Yesterday evening I played in a semifinal of the playoffs for my university's intramural soccer league. My team was comprised of a mix of athletes and soccer players, all loosely associated by common acquaintances. We played a side that, quite honestly, had excellent chemistry and passing for a casual league, and we later discovered that their group was all fourth years who had played together since they got to the university. More power to them.
As you can imagine my side, 'Dream Team FC', got a right drubbing, not abetted by an early head injury to our keeper forcing us to play a man down with a sub in goal for roughly a quarter of the game. Nonetheless, I was enjoying myself being out there, though it's never fun to be in that situation. I imagine its reminiscent of being struck by a very nice car. Those hospital bills will be astronomical, but isn't it pretty?
One of my teammates who happens to be my former roommate picked up a yellow early in the game for a minor tackle. I thought little of it at the time, until early in the second half, now 3-0 down, another tackle and yet another yellow card for the same player. This, by rule, results in an ejection by way of a red card, and for most referees, an ominous face and pointing gesture toward the parking lot.
This was completely unfathomable to me.
In my 19 years of life, I have reffed over 125 soccer games in various capacities and age groups. My girlfriend was quick and right to remind me that this gives me the disposition that my judgment will almost always be better. I'd like to think myself better than that, but in a match officiated by two fellow JMU students, I can't offer her much opposition. Say what you will of my disposition towards my school's student body.
Several of the people I have interacted with in my soccer experience have asked me if becoming a ref has made me more sympathetic to them while playing. My answer has always been quite to the contrary of any notion of empathy. The more immersed I have become in officiating, the more universally aware (I feel) I am when watching soccer of any kind. This has led me to hold referees to a higher scrutiny in all games I have interacted with. Games I play in, which offer enhanced interaction with the referee, are certainly no exception.
So I certainly let the refs hear it last night.
In both of the tackles in which my teammate was penalized for, he had eyes for nothing but the ball. He readily apologized to the opposing team, and was also, to be fair, clearly not a soccer player so much as an athlete. This was a semi final match of an intramural league, the lowest level of organized soccer the university offers. Players will be working hard, but by virtue of the organization, they may not be the best or have the best technique.
Bearing these details in mind, how is there any justification for a referee to go so far as to force a player to stop playing and his team, already losing by an increasing margin, from fielding a replacement, despite having a substitute available.
On a cold November night, two players were forced to watch their team get demolished by a overmanned, and to be fair, more skilled side. I'm not necessarily suggesting the result would have changed much if we had kept an even number of players, but it certainly would have been more fun for my team. I'd like to believe that the other team would also enjoy playing an appropriately equipped adversary more as well.
The point of such a league is let students interact with each other through a chosen sport in a safe manner. My teammate never jeopardized or intended to jeopardize anyone's safety, and his exclusion is nonsensical and contrary to the very reason we all brought ourselves to that cold field.
Immediately I had little taste for the game. I'd rather play in a pick up game where anyone can be included as long as the group deems their attitude sufficient, rather than an institution that supposedly caters to the less practiced, but enforces exclusion in the face of it. Regardless of whether that ref believed specific rules are broken, there are societal and personal factors to consider in the context of game altering decisions like that.
The situation led me to think about the role of referees with the question of racism in soccer. Currently, UEFA, which is the European governing body of soccer, has a three step policy for referees to react to racism which has been outlined, announced, but not yet invoked. The three steps are first stopping the game to make an announcement over the PA system to request cessation, the second is suspending the game for a given amount of time, and the final step is to abandon the game altogether.
Consequently, FIFA actually released updated rules on racism and discrimination on May 31, 2013, that outline the implementation of a Anti-Discrimination officer, that takes the onus of racial problems off of the referee, while overseeing the players and crowd and assisting in the collection of evidence. It's a good idea that FIFA is recognizing the power of officiating to address this issue, and hopefully it proves fruitful.
Considering all of these factors on top of my experience last night, I am now even more steadfast in my answer to that same question regarding officiating empathy. The other members of any sporting occasion offer different perspectives, literally and figuratively. The input that any of these perspectives can have on the game can be positive, uplifting, or extremely detrimental. I have had instances as a ref where the reactions of those around me have affirmed or dissented with my decision and I have learned from it. The referee last night absolutely deserved to hear the opinions of the players whose experience was impacted by his decisions.
