Hypothetical Question: If This Were 1996 Would We Be Talking About Drake.

Dot_Robinson

Dot_Robinson

Psalms 37:4
I like Drake.

Catchy choruses, can hold a tune, simple delivery, simple rhyme scheme, memorable punchlines, etc. Has a look the ladies can crush over and a swagger the fellas can respect.

But if this were 1996, would Drake be as big of an artist as he is now?

Is Drake a product of mediocrity?

Has the quality of Hip-Hop progressed for the better or for the worst in terms of artistry (skill, content, fan favorability)?



Detailed Answers Please. (DAP)
 
Last edited:
I mean, you are asking a rhetorical question...

Think about it for a minute...

It is pretty safe to assume that the average age range for Drakes fan base is 13-24

On the extreme end of that spectrum, a 24 y.o was 11 in 1996. So they can't really answer that question. They would surely think he would be hot, because why wouldn't he be?

I am 32.. In 1996, I wouldn't have bought Drakes CD most likely... But he would not have been considered trash.

So, these are kind of loaded questions depending on who you are asking.

I know one thing, musical taste has definitely progressed in the newer generation... As it does with every generation.

Doesn't necessarily make the **** wack... Even though IMHO, a lot of hip hop is trash indeed...

But "wack" is a subjective term.. And it always will be.. But you will lose an argument if you are pleading a case to a schoolyard full of hipster kids that Mickey Factz is wack. You would be in ther minority.

Not saying Mickey Factz is trash, just an example..
 
Last edited:
Drake's the product of mainstream rap's recent change in style, combined with influences only recent artists could have had (like Wayne)...

So I guess that's like asking if a young Snoop Dogg (from the Chronic days) would survive in today's music "climate" (assuming he kept his early 90's swagga/image/flow)..

In conclusion: Probably not lol

but what do I know...
 
i'll be totally honest.

i have no idea who drake is. i youtube'd him and he's pretty wacksauce. mainstream hip-hop is weak nowadays. it just sounds like horrible popular rnb ****.
 
drake woulda been 10 in 96


um


if youre considering talking about 10 year old boys please dont do it on fp.
 
Fu*k no drake couldn't sell in 96. Hes not lyrical enough. He see times where he wants to be lyrical and he tries to be but he just ain't. He has a good flow and he can hold a tune but in 96 rappers that tried to sing got made fun of. Hell Ja Rule got made fun of in 2003 for singing on a record.
 
DjayCas said:
drake woulda been 10 in 96


um


if youre considering talking about 10 year old boys please dont do it on fp.
Click to expand...
stop being stupid. or trying to be funny. anyway drake in 96 would not work, his appeal has so far depended largely on his timing. hes riding the same wave of success that wayne created, that pronouncing your "ers" style. depending on when in 96, pac would still be alive, and so would BIG. people would have just laughed at drake back then.
 
Its not that big of a deal, there's always been bad rappers that get more publicity than they should. Get over it and move on.
 
Drake's flow is almost the same on every track but he's still nice. That flow is getting old already tho, if he doesn't mix it up soon he won't last long. For an actor, his videos suck ass so he needs to work on that too.
To answer your question OP, yes he would have survived.
 
would drake sell in 96?

to soft lol, and not good enough to compete with other rappers win the same lane.. at that time of course
 
Yes he would do better because the non sequitors and similies that were pioneered by Wayne were not invented yet. The type of quotables you want to go say to your friends or to impress girls. Yunno, slick lines and sayings or statements that just stick in your head and you want to use. That stuff is relatively new. It's like yeah he doesn't rap as fast as twista or bone thugs or tech nine but who gives a F&ck what they have to say. It's about the balance of switching up your flow patterns in unique ways while still packing your verses to the brim with quotable content and memorable concepts. It's the intonations of his voice, coming from an acting background, that makes him connect and communicate to audiences.

So yeah drake would have blew up even harder if he was exactly transported back in time with the same things in his brain he does now.
 
Last edited:
eff 96... what about 98... that was THE year in hip-hop... X was still a threat, Vol 2 came out, the Lox were still a viable hip-hop entity... Double R was coming to fruition... and the East coast basically ran the radio... so in short, Drake would have been a gimmick, and nothing more... would have flopped and been dropped from most labels
 
TracAssassinLokk said:
eff 96... what about 98... that was THE year in hip-hop... X was still a threat, Vol 2 came out, the Lox were still a viable hip-hop entity... Double R was coming to fruition... and the East coast basically ran the radio... so in short, Drake would have been a gimmick, and nothing more... would have flopped and been dropped from most labels
Click to expand...

lol @ 98 being better than 96. 94-96 are the best years in hip hop. Ready To Die, The Score, Reasonable DOubt, All Eyez on Me, Me Against The World, Life after death, too many classic albums to remember that all came out from 94-96
 
Xabiton said:
lol @ 98 being better than 96. 94-96 are the best years in hip hop. Ready To Die, The Score, Reasonable DOubt, All Eyez on Me, Me Against The World, Life after death, too many classic albums to remember that all came out from 94-96
Click to expand...

thats a two year period... this was a single year...

but wait... did you forget the miseducation of lauryn hill??? or capital punishment??? don cartagena (fat joes second good album)??? or meths Tical??? or 400 degreez??? or Aquemini (which got hardly any play with the exception of Rosa Parks, well in the Lou at least)??? and those are just the ones I consider classics (with the exception of tical and don cartagena, they dont stand the test of time as a whole)... not even the ones that are great but not necessarily classics
 
Last edited:
yeah its 2 years that are each on its own better than 98. 98 was decent but hip hop imo started to fall off in 97 then came back in 2001 after the blueprint dropped then fell off again in 2006
 
Xabiton said:
yeah its 2 years that are each on its own better than 98. 98 was decent but hip hop imo started to fall off in 97 then came back in 2001 after the blueprint dropped then fell off again in 2006
Click to expand...

Id put 94 on par with 98... but not above it... 96, no effin way
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top