Streaming outlets provide musicians with means for true recognition

Last year was good for the hip-hop supergroup Migos. Their most recent album, “Culture II,” debuted at No.1 on the Billboard 200, while 13 songs from the album charted Billboard’s Hot 100. “I Get the Bag” by Gucci Mane, which features Migos, also charted, giving them 14 appearances on the Top 100 chart. To put this into perspective, the last time a feat like this was accomplished was in 1964, when The Beatles became the first musicians to have 14 of their songs featured on a Top 100 chart.

There have been other solo artists to match this level of popularity (give it up for Post Malone), but for a group of musicians The Beatles and Migos have been the only two. This speaks volumes about the popularity of rap music in the new era as well as the means to become a chart topper in the age of streaming music.  

Quavo, Offset and Takeoff, the members of the trio and close relatives from Lawrenceville, Georgia, have been making nothing but money moves from the get-go. Honing in on their rap potential and aesthetic flare, Polo Club (the name they went by originally) started filling Atlanta nightclubs in pre-2010. Now their arena shows sell out regularly.

In their decade of activity, the rappers have seen many changes in the music industry. The means by which their music is heard has changed dramatically, as they are receiving copious amounts of attention due to the ability to stream their music in an instant. Unlike the old days, when passing out CDs and hoping for radio plays were the way to get recognized, these musicians can now watch their numbers grow by the millions on any given streaming outlet, sit back and collect the check.

This universal shift in how music is acquired began with the earliest efforts to stream in 2003, via Apple’s iTunes. Flashforward to 2019, and there are upwards of 200 million music streaming subscribers worldwide. Hard copy sales are down, while streaming is way up. However, for the sake of nostalgia, there remains a hot surge in vinyl sales. Other than that, CDs and tapes are near extinction.

Migos has first-hand experience with this transition in music acquisition. At the start of their career, they were passing out CDs on the street and buying drinks for DJs in exchange for playing one of their songs in the club. Since those days and the switch to streaming devices, Migos have enjoyed a deal with Spotify that allows their music to be streamed instantaneously with every new release. Not to mention the countless services (Apple Music, Soundcloud, Youtube, etc.) which offer their music free of charge.

Despite streaming capabilities, Migos’ most recent album went double platinum, selling 2 million certified units. It would not be wrong to expect the same for their upcoming album, “Culture III,” in which there is rumored to be over 50 songs, full of features and full of fire.  

It’s hard to imagine where Migos would be today without Spotify, but to entertain such an idea is to imagine a world without streaming altogether. An easier concept to wrap one’s head around is where The Beatles would be today without the following outlets. On Spotify, The Beatles sit at No.108 on the world’s most streamed artists charts and the last song they released was in 1969. Think of where the Migos are right now, andimagine where they’ll be in the next fifty years — probably somewhere still on that chart.

In light of the endless ways to stream and promote music online, the approach that Migos once took to be recognized may seem a bit old school. Now, take a walk down Hollywood Boulevard and rappers are no longer passing out their mixtapes, but instead business cards with links to their Soundcloud or Spotify pages. This allows them to easily rack up more followers and their followers don’t feel bad when they can’t slide them a 5 dollar bill for their CD.

In the age of dreamers, a career in music no longer seems so unattainable, especially with rappers like Skepta, Noname and Chance the Rapper who have had the ability to release music and make money doing it, all without signing any kind of record deal. Before, a career in music would’ve required the traditional record deal route, which is now far from the case.

The implications of streaming for future artists is unprecedented. Anybody can break into the industry and amass a fan base regardless of the style of music they release. Datpiff.com, a website that solely offers free mixtapes, has an incentive for artists, who can pay 50 dollars for a sponsorship and their mixtape will sit on the front page of their website for a number of days, depending on its popularity.

This new wave of rap does not sit well with everybody though, especially the rap elders. Migos, along with Future, have pioneered “mumble rap,” and inspired tens of dozens of artists.

