Imagine painting a picture in an Italian or African style as an artist. Or making rock music in the style of black blues. Or a K-Pop artist in the style of R&B. When an artist makes a painting or a song, it’s their own unique creation.
To an artist, taking ownership of a “style” of music sounds like taking ownership air or water. In conclusion, a piece of art that an artist or songwriter created themselves is their own song or painting and is not attributed to anyone else.
Comments
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
What a completely ignorant view of history, culture, and systematic oppression.
Exactly. Performers are performing and have a semi exempt status for the whole appropriation argument.
I don’t like the term “culturally appropriation” anyways. I feel like there can be times where people do culturally appropriate things, but if someone’s respecting the culture and showing their appreciation for it then I don’t see the issue.
I think its a fine line but tend to agree with you. Nobody wants to talk about how music genres spread within a community also by cultural appropriation and that the only way to say otherwise is to take a racist view of the world that assumes people from different races cant share the same culture
For example, a couple years ago it was somewhat popular to say Elvis stole rock and roll from black people. In reality he was an impoverished white kid in the south and was inspired by black artists. He was also largely dismissed by racists as a “n-word” lover and not actually embraced in the racist south.
And for anybody who disagrees, I wonder why you think if Elvis skin was a different color, it would be inspiration and not appropriation?
I think the issue here is with the phrase “created themselves”. I believe inspiration for almost all of the things we create can be traced back to something that someone else created. I’m sure you’ve heard of the phrase “standing on the shoulders of giants”. For anyone that has ever heard a song, read a book or seen art before, I don’t think anything they make is truly something they “only made themselves”.
It’s only appropriation if you claim you invented it. If you pay homage to and give flowers to your influences, it’s not appropriation.
Its not possibly to culturally appropriate anything since anyone can wear, listen to, eat, or say anything they want to
What about a white boy cap rapping and doing som Chicago drill whilst living in the suburbs? Most definitely appropriation
I agree, but would apply it to everything, not just music. Cultures don’t own anything, so nothing can be appropriated from them. And you definitely aren’t hurting anyone by doing the things people scream about.
So make whatever music you want, wear whatever clothes you want, eat whatever food you want, etc.
There’s a band from muscle shoals called the swampers. A lot of black artist went there expecting a black band . (First major one was Aretha Franklin) and was shocked to find 4 nerdy white dudes lol , they defied all segregation rules and everyone got along great and helped make a good chunk
Of the hit music that came out of the 60s and 70s
There is appropriation, and appreciation.
If the person claims they created it, designed it, and it was their own that falls under appropriation.
Appreciation is when you pay homage to your predecessors and what inspired you to make it.
If I paint the mona lisa and she has a white dress and short curly hair, I can’t say it is my own creation if I drew inspiration from the mona lisa. It is inspired by that painting.
It makes it worse if the roles were reversed. If I, as a famous painter with influence, and better access to resources, stole some lesser known and appreciated artist’s mona lisa and called it my own it completely discredits that artist for their work that came from the heart.
You say that until you hear that UK drill rap lol
Are you familiar with White Boy Reggae
Cultural appropriation is bollocks anyway.
I remember when that museum doing a Japanese art exhibition or something like that encouraged people to visit wearing Kimonos, and you had a bunch of white, 18-21 year old soy latte-drinking pansies trying to lecture the middle-aged Japanese woman who started the exhibit that it was somehow cultural appropriation.
Or the time a bunch of white, 18-21 year old soy latte-drinking pansies got a girls Taco truck shut down by harrassing her for cultural appropriation.
Saying you can’t culturally appropriate a style of music ignores history and power dynamics. Musical styles carry deep cultural meaning—they’re not just sounds to borrow. When dominant groups profit off styles created by marginalized communities without understanding, credit, or respect, that’s exploitation, not artistic freedom. Appropriation isn’t about using a style—it’s about who benefits, who’s erased, and whether the culture is respected.
I think the vast majority of people take more issues with the disparity of how certain cultural hallmarks are treated depending on who is embodying them.