Because US people are incredibly racially polarized and almost any topic is prime for it to be used as a leverage point to imbue their racial polarization on
How else do you hope to successfully continue to divide a populace that's so fed up that they're simultaneously ready to elect Donald Trump AND Bernie Sanders AND Ron Paul in the same generation, just to see who has a shot at stopping the carousel?
I always wonder with this point: who is doing the dividing? Do rich people coordinate on some scale like this? Is this done by powerful groups like “The Clinton’s” or well connected financiers? You could make an argument that all these groups could benefit from a distracted populace, but is there any reason to believe they actually actively seek to do so?
It looks more to me like a lot of rich people doing their own thing seeking profits, and the result for the rest of us just ends up crappy as a by product. Traditional media makes a ton of money from outrage, so they forment and spin outrage, not to divide Americans (except as a by product), but because it makes them so much money.
That’s exactly my point. He and others aren’t trying to divide Americans as some coordinated scheme to prevent revolution or something, they just make a lot of money from clickbait and outrage. It’s independent profit seeking division only as a byproduct
The conservatives have Fox News / Newsmax / OAN scaremongering, and profiting out of it, and the liberals have CNN, MSNBC, Teen Vogue and more, inducing moral panic about everything, race baiting and profiting out of it.
They are two sides of the same coin. There is no single entity creating this atmosphere, just a bunch of outlets amplifying the most radical voices, as normal news and balanced debate is boring and not that profitable.
This was the biggest culture shock I had when I visited. It instantly made me realise when my American mother left ASAP when she was old enough. Exhausting to live like that. What an unbelievable waste of brain cycles.
The author -- an asian female, I shouldn't say -- may herself believe the detail relevant because she believes the 70/30 deals struck by these white male micro-label owners are "exploitative."
It's not new but there's clearly a linguistic analogue of the music 'loudness wars' at play, in which we are losing all dynamic range in our language. Where terms previously used to describe people willing to unceremoniously lynch black folks or beat them to death and throw them off a bridge is now, for example, casually applied to millions of people working in an industry that has unbalanced hiring outcomes.
I think in the last decade, cultural norms in progressive circles have conditioned people to notice and point out when a community lacks racial / gender diversity. For instance, people will pay lip service to the cryptocurrency, AI, cybersecurity, FOSS communities (just to name a few) as being very "white and male" .
Just explaining why, I'm not making a normative claim here.
It's something that members of the "coastal urban elite" progressive circles like to say to affirm their allegiance to the group, without actually having to put in any effort in fixing the alleged issues beyond Twitter activism. It's a way to belong, without sacrificing much and making the purity spiral worse than it already is.
It's considered especially enlightened and tasteful when regularly repeated by a white male. Costs you nothing, makes you look good.
Good gracious, your attitude irritates me to no end. What on earth kind of omniscient insights do you have about these people that you can proclaim that their activism starts and ends with Twitter? And why do you seem to think it's impossible for a white male to genuinely believe that their position of privilege can and should be challenged?
Because the author, Cherie Hu, is softly bigoted against white men.
Per her Twitter, she views concentrations of white men in the music industry as "alarming" and "egregious." She encourages artists to boycott lineups where white men happen to comprise the majority of the artists. Her twitter replies, likes, and selective capitalization of white/Black indicate a strong ideological alignment.
Softly bigoted? She is blatantly racist and sexist against white men. If she made those same tweets but “white male” was replaced with “black female” it would be enough to get fired from most jobs.
It’s easier to replace the word “white” with “Jewish” since the arguments about disproportionate wealth and representation will still hold. Everyone knows that’s wrong, so I don’t know why they think white is any better.
Yes, but the British Empire was a thing, which is why "white" can be mocked and ridiculed in ways unimaginable to any other ethnicity. Science tells us so...
And I'd rather be mocked when compared to being oppressed and treated as second class citizens or slaves as other ethnic groups have by the British Empire.
Unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments will get you banned here. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting to HN, we'd be grateful.
