LordChaverly
14-05-2005, 20:18
In itself, music is morally neutral, but when allied to lyrics it can be anything but so. A classic example of this is 'gangsta rap', which has frequently been accused of legitimising, even applauding, criminal and anti-social behaviour of one kind or another. Just as Wagnerian opera has been described as music to invade countries by, gangsta rap might be viewed as providing the perfect libretto to thug life. The defenders of the genre argue that it does no more than reflect the realities of life within a certain sub-culture, i.e. the ghettos of America’s big cities. Thus some of the most accomplished exponents of the genre such as Snoop Dogg, Ice T, Tupac Shakur, Biggie Smalls, Puffy Combs, 50 Cent and DMX had criminal records for violence, drug dealing and other crimes before and indeed after they became famous (this is one genre where a criminal record for thuggery and drug dealing probably helps). The story of gangsta rap is also littered with some of its most famous or infamous stars being shot or even killed (Tupac and Biggie), or busted for drugs and other offences (Snoop, 50 Cent, DMX etc).
It has been argued that the genre could be a malign influence on certain vulnerable or impressionable groups or individuals, not through the neutral representation of thug life, but through the glorification of it. Thus the role model exemplified in a typical gangsta rap song is of a strutting, swaggering, street smart, finger jabbing, sneering, gun-toting, drug dealing, coke snorting, women abusing gang leader, who will shoot anybody who gets in his way. The argot of the genre has also developed a vocabulary of disparaging terms for others groups; thus women are bitches or ho's, white people are crackers and gays are chups, chi chis or bitch asses etc. Similarly, prolific use of the ‘n’ word (transmuted into a laudatory noun) and of the ‘f’ word are de rigueur in gangsta rap songs. The lyrics of gangsta rap are hardly noted for their subtlety or morally uplifting tone and the same can be said for the accompanying music, which tends to be comprised of a rough, monotonous pulsating 4/4 beat and various noises off (chimes, police sirens, gunshots, screams, barking pitbulls etc).
Why do people buy it? I suspect it has to do with outlaw chic, and the need for people to walk on the wild side a little, or perhaps to appear street smart and tough. This is even reinforced by the videos and CD covers, which tend to favour pictures of the artists covered in tattoos and adopting various Tysonesque poses. It is probably true that some followers of the genre are gangsta wannabees or posers, a class disparagingly referred to by 50 Cent (‘Fiddy’) in one of his songs about his rivals as ‘****stas’. It might be argued that listening to gangsta rap is no more corrupting than say watching the Sopranos or a Tarantino movie. People who watch Reservoir Dogs it is often argued, don’t come out of the cinema wanting to cut someone’s ears off. The flaw in this argument however, is that at least some people do, perhaps because they are predisposed towards violence and this tips them over the edge. . For example, there was a notorious case in Scotland of a youth who was tortured and stabbed to death by other youths, to the accompaniment of ‘Stuck on You’. I fear the same might be the case with gangsta rap – most of the people who listen to it are probably well adjusted and can distinguish fantasy from reality. But a small minority probably can’t. Therein lies the problem.
‘Outlaw chic’ of course is nothing new. For example, the fame of the great blues singer Leadbelly was probably reinforced by his reputation as a very violent man with a long criminal record. But unlike the gangsta rappers, Leadbelly never extolled the virtues of thug life in his songs – instead he sang love songs, folk songs and blues. The image projected by the gangsta rappers though is of people who not only sing of the gangsta life, but continue to live it to some extent, perhaps to maintain their street credibility or perhaps they can’t help it (for example when the police raided DMX’s home they found he was keeping 13 pitbulls. His projected visit to the UK last year had to be cancelled because he was under arrest again).
