Understanding the Response : A Guide to Macklemore’s GRAMMY Wins for Non-Rap Fans

This might seem weird to some people.

It might seem weird that the internet is expressing discomfort–nay, outrage–at Macklemore cleaning up ALL the rap categories at the Grammy’s last night.  For those of you who missed it, the independent Seattle rapper won Best Rap Album, Best Rap Song, and Rap/Sung Performance (he also got Best New Artist). It was a huge night for him, and a controversial night for hip hop.

But why?

After all, the National Post said that this year’s Grammys “marks a high note for hip-hop.” Rap artists made an appearance in some major categories, including Album of the Year and Best New Artist.  And Macklemore himself defended his controversial nomination by saying “I think that hip hop can be at times resistant to change…[but] hip hop has always been about expansion, about pushing the genre, about challenging the listener.”

So what’s the real story? Are Macklemore’s wins really that big of a deal? Are people just upset because the guy is white, or because his lyrics are “clean,” or because he’s too mainstream, or because (*gasp*) he isn’t Kendrick Lamar?

Short answer: Kind of, yeah.
Long answer: Kind of, yeah. BUT-BUT-BUT, there is a really solid historical reason why. This article does a great job of explaining it, but I know for non-rap fans it might be a little dense.

So I’m going to try to lay it out as best I can.

First, a quick early history of rap in ‘murica.

Rap and hip hop music  have existed for a pretty long time…long before getting their popular due, and WAY long before being recognized by the Grammys.  It’s a pretty typical story, actually:

  • West African musical traditions are full of rap (that is, people talking rhythmically over a beat).
  • West Africans came to ‘murica via the slave trade. They brought their musical influences with them.
  • Rap became a part of American folk music– African American folk music, in particular.
  • In the 20th century, the genre was embraced by low-income urban communities which had largely African American populations (and were thus influenced by their traditions).

This is important. It’s important because, for some reason, people seem to think that hip hop magically appeared out of nowhere in the 80s.  Not so much. For example, you can still buy this Folkways recording from 1959 of preteen boys busting rhymes on the streets of NYC:

streets


Yeah, 1959.  This was a cultural phenomenon before
 we started calling it one, and WAY before the Grammys started paying attention.

The difference is that, unlike other traditionally African American genres (blues, jazz, banjo folk music, early rock ‘n roll), it took a long while for rap to be considered “sellable,” or even “musical.” It was not packaged or patron-ed in the same way these other styles were. So while jazz musicians were given legitimacy by powerful white Harlem Renaissance patrons, while banjos became a quintessential American instrument, while the blues built its fan base…rap pretty much stayed on the streets.

And honestly? It was probably better off staying on the streets.  Historically, once those traditionally African American genres and musical influences were packaged and sold, they also tended to get pretty whitewashed. Why? Because the early 20th century. Because racism and capitalism are not a good mix.

Now, from a contemporary standpoint, there is nothing wrong with white people buying into, participating in, or being influenced by African American folk traditions. But there is something wrong with how it has been approached historically.

We’re still paying for it. We’re still talking about it. And we should be.

Essentially, there are two major ways the packaging and selling of traditionally African American music was first approached (spoiler: they both sucked).

1) The “dance monkey, dance” approach. In the early 20th century, music became increasingly seen as a product with mainstream selling power.  When this happened, a lot of traditionally African American entertainment was marketed to white people as roots-y, even primitive.  Patrons would create a “product” out of black artists and their oh-so-exotic background, but not actually invite them to participate in their own musical culture.

(Example: In the 1920s Harlem Renaissance era, white-only bars were decorated to have an “African” theme, and black people were invited to play music but could not come for any other reason. Traveling minstrel shows would entertain audiences with music and comedy designed to caricature black people–first with blackface performers, and later with actual black entertainers. And by black entertainers, I mean music legends like Ma Rainey and father of the blues W.C. Handy. The only way these musicians could be legitimized at all was by being good enough to impress the people who had come to laugh at them. And even when they were given a shot, they often became someone else’s product…and were rarely invited to the after party.)

2) The “we’ll take it from here” approach. Just watch from 8:15 on this below video, and you’ll get the idea on this one.


,
What does all this mean?  It means that when rap finally was packaged and sold, this history was incredibly relevant. Artists were constantly weary of the influence and ownership of record labels and mainstream consumers. While rap was a great way to express what was happening in urban communities, to push mainstream boundaries (and hey, maybe to even bridge a few gaps a la Run DMC and Aerosmith) many people were and are tentative about the “dance monkey, dance,” and the “we’ll take it from here”-type histories.

1015599-grammy-award-617-409
And the Grammy goes to…

Now let’s talk about the Grammys, shall we? 