That approach to white/Black capitalization is pretty standard, it's the same approach the Associated Press uses: https://apnews.com/article/9105661462
That style is not an industry consensus. For example, the Washington Post- not a conservative paper by any stretch of the imagination- capitalizes both terms, for the reasoning outlined here:
That's fair, maybe standard was too strong a description. However, following the AP Stylebook doesn't indicate a strong ideological alignment, at least to me.
The first statement in that AP link is ideological:
>AP’s style is now to capitalize Black in a racial, ethnic or cultural sense, conveying an essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa.
Africa is larger in both land area and population than Europe and the United States combined. Black Africa is a population of greater linguistic [0], religious [1], cultural [2], and genetic [3] diversity than the white populations of Europe or the US. To the extent that a unified black identity exists, a unified white identity most exist also. Inventing one demonym to cover all black peoples of Africa and America, but not one that covers white Americans and/or Europeans, is not a decision based on history or evidence. It is purely an ideological decision, made through a uniquely American lens.
"With more than 2,000 distinct languages, Africa has a third of the world's languages with less than a seventh of the world's population. By comparison, Europe, which has about an eighth of the world's population, has only about 300 languages."
"12 countries have a very high degree of religious diversity. Six of the 12 are in the Asia-Pacific region; five are in sub-Saharan Africa; and one is in Latin America and the Caribbean. No countries in Europe, North America or the Middle East-North Africa region have a very high degree of religious diversity as measured in this study."
"The usual suspects lead the list of culturally diverse countries: Chad, Cameroon, Nigeria, Togo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These and other African countries typically rank high on any diversity index because of their multitude of tribal groups and languages. The only western country to break into the top 20 most diverse is Canada."
"Until now, most studies examining genetic risk factors for disease have focused on Europe. Little has been known about Africa, the most genetically diverse region in the world."
It would be pretty easy to argue that the AP is practicing racism as well here. The article is pretty absurd as well. Their argument is they are not capitalising the word white because white people have not faced discrimination and it would legitimise white supremacy.
Without debating either of those points, how are they relevant to grammatical rules. The words are either proper nouns or they are not.
Please don't take HN threads straight into flamewar right off the bat.
Cherry-picking the detail you find most provocative and rushing to the comments to copy and complain about it is a recipe for poor-quality discussion. We're trying for better than that on HN. Especially in this case, where the provocation could not be more off topic. You should leave such things where you find them, not drag them in here and set them on fire. I'm sure that wasn't your intent—and really the upvoters do the greater part of the damage—but it is the effect nevertheless.
Of course it is. The topic is hip-hop livestreams, not race war. The article contained a phrase that some people found provocative—does that mean we should change the topic to the provocation and have a big argument about it? On HN, the answer is no. If you've read the site guidelines (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), that should be obvious.
When I happened on this thread, it had been upvoted to the top and was choking out all discussion on the smaller, more obscure topic. That's a failure mode for HN.
When an article contains a provocation, flamewars don't start themselves. Someone has to import the provocation into the thread and start reacting to it here. From an HN perspective, that's the original sin - not the provocation itself. If we just left it in its original habitat and ignored it, nothing bad would happen.
Online discussion tends to gravitate to the few hottest, angriest, and most repetitive themes. Something about the mind gets stuck on those and wants to repeat them over and over. This is exciting in one way but it's not interesting in HN's sense of the word. Therefore it's off topic here. Threads like this one should be like a spaceship traveling to a little-known planet that hasn't been visited much. For that, we need to steer clear of black holes.
I haven’t listened to Lo-Fi Hip-Hop or Chillhop and some of the other ones in the article, but how is it different than Trip Hop that’s been around for decades?
I’ve noticed a much heavier use of minor keys in trip hop than lofi or chill. Tempo might match, some of the techniques might match, but that minor key changes the feel entirely. Takes you right into that dark trippy place that I love so much.
