[Dazlovestolaugh]

Hello folks,this is just a discussion about the music we hear today and the level of talent involved and about how money is the main prerogative and not the level of talent involved in the music we hear.

Well to start off im going to give you my view on what i think. Im from the UK ever since i was old enough to generate a view and an opinion of my own i started to drift away from watching TV and listening to the radio,ive been passionate about music since i can remember,and the sort of music i grew up on in the early 90's(ok not the best era i know,but its way better then the **** out today),just some examples Oasis,wu-tang clan 36 chambers i was more drawn to hip hop,i seemed to like the storys and the messages the lyrics told,also the beats that made my body sway,i felt alot more intelligent after listening to that album then i ever have from any of my high school teachers lol. It got me hooked on making my own beats and learning to use the equipment used to create them. One thing i knew about myself i could'nt rap lol i knew that from day one,but i had a feeling for the beats and making some good ones,even tho the music was gangsta rap,it never infulenced me to go on and pretend to be gangster like many people do,to me it was fake and not true to who i was,so i just enjoyed the storys told and the beats and the talent involved in it.

Well as time went on i got older,25 now and i listen to hip hop music these days and im just quite shocked,where did it all go wrong? Music is so money driven by the powers that be,its thrown onto our screens everyday,its advertised like no mans business,its played on radio 1,which is a radio station i just can't stand to listen to anymore the amount of repeats a song gets is so unreal. Nobody knows where to look for true music anymore,what we see is what we get,we ain't allowed to make a choice no more. artisits like lil wayne who just sounds like a robot on every track has no talent at all ,hes just a product being sold and he's made millions from it and so has the record company. If music carrys on this way,the new generations who like me back in the early 90's who learnt from music and come away feeling intelligent won't get that level of knowledge. There are so many better underground rap/hiphop artists,the lyrical content is so true to life and the way reality is,its pushed to one side,because record companys would only sign them up if they change the word **** to Hoe or some ****,and at the end of the day the choice on what music many people like today is made for them and they don't know any other choices,so basically music today has lost its talent,intelligence and the fact that people are controlled on what they can or can't say is the reason we have the level of poor music these days we are just wrapped up in cotton wool.

[oliscott]

It depends where you look. If you look hard enough you'll find something you like. However unfortunetly a lot of people only listen to the drivel on Radio 1.

[dazza74]

The rise of R&B for me has ruined the music industry. I think the original post is spot on it's more about marketing now than coming up with a good tune. You just know anything that Simon Cowell puts his name to will be a success. For all that moaning you still get the odd jems like "Duffy", "Kaiser Cheifs" etc so it's not all bad

[Eddy.]

Originally Posted by dazza74

odd jems like "Duffy"

Urgh, speak for yourself, I think she's atrocious.

Though, she's a genius compared to garbage like Rihanna, Girls Aloud etc.

[avinitski]

You seem to be focusing on commercial music, theres plenty of good music out there no matter what you're into.

Im pretty sure theres plenty of people out there that love Radio 1 and love all the commercial tunes out there too, its all about opinions i suppose.

[Dazlovestolaugh]

Well in a way im kinda talking about commercial music,if it was not for youtube i would never of known about artists like ill bill,jedi mind tricks,atmosphere ,brother ali they to me produce real hip hop music. Music today just seems so talentless,and yet its the music thats advertised like its amazing and earn alot of money doing it,yet real artists ones with a brain who can actually write powerful lyrics,are in the dark.

[Bill Hicks]

Well I was getting a little jaded with the music scene at the moment, until I discovered the Marconi and Radcliffe show (Mon-Fri at 8pm Radio 2) who play an excellent mix of tunes and who are very funny as well.

It was them that introduced me to the Isle of White's greatest band the Bees!

