After shelving Freddie Gibb's rather awesomely raw mixtape The Miseducation of Freddie Gibbs I've dusted it off and brought it to light again mainly because he's been popping up in all the publications you wouldn't expect to find him in (New Yorker, New York Times, Pitchfork). The situation is similar in all these publications. Hip-hop is dying or is dead, and Gibbs is the man to resuscitate it with his brand of Gary, Indiana gangster rap that manages to stay true to its mid-90's
roots without being anywhere near nostalgic.
Now I have my own feelings about Gibbs future success. The very rawness that made his mixtape
often doesn't translate well to a studio album for various reasons (see declining hip-hop album sales
and worried studio executives). But my main concern with articles such as these are their simplistic
views of the hip-hop genre and their constant love of gangster acts like Gibbs. Like I said before, the Gibbs
mixtape is fire, but this doesn't mean that hip-hop hasn't blessed the world with other great music this year.
I can't help but think that publications such as the New York Times and especially the New Yorker
look upon hip-hop with a tinge of fetishization. It seems the only records that are 'real' in hip-hop,
according to these publications, are the gulliest examples of gangster rap. The more nihilistic the better.
They discount Jay-Z's Blueprint 3 for not being real enough and praise Gibbs for his authenticity
when in reality comparing those two artists, one a young twenty something from Gary the other now 40,
married to Beyonce and trying to move the Nets to Brooklyn, is like comparing apples to oranges.The
truth is their is more than enough room for both in hip-hop. There will always be room for the kid like Gibbs
in hip-hop but as the genre continues to grow as the world's most popular music genre you have to
believe (and desire) that as legends like Jay-Z push 40 they will change their subject matter somewhat.
Or is growth not allowed in this industry? Should Jay-Z go the route of The Who and continue to sing
his equivalent to 'I hope I die before I get old' at his shows into his AARP days. Or in hip-hop does one
actually have to get killed, like Biggie or Tupac, to be considered TRULY authentic?
The point is, there is room for both in hip-hop as it continues to grow as a genre. There are times when
I can't listen to The Miseducation of Freddie Gibbs and there are times when I can't listen to The Blueprint 3.
Each is good in it's own right. Gibbs isn't the end all be all of authentic rappers. While hip-hop continues to grow
it seems hip-hop critics are stuck in the mud desiring a return to the so-called authentic time of the genre
when most of the artists were broke 20 somethings telling ghetto tales. Now that those artists have grown up
they have been discarded by those same critics. You have to wonder: does Gibbs need to save hip-hop
or do publications such as the New Yorker need to change their views of what hip-hop is? I'll put my money
on the latter.
No comments:
Post a Comment