F E
A T U R E D article
Bad Rap
IN art as in politics, entrenched institutions with an affinity for survival give off the scent of revolution even as they sustain a suffocating order.
Mark Helprin, "Against the Dehumanization of Art" Nothing could be more obvious, it seems to me, than that
art should be moral and that the first business of criticism, at least
some of the time, should be to judge works of literature (or painting or
even music) on grounds of the production’s moral worth. By "moral" I do
not mean some such timid evasion as "not too blatantly immoral."
John Gardner, "On Moral Fiction" The cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter. Humphrey Bogart, as Sam Spade in "The Maltese Falcon" It may seem pretentious to include two high-toned
quotations from serious writers in an overture to a discussion about rap
music. After all, it’s only a popular art form. But rap is pervasive and
culturally influential. Its huge sales figures are a clear indication of
its popularity across racial and class lines. The few music videos shown on MTV,
an accurate barometer of middle-class pop culture values, are almost
exclusively rap videos. More important, rap, particularly gangsta rap, has the
quality that theorists of late twentieth century art value almost to the
exclusion of all others: transgressiveness. The cultural atmosphere that asks
us to accept as serious art such products as Robert Mapplethorpe’s
sado-masochistic photographs and the work of British artists Gilbert and
George, whose hand-dyed photographs feature images of bodily waste and
fluids, leads inevitably to disturbing popular art. Pop music critics maintain that we
must also take rap seriously, for it expresses the desires and
frustrations of a large portion of society that we have failed, inner city
African-Americans. Further,
they insist that it presents an accurate and complete portrayal of urban
culture. For those of us who were around when rap first hit the
airwaves, it seems impossible that we’re still hearing it twenty years
later and that it is the predominant African-American popular art
form. Rhythm and blues
singing is still around in the form of oversouled divas (Whitney Houston,
et.al.) or, if what I hear on my local R & B station is any
indication, an updated version of 70s sweet soul. But the majority of black music,
the music that gets played on urban stations and that thumps through cars
in the small city where I live and its suburbs, is rap. In form, the blueprint for rap was contained in
"Rapper’s Delight," the 1979 hit by the Sugar Hill Gang. The rhythm track was "Good Times,"
a hit for Chic earlier in the year, over which the Sugar Hill Gang
rapped. “Rapper’s Delight”
established the pattern for the form: Take a familiar song, or a pastiche
of familiar songs, remove the vocals, and rap over the music. There have, of course, been some
variations. Some rap songs are built on a programmed drum or keyboard
track. And, to be fair, some of the rhythm tracks are ingenious
constructions of sampled music. To my ears, though, what we have here is a
novelty; a sub-genre of music and art that holds the same interest that,
say, the combination of poetry and jazz did in the fifties. A novel diversion, maybe, but
folks didn’t spend the fifties grooving to Ken Nordine records. Let’s cut to the chase here: There’s no melody in
rap. With rare exceptions,
there are no musical instruments, or, at least, no instruments that
haven’t been sampled from another recording. A turntable is a wonderful thing
for playing music, but, to state the obvious, it’s not a musical
instrument, no matter how cool or interesting the sound you’re making when
you fool with it. If my comments so far disqualify me from passing
aesthetic judgement on rap as a form, that’s fine with me. Life is short and I only have so
much time to buy and listen to the small number of new pop releases that
interest me or the jazz and R&B reissues that I grab before they go
out of print again. I’ve
heard rap critics and historians discourse on the changes in rap over the
last 20 years and I can’t hear much difference. I just don’t hear a line that
leads from one form of rap to another in the way bop leads to hard bop,
for example. What I do feel qualified to look at and speak out about
is the content of rap. I
can't pretend to know anything about ghetto life. I don't live in the
inner city. Neither do Robert
Hilburn of the Los Angeles Times nor Dave Marsh nor any of the other
champions of rap who have no reservations about telling us that the
portrayals of city life that rap gives us are absolute truth. While some of rap’s content has
its roots in African American culture, the extreme violence and perverse
sexuality it exhibits in its most transgressive form, gangsta rap, have
been encouraged, aided, and influenced by critics whose writing is
informed by late twentieth century art theory and social activism. Those critics are far less
interested in rap as an art form than they are in its ability to offend
polite society. Since rap as we currently know it is the product of a
continuum, it might be instructive to consider a couple of artists whose
work preceded the current crop, beginning with "Rapper’s Delight." Its opening lines pretty much set
the tone for the rest of the record:
I said a hip hop the hippie the hippie A little further along, we hear the familiar swagger we
associate with the form:
Check it out, I'm the c-a-s-an-the-o-v-a Aside from the fact that we need something akin to the
footnotes to "The Wasteland"
to understand what's going on (and "Rapper's Delight" is nearly as long as
"The Wasteland"), there’s nothing in the tune that is particularly
objectionable. The lyrics are
obviously aimed at an in-group that is familiar with the idiom, no
outsiders allowed. My only
reaction when I hear "Rapper’s Delight" is a strong desire to listen to
Chic, among the few bright spots of the disco era. As rap continued to gain popularity through the
eighties, critics pointed to Public Enemy as true innovators who brought
the form into the realm of art.
