i'm glad to see there are a lot of people on here with open minds.
ic3, that song you listed by immortal technique was pretty hot.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IC3
I find it usually to be the other way around with alot of MC's first albums, When an MC first comes onto the scene and he's trying to make it..He usually puts all his heart into that shit and makes it real..Then once he starts getting that money..it all goes to thier heads. "Hey im rich now, so i can just do a half ass job on my 2nd album because my first made me rich" It's not like that with everybody, but i have seen it happen that way before. Maybe it's not always the money, It's usually the same with movies..I find alot of sequals to movies are usually never as good as the first...And that's the way it is with alot of hiphop albums..Just the way it goes.
|
one could argue that the 1st cd is the best argument is the same regardless of genre. i think norah jones' 1st album is much better than her 2nd, though i still like it... she had passion on the first one that seems to be lacking on the first... jill scott's 1st album is better than her 2nd, again, it lacks the passion that was so evident on the 1st...
from the artistic sense, it somewhat makes sense. how can an artist not be changed by the success? his/her life is no longer the same, they no longer have the same vantage point, they may be going through different things that weren't occuring during the making of the 1st album... as such, it seems virtually impossible for the artist to have more of the same.
also, i think as consumers, we like what we heard the first time, and often find it difficult, or perhaps impossible, to accept the artist's newest release... i mean, if the artist talks/raps about the same subjects/content in the same exact manner... did the artist really grow? perhaps we want more of the same, but the artist wants to try something new musically. don't get me wrong, i'm not saying that this is every artist's intention, but perhaps it's the aim of some. :shrug:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by K-Wise
The difference between commercial/fake emcees and "real" emcees is simple. Real emcees do it for nothing more than the love of the music and don't care about the money....they write what they want to write and not what they think will sell albums. If you do that..yer real regardless of your content. If Nelly is in the business because he loves making the music above all other aspects then he is a real emcee. Just because you're real doesn't mean you can't be wack though. Theres tons of wack ass emcees in the underground..."underground" means nothing more than not signed. Cash Money Millionaires were underground not too long ago peddling tapes out the back of their cars. Now they actually are millionaires...they're also wack.
Asta!!
|
interesting point.... i don't know if i necessarily agree though... i mean, what's wrong with trying to get paid?! true, being underground means not signed, but what mc out there doesn't want to get signed... what mc out there doesn't want to get paid for what they "love" to do. some could argue that every mc out there, regardless of huge commercial success or lack thereof, is "real". it just seems to me that many people feel that "real" artists are those you can't find in a large retailer...
i write poetry, and am unsigned, but my friends tell me i'm good and i get decent to good responses at poetry readings. am i more real than the cats on def poetry jam or other circuits because i'm unsigned? if a fellow poet gets paid for their work, and they do it first because they can get paid and they happen to be good at it, are they any less real?
don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to provoke an argument, just further the discussion... i think we romanticize late 70s, early 80s hip hop, as if it was all about the music, when i would argue that much of it was/is about selfish ego, getting women, and getting some money (albeit not as much money as today).