"Is post-punk a form of druidic chanting? Anyone?"
Seriously though, the problem isn't that saying "hip hop is post-punk" is rockist or even that it's wrong, it's that it's such a boring way to think about the musics in question - the same kind of boringness that leads that excrutiating Chuck Klosterman article on Gnarls Barkley in the New York Times (oh my god! is Dangermouse an auteur like Woody Allen and Brian Eno?)
Sometimes I suspect that the renewed veneration of post-punk that has been going on for the past few years is potentially a bad thing for music criticism. Yes, a fair amount of it was some of the best music ever, but there's now this really safe consensus that this was obviously so, and that the characteristics that defined post-punk are the way, the truth and the light for all good music. This need to have a heirarchy with post-punk at the top (however justified it may be) almost inevitably starts to close down our potential to think interestingly about music - <i>including</i> post-punk.
We shouldn't restrict ourselves to just thinking of genres "in their own terms", but if we're going to think about the relationships b/w genres we should try to do so in a way that is gonna generate some new thought, rather than simply calcifying our existing orthodoxy.
Asking "is hip hop a form of cowpunk" would be more productive, really.
Seriously though, the problem isn't that saying "hip hop is post-punk" is rockist or even that it's wrong, it's that it's such a boring way to think about the musics in question - the same kind of boringness that leads that excrutiating Chuck Klosterman article on Gnarls Barkley in the New York Times (oh my god! is Dangermouse an auteur like Woody Allen and Brian Eno?)
Sometimes I suspect that the renewed veneration of post-punk that has been going on for the past few years is potentially a bad thing for music criticism. Yes, a fair amount of it was some of the best music ever, but there's now this really safe consensus that this was obviously so, and that the characteristics that defined post-punk are the way, the truth and the light for all good music. This need to have a heirarchy with post-punk at the top (however justified it may be) almost inevitably starts to close down our potential to think interestingly about music - <i>including</i> post-punk.
We shouldn't restrict ourselves to just thinking of genres "in their own terms", but if we're going to think about the relationships b/w genres we should try to do so in a way that is gonna generate some new thought, rather than simply calcifying our existing orthodoxy.
Asking "is hip hop a form of cowpunk" would be more productive, really.
Last edited: