ok, we always knew it was a business.

and we all know the materialism has been getting worse over the last decade... shit's all million dollar watches and candy whips now.

wikipedia put this shift quite succintly:
"Lyrical content, which shifted from the majority of songs portraying the rapper as being poor, or dependant on crime to make money while living in the ghetto, to being wealthy and having the best jewelry, clothes, liquor, and women. Compare Ice Cube's "Today Was a Good Day", to BG's "Bling-Bling". Some critics say that this shift is worse then the earlier shift into violent lyrics because it encourages materialism. "

yeah, and i'll be a critic then.

check american brandstand, which tracks the brands that are mentioned the most, and the songs with the most brand names mentioned in them. (of the top 100 tracks, i think 99 are hip-hop.)

http://www.agendainc.com/brand04.html


but the article that made me bring this tired horse back from the dogfood factory is this one:

http://media.guardian.co.uk/marketingandpr/pulse/story/0,10489,1447335,00.html

Big Mac rap may mean artists' payday

Richard Jinman
Tuesday March 29, 2005
The Guardian

Rap artists are accustomed to name-checking prestige car, clothing and jewellery brands in their lyrics. But if McDonald's has its way Snoop Dogg, Jay-Z and 50 Cent may soon be giving it up for the humble beefburger.
The fast-food giant is reported to be launching a campaign that will offer financial incentives to rap artists who mention its Big Mac burger in their lyrics. McDonald's will not pay an upfront fee, but intends to pay the artist between $1 and $5 (53p-£2.68) each time a track is played on the radio. It hopes to have several such songs on the airwaves by the summer.

Walt Riker, a spokesman for McDonald's in the US, said the initiative would be conducted by the US marketing firm Maven Strategies, which last year managed to get Seagram's gin mentioned in five rap songs.

Tony Rome, Maven's president, said his aim was to identify artists whose style would identify with the brand. McDonald's would have final approval of the lyrics, he said.

The campaign was condemned yesterday by the US lobby group Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. It accused McDonald's of targeting a young audience who were already particularly prone to obesity.

The group's founder, Susan Linn, said: "They're dumping one of their most high fat, high calorific products on kids in a way that the kids won't even know that it's happening."

Mr Riker denied that claim yesterday. "Our customers are smart," he said. "They know how to make choices that are right for them."



___________________________________


Rap music = Now with added capitalism!

Shocking subliminal advertising. I deplore it. However, I can't see how this and the materialism that facilitates it can be worse than the advocation of violence..

whereas some of these ideals (owning this car, wearing these jewels, drinking this liquor etc) are held up as the ultimate goals in life.. better than getting an education, supporting your family, or just creating something positive in your life/family/community.


the McDonalds things is just another ugly symptom of this- the companies have realised (well- they've known ever since My Adidas- MORE companies have realised) that the kids look up to the heroes in their music, and these artists are a direct line to the kids' pocket money.

and now that they're proposing to pay artists for using their brands, well shit, it's just gonna get a whole lot worse

>
>whereas some of these ideals (owning this car, wearing these
>jewels, drinking this liquor etc) are held up as the ultimate
>goals in life.. better than getting an education, supporting
>your family, or just creating something positive in your
>life/family/community.

Ok, I take your point. However, if one is to believe the media effects argument, advocating violence in lyrics is going to fill the local prisons whereas promoting Big-Macs is only going to fill the local fast-food outlet..

Anyway, the I realise that this violence/materialism dichotomy did not constitute the thrust of your original post. Have you read 'No Logo'?

A titbit...

'At the beginning of the decade, these self-styled in-school broadcasters (K-111 Communications, the Youth News Network) approached North American school boards with a proposition. They asked them to open their classrooms to two minutes of tv advertising a day, sandwiched between twelve minutes of teenybopper current affairs programming. Many schools consented, and the broadcasts soon aired. Turning off the cheerful ad patter is not an option. Not only is the programming mandatory viewing for students, but teachers are unable to adjust the volume of the broadcast, especially during commercials' pg. 89

i hit her website up every now and again too.


were they serious with taht bit, too? do you guys actually watch TV as part of school?

i can remember watching a national geographic documentary or two at school. but every day? that's fucked to begin with.. and then to have ads in there, damn

it's like the entire american culture is geared up for greed..

Truthfully, I can't even remember if there were commercials. Most marketing passes through me like a sieve these days. I think one thing that's under-reported is how jaded our generation is towards marketing. We learn the deal alot earlier than our parents and I bet that's half the reason marketers have to work so hard to get our attention.

The one thing I remember though is that Anderson Cooper (I think he's on MSNBC) got his start on that channel. The rest of the reporters almost looked like teenagers but this dude was already starting to grey haha

It was either bc he was old or getting sent to the front lines in the first Gulf War worked his nerves.

perpetuates and 'justifies' the violence and other "tools" of the trade I think are hinderances to progress.

