Illmatic Wiki
Illmatic has been listed as a in Art. If you can improve it,. This article has been rated as.
Illmatic is a. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check ) and why it was removed.
Illmatic has been listed as one of the under the. If you can improve it further,. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can it. This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as on August 18, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result Not promoted Reviewed Reviewed Promoted Demoted Listed Reviewed Kept Current status: Former featured article, current good article This article is of interest to multiple. Click show for further details. (Rated GA-class, Top-importance) Albums Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums Template:WikiProject Albums Album articles. Contents. this article was featured why isnt it anymore what is the point of editing an article if it causes it to not be featured anymore. —Preceding comment added by (.
) 00:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Why isn't this featured?? On Bias in the Lead It is correct to state that the lead of the article should outline the significance of the subject (i.e., why is it even in the encyclopedia) and should quickly summarize the material (i.e., what is this article about). However, there are strong cautions attached to this, the strongest of which is that the lead, moreso even than other parts of the article, must present an unbiassed approach to the material, and that in particular any evaluative commentary must be well-sourced, and maye well fit better elsewhere in the article. This is all part of the general prescription for NPOV, but is even more essential in the case of the lead of an article. There's certainly a place here for reception history, but it's not in the lead.
And even if it were, it owuld have to be more substantive than anonymous or minor reviewers' statements. 20:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC) You're quite right about anon or minor reviews, I agree completely there, but your readings of and are unorthodox.
It seems to me that neither say what you think they do. Have a look at the leads of some album like,. The concern is that the article should accurately reflect treatment in reliable sources, and the lead should reflect the article, explaining interest, import and notability.
Illmatic is of high interest, import and notability, as reflected in its treatment in reliable sources. I am all for citing Rolling Stone, The Source, AllMusic, et al and/or books like Rough Guide to Hip Hop, Classic Material etc. To demonstrate this rather than anon or minor reviewers. There is no shortage of reliable sources for this and the article would be the better for it. Would this be good for you?
19:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC) My reading of the guidelines may well be more strict than that of some other editors, but I don't consider that any real weakness in the basic argument. Certainly quotations from eminent or authoritative sources would be better than unsourced evaluative statements.but even then, you get into the question of what source is 'authoritative' enough, and whether or not you (you in general, not you particularly) are cherry-picking for editorial comments which simply agree with your own opinion.
Wouldn't it be preferable to leave the lead as objective as possible, and leave reception and criticism to the article body? Think of what a real encyclopedia would do, even with a topic about which there is overwhelming public or critical opinion. 21:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC) The thing is, that's not objective, that's incomplete. Since the lead should ideally be capable of standing alone on the subject at hand, and any encyclopedia would properly seek to distinguish an entity deemed important or superior from a run-of-the-mill one, the lead is indeed the proper place for information like this, as per the FAs mentioned above. Concerns about and apply to every article, and therefore every lead as a reflection of their article. We deal with this pretty well by citing general press, specialized press, and uncontroversial books that are not self-published, all under the scrutiny of a readership who can challenge a seeming consensus of sources with one of their own, do we not? 23:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Theoretically, I agree, and if you can find absolutely authoritative sources which declare a subject's significance, grand (though arguably significance should be manifest by the subject's very inclusion in an encyclopedia-wannabe).
The lead for Michael Jordan underwent precisely this transformation: first, it simply had the unsourced evaluative claim that he simply WAS 'the greatest basketball player in the world.' Clearly, that was unacceptably subjective. That got replaced with a sourced claim from some sports critics, to the effect that 'Sports journalists such-and-such claims MJ is the best ever.' Closer, but that got shot down in discussion for being too reliant on one critic's opinion. Step three - the one currently standing - is to note that the NBA and ESPN - the two most authoritative sources you could name in the field - had independently reconized him as the best player of the game. But wouldn't it be even better if one could stick to strictly objective facts like 'MJ was named MVP for the year X times, more than any other player,' without ANY reliance on opinion, however popular that opinion might be?
Can that be done with this album too? —Preceding was added at 23:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Obviously awards carry a lot less weight than critical consensus in this field, and it's hard to think of equivalents beyond reporting the 'fact' that a person or a bunch of people view it in such and such a way. One way might be to mention that it regularly appears in credible best ever type lists, if indeed it does?
Kinda sucky though. Another question is to what extent we can say something for ourselves, basically because other people say so in reliable sources. This is something we do here all the time, stating something as fact rather than one person's view, backing it up with a source or sources, open to challenge from dissenting sources should any emerge. The NYT reports that 'the music press called it a hip-hop masterpiece'. Good enough for NYT, good enough for us? I'd like a fact to this effect, ('masterpeice', 'classic' 'landmark' or some such, certainly the NYT call it a classic a lot) either by citing this piece (preferably) or by citing a ton of reliable sources (a drag).
