West Coast Connection Forum
DUBCC - Tha Connection => West Coast Classics => Topic started by: TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96' on February 21, 2007, 12:04:46 PM
-
I know Suge stole his origional title "Chronic 2001" but couldn't Dre of just named the album "Chronic 2"?
It's funny cause nobody knew what the album was really called, sometimes it seemed like Dre didn't even know. Sometimes even now today, they call it Chronic 2, or the second Chronic album. Even though, Chronic is nowhere in the actual album title. And "Dre 2001" doesn't even make sense. The album wasn't even released in 2001! The album wasn't even released in the year 2,000. It was released in 1999. I understand the 2,000 idea because they wanted to make it sound like a record for the new millenium, but 2,001? What is that.
I think everyone can agree that this is the worst title ever for a great album.
-
hold on ill ring dre and ask him...
-
album name<album content. The content was on some dope shit.
-
damn, he didnt pick up..
anyway to be honest i dont think theres anything wrong with the title of the album, definatley wouldnt label it as worst named..
-
I read somewhere that the name "2001" actually does refer to the whole millenium thing, being that 1999 was the year the album is was released, 2000 was the so-called millenium, and 2001's the official start of the millenium.
I guess the name is fitting, with everyone calling Dre's latest style the "2001 style", referring to both the album and the year that featured some of the biggest hits he's produced in recent history.
-
1st the name of the album is "2001" then he wanted to name it "Chronic 2000" but couldn't coz of Suge so he named it 2001...
-
Yeah Death Row makin Chronic 2000 did kill his album title....
But for one...."2001" itself is actually dope as hell lookin back. Back in the 80's and 90's, we used to see all kinds of movies, books, and everything else with "2000" at the end of it...Blast-o-rama 2000 and shit like that. So with it bein called 2001, it made it stand out past all of that.
-
I don't agree with "Chronic 2" being a good name, not that 2001 is either but I just can't imagine it going by another name. It is what it is - simple name and simple packaging (green on black) going along with the stripped down futuristic type beats.
So with that said my theory is it is named 2001 after "2001: A Space Odyssey".
-
what about the Snoop joint "2001" which was on Tha Doggfather which came out in 1996?
-
The album title isn't "Dr. Dre 2001" its "2001" - Dr. Dre is the artist.
-
The album is called "2001", but ive always refered to it as The Chronic 2001 for 2 reasons. 1) Thats what it was originally advertised as in mags like the Source and 2) Despite the word "Chronic" being taken from the title, the futuristic chronic leaf on the front cover sits right next to the words "2001". Either way, banging album, never gonna be topped by "Detox".
-
its just "2001"....
its called that because of the futuristic sound - as a reference to that 2001: space odyssey movie...i think snoop said something like 'we already smoked the chronic....its 1999, but we got some of this chronic 2001' or something
-
for how creative he is, its not to creative
-
The album is called "2001", but ive always refered to it as The Chronic 2001 for 2 reasons. 1) Thats what it was originally advertised as in mags like the Source and 2) Despite the word "Chronic" being taken from the title, the futuristic chronic leaf on the front cover sits right next to the words "2001". Either way, banging album, never gonna be topped by "Detox".
yeah i always thought of it as chronic 2001, cuz of the leaf
-
The album title isn't "Dr. Dre 2001" its "2001" - Dr. Dre is the artist.
-
i remember when the record came out interviews and stuff were saying it's 2001 cause it's at least 2 years ahead of what everyone was doing and that's truth.
also, they said cause it was the real start of the new millennium and all that shit.
-T
-
does it matter??
You can hate..scream mean mugg all ya want..it's been done and dusted..move on to the nxt one!! ;D
-
Well, thank Suge Knight.
-
both the name and the cover were kinda boring
-
both the name and the cover were kinda boring
but the music was great
-
This is exactly whats wrong with hip hop these days. Many of these younger cats are more interested in the name of the album or the album cover than the album material when they download the damn thing anyway. By the way its Chronic 2001.
