Categories
Music

How album sequels have changed over the years in rap

Can album sequels contribute to a greater legacy or tarnish a masterpiece?

Album sequels are often a dice-roll. Sometimes, an artist will bounce off the momentum of their previous album and deliver a worthy follow-up. Other times, though, they’ll be a lazy cash grab to capitalize on the success of the first entry just to boost first-week album sales.

The purpose of a direct sequel is to revitalize the themes explored in the first entry and create a unique body of work that both echoes its predecessor and pushes it forward in an innovative way.

JAY-Z’s classic The Blueprint became its namesake for a lengthy series in which its sequels became watered-down versions of what made the original so good. The Blueprint 2: The Gift & The Curse was a far lengthier album than the first, while The Blueprint 3 might be one of the worst of his career. The albums came out within a few years of each other so neither of the sequels was considered to be overdue or absolutely necessary; they just came to be.

Conversely, an artist like Raekwon can drop one of the best albums of the ‘90s in Only Built 4 Cuban Linx and then drop its sequel a decade later. In this case, it can certainly be argued that the Only Built 4 Cuban Linx 2 was better than the first.

But what separates JAY-Z’s sequels from Raekwon’s?

Well, it depends on what the series is based on.

Cuban Linx is a mafia-inspired album, where the themes and lyrics are heavily lifted from the lifestyles of those involved in organized crime. The sequel was no different. When comparing the creative processes of both albums, they couldn’t be more different.

In the first entry, Raekwon only used RZA-produced beats while the second featured production from 15 different producers. However, when listening to them back-to-back, it’s clear that the albums are similar in concept.

These days, sequels are different. They come faster and they don’t necessarily represent the same idea they once did. Roddy Ricch’s Feed Tha Streets series came out within a year of each other. They sound similar only because Roddy’s hunger never left. His newest release, Please Excuse Me for Being Antisocial, is a clear step away from that series in favour of sounding more like Future and Young Thug.

Kanye West is also teasing the release of Jesus is King II, the potential follow-up to his Christian-rap album from 2019, and if his statement is true, we’ll be getting it sooner rather than later.

Then there’s also Wiz Khalifa who dropped Rolling Papers 2 far too late, when no one cared about Wiz Khalifa in the same way anymore.

Rappers aren’t trying to make movies with their albums anymore. Now more than ever, the sequels feel less like a narrative follow-up and more like a successor used to bank on the momentum and popularity the first entry created. 

 

Graphic by @sundaeghost.

Categories
Arts

Live-action Disney films: A worse idea than you can imagine

A study on the reasons Disney is remaking its beloved animated movies

If you’ve been following entertainment news recently, you might have heard Disney is planning on releasing live-action retellings of its classic animated movies. The first film in this genre was Alice in Wonderland, a 2010 remake which grossed over $1 billion worldwide, according to Box Office Mojo. Although the Jungle Book exceeded the studio’s forecasted expectations, the recent onslaught of adaptations announced within the last week has left some people dumfounded.

There are now 12 live-action Disney films in the works, including some childhood favorites like Aladdin and The Little Mermaid.  Even a Chip ‘n’ Dale adaptation was announced earlier this month, according to mashable.com. In my opinion, these remakes are a ridiculous idea with the sole purpose of increasing the production company’s bottom line. Why is Disney rushing out all of these remakes instead of developing new ideas?

For starters, according to Business Insider, Disney is a risk-averse company, and every time they take a chance with a challenging project, they fail miserably. For example, their attempt at entering the video game business—which, according to the same source, resulted in hundreds of jobs lost and the closing of six video game studios. According to Forbes, movies like Mars Needs Moms and John Carter lost the company upwards of $500 million. It is becoming incredibly difficult to attract audiences with new ideas in a world filled with derivative works, or works based on something that already exists, like a book. Moviegoers want to go see a film they know they are going to enjoy, not risk spending two hours grinding their teeth, Business Insider states.

It is also important to mention that Disney, like any other company, has to have a constant stream of output. The many animators hired by the company can’t remain idle—it would bankrupt the studio. Hence, any project, no matter how absurd, might start production if the executive team believes in its money-making power, as said in Creativity Inc., by Pixar president Edwin Catmull and Amy Wallace.

According to the same book, by adapting their previous works, Disney believes they will attract millennials who have been increasingly avoiding movie theaters. According to an article in The Atlantic, people between the ages of 15 and 30 grew up watching The Lion King on VHS and will go see its adaptation regardless of its quality. This is worrisome as the increase in ticket sales might cause Disney to believe that they no longer need to come up with new ideas—they can just continue to allow one remake after another.

This is not the first time Disney has opted to recycle stories rather than develop something new. The studio has been releasing sequels to their animated films since the late 90s and early 2000s, from Cinderella 3 to Aladdin: The Return of Jafar. At least the company had the decency to release those films straight to video instead of giving them worldwide theatrical releases.

According to Catherine Russell, chair of Concordia’s Mel Hoppenheim School of Cinema, filmmaking is constantly evolving. Due to its constant transformation, the movie industry should be dominated by adventurous producers, not money-hungry executives.

Exit mobile version