, in practice if not in actual definition, hip-hop is about looking forward, with occasional glances to the side -- trying to take the music into new directions, while keeping a clear sense of popular tastes and styles.

Consider the terminology: The radio format that plays the Beatles, the Stones, and Led Zeppelin is called "classic rock." Classic -- meaning timeless and eternal. The lunchtime or late-night radio shows that play Slick Rick, Run-D.M.C. or even Biggie Smalls, however, say that they celebrate the "old school." Old meaning, well, old.

Great, unforgettable, revolutionary, but still -- old.

The Sugarhill Gang's "Rapper's Delight" single, the first hip-hop song to hit the pop Top 40, was released in late 1979 -- meaning the genre has been a national force for 27 years now. If you do the math, starting from Elvis's first recordings in 1955, that means hip-hop today is as mature as rock was in 1982. That's after disco, after punk, at the launch of MTV -- hell, hip-hop was already on the rise and stealing the attention of rebellious youth. Rock and roll was starting to stare down the reality of being a middle-aged music, and gradually accepting that perhaps the magic of its '60s high-water mark might not ever be replicated.

So why is there such resistance to aging, or to actively engaging history, in hip-hop? Rappers such as L.L. Cool J and Ice Cube have proven that a lengthy career as an MC is not an impossibility, and Ice-T and Queen Latifah have even demonstrated that finding mature extensions for your work doesn't mean surrendering your integrity. But the fact remains that while it's an inevitable rite of passage for a 14-year-old rock listener to discover "Dark Side of the Moon," you won't find many teenage rap fans camped out in their basement with "3 Feet High and Rising."

It's tempting to lament this lack of a sense of history from urban fans. But there's little doubt that it also has its advantages -- it's one of the reasons that hip-hop has continued to innovate at warp speed for so long; even if the genre is not exactly in a golden age at the moment, it still comes up with more new sounds and approaches than anything else, with a vitality and consistency that continue to set the pace for pop.

More than anything else, rock struggles against the weight of its own history -- new bands often exist purely as laboratory concoctions (one part Gang of Four, two parts Clash, mix in some early Kinks and stir). The Killers follow a breakout debut album by upping their ambition and wind up with ... a watered-down Bruce Springsteen record. Hip-hop has none of these shackles, and thus the ability to at least try to break rules instead of being broken by them.

The obsession with modernity is also part of a continuum among the black pop audience in America. The blues was cast off as the sound of an older, oppressed generation, and just consider the demographic composition of today's jazz buyers.

They say that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, but the opposite might also be true -- remembering history too well leaves you with no way out of its maze. Ideally, both genres could learn from each other: Young rock bands should try to make some history of their own, and the hip-hop community would benefit from taking some notes on its own past -- at least until it finds itself with a punk-style rebellion of its own to shake things up a bit. Anarchy in the BK, y'all.

http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=243300

[M Dogg™]

Hip-Hop artist and producers are driven to be different, even if right now it all sounds the same. In the Goldyn Age, you had to have a different sound, or people said you were bitting. Hip-Hop has always been about innovation, and somewhere, someone will find a way to make something hot.

And I think there is classic HipHop in the form of Grandmaster Flash and the Furious 5, Dr. Dre, Eric B. and Rakim, N.W.A., Biggie Smalls, Boogie Down Production, Ice Cube and many others. As for classic in the terms of how rock is viewed, I think when the Baby Boomer generation is not dominating American culture, and it's Generation X's turn, then you'll see more Hip-Hop mentioned, after all, most every artist from the Goldyn Era of Hip-Hop were Gen-Xers.

[Don Jacob]

i agree but disagree with this article


the one thing i can't help but disagree with is the notion that hip hop is more innovative. i disagree, like m dogg said, it all sounds the same. main stay producers like Jermaine dupree and mogols like master p. and diddy just recreate what's popular now. in rock music you have that as well, but i don't know where that writer is from but there is a STRONG myspace underground movement that promotes bands like the mars volta,  the number 12 looks like you, muse, ect. ect. there far more variance and expression than in hip hop. the most creartive `hip hop artists out there are taking their cues from these underground notions, which is still pegion holing hip hop artists as doing what's popular. also with rock music there's more of a broad stroke  to it. the killers is one out of like 100000000 forms/styles of rock music. in hip hop you have at most like 20.  in the metal genre alone you have more than that:

metal core
mathcore
death metal
speed metal
thrash metal
neo-classical metal
classic metal
sludge metal
groove metal
nu metal
black metal
power metal
ambient metal
industrial metal
country metal
grindcore
folk metal
viking metal
glam metal
symphonic metal
avant gard metal


i mean shit that's just metal

there's still punk and all it's subgenres

pop rock
acoustic rock
classic rock
electronic rock
 
ect. ect. ect. ect.

[Kill]

And I think there is classic HipHop in the form of Grandmaster Flash and the Furious 5, Dr. Dre, Eric B. and Rakim, N.W.A., Biggie Smalls, Boogie Down Production, Ice Cube and many others. As for classic in the terms of how rock is viewed, I think when the Baby Boomer generation is not dominating American culture, and it's Generation X's turn, then you'll see more Hip-Hop mentioned, after all, most every artist from the Goldyn Era of Hip-Hop were Gen-Xers.

