I should make it clear at the beginning that, in my mind, the term "rappers" has
no special significance beyond being associated with an extreme form of
antiestablishment behaviour. I simply lump them with others in what I term the
"protest genre". As I hope to make clear below, rappers per se are of no special
concern here and I use the term as representative of the genre of which it is
part.
Bob
Christoph Reuss wrote:
> Bob McDaniel wrote:
> > > > It seems to me that one could argue that the "role" of rappers is to
> >condition
> > > > susceptible youth to challenge corporatist dogma, to view "generally
> >accepted"
> > > > values as outmoded and exploitive, and thus to welcome the opportunity to
> > > > commit mayhem against the purveyors of those goods and services produced
> > > > by the back-breaking toil of the poor and powerless masses.
> > >
> > > Could you cite some rap lyrics that do this ?
> >
> > No, but came across these pieces which reflect
> > my impression of the protest genre of popular music:
> >
> > Of all the highly political punk bands born during the Thatcherite '80s,
> > Chumbawamba [...] ====^^^^^^
> > Its core members -- who took absurd names such as Steve Ignorant
> > and Joy de Vivre -- formed their own record label, lived communally,
> ^^^^^^===^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Argh. First you claimed that industry-aligned rappers like Eminem
> are challenging the system, but when asked for evidence, you cite a
> punk band with their own record label !
>
I did not claim that rappers are "challenging the system" but rather that they may
be conditioning young people (maybe others, too) to challenge corporate dogma.
^^^^^^^^^^
That is, by creating an outrageously antiestablishment climate of violence, they
may be "setting up" (albeit unwittingly) their audience to condemn the arbiters of
establishment values and it may then be a short step to identify these as the
major corporations and their marketing agencies.
There is nothing novel about this view, of course, as the "diversion industry" as
a whole has been accused of creating the environmental conditions in which can
emerge the idea that violence is the answer to personal powerlessness. Such an
accusation is far from being demonstrated as fact, however.
Christoph Reuss wrote:
CounterPunch writes about this in the article "The Politics of Eminem":
( http://www.counterpunch.org/eminem.html )
"Eminem's lyrics are a kind of premeditated infantilism, not a
healthy regression toward the polymorphous perverse, but a summons to
the thanatic impulse, a call for division, repression, an invocation
of the very forces that have divided the working class for decades. He
serves the interests of the State. The idea that Eminem might be
"censored" is a ruse, and a tired one, and an insult to those who have
truly been censored. Cross the powerful, question the System and you
risk censorship, lawsuits, SLAPP suits, beatings, harassment or worse.
As long as Eminem remains a whore for the corporations, he will
continue to accumulate wealth and be shielded from the censors of the
state. And he is a corporate mercenary, whether it's flacking for Nike
or for the music industry's trade association, the Recording Industry
Association of America."
That's the political function of the "diversion industry" in general,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of which the music business is an important part.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bob:
My response to the question: Could you cite some rap lyrics that do this ?
> No, but came across these pieces which reflect
> my impression of the protest genre of popular music:
Your characterization of this is:
First you claimed that industry-aligned rappers like Eminem
are challenging the system, but when asked for evidence, you cite a
punk band with their own record label ! Couldn't be more different
groups. That the latter are challenging the system is trivial.
The question was about the opposite end of the spectrum.
Actually I said that I could _not_ provide citations, but rather, in an attempt to
indicate on what my impression was based, provided a couple of examples of
explicit antiestablishment activity on the part of some members (the protest
genre) of the "music business" (your term). I would think that the term "music
business" would include anyone producing music for sale, regardless of the scale
or corporate structure of the enterprise.
You have apparently accepted the argument presented in the quotation above, but
then go on to suggest that it may be applied to the ""diversion industry" in
general of which the music business is an important part."
And that, as I see it, is the crux of the issue. Whether the musicians are
rappers, punks, hip-hop, blues, country or whatever it is alleged that they are
corporate mercenaries whose function it is to deflect criticism away from their
masters.
I had earlier sought your thoughts on how such a function might be implemented.
Your response was:
These 'artists'(&'lyrics') get selected and built up by the music industry.
Whether the diversion industry is 'alone' or whether it is being 'told'
by other 'agencies', may be an academic question. Considering the CIA's
role in the "Cultural War" during the cold war decades (see article below),
everything is possible...
And that is where it should end. The whole matter probably is an academic question
but, certainly, everything is possible.
Bob
--
http://publish.uwo.ca/~mcdaniel/