******************************
www.okayplayer.com/guidelines

http://profiles.myspace.com/users/3870323
******************************
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

<---- LOMU!

Progess? Are you speaking in the anti-capitalist sense?

but i should let Fb define it i guess

and fostering what is IMO important for life: God, family, community, and knowledge of self.


******************************
www.okayplayer.com/guidelines

http://profiles.myspace.com/users/3870323
******************************
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

<---- LOMU!

none of which are fully realizable for 90% of the population under capitalism. When it all comes down to it, our time is consumed by the necessity of selling our labour-power on a market for no other reason than the simple fact that we have nothing else to sell for survival.

Of course its worse, a million cool images of thugs cannot perpetuate as much violence than the fabricated need for Rolex watches and diamond chains to an audience that, for the most part, do not have the regular means to access either. It is at the root of, and I am not shy about using this word, the anti-capitalist rejection of private accumulation to deplore any kind of society that tells those without any significant ownership of anything that to be fully human, they must consume like a Rockafeller.

Edit: and by materialism let us not be confused with the materialism that I do endorse. Ie, dialiectical and historical materialism. The tenet that all the exists is physical in nature and that ideas are products of our interactions with the material world.

>It is at
>the root of, and I am not shy about using this word, the
>anti-capitalist rejection of private accumulation to deplore
>any kind of society that tells those without any significant
>ownership of anything that to be fully human, they must
>consume like a Rockafeller.

Red alert!! Commie on board.

Only joking. I believe there is a valid distinction between capitalism (good) and the monopoly stage of capitalism (bad) in which we live. The latter has ushered in consumerism and its effects upon identity.

>Edit: and by materialism let us not be confused with the
>materialism that I do endorse. Ie, dialiectical and historical
>materialism. The tenet that all the exists is physical in
>nature and that ideas are products of our interactions with
>the material world.

I would contend that all which exists is linguistic in nature. Is it possible for individuals to understand the physical world outside the its meaning as defined by the language we use? For example, without the connoted meaning imported by language, a diamond becomes no more than shiny stone..

Have you read Bear v. Shark by Chris Bachelder?

(Seriously, the shark would win)

i have not read this, could you please supply a brief synopsis?

'Given a relatively level playing field - i.e., water deep enough so that a Shark could maneuver proficiently, but shallow enough so that a Bear could stand and operate with its characterisic dexterity - who would win in a fight between a Bear and a Shark?'

The book is a satire (at times irreverent), which takes a facet of Klein's thesis in No Logo - her indictment of consumer culture. The main character, Mr Norman is soulless, whose life is absorbed entirely by the objects and media he consumes; he works for a company that designs their technological products, which are designed to look identical to their more expensive counterparts, but to not actually work!

The whole of the US becomes entirely engrossed in this media event; the sequel battle between a bear and a shark. This serves to highlight the utter soullessness of a consumer/media orientated society that allows itself to become so uttlerly obsessed with such an absurd event.

Its a great read.

this sounds quite interesting. Curious, however, what characters of our society do the bear and shark represent respectively?

The bear and the shark do not represent separate characters. The battle itself is a representation of the tabloid, the Hollywood film, popular music and sport, advertising and branding and all of the other forms of popular culture, which according to many theorists (including your friends The Frankfurt School) dupe the non-elite masses into a state of blindness as to the actual emptiness in their lives

interesting, actually I find the analysis of Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, and the rest of the Frankfurt School to be quite crass. They see things to formulaicallly (is that a word? Am I allowed to make them up yet?) I'm really not a big fan. But, the book sounds interesting....

>interesting, actually I find the analysis of Adorno,
>Horkheimer, Marcuse, and the rest of the Frankfurt School to
>be quite crass.

You didn't have to name them to prove your knowledge!! Lol

Read the book, I think you'll enjoy it.

oh trust me, its not a knowledge thing, its a purging of angst thing...lol

you seem to give the appearance of being very well read, do you actually attempt to understand the content of what you read or do you spend your days regurgitating verbatum content which you feel you can shoehorn into an argument (or moot point...) ?

do you have a poor record of academic achievement?

Sorry, I'm confused. Are you talking to me?

Yes, I copied the whole of my dissertation out of a book! What do you think of that?

>Red alert!! Commie on board.

>Only joking. I believe there is a valid distinction between
>capitalism (good) and the monopoly stage of capitalism (bad)
>in which we live. The latter has ushered in consumerism and
>its effects upon identity.

No need to apologize, I am a self asserted communist. Honestly, and as well intentioned as that particular view of capitalism is, I don't believe in the existence of two types of capitalism. Sure capitalism goes through stages of growth and accumulation but the realization of monopoly capital is a logical point of progression that the system has arrived at. Its all a product of competition and ceaseless growth as a result of the latter. Now we all know that in a finite world ceaseless growth is not possible and sooner or later, whether one likes capitalism or not, it must collapse. I will stop here because this could be a several hundred page doctoral thesis if I really went into depth with it.