In the same manner, referees everywhere need to listen to the thoughts of those involved in better identify racial discrimination. Just as in every other sphere of the world, it will take a collective effort to eradicate prejudicial attitudes.
Side Note:
Is it too much of a reach to include that my red carded teammate was also the only non-white player on the field, is half-Jamaican and wears very thick dreads? I would be appalled to discover it is nothing more than a coincidence, but it is one that has a relevance to this blog.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Monday, November 11, 2013
The Other Way We Kick It
Why you may not have heard of Nipsey Hu$$le and how he's still changing the music industry anyway
I created this blog to primarily discuss race and gender through soccer, but the title is intended to also be a double entendre to reference the famous A Tribe Called Quest song, "Can I Kick It?" and my love of rap music. Hip-hop music carries many of the same avenues to address race and gender, and in many cases even more so than the world's most popular sport. So today, I would like to begin the discussion of hip-hop in this blog, which although similar to sport in some respects, the modern market holds some significant differences as well.
Primarily, the nature of music versus sport is much more commercially exploitable, and susceptible to corporate control. Whilst athletes are plastered with sponsors and broadcasts of their games are sandwiched between a plethora of commercials, at the purest level, any sport is comprised of a mainly non-exploitable, familiar dynamic. Music has similarly organic and pure roots, but generations of mass media have turned large parts of several genres into mainly commercial enterprises. For the large part, the heavily commercialized and therefore financially endowed recording artists, labels and their corporate support have perfected, replicated and commandeered the practice of making money through music.
Large industries also in the interest of perpetuating their control and influence in the form of radio and television companies, sympathize and strive for the same methodology when introducing musical content into their mediums. This leads them to select musical content that has been proven to be able to be monetized and exploited, likely through establishing mass appeal. This mass appeal can only be guaranteed by using music created and distributed by commercialized record labels.
This scenario creates a musical landscape where large amounts of music being created is made with the intention of appealing to as large of a population as possible. Not only that, but most often the appeal is sought amongst a certain type of population. Logic would hold that this population would be the one most easily monetized, meaning likely the largest and richest groups within a given society. Demographics tell us, that in modern times, this group of people are middle class and above whites. This is the manner in which music suffers from the same lack of mainstream minority representation as almost every other popular medium. Content is simplified, and nearly homogenized to fit a cultural standard that will allow it to gain profit before released on a major scale. Music that cannot fit this standard accepted by the masses will not gain appeal, and will not gain commercial support.
This style of huge, corporate music distributors originated because of the large capital investments it took to record and disseminate music as recently as 25 years ago. These large conglomerates were necessary to provide the initial investment, as well as oversee market performance. The substantial financial risk involved with most musical projects force these multi-million dollar companies to very exactly cater to their desired audiences tastes in order to recoup. With this dynamic in place, record labels typically always negotiate to retain legal rights to the music through their work contracts with content creators. These creators can be producers, performers, songwriters or any pertinent artist.
In order to compensate for the large financial risks and heavy commercial promotion the labels are expected to assume, the creators of the content are paid at an agreed contractual rate that typically totals at a much lesser amount than what the record labels gross. This is the established dynamic between artist and content distributors in commercially geared music, and it has perpetuated itself into modern times. The impact of this environment on artists and music itself has been immense.
Primarily, this type of relationship treats the artists' organic talent and musical vision, as an ability that can be purchased or rented and utilized to gain popularity and revenue. This dynamic is extremely counter-intuitive to any real notion of art. Art is intended to be a passionate expression of ideas that people can react to. It is implicit with this notion that the ideas being expressed are actually held by the artist, and not merely being articulated for the sake of commercial gain. The commercial exploitation of music skews the intentions of the artist, and invalidates their work as true art. Music is one of the most popular art forms, but can anything piece of work that's being created for an audience in an intended manner, loses any merit is has as a piece of art work.
All of the preceding circumstances have created an environment wherein a given artist, whose chosen style, genre, subject matter or any range of aspects do not align with the values of the commercial music scene at that time, has very little to no chance of gaining mass exposure through existing music distribution entities. Thereby, they are also denied any opportunity of making a financial livelihood through creating music that is true to them as artists. The only option any artist with talent would have, is to begin creating content with their talent that aligns with the values of the population intended to be exploited.