Here's a few samples of their music.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qre_vgRYKU0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5rs847Meew

YouTube - Bees Chicken Payback music video

[lostinspace]

I have to agree that music is all about money first and talent second these days. I grew up in the 60's, and I seemed to like pretty much everything out there.
In the 70's I loved the glam rock stuff (Queen particularly), and every week there seemed to be another good band/artist coming through who looked good, but could actually sing and play instruments.
The 80's were a bit bland (new romantics etc-not for me).
Then came the 90's..........................manufactured bands.

Then there's the aforementioned hip hop and rap. Some of the rhyming is quite clever, but is it really music? I vote no.

Gone are the days when talent was the most important part of getting a contract. Now if you look good, then you're fine. In these days of electronic pitch correction (which most "musicians" use to some extent), anyone can be made into a star. Ask Simon Cowell.

[clockworks]

Pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if the "problem" is the technology?

Back in the day, getting a record into the market was a big deal. It meant that an artist had to be discovered playing a gig, or impress an A&R man with a demo track.
Instruments, amps and recording equipment were expensive. It took determination and talent or novelty to get noticed.

These days, anyone can make a demo on their PC, spending as long as it takes to knock it into shape. Stick it on the net and wait. From there, it's pure luck if they are "spotted" by record company.
The volume of music being produced today must be enormous compared to back in the 50's and 60's. The good stuff is probably out there, but it's lost in a sea of mediocrity.
Many talented musicians are stuck playing pub gigs, with no chance of getting signed.

On the other hand, it could just be that we are becoming our parents, condemning anything new and different to the stuff we liked when we were teenagers.

[Bill Hicks]

Originally Posted by clockworks

On the other hand, it could just be that we are becoming our parents, condemning anything new and different to the stuff we liked when we were teenagers.

I think that this is more true than the talent not existing anymore!

I remember my older family members in the 70's moaning about how "These new lot are rubbish compared to what it was like in the 60's!"

Just keep you're ears open cos there's still a lot of great stuff coming out every week. Just ignore 99% of the stuff that makes it to the singles chart!

Listen to certain quality music shows on the radio, I mentioned a nightly radio show on Radio2 at 8pm in an earlier post, shows like these leave out the teen rubbish and play the good stuff that's emerging!

[unique]

the music industry is in the middle of a large shakeup due to technology, i personally view it as a good thing, it's an up to date equivilent of how punk kicked the arse of the industry 30 years ago, and rock and roll did the same 50 years ago. it's taking the control away from the record companies and into the hands of artists and fans. it's dissolving the business from music

it seems that every generation looks back fondly on the music they listend to when they grew up, and dismisses the current generation, but i'd say music started getting good in the 60s, with the advent of more available instruments and better technology to record, and people experimenting with different styles of music, and the 70s became a much more progressive and experimental decade, probably the best for music, as it was the period when more musicians matured, and there was enough technology to expand things without relying too much on technology. there were real drums instead of drum machines, and keyboards still required keyboard players instead of sequencers

i think things started going badly wrong in the 80s with far more commercialisation of music and an influx of drum machines, sequencers and samplers. for the first time, people with little to no skill in making music were having hit records, some good, some awful. but even worse, the manufactured bands stopped playing instruments and became singers and dancers instead, and some of the most awful music ever made was released. ironically people are looking back at the 80s as some great period, but it was the decade of bad taste. things got better in the 90s, with grunge and britpop bringing back real instruments and writing, but there was still a fair amount of awful music going around.

i think the current wave of music is perhaps the best since the 70s. even pop music in the charts is far more palatable and better produced than the 80s and 90s. there are far more styles of music, and all sorts of sub genres. rnb and hip hop are the most popular types of music today, and even within those genres are a large number of small sub genres to suit all sorts of tastes, in the same way as there is in rock music. like with all sorts of music, a lot of it is commercial party feel good music, but you could say a lot of music in the past decades was fine to listen to at the time, but you wouldn't play it much now apart from for nostalgia reasons

i think if you haven't found music that you like from the current era you need to dig a bit further to find it, as it's waiting there to be discovered, and there are all sorts of methods such as itunes, spotify, lastfm, myspace, allmusic, etc that weren't around in previous decades

[karkus30]

Todays rubbish is tommorrows classic.

