This was an era where no one had to defend their own version of what was "real." Absent are the nausiating mentions of brand names and the knee jerk obverse from the 90's. No need to choose sides on the dialectic of "jiggy" or "independent as fuck." There was no reason to mention national politics. The country was doing alright and our current president was a lowly Harvard law-student. There was no populist outrage to channel. A certain member of the band hadn't even started caring about Tibet yet. The much hyped east/west myths hadn't started yet either.
Paul's Boutique comes from a group of NY dudes who didn't care that they shouldn't be hip hop in Cali working with the guys who did Tone Lōc and Young Mc's albums. They had no support from their label, managers, former producer, or anyone. They were frat rapers to everyone else. They were either at a low point or free to rewrite history. They made an album that includes what they thought word play should be at the time. They had an incredible group of instrumentals from the Dust Brothers. They grabbed the attention of every beat maker on the planet and the lyrics were good enough to still sound pretty fresh today.
For too long we who enjoy hip hop have worried about the borders of our music. Like sheep dogs we worry about the edges: who produced the album, who paid for it, who did they sample, are they from a certain town, will they tour with other bands from their label, etc? And more insidious questions. Why aren't they doing something that I find to be "real". Either saying more or less of something than they did or did not say. You have to either be more or less street, more or less intelligent, or some thing else like that. Company Flow has too many lyrics and their beats are too slow. They are too backpacker. Wu-Tang is too street or not street enough depending on who is judging. Real hip hop is X and you are not that.
Hip hop will do fine with out you worrying about it. To use a metaphor, instead of viewing hip hop artists as a species that need herding, it should be considered an environment for different species to grow up in. Each of hip hop's subspecies are an autochthonous species of hip hop's healthy, vibrant landscape. If someone was worried that Q-Tip is too soft, Lif is too political, Aesop is too art school, Jazzy Jay is a sell out, Gangstarr is too commercial, Hawt ### FM is too violent, too misogynist, too urban, or whatever, too bad! If hip hop is an art form, rather than a derivative sub-section of pop than it has to be diverse. To be a healthy environment there has to be a balance of competing forces.
Throughout the history of Fine Art, an art form that has one style is doomed to failure. It is only those that can adapt to the environment of art that survive. Artists change style, media, etc as they see fit to make new work. If every new art student entering the art market made the same work there would be something wrong and no one would want to see the work at all. Art is an environment which allows for diverse forms to exist in it. That's one reason why trying to find a singular definition for Fine Art has always failed. It isn't a thing, its a method-thought process-idea-environment-modality-etc.
Paul's Boutique is enjoyable. Unlike Lif's new album I Heard it Today, which to me is unpleasant to say the least. I've been a fan since he was a nobody, but I can't imagine getting excited by that album. Does that mean that Lif should reconsider his career? No. It just means that I'm not interested in faux-political populist ramblings. I am living through this complicated economic environment just like everyone else is by doing what I can do. It just makes bad art to me. To quote (of all people) Ben Affleck on Rachel Maddow's show:
I think it can be really tricky because I think you have to think of it as a storyteller first. Because, I think when it becomes didactic, you know, it is off-putting. And I think you have to tell a good story. I think at the root of good stories is humanity. And if you‘re telling stories that have a kind of humanity in it, I think, those naturally play - I think - play to the values inherent to liberal democracy, which value people - which empathizes with the struggles of people who work for a living and cares about the value of human life.And you know, to me, that kind of dovetails with the kind of values I care about. I think when you start banging on it too hard and, you know, you want to re-make the jungle, it feels a little bit like - it can feel a little strident.
I think doing documentaries, for example, is sort of a better way to get at that. Michael Moore, obviously, has been very effective at doing that. There are a lot of different ways to, you know, kind of use artistic expression to effect social change.
I do think that‘s an appropriate way to do it as an artist. And I think it‘s a way that we can kind of fit in. I‘ve tried to do that making documentaries and making movies but only in ways where I think it can be effective.