Any true music fan should shudder at the thought of living in a world where that is truly the case. Fortunately, modern markets and technological advancements have created a niche for artists who are deserving of merit, but unwilling to change their content to achieve full success. The cost of recording and producing an album are fractions of what they used to be, and iTunes amongst of host of other digital revelations have cut distribution costs remarkably, while increasing the artists share of profits. This has resulted in a phenomenon regarded as 'independent artists' who are able to gain large popularity and success through newer, less traditional and expensive means of promotion, without subscribing their message to corporate influence. Through smaller distribution ventures, touring and merchandise sales, and retaining the rights to their content, these artists are also able to make a livelihood from creating their music in their desired way.
The unfortunate inclusion among all of the positives from these advancements is the introduction of file-sharing, and illegal but free transfer of music of any and all kinds across the internet. This occurrence has devalued the entire music industry, but came as an inevitable aspect of the more open state of distribution. In this environment, the value of making a more nuanced connection with your audience, likely smaller by nature of their distinctions, is increased remarkably. The old model of reaching as many listeners and therefore potential buyers dissolves, as the likelihood of mere listeners becoming actual buyers drops. The new model which these independent artists are employing, connecting directly with a smaller but more accurately represented and likely more passionate fan base, offers the only real financial longevity. A true connection with your fans is now much more necessary to create any chance of profit and livelihood from music.
This is possible from any artist in any type of music, but if there is one genre that embodies a more passionate connection with its listeners and a counter-institutional mentality, it is rap and hip-hop music. The prominence of misogyny, violence and other controversial themes in the genre is highly contested and rightfully debated. In my opinion, they have understandable, though not necessarily justifiable roots in the history of the musical culture and the demographic it was created to represent.
These debatable aspects in mind, what can be accepted much more readily, is that rap music has always teetered on the line between commercial support and the popularity that 'independent artists' achieve. A main reason behind this is the very vulgarity I previously mentioned, which prevents it from aligning with an easily marketable model. In this vein, it is not unreasonable to suggest that rap music originated the concept of alternative mainstream coverage. Entities such as rap music, which are not readily accepted by the masses but still garner popularity and financial support, forcibly create a space for themselves in the media, ever so slightly realigning the scope of mainstream media with the reality of people.
It should come as no surprise then, that rap music provides the solution to the now technologically-charged issue of proper representation and fair opportunity in the current music industry.
Nipsey Hu$$le, real name Ermias Asghedom, is a 28 year old Los Angeles rapper. He gained prominence through a slew of high level placements on the songs of rappers such as Drake and Snoop Dogg, as well as an acclaimed series of mixtapes titled Bullets Ain't Got No Names Vol.1-3. There are obvious fluctuations among the many rappers of today's rap game, and as the title of his mixtapes suggest, Nipsey has always represented a more brash, "gangsta" side of hip-hop. A far cry from the ignorance of eccentric acts like Gucci Mane and Waka Flocka Flame, I've always liked Nipsey Hu$$le because the emotion and concepts he employs echo honesty, and an enthralling story of his rise to success from an impoverished upbringing. He very much represents and channels the original nature of rap music culture in this manner.
After following the path of fellow independent rap stars and dollar sign lover Curren$y, Hu$$le left what many would have considered a good record deal, in order to produce music he felt proud of. In that article Nipsey foreshadows what he would go on to do in his career quite well,
However, following his 2011 release, he was largely unheard from in the way of new material throughout 2012 and most of 2013. Following those releases, he had gained enough acclaim to sign a deal with a record label that would be more catered to his desires from a business and musical standpoint. There were many rumors that he was negotiating to join Rick Ross' Maybach Music Group (MMG) record label. In a later, fantastic interview with Complex, Hu$$le detailed where the negotiations fell short;
Not surprisingly, there was much backlash and speculation, and insistence that Nipsey was completely out of touch with modern music. However, any understanding of Nipsey's past as an artist makes it obvious that's not the case, and after the announcement of the campaign and mixtape through Twitter, the following weeks brought sporadic justification in 140-character snippets.
