When rap came out 30 years ago I thought it was just a fad

Rap is not a form of rock and roll--it is rope-skipping rhymes set to a beat.

And, Whipsaw, my thoughts are not reflexive.  I have been listening to this music for over 30 years and have thought about it a lot.  I just don't think there's a lot to say about it.  

I don't think most of it (rap) is even music.  I feel the same about a lot of the modern classical compositions I was forced to study in college.  Comparing either to real music is akin to comparing that orange-colored chemical crap they put in Pixy Stix to taking a bite of a slice of an actual orange.

Whipsaw, there's a lot of music that I don't like.  But I don't say that it's not music.  I simply don't believe rap possesses the melodic element required.  If you're not going to have the melodic or harmonic element you'd better have some pretty interesting rhythm happening. 
If a "beat" poet recites with bongos accompanying, is that music or just a guy reciting poetry with percussion behind it?  Isn't that  essentially what rap is?
BTW,  again you insult my power of reasoning.  Why?  It certainly doesn't help your case.  I've heard rap as long as it's been around.  I keep listening and I keep thinking.  Again, the fact that I don't care for it is not the reason I don't think it qualifies as music.  You're jumping to conclusions.

onhwy61, I think rap is part of rock and roll tangentially--certain rock songs have rap elements. And what all is rock and roll? Is disco rock and roll? Is Motown rock and roll? I don’t even think a lot of the Beatles’ catalog is rock and roll--certainly a lot of it is. And of course there’s a lot of material that could be argued either way. I’m personally baffled by some of the people voted into the rock and roll hall of fame--not because they are not great artists, but because they didn’t play rock and roll or weren’t part of the pre-rock influences. Which is different from thinking someone doesn’t belong there because of the value of their music.

Exactly  calvinj--I don't happen to think rap is music.  So, by your definition, it's not.  You're right, case closed!  Thanks, Bro'!

When I was growing up it was typical for comedians and comic writers to make fun of the beatniks. One tried-and-true method was to do a parody of the beat poet accompanied by a bongo player. I ask all of you: is such a performance (the real thing, not the parody)  "music" or is it "performance art?" For me, it’s definitely the latter. I didn’t consider it a musical performance when my age was in the single digits and did not at any age, so it has nothing to do with being an "old fart." I can’t think of anything closer to rap than the beat poet with bongos, can you? It is performance art--it is not music of any kind, much less rock and roll. However, if it’s music to you that should be all that matters to you, your opinion is as good as mine or anyone else’s. Till someone makes a better case than I’ve seen or heard (and no one on this thread has addressed it yet, just pointing fingers and calling names) I’ll continue to believe as I do. Please, show me where I’m wrong on this.

onhwy61, what I was saying is that in my opinion rap is not music.  I said several times that it is in the ear of the beholder and that there is no absolute definition.  There are, apparently, people who think "Variations on a Door and a Sigh" is interesting and that it is music.  Or some of the works of John Cage.  There are those who think Andy Warhol's soup cans are brilliant art.  I don't.  The fact that someone will pay 100 million for a Warhol piece doesn't convince me that it's art.  The fact that rap has sold well for 30 years doesn't convince me that it's music.  "I trust my ears" is appropriate in this case.  The beatnik with bongos is not music to my ears and neither is the man with the electronic drum.  Performance art, yes;  music, no.  Again, in my opinion.  YMMV.

onhwy61, I don’t think there’s a single, absolute definition of either that we can all agree on. Some academics define music as "the art of sound." I find that broad. In school I heard a lot of post WWII classical compositions that I found to be bad and some which I would not call "music" because they lacked the presence of intelligent or organized elements of melody, harmony and/or rhythm. I think a man sitting at a drum kit or a pair of tablas is totally capable of creating music without melody or harmony--but it’s incumbent upon him to do something interesting. A guy sitting at a drum kit and playing a polka accompaniment with no melody, to me, is not making music. He’s giving you one piece of a puzzle that could be music if successfully fitted together. Whereas Roy Haynes or Tony Williams could play a drum solo which would amaze and delight with its imagination, taste and technical prowess.

There’s also the question of emphasis--in a poetry recitation or a rap performance the emphasis is on the spoken voice. Any music present is secondary to the voice, more so than if the person were singing and had an accompaniment based on some notion of harmonic interaction with the changing pitches of the voice. If David Byrne were to rap "Psycho Killer" with only the recorded electronic drum track behind him it might be great "performance art," but it’s hardly musical--just boring, repetitive rhythms with a boring, droning voice speaking. When he sings a melody and has a guitar playing chords behind him on the same piece it is music, to me. When the Red Hot Chili Peppers have a pure rap vocal over a funky music bed that’s a hybrid of music and rap IMO. And I do like that one tune ("give it away, give away, give it away now..."). I think its success lies in the fact that the the music is very good and the rap is very good (and they go together well in this case). I can’t think of another example of a pure rap that grabs me like that.

For those who think "everything we do is music," including all speech, industrial sounds, squeaking doors, barking dogs, etc., that’s all well and good, but then the word has no special meaning--it then is synonymous with "sound," so why even have the word "music" at all? Just say "sound."

Thanks for your time. Let’s do "rock and roll" a bit later, if you don’t mind.

Hey, ps, how about you quit taking cheap shops and actually address the points that have been made?  Show us some rap songs that are musical (I know a few are out there--I've heard some Snoop Dogg and Kanye tracks that have interesting things going in the background).  Make a case.  Don't just call us old and out of touch.  I've been hearing rap since it hit the airwaves and am certainly entitled to an opinion.  Most of it sounds to me like rope-jumping rhymes with an ultra-simplistic percussion track.  Stick your neck out, show us where we're wrong.  Otherwise you're standing by the side of the road throwing rocks at cars and then running for cover.

onhwy61, you asked if I

might not have the knowledge to understand how the musicians are using these elements? With all due respect, while you are engaging in a discourse you seem to have closed your mind on the subject.

