>my thought process on
>this question is that because
>the roots stick to their
>guns by not bringing any
>artificial ish, will they looked
>down upon when they (or
>if they) reach the mainstream
well, the sad thing is that everyone gets hated on. commerical-leaning-but-respected rappers from Kane to BIG were looked down upon for such reasons by at least one group of hip-hop fans from almost the start of their carrears. Or, you look at a group like OutKast - they lost a lot of fans when they did ATLiens. Recently, you have this ridiculous abandonment of support for Pharoe Monch. But really, all the fuss was about a creative, enjoyable single that just made some folks real uncomfortable by crossing over. The result was, he released a very strong album (not better than O.K.'s 1st 2 albums, but better than Equinox) that was looked down upon by many former fans. I really don't think a group that's so concerned with being artists like The Roots are can worry too much about what either the "true head" or MTV/Radio crowd wants/thinks of them, if they want to remain true artists. I mean, LWFC is a masterpiece, Voodoo is the best record I've heard in years, but look at all the naysayers, on all sides of the fence.

>like jay-z and dark man
>x. are the roots the
>next jayz, etc?
I don't think this is comparable. DMX was commercial from the jump, but in an unusal way ("hardcore" material/imagery, but done in pop-music format). Jay-Z was a much more commericaly viable artist than The Roots have ever been, even when he was only going gold. My point is, The Roots aren't about to cross over like that unless they do some drastic makeover. They'll never be in that position. Could they be the next Pharoe Monch? Yes. I'm not saying it will happen, but the potential is there.

Backhanded, pimpslapped backwards and left stranded - Kurupt