Joseph Zitt wrote:
On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 16:49, Gavin Castleton wrote:
  
My comment wasn't unfounded.  Anticon has been virtually blacklisted
for their various attempts to steer hip hop into something more
abstract.  I'm not saying Anticon is good or bad, I'm saying that
their attempts are not welcome by the majority of the hip hop
community.  Perhaps it is because they're white.  There is a strong
distaste amongst hip hop creators for the idea of white people
abstracting an art form they recently abducted.
    

"virtually blacklisted"? Among the hip-hop aficionados that I know,
Anticon has all the buzz. But it might help that they're local.
Watch their previous collegues flee and disassociate themselves.  Slug, Sage, Grand Buffet... and few others with wacky names.  Yes, they still sell some albums to white college students.  And they're doing well in Europe.  But compared to someone like Aesop Rock, I believe they're floundering. 
I disagree that you could make that "tired accusation" about
any genre.  Purists are not nearly as prominent (please note,
I didn't say "Purists don't exist in any other American
music forms") in any other American music form as they are in
hip hop.
    

My experience differs. One thing I hear from almost any genre is a
disdain among the people who claim to be deeply into the music for
anyone who is getting well-known. Rock people diss Radiohead, jazz
people go after Matthew Shipp, electronica people slam Paul Oakenfold,
classical people hate, well, just anyone other than Maria Callas, and I
just had to endure a fifteen minute tirade from some bhangra purists
about Panjabi M.C.
I think you are very right - it is very hard for people to share a musician they think they raised.  But that's not a rebuttle to what I was saying.  I didn't say anything about garnering national attention and money (though hip hop purists generally frown on those that flaunt it) --- that's still considered an achievement.  I was talking about the white producers/mc's who try to alter the basic forms of hip hop MUSIC.  Scorn for white hip hoppers making money is another issue.

  
  You don't hear people getting angry at Radiohead for pushing rock in
a more electronic direction. 
    

Maybe *you* don't.
I hear Bends fans bitch about the lack of guitar in recent material.  But I don't hear anyone say anything about them "insulting the foundations of rock and roll."
  
 You don't hear anyone crying about what Rachels has done with
classical music... 
    

Classical people rarely have ever heard of Rachels.

  
the idea of a pop purist is hilarious. 
    

Oh yeah? Tell that to the person who ranted to me yesterday about how
Madonna has messed up the clarity of her music since "Ray of Light".
Who are you hanging out with?  Were they saying that Ray of Light was her last "clear" work?
  
For the record, yes, I listen to a lot of hip hop.  And I'm white. 
And having explored much of the US underground hip hop,  I find that
most producers that consider themselves makers of hip hop are
constantly segregated into sister genres like "trip hop,"
"electronica" and "drum n bass." 
    

And then there's symphonic progressive rock, RIO progressive rock,
metal, death metal, thrash metal, and the like. In what sense is it
unusual that a genre contains subsets?
I think in most cases the musician WANTS to spearhead a subset or new genre.  But in hip hop, I think it is less the desire of the producer and more the segregating effort of the purists.  I wouldn't dare say that hip hop is the only music form with subsects.  That would be dumb.