This editorial is short but to the point, I want you to think back when reading this and realise whats happening before things go beyond the point of no return. Lets be realistic, hip hop hasn't produced a classic album in years. We haven't been without great albums but for the last 2-3 years there's been nothing universally accepted as groundbreaking. That includes all the indies, commercials and whatever you label 'hip hop' in the 1-9-9-9.

We're all looking for the next big thing and ready to deem it the next 5 mic award even after hearing just one song or a few cameos, case in point: Canibus. I'm not putting Canibus down he's a truly gifted emcee but it's a bit early to enrol him in the MVP category of hip hop. The album became very inconsistent and didn't show off Canibus's greatest attribute of his talent, his battle skills. Production also let him down with our expectations after releasing in mine and I'm sure in your opinions the sickest beat you've heard him rhyme over as the first single, the rest of the 13 tracks had about 1 or 2 choice cuts on there. I'm thinking that maybe 'C-quel' the E.P. will deal us what we originally hoped for but with hip hops track record I don't have high hopes til that CD has stopped playing in my Discman for the first time, maybe we should all judge albums like that instead of having high expectations, then theres no disapointment.

OK lets get off Canibus's back cos now its time to attack the devil of this artform and my favorite people to get pissed off at, the record company. The industry is too caught up with making emcees 'Mega stars' these days, I mean they just use artists so bad, if the product is too hard and they fail in promotion they don't generate sales so when they don't sell they get dropped, a catch 22 situation. A lot of the time after an artist has submitted an album the record company will want them to change it to suit their way of thinking. So if the artist records a jiggy track or a cut for the ladies their compromising their credibility cos if it wasn't for the label they wouldn't be recording anything like that. I mean that ain't what they best at in the first place, if they want tracks like that they should sign someone who can do it well. The independent route is more of a struggle but at least the artist doesn't have to fuck with industry big wigs. There's also a flaw there, some artists need direction (don't get it confused with being told what to record), so sometimes the product can be acceptable to the artist but not to the audience so independent ISN'T always better.

What else has changed over the last few years to enable this lack of quality?, well think back, was the market flooded with bad emcees back then?. Was it all about appealing to the pop audience but trying to maintain your street credibility?. Answer of course is No!, artists made their music for the hip hop crowd, it was all about supplying us with the goods we wanted with no compromising. Also if we look at albums themselves, these days they are too formulated, its all about getting the hottest producers, a guest on every other track, a few tracks for the clubs, a pointless interlude etc. In hip hops teething years an artist would hold down the whole album, production wasn't an issue as long as it was a tight beat and it was usually produced by themselves anyway. Guest were kept to a minimum, maybe one posse track or maybe one cut that was almost radio friendly.

Look at the length of CD's these days, back in the early nineties an album would have about 14 tracks at most on there, no one fucked with pointless interludes and it was all about quality. I'll give you some examples, 'Illmatic' without a doubt '36 chambers'contained interludes but flowed well, 'low end theory', 'follow the leader', 'One for all', 'Step in the arena' and 'Fear of a black planet' all prove that it was all about quality over quantity. I mean would you really wanna buy an average album just cos it got 18 tracks on there instead of a mindblowing album with just 10?. Another fact that is evidence enough that quality is low is the amount of singles released from albums in the late nineties, back then you'd get about 4 tracks released with maximum airplay but with most album releases these days the artist is lucky enough if they make it to the second single before interest is lost. Shelf life is a lot shorter because of this, that's why artists now bring albums out nearly every 12 months. Have they taken time over that period to actually create something worthwhile? Or something that will sell mad units just by reputation?

To truly bring back the essence of a great collection of songs emcees, deejays and producers need to prove they can hold down them down by themselves, move away from that formula, and pick tracks for the album that are actually bringing something to the table not just cos of who produced it or whos the hottest guest on there at the moment, get rid of the filler, would we really be mad if they cut all that shit out and gave us what we really wanted?

- Philip Oliver