I made no attempt to cloud any issues in my previous post. If the wider audiophile community is meaningfully different demographically from the community here on A'gon, it would surprise me - not that I couldn't be surprised. I make no argument that most audiophiles (here or elsewhere) likely reject rap, just an argument that it's the wrong community to pass judgement on genres like rap or electronica.
As to Rok 2 id's challenge, it's the same problem, both musically and lyrically: context. You may find Public Enemy or Grandmaster Flash's lyrics offensive, but they strike me as serious in a way that most rock lyrics are not. That is, closer to The Clash's "Guns of Brixton" than Zep's "Lemon Song". I understand those who reject a call to violence (and I agree at one level), but I also think it's the duty of art to challenge and, at times, offend. The overt sexuality of (mainly black) rock n roll musicians was enormously offensive to the white community in the 1950's. Who do you take to task there, the musicians or the community? That said, I admit that I find some of the rap violence, mysogeny and homophobics unsettling. Again, I don't love this music.
Musically, the form resists the kind of evaluation you desire. This is primitivist art. We've seen that aesthetic rejected (predictably) in the earlier post about Andy Warhol, for instance. (Do you think Warhol's art is rejected by the academy?) Note: the acceptance of Warhol (or Basquiat or Haring or even Picasso's very simple nudes) by the academy isn't meant to suggest that they're great art. Merely that primitivst are shouldn't be dismissed simply because it's primitive. That's the point of it.
In particular, I'd argue that primitivist blues based music should never be rejected on its face. The blues is as simple as it gets - primarily formulaic 12 bar structures. From my perspective, that extends to rock music, as well. "Johnny B. Goode" is barely a song - it's a riff, a backbeat, and a lead guitar with a wild hair up its ass. Yet, for me, it's the greatest rock song ever written. (And, by the way, lots of critics polls put it near the top, as well, for whatever that's worth.) No harmony, meaningful lyrics, hooks, interesting chord progessions, etc. Just rock n roll. The Beatles, who were IMHO master pop craftsmen, never get close (again, only IMO) to capturing that anarchic essence of the form, despite some very elegant songwriting.
As to the percentage of rap artists (vs other pop/rock musicians) with commercial as opposed to artistic aspirations, I don't see much difference. I assume that the vast majority of pop musicians (rap, rock, or otherwise) probably combine some belief in their own artistic vision with a desire to be a star. OTOH, I really don't have any basis to evaluate the goals of the broader community of either group of musicians - I'm just not that familiar with 'em.
As to Rok 2 id's challenge, it's the same problem, both musically and lyrically: context. You may find Public Enemy or Grandmaster Flash's lyrics offensive, but they strike me as serious in a way that most rock lyrics are not. That is, closer to The Clash's "Guns of Brixton" than Zep's "Lemon Song". I understand those who reject a call to violence (and I agree at one level), but I also think it's the duty of art to challenge and, at times, offend. The overt sexuality of (mainly black) rock n roll musicians was enormously offensive to the white community in the 1950's. Who do you take to task there, the musicians or the community? That said, I admit that I find some of the rap violence, mysogeny and homophobics unsettling. Again, I don't love this music.
Musically, the form resists the kind of evaluation you desire. This is primitivist art. We've seen that aesthetic rejected (predictably) in the earlier post about Andy Warhol, for instance. (Do you think Warhol's art is rejected by the academy?) Note: the acceptance of Warhol (or Basquiat or Haring or even Picasso's very simple nudes) by the academy isn't meant to suggest that they're great art. Merely that primitivst are shouldn't be dismissed simply because it's primitive. That's the point of it.
In particular, I'd argue that primitivist blues based music should never be rejected on its face. The blues is as simple as it gets - primarily formulaic 12 bar structures. From my perspective, that extends to rock music, as well. "Johnny B. Goode" is barely a song - it's a riff, a backbeat, and a lead guitar with a wild hair up its ass. Yet, for me, it's the greatest rock song ever written. (And, by the way, lots of critics polls put it near the top, as well, for whatever that's worth.) No harmony, meaningful lyrics, hooks, interesting chord progessions, etc. Just rock n roll. The Beatles, who were IMHO master pop craftsmen, never get close (again, only IMO) to capturing that anarchic essence of the form, despite some very elegant songwriting.
As to the percentage of rap artists (vs other pop/rock musicians) with commercial as opposed to artistic aspirations, I don't see much difference. I assume that the vast majority of pop musicians (rap, rock, or otherwise) probably combine some belief in their own artistic vision with a desire to be a star. OTOH, I really don't have any basis to evaluate the goals of the broader community of either group of musicians - I'm just not that familiar with 'em.