Dr. Dre

Justthefacts · 08-15-2015, 08:36 PM

How can I hear this without paying for it?

~~Cuthbert~~ · 08-15-2015, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justthefacts

How can I hear this without paying for it?

Send a PM to Vowels and ask him to forward you the links I sent him. On mobile atm so too tricky to do it myself.

If you haven't got it by tomorrow evening send me a PM and I'll send it you.

**Janszoon** · 08-15-2015, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth

you could be right... i honestly don't know much about the technical side of production/recording technology... but what i was asking was basically "do you prefer the beats on 2001" rather than do you prefer it overall as an album

the distinction i was making about the recording quality vs the beats overall is that to me, there are some hip hop albums that sound relatively low quality/lo-fi and yet i prefer them that way... sort of adds to the aura of the music for me. i think the simplicity of the early g-funk beats (see: the chronic, regulate, efil4zaggin, some too $hort records) and even of some later g-funk influenced music like master p's ice cream man or 2pac's don killuminati (which were released 2 years after doggystyle) actually adds to the music. for example.. i would say i like the beat on "bitches aint ****" more than anything on 2001. it doesn't sound as polished or fine-tuned... but i actually like it better that way. just sounds raw and gangster as **** to me.

What I'm talking about isn't technical at all. If you listen to The Chronic then listen to 2001 it's very noticeable that 2001 is bassier and has an overall fuller sound. I'm not saying I think that music always has to have a lush production style by the way. Earl Sweatshirt's album I Don't Like Shit, I Don't Go Outside from this earlier year, for example, has a very lo-fi sound that was obviously a stylistic decision on his part and works well for the material. The thing with The Chronic is it doesn't have a lo-fi sound and it doesn't seem like Dre was going for anything like that. What it seems like he was going for was something bassy and cinematic but wasn't quite able to give the music the kind of oomph it was begging for. The album is still great despite that, but I'm glad he resolved that issue when he applied the same aesthetic to Doggystyle.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 08-16-2015, 09:50 PM

honestly i might be misusing terms like lo-fi etc, but regardless i prefer the beats on the chronic. they might very well have less bass.... that doesn't bother me. it's simplistic... p funk derived.... relying largely on high pitched squeals as far as i can tell... but i love it. it just exemplifies early g funk for me. 2001 isn't even in the same league.

i also rate the chronic over doggystyle so we just have different preferences i think

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 08-16-2015, 10:15 PM

you've honestly got me going back listening to these albums that i haven't heard in years, for reference... and listening to this **** right now, i'm going to say that yea i think the chronic and doggystyle sound noticeably different to the production on 2001, and doggystyle sounds way more similar to the chronic than it does 2001. 2001 sounds way more modern/polished. one step further removed from p funk, one step closer to modern pop. as i said, i love both. but i have a special place in my heart for that old school g funk sound.

Norg · 08-19-2015, 02:21 PM

I just want The Chronic 3001 not this stuff TBO o well

08-16-2015, 09:50 PM	#44 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	honestly i might be misusing terms like lo-fi etc, but regardless i prefer the beats on the chronic. they might very well have less bass.... that doesn't bother me. it's simplistic... p funk derived.... relying largely on high pitched squeals as far as i can tell... but i love it. it just exemplifies early g funk for me. 2001 isn't even in the same league. i also rate the chronic over doggystyle so we just have different preferences i think

08-16-2015, 10:15 PM	#45 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	you've honestly got me going back listening to these albums that i haven't heard in years, for reference... and listening to this **** right now, i'm going to say that yea i think the chronic and doggystyle sound noticeably different to the production on 2001, and doggystyle sounds way more similar to the chronic than it does 2001. 2001 sounds way more modern/polished. one step further removed from p funk, one step closer to modern pop. as i said, i love both. but i have a special place in my heart for that old school g funk sound.

08-19-2015, 02:21 PM	#46 (permalink)
Norg Music Addict Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 2,358	I just want The Chronic 3001 not this stuff TBO o well