To make matters more sensitive, rap does not have a very positive history with the Grammy awards.  Like the American music industry in general, the Grammys weren’t very good at embracing rap…until it started making a crazy amount of money, that is. And even then, not much was done to understand the socioeconomic/historical/cultural context of rap music.  The hip hop community is rightfully wary about how the Grammys treat their genre.

However, they are equally aware that Grammys are incredibly influential in the music scene, and even more influential in how the music scene appears to mainstream audiences. So it’s a tough spot, and one that needs considered critically.

Not because hip hop can’t be embraced by different individuals and cultures as a means of expression. Not because Macklemore isn’t musically awesome (I could probably recite every word of The Heist, let’s be honest).  But because having Macklemore as the popular sound and face of the rap genre–which is exactly where the Grammys have placed him with all these awards–is questionable to people who care about the past and the future of rap music.  And because we as a society have severely screwed up with approaching similar musical movements before, so red flags get raised pretty easily.

But why don’t we let the artists speak for themselves?

Now that we’ve gone over that background, I’m going to hand the mic over to some of rap music’s biggest players. It’s probably best to explain the last couple decades of Grammy-rap relations through their eyes.

Tupac Shakur:

After several years of serious commercial success, the Grammys finally start adding rap performance categories in 1989. But they were untelevised, barely mentioned, and their choice of winners was controversially soft and even confusing (Parents Just Don’t Understand? Really?).  In these 1991 lyrics, TuPac is in no way subtle in addressing how the Grammys were “cashing in” on rap without respecting it at all:

“The Grammy’s and American music shows
They pimp us like hoes; take our dough but they hate us though”

(…remember that “dance monkey, dance” history I talked about? Yeah. That’s this.)

Naughty by Nature:

In 1996, the Grammys FINALLY (finally, finally) established a Best Rap Album award.  Naughty by Nature won…and, as you can tell by this interview with the trio, they didn’t even know how to even comprehend it.  When asked why they didn’t just say “Thank you, but no thank you,” to the so-called honour, DJ Kay Gee joked “They didn’t air our part anyway, so we didn’t have a chance to.”

FYI, they still don’t air these rap categories on the televised award show.

Ol’ Dirty Bastard (of the Wu-Tang Clan):

The year is 1998. Wu-Tang Clan gets snubbed on the Best Rap Album award. And OH-MY, this happens:


.
I think it’s relevant to note that this video has over 4,600 likes (only 100 dislikes) on YouTube.  This snub was just plain poorly timed–this is only the third ever Best Rap Album award, and rap artists still weren’t getting proper stage time in general.

Jay Z: 

Jay Z has boycotted the Grammys on several occassions. His tipping point was when DMX was denied a nomination in 1999, but he also boycotted in 2002, saying:

“Too many major rap artists continue to be overlooked. Rappers deserve more attention from the Grammy committee and from the whole world. If it’s got a gun, everybody knows about it; but if we go on a world tour, no one knows.”

Eminem:

Oh my millenials, who could forget these lyrics from The Real Slim Shady?

You think I give a damn about a Grammy?
Half of you critics can’t even stomach me, let alone stand me
“But Slim, what if you win, wouldn’t it be weird?”
Why? So you guys could just lie to get me here?
So you can, sit me here next to Britney Spears?

Ironically, Eminem did win the Grammy for Best Rap Solo Performance with the single so…there is that.  Interstingly, this article actually cites white privilege as the reason for Em’s Grammy success (relative to other artists).

50 Cent: 

Fast forward to 2004. Like Ol’ Dirty Bastard before him, 50 Cent takes a stand for what he considers a snub…this time in the “Best New Artist” category.

Okay, so his “stand” was a lot more subtle (actually, it was more of a cameo). But his statement afterwards was interesting:  “I think that the board is a lot older and they’re conservative, so some of the content in the music is offensive on some level.  There’s a lot of people that don’t accept that hip-hop culture is now pop culture.

Kanye West:

I know, I know. But you can’t talk hip hop versus the Grammys without talking Kanye.  Specifically, you can’t talk hip hop versus the Grammys without citing the New York Times interview where he said this :

I don’t know if this is statistically right, but I’m assuming I have the most Grammys of anyone my age, but I haven’t won one against a white person…I don’t care about the Grammys; I just would like for the statistics to be more accurate. I don’t want them to rewrite history right in front of us. At least, not on my clock. I really appreciate the moments that I was able to win rap album of the year or whatever. But after a while, it’s like: “Wait a second; this isn’t fair. This is a setup.”

Nas: 

The 2013 Grammys roll around, and Nas–with 18 nominations in his career and 4 that year–sits down with Dave Grohl to talk Grammys.  Nas (who has never been outspokenly critical nor supportive of the award shows) had this to say about how they STILL, still underrate the Hip Hop genre in 2013:


.
Oh, and Macklemore himself:

Perhaps the person who is most aware (and most vocal) of how these things seem to go down these days is Macklemore. Yes, really. Let’s start with his 2005 song “White Privilege,” shall we?

