zondag 13 december 2015

 Disney rap
Controlling the Creative Output


One of the often heard critiques of modern times is that the information we receive is highly influenced and dominated by ‘the media’: they not only decide which messages we receive, but also which sides of the stories we see and how identities of the personalities that are broadcast by these corporations are represented. The critical point we would like to raise in this essay, is that the media industries – by which we mean the corporations that own the media – tend to control the creative output and images that we as both deliberate and accidental consumers perceive. It is interesting to imagine what would happen if a certain risqué cultural element would be usurped by a corporation that from then on would decide the presentation of the former risqué element. For instance, we could imagine a record label that produces the Parental Advisory: Explicit Content-sticker approved music of a gangster-rapper. Then, the record label gets bought by Walt Disney, one of the big five media conglomerates and becomes a subdivision that has to produce music in accordance with the Walt Disney seal of approval. As a consequence, one expects that identity and cultural expression will become compromised. Or as cultural scholars Havens, Lotz and Tunic put it, media are ‘both a site of artistic and social expression as well as a business concerned with the maximization of markets and profits.’[1] Fenton puts it even more eloquently:

Having power in or control over media is argued to impact upon the capacity to determine or influence the contents of the media products and meaning carried by them. This has grown out of a strictly Marxist perspective which states that the class which has the means of material production at its disposal has control, at the same time, over the means of mental production.[2]

Even though material production subsequently controls and maybe even erodes mental production or capacity, the important thing to point out here is that, on account of Hesmondalgh, the political economy is not monolithic; subgenres exist within.[3] The question remains if these subgenres all cater to one overruling norm issued by behemoth corporations or that they do actually have some form of independency. An interesting example is the career of actor and musician Will Smith. Smith started out as a rapper, mainly in collaboration with DJ Jazzy Jeff, then gained worldwide fame with the sitcom The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air (NBC, 1990-1996). The peculiar thing about Smith is that, within the hip-hop discourse, he has been and remains practically the only hip-hop artist (of that magnitude) that has a reputation that is not based on what most hip-hop reputations are based on: violence, profanity, sex, drugs, living life on the edge, living in the projects et cetera. On his first solo record, Big Willie Style (1997), not one curse word is uttered; instead the album contains radio-friendly hits such as ‘Gettin’ Jiggy wit It’, ‘Miami’, ‘Men in Black’ and a couple of love songs that hinge on R&B. Very safe, one might say. When we look at Smith’s filmography, there is not one film that even seems to go slightly beyond stereotypical American pop culture entertainment. The films that may contain some risqué elements like Bad Boys (1995) or Independence Day (1996) have a dominant comedic tone or they feature Smith as a world savior. He only seems to show morally dubious behavior as the adulterous Muhammad Ali in Ali (2001), but that behavior is excused by virtue of the fact that Ali is often cited as the greatest boxer of all time. In a culture where most stars seem to want to get rid of a certain Disney quality or Disney past (Miley Cyrus for instance), Smith has always seem to be okay with his family-friendly image.
     One might even say that Smith, with his rap music that doesn’t conform to today’s standards or to any hip-hop norms from any age in particular, is an outsider within a certain rigid cultural structure, and is therefore an interesting case study. In Fenton’s words: ‘to focus largely or exclusively on the structure and content of media messages and attempt to read off the impact of these messages cannot possibly interrogate the consequences of mediated culture.’[4] Within every structure, there are dissonants. The hip-hop hegemony of rugged lyrics, explicit content gets, in a way, violated by Smith, something the rapper Eminem reprimanded him for, in a lyrically explicit way, thereby consciously or unconsciously punctuating the function of mass media within a ‘larger sociological perspective of culture, social structure and social groups.’[5] Dialectics come into fruition when Eminem raps in ‘The Real Slim Shady’: ‘Will Smith don't gotta cuss in his raps to sell records, well I do, so (expletive) him and (expletive) you too.’[6] The different way in which Smith and the corporations that he is a part of organize their cultural production, has a traceable consequence (in this case in the form of a dialectics that implicitly questions the essence or norms of hip-hop) for the discourse and representation in the public domain and what listeners (choose to) consume: the so-called ‘hardcore’ hip-hop of a rapper like Eminem or the ‘Disneyfied’ hip-hop of Smith.[7] Sterne underscores this when he writes that:

For scholars interested in music as a media industries issue, our first analytical step must be a simple subtraction. When we go looking for unity inside a music industry, we should instead assume a polymorphous set of relations among radically different industries and concerns, especially when we analyze economic activity around or through music.[8]

So, in conclusion, one could say, hardened cultural structures soften or erode (or harden again, since 2005 was the last release of a Will Smith album) and culture-creating practices are fluid; within the hip-hop spectrum two almost opposite poles can exist; or they go in dialogue with each other via their respective cultural artifacts, thereby establishing at least an illusion of a critical political economy, uncovering what cultural scholars Krämer and Bredekamp call ‘silent processes of knowledge’, which we have tried to exemplify in this article.[9]



Proposition
The Disneyfication of certain segments of cultural production launches new modes of cultural production and is therefore desirable.

A. vd B., V. M., J. P. 

Bibliography

Timothy Havens, Aamanda D. Lotz & Serra Tinic (2009), ‘Critical Media Industry Studies: A Research Approach’, in: Communication, Culture & Critique 2, pp. 234-253.

Sybille Krämer & Horst Bredekamp (2013), ‘Culture, Technology, Cultural Techniques – Moving Beyond Text’, in: Theory, Culture & Society 30 (6), pp. 20-29.

Natalie Fenton (2007), ‘Bridging the Mythical Divide: Political Economy and Cultural Studies Approaches to the Analysis of the Media', in: Eoin Devereux (ed.), Media Studies: Key Issues and Debates. London: SAGE, pp. 7-31.

Jonathan Sterne (2014), ‘There Is No Music Industry’, in: Media Industries Journal 1 (1), pp. 50-55.

Discography

‘The Real Slim Shady’. Eminem (Marshall Mathers). The Marshall Mathers LP. Santa Monica, New York: Aftermath, Interscope, Shady, Goliath. 2000.

Will Smith. Big Willie Style. New York: Columbia. 1997.










[1] Havens, Lotz & Tunic 2009: 249.
[2] Fenton 2007: 11-12.
[3] Fenton 2007: 13.
[4] Fenton 2007: 25-26.
[5] Fenton 2007: 25-27.
[6] Mathers 2000: ‘The Real Slim Shady’.
[7] Fenton 2007: 11.
[8] Sterne 2014: 53.
[9] Krämer & Bredekamp 2013: 23.

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten