Jump to content

Talk:Illmatic/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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)[1]. 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[2], and that in particular any evaluative commentary must be well-sourced, and maye well fit better elsewhere in the article[3]. 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. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You're quite right about anon or minor reviews, I agree completely there, but your readings of wp:lead#citations and wp:npov#Attributing and substantiating biased statements are unorthodox. It seems to me that neither say what you think they do. Have a look at the leads of some album articles deemed among our best like Dookie, Enta da Stage, Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers), or Doolittle.
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. 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? 86.44.6.14 (talk) 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. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 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 cherry-picking and sources 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? 86.44.6.14 (talk) 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? 71.9.8.150 (talk) —Preceding comment 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 "[t]he 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. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 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? 71.9.8.150 (talk) 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. ;) [4] 86.44.6.14 (talk) 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. it's also common sense. and if anything, the greatest art usually don't win awards and are controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:BA80:5E5:757B:77F9:670E:F9A4 (talk) 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? Noahdabomb3 (talk) 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 unsigned comment added by 160.39.89.80 (talk) 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. 86.44.30.16 (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Unless anyone gives a ref, it should be removed. Spellcast (talk) 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 unsigned comment added by 128.97.1.117 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well there are lot of rappers who referenced illmatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.74.54 (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

75.182.115.88 (talk) 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.--Blastmaster11 (talk) 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 unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the discussion at WikiProject Albums, Christgau review should not be removed. Dan56 (talk) 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 unsigned comment added by 151.203.196.254 (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

While its not much of a review, 3(***) honorable mention is favorable of the album. Dan56 (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What do we have to do to get this article featured?

its a good article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 04:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. It's evolved and advanced quite a bit over the years. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 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 unsigned comment added by 2601:8:BA80:5E5:757B:77F9:670E:F9A4 (talk) 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. 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 unsigned comment added by 2601:8:BA80:5E5:757B:77F9:670E:F9A4 (talk) 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 unsigned comment added by 124.171.115.127 (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

That's just your opinion; Rolling Stone is a significant publication and reliable source and thus is eligible to be cited and linked here. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 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 unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 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 unsigned comment added by 67.80.196.200 (talk) 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.
Ulmanor (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

LA Times review

Can u believe this 2/4 star review of Illmatic by the Los Angeles Times? In Brief

Dan56 (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Tribune review

Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. Chicago Tribune (Kot, Greg. 7. 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.

— Greg Kot

Dan56 (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

USA Today review

Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. USA Today (Jones IV, James T. 10.D. May 10, 1994) review of Illmatic (1994):

Threatening to supplant Snoop Doggy Dogg as the new hip-hop rage, rapper NAS, on his debut album Illmatic (### 1/2), combines "phat" beats with the most urgent poetry since Public Enemy's. The Queens, NY, native takes to heart PE rapper Chuck D's description of rap as the 6 o'clock - without resorting to gangsta sensationalism. His lyrics are deep and take several listenings to fully absorb. He wields a gun ("Give me a Smith & Wesson and I'll have niggaz undressing"), loves Nike sneakers and smokes "blunts" because Life's a Bitch ("and then you die, that's why we get high/'cause you never know when you gonna go"). NAS feels "blessed" to have reached age 20, but he portrays this bleak life honestly and with lyrical finesse - and without bashing women - unlike many so-called gangstas' shock-for-sales rantings. Rap has turned his life around and made him thoughtful, as shown in Half Time: "(I) won't plant seeds/don't need an extra mouth I can't feed." The top production work (Pete Rock, Gang Starr's D.J. Premiere, Q-Tip from A Tribe Called Quest) sizzles with irresistible rhythms that sample everyone from jazz veterans the Heath Brothers (One Love, a moving letter to a convict friend) to Michael Jackson (It Ain't Hard to Tell).

Dan56 (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nas's?

Pretty sure if a name ends with an s just an apostrophe is needed and not another s after it..? So they should all be Nas' ? 

I think it should be Nas'.

Parypv (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

what happened to the review links?

somebody get it back.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Genre

When it comes to artist articles, Template:Infobox musical artist#Genre says "Aim for generality (e.g. [[Hip hop music|Hip hop]] rather than [[East Coast hip hop]])." But the album infobox gives no such instruction. Subgenres should be fine as long as they're discussed somewhere in the article's text, where they should be supported by references. As usual, the infobox should reflect the article's contents, which in turn should reflect its sources. With respect to the label "East Coast", however, it seems unencyclopedic to include a label that is narrow-minded in condensing hip hop into regional differences. Perhaps they were somewhat appropriate at the time, but archaic terminology is not encyclopedic. Dan56 (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

While I hate absurd sub-genre spam in info boxes as much as anyone, and indeed am no fan of info boxes themselves, your closing comments above are somewhat worrying coming from someone who edits heavily in this area. The regional aspects are distinctive and meaningful and recognized by every decent source, and they would remain so even if they were entirely historical (which they are not yet, not quite). They have, if used correctly, nothing to do with narrow-mindedness. So please bear this in mind when editing in areas outside of info boxes :) 86.44.18.93 (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not really constructive to include it as a genre since they are not consistent in describing musical characteristics i.e. actual genre; for example, The Pharcyde's and Dr. Dre's works, vary musically/stylistically, so are they both "West Coast" just b/c the artists are from the West coast? The style of hip hop popular in that region during the 80s was electro hop, but in the 90s it was G-funk; musical works of these styles should then both be classified with respect to genre as West Coast, even when they sound different? It's misleading, and b/c of hip hop's nature in moving on to the next style/sound, it should be avoided. "West Coast" and "East Coast" and other "regional" subgenres seem more like pigeonholing than encyclopedic. Dan56 (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we could copy this to your or my talk and carry on? It's quite general in topic, but interesting. 86.44.18.93 (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Track listing format

Due to the fact that this album doesn't contain a plethora of performers and producers, and nor is there a source for the 'year recorded' section, I really don't see the table as being all too necessary. I've thus converted the track listing template to simplify the information, and have columnized the list of samples. If anyone has any issues with this and would like to comment, please feel free to do so. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not then just remove the years and performers list, and keep the table with the samples listed? It seems more convenient for readers to see the samples side-by-side w/the tracks they're used on rather than having to locate them below. Dan56 (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I'll admit that the new template just seems really different, being that this page has had the table for quite some time. But I still don't see the table as being all too necessary. Also, I don't see the sample columns as an inconvenience, being that the song titles are boldly listed above the samples they contain. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Request to remove citation

"The album remains one of the most widely celebrated albums in hip hop history, appearing on numerous best album lists by critics and publications"

  • Doesn't need to referenced, it's referenced throughout the entire article(and the accolades section) about how this is considered one the greatest hip hop albums of history or otherwise all time.
  • I removed another reference from this sentence without discussing(572861674) for the same reason, I suggest removing the About.com citation from this sentence as well..

Nonsense...

The fact is that any average joe clicking onto the Illmatic article has to know that the album is so much more than just an important hip-hop album. Stating that Illmatic was responsible for nothing more than a revival "of the east coast scene" does a total disservice to the glory of Nas' creation, and does not get across to the normal people that he created a Beethoven Symphony, not just another good hip-hop album. I've included a source, but there are literally so many saying the same damn thing about how epic and important Illmatic is, that citing any more is pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.8.84 (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@83.149.8.84:, quoting a specific source instead of summarizing with due weight violates Wikipedia's policy on neutrality in the lead (WP:LEAD#Relative emphasis). Let's not engage in fancruft here--"the glory of Nas' creation ... a Beethoven Symphony"?--especially when that opinion is debatable; Robert Christgau would prefer Ready to Die ([5]), while I'd personally prefer Blowout Comb, and that's just for '94. Dan56 (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

i think it is good how it is, it mentions its wide critical acclaim and its place in hip hop history, that is good enough. a lot of critics don't like beethoven, just like nas and rap... like only a few musicains have universal acclaim it seems like, like the beatles and mozart... its not important anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:BA80:5E5:757B:77F9:670E:F9A4 (talk) 09:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Illmatic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Illmatic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Illmatic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Illmatic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is way too detailed

I'm not even halfway through reading it yet, but it's very detailed. There should probably be another article to hold the comprehensive analysis of this album. Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm putting together a draft here that will contain the excess information. Aitch & Aitch Aitch (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Illmatic/Archive_2&oldid=1227159608"