| Janszoon |
08-15-2015 10:44 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
(Post 1625064)
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. |
