Submitted by bodamfuonua1 t3_11bk9xh in Music
tigerCELL t1_j9y9xes wrote
I was just thinking the same when I tried listening to a new popular rapper with millions of views on yt. The flows are just not appealing to me, and even after the mumble rap trend died down, I still can't understand what these cats are saying. And don't even get me started on the wack beats. Can't even dance, not that that's the point. I chalked it up to being old.
bodamfuonua1 OP t1_j9yaud4 wrote
you see a lot of uniqueness in the old style than the new one, quality in everything , even their story lines, that's rap, most of the new ones just doing nothing special
uSeeSizeThatChicken t1_j9z1j3k wrote
It had to be quality back then. Studio time was cost prohibitive to not have good quality. These days everything is digital and considerably cheaper. So lots of garbage gets made across all genres of music. Any hack can record and release something for very little cost. There is definitely lots of good new stuff but it gets buried under mountains of half-baked garbage by wannabe artists.
lordbub t1_ja087cb wrote
this also lets all talented artists record without needing to play the label game, which is why there's more good music coming out now than ever
piepants2001 t1_ja0d300 wrote
Eh, that's debatable. There's something to be said about having a producer who will tell you to work on something or change a part in a song.
lordbub t1_ja0dcxq wrote
well of course it's debatable, music is all subjective. my point is that no great artists now are being held back by the inaccessability of making music, which is definitely a positive. while a producer might help an artist, they might also alter that artist's vision for the worse. I'll take more bad music if it means there's also more good music.
piepants2001 t1_ja0f05r wrote
>my point is that no great artists now are being held back by the inaccessability of making music
I'm going to assume you mean recording music and having it widely available to the general public, because nothing was holding anyone back from making music.
lordbub t1_ja0g6hc wrote
well, a bit of both. you could record music yourself back in the day, but without the proper (very expensive) equipment, it was probably gonna sound pretty terrible. modern technology has made it so that you can make professional sounding songs for incredibly cheap or even free with equipment you probably already own, like a laptop. and then obviously distributing it and marketing has become much more available as well.
piepants2001 t1_ja0kdp4 wrote
Right, but you're making it sound like you need to record music to make it, when tons of artists honed their craft by playing music live for years before they recorded anything.
lordbub t1_ja0ku4j wrote
but i'm obviously talking about recorded music
piepants2001 t1_ja0mssa wrote
Okay, but honing your craft by playing it in front of an audience or having a second opinion of a producer are both invaluable things that many self-produced artists don't have nowadays, which can and do produce mediocre results. You said that there is more good music nowadays, and I don't really agree with that statement. There is more music, but I wouldn't say that there is more "good" music, if anything I would say there is about the same amount of "good" music, with a LOT more mediocre stuff to wade through to find the "good" stuff.
lordbub t1_ja0nj4n wrote
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that great music can just as easily come out of not having a producer who might mess with an artist's vision. some of my favorite albums are from artists who never played live beforehand. You can disagree about there being more good music now than before, and thats fine. But what i'm saying is that the availablity of making recorded music has resulted in more music coming out every week that I enjoy, and I'm fine with there being more bad music that comes out too. afterall, I never have to listen to the bad music again, and now I have the opportunity to listen to great music that might not have been able to be created that way 20+ years ago.
braundiggity t1_j9yyk16 wrote
Plenty of younger artists are making really interesting rap, but the more interesting stuff isn’t as big - little simz, noname, earthgang, saba, I love stuff like that. But Tyler the creator, Kendrick, gambino - there’s huge name younger artists that are excellent as well.
ironroad18 t1_j9yoyyw wrote
Different generational tastes and different appeal. The "bling-bling" era was a blessing and curse to hip-hop IMHO. That era showed hip-hop's true universal talent and appeal beyond NYC and LA; however, it also turned the genre into a meme of itself. The "social media" era, was the death nail.
I grew up listening to Nas, Big Daddy Kane, Rakim, and the like. I grew up during the Golden-era of hip-hop and am thankful these emcees are still touring (been lucky enough to see Rakim, Kane, and Krs One in concert). These gentlemen are in middle to almost senior age, and they are still oozing with raw talent and charisma. I don't think social media and mumble rappers of today will ever experience that same type of longevity because the talent simply isn't there.
[deleted] t1_ja08hit wrote
>I don't think social media and mumble rappers of today will ever experience that same type of longevity because the talent simply isn't there.
100%.
​
Also, those rappers came to prominence before labels realized they could just manufacture a super-star over night. Talent or ability does not factor into the equation, simply look and marketability
Heizu t1_j9zsx94 wrote
Check out Harry Mack. Genuinely one of the best rappers to have ever existed and literally everything he does is freestyle. Check out any of his Omegle Bars or Guerilla Bars series to have your mind completely blown by someone who has completely steeped himself in hip hop culture for the majority of his life.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments