I totally agree with you on this, I was never trying to imply that hip hop's just music for dancing to or whatever. and I know that music with a message that's more well thought out is objectively "better" and I do listen to it and enjoy it, but there is a time and place for everything and I don't think all music should have to be deep to be considered good. mostly I just don't think people should be so quick to judge based on how popular something is, even artists who come out with shallow radio rap at times can still be capable of something beyond that.
I think the issue is just that, as Zarathustra was pointing out, over time there's been an increasingly cynical quality to the way that mainstream artist and labels have approached the music.
The thing that makes me alright with Sugarhill Gang and not with the idea of some of these rappers that are out there today is the fact that Sugarhill Gang made good music and happened to blow up as a result, whereas these artist that are out there now are basically manufactured to blow up. The music is completely incidental to the profit. So I disagree pretty strongly with what I bolded. I don't expect my Big Mac to be a filet mignon; I don't expect Drake to be Dre. Drake, like a Big Mac, is enjoyable, but completely lacks credibility in terms of substance.
On the other hand, though, there's a part of me that kind of looks at the shape of things, and is pretty fuckin alright with it. I mean, the fact that hip hop went from some shit some kids in Brooklyn were rollin with to the such a big part of the culture as a whole is incredible. That the real game is that you have men like Dre and Jay-Z who were able to take hip hop, sell it to the suburbs, and build fuckin empires out of it. That maybe there'd be no Barry without Diddy coming first.
I might be goin a little far with it there, but you get my point. Anyways.