cobl04
45:33
But then how are we to judge music that fails to take a stance on matters of social import, either explicitly through its lyricism or indirectly through its popularity within larger movements? Where is the space for heralding sonic innovation that doesn't fall into line with the moral zeitgeist?
Underscoring this point is the lack of instrumental music on this list: jazz, IDM, modern classical, etc. Where does an album like Selected Ambient Works 85-92, Music Has the Right to Children, Another Green World, hell, even Loveless find its place in a canon built around pop stars, preachers and poets?
Totally get where you're coming from. It's literally an impossible and I would argue futile task. Art is subjective, and this is an exercise in trying to make it objective.
I don't really care about where this album or that artist places on these types of lists, that's all subjective, what bothers me more is the methodology. Like I said, of course I support more diversity, but when such a significant part of your judgement of music is based on its social relevance, what that means is that you're putting faaaaar too much weight on the lyrical content and nowhere near enough weight on the musical content.
Music before lyrics. Always. No exceptions. Anything else is wrong. Diversity is so important, social relevance too, but we can't let those become such focal points that we stop actually judging the MUSIC itself - not the words, the music.
And I cannot buy Drake being important or influential. Honestly, the reactions I've seen to Drake, both in my real life and online, have more often been that he's a joke rather than an important artist. I mean even if we're using this lyrics-first methodology, he's not more important than Tupac. No one will be talking about him in 25 years the way we still talk about Tupac.
But again, I've never really listened to him because what little I've heard suggested I wouldn't get anything out of it.
I think this is very simplistic. No one is looking only at the lyrics, divorced from the music. They go hand in hand. Otherwise poetry would be included. Lyrics are words, the music brings them to life. The social relevance absolutely includes the music. "Alright" wouldn't have become an anthem in 2015-16 if it wasn't a song.
And that's your opinion on Drake. But if you can't look at the landscape and see that he is important and influential, I don't know what to tell you. The fact that he is a meme/joke is proof positive of his importance and influence. There are still Hotline Bling memes doing the rounds five years on from its release. Personally, I'm with you, I don't like him much at all, don't think he's a great lyricist, or singer, or rapper, but to suggest he's not incredibly important or influential is silly.
Take a look at this clip. The kids have literally got a Tupac poster on their wall, and they didn't even know California Love. But they know Drake inside and out.
Whether we think Drake is as good as Tupac or Marvin Gaye or The Beatles or Joni Mitchell or whoever doesn't matter. I would argue that if publications are going to attempt to make an objective list, they have to include modern context, and that means rating Drake highly.