NME writes in its review of "Skull and Bones" by Cypress Hill:
"In fact, that's representative of 'Skull & Bones' as a whole. Mostly, it's the same old same old Cypress Hill hip-hop schtick, recorded as though through a fug of weed smoke, the production skills straight outta 1996. But when they dig deep in their recently acquired metal bag they seem genuinely excited by the gonzoid riffage and rapped aggression they pull out. Sure, it sounds a lot like the Bizkit, but it's by Cypress Hill and is therefore credible."
I can't figure out if he means :
A. Cypress sound a lot like the Bizkit, but their aggression sounds more authentic, thus they are better. (i.e Credible means "believable" rather than "OK to like")
OR
B. Cypress Hill sound a lot like the Bizkit, but it's more acceptable for an NME writer / reader to like the Hill, so thus they are better. (i.e Credible means "ok to like" rather than "believable")
If it's A, it's a valid argument. If it's B he should be lynched for idiocy (although in fairness, he may just be guilty of SAYING what lots of music critics are THINKING when faced with a choice between these two acts.)
What do you think he means? Is it really valid to prefer an act because they are more hip to like? Isn't this just letting other people decide your opinions gor you?
― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Tuesday, 20 August 2002 21:31 (twenty-three years ago)
Could he mean, it sounds like Limp Bizkit (he hates it) but they're Cypress Hill so everyone will just like it anyway (fuck them all, he says)
― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 20 August 2002 21:33 (twenty-three years ago)
No, he liked the album. He gave it 7 / 10.
― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Wednesday, 21 August 2002 10:04 (twenty-three years ago)
I don't dig the Hill's metal stuff but can find no grounds for labelling it in-credible. Maybe credibilty exists in the mind of the beholder, for though I might dismiss Steps, S Club, Gates, Young et al as completely lacking in the crediblity dept for all sorts of reasons, there must be valid reasons to suppose that a.n.other might not agree. And that's fine with me, cos I can't think of any credible reason to suppose why any of those guys have an ounce of any credibilty.
What field are we talking anyway? Credibilty to me must mean something well different to an NME reader/reviewer. Actually, what is credibilty?
― Roger Fascist, Wednesday, 21 August 2002 10:11 (twenty-three years ago)
I think he means that since Cypress Hill started out as a hip hop group, somehow their rap-metal is more credible, than Limp Bizkit (who presumably used to just play metal, and then added rapping). However, since they're both playing the same kind of music (according to NME), to say that Cypress Hill is more credible just because they're Cypress Hill doesn't make sense (even if he's using your B argument, it's wrong because nobody cares about Cypress Hill anyway).
― dleone (dleone), Wednesday, 21 August 2002 12:20 (twenty-three years ago)
I wonder if Cypress Hill would still be credible if they added polka to their repetoire?
― Lord Custos Alpha (Lord Custos Alpha), Thursday, 22 August 2002 18:37 (twenty-three years ago)
Maybe the 7/10 was ironic, like CH is the hip-hop James or something
― dave q, Thursday, 22 August 2002 18:58 (twenty-three years ago)