>I would contend that all which exists is linguistic in nature.
>Is it possible for individuals to understand the physical
>world outside the its meaning as defined by the language we
>use? For example, without the connoted meaning imported by
>language, a diamond becomes no more than shiny stone..

AHH! Multiplicity of colour narritive alert!!! Postmodernist on board!!! Actually, that's not to alerting, the pomos are everywhere these days to my dismay. But enough of my polemic, on to your question of language. I have one simple question. Can you imagine language developed outside of material existence? In other words, without a physical world for our senses to experience, is there any possibility of language? Marx used a useful example to convey this. He stated that the word "fruit" is an abstract concept to describe the world of oranges, apples, bananas, etc. There is nothing physical about the word "fruit" itself. One cannot touch, smell, or taste "fruit" in the abstract sense, on can only perform these actions on the particular things that the word "fruit" describes. Thus without, first, the existence of things we call apples, oranges, and bananas, there is no need for the linguistic invention of the word "fruit". Thus, we first experience the material world and then invent language to describe what our senses have experienced. The same goes for your example of a diamond. Without the existence of a shiny stone (which themselves are words used to describe something that exists materially before we even have the language to describe it) we cannot have the word, the concept, "diamond" in the first place.

...well sort of.

>AHH! Multiplicity of colour narritive alert!!! Postmodernist
>on board!!! Actually, that's not to alerting, the pomos are
>everywhere these days to my dismay. But enough of my polemic,
>on to your question of language. I have one simple question.
>Can you imagine language developed outside of material
>existence? In other words, without a physical world for our
>senses to experience, is there any possibility of language?

Yes. Langauge is more than verbal. Before the physical comes the ethereal, the spiritual and emotional. We attach labels to things, to communicate, to describe but not to think. We are not born from eggs, hatching fully formed with a programmed path to live. We need language not only to sense the physical but also to communicate non-verbal messages. We limit our language because our physical world is limited.

>Marx used a useful example to convey this. He stated that the
>word "fruit" is an abstract concept to describe the world of
>oranges, apples, bananas, etc. There is nothing physical about
>the word "fruit" itself. One cannot touch, smell, or taste
>"fruit" in the abstract sense, on can only perform these
>actions on the particular things that the word "fruit"
>describes. Thus without, first, the existence of things we
>call apples, oranges, and bananas, there is no need for the
>linguistic invention of the word "fruit".

One of the infants' first needs is to eat (and breathe). We cry when we are hungry or uncomfortable and this emotional expression is understood in a very general way but in order to communicate more specifically we learn to speak. Until then we use expressions and non-verbal messages. Soon we learn to say fruit (as an example) because that is what the authoritative people call the food we need. We learn to communicate our needs and wants through language but our first "skills" are non-verbal.

>Thus, we first
>experience the material world and then invent language to
>describe what our senses have experienced.

But this world is limited...there is much more that what we see. We picked up on non-verbal messages as babies and children, as much as the words. Knowing how to communicate in all these ways can help unleash unlimited potential, even if it's structured by the existence of society or civilization.

>The same goes for
>your example of a diamond. Without the existence of a shiny
>stone (which themselves are words used to describe something
>that exists materially before we even have the language to
>describe it) we cannot have the word, the concept, "diamond"
>in the first place.

We also listen to those in authority and learn that diamond has more value (in this society) than something like compassion, sensitivity or truth. These latter things are not tangible, not as valued. In addition to learning words to describe things we learn to place more value on material things than emotional or spiritual experiences. As a result, we become attached to the physical, ignore (or repress) the other things. It becomes quite easy to control people (consumers) once they become attached to these "valuable" things, especially if these valuable resources are for sale.

Generally, I do not know quite what of my assertions you are disputing but I will attempt a reply.

>...well sort of.

>Yes. Langauge is more than verbal. Before the physical comes
>the ethereal, the spiritual and emotional. We attach labels
>to things, to communicate, to describe but not to think. We
>are not born from eggs, hatching fully formed with a
>programmed path to live. We need language not only to sense
>the physical but also to communicate non-verbal messages. We
>limit our language because our physical world is limited.

If you read my post again, I used a verbal example of language to make my point but I never asserted that language, or communication in this case would be more appropriate, is solely verbal. You say we attatch labels to things in order to communicate, but these things come to exist as material objects before we can label them. These labels and our cognitive associations with them then really do inform the way we think. My manner of thinking is not something that has statically been borne solely from me but over the 27 years of life that I have experienced. My interactions with socially created realities such as friends, literature, art, music, family, etc have all contributed to how I think. In this light, I cannot fathom how you can even suggest that I believe we are programmed like creatures in eggs. Its not that we consciously limit our language because our phyical world is limited; on the contrary, because our material world is finite, our language is only large enough to describe our sensory experience. On an individual basis, this level of access to language varies but on a social level it holds true.


