> You think a hip-Hop album
>of the 2000's have a chance as being as dope as something from
>the late 80's-early-mid 90's?


and I grew up with hip-hop in the 90s so I see many albums as classics.

but I know how to separate "classics" and actual quality.

there have been a ton of great hip-hop albums to come out in the past decade.

people don't know how to separate the "impact" of an album and its actual quality which is why you have a ton of people believing it to be blasphemy to say a "modern" album is in fact *better* or just as good as one of their beloved classics.

Do you honestly think Paid In Full is as high quality of an album as (and let be careful here because you and everyone else with turn this into a Rakim vs whoever post with your ignorance) Game Theory?

there have been so many musical advances that alone can propel Game Theory ahead of Paid In Full. BUT because Paid In Full is an all-time hip-hop classic due to its impact, people tend to take it personal if you state a more modern album is in fact of higher quality.

it's actually the most frustrating thing when conversing about music and hip-hop specifically because people get so tied to what are considered the "classics" and refuse to even entertain a new album being better than it.

but they never seem to draw the line. like it's ok to say ATLiens and Aquemini are better than Southern because they aren't to far removed but it would be insane to say Sir Luscious is better than Southern because it doesn't have the same impact culturally or personally. but when are we placing too much weight on those two things?

the state of the music won't allow someone to say a great album that dropped in 2011 is better than a classic album that dropped in 1994.

My last point is, people feel safe saying that the classic album from back in the day is better than a newer album because they feel as though their hip-hop opinion is solidified by doing so. They feel like if they list Pac and Big as the greatest then they obviously know what they're talking about because so many other people list them as the greatest. It's a very "Groupthink" mindset and really gets tired when discussing music.

I find it hard to believe that people can't understand listing Wilco ahead of The Band. Like that is completely impossible. It is ignorance at its finest and proof that people have a hard time forming their own opinions. Were you even around when The Band was so "cutting edge"? I doubt it, so by the time you heard it, it wasn't so "cutting edge". You're only drawing that from what older heads have already told you. but you probably heard The Band and Wilco around the same time.