West Coast Connection Forum

The Connection => West Coast Classics => Topic started by: MOON KNIGHT on December 27, 2010, 10:50:59 PM

Title: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: MOON KNIGHT on December 27, 2010, 10:50:59 PM
Serious question...

The poor mans in a coma & Dre thinks it's a good look to emulate Nate Dogg on his new song  ???
I mean... at least Dre should make some contribution to The Nate Dogg Fund. Which is doubtful, as Warren G has to make Youtube videos asking for moolah. If Snoop was out of commission would it have been accepted to have some "fugazi Snoop" such as Top Dogg appear on his track ? If you use someone else's style don't they deserve a shoutout or "Get Well" ?
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Chamillitary Click on December 27, 2010, 10:55:51 PM
Not disrespectful.

Dre is trying to make an album, has a lead single, he can't be shouting out people on it.

If anything, it was in honor of Nate.

& you wouldn't see a fake Snoop do an entire verse like Snoop, unless it was Dre doing one of those imitation verses like Game on "Never Say Goodbye".
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: MOON KNIGHT on December 27, 2010, 10:58:14 PM

Surely his name could have been dropped in one of the verses.  ;)
If indeed it was in honor of Nate.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Chamillitary Click on December 27, 2010, 11:02:33 PM

Surely his name could have been dropped in one of the verses.  ;)
If indeed it was in honor of Nate.

I meant it in a more subliminal way. Knowing todays group of kids, they probably don't even know who Nate Dogg is lol.

I wouldn't be surprised if he gives Nate love on at least one bar on all of Detox. :P
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: MOON KNIGHT on December 27, 2010, 11:04:54 PM

Surely his name could have been dropped in one of the verses.  ;)
If indeed it was in honor of Nate.

I meant it in a more subliminal way. Knowing todays group of kids, they probably don't even know who Nate Dogg is lol.

I wouldn't be surprised if he gives Nate love on at least one bar on all of Detox. :P

I hope so... or cut him a check  :laugh:
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Nooc210 on December 27, 2010, 11:31:33 PM
if ANYTHING it's a HUGE honor & a respectful way of paying homage to a west-coast icon that otherwise couldn't perform himself.
anyone thinking of or pandering to the contrary is a "Bitch Nigga"... 8)
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: BIGWORM on December 28, 2010, 12:15:19 AM
TOTAL BITCH MOVE...

At least throw him a shout out or a pic or something.


The West Coast Lost Alot Of Flavour When Nate Had Those Strokes....
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: love33 on December 28, 2010, 12:18:23 AM
Not disrespectful. Rap is all about imitation and duplication, taking someone else's idea and expanding on it -- that's how slang gets spread around and rap is full of sampling tracks from the past.

First comes Nate Dogg then Akon, Trey Songz, T-Pain, and now Drake has the throne and before Nate it was Marvin Gaye.  One thing about rap is it's funny how people think they can't be replaced just go drive by the cemetary.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: dameons on December 28, 2010, 12:22:27 AM
It's a compliment to Nate's signature sound . He is one of Dre's usual suspects . Dre needs Nate or he is not doing Dre music . I bet Nate knows what's up .
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: MrJas on December 28, 2010, 01:02:04 AM
Do you want to wait longer for Detox to come out? I'm sure dre could have waited for Nate to get better.

Smh at people thinking it's disrespect, Dre was basically paying homage
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: ruthless95rip on December 28, 2010, 01:06:41 AM
Im not a big fan of Nate Dogg but i do think its kinda messed up they had that guy imitating him.

Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Portugoal on December 28, 2010, 01:24:41 AM
Of course it's not disrespectful... If Dre wanted to disrespect Nate Dogg he would've dissed him, lol.

What would be the point of raising funds for Nate Dogg? The man's living like a plant, not a dime is gonna change that.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Dre-Day on December 28, 2010, 03:15:05 AM
yeah i think it's disrespectful.

you can't diss ja rule for imitating 2pac, when you put a nate dogg imitator on your single.
not to mention that sly didn't give props to nate dogg
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Mista Rosa on December 28, 2010, 04:05:21 AM
Do you want to wait longer for Detox to come out? I'm sure dre could have waited for Nate to get better.

Smh at people thinking it's disrespect, Dre was basically paying homage

Nate had 2 strokes, it's sad to say but he probably would never sing, live a normal life again. I mean let's be realistic, he had his last stroke 2 years ago and he still can't talk, move his arms and legs.
A Dre album without Nate is gonna be weird. But Dre could have used old vocals, but i don't think that's Dre's method.

I don't think it's disrespectful, but i hope they'll give him a shout out in another song or in the booklet..

What was really FUCKED UP was the "underdog" song, labeled and promoted as a Nate Dogg one, when it was obvious that fans would recognize that it wasn't Nate! That was DISRESPECTFUL!!
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Davizz on December 28, 2010, 04:20:29 AM
It's like having Realest saying "Hennessey.... enemiesss", I think it was hella disrespectful but at the same time... THE BEST PART OF THE SONG.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: MY FIRST LOVE WAS HIP HOP on December 28, 2010, 04:52:26 AM
in my opinion, yes, it was disrespectful. At least give the man a shout out..
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: jeromechickenbone on December 28, 2010, 04:59:38 AM
Yes, def disrespectful.  But Dre is a homosexual devil worshipper so I'd expect nothing less.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: No Compute on December 28, 2010, 05:09:53 AM
Yeah it was and the album title should be changed to "Detox - An Album Dedicated to Nate Dogg". ::)
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: HighEyeCue on December 28, 2010, 05:11:15 AM
in my opinion, yes, it was disrespectful. At least give the man a shout out..
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: awol22222 on December 28, 2010, 05:11:20 AM
Yes, def disrespectful.  But Dre is a homosexual devil worshipper so I'd expect nothing less.
The illuminati do not exist, lmfao.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Fonkarround on December 28, 2010, 06:03:47 AM
Thats just bitchin.. grow up
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: jeromechickenbone on December 28, 2010, 06:32:04 AM
Yes, def disrespectful.  But Dre is a homosexual devil worshipper so I'd expect nothing less.
The illuminati do not exist, lmfao.