There are lots of great artists out there producing amazing music. The charts have always been a mish mash of MOR music at best with the odd quality band thrown into the mix mainly by a sheer fluke.

There seems to me a set group of people buying music from this extremely commercial source. Teenagers and early 20's who, in most cases just want a good tune to go with their lifestyles and friends (as it has always been), working folk who listen during the day, lunchtime, in the car etc who hear something they quite like and buy an album, listen for a few weeks and then discard, or the coffee table browser that needs something reasonably quiet, with nice vocals an air of serenity and a touch of laid back jazz for the next dinner party.

These people are not interested in music for music's sake, as long as it suits what they are doing it's fine. Like buying a bottle of wine to go with a meal or a new phone to go with a lifestyle it is rarely about the technology or the acidity of the wine. They really don't care a fig as long as it sounds right.

It's we who are the odd ones out, we obsess over bands and music, pull them apart, debate the sound. We are the wine connoiseurs, the audiophiles, the strange anorachy types who mull through old vinyl and worry about the latest interconnect. Because we inhabit this strange region only we know where the good stuff is kept, the supermarket shelves and radio one do not have it, anymore than Sainsbury's have the best vintage Champagne, or Dixons stock that Sumiko blue point cartridge.

This is how it is, how it's always been, those who want the best have to dig for it, the others are more than happy about the goods on sale.

[eviljohn2]

That's one of the best posts I've read in ages Karkus - really opened my eyes. Thanks.

People will always enjoy music just as people have always been making music. I suppose the sad reality is that the music industry hasn't really changed in the last 30 years - just reinvented itself as exactly the same thing every time whether it's cassettes, CDs or downloads.

[soundstory]

I have to agree with the majority of the comments.

Even growing up in the 80's & a massive fan of Electronic music (nothings changed!) I had to search for great bands like Yello for example who didn't get any radio play until The Race came out.

Word of mouth still is a great way to find new stuff, but now we have You Tube, Myspace & lastFM etc.

I think that it's easier to find new music than ever before.

I was always interested in what the bands I'm into were influenced by.

You have to keep your radar open at all times !!

[deadtotheworld]

I hated the 90's 'anybody can play in a band' mentality. Nirvana, Oasis seemed the main culprits spawning more 3 chords and you can play onstage attitude. Since then it really does seem like everyone is releasing stuff. Great musicians seem to be less respected and are disappearing fast. I used to read mags and see the mighty Metallica when I was a kid and really looked up to them... I dont wanna worship a bunch of dicks that live next door playing 3 chords thanks! Seems like the only huge bands left are the surviving ones from the 80's or 90's... now there is just too much sh ite. Another band on the scene, another drops off the radar the next day!
The introduction of more and more sub-genres is pretty annoying too - seems like every band has its own genre!
I do believe that the internet is affecting the music biz alot more with record companies just releasing clones of other bands to make a quick buck - because they cant afford to release something that isnt going to be a sure fire hit. So they just get what they think are pretty people to sing some crap to appeal to kids. Beyond middle of the road easy listening crap for numbskulls. Market people like Winehouse and Duffy, Blunt and Gray - to a more 'sophisticated/dull and boring' audience. The Metal scene seems a bit crap these days with producers opting to make all bands sound the same.
I have always turned off Rap/Hip Hop/RnB so cant comment on those genres. Just seems like more and more music with less to get excited about.
Usually I hear something that reminds me of something I already own so just go and put that on, instead of rebuying similar music repackaged with 'prettier' or a cooler look. I cant remember a recent band that had a non appealing look to its target audience. I mean you look at TOTPs 2 and see ugly bald guys with great songs - that will probably never happen again. Even a band like Slipknot have turned there ugly bloke image into an appealing one for kids with the masks n stuff.