>One of the infants' first needs is to eat (and breathe). We
>cry when we are hungry or uncomfortable and this emotional
>expression is understood in a very general way but in order to
>communicate more specifically we learn to speak. Until then
>we use expressions and non-verbal messages. Soon we learn to
>say fruit (as an example) because that is what the
>authoritative people call the food we need. We learn to
>communicate our needs and wants through language but our first
>"skills" are non-verbal.

A baby cries out of reflex, not out of any social condition. As that baby grows, it learns based on its social and cultural experience -which is ultimately rooted in material structures- how to express that reflex in more communicative manners. Some cultures will teach babies to repress the crying reflex while others may encourage it. Further, whether the word fruit comes from an authority or not, it exists as a concept to describe material things. Call unfufu if you want, it still exists as a socially agreed upon concept to understand a category of physical things.

>But this world is limited...there is much more that what we
>see. We picked up on non-verbal messages as babies and
>children, as much as the words. Knowing how to communicate in
>all these ways can help unleash unlimited potential, even if
>it's structured by the existence of society or civilization.

I don't see the argument here. You assume that I only speak of spoken language when I believe that physical or non-verbal language is also very much cultural products that have been borne out of many years of historical experience with the material world.

>We also listen to those in authority and learn that diamond
>has more value (in this society) than something like
>compassion, sensitivity or truth. These latter things are not
>tangible, not as valued. In addition to learning words to
>describe things we learn to place more value on material
>things than emotional or spiritual experiences. As a result,
>we become attached to the physical, ignore (or repress) the
>other things. It becomes quite easy to control people
>(consumers) once they become attached to these "valuable"
>things, especially if these valuable resources are for sale.

Right, the authority that places such value on "diamonds" is the market and the actors who control the market. The market is a concept that exists only under a specific MATERIAL mode of production, capitalist production. Our mode of production is so distinct from older modes of production in the way that the ownership of material things is divided that new concepts of value and meaning regarding objects that are commodified, ie diamonds, are determined based on how the ownership over those material objects is organized. The sole purpose of all production under capitalism is commodification in order to realize monetary value on the market. We thus learn to fetishize commodities and conjure up all sorts of perverted ideals regarding their values. We lose sight of the things you mentioned (compassion, sensitivity, truth, etc.) because we live in a society where "value" has become synonomous with "capital". Many argue, in fact, that the reason religion and belief in spirit is so attractive is because of the alienation that this system creates. Since we cannot have frienship, truth, compassion, love, here on earth we need to place those ideals on an external being and call it god or whatever. Then we praise it and fetishize it like we do commodities, only this we need not express in cash payment (although we know that's not completely true either).

I never argue...I discuss. :-)

>You say we attatch labels to things in order to
>communicate, but these things come to exist as material
>objects before we can label them. These labels and our
>cognitive associations with them then really do inform the way
>we think.

Okay. For example, take the word sensitive. Depending on who you are and how you've been raised this could mean weak or very aware/astute. Because this is a quality, not a physical thing it makes it hard to know exactly what a person means when he or she says, "You're sensitive". There are other words that people use to label other people...and this goes beyond something like fruit. Some of these labels are used to divide people, to send messages that certain things have more value than others.

> cannot fathom how you can even suggest that I believe
>we are programmed like creatures in eggs.

Not you personally. I am talking in generalities, for this discussion.

>On an individual basis, this level of
>access to language varies but on a social level it holds
>true.

Sure.

>A baby cries out of reflex, not out of any social condition.

I disagree. After the first couple of weeks, babies use crying as a way to communicate. They pick up on cues such as the reaction on a person's face. They notice when they cry, gurgle, or smile something happens in their external environment. They learn to use their limited and sometimes non-verbal responses to get their needs met.

>Further, whether the word fruit comes
>from an authority or not, it exists as a concept to describe
>material things. Call unfufu if you want, it still exists as a
>socially agreed upon concept to understand a category of
>physical things.

Most often, the words, labels, or whatever come from people in some authoritative role. We want to belong, to be accepted, to communicate, so we use the same words. It does not make it "real" or true but it becomes reality, anyway.

>Right, the authority that places such value on "diamonds" is
>the market and the actors who control the market. The market
>is a concept that exists only under a

Yep.

>The sole purpose of all
>production under capitalism is commodification in order to
>realize monetary value on the market. We thus learn to
>fetishize commodities and conjure up all sorts of perverted
>ideals regarding their values. We lose sight of the things you
>mentioned (compassion, sensitivity, truth, etc.) because we
>live in a society where "value" has become synonomous with
>"capital".