I give everything I have when I write a rhyme
But that doesn’t change the fact that this culture’s not mine


.
More recently, he addressed race relations and public perception of rap music in his song “A Wake,” saying:

These interviews are obnoxious
Saying that it’s poetry is so well spoken, stop it
I grew up during Reaganomics
When Ice T was out there on his killing cops shit
Or Rodney King was getting beat on
And they let off every single officer
And Los Angeles went and lost it

Oh, and he also instagramed this message he sent Kendrick Lamar after last night’s Grammys:

macklemore insta

The “speech” he was referring to was his acceptance of Best New Artist.

Why? Because he wasn’t even able to accept the controversial Best Rap Album award.

Why?  Because Best Rap Album is still not a part of the main Grammy award show. Despite the fact that half the nominees are popular enough to be performing. Despite the fact that for years now rap has been the ONLY genre which has seen an increase in record sales. Ay-yi-yi.

So, what does this all mean?

Musically, I think Macklemore deserves an award–if not the rap honours, then at least that Best New Artist he was handed. And I congratulate him on his wins, genuinely. I don’t think he is bad for hip hop–his ability to break out as an independent artist is actually a huge step away from the “dance monkey, dance” history, and he has spoken out several times against exclusivity and race issues.  I don’t think that just hating on Macklemore’s Grammy wins is an overly informed response.

BUT, I don’t think that just pushing criticisms aside as silly or ridiculous is informed, either.  And it’s certainly not informed to talk about Macklemore like he’s some sober messiah who has swooped in to save the hip hop culture from its sexist, homophobic, gang-banging, drug-pushing ways.

That’s not fair. It’s offensive to the diverse and culturally rich history of rap music.  I don’t know Macklemore, but it’s probably offensive to him, too. And the more people talk about him that way, the more rap fans are going to despise it when he gets these wins.

(Which is too bad. Because while being critical is good…I think we should really be more critical of the fact that Macklemore wasn’t even able to accept his awards because all those rap Grammys still aren’t on the main show.)

Either way, I hope this helped clear up some of the confusion people might have over all these very intense responses. If you have any thoughts on this, or if I missed something super important to this conversation, let me know in the comments!

Three (Real, Factual) Reasons the “Hail Satan” Controversy is B.S.

First of all, can we all just agree this story is a joke?

nationalpost

1) The pro-choice movement does not collectively worship Satan.

2) The pro-life movement is NOT made up of only people (and, erm, news networks…) who hatefully characterize pro-choicers as Devil Worshipers.

3) Over-the-top people do and say ridiculous things at protests all the time. Those people are not an appropriate representation of public opinion.

This is not news, is it? This cannot be seriously relevant to the abortion debate.

But it has been trending on Twitter all day–and to my stereotypical millennial/blogger brain, that means serious business.

What’s worse, influential people (faith leaders, television personalities, etc) all seem to be chiming in with fallacy after fallacy.  So, fine. Fine. If we’re going to have a conversation, I think this conversation needs some common sense and facts, don’t you?

abortion1

abortion

Wrong.  Many people of faith (or people respectful of faith) are pro-choice, or have nuanced views on abortion policy.

Note that I say abortion policy–that is, how the state directly addresses abortion and its legality.  While I’m pretty sure all Christians value and advocate for “life,” not all believe that legislation denying woman access to safe, early-term abortions is the best way to go about that.  The promotion of maternal health, contraception availability, social safety nets, and comprehensive sexual education are other ways that some people–and, indeed, many Christians–choose to promote “life.”

For many, the abortion debate may be black and white–but for others, it is not.  Christians are absolutely called to value life, as well as being called to be compassionate.  This means that the life of the mother and the potential life of the fetus both need to be taken into consideration. That can lead to many different stances on the issue, none of which are rooted in “satanism.”  For a really great conversation on this, check out Rachel Held Evans’ post on progressive Christianity and abortion.

abortion2

Wrong. I mean, obviously he’s being satirical, but even the sentiment is wrong. There are many differences between Republicans and Democrats in the United States. Abortion policy may be one of the differences, but five out of six Americans say it is not the only “voting issue” for them. This means that while Republican and Democratic bases do have life/choice tenancies, they aren’t as strong as you may think–especially on the Left.

A Gallup poll showed that 62% of Democrats are pro-choice, while 32% are pro-life. Hardly a strong enough majority to call out the entire Democratic Party in this case.  Bring religion back in and it is even more divided: of the 734 of these Democrats who attend church on a weekly or nearly weekly basis, 50% are pro-choice while 42% are pro-life.  Some Liberals do go to church, and some don’t. Some are pro-choice, and some aren’t. Either way, it makes zero sense to suggest that liberalism=satanism, that Democrat=100% pro-choice, or that pro-choice=evil.

abortion4

abortion3

Dear Mr. Ryan C…I think this tweet is meant to be a joke? Right?

