The new release from Drake and SZA, ‘Slime You Out’ has captured public attention – but not for the music. Controversy began prior to its release, when Drake teased the song by sharing a photo of Halle Berry, going directly against the actress’ request that the image not be used. But once released, audiences were appalled by one lamentable line: “Whipped and chained you like American slaves”. Not only does this absurdly fetishize the brutality of slavery, but attention to this bar has distracted from some actually commendable wordplay from Drake later in the song. Though commentators have spotlighted this as an example of obliviousness in rap, generating backlash can only be deliberate marketing tactic.
Art as a whole is often meant to shock, to thought-provoke, to challenge. Through history, musicians have used controversy to sell. But why has the majority of publicity around ‘Slime You Out’ been so negative, especially considering that Drake and SZA’s names sell themselves? Is this a modern extension of a long tradition in the music industry of equating controversy to publicity – is ‘Slime You Out’ unique in any way? Or is this form of marketing a reflection of deepening polarity across political and social spheres? Perhaps, both?
Looking back, to be divisive was essential in fringe genres, from gangster rap to shock rock or punk. It was also often spectacular: think of Marilyn Manson plunging a broken glass bottle into his chest in one of his performances. The music of, for instance, the Sex Pistols is widely accepted as being technically mediocre – its very raison d’être is to appeal to those outside the mainstream listener base. Provoking Christian audiences continues to be a popular adoption of this method: a tradition popularised by Madonna’s ‘Like a Prayer’ has been adopted recently by the likes of Doja Cat, Lil Nas X, and Sam Smith, using devilish imagery in music videos.
Here, it is important to define the ‘mainstream’ which acts of music controversy were trying to go against roughly until the early 2000s. A convenient popular acronym for this majority is WASP: White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. WASPs were also the biggest media consumers around the turn of the century, when media influence was becoming ubiquitous. Not only this, but WASPs were the people in charge of these popular magazines and newspapers, as well as radio.The media framework then was inherently tied to establishments: consumers relied on such networks for the music they consumed.
But the acceleration of social media has completely altered today’s framework of music publicity. Now there is a lot more onus on the individual to seek out and stream music of their own accord, directed by what they see online. And the age-old magazine structure is being eroded by everyone and anyone with a Twitter account. Where in the past controversial lyrics in music were relegated to fringe genres, they have started to become assimilated in the mainstream, since algorithms amplify human polarity.
Music is a telling societal weathervane, and we can see controversy used to stoke flames in politics too. As an example, Donald Trump’s poll numbers have increased since his indictment, indicative of the power of public discourse. At home, the Conservative party leaves no room for middle ground in the United Kingdom. The country has been divided into supporters or defectors as we move past an era of intellectual debate, now mercy to clicks. A far-right subsect of the Conservative party has wrested media control: all it takes is for Suella Braverman to open her mouth, and news for weeks will be dominated by her aggravating “dream and obsession” to deport migrants to Rwanda for instance. Labour have harnessed this in Tweeting with increased fervour of Rishi Sunak’s hatred of children and schools – but few could describe their economic strategy. The idea of ‘fandom’, which can create an opaque veil where one supports an artist no matter what, is something which politicians are seeing as a viable tactic.
The real danger is when this language, stimulated by engagement in the musical sphere, enters the realm of political discourse. Look no further than Kanye West, whose antisemitic tirades have alienated a vast proportion of his fanbase – but have disturbingly kindled such bigoted sentiments amongst others. The overlap between cultural and political engagement cannot be understated, and social media is the double-edged sword which allows for non-exclusive participation in the discussion.
But, because the music industry is inherently profit-seeking, it is futile to hope that artists will begin taking heed of what they say. Artists are gamifying social media, and controversy is a winning strategy. So, the biggest names of today are walking a razor-wire tightrope of being just shocking enough to go viral on social media, but not so abhorrent so as to get cancelled. All we as listeners should do is start to expect this, to be more conscious of the game being played. If it bores you, look slightly outside the mainstream for those artists who don’t stoop to lazy lyricism and controversial publicity stunts, and who continue to respect the craft.
“Drake” by musicisentropy is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.