Illegality has always been a part of hip hop culture. As pointed out recently in class, some of the early gangs in Los Angeles were formed out of former dance crews. Graffiti, the visual art of hip hop, is almost by definition illegal. The first hip hop music as we know it came from parties thrown illegally by tapping power from street lights. Many of the first rap songs illegally sampled other artists to make new music. Illegality, to an extent, seems pretty ingrained in hip hop culture.
One of the questions I've been thinking a lot about lately is "Would hip hop have become so successful, and so popular if it were not for its illegal nature?" This is a tough question, because in my opinion, the answer is both yes and no. Graffiti would likely not have come as far as it has, to the point that many people consider it art, had it not been for the illegal nature of its origins. It seems like part of the beauty of the art comes from its rebellious nature. In Style Wars, while many of the pieces in the gallery were decent, it seemed like some of the passion was gone, it was too easy, and fake. I have to even wonder if graffiti would have made it into an art gallery had it not been for the creation of this art, rebelling against a society that oppresses these artists, on public transportation and buildings.
On the other hand, I'm more inclined to believe that rap would still have been able to emerge despite its illegal history. Rap music emerged from party culture, and while the first parties were illegal, people probably would still have had the parties had they been legal. The competition for the best party, and the best music still would have emerged if they had had permission to throw them.
The sampling question is a more complicated issue. It is illegal, though not always enforced, to sample another song without permission, though this is often how beats are created in rap. But a greater question is, how much really is stealing? The argument that sampling is wrong is largely that when musicians create music, they should be original, and not copy another artist. However, it's hard to see how a five second sample of a rock song, used to sound totally different, is being unoriginal and copying the music. If you use a sample of a song, but in a totally different way, is it still stealing? What about cover songs? At concerts, it's completely legal to play a cover of a song without even crediting the original artist. What about one chord? Or an entire melody with different lyrics, on a different instrument? What I'm trying to get across is that rap doesn't seem to care about what the law says, but it also isn't dependent on breaking it. If all sampling were legal, people would probably keep right on making beats and songs with samples, and they wouldn't think a part of it was lost.
I'm really left with more questions than answers, but, while I don't know for sure how much of hip hop culture would have emerged without illegality, illegality certainly has been a large part of hip hop from the start.
Sampling is an interesting question to consider. Certainly, the correct way to do it is to make something totally new out of the pieces of other songs, perhaps mixing in original elements or blending in other elements of other songs. But, is it stealing from the original artist who came up with that sound? A tougher question to settle indeed. Bringing up covers, it seems like playing an entire song without any reference to the original artist is by definition stealing their work. It's entirely possible that people would mistake the true owner of a song in this scenario if the original artist didn't have much clout. But, the idea of a cover usually isn't so much to play the exact same song as much as it is to play this band's version of a song. Indeed, there are times when it can be argued that a song has been done better by a second band than its original creator (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-cover-songs-that-stole-show-from-originals/ has a few examples). So, considering this essential transformative element of covering, can't the same be said of sampling? What is it if not transforming one piece of one song so that it makes something totally new with a piece of a different song? There's a part of copyright law in which works can fall under fair use, and while this is a very complicated and dynamic piece of law, it can be summed up to allow or disallow works based on their purpose, their character, the nature of the copied work, the amount copied, the substantiality of the copied material, and the effect on the original. In fact, before 1991, sampling was accepted practice without any sort of licensing. Eventually, a lawsuit (ironically against the "big, scary" record company Warner Bros. Records) ended this practice, despite the judge's "iffy understanding [...] of the facts and issues before him in this case." Yet, the amount of licensing required for songs can at times be ridiculous; one artist I listen to kept track of how much he would owe up to the point where it hit millions of dollars, at which point he decided to release the album for free and refuse to pay for licensing, claiming it under fair use. While probably not the best idea should a lawsuit come, the truth is, the hoops needed to jump through seem arbitrary and damaging to the creativity of new works, regardless of whether they give a musical shout-out to an artist they like or were influenced by via sampling. In any case, copyright law has gotten very bloated and complicated today, and seems to overprotect the interests of those who can pay to keep their iron fist on their money-making machines *cough*Disney*cough*.
ReplyDeleteDefinately, Hip Hop would be nothing with out it's rebellious nature and illegal roots. I find it interesting why illegality and law-breaking appeals to people, especially teens. What draws people to risk, and what do they see as the reward they can't get elsewhere? I can think of countless mays to have fun and express yourself without breaking any law or rule what-so-ever. I must be missing out on something-though I think this is one of the great mysteries of human nature that will never be solved.
ReplyDeleteWhile not strictly a "legal" question--although it does touch on what kinds of language is permissible on the public airwaves--a related aspect of hip-hop's appeal has been its embrace of taboo language and subject matter. While blues and r&b were content with highly suggestive metaphors and figures of speech for bringing sexuality and violence into their lyrics (the term "rock and roll" itself being one example of a sexual metaphor), rap is the most explicit form of music ever known, and this aspect has only increased over the years (to the point where old-school rap sounds quaint for its "clean" language, even though, at the time, the mere unapologetic sound of black English and street slang was enough to make it "too crude" for most radio stations and MTV). This posture of the MC as someone whose voice will not be daunted by social conventions is, I think, closely connected to the outlaw/outsider element you're talking about here. "Vulgar" means, etymologically, "common," and rap has always trafficked in the language of the street.
ReplyDelete