Author Topic: BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN vs MICHAEL JACKSON  (Read 431 times)

Trauma-san

Re:BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN vs MICHAEL JACKSON
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2004, 09:18:31 PM »
Lemme clue yall in on something.

Children, at the age of about 5, get into a mode where everything has to be black and white to them.  That's why at a certain age, if you say to a kid, "Hey, your nose is falling off!" they go "Yeah, Well, YOUR NOSE IS FALLING OFF!!!", and then at a certain age, they go "No It's Not! Uh-Uh"... they get to a point where they have to categorize everything as right and wrong, or this is better than this, and this is better than this, etc.  Eventually, they get out of the phase, and learn to lie like the rest of us, lol.


Shallow never got out of that phase, lol.  He hasn't realized yet, it doesn't matter who's 'better', Michael or Bruce.  You can listen to both.  Why not just listen to Bruce, AND Michael? Why do you have to pick 1? Why spend an entire thread writing about how one is better than the other?  They're both what they are.  If you like one, great.  If you don't like another, fine.  Nobody gives a shit.  
 

Shallow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 7278
  • Karma: 215
  • I never had a digital pic of myself before
Re:BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN vs MICHAEL JACKSON
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2004, 08:07:00 AM »
Lemme clue yall in on something.

Children, at the age of about 5, get into a mode where everything has to be black and white to them.  That's why at a certain age, if you say to a kid, "Hey, your nose is falling off!" they go "Yeah, Well, YOUR NOSE IS FALLING OFF!!!", and then at a certain age, they go "No It's Not! Uh-Uh"... they get to a point where they have to categorize everything as right and wrong, or this is better than this, and this is better than this, etc.  Eventually, they get out of the phase, and learn to lie like the rest of us, lol.


Shallow never got out of that phase, lol.  He hasn't realized yet, it doesn't matter who's 'better', Michael or Bruce.  You can listen to both.  Why not just listen to Bruce, AND Michael? Why do you have to pick 1? Why spend an entire thread writing about how one is better than the other?  They're both what they are.  If you like one, great.  If you don't like another, fine.  Nobody gives a shit.  

Touche, however I never implied that you ar any one else should not listen Michael, although I'm pretty sure not many people that posted really listen to Springsteen. This lead to the persistency of my argument. I think music fans should listen to everything and hopefully enjoy it, but they are entitled to a preference. I love MJ's music and own almost all of his catalog. He has great songs, however I feel that his album lack the consistency of Bruce's, both with in the album and album for album, I also feel that Bruce's songs are deeper as a whole. That doesn't mean I don't like Jackson. Ofcourse it doesn't "matter" who is better, but I just wanted to see what type of music fans are on this forum. Much like with the Bruce/R Kelly thread, where every post said Bruce. So with this thread I wanted to know if those sentiments would carry over, but I don't think any of those people posted here. In short I like them both but I have my preference, and my idea of what constitues as better music, as I'm sure you do. That doesn't make me right it only makes me "me".
 

Don Breezio

  • Guest
Re:BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN vs MICHAEL JACKSON
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2004, 08:43:47 AM »
your name shouldn't be shallow it should be dense  ::)

you wanted to see what kind of music fans are on this forum? ummm...WEST COAST CONNECTION
 

Shallow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 7278
  • Karma: 215
  • I never had a digital pic of myself before
Re:BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN vs MICHAEL JACKSON
« Reply #18 on: April 26, 2004, 08:57:04 AM »
your name shouldn't be shallow it should be dense  ::)

you wanted to see what kind of music fans are on this forum? ummm...WEST COAST CONNECTION

This is the outbound forum, and I see wanted to see what kind of fans the people wre with regards to other music. If all you're going to do is attempt to insult me I suggest you save your typing for more impotant things. I never once meant to put down any one in this forum, and I apologize if you took it that way, but I assure if you were speaking to me face to face nothing I say would come across as insulting, I may joke around but I'm never rude or impolite.
 

Throwback

  • Guest
Re:BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN vs MICHAEL JACKSON
« Reply #19 on: April 26, 2004, 08:58:54 AM »
man shallow.. 1st u say Immortal technique doesn't have a message.. now you say springsteen is greater then Jackson.. wtf is wrong with u? did yo momma drop u on your head when u was little?
 

Shallow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 7278
  • Karma: 215
  • I never had a digital pic of myself before
Re:BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN vs MICHAEL JACKSON
« Reply #20 on: April 26, 2004, 09:21:11 AM »
man shallow.. 1st u say Immortal technique doesn't have a message.. now you say springsteen is greater then Jackson.. wtf is wrong with u? did yo momma drop u on your head when u was little?

I didn't say technique doesn't have a message, I said I disagree with his hostility, and fabrication of truth. And as for Bruce and Jackson, as I've said many times before music is all subjective. Now answer me this, how much Bruce Springsteen have you listened to?
 

Trauma-san

Re:BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN vs MICHAEL JACKSON
« Reply #21 on: April 26, 2004, 04:23:44 PM »
^ You still haven't figured out IT DOESNT FUCKING MATTER.  WHO CARES?  You asked for an opinion.  Everybody gave theres, which the majority of the RECORDED FUCKING HISTORY OF THE WORLD agrees with, that Michael is better.  You're arguing against the world, man, just drop it, lol.  
 

Shallow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Posts: 7278
  • Karma: 215
  • I never had a digital pic of myself before
Re:BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN vs MICHAEL JACKSON
« Reply #22 on: April 26, 2004, 11:27:08 PM »
^ You still haven't figured out IT DOESNT FUCKING MATTER.  WHO CARES?  You asked for an opinion.  Everybody gave theres, which the majority of the RECORDED FUCKING HISTORY OF THE WORLD agrees with, that Michael is better.  You're arguing against the world, man, just drop it, lol.  

What I am trying to imply is that most people on this forum probably haven't listen to that much of Bruce and choose Jackson in haste. If someone picks Jackson over Bruce, and has listened to both, I'm fine with that. However if that same person picks Tupac over Biggie then I am confused.

I thought you said it doesn't matter who is better, yet you stress it being Jackson. As for majority says Jackson, I was unaware that you knew and have gotten the opinion of everyone that ever lived. Good for you.

Go to any rock forum, ask any one who subscribes to or reads Rolling stone or any other rock magazine, and they won't say Jackson. I personally know 100 people that absolutely despise Springsteen, but would shoot themselves in the genitles before they say Michael Jackson is better, or even good. And if I alone know 100 of these people personally not through forums, then who knows how many others out there  who dislike Jackson's music.


ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE FANS POLL

1983-WORST ARTIST- MICHAEL JACKSON

1984-BEST ARTIST-BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN

so not every one shares your opinions. But for some reason I value them.


Could you list me your top ten favourite artists of all time? please?