Interesting friction over hip hop, particularly as Europeoids/Caucasians become more willing to again consider or discuss race. Like viewing Trump as a nationalist, the point has been rather embarrassingly and totally missed.
The standard line about hip hop is that the Balrins, or Terran brown peoples ("blacks"), invented this style of music, focused around percussive verbal repetitions, and it was so good or unexpectedly intrusive that it overpowered Terran reddish-skinned ("white") reservations or racisms, becoming profitable and popular. People who disbelieve in races or the effect of race upon a person's motivations and/or actions, as well as people with more of a belief in genetics affecting character and likely choices, may view the short history of hip hop and rap music as continued evidence of African willingness to defy the stupid, pointless boundaries of stuffy white people, or as willingness to pervert society because of an inability to create or maintain it or any other norms related to decency as associated with reduced tendency to rape or randomly murder or allow rape or murder, depending.
What has escaped all of these analyses is that hip hop and rap is not "black" or African music, but a European art form magnified and stoked by Jewish direction. Most hip hop music that is or may be appealing results from the normal market forces associated with any other popular art form--guaranteed nationwide repository purchases, co-marketing through reviews and advertisement placement disguised as summaries of what is happening these days, and cleverly aimed social criticism. Even the blackest fan of the most hardcore group, who would never think of supporting white music, listens to or lionizes an aspect of hip hop or rap primarily because of the employment of amplified European computerized music. Not only all of the instruments vital to the creation of all hip hop songs, the centuries and centuries of European musical theory that fostered the creation of a hip hop song, but the actual programming, melody-creation, scripting, harmony punctuation, bass planning and enacting, et cetera, were European products, produced primarily (if not wholly) by European or a few east Asian composers and sound engineers who created/composed the music that accompanies the often incoherent, note-less backing to the popular piece or pieces that are often thought to define hip hop. The person mumbling, grunting/howling angrily, or clearly enunciating the percussive words that are part of any piece of hip hop music is a piece of advertising, like a provocative costume on a female singer--perhaps it adds to the effect or image of the performance, but it is not the reason people paid to hear, or became attracted to in the first place, or listened to a musical feed because it did or might have included, or bought a copy of, any particular recording. For the vast majority (all?) of popular rap/hip hop songs, the person muttering the occasional words could be switched out, and unless someone knew beforehand, no one would notice.
(The popular trend in younger hip hop eras of the performer repeating his name as part of the lyrics is not only a guard against being switched out by vile producers by associating show with performer, but a practical act in another way, namely helping the audience realize for reasons not of protection against scabs who deserves credit for the show.)
To recognize this is not to defame any of the particularly skilled occasional-singers or stylized vocal percussivists of the entire genre, but to consider the ways in which the art form, replete with its female choruses doing nothing like hip hop (and who are often if not predominantly not even "black") to stylize the refrains, is not an African or brown Terran thing, but a product involving primarily the management of a series of people who weren't permitted to reach the market as solo electronica composers, into whose potential careers were not invested millions in advertising, market coordination, image development, et cetera, but who were paid to sign over their rights to all their output by crafting a denouement or collaborate on the rhythm of a hard-house-like chorus that would catch consumer ears and make the titled artist justifiably a popular musician.
Like the black lives matter events of the two thousand teens, the Black Panther movie, et cetera, the African-Americans involved in creating and promoting the final product were necessary for a successful sale of that type of product. The musical merits or demerits of such product, like Hollywood's ability to commission a serviceable story and hire good actors and slip a few lines of dialogue in between some or other agenda should not be confused with "African output," anymore than people should believe that R.L. Stine agonized over how to properly portray culture in his works.