Probably more important than quality for an encyclopedia is importance and influence: I think the lead needs something on this, and i can't think of any way of showing it except by citing people who think so. Would an NYT cite be sufficient for this, or would you prefer, provisionally to the 'objective fact' ideal, a broader range of reputable sources? Basically any source you would want to have something on this, will have something on this.
It's really that type of album. 01:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I could be convinced that a general note from a suitably eminent source could have a place here - the Rolling Stone note in the critical reception section could do. Oddly, while I agree with your fix, I disagree with both your assumption that 'awards carry a lot less weight than critical consensus.' If so, why so much fuss every year in the trade magazines about who is being dissed for this or that award?
07:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I always presumed that was to do with a combination of self-congratulation and marketing campaign perpetuation by the powers that bling.;) 18:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC) awards DO NOT carry more weight in any art form (historically speaking in literature, painting, etc), and they especially don't in music. Look at bob dylan, the rolling stones, elvis, led zeppelin, jimi hendrix, muddy waters, howlin' wolf, lonnie johnson, bach, the list of important musicians ignored by award shows (which is what they are, shows) is endless. Take bob dylan for example.
The quality, importance, and influence of his 1960s work is undeniable, but he was beat out by forgettable pop acts every year, just like jimi hendrix and the rolling stones were too. Imo, awards are almost irrelevant for popular music. I am sure they are many sources that back this up.
Illmatic Rapper
It's also common sense. And if anything, the greatest art usually don't win awards and are controversial. — Preceding comment added by 10:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Tracklisting Where did someone get the info on when each track was recorded?
Aside from 'Halftime' and a couple of the singles, is there any way to clarify when the songs were recorded? 02:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Dating 'Nas Is Like.' Right now there is the claim: During the sessions, Nas composed the song 'Nas Is Like', which he later recorded as a single for his 1999 album I Am. This is sourced to a book by Wang, which I have not accessed.
In any event, that song includes the line: 'I'm like all races/ Combined in one man; like the '99 summer jam.' Of course, it is quite unlikely that he would have written about 1999's Summer Jam while recording for an album that was released in 1994. It's possible that some of the song was written earlier and then altered later, but I would like to see some other source suggesting that's when this was written. There are also the lyrics: 'let my cash invest in stock/ Came a long way from blasting, Tecs on blocks/ Went from Seiko to Rolex, owning acres/ From the projects with no chips, to large cake dough,' which suggests it is being written when Nas has already achieved some amount of fame: 'owning acres. Large cake dough.'
(He does mention stock investing in close proximity with a reference to Tec handguns on NY State of Mind from Illmatic: 'Be having dreams that I'm a gangsta; drinking Moets, holding Tecs/ Making sure the cash came correct, then I stepped/ Investments in stocks.' ) — Preceding comment added by 19:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Alternative I removed alternative hip hop from infobox genres.
Alternative hip hop barely existed as a term in 94, when it did it was daisy age and digable planets type stuff. This album is on a major, and tells tales of street life, so by today's definitions it is not called alternative either. 03:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Fair enough. Unless anyone gives a ref, it should be removed. 04:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC) The Game Is it really worth pointing out that The Game referenced Illmatic? We could save time by noting the 7 albums he hasn't referenced (yet).
Take out robert christgau's review. —Preceding comment added by 00:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Well there are lot of rappers who referenced illmatic. —Preceding comment added by 00:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC) 01:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)George.
Although I love The Game, and the verse he spits, it's completely unnecessary to put in here. It's unnecessary stuff like this that prevents this page from being a featured article. It should be mentioned that Game has given several ode's to Illmatic, but the whole quote thing should be taken out.- 01:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Robert Christgau is a rock critic, take his review off He isn't legit as far as any hip-hop album he ever reviewed. I did some research on him and although he has some credibility as a rock critic, he doesn't know anything about rap music. He's also bias towards the lyricism of Rap, as if you read the reviews for any Dr. Dre, Snoop Dog, etc he ignores the musical qualities and only takes into account of the 'offending' lyrics and gives it a low rating. —Preceding comment added by 03:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC) According to the at WikiProject Albums, Christgau review should not be removed.
17:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Clearly he isn't a rock critic if he's been reviewing rap albums since the late 80s and was an early suppourter of hip hop? —Preceding comment added by 16:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC) While its not much of a review, 3(.) honorable mention is favorable of the album. 00:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC) What do we have to do to get this article featured?
its a good article — Preceding comment added by 04:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC) See. It's evolved and advanced quite a bit over the years.
16:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) I think it fits to the criteria (if the lenght doesn't bother). We should renominate it. I think it is pretty obvious the article is too long. I read the intro and thought it was good, but scrolling down the page, it's way too much information for one album. — Preceding comment added by 10:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC) from reading the section titles, i can say that for example there shouldn't be a whole section dedicated to the cover, that could be combinded with something else.
It could be 4 or 5 sentences. The sections on hip hop, west coast, decline of alternative, could be one section. There should be only one section analyzing nas' lyrics.
Nas Illmatic
Illmatic imo is lyrically the greatest hip-hop album ever, but more then one section talking about it is excessive and un encyclopedia like. Im tired sorry i know im misspelling a lot of words and might be confusing some things but trust me — Preceding comment added by 10:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC) Rolling Stone's list is irrelevant. Rolling stone lost any serious artistic credibility long ago.
Its been a hype magazine dedicated to celebrity news for a long time now. Its a rag and doesn't deserve serious consideration in a music review. I'm sick of seeing its 'greatest albums of all time' list all over the place. —Preceding comment added by 02:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC) That's just your opinion; Rolling Stone is a significant publication and and thus is eligible to be cited and linked here.
05:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC) I agree I don't think anybody has read the 'Rolling Stone' since the 70s. All they do now is glorify hippie nostalgia it's terrible. But seriously it was relevent back in the day, like when type writers were, but is it considered notable in today's climate of popular culture? —Preceding comment added by 02:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC) I agree it's top albums list is a joke, it's ranking of hip hop albums is a mess. Illmatic is considered the 'bible' of the genre yet several albums that aren't held in as high a light are ahead on Rolling Stones list. — Preceding comment added by 20:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC) Rolling Stone is a highly reputable industry publication. It's list is absolutely relevant and worthy of inclusion.
All the above criticisms are just opinion. 04:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC) GA Sweeps This article has been reviewed as part of. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. 13:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC) LA Times review Can u believe this 2/4 star review of Illmatic by the? 15:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Chicago Tribune review Transcription using.
May 5, 1994) review of Illmatic (1994): Illmatic (Columbia) (STAR)(STAR)(STAR) 1/2. In a recent issue of the influential hip-hop monthly The Source, an interview with Nas Jones, a 20-year-old from the storied, rough-and-tumble Queensbridge projects in New York, was headlined 'The Second Coming.'
Uh, not exactly. But if nothing else, Jones' debut is the best hard-core record out of the East Coast in years, its combination of no-nonsense lyrical flow and head-bobbing grooves reminiscent of Eric B and Rakim at peak power. The buzz on Nas was so great that he had top producers clamoring to work with him, and A Tribe Called Quest's Q-Tip, Gang Starr's DJ Premier and Pete Rock, among others, pump out grooves that incorporate everything from vibes and stand-up bass to ominous, low-rider sleighbells. Nas' flow is snake-like and smooth, lines rippling out faster than the listener's mind can comprehend all of their multishaded meanings. 'I got so many rhymes, I don't think I'm too sane,' he states, and it doesn't sound like Nas is joking.
His music dwells in the mean streets, but it has little use for the false machismo, the dead bodies and abused whores that clutter up so much of the hard-core genre.
First edition Editors, Sohail Daulatzai Country United States Language English Subject Genre Non-fiction Published 2009 Publisher Pages 308 ML Born to Use Mics: Reading Nas's Illmatic, edited by and, is a collection of scholarly essays and historical documents presenting from an academic perspective. The book features contributions from scholars and intellectuals such as Adilifu Nama, James Peterson, and among others. It also includes a preface written.
In the introduction, Sohail Daulatzai explains the structure of the book, writing: Born to Use Mics, encompasses the different styles and forms of hip-hop publishing, from the scholarly to the journalistic, the historical to the first-person account, using freestyles and wile styles to wax philosophic on the meaning of Illmatic. But the final mix you hold is more than the sum of its parts, as we’ve brought together an eclectic group of writers, scholars, poets, filmmakers, journalists, novelists, musicians, and combinations thereof who have all grown up with hip hop and have been deeply connected to it from jump.
In essence, Born to Use Mics is a literary remix, a cipher in book form as well of these contributors offer up unique and fresh perspectives, as they mediate on the significance of Illmatic. Born to Use Mics. Attempts to establish itself as a guide for exploring and its lessons on race, gender, and hip-hop culture. It includes an interpretive chapter for each song on the album, and features a section devoted to interviews, reviews, and personal reminiscences.
The book has been noted as a milestone in hip-hop scholarship, since it is the first to assemble a group of scholars and intellectuals to analyze a singular album within the genre. In a review of Born to Use Mics, Alessandro Porco comments on the significance of this intellectual project: 'Given the high volume of books published every year on hip-hop music and culture, it's surprising that Born to Use Mics is the first book of its kind, one dedicated to a single epoch-defining record.' References.