Zach Broderick
12/6/05
USEM 27a
Final Paper
The Morality of Rap
Though it has only been in existence for a few short decades, rap has become one
of the most popular forms of entertainment in the US and worldwide. Sales of CDs are on
par with other forms of popular music that have been around far longer and have a much
broader base of appeal. Rap also has a formidable presence on the radio, despite being ill
suited to the medium, and utterly dominates playtime on television networks such as
MTV and BET. Rap stars are as well known as their counterparts in rock, movies, and
sports, if not more so due to their notoriety. The genre is especially popular with the
younger generations of Americans, who dance to its catchy beats in clubs and blast it in
their cars.
Since its entrance into the mainstream, rap has been criticized as much and as
ferociously as it has been embraced. I would venture to say few forms of music have such
a polarizing effect on listeners; ask anyone and they will likely either love it or loathe it,
with few opinions in between. From the emergence of gangster rap to the emergence of
Eminem, rap has been the target of family groups and concerned politicians like Lynn
Cheney and Hillary Clinton, as well as the subject of numerous Congressional hearings.
In short, critics claim that rap is immoral, containing lyrics that are almost exclusively
offensive, with the promotion of sex, drugs, violence, and the degradation of women
being their main topics.
As a devoted fan of rap, I am familiar with these claims of immorality, especially
being a white boy from the suburbs, where the predominant preference in music is rock.
In fact, I used to be a critic of rap myself, which has gained me valuable insight into the
core of rap criticism: it is almost solely based on a lack of understanding of the medium,
close to the point of blatant ignorance, as with most issues of this nature. I believe this
because, as I transformed from critic to fan, my understanding began to melt away the
objections I had, objections that are typical of most every critic. Surely, I do not expect
anyone to accept this claim on faith, and therefore I will attempt to impart on the reader
some of the understanding I have accumulated in hopes of convincing him that rap is not
immoral.
The main question I will examine in this paper is whether or not rap, as a form of
art, can be ethically criticized, and if so does it hold up to scrutiny. The debate over the
moral analysis of art is a large and complex one; in order to provide a cohesive
discussion, I will follow the guidelines laid out by Noel Carrol in “Art and Ethical
Criticism: An Overview of Recent Directions in Research” and their applications to rap
in particular. I will take this approach because most objections to rap take the form of
ethical criticism; that is, criticism that evaluates art in terms of its moral value, holding it
to much the same standard as reality in terms of determining whether it is good or evil.
For example, one may say a video game is bad because it depicts violence against
innocent people, and that is morally wrong.
Ethical criticism or art is a very heated topic, and I will not necessarily attempt to
resolve it in this paper. There are three main lines of argument against the ethical
criticism of art: Autonomism, Cognitive Triviality, and Anticonsequentialism. I will
examine how each of these applies to rap, but also how well the art form holds up to
common objections to these arguments. In this way we shall see that whether or not you
can ethically criticize rap, it cannot be condemned as immoral.
The Auntonomism argument maintains that art cannot be ethically criticized
because it is autonomous and therefore subject to its own standard. This is more
commonly known as “art for art’s sake”, meaning that art cannot be judged as good or
evil like reality is because it is not appropriate for many forms of art whose purpose was
not moral. There must be a common but separate standard, commonly referred to as
“aesthetic value”, or artistic value. This becomes important when we discuss objections
to the autonomism argument.
If one were to consider the autonomism argument to be correct, then there should
be little objection to rap on moral grounds. No matter how much morally objectionable
material it may contain, it is autonomous and not held to the same moral standard as
reality is. We as a society have only partially accepted this idea, mainly along the borders
of medium. Movies that glorify crime such as “The Godfather”, among many others,
have garnered mainstream admiration without the wealth of criticism that rap has
received. Traditional forms of art such as paintings and books are usually excused of any
moral trespassing, but often only if the overall message is morally positive, as we will see
later.
The strongest objection to rap’s autonomy is that it contains no artistic value, and
therefore does not possess the autonomy afforded to great works of art. Critics of rap may
be able to excuse its lack of morality if they believed it actually counted as art, but they
simply see it as obscene material with nothing to offer to the listener except a constant
stream of moral filth. It is extremely difficult to qualify the term “artistic value”, so I am
going to define it loosely as containing some sort of prowess in the construction of the
artwork and/or eliciting an emotional response of some sort from the listener, and/or
revealing a higher truth. Again, this is difficult to qualify—however, most of us have a
solid idea of what “artistic value” entails, even if we cannot express it.
