Re: Popularity/influence/etc.

[Catilyne <catilyne@icicle.net>]

At 09:45 AM 8/28/2002 -0700, Jonathan El-Bizri wrote:

>Hip-hop/Rap = sampling and presequencing, rather than loop performance
>Hip-hop/Rap = everything done in the studio
>Hip-hop/Rap = amazingly lackluster live shows for audiences who've never
>seen better

I'd also disagree, even though I'll readily admit I hate most Rap/Hip-hop 
(that's merely my own personal taste, however, and not a blanket judgment 
of the musical form).

As to the first criticism, there's nothing wrong with sampling and 
presequencing, if done properly, as it can provide a structure within 
which 
to work and improvise.  As for loop performance, I believe that Per 
already 
brought up that one is just as able to "loop" using vinyl as an EDP.

The second criticism, if I'm reading it correctly, implies that there is 
no 
spontaneity in this type of music, which is just not true.  Even moreso 
than most other popular music, Rap and Hip-hop are vocally centered and 
not 
primarily instrumental musics.  In performance, there can be a huge amount 
of spontaneity and improvisation from the lead rapper(s).  The instruments 
primarily exist to serve as a backdrop for the vocals, however.  That 
doesn't necessarily mean that "everything is done in the studio".

Finally, the last criticism is the one I find most contentious, but since 
my background is more in electronica let me give you an example based in 
that experience (I think it applies equally to some of the better Hip-hop 
shows I've seen).  I've gone to a lot of different techno concerts, one of 
which was a Crystal Method show I attended a while back.  This show 
happened to be particularly good, and within the first ten minutes 
everybody in the club was bouncing off the walls -- literally, it was 
nearly impossible to keep from merging into the mass of dancing 
bodies.  The important thing was not how much was sequenced/pre-prepared 
(a 
large chunk of it was) or how much was re-arranged/improvised (an equally 
large chunk was, as well), but rather that the guys up on stage could have 
utterly disappeared and it wouldn't have mattered.

What am I talking about?  Well, what really mattered was that the 
musicians 
had constructed an environment where the audience could become completely 
lost in the experience, then, for all intents and purposes, the two guys 
onstage became utterly irrelevant and vanished.  The concert became a 
tribal experience with all members of the audience actively participating, 
rather than some sort of spectator event with all attendant merely gawking 
at the stage.  The performers were merely facilitators.

The point is that not every show has to be centered around the 
self-aggrandization of the musician's ego, as the majority of "rock 
concerts" seem to be.  Rather, the performance can be an event where the 
artist strives to make himself invisible so that the audience can lose 
themselves in the group experience.  This type of concert lends itself 
poorly to recording and documentation, however, and if it is viewed from 
the outside rather than as an active participant, it's extremely easy to 
judge such an event as 'lackluster'.

Finally, I do have to add that there are crappy artists out there 
performing crappy concerts.  But the same can be said of every other 
musical genre out there.  YMMV, all standard disclaimers apply, caveat 
emptor, post no bills...

         -c-

_____
"i want to reach my hand into the dark and *feel* what reaches back"
                                                 -recoil