Doesn't change the fact that Dre is a homesexual devil worshipper.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: MrJas on December 28, 2010, 06:45:52 AM
Yes, def disrespectful.  But Dre is a homosexual devil worshipper so I'd expect nothing less.
The illuminati do not exist, lmfao.

Doesn't change the fact that Dre is a homesexual devil worshipper.

I want what you're smoking bro
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Nooc210 on December 28, 2010, 09:00:46 AM
Yes, def disrespectful.  But Dre is a homosexual devil worshipper so I'd expect nothing less.
The illuminati do not exist, lmfao.

Doesn't change the fact that Dre is a homesexual :firedevil: worshipper.
  :loco:

it's amazing how lemming-people cling so ignorantly to hear-say & asinine horse-shit rumors when there's never any hard-proof or facts that would be necessary to enable the right or appropriate reasonable frame-of-mind or conviction to really say something like that & mean it genuinely w/o truly knowing for yourself, surely, first-hand to actually determine or discern weather or not shit like that could possibly be true. people like you just like to bring attention to themselves because life for you isn't interesting or creative enough on your own w/o lies & confusion. in essence The Illuminati has a better chance of existing in the way that most people want to believe it does, than Dre being an actual practicing homo-sexual Satanist is. first of all he has a wife & a LOT of kids w/ her not to mention all his MANY other children born out of wed-lock, so right there your claims of homo-sexuality immediately fall apart... ::)

and the only "god" or symbol that Dre would pray or worship to would be THE Almighty $ (DOLLAR)  sign.
after all he AIN'T TRYIN' TO STICK AROUND FOR ILLUMINATI  :monkey_dance2::raisetheroof: :monkey:
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Portugoal on December 28, 2010, 09:28:43 AM
Yes, def disrespectful.  But Dre is a homosexual devil worshipper so I'd expect nothing less.
The illuminati do not exist, lmfao.

Doesn't change the fact that Dre is a homesexual :firedevil: worshipper.
  :loco:

it's amazing how lemming-people cling so ignorantly to hear-say & asinine horse-shit rumors when there's never any hard-proof or facts that would be necessary to enable the right or appropriate reasonable frame-of-mind or conviction to really say something like that & mean it genuinely w/o truly knowing for yourself, surely, first-hand to actually determine or discern weather or not shit like that could possibly be true. people like you just like to bring attention to themselves because life for you isn't interesting or creative enough on your own w/o lies & confusion. in essence The Illuminati has a better chance of existing in the way that most people want to believe it does, than Dre being an actual practicing homo-sexual Satanist is. first of all he has a wife & a LOT of kids w/ her not to mention all his MANY other children born out of wed-lock, so right there your claims of homo-sexuality immediately fall apart... ::)

and the only "god" or symbol that Dre would pray or worship to would be THE Almighty $ (DOLLAR)  sign.
after all he AIN'T TRYIN' TO STICK AROUND FOR ILLUMINATI  :monkey_dance2::raisetheroof: :monkey:

hahahahhahahahhaha
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: MOON KNIGHT on December 28, 2010, 12:24:05 PM
Anyone misunderstanding what my point was....
Go back & read my first post. If you're going to have ANYONE copy someone else's trademark sound (especially a collaborator), at least give him a shoutout in the song. Get it ? Hell...even D.O.C. was able to ghostwrite HIMSELF a shoutout in Nuthin' But A G Thang.
I'm not saying he should build a bronze sculpture of him or rename Detox..Nate Dogg. Just show the man a little respect.  ;)
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: MontrealCity's Most on December 28, 2010, 01:37:35 PM
The illuminati shit is getting old real quick
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Smackdog on December 28, 2010, 03:32:03 PM
Yes, def disrespectful.  But Dre is a homosexual devil worshipper so I'd expect nothing less.


I like that the starter of this poll gave the option of hate "dr. dre"   cause that is kind of funny and also appropriate
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Matty on December 28, 2010, 04:38:58 PM
no but i think sly should have been promoted a bit more as the dude on the track, perhaps been in the video. cause it was obviously something the average listener may think is nate.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Dre-Day on December 29, 2010, 05:46:10 AM
Anyone misunderstanding what my point was....
Go back & read my first post. If you're going to have ANYONE copy someone else's trademark sound (especially a collaborator), at least give him a shoutout in the song. Get it ? Hell...even D.O.C. was able to ghostwrite HIMSELF a shoutout in Nuthin' But A G Thang.
I'm not saying he should build a bronze sculpture of him or rename Detox..Nate Dogg. Just show the man a little respect.  ;)
exactly!
let's not forget that Nate Dogg is also depressed.
i hope he doesn't hear the song
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Portugoal on December 29, 2010, 05:52:09 AM
Anyone misunderstanding what my point was....
Go back & read my first post. If you're going to have ANYONE copy someone else's trademark sound (especially a collaborator), at least give him a shoutout in the song. Get it ? Hell...even D.O.C. was able to ghostwrite HIMSELF a shoutout in Nuthin' But A G Thang.
I'm not saying he should build a bronze sculpture of him or rename Detox..Nate Dogg. Just show the man a little respect.  ;)
exactly!
let's not forget that Nate Dogg is also depressed.
i hope he doesn't hear the song

You gossip like a bitch, lol
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Dre-Day on December 29, 2010, 05:53:37 AM
Damizza revealed that
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Portugoal on December 29, 2010, 05:55:59 AM
Damizza revealed that

... a few months ago
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Dre-Day on December 29, 2010, 05:58:54 AM
Damizza revealed that

... a few months ago
yeah so? doesn't mean it's not accurate anymore.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Portugoal on December 29, 2010, 07:35:18 AM
Damizza revealed that

... a few months ago
yeah so? doesn't mean it's not accurate anymore.

and neither does it mean it is still accurate
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Sir Petey on December 29, 2010, 09:15:36 AM
Yes, def disrespectful.  But Dre is a homosexual devil worshipper so I'd expect nothing less.
The illuminati do not exist, lmfao.

