On Sorry Business in the Posthumous Rap Industry (2021)

an article i wrote from Hii Magazine Issue 1, peace 2 Spurge C. for the editing

They say someone is only truly gone when their name is spoken for the final time. What does this then mean for the many artists who’ve died years ago but “new records” and their likeness are being sold to us as if they are still here? 

R. Murray Schafer, an acoustic ecologist, avant-garde composer, and proliferator of the term “soundscape”, who recently passed away in August of this year, created a term in reference to the expansion of radio and the accessibility of recordings. The concept came to be known as “Schizophonia”, or the splitting between the original sound and its electroacoustic reproduction. In his 1994 book, The Soundscape, he described his fraught neologism even further:

“We have split the sound from the maker of the sound. Sounds have been torn from their natural sockets and given an amplified and independent existence. Vocal sound, for instance, is no longer tied to a hole in the head but is free to issue from anywhere in the landscape”.

When he created this term in 1969, radio was already a market leader in how western civilization listened to and broadcasted sound. Before radio, the marketability of sound was like most other commodities, a physical product to obtain before enjoying. With radio beginning its reign on Christmas Eve 1906 from Ocean Bluff-Brant Rock, Massachusetts via the first amplitude modulated transmission of “O Holy Night”, the material bifurcation between sound and artist (already tearing as it was with vinyl before) now split completely; no longer carrying a corporeal value, but considered an modern atmospheric resource to mine for advertising dollars. Since becoming a renewable energy, in effect, how has the music industry further exploited this schizophonia to reap the benefits of the sound of artists no longer with us? What does it mean to hear the songs, or voice, of someone who may not have even wanted for us to listen? 

One looking glass to peer into for a potential answer is the relation between Rap and radio. There are many golden ages with respect to radio but one of them was definitely late 20th to early 21st century; which occurred about the same time as the golden age of Hip-Hop in the early 90’s, soon giving way to Gangsta Rap of the late 90’s and the bling era of the early 2000’s. This moment is encapsulated by extravagant showcases of material wealth, McMansions on MTV Cribs, and a looming subprime mortgage crisis in the then near future. A little before the Napsters and Kazaas of the world put the music industry on notice to take evasive maneuvers, radio was where music lovers checked out the music they desired before buying. And they often did. Through DJ’s, like Funk Flex, who built anticipation as if it were a performance piece, stacked with reloads, explosion soundboard .wav files, and level peaking yells before playing the unreleased song in full. 100 years after “O Holy Night” transmitted along New England shores, radio became the main agent to accruing wealth for artists and label heads alike. This exponential expansion of Rap capital is still best understood and embodied through the music and (after)life of Tupac Shakur.

Shakur’s journey through the music industry is emblematic of how the late era capitalism’s meat grinder came to black cultures’ doorstep— enticing fame and fortune under the stipulation of total dominion of self, likeness, and voice. Since Shakur’s death (and the three albums released while he was alive), six albums totaling 147 more songs, have been released. Tupac’s cultural counterpoint, Notorious B.I.G, had his second studio album “Life After Death” released sixteen days after his death– thus beginning the undead rivalry between the two that continues to this day with docuseries and unreleased songs still stoking the flames of a long forgotten label war. Music labels have looked to this now decades-long example as a blueprint for extracting value out of the dead artist, as is shown with more recent passings like Juice WRLD, XXXTentacion, and Pop Smoke. This posthumous culture, particularly surrounding dead black men, has proven to be a massive success for the labels that signed these artists, with 2pac (as a brand, not as a man) reaching the Forbes’ Top 25 list thirty years after his passing. His paranoia of death often found in his lyrics has been recomposed by Universal Music Group to resemble a Nostradamus type beat– haunting lyrics of a tortured writer predicting his death years before with coded language found in his new unreleased batch of recordings, on sale now. 

Such capitalistic hunger reverberating through voice detachment and exploitation existed well before the untimely death of Shakur in 1996, even spreading into sonic based imperialism. In 1970 at the height of the Vietnam War, the US employed “Operation Wandering Soul”, a psychoacoustic war tactic that hoped to tap into Vietnamese culture of belief and rituals of their deceased. Vietnamese culture often calls for a burial in the person’s homeland and if an improper burial takes place, then the wandering soul will venture aimlessly in suffering. U.S. sound engineers spent weeks altering voices into ghostly cries impersonating lost VietCong souls asking their countrymen to defect and cease fire. This mixtape, dubbed “Ghost Tape Number Ten”, was installed at military bases and attached to helicopters as psychological propaganda. (Source)

Another form of colonial abuse of non-western sound cultures lies in Australia, in the business relations of Australian settlers and the Indigenous Australian Peoples. Indigenous Australians have a deeply rooted structure in their grieving process of deceased loved ones. This structure, better known as avoidance practices, can span from averting the gaze of a member of a family whose loved one has recently deceased to not referring to a deceased individual by name, out of respect but also as it would be too emotional for the grieving family. Since the proliferation of media in the 20th century, this has extended into pictures, video, and audio of the individual captured. Many documentaries and Australian media often come with the disclaimer, “The program may contain images and voices of such people who have died”. During the initial settlement of Australia by Europeans, forms of Sorry Business, or a series of bereavement protocols noted in Indigenous Australian culture, had to be explicitly written into the law as there was an immediate refusal from Indigeous Austrailians to participate in any non-sorrow centered activities during the grieving period. Some examples are not addressing the day that a family member had passed on or not referring to the recently deceased owner of a business one might have been in dealings with prior to their passing. Although ratified by law, many of these practices were often disregarded or outright abused to further the extraction of land and resources many of the Indigenous Australian people used for their livelihoods. This neocolonial death marching theme has found itself from 17th century imperialism to our Spotify playlist. 

Such avoidance practices are not absent in American culture either as we often hear posthumous grievances from surviving loved ones, if not from the musician themselves. Prince explicitly spoke to his own avoidance practice, demanding that no more records be released after his passing. This, of course, was not heeded as three “unreleased” albums have been released since. Tupac’s voice and life extended into projects and albums he had never probably imagined, featuring on tracks alongside Elton John, Dido, and Kendrick Lamar, the last of which “interviews” him on his 2014 sophomore record, To Pimp a Butterfly (working title once being To Pimp a Caterpillar (Tu.P.A.C)), 18 years after his death. Juice WRLD became a platinum selling artist after his passing. His body of work seems to be more valuable reanimated than alive. Although other genres are culpable, Rap and the industry that sells Rap seems to have a fascination, if not all out obsession, with these undead sounds. Because their child signed their likeness away, many grieving families often go through their own avoidance practices; hoping not to hear their child on the radio, an award show, movie trailer or in increasingly less extreme cases, a hologram performance. 

But these examples are not the only pathways in which labels and families acknowledge the life and afterlife of an artist and their creative output. Jasmine Dumile, the wife of Daniel Dumile, better known as MF DOOM, announced the passing of her husband on New Years’ Eve in 2020 at the age of 49 with DOOM actually passing on Halloween months before. Public expression of a family member’s death months after provides close ones time and space to process without the trained eye of fans and media following those grieving at their lowest. In DOOM’s case, it only further perpetuated his irreverent preoccupations with  anonymity, mythology, and subcultural subterfuge. What might be seen as an ever playful attitude towards the music industry since he donned the metal mask in the late 90’s was surely his way to ensure personal agency and control of one’s own life publicly and privately. This mindset with DOOM only continues in his wake. Records released since his passing have been in the single-digits with no talk of any future plans on the horizon. On track for a man who was oft-late to the party, if he decided to show up at all. 

 By introducing a waiting period after a death, a more ethical approach towards honoring one’s humanity (and voice, by extension) is possible through establishing clear boundaries of being for your favorite artist no longer with us. This practice could provide a means to rid ourselves from a culture of consumer entitlement even if the producer in question is dead. Such a practice can allow listeners to form a more material connection to what they’re hearing, where it came from, and its finality. The opposite path leads us to a life’s work condensed into a flattened object, designed for consumption. This framework introduces a neoliberal psychedelia around the work of an artist, purely churning itself out for the audience’s short-term attention span in hope that one more piece of “content” will make them forget they signed up for a 7-day trial period using their credit card. Perhaps it’s the embodiment of the streaming era where entertainment has pivoted to attrition cloaked as something worth our interest, but this road has taken us to a method of thought where it’s as if the listener can feel entitlement towards an artist in the afterlife. There is seldom a call for reflection on what it means for an industry to peddle “new material” from an artist who has been dead decades, never needing to come to grips that this voice is gone because in some ways, it isn’t. Or at least not yet. 

Hearing your child’s voice years after their burial can be its own exhumation. Wandering souls fill up our playlists often without recognition, much less consent. In a way, these artists are very much still with us— releasing new albums or works not available on digital streaming platforms now announcing their release as if it’s a new product we haven’t had access to for decades. It starts to be hard to mock conspiracy theorists too hard when the thin space between reality and the parasocial relationships we construct with an artist both before and after their death is now virtually nonexistent. But for those that knew these people, these mere electroacoustic reproductions are filled with emotion, home video flashbacks, first times, last goodbyes. This Sorry Business with respect to the posthumous album is an unapologetic machine, chugging itself through the people and families of those who only wish rest for themselves and their loved ones.  