Which is why I say that morals are for morons...in this society. Our value system is so skewed towards capital that concepts such as compassion or sensitivity is lost on the average person.

>Many argue, in fact, that the reason religion and
>belief in spirit is so attractive is because of the alienation
>that this system creates.

Unfortunately, the history of religion (most religions) is tied up in capital, too.

>Since we cannot have frienship,
>truth, compassion, love, here on earth we need to place those
>ideals on an external being and call it god or whatever. Then
>we praise it and fetishize it like we do commodities, only
>this we need not express in cash payment (although we know
>that's not completely true either).

To some (like me), God is not external. God is pure, undifferentiated energy and is in everything...but that's another discussion.

>No need to apologize, I am a self asserted communist.
>Honestly, and as well intentioned as that particular view of
>capitalism is, I don't believe in the existence of two types
>of capitalism. Sure capitalism goes through stages of growth
>and accumulation but the realization of monopoly capital is a
>logical point of progression that the system has arrived at.
>Its all a product of competition and ceaseless growth as a
>result of the latter. Now we all know that in a finite world
>ceaseless growth is not possible and sooner or later, whether
>one likes capitalism or not, it must collapse. I will stop
>here because this could be a several hundred page doctoral
>thesis if I really went into depth with it.

It probably will collapse, but are the signs yet present? I don’t subscribe to Marx’s notion that it will or should ultimately be replaced with communism. In general quotations are trite but I do like this one from Animal Farm;

‘All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others’

>I have one simple question.
>Can you imagine language developed outside of material
>existence? In other words, without a physical world for our
>senses to experience, is there any possibility of language?
>Marx used a useful example to convey this. He stated that the
>word "fruit" is an abstract concept to describe the world of
>oranges, apples, bananas, etc. There is nothing physical about
>the word "fruit" itself. One cannot touch, smell, or taste
>"fruit" in the abstract sense, on can only perform these
>actions on the particular things that the word "fruit"
>describes. Thus without, first, the existence of things we
>call apples, oranges, and bananas, there is no need for the
>linguistic invention of the word "fruit". Thus, we first
>experience the material world and then invent language to
>describe what our senses have experienced. The same goes for
>your example of a diamond. Without the existence of a shiny
>stone (which themselves are words used to describe something
>that exists materially before we even have the language to
>describe it) we cannot have the word, the concept, "diamond"
>in the first place.

I anticipated that somebody might present this argument, which is why I was careful to write ‘CONNOTED meaning’ (in Barthes’s sense of the word).

Allow me to present a simple rebuttal to your question. I agree that in its primary form language cannot predate the physical world that it denotes, as per Marx’s elaboration of fruit. Similarly, language is not the sole determinant on the development of a child’s understanding of its environment. Babies conduct physical reality tests. A baby will touch a hot radiator, get burnt and will subsequently not touch it again. There is no need for language to determine this sense of the reality of radiators. However, this is a definition of reality in a primitive and crude sense.
Language does not define our full sense of reality (the process of identifying ourselves with the outside world) on the primary (denoted) level but it does on the secondary (connoted) level. As with the diamond, a rapper (for example) does not want it because it is a shiny stone. He wants it because of the status of the diamond, which is imported by its secondary level of signification. All of the secondary meanings are myths (I’m sorry if I keep re-inventing the wheel Nettrice) that we internalise in our understanding of and identification with the physical world.


This will develop this argument but it will post it under Tohunga's comment.

say an artist like a chingy or lil zane who could really use that extra $$$? i dont really see 50 or snoop needing to do this unless they are just greedy.

and all of u up here debating and philosphizing about violence, corporate greed and capitolism are waisting your time. 99% of the cats in the rap game now are there to make $$$ and lots of it. its not about the message, the love of the music, the culture, its about getting rich and getting famous now. most of these artists are writing rhymes with $$$$ on their mind so this "deal" is right up their alley...

>say an artist like a chingy or lil zane who could really use
>that extra $$$? i dont really see 50 or snoop needing to do
>this unless they are just greedy.
>
>and all of u up here debating and philosphizing about
>violence, corporate greed and capitolism are waisting your
>time. 99% of the cats in the rap game now are there to make
>$$$ and lots of it. its not about the message, the love of the
>music, the culture, its about getting rich and getting famous
>now. most of these artists are writing rhymes with $$$$ on
>their mind so this "deal" is right up their alley...