Doesn't change the fact that Dre is a homesexual :firedevil: worshipper.
  :loco:

it's amazing how lemming-people cling so ignorantly to hear-say & asinine horse-shit rumors when there's never any hard-proof or facts that would be necessary to enable the right or appropriate reasonable frame-of-mind or conviction to really say something like that & mean it genuinely w/o truly knowing for yourself, surely, first-hand to actually determine or discern weather or not shit like that could possibly be true. people like you just like to bring attention to themselves because life for you isn't interesting or creative enough on your own w/o lies & confusion. in essence The Illuminati has a better chance of existing in the way that most people want to believe it does, than Dre being an actual practicing homo-sexual Satanist is. first of all he has a wife & a LOT of kids w/ her not to mention all his MANY other children born out of wed-lock, so right there your claims of homo-sexuality immediately fall apart... ::)

and the only "god" or symbol that Dre would pray or worship to would be THE Almighty $ (DOLLAR)  sign.
after all he AIN'T TRYIN' TO STICK AROUND FOR ILLUMINATI  :monkey_dance2::raisetheroof: :monkey:


Shut your groupie ass up, your a fucking windbag and worse then any of the eurostans I've everseen...all your bullshit long winded posts could be wrapped up in two sentances. Get a life fuckhead.

I am however glad you heeded the majority of this forums advice and changed that queer ass avatar you had of dre in his body suit.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Darkwing Duck (The Reincarnation) on December 29, 2010, 09:20:53 AM
i dont think it was direspectful. at least, it wasnt intended to b..

but a shoutout on the song wouldve been more politically correct, yes.

but Dre did shout out Nate, on the Big Boi radio show..
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Dre-Day on December 29, 2010, 11:55:53 AM
Damizza revealed that

... a few months ago
yeah so? doesn't mean it's not accurate anymore.

and neither does it mean it is still accurate
well you said gossip, which is bullshit.

nate dogg is slowly recovering, sure we have no confirmation that he's still depressed, but you don't need it to figure out that he has a long way to go.

nate may be a different person than The D.O.C. but look how long it took for him to pull himself together, after the car accident.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Hittman2001 on December 29, 2010, 12:11:57 PM
where's the "who gives a shit" option?
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: MOON KNIGHT on December 29, 2010, 12:34:11 PM
where's the "who gives a shit" option?

Here it is...

Who Gives A Shit about YOUR opinion  :laugh:
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Smackdog on December 29, 2010, 12:55:59 PM
If you don't give a shit.........then that means you would not vote or post here........



so apparently yall care a little bit...



Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: GangstaBoogy on December 29, 2010, 02:09:51 PM
Very disrespectful.

1. It's misleading cuz we all thought it was Nate at first
2. He could've atleast wore a "get well soon Nate Dogg" shirt in the video or somethin.

But its Dre, not surprised at all.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Jimmy H. on December 29, 2010, 10:52:32 PM
You can have five-thousand people say it was disrespectful. If Nate Dogg doesn't agree then who gives a shit? I swear some of you could find a way to put a negative spin on volunteering at a soup kitchen.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Hittman2001 on December 29, 2010, 11:10:22 PM
i mean at the end of the day its just a song...thats all....a song....being disrespectul towards nate would be totally omitting his "presence" altogether.  its obvious Dre knew what he was doing having sly sound like that....it was to pay homage to him.


so really....no need to catch feelings over what i posted
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Muhfukka on December 29, 2010, 11:45:54 PM
i dont know about disrespectful but its kinda lame...it sounds like him but not exactly and it makes you wonder why they didnt get someone different
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: The Watcher on December 30, 2010, 12:50:55 AM
a. only a retard would've thought that was nate to begin with
b. its not disrespectful

it would've been disrespectful if he had the guy on every track on detox pretending to be nate. it was a few lines on one song which like someone else said is paying homage. this isnt the same as the realest or ja rule && 2pac, those guys have made CAREERS off sounding like him. this was a few lines on ONE song, get over it
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Dre-Day on December 30, 2010, 01:25:11 AM
a. only a retard would've thought that was nate to begin with
b. its not disrespectful

it would've been disrespectful if he had the guy on every track on detox pretending to be nate. it was a few lines on one song which like someone else said is paying homage. this isnt the same as the realest or ja rule && 2pac, those guys have made CAREERS off sounding like him. this was a few lines on ONE song, get over it
it's not one song, check the underdog demo version
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: J$crILLa on December 30, 2010, 02:10:41 AM
not disrespectful but corny and lame.

when i hear a fake ass nate dogg wanna be. im like WTF. that aint nate so who cares. just some dude tryin to be nate
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: NoobCake on December 30, 2010, 02:50:56 AM
Anyone misunderstanding what my point was....
Go back & read my first post. If you're going to have ANYONE copy someone else's trademark sound (especially a collaborator), at least give him a shoutout in the song. Get it ? Hell...even D.O.C. was able to ghostwrite HIMSELF a shoutout in Nuthin' But A G Thang.
I'm not saying he should build a bronze sculpture of him or rename Detox..Nate Dogg. Just show the man a little respect.  ;)
exactly!
let's not forget that Nate Dogg is also depressed.
i hope he doesn't hear the song

Don't you think that Nate Dogg, who right now can't talk and can barely move, has more important things on his mind than not getting a shoutout on a song?