Mumble rap has connotations that there is a lack of lyrical ingenuity in comparison to classic rap. How, then, can rappers with such negative connotations reach the level of stardom once only attainable by those who walked the Abbey Road?

One explanation, is that times have changed. More important than a hyperspeed flow is having a group to vibe with; more important than a lyrical novella is a taste of the culture. It’s not that expectations have lowered to where listeners are more concerned with 808s knocking their hearts rather than a rapper’s message, but instead, what’s more important now is the culture associated with “mumble rap.” The story is there, no matter the song, no matter the musician.

Another explanation: the means of acquisition for this music is much easier than that of the 1960s. A song can be uploaded to Soundcloud, and in the blink of an eye, the next day it could be a hit. That being said, anybody with a flicker of flame inside them can accomplish the same feat as the Migos or The Beatles. The tools to get there are readily available and the inspiration to use them are in the air.

A final theory: people love triplets. No, not three related rappers dressed in Versace, but the unique rap flow that happens when three syllables are rapped over one beat. Although the triplet is often referred to as the “Migos flow” its roots can be traced back to Tommy Wright III and Mac Dre. To hear the triplets in effect, load up the Migos song, “Versace,” (or almost any of their songs) and listen to the chorus. Rap fan or not, the triplet is catchier than it may seem.

But on the topic of mumble rap, Migos were sure to level the playing field in their last album, where they sing in the chorus of their song, “Narcos,” “Straight out the jungle / This real rap, no mumble.” And right they are, for there is no such thing as the derogatory “mumble rap,” only rap, only music and its evolution to a brighter generation.

Written By: Clay Allen Rogers — arts@theaggie.org

Philanthropic company turns focus to gun violence

In a capitalist society, it’s easy to grow cynical about corporate greed and depravity. Some businesses, however, have molded their brands to manipulate capitalism for the greater good. Corporate responsibility is an increasingly important factor for these multimillion dollar conglomerates. In a movement toward corporate benefaction and activism, one simple shoe company has taken the torch to incite real change in the world.

For-profit retail company TOMS began with a simple idea to help those in need and has grown and expanded to benefit the lives of millions of people. The brand was originally founded on the idea of creating a better tomorrow. The name TOMS is based on the word tomorrow. In 2006, founder Blake Mycoskie was on a trip to Argentina and noticed local polo players wearing alpargatas, a type of shoe native to Argentina. Mycoskie also saw many children in impoverished areas of the country who didn’t have any shoes at all. Recognizing a problem in the world, the young entrepreneur set out to fix it.

The original concept was simple: Mycoskie wanted to develop and sell a similar type of alpargata shoe for the North American market, while also donating shoes to impoverished countries. The company follows a “one-for-one” business model, so with every purchase of their shoes, TOMS donates a pair to someone in need. They currently donate to several countries including Argentina, Ethiopia, Mexico, Rwanda and South Africa.

The shoes were massively popular when they were released. Along with the comfortable and unique style, people also respected the business model and enjoyed the fact that they could become benefactors for the company with a simple purchase.

Caitlyn Liu, a second-year English major, was a huge fan of the shoes when they first came out.

“I had a pair in middle school and I loved them,” Liu said. “Their brand was a casual wardrobe staple and I loved how they gave one pair of shoes away for every pair bought.”

Since its founding, the company has expanded its merchandise to clothing, handbags, coffee and eyewear. While still following the “one-for-one” model, each type of apparel has a certain cause to which TOMS donates. For example, in 2014, TOMS Roasting Co. partnered with different organizations to give a week’s supply of clean water to a person in need with every purchase of their coffee products. For their sunglasses, the company donates funds toward medical treatment of eye diseases and the distribution of seeing glasses in impoverished countries.

First-year biological sciences major Lana Alamamreh respects the “one-for-one” business model, both morally and from a commercial perspective.

“From a business point of view, it would probably be very beneficial because it would encourage more people to buy from their products,” Alamamreh said.

