archive : A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Cover Art Jurassic 5
Power in Numbers
[Interscope; 2002]
Rating: 7.1

Many dismiss Jurassic 5 as suburban hip-hoppers who merely exploit the ever-fashionable old-school vibe. And it's true: their style does borrow heavily from the genre's pioneers. But one thing I've always admired about the group is that, despite their success in the mainstream, they've continued to adhere to underground values. Their audience may drive SUV's and worry about SAT's, but J5 themselves came together at the Good Life, a true-skool cafe that, for years, served as the epicenter of LA hip-hop. Naturally, their pedigree doesn't excuse their recent falloff, but it at least lends them more authenticity than a lot of other underground groups.

But let's get to what you came here wondering about: whether Power in Numbers returns Jurassic 5 to that dope-as-fuck old-school revival style they came with on their debut EP, or if it's a too-comfortable retread of the ready-for-M2 formulas that turned Quality Control from what could have been one of tightest joints of 2000 into a homogenized backpacker retreat.

After a brief intro produced by Cut Chemist, the album kicks off proper with "Freedom". Although Nu Mark's downtempo production is more than adequate, the album would have benefited from a stronger introduction that bumped a little harder. As it so happens, we don't really get anything to grab hold of until the fourth track, "Break", which also, not so coincidentally, marks Cut Chemist's first real track.

While the J5 emcees rarely have anything interesting to say, their flows-- and particularly Charlie 2na's-- sound nice on a strictly phonetical tip, a similar dynamic to those of the old-school emcees they're clearly trying to parody. This works a lot better when a worthwhile producer's lacing the track with a fat, uptempo beat that's able to steal the focus away from the lyrics; it's when the slower tracks come up, and we're actually made to listen to what the emcees are saying and not just how they're saying it, that we run into trouble.

After another brief interlude produced by Cut Chemist, a pair of old-school legends, Percy P and Big Daddy Kane, step up to the mic on the very nice "A Day at the Races". The bassline is absolutely smokin', and Cut Chemist lifts a tight sample from the legendary David Axelrod. Big Daddy Kane steals the lyrical spotlight as he declares that he's still "Gucci dressin'" and warns that "you out of your league like Jordan in baseball". It should also be noted that, sandwiched between Kane and Percy P, Charlie 2na steps up his game and remarkably holds his own. It's no secret that Charlie's the lyrical glue that holds Jurassic together, but he really shows improvement on this album.

Unfortunately, "What's Golden", the album's first single, finds J5 returning to dangerously familiar territory. For the chorus, the emcees sing, "We're not ballin' or shot callin'/ We take it back to the day of yes y'allin'." The first time J5 expressed their desire to "take it back", it was dope. But they've covered this ground so many times now that I'm wondering now if they've got an obsessive disorder that forces them to repeat these sentiments ad nauseam.

This formulaically old-school approach is both J5's greatest asset and worst liability. Those of you who love this trait, and aren't turned off by the group's non-threatening demeanor and positive pose, will probably dig Power in Numbers. But if you prefer your hip-hop with a little more kick, you might want to dig deeper into the still-vibrant LA hip-hop scene. Numbers isn't breaking any new ground, but it does rehash the golden age of hip-hop quite nicely.

-Sam Chennault, October 14th, 2002







10.0: Essential
9.5-9.9: Spectacular
9.0-9.4: Amazing
8.5-8.9: Exceptional; will likely rank among writer's top ten albums of the year
8.0-8.4: Very good
7.5-7.9: Above average; enjoyable
7.0-7.4: Not brilliant, but nice enough
6.0-6.9: Has its moments, but isn't strong
5.0-5.9: Mediocre; not good, but not awful
4.0-4.9: Just below average; bad outweighs good by just a little bit
3.0-3.9: Definitely below average, but a few redeeming qualities
2.0-2.9: Heard worse, but still pretty bad
1.0-1.9: Awful; not a single pleasant track
0.0-0.9: Breaks new ground for terrible