You gossip like a bitch, lol
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: MOON KNIGHT on December 30, 2010, 11:49:52 AM
I think the term he was "paying homage" has been thrown around a little loosely in this thread.
Paying homage is similar to what Snoop did for Slick Rick with Lodi Dodi.
And what does Nate think ? I don't know but...I'm sure he just loves someone/anyone ripping off his entire steez.  ::)
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Black Excellence on December 30, 2010, 03:23:25 PM
in my opinion, yes, it was disrespectful. At least give the man a shout out..
hell yeah it was disrespectful. anyone who says different wouldn't care if they were being disrespected so they really don't know what respect is.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Dre-Day on December 31, 2010, 02:01:47 AM
Don't you think that Nate Dogg, who right now can't talk and can barely move, has more important things on his mind than not getting a shoutout on a song?
off course, but what i meant was, i can't imagine that he would feel better after hearing sly's input
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: jeromechickenbone on December 31, 2010, 09:48:19 PM
Yes, def disrespectful.  But Dre is a homosexual devil worshipper so I'd expect nothing less.
The illuminati do not exist, lmfao.

Doesn't change the fact that Dre is a homesexual :firedevil: worshipper.
  :loco:

it's amazing how lemming-people cling so ignorantly to hear-say & asinine horse-shit rumors when there's never any hard-proof or facts that would be necessary to enable the right or appropriate reasonable frame-of-mind or conviction to really say something like that & mean it genuinely w/o truly knowing for yourself, surely, first-hand to actually determine or discern weather or not shit like that could possibly be true. people like you just like to bring attention to themselves because life for you isn't interesting or creative enough on your own w/o lies & confusion. in essence The Illuminati has a better chance of existing in the way that most people want to believe it does, than Dre being an actual practicing homo-sexual Satanist is. first of all he has a wife & a LOT of kids w/ her not to mention all his MANY other children born out of wed-lock, so right there your claims of homo-sexuality immediately fall apart... ::)

and the only "god" or symbol that Dre would pray or worship to would be THE Almighty $ (DOLLAR)  sign.
after all he AIN'T TRYIN' TO STICK AROUND FOR ILLUMINATI  :monkey_dance2::raisetheroof: :monkey:

Listen bro, I understand you like Dr. Dre.  You would happily give him a foot massage after a long day in the studio.  Because of your pre-existing bias, it is going to be difficult for you to discern if what I'm saying has merit, or if I'm a lemming. 

Let me ask you something:  Dre, admittedly doesn't smoke weed, yet made his entire career lead single about smoking weed, no?  So that right there tells you Dre is putting on an "act".  Dre, while a talented musician, is and has been an actor for his whole career.  The wife and kids thing is part of his act / image. 

And you'd do well to really analyze the context of those lyrics you are reciting.  Dre himself admits that money is the "root of all evil and sin" on "Been There, Done That", and here you are saying if he did pray or worship something, it would be the dollar.  Hmmmm...

A lot of the stuff Dre did around the Aftermath debut compilation era was very much symbolically promoting Illuminati / New World Order ideals.  Obviously "Been There, Done That" mentions Illuminati,  "East Coast Killa / West Coast Killa" specifically talks about a New World Order, the video is post apocolyptic, martial law is in place, there are pyramids and all seeing-eyes hidden within the graffiti on the walls, etc.  The "Puppet Master" joint he did w/ Cypress Hill is very dark, and people don't even get what that song is about...basically laughing in all of our faces at how easily we are manipulated by hidden powers.

You should research who owns the major record labels / Hollywood / Media / Banks etc. and you will see who the puppet master are.  Further, Dre has reached a level of success and longevity that is very difficult to attain.  And understand that NO ONE, reaches those levels of success unless they are sponsored by the powers that be, the same powers who have been running shit for a very long time. 
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Smackdog on December 31, 2010, 10:53:41 PM
Dr. dre Doesn't smoke weed?



that is something......does anyone know why dr. dre use to dress up in drag........and then also add to that that it was his album covers?


would a black man in drag help sell albums or was he just feeling that look?


He is a great musician either way.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Dre-Day on January 01, 2011, 01:38:08 AM
Let me ask you something:  Dre, admittedly doesn't smoke weed, yet made his entire career lead single about smoking weed, no? 
you're talking about the quote from Express yourself. later he spoke a few times about smoking weed, in interviews.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: HighEyeCue on January 01, 2011, 08:26:26 AM
Let me ask you something:  Dre, admittedly doesn't smoke weed, yet made his entire career lead single about smoking weed, no? 
you're talking about the quote from Express yourself. later he spoke a few times about smoking weed, in interviews.

yeah he started smoking weed around the making of The Chronic, back in the NWA days he didn't smoke
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: jeromechickenbone on January 01, 2011, 09:08:01 AM
Let me ask you something:  Dre, admittedly doesn't smoke weed, yet made his entire career lead single about smoking weed, no? 
you're talking about the quote from Express yourself. later he spoke a few times about smoking weed, in interviews.

No I'm not.  I'm talking about that for the last several years Dre has admittedly said he doesn't smoke.  Hence Detox.  Even Snoop was saying how he wanted to get Dre to smoke while making it, etc.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: jeromechickenbone on January 01, 2011, 09:29:01 AM
Dr. dre Doesn't smoke weed?



that is something......does anyone know why dr. dre use to dress up in drag........and then also add to that that it was his album covers?


would a black man in drag help sell albums or was he just feeling that look?


He is a great musician either way.

I'm sure he was told to dress like that. 

Check out Dave Chappelle talking about how they do this.  Go to 2:15 in the vid and he breaks it down.  Then at the end it shows many black entertainers in drag...

http://www.youtube.com/v/2DmPkxrX8Oo
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Muhfukka on January 01, 2011, 03:28:48 PM
nooc would give dre more than a foot massage
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Smackdog on January 01, 2011, 05:52:05 PM
Thanks for the youtube link about dave chappelle......You are probably right that Dre was told to dress in drag....or they wouldn't put his album out.....just like how he was told to make the chronic about weed
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Sikotic™ on January 01, 2011, 06:36:11 PM
Of course its disrespectful. And for Dre to pull that shit makes him, as Nooc would say, a "Bitch Nigga"...  8)
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Darkwing Duck (The Reincarnation) on January 02, 2011, 02:07:40 AM
Yes, def disrespectful.  But Dre is a homosexual devil worshipper so I'd expect nothing less.
The illuminati do not exist, lmfao.