They frequently list the group’s 1990 album Fear of a Black Planet among the
best pop albums of all time.
Public Enemy’s raps were overtly political and portrayed race
relations in stark terms:
Man you ain't gotta In "Burn Hollywood Burn" Public Enemy expressed anger
and humiliation at the stereotypes of blacks they see in America’s
movies:
As I walk the streets of Hollywood Boulevard “Meet the G that Killed Me” painted a grim picture of drug use and AIDS in the inner city:
Man to man Once again,
the rhymes are suffused with enough slang to keep the uninitiated at
bay. Public Enemy presented a
dark view of inner city life and forced its listeners to come to terms
with that image. As I read
their lyrics, I was struck repeatedly by their sense of purpose, their
will to communicate harsh truths without compromise. They obviously set the standard
for musical activism and reportage that critics point to as the ultimate
purpose of rap, a standard those same critics set aside when other rappers
focused solely on violence and sexuality without any purpose beyond
sensationalism and record sales. I had assumed, unfairly, that Public Enemy also set the
standard for the mind numbing repetition of profanity that is gansta rap’s
salient feature. While they
were not reluctant to pepper their records with harsh language, they used
it much more sparingly, and to greater effect, than rappers whose work
dominates the charts today.
Let me pause here to point out that I don’t find profanity to be
particularly bothersome. The
introduction of profanity into twentieth- century narrative art certainly
aided in the realistic portrayal of some of life’s experiences. It should not, however, be the
sole measure of art or even of realism. Used sparingly, at the right
moment, it can be effective.
Overused, it becomes boring.
We’ve probably all had the experience of sitting through a movie
and thinking, "Would they really swear that much?" Gansta rap bludgeons us with
profanity. The group that established the tone for gansta rap, the
excessive profanity and romanticized violence, was NWA (Niggaz With
Attitude), in a record that was released in 1986, two years before Public
Enemy’s first album. Here are
a few lines from their controversial song "Fuck Da Police":
Smoke any muthafucka that sweats me Gansta rap, the form of rap popularized by NWA,
Notorious B.I.G., and TuPac Shakur has reached a point where its
sensationalism and vulgarity are not strongly felt cries of help from the
oppressed but rather the rules of the game--it’s what sells records. Gansta rap’s supporters tell us
that the images and feelings expressed in these recordings are what the
ghetto is like, reports from the front line.
Yet the macho posturing and the glorification of violence are
excessive to the point of parody:
If I die tonight, I'm dying in a gunfight
C'mere, c'mere [it ain't gotta be like that Big] Unfortunately, we can’t shrug gansta rap lyrics off as
parody. First of all, as I’ve
already noted, rap artists don’t intend them as parody. Second, rap outsells every other
form of music. Of the top twenty pop CDs
listed on Billboard’s pop charts, nearly half are rap records or rap
compilations. The rest of the
list is divided among country, rock and R&B discs. To reach sales in such large
numbers, rap must appeal and sell to a broad demographic spectrum,
especially middle-class white kids.
According to a February 2, 1999 article in Time Magazine, more than
70 percent of rap’s sales are to white listeners. 1 The audience for rap forms
its view of black, inner-city culture from the words of rap records and
the images of rap videos.