æolian listening between word and the horn

an old writing that was originally shared in Baton Rouge’s Yes We Cannibal’s 2022 Zine . Not even sure how compatible this piece is with where my head is now but shout out to personal documentation

My thought for today is that Fred Moten is Ornette Coleman, or at least Moten is playing free jazz as often as he can when creating his works– those clearly defined as poetic or otherwise. In December of 1960, when Coleman recorded Free Jazz: A Collective Improvisation, what we heard was a two-quartet conversation with no preset key, perceived tonal system, or melody. Many at the time didn’t understand how this could be considered lyrical or that the headiest of jazz had reached its intellectual precipice with Coleman. That jazz left the body purely to reside in the brain. But to his ears, he was only playing the blues. Listening back to Free Jazz, if you think about melody in terms of reaching tonal catharsis or bounding within a chord structure, many “wrong notes” are being played as we’ve come to understand musical wrongness. If we were to even fall in line to such logic, Miles Davis already had a saying:

“It’s not the note you play that’s the wrong note – it’s the note you play afterwards that makes it right or wrong.”

Listening to Coleman, or Free Jazz in general, is now a much more widely understood area of the black music continuum. Very little conversation is ongoing whether it’s something to “get”. For someone who listens to Coleman, I’ve come to the personal understanding that it’s not about “getting” every musical idea but to feel to wholeness of it, or to enjoy passages as they come and the density of ideas aren’t necessarily designed to be understood (as we understand certain songs and their utility (as ear worms or recitation)). Not “getting” something might also be of the functioning points of Free Jazz as a concept, a music that cannot be captured wholly and is therefore as present as something must be since its near impossible to contain it within a jingle, traditional song structure, etc. Like the politics within and surrounding Free Jazz during the time of its current creation, you must approach this music on its terms or nothing at all. Once you cross that hurdle, there’s so much you realized you’ve let go of without realizing.

For Moten, the same process has finally come to me. As someone who has spent their entity of their understanding bounded within the conceptual regalia of STEM, stumbling on Fred Moten’s work was both a catharsis and a deterrent. Listening to him in lectures was such a joy and gave me so much enthusiasm to find a space within it, but once I read his written word, I imagined the black gatekeeper turning me away until my .pdf folder was this tall to ride. It was only until just a couple days a friend of mine spoke to me in a discord channel after watching late-night youtube reruns of Black Journal with me bringing up this downtrodden dilemma that she said something that cracked my whole understanding wide open: “oh, he said he likes it when sentences don’t make sense, that’s where reading begins with him”. I immediately thought of Coleman merely expressing his thought that he only playing the blues. Because he is! Really they both are. Moten, like Coleman and Free Jazz writ large, is in conversation with the black music tradition and what we’re hearing is one side of a very old (or non-linear) conversation. Moten has transmuted the feeling of free jazz into the English language. Bending notes, playing the “wrong chord”, atonalities, it’s all there. Even through his collaboration with Stefano Harvey, he’s only playing music and we’re reading the notation on the page. Probably another reason why people have often said his lectures “land” more than his books for so many.

Another lens to peer this thought I’m floating through is finding a relation between the aleatory, the creative, and the meaning found for in different cultures. In music, the two minds that spring up are John Cage and Anthony Braxton. Cage has spoken at length about his connection with aleatory, or chance, music—notably in 4’33 with the chance variable being everything not on the page becoming the composition; the room ambience, cleared throats from the crowd, even the page turnings from the orchestra onstage (as the composition does follow a metered notation). Braxton has been on the otherside of this chance music and instead as prompted his own understanding of improvisatory musics under the moniker “creative music”, which he’s describes as an open, or language, music that give performers room, not chance, to include themselves in a composition, notated or otherwise. A linguistic analog between this dichotomy of music might be Moten’s possible jazz approach to the king’s English and William S. Burroughs popularized découpé or cut-up technique. The cut-up technique is also an aleatoric (albeit Dadaist in origin) process where written text is cut-up and rearranged forming a wholly new text. Speaking with another friend, they first assumed Moten was himself applying this method to his works, but personally I think it falls in line with Braxton and Coleman’s approach to their own relatively warped way of playing the standards: once again finding yourself in a conversation with tradition of feeling, but refractive enough to look completely different.

The connective tissues between musicality and language that both Ornette Coleman and Fred Moten seem to inhabit dematerialized the panoptic black gatekeeper for me. I stopped taking the density of his work so personal. Something about reading and finding frustration not exactly knowing what it is you’ve read is an almost preternatural response for so many. But we’ve gotten over this feeling and just decided to understand through feeling with Jazz and although I might be behind the bend with these thoughts, I’ve allowed myself to feel the words on the page the same way, even when it’s stamped as a critical text. Confusion doesn’t always have to be a bug, it can often be a feature to find where you reside within it. It’s all jazz.