Doesn't change the fact that Dre is a homesexual :firedevil: worshipper.
  :loco:

it's amazing how lemming-people cling so ignorantly to hear-say & asinine horse-shit rumors when there's never any hard-proof or facts that would be necessary to enable the right or appropriate reasonable frame-of-mind or conviction to really say something like that & mean it genuinely w/o truly knowing for yourself, surely, first-hand to actually determine or discern weather or not shit like that could possibly be true. people like you just like to bring attention to themselves because life for you isn't interesting or creative enough on your own w/o lies & confusion. in essence The Illuminati has a better chance of existing in the way that most people want to believe it does, than Dre being an actual practicing homo-sexual Satanist is. first of all he has a wife & a LOT of kids w/ her not to mention all his MANY other children born out of wed-lock, so right there your claims of homo-sexuality immediately fall apart... ::)

and the only "god" or symbol that Dre would pray or worship to would be THE Almighty $ (DOLLAR)  sign.
after all he AIN'T TRYIN' TO STICK AROUND FOR ILLUMINATI  :monkey_dance2::raisetheroof: :monkey:

Listen bro, I understand you like Dr. Dre.  You would happily give him a foot massage after a long day in the studio.  Because of your pre-existing bias, it is going to be difficult for you to discern if what I'm saying has merit, or if I'm a lemming. 

Let me ask you something:  Dre, admittedly doesn't smoke weed, yet made his entire career lead single about smoking weed, no?  So that right there tells you Dre is putting on an "act".  Dre, while a talented musician, is and has been an actor for his whole career.  The wife and kids thing is part of his act / image. 

And you'd do well to really analyze the context of those lyrics you are reciting.  Dre himself admits that money is the "root of all evil and sin" on "Been There, Done That", and here you are saying if he did pray or worship something, it would be the dollar.  Hmmmm...

A lot of the stuff Dre did around the Aftermath debut compilation era was very much symbolically promoting Illuminati / New World Order ideals.  Obviously "Been There, Done That" mentions Illuminati,  "East Coast Killa / West Coast Killa" specifically talks about a New World Order, the video is post apocolyptic, martial law is in place, there are pyramids and all seeing-eyes hidden within the graffiti on the walls, etc.  The "Puppet Master" joint he did w/ Cypress Hill is very dark, and people don't even get what that song is about...basically laughing in all of our faces at how easily we are manipulated by hidden powers.

You should research who owns the major record labels / Hollywood / Media / Banks etc. and you will see who the puppet master are.  Further, Dre has reached a level of success and longevity that is very difficult to attain.  And understand that NO ONE, reaches those levels of success unless they are sponsored by the powers that be, the same powers who have been running shit for a very long time. 

paranoia, sir
 8)
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Dre-Day on January 02, 2011, 09:53:36 AM
Let me ask you something:  Dre, admittedly doesn't smoke weed, yet made his entire career lead single about smoking weed, no? 
you're talking about the quote from Express yourself. later he spoke a few times about smoking weed, in interviews.

No I'm not.  I'm talking about that for the last several years Dre has admittedly said he doesn't smoke.  Hence Detox.  Even Snoop was saying how he wanted to get Dre to smoke while making it, etc.
examples? i've never heard of that before.

the snoop thing was about getting high while recording
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Smackdog on January 02, 2011, 01:32:16 PM
" I still express Yo I don't smoke weed or sess"   


dr. dre quote



" cause it is known to cause brain damage and brain damage on the Mic don't manage Nothing"    -dr. dre



Weed does in fact cause brain damage...most notably a weaker memory....the few weed smokers that I have known have had very terrible memories  can't remember shit....



If y'all weed smokers out there feel better if dre smokes ....then Okay he smokes.....no need to argue the point....


Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Darkwing Duck (The Reincarnation) on January 02, 2011, 01:37:10 PM
" I still express Yo I don't smoke weed or sess"   


dr. dre quote



" cause it is known to cause brain damage and brain damage on the Mic don't manage Nothing"    -dr. dre



Weed does in fact cause brain damage...most notably a weaker memory....the few weed smokers that I have known have had very terrible memories  can't remember shit....



If y'all weed smokers out there feel better if dre smokes ....then Okay he smokes.....no need to argue the point....




marijuana is a drug that affects ppl indivudally. its very indivudal, from user to user.. if u generalise, its NOT a harmless drug.
some ppl becomes slow and happy, and some can get crazy.. its all depends on the users psychological situation from the start
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: 2TRUE A.T.M.Cz on January 02, 2011, 02:06:31 PM
fuck that nate dogg's nate dogg aint no one sound'n like him if you can find any one that sounds like nate let me no! for all we no that could have be an old or incomplet recording! it has taking dre age's to get just KUSH out so untill you got a video or something showing that it a sound a like nate dogg KEEP IT ZIPED. A.T.M.Cz
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: MOON KNIGHT on January 02, 2011, 02:14:50 PM
fuck that nate dogg's nate dogg aint no one sound'n like him if you can find any one that sounds like nate let me no! for all we no that could have be an old or incomplet recording! it has taking dre age's to get just KUSH out so untill you got a video or something showing that it a sound a like nate dogg KEEP IT ZIPED. A.T.M.Cz

Not sure what I just read   :eh:
If you want a singing telegram from the guy SLY who appeared on the track I'm sorry I can't arrange that for you.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Mista Rosa on January 02, 2011, 02:49:13 PM
fuck that nate dogg's nate dogg aint no one sound'n like him if you can find any one that sounds like nate let me no! for all we no that could have be an old or incomplet recording! it has taking dre age's to get just KUSH out so untill you got a video or something showing that it a sound a like nate dogg KEEP IT ZIPED. A.T.M.Cz

Hahaha
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Lunatic on March 16, 2011, 10:43:10 PM
Not gonna mention names at all but I've talked to a few artists who agree (found it disrespectful).
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: NoobCake on March 16, 2011, 10:44:51 PM
Not gonna mention names at all but I've talked to a few artists who agree (found it disrespectful).

