Nice one. I feel this article questioned the things that should be questioned, and has a good intent. As a matter of fact, I've been doing for years now this semantic "cleaning up" of Rap and Hip-Hop vocabulary in order to prevent the non-productive arguments of Rap and Hip-Hop fans, journalists, authors, etc, arguments that start and end in totally different use of terms without any chance for understanding between the parties.
Unfortunately, my most concise and precise work on this - the book Good Rap: How I Explained and Completed Real/Hardcore Rap - is still available only in Serbian, but I'm working on its English translation, and I published here on Substack a few articles that presented a few of its main thesis.
My inquiry started with the question "what is real(ly) Rap?", which then evolved to questions "what is hardcore Rap?" and "what is hard core of Rap" - what are the thing(s), properties, that give Rap its identity and make it distinguishable from all the other things there are.
The main principle in this quest is that I was looking for descriptive and not axiological definition(s) of the terms - by saying something is or isn't "real/hardcore" we are just describing it and not saying anything about its value.
There is no space to get into detail in this comment, so I'm just gonna list some insights.
First of all, there is a traditional distinction between an MC and a rapper, which was never explained to the fullest. There are those most popular and (ideologically) polarizing remarks by KRS-One, but I was looking for a descriptive distinction without a priori deciding on the value of any of the two.
What I figured out is that there are general differences between an MC and a rapper, concerning the technical as well as conceptual sides of their "crafts". As for the "technical", MCs are way more concerned about the spoken/rapped words, while rappers are more concerned with "written and then rapped" words. (MCs are more about the live performance and going from the top of the dome, while rappers are more about writing rhymes and recording them in the studio - hence the difference between MC battles which are live events, and rappers' beefs which are about recording and releasing "dis tracks")
On the "conceptual" side there are, naturally, more fundamental distinctions. From the in-depth analysis of many previously not examined historical sources (mainly books and articles from '60s and '70s), I found that Rap for decades, way before Hip-Hop, has been African American verbal (and non-verbal) game/custom of showing off, bragging and boasting. The charitable interpretation of it is that it was/is about the so called Law of Attraction and "manifesting", inviting to reality the things a person publicly affirms about herself. So rappers are mainly concerned about (re)presenting their (future) ideal selves as already present/real from the first person perspective, bragging and boasting, following that "fake it til you make it" or, more precisely, "be it/live it til you see it" mantra.
MCs are, on the other hand, traditionally more concerned with mastering the (collective) ceremony, governing the live happening of Hip-Hop, and talking about the collective past or present - as in "going off the top" which is always about things that already happened, already "manifested", at least a second before they are spoken/rhymed about. MC is talking about the things that the collective he addresses (jam or party attendees, his crew, block, city, nation, race) find important in order to make that collective "move" in any sense of the "movement". Hence MC is more of a griot, a preacher, a community leader and is more about talking in second- and third-person perspectives.
How Rap appeared in the context of Hip-Hop culture? Rap enabled Hip-Hop MCs to became the legit part of Hip-Hop by sharing that individual "represent" ethos with practioners of other elements - Grafitti writers (tagging their names, bragging and boasting by their styles and audacity to write in dangerous and prohibited places) and BBoys/BGirls (representing themselves by the notorious "BBoy stance", and by their personal styles, "bragging and boasting" by means of the dance moves, risking sometimes their health and life)
So, Rap as the older verbal tradition that came before Hip-Hop culture, really enabled Hip-Hop MCs to become individuals in the symbolic order of Hip-Hop culture by giving them the means for their way of "representing" themselves. That should be the deeper meaning of KRS-Ones remark that each and every MC is a rapper, but not vice versa.
Obviously, further down the road it's more adequate to say that MCs are "emceeing" and not "rapping", although "rapping" became the name for the vocal technique after "Rap" - bragging and boasting - which was the subject matter of 90% of the rhymes which were initially rhythmically syncopated to the beats in the late '70s/early '80s. (You can read my first article here on "Rapper's Delight" and H. Rap Brown)
As for "the beats" part of Hardcore Rap, I figured that the essence is the same as for the Hardcore Hip-Hop - it's the raw grooves, with no melodies and harmonies. Since in Rap you always have that vocalist part unlike Hip-Hop music where there is a legit "Instrumental Hip-Hop" subgenre - BBoy beats, Battle DJs and Turntablists beats, or intentionally more artistic "Instrumental Hip-Hop" by artists such as DJ Shadow etc. - in the musical definition of Hardcore Rap we have to also include "rapping" as the vocal technique. So Hardcore Rap as a musical genre would be "rapping over raw grooves". Rapping as a vocal technique is something between singing on the one side, and spoken word/reciting on the other, with the stronger emphasis on rhythmical syncopation than in both of those. Consequently, for instance, the "flow" is to be defined not as "a rhythm of rapping" but rather as the relational term - as the relation between the rhythm of rapping and rhythm of the underlying music if there is any, i.e. if the rapping performance is not a capella. It's because when we are talking about the flow we are really just talking about the matching of rhythms, or the accentuated parts of rhythms of rapping and the underlying beat, we are saying this rhythm of rapping sounds nice (or it doesn't) over this particular beat, not that it would sound nice over any beat (because it wouldn't).
Brilliant. You always make me think.
I've been pondering some of this, but you give voice to my inchoate thoughts.