[karkus30]

Originally Posted by deadtotheworld

I hated the 90's 'anybody can play in a band' mentality. Nirvana, Oasis seemed the main culprits spawning more 3 chords and you can play onstage attitude. Since then it really does seem like everyone is releasing stuff. Great musicians seem to be less respected and are disappearing fast. I used to read mags and see the mighty Metallica when I was a kid and really looked up to them... I dont wanna worship a bunch of dicks that live next door playing 3 chords thanks! .

Let's play guess the popular song from the chords and which band did it.

Song Number 1 E5, A5, F#5, G5, B5

Song Number 2 Fsus4, Bb, Absus4, Db, F5sus4, F5, Bb5, Ab5, Db5, Bb, Db,
E5, Gb5, G5, Ab5sus4,

[deadtotheworld]

I give up - a list of chords without any time sig etc is just a list of random chords... or could this be a smart arse reply showing chords of an oasis song and a Nirvana song to show they know more than 3 chords??

[karkus30]

Originally Posted by deadtotheworld

I give up - a list of chords without any time sig etc is just a list of random chords... or could this be a smart arse reply showing chords of an oasis song and a Nirvana song to show they know more than 3 chords??

Song number 1 'Enter the sandman' by Metallica containing 5 chords.

Song Number 2 'Smells like teen Spirit' by Nirvana containing 15 chords.



also, I do not subscribe to the more is more theory, I think less chords, less fills, less lead guitar work. Good music is often more about what's not there, than what is. Just thought it was worth pointing out that the usual 3 chord illusion/anyone can do it is complete fallacy.

Many of the bands that got up and did their thing were really very accomplished musicians who had stripped back their music because of the punk ethic, however, when you analyse many of those songs they actually hav far more complexity than they are given credit for and the musicianship displayed in the performance is equal to more complex music. Even bands that really used very few chords could produce amazing things, bands such as the Ramones were very tight and simple, but their legacy endures.

[deadtotheworld]

I agree Enter Sandman is one of the most simple songs ever - but I didnt exactly say that Nirvana ONLY used three chords... I said that Nirvana and Oasis spawned the anyone can play mentality - ie the watered down versions that follow a popular band when they arrive on the scene. I agree Quite often simple music is great, but even you who is sticking up for simple stuff, must hear bands day in day out with one barre of music repeated over and over throughout the whole song, and although songs like Enter Sandman (which wouldnt bother me if I never heard it again - cos Ive heard it way too many times) has intros, verses chorus, solos and extra layers all played with pretty much precision which make this a tad more complicated than say Smells like teen spirit. So although ES has less chords I have heard it played badly a million times as SLTS is often a learners dream and doesnt take much skill.
Maybe I could have worded the 3 chord trick band thing a bit better - but you should know exactly what I mean and shouldnt need someone to explain it to you.
Try telling your simple theory to an Orchestra or composer.
I hear simple music that is great - but even more simple music that sounds lazy. I like stuff that is composed with thought - other people dont care that much and just wanna hear a quick catchy tune in their car on the radio.
Im a session musician so I pick stuff apart all the time and play alot of different styles and your theory about simplicity does actually make my job alot easier, but very unfulfilling at times... It does annoy me that I actually have to play like bands that I hate - that usually means I get paid for something that I can do with my eyes closed with very little effort - instead of the band trying to come up with their own sound... but Im getting off the subject.
Also its not the point that I like stuff because its complicated and dont like stuff because its easy/lazy - its just that with the simple lazy stuff there is just less stuff to get excited about, and often a half decent song isnt enough to carry a band of untalented musicians. Where as many bands I listen to have great guitarists, drummers, bass players etc that there is just alot more creativity flowing within the song.
But hey thats why everybody gets what they want out of whatever they like.

[soundstory]

We've strayed into a chord thread???

[Toasty]

For every Simon Cowell, there's hundreds of musicians getting together with other musicians making music and touting it to the world. It's the promotion and delivery that's evolving, once you strip past the high level reality shows, which will always pull in big sales, everyone's in the same boat, touting there wares through gigs and online.