Duke, isn't that the whole point of discussing capitalism and the effects of corporate greed on different aspects of society. As the hip-hop has become more commodified and capitalised over the past ten years or so, we have seen a growing attitude of materialism among hip-hop artists. Particularly regarding what is chosen for purposes of marketing and what kind of hip-hop does not get funded only to rot by the wayside. Capitalism works as a process just like anything else and its effects sometimes take years to manifest as the market reshapes and molds whatever enters its realm. Three years ago you used to hear debates about "what happened to the hip hop purists?", while today that question is rarely relevant even on okayplayer. The market, and capitalists who run the market, are completely responsible for this. You know, in pre-capitalist times, you would rarely find debates of why art has changed so much and so quickly. Because before there was a market system in place, art was determined by the artists rather than by potential profits. Sure there were controversies over art such as the aristocracies anger towards artists who threatened their values, but the art itself belonged to the artist, not some invisible market space.

about capitolism affecting the "art form" if this were true about every genre of music when clearly it isn't.

i hear what you're saying but at the bare root of it you have a community/generation full of folks who are just dead set on making $$$ and lots of it. this isn't because we are being tugged by our puppet strings, its just the mentallity that is in our communuties and we are seeing it played out in hip hop...with that being said, there is nothing wrong with corporations taking note of this and capitolizing off of it. hell, didn't jessse jackson try and sue toyota a few years ago for corporations NOT trying to market towards african americans?

How can you say this has never occured to any other type of music? What about post Jazz rock-n-roll? Rock music in the late sixties and early seventies developed as protest music. Almost the entire genre was born out of protest against power and the Vietnam war (yes, I know rock was invented by black musicians but I am speaking of a particular genre that we are most familiar with). "War, what is it good for?", Hendrix's rendition of the Star Spangled Banner, nearly everything by John Lennon, early music by the Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall", and the list goes on. The only problem was that as this music became so much more popular, the only way for artists to get produced and distributed was through the major record labels that owned access to the industry. Of course, at first, the labels did not want to miss the profitability boat that was this music, but as time went on they were able to mold artists to fit an image that was friendly to corporate america. The early protest artists that signed on to these labels soon learned that their music only enriched those who they were protesting against. As Warner, Columbia and other labels continued to collect money off record sales that money was used to pay sponsors who were building weapons for the war. Soon after came the whole culture of "sex, drugs, and rock n' roll" which taught the values of materialism and individualistic gain. Just as the bling-bling of today is completely in line with the values of capitalism, so did the culture of glam rock. You can see the same progression in punk music that has digressed from the Dead Kennedys in the 80s to Sum 41 today. This trend is not at all particular to hip hop. One good article to check out is "Rockin' Hegemony" by John Story. It lays it all out perfectly.

and go back and read the first line of my post again, please

we know it's a business


the question is, how are the messages being put across within their art affecting the kids?

shit, i thought this sort of thing would be right up your alley... why don'tcha come and join a discussion for once, instead of trying to discredit anyone else on the board? it's quite fun, really

>the question is, how are the messages being put across within
>their art affecting the kids?

- its gonna make them buy more big macs. this is actually an excellent business strategy.


>shit, i thought this sort of thing would be right up your
>alley... why don'tcha come and join a discussion for once,
>instead of trying to discredit anyone else on the board? it's
>quite fun, really

- so because i dont see a problem with mcdonalds doing this im discreditng people? what problem do you all see with mcdonalds actually doing this? what has mcdonalds done wrong in this instance?

just the fact that you were trying to discredit everyone with one big brush instead of joining the discussion.

but this is much better.


now...yes, you're right, it's excellent business strategy.

i just have to take the role of the artist here (not hard, since i am one) and ask, 'why does art have to be pimped out as a business strategy? don't they have enough channels for advertising already?'

or even the entrepenuer. Some people mangage to do all, but a great many are one or the other. I think there are alot of cats in it for the love.

I see them on the train everyday with notebook in hand, I ask a few what are they writing for- and they all respond similar "aww I'm just bsing, getting my thoughts down on paper having fun"...

very few are actually trying to make moves off of it. most are just having fun.

What's funny is that I aint heard a cat in it for the money- at least on the train that was anygood. They all sounded like xrapper number 4. Like a JayZ, Too Short, a Tupac or a MJG. Kinda sad.
******************************
www.okayplayer.com/guidelines

http://profiles.myspace.com/users/3870323
******************************
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

<---- LOMU!

At least that's my belief. Even if someday they can't sell their raps, I think most of the rappers out today will still create music for themselves. They may retire from the industry but they can't retire as artists.

The interesting thing is that the most successful advertising and branding agencies got wise the primary/secondary signification paradigm (to which I alluded earlier) some time ago. The most valuable commodity to the biggest companies now is not their product, but their brand. In some sense the product is incidental to the brand, which accounts for the proliferation of ads that don’t even show the product they wish to sell. In effect, the brand constitutes the very essence of secondary/connoted signification. It sells - not useful products - but dreams and aspirations, which the target consumer associates with. Once you capture the consumer’s imagination, any number of products can then be attached to the brand.

