One of the more striking observations I have seen from the musical critiques of a fellow named Buckley on Youtube is his comparison between rap music and other forms of music when it comes to people who fill the same niche. Rap musicians tend to have a lot of feuds over turf, bringing the same sort of conflict-ridden approach of their own gang-ridden neighborhoods to the world of music. Despite the fact that rap music is very popular, not only with people from the inner city but also with people of means who have a fair amount of disposable income, rappers often tend to keep their scarcity mindset from the streets that leads them to fight others for turf, as if they could claim whole segments for themselves and are unwilling to accept the legitimacy of anyone else who works the same beat that they do. This is extremely detrimental to their life, to their credibility, as well as to the sense of community within the community of rap musicians.

An example that Buckley brought up was that the band Nickelback was not upset at all when the Canadian band Theory of a Deadman copied their music and approach. Instead, Nickelback signed them to their label. Why? Not only is imitation the sincerest form of flattery, but having people copy your style and approach is the surest way to make that approach enduring and influential. Imitation is what leads practices and perspectives from small niches to massive genres and movements. In order to have one’s influence spread, other people have to learn how to do what you do, and appreciate it and appropriate it for themselves. When we let go of our possessiveness of our ideas and approaches, we are able to teach others and help our ways spread rather than fighting over sole ownership of those ideas. We have to decide what we want more–having a sense of control, or feeling the accomplishment from helping to guide and mold others in our own image as a result of doing something well that encourages imitation. By singing Theory of a Deadman to their label, Nickelback ensures an ability to profit off of at least one of the more notable bands doing what they do, so that as their sales inevitably decline, they are still in a position to influence and profit from others in their niche, leveraging their track record of success into the ability to develop others for long-term popularity, something that is useful far beyond the narrow confines of post-grunge music.

Why don’t rappers tend to think this way? To be sure, rappers have a great deal of cohesion within their posses, but this tends to lead to violence with other groups of people fighting over the same turf. Only nonthreatening people in the rap game who do a good job at making other people’s music better (like the late Nate Dogg) tend to be widely accepted, but largely because their niche is in supporting other singers rather than being a threat to the popularity or turf of others. Everyone else tends to squabble with others who are involved in their particular niche. To a large degree, this is due to an attitude of scarcity rather than any objective reality as far as rap is concerned. To put matters into perspective, there is a great deal more money in rap music than there is in adult contemporary or folk music, but folk music is full of a great deal of cooperation and fellow feeling (and adult contemporary musicians, like Celine Dion or Josh Groban or Michael Buble, routinely rave about the talent of other musicians within their genre even when they are not all rushing to create endless variations of the same Christmas songs for “holiday” albums or participating in duets together). A difference in mindset affects the way that people in different genres or communities feel about the level of threat that competitors provide, whatever the real picture.

How can this sort of situation be helped? It is necessary, if one would wish to avoid unnecessary turf battles and the stress and violence they produce, to understand that there is more than enough for everyone and that life is not merely a zero-sum gain, where any gain for someone else is a loss for oneself. This is a difficult approach sometimes, and one that is vital for developing the sort of behaviors that build trust and intimacy with others and that lead to greater opportunities for all. In order to do this, people need to stop seeing imitators as threats, and instead see them as marketing for one’s ways, and evidence that one is doing something that others see as being of value. If one can co-opt this potential competition through mentoring and seeking to expand one’s spheres of influence while encouraging and building up others, one can reduce tension and conflicts and increase one’s impact on others by spreading out one’s message and approach through many messengers. This is a vastly more productive way of dealing with imitators rather than trying to wipe them out, but we are not often wise, and far too often insecure.