McWhorter writes about a topic I strongly agree with-- hip hop is music, not politics. While some might think that hip hop has a true, legitimate message, McWhorter argues that there is no message. Hip hop is simply for entertainment. A personal friend of mine tries to argue that Tupac has changed the world. In reality, what has his music potentially done to positively influence the world? I've seen no positive change since his existence. McWhorter fully agrees. He argues:
- Since when has the idea that music, rather than effort, can change things politically?
- Hip hop creates no legislation, only a cool beat one can move to.
- Politics take work. Hip hop is just music.
- It is in the DNA of rap and hip hop to be confrontational (politics, women, social pecking order, authority, etc.). Rap about solutions would not be plausible.
Well, if you turn on the radio today, you're bound to hear the newest and coolest rap or hip hop song. McWhorter acknowledges that music, as well as politics, is constantly changing. However, they aren't changing synchronically. Leaders in the industry of music production search for a new way to relate current events to hip hop. McWhorter stresses the impossibility of relating these two matters. He seeks to let the small population of believers know that rapping to change the world is highly implausible.
As for rhetorical strategies, McWhorter uses architypal language and universal similies. For example, "Rap about solutions...would be about as plausible as opera about physical fitness." The general population knows that an opera about physical fitness would be too exhausting to perform. This successfully juxtaposes the two impossibilities for us to better understand.
Simply put--a confrontational genre of music will not change the world in a positive way. Here's a prime example why you shouldn't intertwine politics and rap:
No comments:
Post a Comment