There's never been a better time to discover new music, what with social networking and radio sites, and as mentioned above, those who seek will reap the gold. Those who want to be spoon fed, so be it. No rights, no wrongs, it's not going to stop the 4 teenagers getting together in Dad's garage to write songs. In fact these days, it ain't stopping the 30, 40, 50 somethings getting together in a garage writing songs

[karkus30]

Originally Posted by deadtotheworld

I agree Enter Sandman is one of the most simple songs ever - but I didnt exactly say that Nirvana ONLY used three chords... I said that Nirvana and Oasis spawned the anyone can play mentality - ie the watered down versions that follow a popular band when they arrive on the scene. I agree Quite often simple music is great, but even you who is sticking up for simple stuff, must hear bands day in day out with one barre of music repeated over and over throughout the whole song, and although songs like Enter Sandman (which wouldnt bother me if I never heard it again - cos Ive heard it way too many times) has intros, verses chorus, solos and extra layers all played with pretty much precision which make this a tad more complicated than say Smells like teen spirit. So although ES has less chords I have heard it played badly a million times as SLTS is often a learners dream and doesnt take much skill.
Maybe I could have worded the 3 chord trick band thing a bit better - but you should know exactly what I mean and shouldnt need someone to explain it to you.
Try telling your simple theory to an Orchestra or composer.
I hear simple music that is great - but even more simple music that sounds lazy. I like stuff that is composed with thought - other people dont care that much and just wanna hear a quick catchy tune in their car on the radio.
Im a session musician so I pick stuff apart all the time and play alot of different styles and your theory about simplicity does actually make my job alot easier, but very unfulfilling at times... It does annoy me that I actually have to play like bands that I hate - that usually means I get paid for something that I can do with my eyes closed with very little effort - instead of the band trying to come up with their own sound... but Im getting off the subject.
Also its not the point that I like stuff because its complicated and dont like stuff because its easy/lazy - its just that with the simple lazy stuff there is just less stuff to get excited about, and often a half decent song isnt enough to carry a band of untalented musicians. Where as many bands I listen to have great guitarists, drummers, bass players etc that there is just alot more creativity flowing within the song.
But hey thats why everybody gets what they want out of whatever they like.

I don't think Nirvana or Oasis can claim to be the only bands to inspire people to play. I'm also belief that anyone can play. Many bands started out as garage bands and progressed to something far more, often lack of training and simple passion will produce something far more interesting.

Take a band like the Minutemen, proper garage band that didn't even realise that instruments could be tuned (they worked on the principle that the strings just had to be tight enough ). Listen to the album 'Double nickel on a Dime'.

Both Nirvana and Oasis produced great music and their records continue to sell and they continue to inspire. I really can't understand what you think is wrong with that ?

I remember this music snobbery back in the 70s when , unless you were ELP, Camel, Yes, Pink Floyd et al then you were considered below the level of the real musicians. In came punk and spoiled the party. Now I didn't think that punk rock was particularly good news, and at the time I was horrified, but it did freshen up a bored and jaded music scene. It was the punk scene that inspired the worst excesses IMO, it wasn't so much anyone can play, but anyone should play and attempt to do it badly or you were conformist! A good band was the one that played the worst, trashed all their instruments and got covered in the most gob.

Comparing classical music to rock music is not relevant (not my words, a classical composers).......I tried doing this with a classical composer that I know and music that I might consider a rock tour de force, he considered very mediocre. He educated me somewhat in that he considered that the typical rock composition should have a maximum length of around 5 minutes. It does not build on a theme in the same way classical music does. What you get with rock is a sort of pastiche, which means that you have several different ideas (or single 4 minute songs) welded together with bridges, it's not one expanding composition in the same way classical composers understand it.

I'm not saying that simple means 'one bar of music'. It might. It might just be a simple melody that can be built into something greater in the same way as Pink Floyd and Abba multi-track, but it does start with a simple composition in what is really just a derivation of folk music (not that finger in the ear stuff either, blues, latin, Gaelic and lately rap). It's the clever use of instruments that brings a composition alive and makes it full of aural suprises rather than the amazing technical versitality the wins through. Often it's the space in music which seems to say a whole lot more than the music which fills it.