-
btw i think suge owns the chronic name...thats why dre couldnt use it
-
both the name and the cover were kinda boring
The leaf= CHRONIC.
So the name of the album= CHRONIC 2001 = Dope name for a album.
Case closed.
Lol where did u get that from?
-
with its reference to "2001: A Space Odyssey"... the year 2001 makes sense with the connection with the future, just like the year 1984.
-
The leaf= CHRONIC.
So the name of the album= CHRONIC 2001 = Dope name for a album.
Case closed.
Lol where did u that from?
??YOU SERIOUS??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANNABIS_(drug)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_(album)
Yeah, so ?
2001, sometimes referred to as Chronic 2001, Chronic 2 or Dr. Dre 2001
-
Ive always refered to it as The Chronic 2001.
Thats what it was originally advertised as in mags like the Source
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1233/972749019_7216d065f2.jpg)
Yes,in the Source add summer of 99 it's called CHRONIC 2001.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1233/972749019_7216d065f2.jpg)
In the add there is also advertised that RBX & Sticky Fingaz was featured.
On the end of the Still D.R.E remix,Dr.Dre says CHRONIC 2001
The album IS called"2001",but I HAVE always refered to it as CHRONIC 2001 for 2 reasons
1)THATS WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY ADVERTISED AS IN MAGS LIKE THE SOURCE
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1233/972749019_7216d065f2.jpg)
2)Despite the word"Chronic" being taken from the title,THE FUTURISTIC CHRONIC LEAF ON THE FRONT COVER SITS RIGHT NEXT TO THE WORDS "2001"
THE LEAF;
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CHRONIC
-
What u say in these posts doesn't mean that it's called Chronic 2001.
Call it what u want, but the official title is 2001
-
bryan every idea you've ever pitched to this forum is the worst idea ive ever heard, no lie.
-
I disagree, I see his ideas as valid as the next man's but I do disagree I think the title is perfectly concise.
and kdub, yes the official title is 2001, but it's perfectly clear dre intended to communicate 'the chronic 2001' with the title/cover
and no people are not preoccupied with the aesthetics of the record more than the music, it's 7-8 years later and this discussion happens. You can be goddamn sure the music has been discussed in the course of those 7-8 years.
and for the record, packaging and covers and titles are part of the artistic statement, so it's legit as fuck to discuss.
-T
-
I disagree, I see his ideas as valid as the next man's but I do disagree I think the title is perfectly concise.
and kdub, yes the official title is 2001, but it's perfectly clear dre intended to communicate 'the chronic 2001' with the title/cover
and no people are not preoccupied with the aesthetics of the record more than the music, it's 7-8 years later and this discussion happens. You can be goddamn sure the music has been discussed in the course of those 7-8 years.
and for the record, packaging and covers and titles are part of the artistic statement, so it's legit as fuck to discuss.
-T
Yeah, i feel you man (no homo) thats why i buy cd's every now and then, to have the booklet and stuff 8)
-
I disagree, I see his ideas as valid as the next man's but I do disagree I think the title is perfectly concise.
and kdub, yes the official title is 2001, but it's perfectly clear dre intended to communicate 'the chronic 2001' with the title/cover
and no people are not preoccupied with the aesthetics of the record more than the music, it's 7-8 years later and this discussion happens. You can be goddamn sure the music has been discussed in the course of those 7-8 years.
and for the record, packaging and covers and titles are part of the artistic statement, so it's legit as fuck to discuss.
-T
I'm with u on that man
-
I disagree, I see his ideas as valid as the next man's but I do disagree I think the title is perfectly concise.
and kdub, yes the official title is 2001, but it's perfectly clear dre intended to communicate 'the chronic 2001' with the title/cover
and no people are not preoccupied with the aesthetics of the record more than the music, it's 7-8 years later and this discussion happens. You can be goddamn sure the music has been discussed in the course of those 7-8 years.
and for the record, packaging and covers and titles are part of the artistic statement, so it's legit as fuck to discuss.
-T
I'm with u on that man
word +1
-T