Though they definitely share production methods and tone and meter, TripHop is traditionally used when the artist is being experimental with form and and tone, often within the confines of a single track. There might even be a structure resembling verses and choruses.
LoFi/Chillhop is more along the lines of Ambient, with much less overall variation of tone/structures during the track or between tracks.
I'm confused by your comment. Isn't the article stating that the musicians that created the genre (madlib, jaylib) are black American men, which is in direct contrast to the white Europeans running these channels? There are non white Europeans in Europe of course, so it seems interesting to me to hear that they are non black and non American.
What are you adding to that fact that makes you upset?
Edit: not sure why autocorrect turned jaylib into kaylin..
Nujabes kinda popularized the genre as well. It would be weird and unnecessarily racially charged if the author referred to him as a “yellow Japanese man.”
I mean, yes, but only because "yellow" has pejorative connotations that "white" and "black" don't have.
I don't see how saying "white European" is controversial. There are Black Europeans, Asian Europeans, etc., and the author is pointing out that these channels are not run by someone from those groups.
Now to be fair, if I find any part problematic it's the "European" bit; I assumed they meant "white Europeans from western Europe," which is what that phrase connotes to me, but the vagaries of referring to an entire continent are usually best avoided, I think.
It would blow an American blogger's mind to learn that you can live your whole life in certain parts of Eastern Europe and not see a single black person.
Boy you should really look into racism and ethnic violence in Europe, because I think you'd be shocked to learn that "black" and "white" DO actually mean things to Europeans. To be fair, Europe is a diverse place and I don't intend to paint with a broad brush; things are worse some places than others. But man, every time someone pops in and says "those are American problems" it makes me cringe.
Ethnic yes, but that includes lot of "violence" between whites of different nations. Swiss people look down on all surrounding "poorer" nations, Romanians vs Hungarians, etc.
> Isn't the article stating that the musicians that created the genre (madlib, kaylin) are black American men
No, the article isn't saying that, that's what makes the sentence cited by parent seem so gratuitous to a random reader like me.
(There is a section that mentions the names of some musicians who contributed to the genre, but without specifying their nationality or racial background).
PS It seems that the name Kaylin is not in the article.
Americans don't really get how each subrace, nationality, and clans in the Old World can hate each other and have alliance not based on skin color like they do in america (currently) but with more complex factors. See how neighboring South Slavs massacring each other only a generation ago, or East Asians currently, and of course in Africa proper.
Please don't take HN threads straight into flamewar right off the bat.
Cherry-picking the detail you find most provocative and rushing to the comments to copy and complain about it is a recipe for poor-quality discussion. We're trying for better than that on HN. Especially in this case, where the provocation could not be more off topic. You should leave such things where you find them, not drag them in here and set them on fire. I'm sure that wasn't your intent—and really the upvoters do the greater part of the damage—but it is the effect nevertheless.
> Facing paltry YouTube revenue, many lo-fi hip-hop channels have ventured beyond just curation and founded their own record labels, in order to build up a catalog that can be monetized elsewhere (e.g. on Spotify and Apple Music) in a more lucrative manner. Most of these labels sign non-exclusive deals with individual singles, rather than albums — meaning that artists can choose to release said singles with other labels as well, which can be useful for getting featured on several lo-fi compilations and mixes at once.
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the incentive driving artists to work with these record labels rather than self-publishing? Is it not possible to "self-publish" to Spotify and Apple Music without a record label? Is it strictly to increase exposure in the way mentioned in this paragraph, i.e. to have their music included in various mixes/albums from different labels?
Finally, what is the barrier to starting a record label that anyone would want anything to do with? I would (in my ignorance) think that an artist would have more leverage here, since they already belong to the community
While rent-collecting is a major problem in the music industry, this is a rather reductive statement.
Especially when it comes to more niche genres, such as lofi, a label can be a major help to increase name recognition for smaller artists just starting out, especially when said label allows such non-exclusive publishing deals and still offers the artists fair compensation. In this regard, they often serve as, essentially, incubators.