[deadtotheworld]

karkus30 - I can tell that you are one of the worst people to have a discussion with on the internet! No offence, but you take everything so literally - and have the know it all attitude and the last word. Nirvana and Oasis where the only two bands mentioned but that obviously doesnt mean that I think they are the ONLY bands that have inspired people to play... you are just being pathetic now. Can you point out the point when I said Nirvana and Oasis dont release good music? - I said that they spawned all the watered down versions that followed... ie the music industry releasing poor imitations.
I refuse to have to explain every single detail of every post just so that you can get the jist of an opinion and realise that every detail is not covered in a quick post on the internet. Take an opinion and digest it and not take things out of context - instead of getting all defensive on every aspect of every post... its not a competition!

Simple stuff that I think has an element of greatness or genius - or Technical stuff that has an element of greatness or genius is all fine with me!

Can we at least share an opinion that there is alot of ***** music out there? you seem hell bent on defending everything! You must turn off the radio or MTV etc and think - wow that is really crap? haha Its the terrible stuff out there that I am talking about - you seem to think I am picking on everything that has a simplistic approach.

Your comment about not comparing classical with Rock for example seems a little redundant these days with orchestral elements being/becoming a major part of a bands style and the comment about a formula such as a 4 minute song bridged together and repeated is absolutely laughable. I cant take you seriously after that Im afraid. If that part was not your opinion then I apologize but I wouldnt take too much notice of your classical friend if it was his.
You mentioned how simple Metallica was in a previous post, go check out the bonus disc of the Metallica DVD when they played with a 100 piece orchestra, when members of the orchestra are amazed at how a lot of the Metallica stuff is constructed like classical music.
And an example off the top of my head about the comparing classical with rock - and the 'rule' of a rock song should be no longer than 5 minutes and doesnt go anywhere - go listen to Six degrees of inner turbulence from the 'Score' album by Dream Theater... that is over 40 minutes long. Its impossible to have heard everything - but just remember that just because you or your classical friend have not heard it - it does not mean that it doesn't exist.

[karkus30]

Originally Posted by deadtotheworld

Can we at least share an opinion that there is alot of ***** music out there? you seem hell bent on defending everything! You must turn off the radio or MTV etc and think - wow that is really crap? haha Its the terrible stuff out there that I am talking about - you seem to think I am picking on everything that has a simplistic approach.

as long as you can share the opinion that there is a lot of great music out there

[deadtotheworld]

Definately agree on that too

[D-Zyne]

I find it absolutely hilarious that this entire thread was started by someone lamenting the loss of 'talent' and 'musicianship'.....in HIP HOP!

For chrissake....if ANY one thing can be blamed for the downfall of modern music, it would be cRAP!

Seriously....I can't stop laughing....

[karkus30]

Originally Posted by D-Zyne

I find it absolutely hilarious that this entire thread was started by someone lamenting the loss of 'talent' and 'musicianship'.....in HIP HOP!

For chrissake....if ANY one thing can be blamed for the downfall of modern music, it would be cRAP!

Seriously....I can't stop laughing....

It's never been my favourite style of music in it's purist form (and probably my most disliked in the recent poor sounding outputs) but it has certainly had an enormous influence on virtually all of pop music (pop music as in , anything for popular consumption and not simply chart music). Early music such as Public Enemy (it takes a Nation of millions to hold us back) and De la Soul (four feet high and rising) are worth seeking out.

Going forward you can hear the influence in bands like Rage Against the machine (a mix of rap and metal), Limp Biskit, Outkast etc.

It is probably one of the few genre (hate that word) that have made a contribution to the modern music scene. In the last ten years it really has died off, primarily because of the restriction on sampling and the gradual watered down rubbish that was produced for wannabee gangsters and the teen scene.

Careful that you dont throw the baby out with the dishwater when you discuss hip hop as it's influences have been very important and added a new dimension to the music scene. The clamp down on sampling is considered to be one of the reason that the whole music industry is stagnating. Do a bit of research and you will soon see how important hip hop(rap) has been and could have been.