So what is the relevance? Well, isn’t there an affinity between brands such as Nike and Disney and brands such as P. Diddy or Jay-Z? Both P.Piddy and Jay-Z are established brands, who sell a hugely eclectic range of products. Jay-Z even acknowledges this on the BluePrint;

‘If somebody would have told him that, ho would sell clothing?
Not in this lifetime, wasn’t in his lifeline
That’s another difference that’s between me and them,
I smartened up, opened the market up’

But capturing the imagination the demographic is no mean feat for some branders. And of late, Mcdonalds has been struggling for credibility. It’s sometimes easier to cut and paste the credibility of another ‘brand’ and incorporate it into your own message. Enter McRap. I don’t think anybody will disagree that from the perspective of popular culture, black is cool. When the bigwigs at Hilfiger realised that blacks were stealing their clothing, they were astute enough to turn a blind eye to it. As Hilfiger suddenly became ‘street’ the white middle classes started having wet dreams for Hilfiger merchandise: a license to print money.

Branders see rappers as cool. The problem arises herein; the more a global such as McDonalds to cut and paste their street credibility in order to sell burgers, the greater the void is left, where said rapper’s credibility used to be. He sells out and ultimately we are left with a minority of rich rappers, a mass of fat kids and an impotent artform.

Most things don't start out as commodities. Don't forget that the very foundation of this country was built by using people as products for commerce. You can bet that anything these folks (and others) create will be commodified. In fact, young children learn early on to place more value on things they can buy or get money for. Expression is nothing if it can't be bought and sold.

>"Lyrical content, which shifted from the majority of songs
>portraying the rapper as being poor, or dependant on crime to
>make money while living in the ghetto, to being wealthy and
>having the best jewelry, clothes, liquor, and women.

Not every rapper was poor, or living in the ghetto, or involved in crime. Even in the beginning it was easy to categorize rap music as expression, not something to commodify, until the mainstream demanded it.

None of this is new...it's bigger than hip-hop or rap.

Now I will go disagree with things that I have problems with in your other post critiquing me. But, not right now, when I have some more time on my hands.

>Most things don't start out as commodities. Don't forget
>that the very foundation of this country was built by using
>people as products for commerce. You can bet that anything
>these folks (and others) create will be commodified. In fact,
>young children learn early on to place more value on things
>they can buy or get money for. Expression is nothing if it
>can't be bought and sold.
>
>>"Lyrical content, which shifted from the majority of songs
>>portraying the rapper as being poor, or dependant on crime
>to
>>make money while living in the ghetto, to being wealthy and
>>having the best jewelry, clothes, liquor, and women.
>
>Not every rapper was poor, or living in the ghetto, or
>involved in crime. Even in the beginning it was easy to
>categorize rap music as expression, not something to
>commodify, until the mainstream demanded it.
>
>None of this is new...it's bigger than hip-hop or rap.

What about writing them? Besides boycotting and spreading the word, theres not much we can do besides wax poetic on the expoitation of hip hop.
http://www.mcdonalds.com/app_controller.custsat.custsat_form_marketing.html
____________________________________________________________________
We wise to the fact so we attack with what we know/ Heaven is the only good life, so what you strivin fo'?

www.soundclick.com/vocabproductions

******************************
www.okayplayer.com/guidelines

http://profiles.myspace.com/users/3870323
******************************
Inaug'ral Member of the OkaySports Hall of Fame.

<---- LOMU!

I just finished writing the letter to thier corporate offices and plan on writing the marketing firm that suggested this idea in the first place. Maybe it'll just give me a piece of mind, but I feel that expressing myself is one of the only ways I can really combat this issue. Since I don't patronized Mickie Dee's as it is, all I can really do is make other people aware of the issue. I mentioned in the letter that I felt many of the "urban youth" they were targeting would see right throught this latest feeble attempt. This whole "I'm lovin' it" campaign is already a failure because it's inauthentic and borderline offensive. As consumers, we have the power to choose what to buy and from who. On a personal level, we can take it upon ourselves to ignore companies that stand against what we believe in. Call me an idealist, but at the end of the day I feel better because I voiced my opinion.

___________________________________________________________________
We wise to the fact so we attack with what we know/ Heaven is the only good life, so what you strivin fo'?

www.soundclick.com/vocabproductions

I don't buy McDonalds either. I also limit my TV viewing (I prefer commercial-free).

Check it. You all are doing a great job considering the implications on this in hip-hop and culture as a whole. The question was raised by Vocab, How do we deal with it? Well you simply ignore it. You continue about your life as if the very thing that is causing you angst does not exist. What you offer is an alternative, you grind no axe, you profess no juxtaposition, you keep making the opposite of what it is you despise. Those that agree with you will follow you lead and sooner or later you have enough of an anti-movment that the very nature of what you created in contrast will begin to choke the life out of the thing that got you there.

