>>What I'm saying is that a lot of the most popular artists
>are
>>the most popular because rich white men who run the music
>>industry chose to back them with a shit load of
>PR/advertising
>>money.
>>
>>Should the tastes and preferences of the rich white men who
>>run the music corporations dictate who is considered to be
>>true legends in hip hop culture?
>
>So is it something super special about these artists that make
>the "rich white men" choose to back them? Is it because they
>have nice shiny eyebrows or some shit? Or because they realize
>that their music is going to appeal the most, musically and
>image wise? Is it even because they enjoy their music more?
>

In short I suspect it's because they think that the music+image+story of the artist is compelling enough that, when drilled ad nauseum in to the heads of stupid young white Americans, it will sell a lot.

What I'm saying is, if we choose who we consider to be legends in hip hop based on whether or not they become house hold names in white America, i think that's problematic. Who cares if these baby boomers know who Snoop Doggy Dogg is? It's not like they care for his music.

I'm just going off of intuition here cos it seems wrong to put such a huge weight on popularity in choosing who the legends are, given the influence of these corporations in the mix.

In saying this I acknowledge that you can't be an entire unknown and be considered a legend. Most rappers besides Lil B and Company Flow had some kind of record label behind them.

But it seems wrong to regard pop star status and being known in white households as being a prerequisite of becoming a legend in hip hop.

Shouldn't it be 'the people of hip hop' who ultimately decide who the hip hop legends are, as opposed to corporate pricks in three piece suits who don't even care about the music beyond the money it makes them?