Discussion in 'Overtime: Off-Topic Discussion' started by Temp_Guest2, Aug 13, 2010.
Around the time that Bad Boy/No Limit/Cash Money got huge.
The correct answer is the rise of G-funk
It definitely started to stagnate and stop selling in 2003. It happened for a reason. I'd say hip hop is much more interesting now that it's happened though. When everybody was chasing chart position artists were getting diluted down and pursuing a hit formula. Now that you only have a hope of selling in your local area (if at all) distinctive regional styles are having time to develop (well, in the US anyway) instead of getting watered down.
when lil Jon became relevant
Posted via Mobile Device
You guys are young or something. Hip hop was "mainstream" from the very start. Sugarhill Gang and shit like that was totally mainstream in like 1979. Fresh Prince and Run DMC were mainstream making songs with Aerosmith and shit.
Rap wasn't viewed as violent until groups like NWA came out. But before that hip hop was innocent as kittens. Just a bunch of dudes trying to rock the party and raise your hands in the air like you just dont care.
I'd say that's when the lyricist started to decline. 2003 is when Hip-Hop became less apparent
As I get older I feel like I'm really kind of losing touch with pop culture. But my general sense from talking to my high school students is that hip hop really isn't even on the radar nowadays.. my kids barely even know any hip hop artists if I name a bunch of them.
I like Drake, Kanye, Jay-Z and Lil Wayne's music. It is fun to listen to.
But in the early 2000's it was all over the chart. It reached the peak of it's commercial appeal around then. There were hits before that of course but it wasn't the main pop music genre until that time.
My point exactly. Hip-Hop has dipped. I'm not saying that Hip-Hop should be mainstream or underground. I'm saying that after 2003 Hip-Hop has gone downhill.
So why didn't you put "underground hip-hop" in the title as well?
Someone brought up something about the underground. This isn't about whether or not Hip-Hop should be mainstream or underground. This is about when Mainstream Hip-Hop went downhill.
Okay, but do you feel underground hip-hop has gone downhill as well?
haha. No way. Underground has always been something that the ones with the cash fear because it's always a risk. Say if you had Millions, what would make you want to sign anyone? To earn a profit, yes, but is it guaranteed?.....No. So why would you part with your money for some underground music that might not sell when you can chill at your million dollar mansion on Hollywood Hills knowing that your money is safe.
The people signing people worthy of selling real Hip-Hop know real Hip-Hop and how to make it commercially viable. Everything else is either a sell out or one hit wonder.
Isn't it possible that you've dipped while hip hop has stayed the same?? Relatively speaking of horse.
Do you think Drake's songs are fun to listen to?
I've progressed. Hip-Hop as a whole has dipped. I've advanced onto studying other genres to better understand song forms, lyricism, structures, working on how instruments and tonality spark thoughts. That sort of stuff.
No. I think Eliza Doolittle has better songs to listen to.
Hip-hop hasn't "dipped" per se, it has done what ever other genre of music in all of history has done. It has evolved and split into multiple sub-genres. People don't like what they hear on the radio so you get many people say many things of the nature of these two statements:
"I fucking hate Drake, fuck rap, its not even music what is this shit?"
"I like hip-hop, but this shit on the radio is NOT hip-hop"
The stuff we here on the radio IS hip-hop, but your guys are right, it falls in a certain sub-genre that can not purely be categorized as hip-hop only the same way Nirvana can not be simply called a "rock-and-roll" band. Whats popular on the radio just so happens to represent a fraction of hip-hop as a whole right now.
Every decade people say this. My grandparent once told me that in the 1970's and late 60's they specifically remember complaining about how songs were "way too long, and had no real harmony", but first off that only represents a certain amount of music for that time, and they are judging the music of that time by the standard of what they were used to, 2 minute singles AKA "good songs".
I personally prefer lyrical rap, because hey I was brought up on that, even with other genres I like Cat Stevens, Leonard Cohen, and Marvin Gaye, you know, guys like that, lyrical writers. Some people would say that Pink Floyd is the best band, yet they are not lyrical really aside from the occasional cool one liner courtesy of Waters.
Take Rakim for instance (hear me out). I would compare him to the rappers of today before I would compare him to the rappers of the 90's. His whole style was on how cool he was, and how he's the best doing it, and how he's the best, oh and did he mention that he's better than everyone else? (Who does that remind you of the most?). Rakim was not incredibly deep lyrically, and most of his song were just about how cool he was. People don't listen to Rakim to hear a story or to get a lesson of life, they listen to Rakim because he sounded cool, and its not something you have to intellectually explain. SOMETIMES I would rather listen to something I don't feel the need to dissect.
The music today is that to me. Its not my favorite, but its not "worse". Quit being pretentious.
Don't see how Drake's "Best I Ever Had" is any less lyrical than "California Love" or "Ruff Ryder's Anthem"
Separate names with a comma.