>So what you're left with is songs that once they crossed into
>the mainstream have been played so incessantly you don't care
>if you hear them again or albums that were such landmarks of
>their era that we might have worn them out then and/or they
>feel rooted in that time.
>
>I can't recall the last time I played Cypress Hill's first
>album.
>
>I also can't say there was an album that we played more in
>1991.
>
.
.
.
>In regards to your observation me nowadays will be reaching
>for Uncle Sam's Curse, Coast II Coast, Likwidation, Quik's 3rd
>& 4th, CMW's first three, Don't Fight The Feelin, Fear Itself,
>In A Major Way, Konnectid, Who Got The Gravy, loads of random
>TDE shit, Streetz Iz A Mutha, Born To Mack & others before I
>bother playing Straight Outta Compton outside 'If It Ain't
>Ruff' (check that remaster in some headphones, that envelope
>bass tickles inside your ear......Dre is a genius no matter
>what some of y'all say).
>
>But I can't in good conscience tell you that most if not ANY
>are better than any of those 'classics' if you were starting
>from scratch.


However, you could also argue that once the big songs/"hits" have been separated from the specific context of the album and instead enetered a sort of mass-consciousness *and* the initial "impact" has diminished, it's easier to evaluate the album on its own terms. Basically, how does the *whole* stack up separated from its original context, including the songs beyond the three-four or so "hits" you never need to hear again?

To me, that's where the likes of "Straight outta compton", "the Chronic" and, yes, even Cypress debut kind of fails (for the record, that's where "PAid in full" kind of fails too).

By comparison, Ice Cube's first two works MUCH better as albums to me; you could argue that it's because there are less overplayed songs but I don't think so; I think those two are genuinely strong front-to-back...

Overall, these are complex issues and I don't want to sound like a parody of myself and bring up fucking Black Sabbath but shit, why not?

Their most classic album "Paranoid" has three songs I *never* need to hear again (="Iron man", title-track and "War pigs"; actually, the last still works for me when I hear it because it's one hell of a jam even if I won't put it on voluntarily but the other two? WAY too overplayed ,at least here).

Remove those songs as well as "Planet Caravan" and "Rat salad" (the former is great but more of a side-dish than the main course, the latter is filler to the core) and there's three songs left; I love those songs but three dope songs can not exactly compete with "Master of reality" or "Vol. 4".

As such, I would never call it *my* favorite because a good chunk of it I never listen to.

At the same time, when I was like 9-10, I thought "Iron man" was the coolest shit ever and played it over and over and I loved the title-track too; it *was* my favorite Sabbath-record. SO:should I go back almost 30 years in order to evaluate the record properly or should I go with how I feel today? I think the latter is more honest even if it's not fair.

Also, I think it depends on the audience; like, "everyone" knows "nuthin but a G thang" and "Let me ride" inside-out. How does the rest stack up? That's really what I think is important because shit like impact, influence and blah-blah are things that disappear over time; it really doesn't matter too much 20 years down the line; it's a purely intellectual-as opposed to emotional-measurement of quality...