This is also a common way for much larger, more well-recognized artists within a niche to give back to the community, by providing their own name recognition to (or even starting) a relatively small label that launches other artists in similar genres, in spite of the fact that said label is less likely to give that artist in particular more value-add than another, larger one.
>Is it not possible to "self-publish" to Spotify and Apple Music without a record label?
Of course it's possible. Good luck getting any streams, though.
We're talking about "milennial muzak" here. It's consumed by playlist first, as background noise. For the most part certain artists don't merit their own solo fanbases.
In my opinion lo-fi is a different kind of music than traditional artist/album structure. It's not that I'm interested in a particular artist or album, I want to listen to a mood. Lofi provides that. I don't think that this is a unique phenomenon: look at the popularity of the Spotify artist, album, and song radio: those do the same thing, let me listen to more music that matches my current mood. I think that the difference for lofi is that by definition it's basically unoffensive background music (not a bad thing) so it gets called out a lot more as being unique from other types of music.
82 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 154 ms ] threadWhy should they say?
Why is race and gender so cheaply brought into everything, regardless if it has any relevancy?
It looks more to me like a lot of rich people doing their own thing seeking profits, and the result for the rest of us just ends up crappy as a by product. Traditional media makes a ton of money from outrage, so they forment and spin outrage, not to divide Americans (except as a by product), but because it makes them so much money.
They are two sides of the same coin. There is no single entity creating this atmosphere, just a bunch of outlets amplifying the most radical voices, as normal news and balanced debate is boring and not that profitable.
hip hop has a racial bias. I think that makes this somewhat relevant to note.
Just explaining why, I'm not making a normative claim here.
It's considered especially enlightened and tasteful when regularly repeated by a white male. Costs you nothing, makes you look good.
Per her Twitter, she views concentrations of white men in the music industry as "alarming" and "egregious." She encourages artists to boycott lineups where white men happen to comprise the majority of the artists. Her twitter replies, likes, and selective capitalization of white/Black indicate a strong ideological alignment.
https://twitter.com/cheriehu42/status/1267836435756978179
https://twitter.com/cheriehu42/status/1327347401368211456
https://twitter.com/cheriehu42/status/1267874338298003457
And I'd rather be mocked when compared to being oppressed and treated as second class citizens or slaves as other ethnic groups have by the British Empire.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/pr/2020/07/29/washington-post...
>AP’s style is now to capitalize Black in a racial, ethnic or cultural sense, conveying an essential and shared sense of history, identity and community among people who identify as Black, including those in the African diaspora and within Africa.
Africa is larger in both land area and population than Europe and the United States combined. Black Africa is a population of greater linguistic [0], religious [1], cultural [2], and genetic [3] diversity than the white populations of Europe or the US. To the extent that a unified black identity exists, a unified white identity most exist also. Inventing one demonym to cover all black peoples of Africa and America, but not one that covers white Americans and/or Europeans, is not a decision based on history or evidence. It is purely an ideological decision, made through a uniquely American lens.
[0] https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/Science-Notebook/2015/0421...
"With more than 2,000 distinct languages, Africa has a third of the world's languages with less than a seventh of the world's population. By comparison, Europe, which has about an eighth of the world's population, has only about 300 languages."
[1] https://www.pewforum.org/2014/04/04/global-religious-diversi...
"12 countries have a very high degree of religious diversity. Six of the 12 are in the Asia-Pacific region; five are in sub-Saharan Africa; and one is in Latin America and the Caribbean. No countries in Europe, North America or the Middle East-North Africa region have a very high degree of religious diversity as measured in this study."
[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/18/the-most-an...
"The usual suspects lead the list of culturally diverse countries: Chad, Cameroon, Nigeria, Togo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These and other African countries typically rank high on any diversity index because of their multitude of tribal groups and languages. The only western country to break into the top 20 most diverse is Canada."
[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30318291
"Until now, most studies examining genetic risk factors for disease have focused on Europe. Little has been known about Africa, the most genetically diverse region in the world."