Bo roc is a crackhead.  He doesn't count.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Lunatic on March 16, 2011, 10:47:43 PM
Not gonna mention names at all but I've talked to a few artists who agree (found it disrespectful).

Bo roc is a crackhead.  He doesn't count.
I don't know Bo Roc personally. And that's a harsh assumption you're making.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Dre-Day on March 17, 2011, 02:30:33 AM
Not gonna mention names at all but I've talked to a few artists who agree (found it disrespectful).
yeah i mean, the realest got attacked for it, i don't see how this is any different
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Get It Off Ya Chest on March 17, 2011, 06:02:39 AM
Not gonna mention names at all but I've talked to a few artists who agree (found it disrespectful).
yeah i mean, the realest got attacked for it, i don't see how this is any different

Good point
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Anonymous. on March 17, 2011, 09:06:38 AM
Yes, def disrespectful.  But Dre is a homosexual devil worshipper so I'd expect nothing less.
The illuminati do not exist, lmfao.

Doesn't change the fact that Dre is a homesexual :firedevil: worshipper.
  :loco:

it's amazing how lemming-people cling so ignorantly to hear-say & asinine horse-shit rumors when there's never any hard-proof or facts that would be necessary to enable the right or appropriate reasonable frame-of-mind or conviction to really say something like that & mean it genuinely w/o truly knowing for yourself, surely, first-hand to actually determine or discern weather or not shit like that could possibly be true. people like you just like to bring attention to themselves because life for you isn't interesting or creative enough on your own w/o lies & confusion. in essence The Illuminati has a better chance of existing in the way that most people want to believe it does, than Dre being an actual practicing homo-sexual Satanist is. first of all he has a wife & a LOT of kids w/ her not to mention all his MANY other children born out of wed-lock, so right there your claims of homo-sexuality immediately fall apart... ::)

and the only "god" or symbol that Dre would pray or worship to would be THE Almighty $ (DOLLAR)  sign.
after all he AIN'T TRYIN' TO STICK AROUND FOR ILLUMINATI  :monkey_dance2::raisetheroof: :monkey:

he was joking groupie..dont get ur panties in a bunch....anyways i think dre coulda gave nate a shoutout in his verse if he was gonna get a nate clone
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Lort Laughin on March 17, 2011, 09:18:14 AM
if ANYTHING it's a HUGE honor & a respectful way of paying homage to a west-coast icon that otherwise couldn't perform himself.
anyone thinking of or pandering to the contrary is a "Bitch Nigga"... 8)
Yes... it was paying homages to the late great Nate if anything... like saying we miss you so much we tryn to find someone like you instead of someone new
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: B.A. on March 17, 2011, 12:19:15 PM
I think that Dre needed that Nate Dogg vocal for the track and he did what he had to do to complete the song. I don't think Dre meant any disrespect by it, if anything it was in honor of Nate, basically saying that his vocals are missed and still very much needed. Now, if Nate Dogg would have made a full recovery and came back willing to do the track and Dre still decided to use a bootleg Nate Dogg then that would have been a disrespectful bitch move for sure. But people are going to have their own take on it and have their own opinions, I can see why it came off as disrespectful though.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Get It Off Ya Chest on March 17, 2011, 12:23:31 PM
I think that Dre needed that Nate Dogg vocal for the track and he did what he had to do to complete the song. I don't think Dre meant any disrespect by it, if anything it was in honor of Nate, basically saying that his vocals are missed and still very much needed. Now, if Nate Dogg would have made a full recovery and came back willing to do the track and Dre still decided to use a bootleg Nate Dogg then that would have been a disrespectful bitch move for sure. But people are going to have their own take on it and have their own opinions, I can see why it came off as disrespectful though.

Dre might not have meant for it to be disrespectful, but, imo, that's what ended up happening, the whole thing being quite disrespectful.

I don't buy that it was in Nate's honour. If that was the intention, they'd have made damn sure to clearly mention his name in the song, or at least made some obvious mention of him in the video.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Elāno - banned on March 17, 2011, 12:46:08 PM
First comes Nate Dogg then Akon, Trey Songz, T-Pain, and now Drake has the throne and before Nate it was Marvin Gaye.  One thing about rap is it's funny how people think they can't be replaced just go drive by the cemetary.

NATE STILL THE KING AND THE BEST. Period.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Dre-Day on March 17, 2011, 01:54:40 PM
I think that Dre needed that Nate Dogg vocal for the track and he did what he had to do to complete the song. I don't think Dre meant any disrespect by it, if anything it was in honor of Nate, basically saying that his vocals are missed and still very much needed. Now, if Nate Dogg would have made a full recovery and came back willing to do the track and Dre still decided to use a bootleg Nate Dogg then that would have been a disrespectful bitch move for sure. But people are going to have their own take on it and have their own opinions, I can see why it came off as disrespectful though.

Dre might not have meant for it to be disrespectful, but, imo, that's what ended up happening, the whole thing being quite disrespectful.

