at least according to my definitions (which most likely people won't agree with lol)

50 (arguably), wayne, em, kanye are the hip hop artists that the "general public" will remember from the previous decade. icons/symbols of rap for 2001-2010


on that type of scale, obviously madlib won't register. the roots wouldn't even register (moreso in the 90s i guess) and they've gone plat/gold/etc.


but if we're talking about legends, it's kind of a different discussion that i think is more centered on talent/output. i do believe there still has to be some widespread acknowledgement of the artist (i.e. some artist with 60 fans can't be a legend no matter how dope his music is). but madlib has obviously achieved that with albums on many critics (both mainstream mags and random blogs) best of lists, impact on the artists around him, and fans all over the world.

you can still debate all you want whether or not you think he is talented enough to be considered a legend. but it's not fair to say he can't be a legend because a non/casual hip-hop fan wouldn't know who he is. why would that be relevant to determining whether somebody is a "hip-hop" legend?