Without debating either of those points, how are they relevant to grammatical rules. The words are either proper nouns or they are not.
Cherry-picking the detail you find most provocative and rushing to the comments to copy and complain about it is a recipe for poor-quality discussion. We're trying for better than that on HN. Especially in this case, where the provocation could not be more off topic. You should leave such things where you find them, not drag them in here and set them on fire. I'm sure that wasn't your intent—and really the upvoters do the greater part of the damage—but it is the effect nevertheless.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I also thought that comment felt very out of place in the article.
When I happened on this thread, it had been upvoted to the top and was choking out all discussion on the smaller, more obscure topic. That's a failure mode for HN.
When an article contains a provocation, flamewars don't start themselves. Someone has to import the provocation into the thread and start reacting to it here. From an HN perspective, that's the original sin - not the provocation itself. If we just left it in its original habitat and ignored it, nothing bad would happen.
Online discussion tends to gravitate to the few hottest, angriest, and most repetitive themes. Something about the mind gets stuck on those and wants to repeat them over and over. This is exciting in one way but it's not interesting in HN's sense of the word. Therefore it's off topic here. Threads like this one should be like a spaceship traveling to a little-known planet that hasn't been visited much. For that, we need to steer clear of black holes.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
LoFi/Chillhop is more along the lines of Ambient, with much less overall variation of tone/structures during the track or between tracks.
what kind of perspective adds this? there's no such thing as "white European" in Europe. This is an Americanism
What are you adding to that fact that makes you upset?
Edit: not sure why autocorrect turned jaylib into kaylin..
I don't see how saying "white European" is controversial. There are Black Europeans, Asian Europeans, etc., and the author is pointing out that these channels are not run by someone from those groups.
Now to be fair, if I find any part problematic it's the "European" bit; I assumed they meant "white Europeans from western Europe," which is what that phrase connotes to me, but the vagaries of referring to an entire continent are usually best avoided, I think.
In Europe, it does not have meaning. blackness and whiteness is not a thing in the way it is in America.
Europeans only become white or black when they move to America or Americans address them.
Hope this helps
Hope this helps.
You must be from Western Europe. You've never been to Eastern Europe have you...
No, the article isn't saying that, that's what makes the sentence cited by parent seem so gratuitous to a random reader like me.
(There is a section that mentions the names of some musicians who contributed to the genre, but without specifying their nationality or racial background).
PS It seems that the name Kaylin is not in the article.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6__x7WwyLDI
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
That "an" is an important an.
Cherry-picking the detail you find most provocative and rushing to the comments to copy and complain about it is a recipe for poor-quality discussion. We're trying for better than that on HN. Especially in this case, where the provocation could not be more off topic. You should leave such things where you find them, not drag them in here and set them on fire. I'm sure that wasn't your intent—and really the upvoters do the greater part of the damage—but it is the effect nevertheless.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the incentive driving artists to work with these record labels rather than self-publishing? Is it not possible to "self-publish" to Spotify and Apple Music without a record label? Is it strictly to increase exposure in the way mentioned in this paragraph, i.e. to have their music included in various mixes/albums from different labels?
Finally, what is the barrier to starting a record label that anyone would want anything to do with? I would (in my ignorance) think that an artist would have more leverage here, since they already belong to the community
Tech community here could take a lesson.
Especially when it comes to more niche genres, such as lofi, a label can be a major help to increase name recognition for smaller artists just starting out, especially when said label allows such non-exclusive publishing deals and still offers the artists fair compensation. In this regard, they often serve as, essentially, incubators.
This is also a common way for much larger, more well-recognized artists within a niche to give back to the community, by providing their own name recognition to (or even starting) a relatively small label that launches other artists in similar genres, in spite of the fact that said label is less likely to give that artist in particular more value-add than another, larger one.
Of course it's possible. Good luck getting any streams, though.
We're talking about "milennial muzak" here. It's consumed by playlist first, as background noise. For the most part certain artists don't merit their own solo fanbases.