[D-Zyne]

The words 'important' and 'hip-hop' should never appear together in the same sentence.

Regardless of what 'cultural impact' you think it has had, it is not music....call it poetry, call it art, I don't care but do not call it music. And that's what we're talking about here. Do you honestly think that Limp Bizdick and OutKrap are going to go down in tha annals of music history as being important contributors to society's culture???

And the reason for cracking down on sampling is quite simple...because it is STEALING.

[Pezerinno]

I was only born in the 80s however listen to a lot of different music and I personally think music gets better as every decade passes purely because there is a lot more of it around - of course this also means there is a lot more crud too.

[unique]

Originally Posted by D-Zyne

The words 'important' and 'hip-hop' should never appear together in the same sentence.

Regardless of what 'cultural impact' you think it has had, it is not music....call it poetry, call it art, I don't care but do not call it music. And that's what we're talking about here. Do you honestly think that Limp Bizdick and OutKrap are going to go down in tha annals of music history as being important contributors to society's culture???

And the reason for cracking down on sampling is quite simple...because it is STEALING.

why wouldn't you call hip hop music? what other genres wouldn't you call music? you sound like the modern day equivilent of old folks in the fifties that said rock n roll wasn't music, or further back when some people said jazz wasn't music

there is such a wide variety of hip hop acts around, many who have real bands playing real instruments at live concerts and in the studio, some are probably more talented and proficient than many musicians in well known rock or pop bands, and have a more indepth knowledge of music in general

hip hop may be considered by some to be all about creating new records from sampling other peoples, but the fact is that most hip hop isn't like that at all, as artists are wise to the fact that if you want to make money you have to write and create your own work instead of throwing your royalties away on sample credits. the hip hop records that you are referring to are perhaps the records that are cross over hits into the pop charts because they have consumer friendly samples. those records just go to show that people enjoy listening to that music, otherwise it wouldn't end up on the radio or in the charts

the argument that rappers aren't musicians is the same as saying singers aren't musicians. the fact is that some rappers and some singers also play intruments, thus would be considered musicians regardless of definition, but if you don't consider a rapper who doesn't play instruments a musician, you shouldn't then consider a singer who doesn't play instruments a musician either. a rapper is simply someone performing a vocal delivery, in a different style to a singer. rapping well is a skill, and almost all rappers are also writers, who write their own lyrics. many rappers have more skill than some singers who don't perform their own material or play instruments

as for sampling being stealing, these days the artists who do sample usually pay royalties, thus the copywrite owners get paid. there are people who get paid more in royalties for sampled music than they make in selling thier current works, so they aren't complaining about it, and certainly aren't calling it stealing. if they weren't happy with the sample they simply didn't have to give sample clearance and you wouldn't hear the sample. you can't just sample someones music, or rerecord a derivitive without the copywrite owners permission, and get it released these days. all that stopped over 20 years ago. hip hop has been around for 30+ years, rapping for almost 40 years. if it wasn't popular it wouldn't have lasted. other genres populartity died out years ago, but hip hop and rnb is currently the fastest growing, and most popular style of music currently on the planet. perhaps the "real" musicians feel threatened by this? or maybe rock n roll has just become tired? hip hop embraces technology, whereas rock music embraces the past. hip hop producers want the latest instruments, whereas rock musicians long for vintage amps and guitars - that's if you want to generalise. even miles davis embraced hip hop, and he was one of the most diverse, talented and critically acclaimed musicians of the past 100 years, yet he upset critics and fans throughout his career by his progressively changing styles

you don't have to listen to hip hop or other genres if you don't want to, but writing off an entire genre because you don't understand or like it is simply restricting your horizons. to many people, hip hop is an important genre, the most important of a generation who didn't follow rock and roll. to quote chuck d - "elvis was a hero to most, but he never meant **** to me". you could perhaps rephrase that and insert chuck d's name instead