Talk:Hip hop culture/Archive 1

Untitled
A few questions: is the (Toop 60) meant to be a reference to David Toop's The rap attack: American jive to New York hip hop (London: Pluto, 1984), or to Rap attack 2: African rap to global hip hop (London; New York: Serpent's Tail, 1994)? Also, the entry also has two places where it says "(see " followed by an end parenthesis, with no work cited. The Toop books are supposed to be good reading; I'd be interested to see the other references too.

- it refers to the lattes. the Toop book(s) are / is good, however, it's very New-York-centric. still, probably the best introduction to hip hop. -

I'm curious to hear what you think of laymen's definitions of rap and hip hop, at least in college towns in the southeast U.S.: the students have it now that "rap" is when it's done for money, and "hip hop" is when it's done for art. Certainly a less scientific definition, and one that would arguably divide A Tribe Called Quest's discography into genres according to its release date. They do keep the sense that "hip hop" refers to the culture too; I guess the "art/commerce" distinction comes from that meaning of hip hop.

oh yeah, i think KRS One also uses this definition. I think what it shows is that there are rappers who aren't really part of hip hop culture, and insofar it is a useful definition. But on the other hand, it doesn't say anything about the music and it is rather - well - negative and evaluating, so for - well - musicologists and journalists (I may be one of the latter breed) it is not a very useful definition. Basically, this definition means that a) commercial rap (ie, 'the kind of rap we don't like') is not hip hop whereas the kind of rap that 'we like' is hip hop...

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)