gigantic gigantic sampson style length post, I'll make it my last huge post but I need to get this out and I don't want to triple post
I currently live in China, and have spent 3 years in Europe, and a year in Japan, and rap is nowhere near as comparable as to the West. J-pop and K-pop borrow more heavily from dance than rap by a gigantic margin, and J-rock, even the ones with a rap vocal style, borrow more heavily from pure unadulterated 80's/90's rock and pop style than any rap other than vocals. J-pop in the 90's developed with heavy jazz and pop elements more than anything else, and grew from the traditional elements of older J/K-pop, whose style can also be linked to more blues style music if anything, and even arguably 50's style soul (hard to believe right? Though it's true, Elvis and Beatles were huge in Japan, you can see the influence on it's pop music's development). Also, Just because it exists in China and the Phillipines (which I have not visited unfortunately though I'd love to go, I have some friends there) doesn't mean it garners major popularity or influence, at least compared to rock, dance, metal, and more traditional genres and singing styles of those nations. trying to tell me that rap has anywhere near the popularity or impact of dance and plain old rock on J-pop/K-pop or J-rock is equally false, as it's impact, though noticeable, is very small in comparison.
Also, as was explained before, I'm sure, rap is much closer to rock's roots than some guitar-driven rock subgenres. You keep talking about "recentism" when you've actually been "elitist" (your username pretty much says it all) this whole time, which is not much better. Hair lasted less than a decade; rap has been going strong for 23 years (according to your numbers). I'm pretty sure if there was something wrong with it, the people would have caught on by now. You're rash, unproved assumption that rap could be the next hair just proves you're biased against hip-hop. It's too early in time to say anything about that.
I also don't think rap will go down like you think. Again, it is a long runner (Punk lasted four to five years; Rap's been on for 20 and still counting). Bieber, Swift, and Gaga are like every other pop star: they'll burn out. They may be obscenely popular now, but it takes a special ingenuity to stay popular. Rap has proven that it can stay at the top: it's survived grunge and every pop fad since 1990. I'm not saying it won't eventually go down: everything does, but it's certainly not going to be as soon as you think.
Elitist? Not at all. My username is just because it's my favorite genre, I rarely have bias posts without info to back it up, and I don't think Classic Rock is the end all genre. My favorite genres are actual Jazz, Classical music, J-pop, J-rock, K-pop, techno, and then Classic Rock. It doesn't mean that I don't put aside my favorite genres and IMO the most musically gifted and innovative genres are Classical, Jazz, and Classic Rock. However those forums here are pretty dead so I joined with a username representing my favorite rock period, that doesn't mean I'm elitist or bias. The fact that more than 70% of the top 100 artists list has, and still does exist with bands before the 80's. Saying I'm elitist is just wrong, because I'm not.
Saying punk only existed in the spotlight for 5 years? If there's been a more false statement on this forum, I haven't seen it except from Echoes, Taro, or Patrick. Also, the tracing of rap to the roots of rock is honestly not that great an argument, I never thought it was. Rap is defined by it's vocal style, which if anything was more related to spoken poetry and those types of events and standup that eventually became extremely popular among african american culture as well. The additional instrumnentals behind the vocals has been anything from Reggae, to hard rock, to jazz, to pure techno. Rap, and hip-hop, if it's actual roots are traced, go back to pure african music or jazz if anything, and were taken from West African griots and vocal styles, and were adapted directly from them to african and hispanic culture around the east coast, and was eventually just 'thrown' ontop of other music on the scene, more commonly dance and reggae. It's traces to rock that people talk about on this site are arguable if anything. Just because it skips the traditional evolution of rock and is 'closer' to original 60's style rock doesn't make it 'more rock'. If anything it makes it less, the reason it sounds so similar is it originated from the same roots rock did, except rap garnered them separately with some influence from early funk and R&B and just threw it in with tons of popular genres already around. Rock is an offspring of blues, so why is rock not a sub-genre of blues? Because blues exists longer and further down in history? And rap is a sub-genre of rock while rock has been around much longer and rap is quite different, so why is rap not a different genre? Because it's roots are traceable in rock? The same way rock's are in blues? I'm just looking for some consistency here. If I lost my point, it's that rap is more rock than metal and has a more directly traceable evolution, which is blatantly false if people know anything about it's origins through MC'ing, DJ'ing, down to hip-hop, and arguably further to funk and jazz and their black and african origins. Rap also has quite some hispanic influences as well from spoken rhythmic style with no relation to rock. I've taken quite a few classes on music history, and I've studied the origin of rap, and it's tracability to rock is significantly less than metal and grunge as you say. The reason it's similar to older rock is they developed from similar, non-rock influences, rap just grew along the way much later down the line. Regardless, this is off topic and another long message sorry.
I'd like to see definitive proof of LC's acclaim being equated to that of NoM. LC has pretty much the greatest reviews possible from every source that's praised NoM, however I know NoM has many detractors as well, LC has much fewer, if any noticeable ones. Saying they are equal in acclaim is just taking assumptions. Same with Abbey Road, I find it extremely hard to believe that NoM is more acclaimed than AR, which is not just one of the Beatles most acclaimed albums, but one of the most positively reviewed albums in history, with nearly not a single major detractor. Once more, NoM has quite a few detractors, so what if they are bias? It's still people from the music industry and still acclaim.
Anyway, I can tell from your writing style that you are not inclined to hip-hop, so this is pretty much going to be a pointless discussion, but I'll try
Also, just want to say, I have nothing against rap, I like rap and hip-hop, I like Public Enemy and Grandmaster Flash, and I love Tupac and Eminem. I'm not bias against it, if anything, you and a lot of this forum are extremely bias towards it due to how many people are against it, you have to take an extremely one way view to fight for it. I honestly think a lot of arguments about it on this forum are either skewed or twisted in a way that seems logically correct to blow up the overall power and influence garnered from this genre, and to suite their arguments trace it to rock in the most common comparison to metal, which they say is much more distant for sake of promoting rap and it's prowess in rock. Remember, if argued correctly, nearly any side of an arguable argument can be made to seem true. Rap is huge, and definitely is one of the 2 biggest sub-genres. However, it seems rap in comparison due to it's recent height overtakes all sub-genres combined and influence from genres developed over 60 years now pale to a recently, arguably independently developed genre of rock music that for some reason trumps everything else and everyone who disagrees is immediately bias or purist because detractors commonly think it's because rap is 'different'. Rap had the same breaking down of doors and mass appeal by sheer shock value and something so new, so wild, so brave, that it developed complaints around the country of the foul language and sex and just down right dirty style and life while kids, teens, and young adults just ate it up. Wait a minute, doesn't this sound familiar? Elvis and Sex Pistols did this before, it happens, it's a cycle of music development through history, yet this one is so vastly different and more potent than the others? I beg to differ. Also, it's audience, though large is solidified much more in a younger audience, there are definitely adults who listen to it, but it is a mainly among teens and young adults. There are plenty of other powerful genres whose popularity resides in much more widespread appeal but is overlooked due to album sales, which as I've said before, do not accurately determine popularity. And about Justin Bieber being 'pop' so it doesn't count, it's as different from rock as rap IMO. Besides, we have Mariah Carrey on our top 100 greatest ROCK artists and she was clearly pop, was she not? And modern country has taken more from rock than rap ever has, Taylor Swift has songs that are more pop and more rock than anything most rap artists have produced. The only thing modern country retains that's different from rock is the vocal line and lyrics. Wait a minute, isn't that the only thing that truly differentiates rap from the rest of rock...hmm...