That's an interesting point, but if you wanna bring up the generation thing: The Babyboomer era which was at its cultural peak in the late 60's had an effect which that of Gen-X music can hardly be compared to. The term "Generation X" was coined in the early nineties and that's about when the music coming from the people of that generation was the strongest and most dominant. However, grunge and so-called "golden age" hiphop haven't proved to have the same effect that, say, the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix or Bob Dylan had.

The baby boomer generation is now people aged 50 and over. They dominate politics and what you might refer to as "corporate" culture, but they no longer dominate innovative popular culture, but neither does Gen-X. In like 20 years, when the Gen-Xers approach the point the Babyboomers are at now, HipHop might be "mentioned" but I have more than sufficient doubt it will be treated in the same way as the explosively creative late 60's rock-n-roll.

As for the article itself, there is a point to that, but it's not that simple IMO. Saying hiphop is at the level rock was in '82, you remain oblivious of all the socio-political, economic and overall cultural background there has been to the development of both styles. Point is: HipHop evolved and developped under completely different circumstances and before a very different background when compared to rock(-n-roll). Also, HipHop is black music and has largely remained black music; the vast majority of artists are African American, which is a minority in the US. This is, of course not to say that hiphop is of limited mass appeal as a great number of fans are of all kinds of ethical descents; however, 95% of what is done in this genre is not only done by blacks but also deals with "black" topics, which I won't have to make a list of on this forum. Rock, on the other hand, evolved from black music too and was always highly influenced by it, but it was, from the start, picked up and done by white people too. Which led to it exploding on an even larger scale and dealing with topics not pertaining to one group of people.

This is to say, whatever you mighta thought about it, Vietnam for instance was a national, even worldwide problem in the 60's. Peelin' niggaz caps in Compton is not, to make a sharp contrast. Bottom-line is, while HipHop has made its way to huge commercial success, it is still viewed upon as the reflection of a certain group of people's situation and not of the entire world's, not only due to lyrics which a lot of people don't give a shit about, but also due to style, people who do it and everything around it.

And therefore, I think, classics aren't as universally accepted as in rock. See, a hit song is just a hit song, some watered-down crap song can make the top 20, but it won't be of long-term relevance. Even a good and creative song can chart, but in the case of hiphop it won't convey the same feelings some (only some, of course) rock songs do. People have a different approach to it, cause it won't have the same universal potential for people to identify with it, and that's what's part of what is important to becoming a universally acclaimed classic.

And that's one of the reasons why I think rock struggles to keep up with its history while in hiphop, only the "serious" fans feel they have to immerse in hiphop's history. The "serious" fans and those who can identify with that history. And those are, as just argued, only a few.

anyways, just felt like popping up on this board again (i could start discussing in musical terms, i just chose a cultural approach to explaining this and i don't wanna make this post a two-hour job for me...)

[mrceo]

Yeah I agree Hip Hop has more staying power.  Classic rock imo was a better genre than Hip Hop, and i'm one of the biggest Hip Hop heads you'll see.  But Classic Rock fans still only listen to Classic Rock, they usually don't feel the new rock.  No rock bands can duplicate Pink Floyd or Radiohead.  As for Hip Hop, Old School heads still get into New School Hip Hop, not Mims, Young Joc, or shit like that but good ass Hip Hop, such as Hip Hop Is Dead or maybe Red Gone Wild.  I really don't see Hip Hop fading away anytime soon. Hip Hop is hear to stay mufuckas.

[Don Jacob]

But Classic Rock fans still only listen to Classic Rock, they usually don't feel the new rock. 

that's cuz they're usually like 45-50 and are worrying more about how their going to get their dick to work than how many albums linkin park sold this week (600,000!) lol

[white Boy]

from the start, rap to me is not innovative, i think buddy holly is 100 years beyond rap, and this was 50 years ago. as for the shackles part, hip hop makes its own shackles on itself, because rappers cannot step out of the blueprint that was laid out by "the golden era", and a big aspect is money, everyone wants to make money, and except for some exceptions right now the music that sells the most, is the most retarded, simple, useless crap.

[Mr. O]

THere's no classic because 99 percent of music in now era is not memoriable..it's....too ...whatever..

[QuietTruth]

Well it's funny though, becuz when the word 'classic' is used in Hip Hop, it's an argument or 'a term used too loosely'.



But I don't ever really use the word 'classic' to describe Hip Hop or Rap. On tracks, they show a time period of a trend like. For example, an artist could make a song about sneakers, or clothes or a dance but that shit is not timeless becuz a couple of years later that shit WAS old. Is people still doin' the Harlem Shake? Hell nah, now it's the Chicken Noodle Soup. By now, I'm sure that's played out becuz that was 'so last year.'

When you put in a record like Michael Jackson, there's no trends on his records. You can still play one of his joints and it could still apply for today. Luther Vandross is still a couples first wedding song. LOL. Ya'll know....

Hip Hop, well at least maybe recent Hip Hop culture, is for the moment.

[Primo]

and recent hip hop culture is wack. I can still bump the chronic, doggystyle, illmatic, ready to die etc, regularly.  Alot of shit is horrible nowadays. Or maybe I am just growing up. I remember it was about 5 years ago. I was subversed in the hip hop culture, battling at clubs, making tracks, dressing hip hop. etc. Along with that I was selling drugs, robbing shit and doing shit associated with people influenced by gangsta rap. Times have changed. I'm 22 now wearing suits and ties and dress preppy. I don't act anything like I use to.  I slowly learned that I looked like a retard to people and I didnt want to be known as a piece of shit. My point is people grow up and there tastes differ.