Underground Hip Hop

In_tuition

Anyone here into the underground hip hop scene?

Been crazy about Snowgoons for the past 2 years, everything they touch seems to deliver. Dropping their 3rd album before the end of the year. Reef the Lost Cauze, Viro the Virus, Edo.G, Sicknature, Savage Bros, Brainstorm are some of the artists they've produced with. They are unique in every way, true masters of underground hip hop. Not sure if many of you round here have heard them, never seen them mentioned, check em out..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA0OHmZSjmA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BF7TrKLC1I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCtYyUp2dR8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOsR57OXIZc

Neamhshuntasach

Been into the underground hip hop scene way before Snowgoons came together. I wouldn't call them unique. You can tell they've been influenced by Primo, stoupe, some Wu Tang producers and some others. You can hear their sounds coming out on some tracks. Nothing really new. The production on the first album was okay but they stepped up their game on Black Snow. They're enjoyable albums to listen to. Some really great guest appearances and looking forward to the new album.

marko91

ive listened to the top video and i like it ill check out the rest later on...if i like ill have a download of thir albums:D

floggg

what exactly is underground? how is it defined?

I always gathered underground was just people who haven't really sold many records. once they did, they ceased to be overground and went "commercial". i don't think its a genre or a particular style - in fact, the underground encompasses all styles of hip-hop.

so does it really matter what label you put on it? listen to it because you enjoy it, not because nobody else has heard of them!

and for the record, i want all the artists i like to sell 10 million records - if i feel they put out great music, i would like for them to receive the recognition and reward they deserve

Neamhshuntasach

floggg wrote: »

what exactly is underground? how is it defined?

I always gathered underground was just people who haven't really sold many records. once they did, they ceased to be overground and went "commercial". i don't think its a genre or a particular style - in fact, the underground encompasses all styles of hip-hop.

so does it really matter what label you put on it? listen to it because you enjoy it, not because nobody else has heard of them!

and for the record, i want all the artists i like to sell 10 million records - if i feel they put out great music, i would like for them to receive the recognition and reward they deserve

Underground is just the term coined to reference independent artists or music produced through independent labels. While there is no distinct sound to it or universal cohesive standards it is by and large different from the more commercial and mainstream hip hop you hear on the radio or MTV. To me it is music made by the artist for not only the fans. But the artist too. There are so many mainstream labels that dictate how a certain percentage of tracks on an album must sound, feature or be about. There are some major label rappers that have full creative control and others who wish they did. But the fact remains that a lot don't. So i use the term underground to distinguish that difference between the two which to me is an important one. I like the experimentation with beats, the politicization of lyrics, the more socially conscious and positive approach which encompasses more than just the MCing aspect of hip hop. To me that is what underground hip hop is. I'm not saying that's the true definition of it. That's just how i label it.

And i'm not saying i listen to hip hop based on labels. I apply them after listening. I listen to countless new albums every week from the local person small city person to the latest Def Jux release. But it's the label i apply to them for myself which determines whether i'll ever listen to it again.

floggg

Neamhshuntasach wrote: »

Underground is just the term coined to reference independent artists or music produced through independent labels. While there is no distinct sound to it or universal cohesive standards it is by and large different from the more commercial and mainstream hip hop you hear on the radio or MTV. To me it is music made by the artist for not only the fans. But the artist too. There are so many mainstream labels that dictate how a certain percentage of tracks on an album must sound, feature or be about. There are some major label rappers that have full creative control and others who wish they did. But the fact remains that a lot don't. So i use the term underground to distinguish that difference between the two which to me is an important one. I like the experimentation with beats, the politicization of lyrics, the more socially conscious and positive approach which encompasses more than just the MCing aspect of hip hop. To me that is what underground hip hop is. I'm not saying that's the true definition of it. That's just how i label it.

And i'm not saying i listen to hip hop based on labels. I apply them after listening. I listen to countless new albums every week from the local person small city person to the latest Def Jux release. But it's the label i apply to them for myself which determines whether i'll ever listen to it again.

I get what you are saying, and you put it across quiet well.

However, i still don't agree with defining music by reference to this terms "underground" - its just too artificial and lacking in meaning to be of any relevance.