With the popularity of rap, one would think that it must contain some value to its
listeners, otherwise it would not have survived this long and become this popular. Critics
often attribute this to a lack of artistic taste among its fans, who tend to be younger and
often not the most exemplary citizens. As I stated above, this is mainly due to a lack of
understanding of the medium, as few critics bother to fully explore the form, generally
being too offended to subject themselves to it. But rap does have artistic value, as I will
outline briefly below, and this value qualifies it as autonomous art not subject to ethical
criticism.
The main attack on the value of rap is that it lacks musical value and talent. Rap is
often compared to rock or jazz, which requires instrumental talent and is very pleasing to
the ear to listen to. Critics assert that rap beats are repetitive, generated by a synthesizer,
and lack musical talent and quality. The main mistake here is the comparison to other
forms of music; for while rap is commonly defined as music and shares many of its
attributes, one should not judge it by the same standards as other forms of music, because
it is unique. Few true fans of rap look for value in the beat—the purpose of the beat is to
keep the tempo and add a little flavor, little else. In fact, most early rap contains very
simple beats generated by a keyboard, yet rap of that era is considered some of the best.
However, even if we did want to argue for the artistic value of the beats, we could
do so easily. Much modern rap contains very elaborate musical accompaniment, serving
to add more emotion to the song or to provide a great beat to dance to in the club. While
some may argue that anyone can pick up a synthesizer and make a repetitive beat, the
same can be said of someone picking up a paintbrush—however, just like in painting, rap
production has its stars, many of which are as well known as rappers themselves. Tracks
laid down by Dr. Dre, the Neptunes, Timbaland, Hi-Tek and Just Blaze are renowned for
their ability to heighten the emotional impact of a rapper’s lyrics, and are often simply
pleasing to listen to on their own musical accord.
So if not in the beats, where should one look for artistic value in rap? Many
maintain that rappers lack any ability to sing, that they are just talking over bad musical
accompaniment. Again the mistake is made of comparing rap to other forms of music, by
comparing rappers to singers. We often listen to popular singers, caring little about what
they say or their poetic ability but rather enjoy the sound of their voice. Again, the same
standard should not be applied to rap. Rappers should be thought of as poets, poets
reciting their work in a unique style to musical accompaniment.
A rapper’s ability is judged by what is called his “flow”, that is, his lyrical style.
This generally contains two aspects: his ability to rhyme, and his ability to rhyme
cleverly, and with meaning, and very often to do this on the fly (freestyle). The best
rappers are known not for their beats, nor the sound of their voice, but their ability to
rhyme well and quickly. However, this is irrelevant if the flow is nonsensical—it must
also be clever, or contain a story or deeper meaning, things we look for in poetry as well.
For example, Eminem is know for his unmatched ability to rhyme while being clever and
funny, but also for his ability to tell a story in a way that makes the listener forget he is
listening to verse.
The critic will no doubt contest that there is very little cleverness or meaning in
the lyrics of rap, and it would seem to them that any guy pulled off the street and given a
mic could become a superstar. They contend that lyrical content rarely strays away from
the familiar subject of violence, sex, and drugs (do not confuse this with the
consequentialist argument, which I will address later). Where is the lyrical value in that,
they ask? This inquiry gains teeth when one watches the many video singles on TV,
which traditionally feature rappers flaunting their wealth among scantily clad women.
The answer to this is two-fold. For one, those who make this accusation generally
do not have the ear for rap. That is, when listening, they only process key words and
phrases that set off flags in their mind, which are generally offensive. Being able to listen
to a rap and make out and understand all of the lyrics takes years, as I can attest to. One
of the reasons I went from a critic to fan is that I was forced to listen to rap at my friend’s
house and on the bus to school, and as time progressed I was able to make out the lyrics,
and therefore I was able to understand their value. The line “Nine-milla killa” suddenly
became “I have dreams of putting a nine-milla to Bob’s killa, asking him ‘why?’ as my
eyes fill up”(Jay-Z), a far more emotional and meaningful lyric.
The second problem is the media. TV stations and the radio are in the habit of
playing singles that have catchy beats and the broadest appeal. As in all mediums, there
are less hardcore fans who may not truly appreciate what an art form has to offer.
Rappers, being out to make money as well, will release singles to appeal to this broader
base, while saving their more artistic tracks for those who buy the CD. 50 Cent’s “In Da
Club” is a very catchy single but lacks much substance. The album it was on however,
“Get Rich or Die Tryin’”, is a highly acclaimed work full of skillful and meaningful
tracks that catapulted him to rap superstardom, tracks that would not appeal to that same
broader MTV fanbase. Rappers often lament this; D12 recorded a track attacking women
who don’t listen to the lyrics but only dance to the beat. The sarcasm in the song is that
despite the fact that it insults these types of women, it has a catchy beat that they will no
doubt dance to but fail to listen to the offensive lyrics.
