- 3,783
- 2,337
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2003
It Was Written is a classic album.
There's no debating that.
There's no debating that.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Please explain how its better than Illmatic?
Lyrically? Not better Musically? No Organization of tracks? No
If you want to give IWW an edge in production I can see that but sorry IWW isn't messing with the greatness that is Illmatic at all. Only on NT have I see this album held in such high regard.
IWW has some great songs but it is not a great album. Very good but not great or classics....its has some definite missteps/automatic skippers such as Nas Is Coming (awful hook and one of Nas' worst tracks), The Setup and Shootouts. None of those tracks do it for me at all.
Illmatic to this day I can still play all the way through and it is a superior lyrical album. Like I said IWW is very good and deserving of 4.25/5 rating but classic it is not.
Jakes had no trace of the face, now they drew a print
Though I'm innocent, 'til proven guilty
I'ma try to get filthy, purchase a club and start up a realty
For real G, I'ma fullfill my dream
If I conceal my scheme, then precisely I'll build my cream
I agree with this, but all this means is that both of these albums are better than the Nas one because RD and BP1 are almost identical in qualityThe Blueprint >>> Reasonable Doubt
This.Fact.
Reasonable Doubt was never even mentioned until Jay claimed it was a classic and slept on around the time The Blueprint came out.
The Blueprint >>> Reasonable Doubt
This.
RD wasn't even the best album in the year of 96. Go take a look at what got released in that year. It only went gold, and didn't go platinum until it got re-released later.
How are you inferring this? Please, please, please point out to me where I posted that RD was wack. Where did I say that a gold record was a failure? I posted that to put it's original release in perspective. People's hindsight vision is always perfect. I clearly remember RD had it's fans upon it's original release, but through revisionist history, it was the album of the year, when it wasn't. I can tell what side of the fence you're on from your response.This logic baffles me. So because an album wasn't recognized as a great until years later (i.e. slept on when it dropped), and didn't go plat right away, it has a negative impact on the quality of the music?This.
RD wasn't even the best album in the year of 96. Go take a look at what got released in that year. It only went gold, and didn't go platinum until it got re-released later.
And what does better albums releasing in 96 have to do with RD vs IWW? Neither were the best album of 96.
we say that NOW, but at the time of release, that was the measuring stick.I think the main point here is that one should never use sales/money as a measuring tool for an artwork's quality.
LOLWUT? I didn't say you said it was whack. I didn't say you said gold was a failure. I'm not aware of anyone who thinks RD is album of the year in 1996, so I can't comment on that. Point is... the fact RD wasn't originally recognized by the masses as a classic and didn't go platinum right away, are not good reasons why IWW > RD.
How are you inferring this? Please, please, please point out to me where I posted that RD was wack. Where did I say that a gold record was a failure? I posted that to put it's original release in perspective. People's hindsight vision is always perfect. I clearly remember RD had it's fans upon it's original release, but through revisionist history, it was the album of the year, when it wasn't. I can tell what side of the fence you're on from your response.
Ok, then I misunderstood, and I wouldn't even say RD was slept on, it's the fact that so many good albums came out that year it just kind of got pushed aside. Back to the subject at hand, I like WWW>RD, but I'll take illmatic over both. I still bump illmatic to this day.LOLWUT? I didn't say you said it was whack. I didn't say you said gold was a failure. I'm not aware of anyone who thinks RD is album of the year in 1996, so I can't comment on that. Point is... the fact RD wasn't originally recognized by the masses as a classic and didn't go platinum right away, are not good reasons why IWW > RD.
How are you inferring this? Please, please, please point out to me where I posted that RD was wack. Where did I say that a gold record was a failure? I posted that to put it's original release in perspective. People's hindsight vision is always perfect. I clearly remember RD had it's fans upon it's original release, but through revisionist history, it was the album of the year, when it wasn't. I can tell what side of the fence you're on from your response.
As far was where I am on the subject at hand, I think IWW is a better album, but I actually find myself listening to RD more. 95% of the time I listen to Nas, it's Illmatic.
This.
RD wasn't even the best album in the year of 96. Go take a look at what got released in that year. It only went gold, and didn't go platinum until it got re-released later.
This logic baffles me. So because an album wasn't recognized as a great until years later (i.e. slept on when it dropped), and didn't go plat right away, it has a negative impact on the quality of the music?