Call it what you will. My view of hip hop
That's just it, your view. That's certainly not the view of its creators. Your view is in part revisionist history.
And you're crossing the line from debating to insulting/condescending.
I'm not trying to insult you, just trying to get you to have a broader perspective on what hip-hop really is.
If anything, in this particular rap sub-forum, you were WAY more condescending and insulting towards the others here, including towards Chemical Ali.
There are those that feel R&B was supplanted by rock 'n roll and those that feel that rock 'n roll and R&B were the same things with those names being used interchangeably in their earliest incarnations
R&B is rock and roll, I don't know how many times I have to stress this. This is well-known through the primary sources of its era, from Billboard
to Alan Freed to Jerry Wexler (the man who coined the term) to Elvis himself.
There are a few different schools of thought on that particular subject.
Just because there are few different schools of thought doesn't mean that they're all right. Many people believed Elvis created rock and roll. Many historians cite "Rocket 88" as the first rock record. Most believed that the Earth is flat. Some people don't even call metal and rap musical styles. Are these schools of thought right?
the divide between what R&B audiences and rock audiences were listening to was widened
It has always diversified ever since new rock styles formed, but that doesn't mean they all can't fall under the same roof.
"Free jazz" and be-bop are a far cry from Dixieland jazz and early ragtime-influenced jazz. Does that mean that they can't be called "jazz?"
What about the centuries of classical music evolution, where it started with religious influences to now incorporating electronic influences?
"Real R&B" is subjective. That's like saying "real rap".
R&B doesn't just evolve--it practically reinvents itself every generation.
Reinvention and innovation are key to evolution.
My basic point is that there is a difference between hip hop expanding it's parameters and other genres being influenced by hip hop.
My basic point is that hip hop is broader than these narrow definitions applied to it.
A rock/R&B/reggae/punk/alt act incorporating elements of hip hop into it's sound helps to expand THOSE genres; hip hop is expanded when other styles/genres are incorporated into ITS sound.
The more soul side of electro-funk is hip-hop because it's still hip-hop. Latin Freestyle is hip-hop and was called as such (specifically "Latin Hip Hop") and for the most part had no rapped vocals. Do I need to pull out more of the many primary sources here, from the pioneers themselves to the DJs, fans, label owners and publications such as Billboard
And of course calling an artist 'lame' is subjective.but what was the point in even addressing that? We weren't discussing Kris Kross--I just quoted a lyric. Seems petty.
Exactly, just like "quality." The idea of you calling them a "lame pop-rap act" right there is condescending. It was unnecessary to call them that and just makes you look really biased.
Flooding a hip hop list with a bunch of singers is not my idea of celebrating the genre.
If this was strictly just called a "rap" list, then of course it should just be filled with MCs/rappers.
But throwing in "hip hop" in the title broadens the palette, because hip-hop music includes other genres besides rap music. This includes those famous funk break records that are hip-hop anthems ("Apache"), strictly turntablism artists, the more soulful, singing-oriented hip-hop music a la Latin freestyle aka Latin hip-hop (Shannon's "Let the Music Play," Lisa Lisa & Cult Jam's "I Wonder If I Take You Home), to the electro-funk and Miami bass instrumentals with no rapping on it.
And that's the entire point of my discussion. Hip-hop music is more than just rap music, and to say so otherwise is just ignorant and writing off Bam, Herc and Flash, the very pioneers of this who have already laid out just what hip-hop music really is.