Terran browns incompletely scatting (sic), or spoken-word reciting, something that could be turned into a semi-plausible piece of modern marketable music when someone else pays for the rights to it and then wraps it up for sale with several other incomplete musical products should not be blamed for the results, like when they defend their territory from an inexplicable "random killings not allowed" policeman and inexplicably upset surrounding pseudo-giving idiots. Considering that, like some social movement, movie, or assaulting of a policeman with a firearm, they did not develop nor understand the technology involved (including chord theory or international economics), it is childish, ineffectual, and rude to expect any alternate behavior, and if there be blame or praise to be handed out, the rap artist is logically no more to be targeted than the rope in a tripwire someone has strung in front of your door.
What makes people like a piece of music, or if hip hop isn't music, what makes people like something that they would call, or otherwise would consider, to be music? The most effective component in a few hundred years, or perhaps since there was human-created music, has been popularity, or as the years pass, perceived popularity, which dominates most art--particularly art as fungible product--including visual art, live performance, cinema, and literature. The vast majority of people make a decision to buy or otherwise partake of the art product by a sense of it being popular with others, which is an obvious benefit to the closed loop of preloaded sellers, who can decide what gets positive exposure, repeated exposure, et cetera. Something of middling quality--say, a sorta okay song--can become internationally popular in a day when worldwide news conglomerates talk about how good everyone's saying it is. Whether the widespread recognition of quality came before or after the media excitement is an arguable conclusion, and by the time that quandary is being not discussed, the mass awareness of product is foregone. The service this offers the public is the ability to feel that they have partaken in something good and artistic, and been part of a community in doing so, when otherwise they might just be bored, and not even reading, viewing, or listening to anything, or not sure if what they experienced was a good experience or not.
Recycled myths about the ability of the average person to experience something, or to be motivated enough to seek out a positive thing, or to recognize what they would like if they could just think about it for x minutes or hours--or what they would consider vomitous if they were sold an alternative with equal fervor--are endlessly harped upon or implied by those who arrange for the actual transactions to take place. The method by which they work demonstrates that they don't believe in, nor have any faith in, this rubbish; since long before the payola, music producers and the entities behind them have known that something can be made or unmade as popular irrespective of its merits or lack thereof. Even an incredibly good piece of art on the internet is subject to the gatekeepers of so-called "mainstream" access, where a symphony of avowed promoters like playlist-selectors and product-placement ads and layout editors, may keep people focused enough that a consensus of some kind can be achieved. The edges of the internet, like those of real life, are littered with exceedingly rare work of phenomenal quality that may be controlled by using salaries for people who need to eat and/or live to control output, or simply redirecting mass attention elsewhere to ensure that some wonderful thing isn't found during the brief time it or its creator might be accessible.
(Consider, e.g., an incredible painter or CG artist who lets their work vanish from the internet, from any potential public attention, due to the licensed exclusivity demanded by the prowlers who will only pay the artist a pittance to develop backgrounds for some movie's jungle scenes if they don't try to independently sell things. The model used to suppress creation is the same one that large corporations, universities and their often-associated medical labs use to repress the development of engineering and medicine by pre-emptively using salaries and materials access to buy out the products of thinkers. The rationale often goes, "The machine is so expensive that if we're going to let people run tests on it then we control what they invent," when a hypothetical decent world could involve scheduling tests not around someone's faux-teaching schedule, but a pay-per-use policy that could bring the per-use cost of the testing apparatus into range for plebeian salaries. The control of permissible medical studies, permitted surgical facilities, cadavers, and post-surgical biological materials sounds icky and scary enough to most people that they're willing to ignore or disbelieve in the abuse, but for "engine design," no company has sprung up offering $100/use half hours on a million dollar machine to would-be mechanical engineers, despite the massive profit that could be soon realized, because the people who control laws and regulations are clever enough to recognize that making money now is actually not in their own interests as much as controlling people's ability to make things.)
And ultimately, that's a tragedy about human art, because whatever art could do, it is itself much less important to most people than a sense of having participated in something together with others, maybe many others, by experiencing it.
