“Biggie Smalls fell! He was never that good anyway! I mean Life After Death to me was better than Ready To Die and even that could have been one CD instead of two.As I sit here and conjure up all sorts of imaginary vitriol one might have found on social media today if Biggie were still alive, I can’t help but wonder if there is any rapper whose legacy hasn’t been tainted by simply staying alive. ?
Every other genre, sports, and special interest seems to have untouchable heroes and legends that represent their brand. So why not hip-hop?
Hip hop is a relentless genre. It’s rooted in street culture, and if there’s one thing street culture has always lacked, it’s long-term praise for our heroes. Whether it’s a learned or innate attribute, a hip hop Mount Rushmore could probably never be built by virtue of dissent in our ranks. No one would give you enough time to formulate some sort of general consensus (aren’t there three hip hop museums in New York alone?!) The neighborhood may sing your praises, but you better believe someone has a problem with every component of your ascension. (“Why do you work so hard?! Why is your girlfriend so pretty? You’re not special!”). Be that as it may, every other genre, sports, and special interest seems to have untouchable heroes and legends that represent their brand. So why not hip-hop?
At no point was hip hop expected or intended to go as far as it has. Competition has also always been a supplier component of rap. But is it possible that all emcees have fallen down or have never really been that good? Each? Did Slick Rick fall? Did Rakim fall? Nas fell? Isn’t there a rapper who has maintained some sort of complementary track record throughout his entire career? Do we really believe that there is no Tony Bennet of this type of rap? Now that seems ridiculous to me. Of course, no one is above reproach and no one is infallible, but are we going to hell? Do we all stink except the dead?
For every “top 5 debate” ever had, there is so much acrimony on why everyone we love shouldn’t be so heralded that I’m not sure if these debates should be called “top 5” or “top 5 things we are wrong with your favorite emcee (“Jay-Z is a biter, Nas can’t pick good beats, Andre 3000 doesn’t record enough, etc.”) Even dead boys get it from time to time (“Tupac wasn’t as lyrical as the rest, BIG doesn’t have a big enough body of work”)). The “battle” has trumped the “hit” in every case and contention is the ONLY order of the day these days.
Could it be that all of our favorite emcees didn’t turn terrible and our irrational formula of [nostalgia + consistent innovation/newness * personal expectation= all emcees will eventually suck] is what can be the driver? I’ve said it before, but you can only lose your virginity once and with each additional occurrence, no matter how pleasurable, the novelty will eventually wear off and you’ll start looking for other benefits to satiate your needs. In other words, a cool emcee is a cool emcee.
If the only artists you can really appreciate are the dead, then it may not be the artists who have changed for the worse (hint: it’s you, cranky curmudgeon).