Drake Signs with Young Money

On what planet is "indie credibility" not important in hip hop?

Hip hop, as a genre, has admittedly become pretty all-encompassing, including clap-happy "rap" records with rhyme schemes that would bore third graders. But that should hardly be the litmus test for what makes hip hop credible. Rappers like Nas and Lauryn Hill have maintained their apt lyricism while courting a radio audience, but not without taking their share of criticism. It can be a fine line to walk, and certainly should not be taken lightly.

Every genre of music has its purists, and hip hop is, of course, no exception. There are plenty of hip hop fans (myself included) who once appreciated Drake's earnest and clever turn of a phrase, that shuddered at his auto-tuned foray into the 808-starved mainstream market.

I'm no die-hard backpacker, but I did notice that much of his earlier work skewered artists like Lil Wayne and the rhymes they wrote about hoes and heaters. I am not one to judge prematurely, but this move (and his breakout single) does trigger an involuntary raise of the eyebrow.

I meant that more as wanting to be signed to an indie, not at trying to remain apart from mainstream hip-hop. It's not like all rappers aspire to be on Koch, like indie rockers want to be on Matador or Merge or something. Being on a major isn't a big deal in hip-hop. Nas is on a major. Lauryn Hill was on a major. Drake is on a major (technically), but his people say he's independent.

Your point is well taken, but I don't think it's 100% valid. In an effort to define terms, here, I think we should establish that there exists an underground hip hop scene, much in the same way there is an indie rock scene. There are many, many rappers who pride themselves on maintaining their authenticity and originality by turning down major record deals to remain true to their art form.

Artists who depart for deeper waters are sometimes seen as traitors, the impression being that in order to play to mainstream audiences, content must be significantly adapted for the masses. Sometimes (as with Drake) dramatically so. Maybe the effect on music at large is not as dramatic as it is in the rock genre, but such a mindset does exist.

I never said it didn't exist, just that it isn't that big of a deal. My point, which I think you keep missing, is that it's weird for Drake's people to say he's independent when he's not (he's being distributed by a major), because rappers, in general, don't have that much of a problem working for a major label. It's not like a bunch of people are going to stop liking Drake because he's on a major now. It's not that big of a deal in hip-hop. It's not like people are like, screw Jay-Z, he's on a major he's wack.

YEAAAA DEGRASSI! ITS WHEELCHAIR JIMMY!!!!

I haven't missed your point. Of course fans of mainstream hip hop (Jay-Z, 50, etc.) don't care about labels. Likewise, no mainstream rock fan is going to say, "Screw the Foo Fighters," or "Screw the Beatles."

The discussion was regarding the underground/indie scene, and an "cred" that might go along with it. My point, which you keep missing, is that if you are looking for credibility concerns and issues in rock, you go to the indie scene. If you are looking for it in hip hop, you go underground, not to Kanye West. That's a faulty comparison. Underground hip hop is where you will find artists that detest the idea of being signed to big labels, and consider artists like Drake a "sell-out".

Nobody cares about where or for which label Led Zeppelin or Coldplay or Linkin Park make records, because their fans are primarily mainstream rock fans. This was my point, and I don't actually think it was that far-fetched.