I was thinkin' about something recently.
The majority of people who have been following, and in, the rap game for the past decade agree that the bay area music of today is not quite as good as it was back in the day - ie. 1990-1995 or so. The top notch artists that have been representing the bay for years are seeming to come with music that isn't as good as their early releases. Some examples are E-40 (Federal and In A Major Way to Grit And Grind), Mac Dre (YBB to Thizzelle), Andre Nickatina (Dre Dog [jim jones and i hate you] in general, to his current stuff), etc. Although I myself still love these specific artists music's along with tons of other rappers from the bay, most people still DO agree that the stuff being put out isn't as bangin' as it was a few years ago.
But I was thinking, maybe part of the idea that the new stuff from the old veterans isn't as good (Too Short just came to mind) is partially psychological in the fans' heads. Get this:
What if the release dates of Grit and Grind, and, Federal, were switched around? If Grit and Grind was released in 1993, would IT be the classic CD - and the ULTRA-NEW E-40, "Federal", couldn't touch that old classic?
If Mac Dre released Young Black Brotha and Stupid Doo Doo Dumb this year & 2003 - would it be as good as that "old classic" we all know as "It's Not What You Say..."?
I'm saying, if every artists CD's were switched around timeline wise, would the new stuff REALLY be the classics? Or would we think the older ones are better?
Having a hard time trying to explain exactly what I mean but i'm sure you all can figure out what im trying to say.
Is the old stuff better because thats what we grew up on - and we are expecting the exact same style we have been listening to for years?
I think situations like these are why some parents and the older generations stick with their oldies, their music that was made in the 60's and 70's when they were growing up. The new stuff is "so different" that they cant conform to the new society of music.
What do you all think?
The majority of people who have been following, and in, the rap game for the past decade agree that the bay area music of today is not quite as good as it was back in the day - ie. 1990-1995 or so. The top notch artists that have been representing the bay for years are seeming to come with music that isn't as good as their early releases. Some examples are E-40 (Federal and In A Major Way to Grit And Grind), Mac Dre (YBB to Thizzelle), Andre Nickatina (Dre Dog [jim jones and i hate you] in general, to his current stuff), etc. Although I myself still love these specific artists music's along with tons of other rappers from the bay, most people still DO agree that the stuff being put out isn't as bangin' as it was a few years ago.
But I was thinking, maybe part of the idea that the new stuff from the old veterans isn't as good (Too Short just came to mind) is partially psychological in the fans' heads. Get this:
What if the release dates of Grit and Grind, and, Federal, were switched around? If Grit and Grind was released in 1993, would IT be the classic CD - and the ULTRA-NEW E-40, "Federal", couldn't touch that old classic?
If Mac Dre released Young Black Brotha and Stupid Doo Doo Dumb this year & 2003 - would it be as good as that "old classic" we all know as "It's Not What You Say..."?
I'm saying, if every artists CD's were switched around timeline wise, would the new stuff REALLY be the classics? Or would we think the older ones are better?
Having a hard time trying to explain exactly what I mean but i'm sure you all can figure out what im trying to say.
Is the old stuff better because thats what we grew up on - and we are expecting the exact same style we have been listening to for years?
I think situations like these are why some parents and the older generations stick with their oldies, their music that was made in the 60's and 70's when they were growing up. The new stuff is "so different" that they cant conform to the new society of music.
What do you all think?