1) What knowledge do I need to have?  Do you mean schooling, performance experience, listening experience--please be specific and then I'll know which information to provide.  And tell us where you got your "knowledge," if you don't mind.

2) What specifically have I said that makes you think I have a "closed mind on the subject?"

onhwy61, give me five tracks that you think deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with "the Revolution will not be Televised" and I will listen to them and get back to you.  I will listen with good phones, undistracted and with big ears and an open mind as I usually do.
BTW, FWIW, I like "the Revolution will not be Televised" and find it very musical.  I also like "Revolution" and "Revolution 1" by the Beatles, but don't care for "Revolution 9"--I find that to be performance art and not music. 
You're right when you say the masses get to define standards.  You're wrong to say someone has a closed mind when they don't agree with them.  I scratch my head when I come across the rare person who doesn't like Beethoven or the Beatles, but I realize that their opinion is as good and as valuable as mine.  BTW, I have made a living as a music teacher and performer but I don't think that makes my opinion more important than someone less experienced.  But I bristle when someone someone suggests I may not have the understanding of the elements of music necessary to formulate an  opinion of what's music and what's poetry.  I have studied, listened and played for decades.  What are your special qualifications that better allows you to make this judgement?
 Anyway, I like good stuff so please, tell me your top five "musical" rap tunes and I'll give them a listen ASAP.

rja, there is no cultural or racial bias that makes me think rap is not music.  Quit playing those cards.  Step up to the plate and show me where the music is in rap.  Quit making unfair, snap judgements and use your brain.

rja, what you said was:

There's very real cultural/racial bias in this thread.
1. Rap is not music.

Are you not saying that I am culturally/racially biased for saying rap is not music?  If not, what are you saying?

BTW, I said it was another form of art but simply didn't meet my criteria for being considered music.  That in and of itself is not a knock.  Actually, I feel partly the same about opera, which contains a lot of which is undeniably music (and a lot of it is undeniably great music), but as I said earlier:  opera is people singing when they should be talking and rap is people talking when they should be singing.  Don't take that too seriously, it's a pointed joke.

Anyway, if you weren't saying that to say rap is not music carries a cultural/racial bias, what were you saying?

This was set off  (by spacing) as one thought:

There's very real cultural/racial bias in this thread.
1. Rap is not music.
2. Creators of rap are somehow not as good as regular humans (whatever that means).

What else could you have meant?  If the A-gon members who said either of the two things are not culturally/racially biased, then who did you mean?

You may be on to something, nonoise.  I watched the last 20-25 minutes of a Kendrick Lamar ACL concert last night on tv.  He seemed talented and earnest and he had a combo of apparently talented musicians behind him.  I say "apparently" because they mostly played very pedestrian music behind his rap except for about one minute of a really good keyboard solo.  The crowd of 2700 loved every minute of the show (or the part I saw).  Oh, and the crowd seemed to be 99% white people, so I'm not sure which race or culture I must be biased against. 

Extramusical associations have nothing whatsoever to do with intrinsic musical value. Musical value is not tied to historical or cultural value--they are separate things.   And people who don't know real rap history don't necessarily hate it just to hate it.  More sweeping and unfair blanket statements.  You and I are equally entitled to dislike any music, food, what-have-you.  I'm half Italian and I don't think you're anti-Italian if you don't like Rossini or lasagne.  It just means it doesn't appeal to you.  I am so sick of the social media "haters gonna hate" B.S. that gets trotted out anytime someone doesn't like something or somebody.  You don't have a clue as to what is in the hearts and minds of the people you are accusing of being haters.

"certain kind of so called music lovers"--but, of course, you don't mean anyone here, right? 

No accountability = no credibility. 

There's no denying you've done your homework but you 1) make statements and then run away from them rather than back them up  2) have a strange way with the English language and 3) apparently have a need to prove the worthiness of the sounds you like to listen to. You're right, you don't need my approval and I don't need yours.

 If someone says rap is not music they're not necessarily saying it's not art or that it's not good.  There's a lot of stuff I like that's not music.  Anyway, you don't make a good case for your cause;  you simply put people off and prove the opposite point. 

calvinj, you spend a lot of time telling other people what's going on in their minds.  Please share  the source of your clairvoyant powers as we'd all like a little bit of that amazing ability. 

"Racial over/undertones?  Absolutely."

Trust me, I've been around genuine racism and tater's anti-rap statements are benign in effect and possibly in intent as well. You have no way of knowing his racial views from what he is saying about rap music.  You are way off base here.

But that's not the issue here--the issue here is whether it's proper to call someone a racist based on comments made about music.  That's some pretty heavy extrapolation. 

ps, he and calvinj have each started multiple threads and appear to be arm-wrestling over the merits of rap.  It's gotten into discussions of racism and elitism.  I didn't say it at the time but I felt the thread about snooty audiophiles was actually elitist  in tone, but coming from the OP himself.  I'm sure they're both good guys but I did find it all a little weird at times.  But I digress.
If you call a person's statement racist, what does that say about the person who uttered the statement?  What kind of person makes a racist statement?  And why/how do you read racism into statements made about an art form?  Who wants to discuss music with people who brand your comments "racist" when you're just discussing the elements of music?  Not me.  And that is absolute--I do know my thoughts and feelings.  Absolutely.  You, on the other hand, do not.  Absolutely.  

Agreed--Garth is one of the all-time  puzzlers.