First, there's the money, which anyone with a calculator is capable of factoring in. Before taxes, if Nipsey can get 1000 people who like him enough to drop $100, he's made $100,000. The amount an artist gains from selling that many units under almost any record label contract made is laughable in comparison. Beyond that, Nipsey's reasoning essentially epitomizes the necessary direction for modern artists. The following are four tweets which summarize his stance effectively;
Furthermore, what resonates from his methodology beyond music, is just the manner in which it has expanded mainstream coverage. Hu$$le's campaign received coverage from news outlets that would have never otherwise mentioned a rapper or a mixtape. In this way, Nipsey has set a precedent through which it is possible to expand or re-legitimize the representation of a disadvantaged population. On a larger scale, Nipsey Hu$$le created a blueprint to take advantage of the depth and breadth of a globalized world, without succumbing to the ideological pressures of those who oversee the distribution in such a world. At a time of mass marketability, Nipsey Hu$$le stands as an enterprising icon of true art, independence and the power of small, passionate groups of people to change the status quo.
I created this blog to primarily discuss race and gender through soccer, but the title is intended to also be a double entendre to reference the famous A Tribe Called Quest song, "Can I Kick It?" and my love of rap music. Hip-hop music carries many of the same avenues to address race and gender, and in many cases even more so than the world's most popular sport. So today, I would like to begin the discussion of hip-hop in this blog, which although similar to sport in some respects, the modern market holds some significant differences as well.
Primarily, the nature of music versus sport is much more commercially exploitable, and susceptible to corporate control. Whilst athletes are plastered with sponsors and broadcasts of their games are sandwiched between a plethora of commercials, at the purest level, any sport is comprised of a mainly non-exploitable, familiar dynamic. Music has similarly organic and pure roots, but generations of mass media have turned large parts of several genres into mainly commercial enterprises. For the large part, the heavily commercialized and therefore financially endowed recording artists, labels and their corporate support have perfected, replicated and commandeered the practice of making money through music.
Large industries also in the interest of perpetuating their control and influence in the form of radio and television companies, sympathize and strive for the same methodology when introducing musical content into their mediums. This leads them to select musical content that has been proven to be able to be monetized and exploited, likely through establishing mass appeal. This mass appeal can only be guaranteed by using music created and distributed by commercialized record labels.
This scenario creates a musical landscape where large amounts of music being created is made with the intention of appealing to as large of a population as possible. Not only that, but most often the appeal is sought amongst a certain type of population. Logic would hold that this population would be the one most easily monetized, meaning likely the largest and richest groups within a given society. Demographics tell us, that in modern times, this group of people are middle class and above whites. This is the manner in which music suffers from the same lack of mainstream minority representation as almost every other popular medium. Content is simplified, and nearly homogenized to fit a cultural standard that will allow it to gain profit before released on a major scale. Music that cannot fit this standard accepted by the masses will not gain appeal, and will not gain commercial support.
This style of huge, corporate music distributors originated because of the large capital investments it took to record and disseminate music as recently as 25 years ago. These large conglomerates were necessary to provide the initial investment, as well as oversee market performance. The substantial financial risk involved with most musical projects force these multi-million dollar companies to very exactly cater to their desired audiences tastes in order to recoup. With this dynamic in place, record labels typically always negotiate to retain legal rights to the music through their work contracts with content creators. These creators can be producers, performers, songwriters or any pertinent artist.
In order to compensate for the large financial risks and heavy commercial promotion the labels are expected to assume, the creators of the content are paid at an agreed contractual rate that typically totals at a much lesser amount than what the record labels gross. This is the established dynamic between artist and content distributors in commercially geared music, and it has perpetuated itself into modern times. The impact of this environment on artists and music itself has been immense.
Primarily, this type of relationship treats the artists' organic talent and musical vision, as an ability that can be purchased or rented and utilized to gain popularity and revenue. This dynamic is extremely counter-intuitive to any real notion of art. Art is intended to be a passionate expression of ideas that people can react to. It is implicit with this notion that the ideas being expressed are actually held by the artist, and not merely being articulated for the sake of commercial gain. The commercial exploitation of music skews the intentions of the artist, and invalidates their work as true art. Music is one of the most popular art forms, but can anything piece of work that's being created for an audience in an intended manner, loses any merit is has as a piece of art work.
All of the preceding circumstances have created an environment wherein a given artist, whose chosen style, genre, subject matter or any range of aspects do not align with the values of the commercial music scene at that time, has very little to no chance of gaining mass exposure through existing music distribution entities. Thereby, they are also denied any opportunity of making a financial livelihood through creating music that is true to them as artists. The only option any artist with talent would have, is to begin creating content with their talent that aligns with the values of the population intended to be exploited.