Here, in addition to the words quoted above, is some of what they
see:
Now, the title bitch
don't apply to all women
I got a bitch that suck my dick til I nut
Love the way you activate your hips and push your ass
out The message rap sends is that black men are misogynists,
that they like cheap and easy sex, and that they are violent. It’s a message that is being
absorbed by white kids who will one day take their place as decision
makers and voters who help make policy about aid to the inner city. It makes you wonder if the Klan
has moles in the music industry. Rap has always enjoyed strong support from pop music
critics. Reviewing Tupac
Shakur’s posthumous release R U
Still Down? (Remember Me), Rolling Stone called Shakur’s work, "…a
fantasy of beating every rap, avenging every insult and squashing every
enemy. Dismiss it as kid
stuff if you want. But if you've ever had an enemy, Tupac's bravado can be
truly intoxicating."2 CMJ Music review wrote of N.W.A.’s
Niggaz4life, “you can't deny
the questions it raises in anybody who really listens to it."3 In a nutshell, those are the two strands of argument in
support of rap: It’s a guilty pleasure, not to be taken too seriously; or
it’s very serious indeed and we are improved by addressing the questions
it makes us face. Sometimes
critics embarrass themselves with the claims they make for rap, as did
Time Magazine’s Christopher John Farley:
Hip-hop represents a realignment of America’s cultural aesthetics.
Rap songs deliver
The tired argument leveled against anyone who expresses
reservations, let alone indignation, about rap is that he is advocating
censorship. I honestly think
rap artists should be free to produce whatever they want and that records
companies should be able to market it without government intervention. I
like to think of myself as a First Amendment fundamentalist. But when pop
music critics compare rap to Rilke, when they do it without shame, when
they actually think rhymes that glorify violence and cheap sex actually
bear comparison with great literature, then it’s time to dismiss them from
the table so the adults can have a serious discussion. They’ve lost
perspective and, more important, they’ve abandoned a primary
responsibility of criticism: To tell us when something is bad or morally
wrong. And why shouldn’t they? Pop critics want to be taken
seriously and they often speak in the language used by critics in other
fields. It’s axiomatic of
late twentieth century art that it should, above all, make us face things
we don’t want to face. The
implication has been for some time that if art doesn’t make you
uncomfortable, if it doesn’t shock you, it isn’t serious. When the time comes to defend
transgressive art, however, apologists invariably use the example of art’s
past. It isn’t enough, for
instance, to say that a museum has the right to show a photograph of
Robert Mapplethorpe with a bullwhip protruding from his rectum. The photograph must also be
praised for its “classical” composition, as it was by a defense witness, a
curator of a museum, during The
State of Ohio vs. the Contemporary Art Center and Dennis Barrie: The human figure is centered. The horizon line is
two-thirds of the way up, almost the classical
In addition to the desire to be taken seriously, pop
critics carry another burden: they want to be hip. Older critics in particular
remember when any challenge to the squares by rock heroes of the sixties
was met with approval and was pointed to as proof of rock’s cultural and
artistic worth. They insist
that there’s a line that leads from the Rolling Stones to rap and Nine
Inch Nails, and suggest that any question about the content of current pop
music is deeply hypocritical and a profound sell-out of the sixties ideal
of liberation. Writers who do express reservations can expect to be
trounced. Timothy White
merely suggested in an article in Billboard Magazine that Eminem’s
egregious CD The Slim Shady LP
might give people some thought about the connection between rap and
domestic violence 6 and he
received this response in New Times LA’s This Week columnist, Bill
Holdship:
Meanwhile, upon the release of Eminem's debut album, First
Amendment advocate Timothy White, the arrogant windbag who edits
Billboard, publicly called for the CD to be banned by all free-thinking
people in this great land of ours. 7 White didn’t call for anything like a ban on the
disc. He simply took Eminem
to task for making an ugly record and called the rock press on the carpet
for praising it. But
criticism of rap and its supporters results in charges of censorship or
worse. “On the censorship
front,” Dave Marsh began a 1995 article attacking editorial comments about
rap by Billboard Magazine and
protests against rap’s content by William Bennett and C. Delores Tucker,
and affixed this footnote to the word “censorship”: All those who read Billboard and take its editorials
seriously (especially the pompous, mealy mouthed blather in the June 17
issue) should feel free to substitute the words "artistic responsibility"
for the word “censorship"… 8 There you have it: Point out artistic irresponsibility
and you’re calling for censorship.