It is undeniable however that violence, sex, and drugs do dominate rap lyrics.
There are very deep, complex reasons for this that I will attempt to summarize. Much of
modern rap evolved out of battle rapping, such as the kind seen in the movie “8 Mile”.
Eminem himself started out as a battle rapper, and was picked up by Dr. Dre at an event
called the “Rap Olympics”. The idea behind battle rapping is that two MCs takes turns
freestyling, the goal being to insult one’s opponent while bringing oneself up. This is the
fundamental style of rap, and while non-freestyled rap is more thought out and
sophisticated, the traditional themes remain. It is very difficult to flow deeply
introspective lyrics when you are freestyling, and so the content tends to be shallow but
clever insults, for example questioning one’s sexuality, which I will go into detail about
later.
Part of battle rapping is also glorifying oneself, often to buy time to think of
insults. This is especially the case when an MC is simply freestyling without an
opponent. Again, because of the on-the-fly nature of the genre, this self-glorification
tends to be shallow but clever, with the MC claiming he is tough, has lots of money, and
is the object of desire for women (a male tendency that extends beyond rap). As much as
we try to downplay them, these qualities are glorified in our society. Being tough tends to
be taken to the extreme of gang violence, which is an unfortunate reality in the hood (I
will refer to the “hood” as the poor neighborhoods most rappers come from). Being rich
in the hood generally suggests that one sells drugs, and being the object of affection for
women is a nice way of saying one has lots of sex, and hence we are left with our familiar
rap themes.
Critics may shrug their shoulders at this final observation and ask why then one
would listen to rap. The point I have been making, and will continue to make, is that rap
does have artistic value. Personally, I take joy in a skillfully rhymed flow and clever
insults. It is an art form that maintains its early traditions, and there are definitely those
that possess a skill for it that others don’t. Not just anyone can rap and become a star, as
critics claim. In fact, rap is actually better than other forms of music in this regard.
Record labels formed by veteran rappers tend to become dynasties, recruiting their own
talent instead of having marketing suits do it for them. In this way, talent seeks out real
talent, rather than business men seeking out pop stars that will sell.
Based on the above, it is clear that rap contains artistic value, and can therefore be
classified as art worthy of autonomy and protection from ethical criticism. However, rap
is more than just insults and self-glorification, even if these things are artistically
justified. Besides requiring talent in its creation and providing the listener with
gratification, artistic/aesthetic value also demands that the recipient of the art has an
emotional experience of some sort. Rap contains a large amount of emotion,
introspection, and political and moral commentary, which brings me to the second
argument against ethical criticism, Cognitive Triviality.
This argument asserts that art rarely brings any new moral insight to the table, but
simply states truisms, so little art would be held in high esteem if providing new moral
insight was the standard by which it was judged. This is true of rap, which has mostly
recurring truisms as themes, but also most other art as well. Therefore, rap could not be
judged as less moral than any other form of art because it does not introduce fresh new
moral insight.
Objections to this line of argument come in two forms. First, art can provide new
moral insight by subverting commonly held ethical beliefs in order to provoke change.
Secondly, it can cultivate the moral sense of the listener by helping him to experience a
certain moral perspective or force him to subconsciously make moral decisions. Rap fits
perfectly into both of these categories, and therefore cannot be judged as immoral even if
ethical criticism in those forms was deemed appropriate.
Only half of the lyrics dealing with violence, drugs, and sex are the result of self
glorification, and it takes a trained ear to distinguish the difference. The single largest and
most important theme that unites rap is the reflection of life in the hood, a life of poverty
and violence, the escape from it using drugs, and the backseat morality takes to surviving
in a cold, harsh world. It would be extremely difficult for me to explain this immense
theme adequately to the reader of this paper—that is why rap is such a powerful form of
expression. It puts the listener in the shoes of a hungry young MC, who has grown up
without a father and a single mother who is addicted to drugs or perhaps sells herself on
the street and is regularly beaten by her pimp. It makes the listener feel the shame of
growing up poor and being powerless to better yourself, a terrible wound to a man’s
pride. The listener is taken on the difficult journey of selling drugs and robbing to eat and
have the things normal people have, to have to fight to protect your livelihood. And in the
end you end up either dead or in jail, or getting your girlfriend pregnant and becoming
the absent father you hated as a child, starting the twisted cycle all over again. These are
just some of the topics that recur in rap, and if this is not moral cultivation about the evils
of a life of poverty, I don’t know what is.