Too bad that every inch of it is wrong, too. I do like a good joke.

I already explained that there are Liberal Christians (as well as a whole bunch of somewhere-in-between Christians, as well as non-Christians who are pro-life…) so I won’t even go into that.  What I believe Mr. Ryan C is trying to say is that people who speak out for the separation of church and state (however crassly they decide to go about it) or, heaven forbid, speak out against religion at all…well, they must just not be familiar with religion. They must not understand what they’re up against.

While this may be true in some cases, and while I agree that Gospel is here for everyone, the overall assumption that non-Christians are unfamiliar with the Bible has no factual basis. A recent study shows that in the United States of America, Atheists and Agnostics have the highest level of religious literacy, with Mormons in close second and Protestants trailing (way too far) behind. Not all pro-choice advocates are Atheist or Agnostic, but if you run into one who is…just because they reject your theology doesn’t mean they aren’t familiar with it.

– – –

Obviously, yelling out “Hail Satan” isn’t a good way to promote any cause, especially not in Texas. I think a lot of people were insulted by this story.  I understand why.  When you actually look at the facts, however, a few girls at a protest who didn’t think before they shouted isn’t worth this kind of outrage.

Instead, I’ll point my outrage towards a few other things: The denigration of a serious conversation about Christianity, abortion, and society.  The serious implication the current legislative battles in Texas will have on women and families. And the fact that THIS is actually being considered news:

Your move, America.

How NOT to Respond to the Abercrombie & Fitch Remarks

“Give people a common enemy, and you will give them a common identity. Deprive them of an enemy and you will deprive them of the crutch by which they know who they are.” – James Alison

The internet is going wild. Everyone’s mad because a rich guy said, point blank, how he got rich.

ceo

Ouch. Outrage is definitely fair here.  It’s a pretty messed up way to make money. It’s a pretty messed up principle for a company. It’s messed up that it works, and it’s certainly not okay to express in these words.

What is more messed up, however, is seeing people respond in such a hypocritical way.

The conversation we should be having looks like this:

“Wow, a successful business owner used exclusivity as his business model.  Not even covertly. It was obvious. And it worked. We bought it. People in our culture and society seriously bought clothes sold on this principle. That’s sad. Let’s direct our business elsewhere, and reconsider our consumerism.

Also, bullying sucks. Let’s not do that.”

Instead, the conversation we are having looks like this:

“This one single bad human being is perpetuating bullying, stereotypes, and shame. The only logical thing to do is to bully, stereotype and shame him.  Obviously, he is the sole reason for the superficiality of young consumers, and bullying in our schools. Our society will be nicer to overweight people we if yell at him and call him ugly, right?”

Abercrombie & Fitch business model, 1; Society, 0.

I’ve seen this hypocrisy before.  It scares me.  Tweets wishing sexual assault upon rape sympathizers and their families. Harassment against minorities in the wake of a terrorist attack. Hell, in World War II, Canada fought for the freedom of Europe’s people…while we locked up our own Japanese population in internment camps.

Awesome track record, humanity. Awesome.

It’s a pretty straight-forward formula: As soon as we are able to pronounce our moral superiority to someone, we are able to label them as “other,” we are able to fear them, we think we can do whatever we want in retaliation.

Congratulations, your target is no longer human.

It’s messed up. It’s totally messed up.  When we let the worst of what we see and hear set the standard for our own behaviour, autonomy, and responsibility to each other, we lose. When we refuse to learn from the unsettling things we see, and point fingers instead, we lose.

Here’s what wins:
Rape culture wins when we wish rape upon anyone.
Terror wins when we terrorize our own neighbors for their ethnicity.
And bullying wins when we pick on someone for being a bully.

Apparently, the internet is playing a game of "how long can you go?"

Isn’t that just kinda mean? Especially to be posting on the internet?  By responding in this way, we are making this issue so much more superficial than it really is.

Mike Jeffries has become a mascot of the “cool kid-uncool kid” segregation that we hated so much in high school.   The problem is, he isn’t a mascot. He’s a person. A person who has made a lot of money because the “cool kid-uncool kid” thing exists, and it works.

By picking on him alone, we are only confirming that we are a superficial society which loves to pick “who’s in” and “who’s out.”

And let’s be honest: If you didn’t already know that Abercrombie & Fitch used this business model, you clearly haven’t seen one recently. Or maybe you just went to a different high school than me. Either way, Mike Jeffries saying this (while insensitive) is not what makes his business model real, nor what makes it wrong.

The fact that people buy into it, the fact that this kind of segregation exists, that is what makes it wrong.

Let’s raise the bar, everyone. Grace, love and boycott.