According to Marsh, “Without rap records, and the few rock records
that follow suit, there would be no public discussion of any of these
issues, at least not from the point of view of those who are the subjects
of most American violence, who are mostly poor, young and black.” 9 Yet I’ve never read an article or
review by Marsh where he actually quotes rap lyrics to illustrate his
point. It’s a lot easier to
refer to C. Delores Tucker as someone “who heads the Quisling-style
National Political Caucus of Black Woman” 10 than it is
to quote the lyrics of “Big Booty Hoes” and explain to her why they don’t
demean her and other African-American women. In a June 1996 column in “Addicted to Noise,” an online music magazine, Marsh trots out his usual argument against those who publicly criticize rap: “…they don't know shit about rap music and its lyrical contents, what they mean or where they are coming from.” 11 Go back and read the lyrics I’ve quoted above. Or, go to a search engine on the web, type in “rap lyrics” and read the lyrics posted on one of the sites that come up. What part of “A Bitch is a Bitch” or “Big Booty Hoes” might require careful explication? Is there a subtext to “Fuck Da Police” that we need to study more deeply? Yes, there are rap artists like Public Enemy that might bear some serious consideration. But the artists who catch heat from William Bennett or C. Delores Tucker tend to be extremists like N.W.A. and Notorious B.I.G. or individual songs like “Cop Killer” by Ice Tea (not technically a rap song, but one by a rapper). For all I know, Bennett and Tucker may not like Public enemy either, but they’re only moved to action by the extremists, those artists who go so far their opponents ask, “Must we accept this, too?” And we get extremist artists when we decide that art’s ultimate purpose is to anger the squares--the bourgeoisie, the church, parents. When the sole measure of value in art becomes its ability to anger, shock, or offend, artists have to keep raising the stakes in order to keep us interested. Critic Roger Kimball addressed the issue of extremism in the visual arts in an article posted on The New Criterion’s web-site: As the search for something new to say or do becomes
ever more desperate, artists push themselves to make extreme gestures
simply in order to be noticed. But here, too, an inexorably self-defeating
logic has taken hold: at a time when so much art is routinely extreme and
audiences have become inured to the most brutal spectacles, extremity
becomes a commonplace…. Without the sustaining, authoritative backdrop of
the normal, extreme gestures--stylistic, moral, political--degenerate into
a grim species of mannerism.12 Rap singer Eminem is what you get when transgressiveness
is brought to its logical, extreme conclusion. A few examples of his
poetic genius, all from his newest disc, The Marshall Mathers LP:
Bitch I'ma kill you!
You don't wanna fuck with me
I'm the illest nigga ever, I told you
I fucked my cousin in his asshole, slit my mother's
throat At first, The Marshall Mathers LP enjoyed near universal praise in the rock press. A typical view was Will Hermes’s in Entertainment Weekly: “…the first great pop record of the 21st century.”13 Other prominent critics weighed in: Robert Hilburn of the LA Times, Neil McCormick in London’s Daily Telegraph, Toure in Rolling Stone. Everybody loved it, even if they found it disturbing (Rolling Stone: “ The Marshall Mathers LP is a car-crash record: loud, wild, dangerous, out of control, grotesque, unsettling. It's also impossible to pull your ears away from.”14). Small cracks began to appear in the facade, though. Eric Boehlert, in an article
published in Salon alongside a
rave review of Marshall
Mathers, wrote: “By defending and celebrating the likes of Eminem
while willingly turning a blind eye to his catch message of hate, music
critics continue to cheapen their profession.”15 Soon others began to express some
doubts. Major magazines featured Eminem in stories about pop culture
excess. Brian Williams of
MSNBC did a lengthy segment on the same topic, and again Eminem was the
catalyst for the discussion. Even MTV felt compelled to interview him
about the content of his lyrics:
Kurt Loder: Also you're not a fan of gay people, I gather. Is that
a problem you have in your life? Eminem: … the most lowest degrading thing that you can
say to a man when you're battling him is call him a faggot and try to take
away his manhood. Call him a sissy, call him a punk. "Faggot" to me
doesn't necessarily mean gay people. "Faggot" to me just means... taking
away your manhood. You're a sissy. You're a coward. Just like you might
sit around in your living
room and say, "Dude, stop, you're being a fag, dude." This
does not necessarily mean
you're being a gay person.16 One had the feeling some pop culture observers were
expressing long festering irritation with rap and found in Eminem a
convenient outlet. They
finally felt free to vent because Eminem, a middle-class white kid,
couldn’t lay claim to the right to express ideas they usually found
offensive, at least not within the racial/social class guidelines they had
established. Eminem seems to
have a talent for causing pop music observers to utter specious comments.