If a rapper is not describing the hardships of hood life, he is often calling for
change. Rap is a very politically charged medium, in itself simply a complex cry for
reform of the system that has created such horrible conditions. Rap also fits the
subversion theory, in that it challenges current moral standards about what is appropriate.
Eminem is infamous for this, and many more rapper have spoken out on a variety of
controversial issues, such as the recreational use of drugs and censorship, and there are as
many raps about Bush as there are songs in any other medium. From this it is clear that
rap both cultivates by helping the listener to experience hardship, and subverts by
challenging current ethical standards. In this way as well, rap cannot be judged to be
immoral.
The third and final point I will discuss in this paper is the consequentialist
argument, which is the most common assertion against rap and other controversial forms
of media. The consequentialist maintains that rap glorifies and promotes violence,
degredation of women, use of drugs, promiscuous sex, and hatred of gays and police
officers, and that the listener, being emotionally affected by the art, will be influenced in
his actions. The anticonsequentialist argument against the ethical criticism of art counters
that there is currently no evidence to support a recurring trend of this sort, and therefore
the argument falls flat.
It is fairly obvious how the anticonsequentialist argument applies to rap. While
there have been isolated incidents, there is not enough evidence to conclusively show a
recurring trend of negative behavior due to listening to rap. However, many people who
espouse the consequentialist argument mainly object to lyrics that promote violence,
degradation of women, and anger against gays and police. With that said, I will take a
moment and attempt to justify this content, and explain why it is not there simply to be
‘immoral for the sake of it’.
I have already explained in detail why rap contains violence—again, rappers are
the reporters of the hood, relating what is unfortunately happening there and why it is
happening, as well as using it as a way to glorify themselves as tough, a traditional aspect
of battle rap. The explanation of violence ends here, as it is now the responsibility of the
listener, such as myself, to realize this and act accordingly. Part of the
anticonsequentialist argument is that it is impossible to tell as of now whether or not rap
causes violent behavior in some people, or that naturally violent people are drawn to rap
and would commit the crimes anyway.
I have already explained the use of drugs as a subversion of current moral
standards, as well as an unfortunate fact of survival in the hood in their sale. Sex as well
is simply a traditional form of self glorification, though the treatment of women is a much
harder, more complex issue that could fill another research paper entirely. The listener
will find that that, in short, rappers make a distinction between women, such as their
mothers, and ho’s, whom are prevalent in the hood and another unfortunate side effect of
poverty. The concept of a “ho” is a woman who is the result of much the same effects of
poverty that drive the men of the hood to become what they are. For example, while
poverty may drive a man to a life of crime, it may drive a woman to sell herself on the
street and be a golddigger, therefore becoming a ho. This forms a very complex, strained
relationship between men and women in the hood, and causes some of the angry lyrics
we hear about women in rap today.
Lyrics about gays and police also deserve some explanation. Hatred of police has
a fairly obvious explanation that tends to be overlooked. Many in the hood turn to crime
to make ends meat, such as selling drugs. When police try to take away this livelihood,
there is an obvious source of friction. Add to that the racist element that often creeps into
the topic, and it is not hard to see why rappers are mad about police interfering with their
business, even if we do not agree with them.
Gays are a trickier issue. As I said before, to question someone’s sexual
preference is a principle form of insult, and is therefore prevalent in battle rap. This is
sufficient to explain common uses of the word “fag”, etc. Many of these rappers do not in
fact have a problem with gays. One must realize though, that not only in the black
community but in the country as a whole, gays are still not accepted by many Americans,
especially blacks, which make up the majority of rappers. Still, it is rare to find a
prominent rapper that is openly hostile to gays—it is certainly not a dominant theme in
rap. One of the most publicized cases was that of Eminem, who due to his battlerapping
past used the word “fag” repeatedly in his lyrics. He also had several tracks that seemed
to be openly hostile to gays, however this was obviously (to me anyway) simply against a
certain group of people he had a particularly bad experience with (see “I am Marshal
Mathers”). Since then he has gone to great lengths to show that he is not hostile to gays.
Aside from this incident, there have been few others, and many believe that the only
reason Eminem was targeted for criticism was because he was white.
The point of this paper was not to prove that art cannot be subject to ethical
criticism. That is a far bigger fish to fry. The point of this paper was to examine whether,
in either case, rap can be considered immoral art, based on guidelines given by each side.
As we can see, it is evident that rap is not immoral, but rather a legitimate form of art
with both artistic and moral value. As I have stated, most objections to it could be easily
cleared up if critics just took the time to listen and to understand the medium better.