For example, you use a reference to whether or not an artist is on an independent label or not to determine whether or not they fall into this category of underground - however, this in reality bears no relevance or correlation to the style of music in question.

However, when you look at the various rappers on independent or major labels, you see it doesn't stack up. For example, Lil Jon is synonymous with southern commerical hip-hop as the king of crunk music, selling over two million copies of the kings of crunk and over one million copies of crunk juice, receiving massive radio and media attention in the process. he uses big bass heavy beats, and repititive hooks and choruses, with lyrics that glorify violence and crime and degrade women. Hardly what you would call underground, yet he has been on independent labels all his life.

On the other hand, lupe fiasco is on a major label. has been from his first album. yet he ticks all the other boxes for underground. he's positive, socially conscious, original, creative, and he definitely makes music for himself - he's on a major label, yet his first two singles were about skateboarding and robots!

If you try to define it by content, you will also see the fallacy of the term. Artists like common, talib kweli, lupe fiasco, and even nas have all been signed to major labels for most if not all of their careers, seeing good sales, reasonable airplay and promotional opportunities. the have collaborated with major and commerical hip-hop and rnb artists, received acting opportunities, and graced mtv and bet countless times.

Yet these artists are all considered to be champions of positive hip-hop,to be creative, original, political, socially conscious, and certainly in the case of nas and common seem to hate absolute creative freedom, with nas creating provactive and confrontational albums like the ****** album and hip-hop is dead, and unconventional and political collaborations with damian marley, and common insisting on trying to make an electro hip-hop album even though he's failed miserably and commercially at both attempts.

Can these be considered underground even though they are on major labels, and collobrate with pop stars (black eyed peas, kanye west, justin timberlake)? But how can they not be considered underground given their concept.

On the other hand, there are plenty of underground artists who on the otherside of things engage in violent lyrics, misogyny, and glorification of drugs. E.g. the first video link posted below with reef the lost cause and snowgoons. are they disqualified from being underground?

Also, how do you deal with artists who move through these categorizations at various times throughout their career without their sound or style ever changing. Eg, Xzibit was considered underground when he dropped 40 days and 40 nights. then he hooks up with dr dre, and next thing he's pimping rides. His production may have changed (having access to the aftermath team for the first time) but his content didn't change radically between restless and 40 days and 40 nights. Did he cease to be underground? Bt what about now, he's been dropped, he's off mtv and he's back to square one! is he underground again?

Talib kweli - started on rawkus, the mecca for so called underground artists. yet now he's doing collabo's with justin timberlake! how do you classify him?

Murs was a champion of the so called underground for years, with positive lyrics, creative albums and concepts, a social conscious and experimental beats and production at times, even spending some years on def jux. However, he subsequently signed a major record deal with warner (although subsequently dropped), although his musical content didn't chance (got a little too positive if anything) nor did he see signficant radio play - is he now not underground? similarly little brother.

See my point?

I just don't think there is any point using these labels when they mean nothing whatsoever. the only thing you can really use to define it is radio play and album sales.

People are too quick to say that commercially successful artists are only concerned by radio play and sales, and blame it for the downfall of hip-hop, yet can't see the irony in using those same characteristics to define the people who are allegedly the last bastion of real hip-hop!

Makaveli

Conscious rap and mainstream rap are not mutually exclusive though.

You're right being independant has little to do with being underground. Your Murs example is a good one for going the other way as even though he signed to a major his name was still relatively unknown on a worldwide scale. It's almost more a case of who you associate yourself with rather than who you're signed with.

Where as underground used to mean something 10 years ago that's not so much the case any more because the internet has brought mass exposure to the genre and to music in general. It doesn't take much digging these days to find music that suits the style you're looking for. 15 years ago the majority of Hip-Hop was still relatively underground, it's a different beast now.

Snowgoons are underground in the same way Aesop Rock and Jedi Mind Tricks are. They lack mass appeal. That's not to say they're not as good as mainstream acts they're just more niche. On the flip of that it's wrong to say that they're better than mainstream artists because they're "underground".