I don't buy that it was in Nate's honour. If that was the intention, they'd have made damn sure to clearly mention his name in the song, or at least made some obvious mention of him in the video.
exactly.

dre called out ja rule for being fake, yet he works with an artists that imitates the style of his former partner
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Ozir on March 17, 2011, 02:02:22 PM
No.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Tekniec on March 17, 2011, 02:13:44 PM
disrespectful. dre wanted everyone to think it was nate on the hook to create a buzz for his album, bitch move imo
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Dre-Day on March 17, 2011, 02:16:49 PM
I think that Dre needed that Nate Dogg vocal for the track and he did what he had to do to complete the song. I don't think Dre meant any disrespect by it, if anything it was in honor of Nate, basically saying that his vocals are missed and still very much needed. Now, if Nate Dogg would have made a full recovery and came back willing to do the track and Dre still decided to use a bootleg Nate Dogg then that would have been a disrespectful bitch move for sure. But people are going to have their own take on it and have their own opinions, I can see why it came off as disrespectful though.
if he really wanted nate dogg's vocals on it, then he could have sampled him :P
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: J-Dub562 on March 17, 2011, 02:26:28 PM
Even before Nate passed, I thought it was disrespectful (but not intentional). It was an obvious attempt to get a Nate sound-alike on the track. Like dude said, if Dre would have big up'd Nate, or somehow had a pic of Nate in the video then it would have been different. It was a classless move by Dre in my opinion.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: thegooddoc on March 17, 2011, 02:32:54 PM
I don't see why people are catching feelings over a portion of a hook that sounded similar to an artist that wasn't able to sing the hook anyways. Exactly how is that disrespectful?  If anything, it should be flattering that they tried to imitate him.

People do that all of the time.  In fact, I'm pretty sure Dre didn't feel disrespected that nearly every producer on the west coast attempted to copy his g-funk sound in the 90's.

Its amazing that everyone pretends to be Dr. Phil and guess at Dre's and Nate's relationship prior to Nate dying.  
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: jeromechickenbone on March 17, 2011, 02:49:06 PM
No offense to anyone in here, but you're an idiot if you don't see it as disrespect.  And some of yall making excuses "it was a tribute" make you look like a Dre groupie.  There was no tribute whatsoever.  Dre knew Nate was not available, so he purposely got someone (who the fuck was it anyway?) and tried to duplicate Nate's voice.  If you don't see that, you need to pull your head out of your ass.

And really, Snoop is just as big a bitch if not more for going along with it too.  That's supposed to be his childhood friend.  I promise if Dre and Nate would have done a lead single with Top Dogg for Detox, people would be like "wtf" and wouldn't be looking at it as a tribute lmao.

Some of yall are in serious denial trying to defend this.

Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: J-Dub562 on March 17, 2011, 02:50:53 PM
I don't see why people are catching feelings over a portion of a hook that sounded similar to an artist that wasn't able to sing the hook anyways. Exactly how is that disrespectful?  If anything, it should be flattering that they tried to imitate him.

People do that all of the time.  In fact, I'm pretty sure Dre didn't feel disrespected that nearly every producer on the west coast attempted to copy his g-funk sound in the 90's.

Its amazing that everyone pretends to be Dr. Phil and guess at Dre's and Nate's relationship prior to Nate dying.  


I don't know anything about their relationship, so I won't comment on that, but until Dre comes out and directly states what his intentions (if any) were behind the Nate sound-alike then it's all a matter of opinion. Just like you have your opinion, I have mine and none of us can say who is right or wrong in this case. To each his own.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Dre-Day on March 17, 2011, 02:56:05 PM
I don't see why people are catching feelings over a portion of a hook that sounded similar to an artist that wasn't able to sing the hook anyways. Exactly how is that disrespectful?  If anything, it should be flattering that they tried to imitate him.

People do that all of the time.  In fact, I'm pretty sure Dre didn't feel disrespected that nearly every producer on the west coast attempted to copy his g-funk sound in the 90's.

Its amazing that everyone pretends to be Dr. Phil and guess at Dre's and Nate's relationship prior to Nate dying.  

just because there are more examples, doesn't make it cool. biting is lame
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: jeromechickenbone on March 17, 2011, 03:10:17 PM
I don't see why people are catching feelings over a portion of a hook that sounded similar to an artist that wasn't able to sing the hook anyways. Exactly how is that disrespectful?  If anything, it should be flattering that they tried to imitate him.

People do that all of the time.  In fact, I'm pretty sure Dre didn't feel disrespected that nearly every producer on the west coast attempted to copy his g-funk sound in the 90's.

Its amazing that everyone pretends to be Dr. Phil and guess at Dre's and Nate's relationship prior to Nate dying.  


I don't know anything about their relationship, so I won't comment on that, but until Dre comes out and directly states what his intentions (if any) were behind the Nate sound-alike then it's all a matter of opinion. Just like you have your opinion, I have mine and none of us can say who is right or wrong in this case. To each his own.

You think Dre is gonna come out and say "Hello Fans...Just a heads up here...Nate was unable to perform for this record, however, have no fear, I purposely got this guy you've never heard of do an awesome Nate impression, and I was able to do some studio tricks and you can't barely tell the difference!! Detox is comin!!"

If you honestly can't see how obvious it is that Dre purposely got a Nate imposter for his lead single for Detox, you are in denial.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: J-Dub562 on March 17, 2011, 03:26:02 PM
I don't see why people are catching feelings over a portion of a hook that sounded similar to an artist that wasn't able to sing the hook anyways. Exactly how is that disrespectful?  If anything, it should be flattering that they tried to imitate him.

People do that all of the time.  In fact, I'm pretty sure Dre didn't feel disrespected that nearly every producer on the west coast attempted to copy his g-funk sound in the 90's.

Its amazing that everyone pretends to be Dr. Phil and guess at Dre's and Nate's relationship prior to Nate dying.  


I don't know anything about their relationship, so I won't comment on that, but until Dre comes out and directly states what his intentions (if any) were behind the Nate sound-alike then it's all a matter of opinion. Just like you have your opinion, I have mine and none of us can say who is right or wrong in this case. To each his own.