Along with making donations for every purchase, Mycoskie and the company also invest in for-profit entrepreneurial businesses that seek to give back to the community.

For example, the company invested in a Boston startup called ArtLifting. This organization sells artwork by homeless and disabled artists in galleries and helps employ the artists as well. Mycoskie also mentors young entrepreneurs and encourages their ideas if he believes they will spark change in the world.

While TOMS has been lauded for its philanthropic efforts and donations, it has also received criticism: some argued that the only way to truly help those in need is to create jobs within their country that allow people to support themselves. Mycoskie listened and changed his business model accordingly.

In an interview with Lewis Howes, Mycoskie explained how he worked to fix this issue. He told Howes that he made a promise in 2013 that “by 2016 [the company] would create 25% of all TOMS giving shoes in the countries [they] give them in.” The company not only accomplished that goal, but ended up increasing it to 50 percent of their business.

While morality and philanthropy has been at the company’s core from its founding, Mycoskie took the idea of being a corporate leader to the next level in 2017 when an event triggered him to look internally into the issues plaguing America.

Last year on Nov. 7, a horrific mass shooting took place in Thousand Oaks, Calif. There were 12 victims and the entire nation felt the effect of their loss.

This was not an isolated incident, either. There were over 300 mass shootings in America in 2018 alone. Mycoskie told Howes that news about shootings is becoming a natural part of life in this country. However, news of such a horrific event happening so close to his home in Los Angeles was the tipping point for him.

Mycoskie spent three days convincing his team and executive board to speak out on the issue of gun violence and begin campaigning to end it. The company then went public with their new mission. Mycoskie appeared on “Late Night with Jimmy Fallon” and discussed what he and the TOMS brand were going to do to fight for change.

TOMS made a donation of $5 million to organizations that fight to end gun violence, including March for Our Lives, Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action. This was the largest corporate donation to this cause in the country’s history.

The company then set up a postcard writing system on their website that allows people to send postcards to their local congresspeople, asking for universal background checks on all purchases of firearms. It takes less than 30-seconds to fill out a online postcard. The program debuted on the homepage of the TOMS website just days before Black Friday and Cyber Monday, but Mycoskie claimed he was willing to lose sales in order to make a difference.

Over 700,000 postcards have been collected already. On Jan. 8, House Democrats introduced HR #8, which would further regulate background checks for any purchase of firearms, such as those sold at gun shows.

Recently, TOMS arranged “The End Gun Violence Together Tour,” an event to rally around the bill for universal background checks. TOMS and their partners will hold community events and reach out to those affected by gun violence. The tour will travel across the country and end in Washington D.C., where the company will deliver the postcards they have collected directly to Congress. They will also host a rally in Washington on Feb. 5.

Second-year English and communication major Matthew Pimley thinks that the brand has a model by which all other companies will be influenced.

“I’m proud of TOMS for stepping up and supporting a good cause,” Pimley said. “They are an excellent example to other companies. It is my hope that other companies who follow in these steps will also educate themselves and offer support to those who truly need it.”

Written by: Alyssa Ilsley — arts@theaggie.org

How movies like “Split,” “Glass: can be damaging to people with disabilities

Movies are meant to entertain. Some make the audience cry, some make the audience laugh, but for the most part, people watch movies to enjoy themselves.

“Glass,” the third installment in M. Night Shyamalan’s “Unbreakable” trilogy, introduced a different genre of villains and follows the popular 2016 movie “Split.” “Split,” directed by Shyamalan, focuses on Kevin, played by James McCoy, as he kidnaps three girls and switches between his personalities, each posing a different scenario that the girls have to survive. While the girls do their best to stay alive, they learn that the personality they need to be wary of is the Beast. The Beast is an alleged superhuman being that will murder anyone that is ‘undamaged.’ Kevin, the villain, is diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder.

