| | 213 |  |
|
|
| Author | Message |
|---|
Guest
Guest
|  Subject: 213  Mon 05 Jul 2010, 12:33 am | |
| Thoughts on this album? I haven't heard this joint yet, surprisingly. |
|
| | |
Guest
Guest
| | Subject: Re: 213 Mon 05 Jul 2010, 12:36 am | |
| |
|
| | |
Guest
Guest
| | Subject: Re: 213 Mon 05 Jul 2010, 12:37 am | |
| - KJ Styles wrote:
- It was forgettable IMO.
Wow, even with the talent involved? |
|
| | |
Guest
Guest
| | Subject: Re: 213 Mon 05 Jul 2010, 12:38 am | |
| - Wayne wrote:
- KJ Styles wrote:
- It was forgettable IMO.
Wow, even with the talent involved? Yeah, it had some good production but only a couple songs truly stand out. |
|
| | |
Guest
Guest
| | Subject: Re: 213 Mon 05 Jul 2010, 12:39 am | |
| - KJ Styles wrote:
- Wayne wrote:
- KJ Styles wrote:
- It was forgettable IMO.
Wow, even with the talent involved?
Yeah, it had some good production but only a couple songs truly stand out. What's your rating for it? |
|
| | |
Guest
Guest
| | Subject: Re: 213 Mon 05 Jul 2010, 12:41 am | |
| - Wayne wrote:
- KJ Styles wrote:
- Wayne wrote:
- KJ Styles wrote:
- It was forgettable IMO.
Wow, even with the talent involved?
Yeah, it had some good production but only a couple songs truly stand out.
What's your rating for it? 3 stars personally. Objectively I could see someone giving it 3.5 but IMO it was an average album. |
|
| | |
Guest
Guest
| | Subject: Re: 213 Mon 05 Jul 2010, 12:42 am | |
| - KJ Styles wrote:
- Wayne wrote:
- KJ Styles wrote:
- Wayne wrote:
- KJ Styles wrote:
- It was forgettable IMO.
Wow, even with the talent involved?
Yeah, it had some good production but only a couple songs truly stand out.
What's your rating for it?
3 stars personally. Objectively I could see someone giving it 3.5 but IMO it was an average album. It was one joint that I heard I think they had a video for. Can't recall the name of the song. I know it when I hear it. |
|
| | |
Guest
Guest
| | Subject: Re: 213 Mon 05 Jul 2010, 12:49 am | |
| - Wayne wrote:
- KJ Styles wrote:
- Wayne wrote:
- KJ Styles wrote:
- Wayne wrote:
- KJ Styles wrote:
- It was forgettable IMO.
Wow, even with the talent involved?
Yeah, it had some good production but only a couple songs truly stand out.
What's your rating for it?
3 stars personally. Objectively I could see someone giving it 3.5 but IMO it was an average album.
It was one joint that I heard I think they had a video for. Can't recall the name of the song. I know it when I hear it. Groupie Love is the song you're speaking of. |
|
| | |
Guest
Guest
| | Subject: Re: 213 Mon 05 Jul 2010, 12:49 am | |
| - KJ Styles wrote:
- Wayne wrote:
- KJ Styles wrote:
- Wayne wrote:
- KJ Styles wrote:
- Wayne wrote:
- KJ Styles wrote:
- It was forgettable IMO.
Wow, even with the talent involved?
Yeah, it had some good production but only a couple songs truly stand out.
What's your rating for it?
3 stars personally. Objectively I could see someone giving it 3.5 but IMO it was an average album.
It was one joint that I heard I think they had a video for. Can't recall the name of the song. I know it when I hear it.
Groupie Love is the song you're speaking of. You're right. That's the one. |
|
| | |
Shaun
I'm Ghetto Platinum
Posts : 10096
Join date : 2009-05-06
Age : 34
Location : Eardrum>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Quality
| | Subject: Re: 213 Mon 05 Jul 2010, 1:27 am | |
| Nate Dogg in the house tonight lookin' for some groupie love | |
|
| | |
Guest
Guest
| | Subject: Re: 213 Mon 05 Jul 2010, 1:28 am | |
| - Shaun wrote:
- Nate Dogg in the house tonight lookin' for some groupie love
Lol. You own this album too Shaun? |
|
| | |
Shaun
I'm Ghetto Platinum
Posts : 10096
Join date : 2009-05-06
Age : 34
Location : Eardrum>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Quality
| | Subject: Re: 213 Mon 05 Jul 2010, 1:45 am | |
| Hell no. I downloaded it a long time ago, and it sucked. And I listened to straight boobooness back then | |
|
| | |
Guest
Guest
| | Subject: Re: 213 Mon 05 Jul 2010, 1:46 am | |
| - Shaun wrote:
- Hell no. I downloaded it a long time ago, and it sucked. And I listened to straight boobooness back then
Boobooness, lol. |
|
| | |
Justin Linker
Smells Like Roses...
Posts : 3100
Join date : 2009-05-06
Age : 129
Location : Midland, NC USA
| | Subject: Re: 213 Mon 05 Jul 2010, 1:49 am | |
| | |
|
| | |
Shaun
I'm Ghetto Platinum
Posts : 10096
Join date : 2009-05-06
Age : 34
Location : Eardrum>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Quality
| | Subject: Re: 213 Mon 05 Jul 2010, 1:50 am | |
| You do. And, for proofz, check the masterpiece thread. Boom | |
|
| | |
Guest
Guest
| | Subject: Re: 213 Mon 05 Jul 2010, 1:52 am | |
| - Shaun wrote:
- You do. And, for proofz, check the masterpiece thread. Boom
 Lol. |
|
| | |
ACRID"
It Takes A Nation of 1000s?
Posts : 1251
Join date : 2009-05-08
Age : 39
Location : DC by way of So.Cal.
| | Subject: Re: 213 Mon 05 Jul 2010, 9:51 am | |
| Yeah I remember when this dropped...the 213 album was supposed to have more of a presence(this was the original group that would later turn to the DPG family)-but it flopped IMO..a few choice cuts, but overall forgettable....
My opinion- they glossed up the package too much..shoulda been on a more down to earth, taking it back kinda vibe-instead..........it didn't end up like that..
"Run on Up" is my joint tho... | |
|
| | |
Norfeest
What's NXET?
Posts : 2871
Join date : 2009-05-07
Age : 48
Location : DMV
| | Subject: Re: 213 Mon 05 Jul 2010, 11:23 am | |
| - Wayne wrote:
- I haven't heard this joint yet, surprisingly.
| |
|
| | |
Guest
Guest
| | Subject: Re: 213 Tue 06 Jul 2010, 1:01 am | |
| - KJ Styles wrote:
- It was forgettable IMO.
Agreed. But its one of those albums when you listen to it you will dig it but you will reach for it rarely. I think they waited past the prime of the idea of this collective album. I can only imagine if they would have made it back around the Regulate/Deathrow era!!...Damn. |
|
| | |
Guest
Guest
| | Subject: Re: 213 Tue 06 Jul 2010, 8:00 am | |
| - KRob86 wrote:
- I think they waited past the prime of the idea of this collective album. I can only imagine if they would have made it back around the Regulate/Deathrow era!!...Damn.
Cosign. |
|
| | |
Sponsored content
| | Subject: Re: 213 | |
| |
|
| | |
| | 213 | |
|
