>do you think it's *impossible* to study hip hop in an
>academic manner that would be suitable to you?

In an "academic" manner...I don't know.

Can it be studied? I think it can.

>Or do you just think it hasn't been done yet?

I don't think they're capable.
I honestly don't think they have the critical faculties in order to do it.

>Obviously nothing is going to be perfect right off the bat,
>but if it never gets started...

And it never should (c) some simpson ending.

>(Side note... I've argued that hip hop requires a different
>approach for appreciation/musicological standards, and usually
>get either shouted down or ignored... what about a class that
>attempted to approach hip hop on its own terms?)

I think the class format rejects hip hop on its own terms.

And I think Dove said it best when she said/paraphrased, that the idea that you could even record something and that something be hip hop was alien. Some writer said something about hip hop back in the day being like a subway ride or a basketball game.

I guess you could get post modern and ask, "can anything really be studied if it's done out of context. Hell, even in context"

All those ponderings aside, I don't know if you could build a class that would really do it. Aside from "independent study"...haha

>>That recognition is often not for "what we are", but for
>"what
>>they like about us".
>
>Well. That would be poor study, wouldn't it?

Of course, but would it ever be recognized as such?

The books and papers that are heralded now are co-signed by people like Krs or Kool Herc. The ideas that hip hop is x,y,and z. (like the 4 elements) - is already poor scholarship - and it is pretty much the basis, and will always be the basis, because essential questions are not asked. And essential questions aren't asked, because they are not thought of in the first place.

>>I don't know if that's a subtle distinction, but the idea is
>>that if Will Smith and Freeway are up for "the best rapper
>out
>>of philly" Grammy (Black Thought was snubbed again)
>>
>>- you wouldn't want Freeway to win because he's "street"
>>- you wouldn't want Will Smith to win because he's cheesy
>
>So they give it to G. Love, right?

Well yeah.

>>You would want some real recognition of both of their
>styles.
>>
>>And that never really seems to happen.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean here... 'recognition of their
>styles' itself implies an academic-style scrutiny.

The long time hip hop fan may not have the vocabularly to describe what Freeway is doing different than Will - but they can say without question that they really are doing different things. Things that go deeper than subject matter and image, almost to intent and motivation.

Part of the real argument against snap/crunk music (stuff out of the south than only a few of us ride for) is that "party like a rock star" is not in the same universe as Crazy by Trick Daddy or any of those ac/dc breaks that Krs used. Hip Hop heads have a hard time trying to really unpack that.

>>That's not the kind of mainstream recognition that the
>people
>>want.
>
>What people are we talking about here?

They want the mainstream to come to us.

But a lot of understanding what hip hop *is*, what it means to people, comes from a whole way of life separate and apart from the records.

In a visceral sense, the folks want you to go line for line with them, and then know what those lines mean aside from the literal definitions. And that depth of understanding comes not from memorization of lines or comparison of themes between records, or watching videos.

Ultimately they want something from the mainstream that they mainstream can't possibly give them.

It's a big set up for dissappointment in my view.

>>>-the underlying fear that hip hop will not stand up to the
>>>scrutiny usually reserved for forms like jazz or classical;
>>
>>I ain't said that, and most of the riders for it, will say
>>that it does match up.
>>
>>Me, i'm against the whole comparison to begin with.
>
>You haven't said that. I don't know about the 'comparison'; as
>far as I'm concerned hip hop comes with a completely different
>set of aesthetics, skills, techniques, values, etc., and so to
>study it from the same perspective as you study classical is
>kind of doomed.... you need to retool.

And I think to some folks, that bothers them.

>>>-the fact that 'hip hop academia' might sacrifice
>>>research/argument standards in favor of PC conclusions;
>>
>>That's a concern.
>
>Cuiriously: did you see the 'Hip Hop World' or something like
>that article in Nat'l. Geographic a few months back? I
>appreciated the sentiment but disagreed pretty strongly with
>much of the article.

No, I'll hit my local library.

>>>So k, if you were arguing against teaching hip hop classes
>>in
>>>college, what would your argument be?
>>
>>1) the academy does not deserve it
>
>huh?

I.E. there should be a price to pay. And I don't mean monetary.

>>2) they don't have the ability to research it
>
>why not?

Perspective, Institutions, Conventions, a whole bunch of things.

>>3) what research they will do, will be wrong headed and lead
>>to bad scholarship
>>4) that bad scholarship continues to enforce harmful ideas
>>about the music (PE good, NWA bad and Selling Out Bad,
>Staying
>>True - good)
>
>I tend to agree in theory with the last two, though I'm not
>really educated on the subject. However, you seem to be
>putting forth the idea that it CAN'T be done well, and I don't
>know that I agree with that.

It's your choice.

And I don't think it can be done well. But more so, can't be done non-evil-ly. <- not a word.

one
k. orr

>That said, as is probably obvious, of course I'm coming from
>an outsider's perspective anyway, and a tendency to approach
>music that is new/different to me in an
>academic/ethnomusicological way. But thanks for discoursing
>with me on it.
>


leaning back like The Matrix (c) them boys from Hustle Skwad