aberkok

I don't think you'll discover anything by doing this. You can't take a form, remove an essential element, then evaluate it. It's so arbitrary and it turns this whole discussion into a debate over mere materials. An example might be to pose the question: "Would Walt Whitman have been as good of a poet if we removed all the letter "A"s from his work?"

The problem I see with this discussion is that it's a battle of which form's materials are better. It's obsessed with the artifact of the music. Proving why rap doesn't suck ultimately doesn't matter because there are a multitude that clearly love it. That's really all it takes to prove it doesn't suck - that there are tons of people out there who love it. It exists in its cultural context and perhaps you need to understand that context before "getting it" (though I don't think I really understand the context...and I like a lot of rap). But - even if it requires this background knowledge to enjoy, doesn't lessen it's merit. No music stands on its own, independent of its social, cultural, or even market context (except maybe in analysis class).

Another reason I feel this sort of thing leads nowhere, is because we can't categorize artists under an umbrella like "rap," and expect to have anything in common between them. I'm probably not the best person to do this, so I won't, but it's probably simple for an enthusiast to take two artists both lumped under "rap" who have almost nothing in common.

Also, where does turntablism fit in to all this?

Will...when we try to define music beyond what the dictionary says, we enter completely subjective territory, so basically, stop trying to define music. Even by very strict definitions, music does not require melody - what about solo drum repertoire?

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."