Is too much innovation in sound bad for Hip Hop?

[Crumple]

I was listening to a Killa Sin mixtape.

He's talking grieving, hustling, God, his wife.
It's 1997 hip hop.

It's classic now soundwise to me.

Then you have Pm Dawn that sounded too soft, their image as men very feminine.

Or 2live crew - overly sexed music.

Both those rap forms didn't last to me.

Where you have Wu sampling classic soul, breakbeats. Then the underground resurgence of 1996-2000 which slightly improved upon mid 90s rap.

Then you have the Griselda sound that throws back to that. It's all classic.

I feel going way too left changes raps core elements.

Yet trap innovated and sounds dope. But the slow 2015 trap.

What do you think?

 

[mrfortune]

it used to be hiphop, then we added " rap" . now we have multiple genres under the "hiphop" umbrella. hiphop was the most innovative music genre until certain sounds were able to be monotized, then it became a way out. classics will be classics the rest just fast food music. innovation will keep it fresh as long as the roots respected

 

[Awesome Wells]

No.

Dope is dope. But "innovation" doesn't always equate to being good at making music either. The whole point is to be able to resonate with the listener. So if you can make dope music, while trying new things and touch the people, then you're good. The problem with certain artists in the underground in the 90's, is that they would try to be different for the sake of just being different, but the music was wack. At the end of the day, it all comes down to the quality of the music. So if you're being innovative, it doesn't mean anything if the actual music is trash.

 

[T-K-G]

You can't do anything about it

Plenty of popular genres from the past went through this same evolution, it's just part of the cycle, gotta embrace sub genre titles and actually know what they mean or you'll be lost as hell trying to find certain sounds in the future

 

[Crumple]

No.

Dope is dope. But "innovation" doesn't always equate to being good at making music either. The whole point is to be able to resonate with the listener. So if you can make dope music, while trying new things and touch the people, then you're good. The problem with certain artists in the underground in the 90's, is that they would try to be different for the sake of just being different, but the music was wack. At the end of the day, it all comes down to the quality of the music. So if you're being innovative, it doesn't mean anything if the actual music is trash.

I agree.

 

[Crumple]

You can't do anything about it

Plenty of popular genres from the past went through this same evolution, it's just part of the cycle, gotta embrace sub genre titles and actually know what they mean or you'll be lost as hell trying to find certain sounds in the future

I agree.

I just feel what RZA did and what Premier and Alchemist did is great. To the point they went to 70s soul and kept a limit on the pace of the beats.

I am happy boom bap innovated to what it did to 1998 rap.

So many singles around that time were different but check all the boxes on what a classic should be. Like this joint

 

[maxamusa]

2 broad of a statement.

nothing lasts forever.


music lives and music dies.

To be honest most of these resurgence of 90s artists are just hitting a lick anyway.

They'll even talk about it openly.

 

[Crumple]

2 broad of a statement.

nothing lasts forever.


music lives and music dies.

To be honest most of these resurgence of 90s artists are just hitting a lick anyway.

They'll even talk about it openly.

The new throwback 90s sound artists arn't it.

Then you have Common, AZ, Nas, Em, Cormega who are exemplifying greatness.

 

[maxamusa]

The new throwback 90s sound artists arn't it.

Then you have Common, AZ, Nas, Em, Cormega who are exemplifying greatness.

None of those artists have innovated anything in a long time...maybe I'm not following this thread.....

 

[010101]

music is bigger than that small lane & most artists will eventually end up outside the restrictions given*