Director Shyamalan confessed that he has always had a fascination with dissociative identity disorder, according to The Guardian. And seeing how “Split’s” opening weekend brought in 40 million dollars, the public is obviously fascinated with the idea as well.

But when movies like “Split” and “Glass” are produced and their villain is a person with a disorder, it can affect people with these disorders in real life.

Milly Judd, a senior animal science major and co-director of the Mental Health Initiative, addressed the impact that these movies can have on those within the communities they are misrepresenting.

“You could be triggered because it’s inaccurately representing you,” Judd said. “Also if other people know you [have a mental disorder] … and then someone you know sees that movie, they’re going to think differently about you and that’s so unfair.”

Jennifer Billeci, director of the Student Disability Center, shared her thoughts on how difficult the situation can be for an individual with this disorder.

“I think it would be a really hard position to be in,” Billeci said. “In general, I would liken it to bullying. If you’re a person that is afraid that someone is going to think things about you that are negative or intrude you are probably less likely to be open with them and communicating freely.”

Many people learn about mental illness through the media. Mainstream media, however, has an undeniable reputation of stretching the truth, and when people with disabilities are represented in extreme circumstances, it’s no different.

“Culturally sometimes when people think of other people’s disabilities they think of them as being so different that sometimes they assign all kinds of personality traits that are no more true in a disabled community than as non-disabled people and sometimes it’s being a villain,” Billeci said.

Despite the number of movies that misrepresent people with mental illnesses, there are movies that are applauded for the way they deal with the subject.

“There are some movies like ‘Silver Linings Playbook’ that deal with it well,” Judd said. “I think we are getting better at it but I think that there are still the small amount that villainize it.”

The movie “Split” depicts dissociative identity disorder as a disorder that is potentially  dangerous and harmful to others. The stereotype that people with disorders are violent and have criminal tendencies is ultimately spread through movies like “Glass” and “Split”, but people with mental illnesses such as dissociative identity disorder are less likely to commit crimes and more likely to be victimized, according to U.S.News.

“They can compound misconceptions and misunderstandings when you paint the villain as somebody with a psychological disability or psychiatric diagnosis,” Billeci said. “When the reality is that people with a psychiatric diagnosis are not any more likely than anybody else in the population to display criminal behavior or things along those lines.”

The media is a powerful tool in spreading information, or in this case misinformation. While movies continue to be released based off of people with real disabilities, more individuals are misinformed.

“Movies are a great financial industry,” Billeci said. “When audiences go and applaud those types of messaging that it keeps the motivation going to have storylines along those kinds of thoughts and people are curious people so if you don’t know somebody with mental illness you might find this fascinating, but you might start taking some of the fantasy of the movie as being fact. Then that can be destructive too.”

With the right background knowledge and a deep understanding of the disabilities, movies and television can help people see beyond the stereotypes that have been forced onto others and give them the rights that they deserve, according to the United Nations.

“Things are more known about mental health illnesses” Judd said. “And so if you’re making something that kind of makes it in a bad way, makes fun of it, makes it seem unnatural, anything like that, it might not be consciously intentional but subconsciously it might be because they don’t accept it.”

Individuals with disabilities are not the only group dealing with being portrayed as villains by the media. The media loves to paint people that are different as the antagonists, and it hasn’t been any different with marginalized groups in the past.

“If you look back at history we portray groups in an unfair and an unfavorable light and as society, I would hope, becomes more enlightened is reduced,” Billeci said. “If you look back at how women were treated in movies, people of color were treated in movies, which still happens but not the same way culturally we found acceptable a few decades ago.”

People should take away several things as they leave the theater.

“Keep in mind, not everything you see on the surface is what is really happening and not everything appears as it is to be,” Judd said. “You shouldn’t judge by their inaccurate representations and if you do identify with [the disorders] then just know that that’s not real and you’re not alone and you’re not this weird outsider, villain outcast kind of thing.”

Written by: Itzelth Gamboa — arts@theaggie.org