That's got nothing to do with your post floggg just another bit added on in relation to the thread.

horsebox09

Some good posts in here, to be honest i just classed underground hip hop as hip hop that doesn't set out to appeal on a mass scale or let their record labels control what they rap about, kool keith and the def jux label (especially in it's early days) are examples of this.

Underground rappers are also usually non existent to people who listen to hip hop thats mainly played on the radio, as they usually have little/no commercial appeal.
The term is used very loosely these days though.

Neamhshuntasach

With the first sentence i didn't mean that i see it as independent vs major. Just what is generally accepted as the definition. While i don't agree with that definition i do agree that the term underground doesn't hold as much relevance as it did say 10-12 years ago.

The first hip hop album i ever heard was Overcast by Atmosphere back in 1997. It was around a time when i didn't really know which genre of music i liked until i came across this by way of my American cousin from Minneapolis. This opened up a world of music new and old for me. And because i had a lot of catching up to do and also checking out new stuff at the time. I was hit with all different styles. So i matured on hip hop at a stage when underground was the buzz word. Rawkus, Rhymesayers, Def Jux, Eastern Conference, etc were in their hay day. While all the artists i listened to weren't identical in style or even sharing same lyrical content. I did notice that it was different from the likes of 2pac, BIG, Busta Rhymes, DMX, Jay Z or anybody else who was out at the time. The lyrics were different, the content, the beats more experimental and there was a bigger influence of other genres in it such as jazz and rock. I suppose the correct term would be alternative. But underground became a term synonymous with the likes of Co Flo, Aesop, Atmosphere, Del, JMT, etc. And it's that evolved sound that i refer to as what i call underground. I don't look at what label is releasing it.

I laregly agree with what you are saying as i don't see there being set standards or boxes you need to check for it to be underground or mainstream. I guess to break it down in relative terms, underground is more about the sound or vibe and not the artist to me. Talib, Common, Mos Def seemed to change the more known they got. So much to a point that i haven't liked any of their new stuff that much. With the exception of Be. Also Murs for president contained tracks that never would have made it on any of his previous work. Not because of who they featured. Just the beat selection and some of the content. He was more similar to his previous work on the tracks produced by 9th. If he had of sold that album out of the car himself and never had it distributed by a major i still wouldn't class that album of having the underground sound that got me into hip hop. Because to me it changed. I only listened to everything from murs again from earliest to latest last week and it's my least favorite album from him. So just like your Xzibit example, i can still use the term underground as i apply it to the album rather than the person. So it doesn't matter what labels they jump around from to me. Although to some people it does. I mean i couldn't care less if Blue Scholars signed to UMG and released albums similar to previous work. I'd still class it as underground.

floggg

Neamhshuntasach wrote: »

With the first sentence i didn't mean that i see it as independent vs major. Just what is generally accepted as the definition. While i don't agree with that definition i do agree that the term underground doesn't hold as much relevance as it did say 10-12 years ago.

The first hip hop album i ever heard was Overcast by Atmosphere back in 1997. It was around a time when i didn't really know which genre of music i liked until i came across this by way of my American cousin from Minneapolis. This opened up a world of music new and old for me. And because i had a lot of catching up to do and also checking out new stuff at the time. I was hit with all different styles. So i matured on hip hop at a stage when underground was the buzz word. Rawkus, Rhymesayers, Def Jux, Eastern Conference, etc were in their hay day. While all the artists i listened to weren't identical in style or even sharing same lyrical content. I did notice that it was different from the likes of 2pac, BIG, Busta Rhymes, DMX, Jay Z or anybody else who was out at the time. The lyrics were different, the content, the beats more experimental and there was a bigger influence of other genres in it such as jazz and rock. I suppose the correct term would be alternative. But underground became a term synonymous with the likes of Co Flo, Aesop, Atmosphere, Del, JMT, etc. And it's that evolved sound that i refer to as what i call underground. I don't look at what label is releasing it.

