Recently I bumped
The Chronic, as I always do at least once every summer as even though it was a winter album, it’s perfect for those hot summer days. After also seeing a discussion regarding which album was preferred,
The Chronic or its follow-up,
2001, I was quite surprised at some of the responses. So for the purposes of completely reducing hip hop fans to one of two trivial labels, it seems that people are either a Chronic fan or a 2001 fan, and the differences define the type of rap fan you are.
For starters, there’s the obvious generation gap. While
The Chronic came out in 1992, it wasn’t until 7 years later that
2001 was unleashed on us by the diggy-diggy Doc yall. This means that for swarms of fans,
The Chronic is only heard in historical context. However even with the large gap in time, the similarities in the albums as well as the differences are part of what defines the two sets of hip hop fans.
I’m a Chronic fan. I bumped that album start to finish countless times in my youth and although I definitely didn’t understand every message or anecdote, I still loved every second of that record. From the way Snoop dominated that album to the way the guests like RBX and Lady of Rage and obviously the Dogg Pound contributed, that was and still is one of the most important records in hip hop history. Fast forward to 1999 when a new generation of kids had grown up knowing of “Nuthin’ But a G Thang” as being one of those “old school” tracks and here they get a full album of Dr. Dre complete with another lineup of guest artists and that Cali funk production. Their experience may have been similar to mine back in 1992 and subsequently, their opinion of the Doctor was formed and hung more so on “2001” than the album they were mere infants for.
I personally think
2001 sucks. It’s boring, it’s nowhere near as good as its predecessor, the guests are terrible (aside from the west coast legends as well as Snoop and Xzibit) and the production is decent but it doesn’t come close to the potential Dre can (could) offer. But is that only because I grew up with
The Chronic? Is that why these younger fans love
2001 because to them, that’s when Dr. Dre was big? Or does it really say something about a person’s taste when they say
The Chronic is ok but that
2001 is better?
It’s funny how similar the albums are, especially as far as the guest appearances. The way Hittman and Knoc’turnal are completely irrelevant is sort of like how we all loved RBX and the first lady of the Row (after Michel’le, #milkcartonstatus) but never bought their albums. The Dogg Pound makes their appearances on
2001 but it’s not like they really blew up with “Dogg Food” and by 1999 people had stopped checking for them anyways (pause). Add in that same g-funk feeling and the familiar subject matter and it becomes a defining question, which one do you prefer, the debut or the follow-up? Does your preference have to do with your age or entrance into hip hop? Does your preference come from a completely unbiased listen to both albums or does it stem from a personal meaning that one album has to you over the other?
To me it says something when you ask the question and the response is “oh I like
2001 better”. It tells me a lot about the person, whether or not that’s being superficial I really don’t care, it basically tells me that this person will probably disagree with more of my views on hip hop than they will agree. It doesn’t bother me, it just provides insight to the type of fan I’m dealing with. At the end of the day I can throw in
The Chronic any time and enjoy the memories of MTV Beach House and a top 20 videos that actually consisted of entire clips being shown, but you won’t catch me reliving the Y2K madness anytime soon with
2001. But nevermind my arrogant opinion, which one of these records elevates YOU more?
The Chronic or 2001?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by beautifulrock
Bookmarks