Any true music fan should shudder at the thought of living in a world where that is truly the case. Fortunately, modern markets and technological advancements have created a niche for artists who are deserving of merit, but unwilling to change their content to achieve full success. The cost of recording and producing an album are fractions of what they used to be, and iTunes amongst of host of other digital revelations have cut distribution costs remarkably, while increasing the artists share of profits. This has resulted in a phenomenon regarded as 'independent artists' who are able to gain large popularity and success through newer, less traditional and expensive means of promotion, without subscribing their message to corporate influence. Through smaller distribution ventures, touring and merchandise sales, and retaining the rights to their content, these artists are also able to make a livelihood from creating their music in their desired way.
The unfortunate inclusion among all of the positives from these advancements is the introduction of file-sharing, and illegal but free transfer of music of any and all kinds across the internet. This occurrence has devalued the entire music industry, but came as an inevitable aspect of the more open state of distribution. In this environment, the value of making a more nuanced connection with your audience, likely smaller by nature of their distinctions, is increased remarkably. The old model of reaching as many listeners and therefore potential buyers dissolves, as the likelihood of mere listeners becoming actual buyers drops. The new model which these independent artists are employing, connecting directly with a smaller but more accurately represented and likely more passionate fan base, offers the only real financial longevity. A true connection with your fans is now much more necessary to create any chance of profit and livelihood from music.
This is possible from any artist in any type of music, but if there is one genre that embodies a more passionate connection with its listeners and a counter-institutional mentality, it is rap and hip-hop music. The prominence of misogyny, violence and other controversial themes in the genre is highly contested and rightfully debated. In my opinion, they have understandable, though not necessarily justifiable roots in the history of the musical culture and the demographic it was created to represent.
These debatable aspects in mind, what can be accepted much more readily, is that rap music has always teetered on the line between commercial support and the popularity that 'independent artists' achieve. A main reason behind this is the very vulgarity I previously mentioned, which prevents it from aligning with an easily marketable model. In this vein, it is not unreasonable to suggest that rap music originated the concept of alternative mainstream coverage. Entities such as rap music, which are not readily accepted by the masses but still garner popularity and financial support, forcibly create a space for themselves in the media, ever so slightly realigning the scope of mainstream media with the reality of people.
It should come as no surprise then, that rap music provides the solution to the now technologically-charged issue of proper representation and fair opportunity in the current music industry.
Nipsey Hu$$le, real name Ermias Asghedom, is a 28 year old Los Angeles rapper. He gained prominence through a slew of high level placements on the songs of rappers such as Drake and Snoop Dogg, as well as an acclaimed series of mixtapes titled Bullets Ain't Got No Names Vol.1-3. There are obvious fluctuations among the many rappers of today's rap game, and as the title of his mixtapes suggest, Nipsey has always represented a more brash, "gangsta" side of hip-hop. A far cry from the ignorance of eccentric acts like Gucci Mane and Waka Flocka Flame, I've always liked Nipsey Hu$$le because the emotion and concepts he employs echo honesty, and an enthralling story of his rise to success from an impoverished upbringing. He very much represents and channels the original nature of rap music culture in this manner.
After following the path of fellow independent rap stars and dollar sign lover Curren$y, Hu$$le left what many would have considered a good record deal, in order to produce music he felt proud of. In that article Nipsey foreshadows what he would go on to do in his career quite well,
'"Actually, we weighing the options right now. We got a lot of offers for it. But I'm just trying to really come up with the best idea of how I wanna do it," he said. "I was entertaining new original ways to distribute music, kinda like in the sense of what Prince did with one of his projects he put out in [2007]. It was called Planet Earth, and what he did was he distributed it through a magazine in Europe who had a subscription base of like 1.5 million. This a new era, and I think it was a paradigm shift in how people receive content recently. So I'ma gamble on that paradigm shift and I'ma try something original. And I don't wanna go in to too much detail, but it'll be something along the lines of what Prince did with his album … "'Shortly after stating this in 2010, Nipsey went on to release The Marathon, a mixtape. This was my first Nipsey Hu$$le tape, and I was intrigued by his undeniable flow, and as I said before, the depth and gravity of his subject matter. Following this tape, in 2011 he released The Marathon Continues, which quite obviously carried the same theme as his previous tape. Both were sold through iTunes and Hu$$le toured extensively throughout the world with the music from both.