I laregly agree with what you are saying as i don't see there being set standards or boxes you need to check for it to be underground or mainstream. I guess to break it down in relative terms, underground is more about the sound or vibe and not the artist to me. Talib, Common, Mos Def seemed to change the more known they got. So much to a point that i haven't liked any of their new stuff that much. With the exception of Be. Also Murs for president contained tracks that never would have made it on any of his previous work. Not because of who they featured. Just the beat selection and some of the content. He was more similar to his previous work on the tracks produced by 9th. If he had of sold that album out of the car himself and never had it distributed by a major i still wouldn't class that album of having the underground sound that got me into hip hop. Because to me it changed. I only listened to everything from murs again from earliest to latest last week and it's my least favorite album from him. So just like your Xzibit example, i can still use the term underground as i apply it to the album rather than the person. So it doesn't matter what labels they jump around from to me. Although to some people it does. I mean i couldn't care less if Blue Scholars signed to UMG and released albums similar to previous work. I'd still class it as underground.

Not trying to break balls here or anything, but just to pick up on two examples you gave.

In terms of Mos Def, if anything, he has gotten more abstract and more out there since blackstar and black on both sides. It hasn't resulted in more quality, but he is definitely more underground in recent years than ever before.

As for Murs, i think its funny that you say that, because i saw a good interview with him last year where he talked about how Murs for President was actually the first real "Murs" records with a "Murs" sound. He basically said that prior to this, he had either being working with a def jux sound, or a rhymesayers sound, or a justus leauge sound, and that consequently he had never felt that he had developed his own fan base, he had just sold into others. This was the first record where he was basically working with who he wanted, and picking the beats he wanted, and it really represented his sound for the first time. Which ties into your previous comments about creative freedom.

Also, personally i loved 9th wonder back in the day of LB, but i think recently his work is becoming far too formulaic, starting with the formula and sweet lord, and i think that continued into murs for president with songs like love and appreciate 2 and breakthorugh.

Also, in terms of atmosphere, they have said that they have been courted by major labels, but feel it is not for them. While you might say, it reinforces your point about them being authentically being underground, it also shows how any sound is capable of being major label if given backing. if atmosphere were signed and marketed right, a couple of lower/middle class white guys who rhyme about typical white guy stuff could very well make it more than moderately successful stateside.

I just don't think you can define an underground sound. In know you gave the blue scholars example, but chances are if they blew, you wouldn't consider them underground. If you can't define a "genre" by reference to style and content, but only by reference to specific artists and sales, its not really a genre, just a personal preference.

For example, a couple of years ago, Kid Cudi would have been considered underground - a weird emotional depressive type rapper with trippy sounds (haven't listened to the album, just my impressions) - but now he is being lumped in with whats wrong with hip-hop by some, and definitely identified as being somewhat commercial. Again, that definition is not by reference to his sound, just by reference to the signature on his pay checks.

Don't get me wrong, most of my favourite artists would be classified as "underground," and i have nothing as such against the term. I just don't agree with all this division that is being created within hip-hop, on all sides, whether by fans of cash money or of rhymesayers. Hip-hop is just hip-hop, and i don't discriminate.

other than kanye, i really can't see much difference between the G.O.O.D music roster and the rhymesayers roster other than major label backing. and up to his last auto-tune album, kanye's content wasn't half bad, and he wasn't exactly jim jones in terms of content.

I just think people should just learn to appreciate an artist for the music they put out, not who they hang out with or who cuts their cheque. i think the sooner everybody gets over labels and image the better.

Neamhshuntasach

I don't see labels as a bad thing in this circumstance. Without the label of underground or i would probably never have discovered half of the artists i listen to now. If everything was just classified as hip hop and there were no sub genres or labels to seperate different styles or approaches. Well then it would have been more difficult to come across someone like Hezekiah, illogic, Tonedeff, Aesop, Elemental Zazen or even Immortal Technique. The underground vs mainstream saga created a breeding ground for artists without a major carrier to gain recognition within the genre. The fact that i can seperate the two created a smaller pool to find artists i relate to more. It doesn't really matter if there are or are not any grounds for the seperation. It's that it is possible which allowed myself and i'm sure others to discover such artists and gave them some form of success that they probably otherwise never would have obtained. It created two different markets. And this can be applied to any other sub genres within hip hop or indeed any other genre of music. There are always going to be divisions. And compared to some other genres hip hop gets away lightly with having just a handful.