-----------------------------
Unfortunately or fortunately, you'll alienate most of the people with a vested interest in genuflecting at the altar of Friendly Fascist Yuppie Consumerism. These people have a remarkable ability to keep the blinders on, tow the party line, and blink incomprehensibly when you dare to display integrity or truthfulness. They are third generation pod people without even a passing acquaintance with the planetary processes that make us human.
- Rocco Sole

The only thing these corporations care about is their bottom lines. Stop buying their products, write them to let them know why, do some promotion about it. I think it'll take a combination of media attention, education, boycotting, lawsuits, etc. to really get these companies to take notice.

I posted this in "Lesson" last week and 2 people responded.


McDonald's Set to Buy Hip Hop Songs to Hype It's Big Mac
by Davey D

If you were annoyed by Busta Rhyme's hit song oops I mean commercial
'Pass the Couversior' a couple of years ago, wait until you see what
McDonald's has in store. The multi-national-corporation that is home
to the Big Mac has hired a special marketing firm Maven Stratagies who
will be going around enticing and encouraging popular rap stars to
give props to McDonald's in their songs.

Before you get mad at the fast food giant, keep in mind they are
simply looking at the numbers and moving in a direction that make good
business sense. In the past artists like Lil Kim and Foxy Brown among
others have increased the bottomline of the popular designers they
mention in songs by as much as a third.

Artist like Jay-Z and Biggie who rapped about drinking Crystal and
other expensive champaign had brought so much awareness that there was
actually a champaign shortage. Luckily Jigga and company flipped
their marketing power and brought their own liquor company. Same
thing applies to all those artists who have wisely brought their own
clothing lines after seeing how much influence they had on fashion.

But let's take this a step further. Many have wondered how Snoop Dogg
has gone from gang banger tobonafide pimp has become such a popular
pitchman for everyone ranging from XM Radio to T-Mobile SideKicks.
Despite his controversial past and questionable current endeavors,
Snoop sells. He increases the bottomline. So 'Micky Dees' is simply
doing what everyone else is doing 'Trying to get paid'.

Now is this a good or bad thing? I for one don't wanna hear my
favorite rapper flipping rhymes about McDonald's unless they're
telling me NOT to eat there. But that's me. Folks should take some
time out to read the full story on this which was penned by
Advertising Age's Marc Graser (thanks Lisa Falger from
Industryears.com for turning us on to this). They have a full game
plan on how they intend to make this happen.

What's really going to be interesting is to see how these songs get
placed in heavy rotation on radio. So I guess at the end of the day
we better gear up to hear lots of rap songs hyping McDonalds's on our
favorite radio stations while we still can't hear any of the scores of
anti-war songs that have been recorded and put out by popular rap
stars. At last count we have more then 120 recorded anti-war songs
from everyone ranging from Mack 10 and WC to Daz to Knocturnal to Sage
Francis to Dilated Peoples toTalib Kweli (bet y'all didn't know that)
and that's not including the 4 anti-war compilation albums. But hey
thats a whole other story for another time..

Peep this article about MCDonald's and Hip Hop
http://p076.ezboard.com/fpoliticalpalacefrm57.showMessage?topicID=169.topic





!sig!

Colored Heavyweight Champion of The World

51 Days till Star Wars: Revenge of The Sith

"You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or who says it."
- Malcolm X

ever had the feeling you've been co-opted?
oh and urban = black, obviously

this shit makes me gag

MSN and Sprite target teens with 10-inch spokesperson for hip-hop experience

by Staff Brand Republic 24 Mar 2005

NEW YORK - MSN and Sprite have teamed up to create an online music entertainment promotion centred around a 10-inch Sprite obsessed digital character, called Miles Thirst.

The Senario is an online music entertainment experience giving teenagers the opportunity to listen to some of the hottest hip-hop DJs in the country, through the MSN Music service.

Miles Thirst is described by Sprite as a "one-of-a-kind spokesperson, a 10-inch urban vinyl figure" who will reinforce the brand's "Obey Your Thirst" message.

Consumers can hear recommended songs and mixes from DJs as samples or they can buy and download the full songs and all the latest mixes from MSN Music.

The site offers music fans personal recommendations on new, old and obscure music from club scenes and through integration with MSN Music, the opportunity to purchase the music for later replay.

Thirst Radio, the first branded radio station available on MSN, allows users to listen to a Thirst-hosted radio station even when they are not in The Senario.

Teenagers can bring Miles Thirst into their conversations by sharing audio clips featuring his voice and tone during MSN Messenger conversations, and by downloading and displaying pictures and emotions.

The campaign, created by Sprite, a Coca-Cola brand, and the MSN branded entertainment and experiences team, will also comprise cross-network promotions and advertising to draw audiences to the custom site.

Gayle Troberman, director of the branded entertainment and experiences team at MSN, said: "The Senario is an entirely new way of connecting with teens where they live on MSN, in MSN Messenger and on MSN Music.

"We expect the campaign to help make Sprite a part of the teen consumer's digital experience every day."