Now I've gotta keep thinking about it....
Thank you, good sir.
Always appreciate the appreciation my friend!
Nice one. I feel this article questioned the things that should be questioned, and has a good intent. As a matter of fact, I've been doing for years now this semantic "cleaning up" of Rap and Hip-Hop vocabulary in order to prevent the non-productive arguments of Rap and Hip-Hop fans, journalists, authors, etc, arguments that start and end in totally different use of terms without any chance for understanding between the parties.
Unfortunately, my most concise and precise work on this - the book Good Rap: How I Explained and Completed Real/Hardcore Rap - is still available only in Serbian, but I'm working on its English translation, and I published here on Substack a few articles that presented a few of its main thesis.
My inquiry started with the question "what is real(ly) Rap?", which then evolved to questions "what is hardcore Rap?" and "what is hard core of Rap" - what are the thing(s), properties, that give Rap its identity and make it distinguishable from all the other things there are.
The main principle in this quest is that I was looking for descriptive and not axiological definition(s) of the terms - by saying something is or isn't "real/hardcore" we are just describing it and not saying anything about its value.
There is no space to get into detail in this comment, so I'm just gonna list some insights.
First of all, there is a traditional distinction between an MC and a rapper, which was never explained to the fullest. There are those most popular and (ideologically) polarizing remarks by KRS-One, but I was looking for a descriptive distinction without a priori deciding on the value of any of the two.
What I figured out is that there are general differences between an MC and a rapper, concerning the technical as well as conceptual sides of their "crafts". As for the "technical", MCs are way more concerned about the spoken/rapped words, while rappers are more concerned with "written and then rapped" words. (MCs are more about the live performance and going from the top of the dome, while rappers are more about writing rhymes and recording them in the studio - hence the difference between MC battles which are live events, and rappers' beefs which are about recording and releasing "dis tracks")
On the "conceptual" side there are, naturally, more fundamental distinctions. From the in-depth analysis of many previously not examined historical sources (mainly books and articles from '60s and '70s), I found that Rap for decades, way before Hip-Hop, has been African American verbal (and non-verbal) game/custom of showing off, bragging and boasting. The charitable interpretation of it is that it was/is about the so called Law of Attraction and "manifesting", inviting to reality the things a person publicly affirms about herself. So rappers are mainly concerned about (re)presenting their (future) ideal selves as already present/real from the first person perspective, bragging and boasting, following that "fake it til you make it" or, more precisely, "be it/live it til you see it" mantra.
MCs are, on the other hand, traditionally more concerned with mastering the (collective) ceremony, governing the live happening of Hip-Hop, and talking about the collective past or present - as in "going off the top" which is always about things that already happened, already "manifested", at least a second before they are spoken/rhymed about. MC is talking about the things that the collective he addresses (jam or party attendees, his crew, block, city, nation, race) find important in order to make that collective "move" in any sense of the "movement". Hence MC is more of a griot, a preacher, a community leader and is more about talking in second- and third-person perspectives.
How Rap appeared in the context of Hip-Hop culture? Rap enabled Hip-Hop MCs to became the legit part of Hip-Hop by sharing that individual "represent" ethos with practioners of other elements - Grafitti writers (tagging their names, bragging and boasting by their styles and audacity to write in dangerous and prohibited places) and BBoys/BGirls (representing themselves by the notorious "BBoy stance", and by their personal styles, "bragging and boasting" by means of the dance moves, risking sometimes their health and life)
So, Rap as the older verbal tradition that came before Hip-Hop culture, really enabled Hip-Hop MCs to become individuals in the symbolic order of Hip-Hop culture by giving them the means for their way of "representing" themselves. That should be the deeper meaning of KRS-Ones remark that each and every MC is a rapper, but not vice versa.
Obviously, further down the road it's more adequate to say that MCs are "emceeing" and not "rapping", although "rapping" became the name for the vocal technique after "Rap" - bragging and boasting - which was the subject matter of 90% of the rhymes which were initially rhythmically syncopated to the beats in the late '70s/early '80s. (You can read my first article here on "Rapper's Delight" and H. Rap Brown)
As for "the beats" part of Hardcore Rap, I figured that the essence is the same as for the Hardcore Hip-Hop - it's the raw grooves, with no melodies and harmonies. Since in Rap you always have that vocalist part unlike Hip-Hop music where there is a legit "Instrumental Hip-Hop" subgenre - BBoy beats, Battle DJs and Turntablists beats, or intentionally more artistic "Instrumental Hip-Hop" by artists such as DJ Shadow etc. - in the musical definition of Hardcore Rap we have to also include "rapping" as the vocal technique. So Hardcore Rap as a musical genre would be "rapping over raw grooves". Rapping as a vocal technique is something between singing on the one side, and spoken word/reciting on the other, with the stronger emphasis on rhythmical syncopation than in both of those. Consequently, for instance, the "flow" is to be defined not as "a rhythm of rapping" but rather as the relational term - as the relation between the rhythm of rapping and rhythm of the underlying music if there is any, i.e. if the rapping performance is not a capella. It's because when we are talking about the flow we are really just talking about the matching of rhythms, or the accentuated parts of rhythms of rapping and the underlying beat, we are saying this rhythm of rapping sounds nice (or it doesn't) over this particular beat, not that it would sound nice over any beat (because it wouldn't).
Etc, etc. 🙌🙂