Wicked Posted August 6 Posted August 6 1 hour ago, DanyelP23 said: Rihanna (before Anti or in general) is an incorrect answer. In order to be an (even quick little) album artist, you're supposed to drop a BODY OF WORK. Not a playlist with 3-4 BOPS at most and scraps/rejects that bring the number of tracks up to call it an album. I think that's more of your opinion on an album. An LP really didn't have that added artistic context to it until the 60s.
DanyelP23 Posted August 6 Posted August 6 1 hour ago, Wicked said: I think that's more of your opinion on an album. An LP really didn't have that added artistic context to it until the 60s. 1. Rihanna did not sing during the 60s. 2. The context in which this thread was opened was a play on words of: and since the op brought it up, I thot to bring up the rest. An album is a body of work that is supposed to have some cohesion (IMO) 1
lonnie Posted August 6 Posted August 6 12 minutes ago, DanyelP23 said: 1. Rihanna did not sing during the 60s. 2. The context in which this thread was opened was a play on words of: and since the op brought it up, I thot to bring up the rest. An album is a body of work that is supposed to have some cohesion (IMO) This would make sense if Rihanna hadn't released solid albums during that period: Music of The Sun, Good Girl Gone Bad, Rated R, Loud and Unapologetic are all solid albums. Every now and then I do question if whether y'all have actually listened to the albums. Singling out Rihanna for having singles that were huge and outshone the rest of the material on her albums (as is usually the case with most mainstream artists) is very dumb. The way you people go on one would think Rih doesn't have a single solid album
Recommended Posts