You think Dre is gonna come out and say "Hello Fans...Just a heads up here...Nate was unable to perform for this record, however, have no fear, I purposely got this guy you've never heard of do an awesome Nate impression, and I was able to do some studio tricks and you can't barely tell the difference!! Detox is comin!!"

If you honestly can't see how obvious it is that Dre purposely got a Nate imposter for his lead single for Detox, you are in denial.




LOL, of course not, and I know he did...but Dre can always come out and spin this with some type of B.S. which he might do, but we all know whats really going on. My point was we are just spitting our opinions until (if it ever happens) Dre tries to say something on it. That's all. I think it was disrespectful and classless. But this type of shit goes on all the time in the game and Dre aint immune to it either.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: thegooddoc on March 18, 2011, 12:42:43 PM
No offense to anyone in here, but you're an idiot if you don't see it as disrespect.  And some of yall making excuses "it was a tribute" make you look like a Dre groupie.  There was no tribute whatsoever.  Dre knew Nate was not available, so he purposely got someone (who the fuck was it anyway?) and tried to duplicate Nate's voice.  If you don't see that, you need to pull your head out of your ass.

And really, Snoop is just as big a bitch if not more for going along with it too.  That's supposed to be his childhood friend.  I promise if Dre and Nate would have done a lead single with Top Dogg for Detox, people would be like "wtf" and wouldn't be looking at it as a tribute lmao.

Some of yall are in serious denial trying to defend this.



Disrespectful to who?  Maybe you have some inside info that nobody else has, but I would think it would be odd to catch feelings over something like whether another artist on a Dre song sounded like someone else (that wasn't available and couldn't have done the song anyways).

Based on Dre's previous dealings with Nate Dogg, it didn't appear that the two had any reason to beef with each other.  Nate remained cool with Dre throughout the years and even appeared on albums after Dre left Death Row.  Dre produced songs for Nate's solo albums and even appeared on songs (which he doesn't do very often).

Because you claim not to be an idiot regarding the situation, please enlighten us as to the situation between Dre, Snoop and Nate at the time Kush was recorded and why Dre was trying to be disrespectful to Nate.





Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: OG Hack Wilson on March 18, 2011, 12:46:02 PM
TOTAL BITCH MOVE...

At least throw him a shout out or a pic or something.


The West Coast Lost Alot Of Flavour When Nate Had Those Strokes....
everyone except Crooked I
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Mietek23 on March 18, 2011, 01:06:49 PM
I see a bunch of hypocritical opinions here.

People be shitting on dudes like Tha Realest, Top Dogg and others for sounding like 2Pac, Snoop etc. Yet, when Dre brings a "Nate Dogg sound-alike" on his new track it is ok and none of them cats seems to have a problem with it, lol
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Mista Rosa on March 18, 2011, 01:55:37 PM
No offense to anyone in here, but you're an idiot if you don't see it as disrespect.  And some of yall making excuses "it was a tribute" make you look like a Dre groupie.  There was no tribute whatsoever.  Dre knew Nate was not available, so he purposely got someone (who the fuck was it anyway?) and tried to duplicate Nate's voice.  If you don't see that, you need to pull your head out of your ass.

And really, Snoop is just as big a bitch if not more for going along with it too.  That's supposed to be his childhood friend.  I promise if Dre and Nate would have done a lead single with Top Dogg for Detox, people would be like "wtf" and wouldn't be looking at it as a tribute lmao.

Some of yall are in serious denial trying to defend this.



Disrespectful to who?  Maybe you have some inside info that nobody else has, but I would think it would be odd to catch feelings over something like whether another artist on a Dre song sounded like someone else (that wasn't available and couldn't have done the song anyways).

Based on Dre's previous dealings with Nate Dogg, it didn't appear that the two had any reason to beef with each other.  Nate remained cool with Dre throughout the years and even appeared on albums after Dre left Death Row.  Dre produced songs for Nate's solo albums and even appeared on songs (which he doesn't do very often).

Because you claim not to be an idiot regarding the situation, please enlighten us as to the situation between Dre, Snoop and Nate at the time Kush was recorded and why Dre was trying to be disrespectful to Nate.







Wasn't the line "There lived a little boy who wore khakis everyday, he never would be broke he swore, always to get paid" aimed at Dre??

From "Who's Playing Games?" after Nate's tumultuous departure from DR.
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: rhythmalism on March 18, 2011, 03:36:43 PM
in my opinion, yes, it was disrespectful. At least give the man a shout out..
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: LAC/EASTSIDE on March 18, 2011, 03:41:55 PM
Kinda!
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Dre-Day on March 19, 2011, 03:42:42 AM
I see a bunch of hypocritical opinions here.

People be shitting on dudes like Tha Realest, Top Dogg and others for sounding like 2Pac, Snoop etc. Yet, when Dre brings a "Nate Dogg sound-alike" on his new track it is ok and none of them cats seems to have a problem with it, lol
true
Disrespectful to who?  Maybe you have some inside info that nobody else has, but I would think it would be odd to catch feelings over something like whether another artist on a Dre song sounded like someone else (that wasn't available and couldn't have done the song anyways).

Based on Dre's previous dealings with Nate Dogg, it didn't appear that the two had any reason to beef with each other.  Nate remained cool with Dre throughout the years and even appeared on albums after Dre left Death Row.  Dre produced songs for Nate's solo albums and even appeared on songs (which he doesn't do very often).

Because you claim not to be an idiot regarding the situation, please enlighten us as to the situation between Dre, Snoop and Nate at the time Kush was recorded and why Dre was trying to be disrespectful to Nate.
i don't think anyone is saying that Dre was trying to disrespect nate.
but intentions & the actual effect are two different things.

i just don't buy the argument that "Nate wasn't available, so i have to use a soundalike"
Title: Re: Was It Disrespectful To Include A Nate Dogg Soundalike On Kush ?
Post by: Shhit on SCCit on November 05, 2018, 02:41:52 AM
Nate surely would have blessed this classic.