Do the gangsta rappers and their corporate sponsors (i.e. the record labels) have a moral responsibility for the potentially malign social consequences of their lyrics? Given that 50 Cent was offered a million dollar contract to sign for Eminem’s label, and that his first CD on Shady Records (‘Get Rich or Die Tryin’) was tantamount to a eulogy of gangsta life, there is a strong case for arguing that they do. Should it be banned? In the UK recently, the Beanie man has been forced to cancel his concerts in London because of his homophobic lyrics. On principle, I am against censorship. In any case, there is a ton of the stuff out already there in the public domain, so I don’t think banning it would do much good. I think it will probably die a death, not because of its limited and malign world view, but rather because of its very limited range i.e. because it tends to be so repetitive, monotonous and cliché ridden.
It has been argued that the genre could be a malign influence on certain vulnerable or impressionable groups or individuals, not through the neutral representation of thug life, but through the glorification of it. Thus the role model exemplified in a typical gangsta rap song is of a strutting, swaggering, street smart, finger jabbing, sneering, gun-toting, drug dealing, coke snorting, women abusing gang leader, who will shoot anybody who gets in his way. The argot of the genre has also developed a vocabulary of disparaging terms for others groups; thus women are bitches or ho's, white people are crackers and gays are chups, chi chis or bitch asses etc. Similarly, prolific use of the ‘n’ word (transmuted into a laudatory noun) and of the ‘f’ word are de rigueur in gangsta rap songs. The lyrics of gangsta rap are hardly noted for their subtlety or morally uplifting tone and the same can be said for the accompanying music, which tends to be comprised of a rough, monotonous pulsating 4/4 beat and various noises off (chimes, police sirens, gunshots, screams, barking pitbulls etc).
Why do people buy it? I suspect it has to do with outlaw chic, and the need for people to walk on the wild side a little, or perhaps to appear street smart and tough. This is even reinforced by the videos and CD covers, which tend to favour pictures of the artists covered in tattoos and adopting various Tysonesque poses. It is probably true that some followers of the genre are gangsta wannabees or posers, a class disparagingly referred to by 50 Cent (‘Fiddy’) in one of his songs about his rivals as ‘****stas’. It might be argued that listening to gangsta rap is no more corrupting than say watching the Sopranos or a Tarantino movie. People who watch Reservoir Dogs it is often argued, don’t come out of the cinema wanting to cut someone’s ears off. The flaw in this argument however, is that at least some people do, perhaps because they are predisposed towards violence and this tips them over the edge. . For example, there was a notorious case in Scotland of a youth who was tortured and stabbed to death by other youths, to the accompaniment of ‘Stuck on You’. I fear the same might be the case with gangsta rap – most of the people who listen to it are probably well adjusted and can distinguish fantasy from reality. But a small minority probably can’t. Therein lies the problem.
‘Outlaw chic’ of course is nothing new. For example, the fame of the great blues singer Leadbelly was probably reinforced by his reputation as a very violent man with a long criminal record. But unlike the gangsta rappers, Leadbelly never extolled the virtues of thug life in his songs – instead he sang love songs, folk songs and blues. The image projected by the gangsta rappers though is of people who not only sing of the gangsta life, but continue to live it to some extent, perhaps to maintain their street credibility or perhaps they can’t help it (for example when the police raided DMX’s home they found he was keeping 13 pitbulls. His projected visit to the UK last year had to be cancelled because he was under arrest again).
Do the gangsta rappers and their corporate sponsors (i.e. the record labels) have a moral responsibility for the potentially malign social consequences of their lyrics? Given that 50 Cent was offered a million dollar contract to sign for Eminem’s label, and that his first CD on Shady Records (‘Get Rich or Die Tryin’) was tantamount to a eulogy of gangsta life, there is a strong case for arguing that they do. Should it be banned? In the UK recently, the Beanie man has been forced to cancel his concerts in London because of his homophobic lyrics. On principle, I am against censorship. In any case, there is a ton of the stuff out already there in the public domain, so I don’t think banning it would do much good. I think it will probably die a death, not because of its limited and malign world view, but rather because of its very limited range i.e. because it tends to be so repetitive, monotonous and cliché ridden.