However, following his 2011 release, he was largely unheard from in the way of new material throughout 2012 and most of 2013. Following those releases, he had gained enough acclaim to sign a deal with a record label that would be more catered to his desires from a business and musical standpoint. There were many rumors that he was negotiating to join Rick Ross' Maybach Music Group (MMG) record label. In a later, fantastic interview with Complex, Hu$$le detailed where the negotiations fell short;
"Me and Rick Ross sat down and talked and he made it clear that he can make the deal that I need. And I told him that I don’t need money, I need a partnership. I needed a marketing machine and I needed international distribution for my product. Ross fought tooth and nail to make that happen for me. I respect him and salute him for that; but then we ran into the corporate structure of these companies. And again, it offended me, because here you have one of the most powerful, respected niggas in the game about to make a power move that’s going to incite the culture and they want us to be the ones that compromise. They should be the ones to compromise for the culture so this thing can happen. We’re not supposed to compromise and that’s what they said. They said, “Just be happy with the hood and happy with the fame of it and how it’s gonna make it look. It’s gonna be big. You’re gonna be the biggest nigga out of the West,” and all this other shit. Sell that to a ho, my nigga. I’m a man."Following these interactions and culminating concepts Nipsey had been weighing his whole career, he announced the release of a mixtape titled Crenshaw, after the area he grew up in. However, just as the earlier quote I used from him alluded to, Crenshaw was distributed in a completely unprecedented way. On the October 8th, 2013 release date, the tape was made available digitally, for free, through one of the most popular mixtape sites on the internet, datpiff.com. Simultaneously, Hu$$le began what was called the "Proud2Pay" campaign, which offered signed, numbered hard copies of the mixtape, with tickets to a purchaser only concert of Nipsey's in the LA area, oh which only 1000 copies were made. The catch was that each of these hard copies was sold for $100 each.
Not surprisingly, there was much backlash and speculation, and insistence that Nipsey was completely out of touch with modern music. However, any understanding of Nipsey's past as an artist makes it obvious that's not the case, and after the announcement of the campaign and mixtape through Twitter, the following weeks brought sporadic justification in 140-character snippets.
First, there's the money, which anyone with a calculator is capable of factoring in. Before taxes, if Nipsey can get 1000 people who like him enough to drop $100, he's made $100,000. The amount an artist gains from selling that many units under almost any record label contract made is laughable in comparison. Beyond that, Nipsey's reasoning essentially epitomizes the necessary direction for modern artists. The following are four tweets which summarize his stance effectively;
They called Isaac newton crazy They called Steve jobs crazy They called Jesus Christ crazy I'm in Good company crenshaw 10.8#Proud2pay
this shit is quality music. It's 2013 we know u don't have to buy it. It's always by choice never by force. If it moves U. b#Proud2pay
Only thing can save us from the age of free content is to provide Premium content. The albums will leak...but that's a good thing...
If the songs are great records. as consumers we HAVE to vote with our dollars!! u tired of fake shit? bNipsey Hu$$le has undoubtedly succeeded at engaging with a smaller, but more passionate fan base more intensively than mass media can accomplish. The $100 mixtape sold more than 1000 copies and still continues to sell copies through iamproud2pay.com. His attitude towards the nature of music and its distribution is incredibly refreshing. The assertion that albums leaking are a good thing is indicative of the contrast his ideas have with those of record labels. While they are focused on getting you to hear the music just enough to be convinced to purchase, real music is striving to reach its real audience. Real music is meant to be enjoyed at every level, and Nipsey Hu$$le knows that. He's very masterfully pioneering a new avenue within the music industry.#proud2pay for the real shit!
Furthermore, what resonates from his methodology beyond music, is just the manner in which it has expanded mainstream coverage. Hu$$le's campaign received coverage from news outlets that would have never otherwise mentioned a rapper or a mixtape. In this way, Nipsey has set a precedent through which it is possible to expand or re-legitimize the representation of a disadvantaged population. On a larger scale, Nipsey Hu$$le created a blueprint to take advantage of the depth and breadth of a globalized world, without succumbing to the ideological pressures of those who oversee the distribution in such a world. At a time of mass marketability, Nipsey Hu$$le stands as an enterprising icon of true art, independence and the power of small, passionate groups of people to change the status quo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)