If someone asked me my top 5 albums for this year i think i'd have to make 2 seperate lists. One which would include Days chasing days or Troubador on it and another with OB4CL2 on it. I just appreciate them in different ways.

floggg

Neamhshuntasach wrote: »

I don't see labels as a bad thing in this circumstance. Without the label of underground or i would probably never have discovered half of the artists i listen to now. If everything was just classified as hip hop and there were no sub genres or labels to seperate different styles or approaches. Well then it would have been more difficult to come across someone like Hezekiah, illogic, Tonedeff, Aesop, Elemental Zazen or even Immortal Technique. The underground vs mainstream saga created a breeding ground for artists without a major carrier to gain recognition within the genre. The fact that i can seperate the two created a smaller pool to find artists i relate to more. It doesn't really matter if there are or are not any grounds for the seperation. It's that it is possible which allowed myself and i'm sure others to discover such artists and gave them some form of success that they probably otherwise never would have obtained. It created two different markets. And this can be applied to any other sub genres within hip hop or indeed any other genre of music. There are always going to be divisions. And compared to some other genres hip hop gets away lightly with having just a handful.

If someone asked me my top 5 albums for this year i think i'd have to make 2 seperate lists. One which would include Days chasing days or Troubador on it and another with OB4CL2 on it. I just appreciate them in different ways.

See this is why i take issue with labels such as underground or people getting obsessed with radio play - people tend to create this artificial distinctions and then base their tastes around it, preferring one form or excluding an other based on these artificial distinctions.

far to many people base their tastes in music off perceptions not talent - how they perceive something and how they think others perceive it. people give something more priority or are more willing to embrace it because others have applied a certain term.

how does the term underground help you discover new artists? there is no underground section in hmv. nor is there any such section on amazon or itunes! and i doubt there is on the pirate bay either.

most hip-hop publications or websites i've seen don't discriminate either when it comes to reviews - they just review the artist and his output, and let you then draw your own conclusions. sure, the might refer to one's underground status, but thats within the review - you've already clicked into it to find out, so at that stage you should be capable of reading the whole review and drawing your conclusions off that.

we've already determined that there is no clear cut distinction between underground and overground in terms of sound, styles, lyrics, content or even artists.

so to see that that label helped you discover the artist suggests you gave something preference just because somebody somewhere called it underground. which is silly, because it means you miss out on many albums which might not necessarily fit neatly into a box, but can still be a superior product.

Also, on what basis do you consider OBFCLII and Troubador cannot be included in the same best of list. that is just silliness right there! there is so much wrong with that statement. to say that neither are comparable or to suggest they cannot be equals, is saying that they are not worthy of being judged by the same criteria, and thus one is lesser and not up to the par of the other.

so what they have somewhat different styles - thats a good thing. by putting people into these artificial boxes, you are forcing artists to try and "conform" to expectations, whether it be the major label artists being forced to try and cater to the southern or female markets, or certain "underground" artists being unable to move away from a certain sound or style for fear of being accused of selling out, or turning their back on their fan base.

People always give out about the black eyed peas going from underground to commercial. yet if people just let them be hip-hop artists, maybe they wouldn't have had to burst out of their box to try and get some exposure.

Neamhshuntasach

floggg wrote: »

See this is why i take issue with labels such as underground or people getting obsessed with radio play - people tend to create this artificial distinctions and then base their tastes around it, preferring one form or excluding an other based on these artificial distinctions.

Artificial or not. Taste is taste. I find it hard to imagine most people liking an album but forcing themselves to hate it because it doesn't fall within the boundaries of a label they apply to it. Yes i use the term underground, and yes i have searched out artists with this label applied to them. But it doesn't stop there. For example i have listened to and liked Ludacris and Jadakiss albums.

floggg wrote: »

far to many people base their tastes in music off perceptions not talent - how they perceive something and how they think others perceive it. people give something more priority or are more willing to embrace it because others have applied a certain term.

Well most things in life are like that. It's how most things are marketed whether it's a rapper or a washing machine. I don't agree with it as i don't do it. There is no way i will force myself to like something because 100,000 thousand others do.

floggg wrote: »

how does the term underground help you discover new artists? there is no underground section in hmv. nor is there any such section on amazon or itunes! and i doubt there is on the pirate bay either.

