What ever gave people the impression that techno has even the slightest chance of becoming the next hip hop? I must not be in an alternate dimension.
on 5/5/03 10:24 AM, Lester Kenyatta Spence at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, 5 May 2003, Darren Longton (Marketing) wrote: > >> ooooo....don't think that'll go over well with the heads in detroit. >> Don't want to get into the whole elitism thing again, but....guess heads >> will have to except that our "underground scene" will eventually be a >> POP-MTV-CEO controlled genre....if it becomes the next hip hop. I >> mean...I LOVE hiphop...but it's getting a little too...well...MTV!! > > I think what Kent is referring to is the mass support that hiphop receives > on the radio, on tours, on television, and the like. > >> Personally, I think that keeping things the way they are is one way to >> keep some quality control on things. After all...a lot of hiphop is >> ABOUT the $$...can't think of any techno that is....well...MAYBE >> GhettoTek....but that's more about THAT ASS!!! haha > > This is where the comparisons end, largely because much of techno is > instrumental. Delivery, Flow, Rhythmic complexity, all have undoubtedly > improved in rap music...and part of that is because more people listen and > participate in it. The thing that has dried up is content. Rap played on > popular radio stations isn't really saying much. I attribute this to the > political economy of popular music. > > Because the emphasis in techno is not on lyrics--again MOST of techno is > instrumental--I think that if techno did become as strong as hiphop in the > states we'd get all of the benefits (as far as growth of the artform) > without the detriments (content that is arguably vulgar and > spirit-killing). I'd make the same argument for house, even though there > is a strong lyrical component to it. You just can't sing about Benzes the > way you can about unrequited love, or about worship. > > > lks