As said before, this creation of a sense of mass popularity can often become real, and promoting something as amazingly groundbreaking and astounding and popular can become partly true; true in the way most important to participants, namely in being popular. If during the time that Rowling is proven docile and movies are definitely decided on, worldwide newspapers sing a unanimous chorus about how children are really participating in reading, the product of relatively minor popularity can become what everyone so desperately wanted, giving a gift to believers in the form of a god who really was alive (after all, all those people really were waiting in those lines, so it was all real). The validation of the seeming fulfillment of these voids may be better than the real thing, because maybe most people wouldn't have felt any void otherwise, they would've just thrown rocks at empty cans for a few hours and then gone to bed. Decrying the people who can orchestrate a system that can reach them in their relative mental sloth is like decrying the lady who brings the morphine around to those with congenitally painful lives; yes, it's a terrible form of existence, but are you suggesting we stop the morphine?
Similarly, if someone travels to hear Mozart perform four separate times in the 18th century, it is not necessarily an indication of higher cultural quality in the sense of the individual being able to sorta appreciate or sorta understand what is happening. There is probably a relationship between a culture that is provisioning one kind of entertainment versus the other, and what people imagine they're aspiring to, and what they're learning, and how their brains are developing or regressing or not, but as to the individual, their ability to choose a good book, recognize a good statue, et cetera, is not definitive, nor known. Precious little time existed between, say, caveman-chanting and hip hop to allow for study as to whether or not the appreciators in either case were actually internally defining cultural high marks by participating in whatever way they did.
The upper class and people with more life experience still congregate around cultural venues to watch failed K-12 music teachers and other types desperately re-repeat classical performances in a well-meant but misguided expression of preserved high culture, and the number of competent performers and shows worldwide is significantly higher now than in times likely presumed more cultured. East Asians are struggling viciously to force their children to not take an interest in east Asian instruments, but to develop mastery over European instruments while playing European tunes, and even though they're doing very well at that, they're becoming predictable, stereotyped bores, nowhere near the international popularity of some muddy brown crack dealer chosen to front a new rap act. East Asia can copy hip hop too, and has very well, producing rhythm variation and harmonic class to often exceed that being churned out by the Euroserf development labs serving the black frontmen who serve et cetera, but questions of novelty and genesis remain inconclusive given that what we now call "rap" is primarily the product of a people who copies, not attributable to any source but perhaps "humanity."
If someone hears a good melody and feels like hearing it again, something has happened, which can be most vulgarly reduced to a sale surviving its hospital birth, hospital shredding, and maybe even some public school. The creation of that melody, rarely if ever associated with the hip hop image product (if they can even write their own few lines, which is a sad rarity for a significant number of them), though perhaps initially stylized something after a particular way a seven-syllable refrain could conceivably be made into inherently complementary notes. The European's creation of electronic music with suave or angry vocal accompaniment by a decorated image-product, perhaps owes a significant amount to Africa, inasmuch as idealized, incorrect conceptions of "primitive man" allow for a Hong-Kong-based hip hop collaborator-composer to inwardly condone designating a series of aggressive harmonies or bass lines which he might otherwise feel improper rendering, and in this, the instinctive association of a different subspecies may allow Europeans to do something they wouldn't otherwise be able to do. Some of them, of course--many artists have produced aggressive bass lines which did not have to become associated with black scat to be made into a track. What this means more simply is that a lot of hard electronica tracks have been written which could have easily been hip hop hits if produced and marketed properly, but were otherwise--perhaps more honestly--designed and targeted. Current culture, with the American myth of a specific racial African musical aptitude, makes it likely that an additional generation, or generations, of budding composers will find their only effective purpose in society as being uncredited group techs composing on some African act, but humorously, the future may hold larger numbers of more-independent artists gaining more-independent renown for crafting music, perhaps even with a percussive or crooning group chorus, which does not otherwise appear to glamorize or reify some misconception of "African American street life"--and no one--not even "black" people or "white" people who want to be black or understand being black--interested in buying tapes of someone mumbling angrily over a canned beat.