It doesn't have to be the word underground. That's just a container word. Replace it with whatever you want. If you have one whole entity and it is broken into 2 different sub entities it creates 2 pools to select from. Sure sometimes the dividing line is very thin and both sub entities cross said line. But in a lot of cases there is a difference between mainstream and non mainstream. While there is no standard you can't tell me there isn't a difference between Mr. Lif and Benzino. Yes that's just one example and an extreme one. But it's just one of many. I'm sure you could provide examples of the opposite. But none the less they are examples of differences within the genre. So if i want to look up new non mainstream artists i have a smaller pool for which to search. Rather than the entire roster of hip hop artists.

And yes it has helped me find new artists. A simple search in google over the years has helped me discover loads. Some only managed one album release while others are still releasing albums. I don't buy albums in HMV, Amazon or itunes. Most of my albums were bought in the US. Where specialty underground stores do exist and some of the bigger ones even seperate them. Hell there was even a few in Dublin in temple bar. And there are plenty of sites that cater to non mainstream artists with downloads.

floggg wrote: »

most hip-hop publications or websites i've seen don't discriminate either when it comes to reviews - they just review the artist and his output, and let you then draw your own conclusions. sure, the might refer to one's underground status, but thats within the review - you've already clicked into it to find out, so at that stage you should be capable of reading the whole review and drawing your conclusions off that.

I don't read album reviews. I review them myself by listening to them. I'll download an album. If i like it and it's easy enough to buy i'll buy it.

floggg wrote: »

so to see that that label helped you discover the artist suggests you gave something preference just because somebody somewhere called it underground. which is silly, because it means you miss out on many albums which might not necessarily fit neatly into a box, but can still be a superior product.

But the thing is i don't miss out an many albums. I have probably listened to every major hip hop release this year. And countless number of non mainstream and independent releases. While the term underground helps me to root out certain artists or albums, it doesn't determine whether i like it or not. I have wrote poetry all my life, i'm political, i've produced music, i play instruments. So if i want to listen to something that reflects that, more often than not the album turns out to be 'underground'. If Sony released an album that had all that i wouldn't discriminate. But if i want to listen to something a big more aggressive with harder beats and less metaphors, or gangsta type lyrics or something the equivalent of watching an action film. More often than not, the album turns out to be released by a major. But if a non major carrier had that. Well then i'll listen to that. For example i re-listened to The Blaqprint today. Gangsta type lyrics on an independent label.

floggg wrote: »

Also, on what basis do you consider OBFCLII and Troubador cannot be included in the same best of list. that is just silliness right there! there is so much wrong with that statement. to say that neither are comparable or to suggest they cannot be equals, is saying that they are not worthy of being judged by the same criteria, and thus one is lesser and not up to the par of the other.

so what they have somewhat different styles - thats a good thing. by putting people into these artificial boxes, you are forcing artists to try and "conform" to expectations, whether it be the major label artists being forced to try and cater to the southern or female markets, or certain "underground" artists being unable to move away from a certain sound or style for fear of being accused of selling out, or turning their back on their fan base.

You talk about perceiving earlier but yet you seem to perceive that i said all of the above when i said i'd have to make 2 lists. I never said they aren't comparable or that they can't be equals. I simply said i appreciate them in different ways. I'm sure there are plenty of people who can include them in the same list. If somebody put troubador and OBFCL2 in front of me 9/10 i'd pick troubador. I prefer that album because it is more my taste. It's what i chose to think is better because i listened to it and made a decision. Nobody else influenced me. The reason for the 2 lists is because i don't think it's fair on albums that i still consider good and only really listen to based on my mood to be excluded from one list. So i'd create 2 to cater for them. If that's silly or not appreciate different styles i guess i need to take a step back cause i ain't seeing how. I ain't forcing anything into conforming to an expectation. If an album is good and i like it i will listen to it and more than likely buy it regardless of the medium of how it was released.

In_tuition

Blue Scholar's are the finest hip-hop artists, end of, thread closed :pac:

Boom_Bap

New Snowgoons track featuring D-Stroy and FreeStyle from The Arsonists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_0QuG31DM4