In the MSNBC segment I mentioned above, an editor from Spin magazine said that Eminem was
rapping about homosexuality and racism because kids were confused about
those issues. I’ll bet they
are: MTV runs ads about diversity and tolerance, then gives over a weekend
of broadcast time to Eminem’s hate-filled videos. Similarly, Spin wrings its hands over racism
and homophobia, but seems to think it should give Eminem a pass on those
issues. A culture’s best art offers us variety, the richness of
life’s experiences. We should
expect the same from the best popular art, if on a more modest scale. It is a lie to argue, as pop music
apologists do whenever they are defending rap or the dark, violent
broodings of bands like Nine Inch Nails, that the value of pop music comes
down to this and only this: It has always angered parents, it has always
offended the establishment. I don’t know if rap is capable of being more than it is now. I am certain that it will never have the chance to be more if we are afraid to point out where it goes wrong and turns ugly. We can’t really express surprise if our sons “objectify” women if we don’t tell them that it’s not acceptable for pop artists, regardless of their social or economic class, to call women whores. Part of the job of being a critic is to hold artists responsible for the things they say in their books, poems, movies, or music. Pop music critics should be held to the same standard. That’s not to say that pop music can’t be, on occasion, disturbing and profane. But it cannot be those things alone and those things alone cannot define its value.
1 Christopher John Farley, “Hip Hop Nation” Time Magazine, February 8, 1999. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articles/0,3266,19134,00.html> 2 Rob Sheffield, Review of “R U Still Down?” Rolling Stone, No.778. <http://www.rollingstone.com/sections/recordings/text/disc_fulrev.asp?afl=
&LookUpString=3209&AlbumID=22362> 3 Glen Sansone, Review of “Niggaz4Life” CMJ New Music Review, June 14, 1991. <http://www.cmj.com/Reviews/review.phtml?artistName=N.W.A.&recordingNam
e=Niggaz4Life&reviewerName=Glen+Sansone> 4 Farley, as above. 5 Jayne Merkel, “Report From Cincinnati: Art on Trial,” Art in America, December 1990, p 47. 6 Timothy White, “Eminem: The Best Way to ‘Respond,’” Billboard, 03/06/99, p3. 7 Bill Holdship, “Kid Rock,” New Times L.A. November 25, 1999. <http://www.newtimesla.com/issues/1999-11-25/nightstick.html> 8 Dave Marsh, “Mouth of a Lunatic,” Addicted to Noise, June 1995. <http://www.addict.com/ATN/issues/1.07/Columns/American_Grandstand/> 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Dave Marsh, “Raw Power,” Addicted to Noise, June 1996. <http://www.addict.com/issues/2.06/html/lofi/Columns/American_Grandstand/> 12 Roger Kimball, “The Trivialization of Outrage: The Artworld at the End of the Millennium,” posted at www.newcriterion.com, Summer 1999. <http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/special/outrage2.htm> 13 Will Hermes, review of “The Marshall Mathers LP,”
Entertainment Weekly, May 24, 2000.
<http://www.ew.com/ew/review/music/0,1683,1323,marshallmatherslp.html> 14 Toure, review of “The Marshall Mathers LP,” Rolling
Stone No. 844/845
<http://www.rollingstone.com/sections/recordings/text/disc_fulrev.asp?afl=&Look
UpString=6395&AlbumID=62137 15 Eric Boehlert, “Invisible Man,” Salon, June 7, 2000.
http://www.salon.com/ent/music/feature/2000/06/07/eminem/index.html 16 MTV News interview with Eminem, broadcast May 19,
2000. Transcript available at http://www.mtv.com/sendme.tin?page=/news/gallery/e/eminem00/index.html. |
Copyright © 1997 - 2000 Interactive Orbit, Inc. All rights reserved.