R. Kelly - You Saved My Life

[Shallow]

we're talking about music not baseball...music changes day by day, week by week, month by month, and year by year...baseball stays the same. don't be an idiot.

So if some one asked you who was better the Beatles or Jay Z you would say, it cannot be answered, and you claim I am the idiot.

The music style may change with the times, but the degree of quality with in artists is always present. Some go above and beyond normal and most don't. Also it's music, it's subjective, it can always be compared and argued. And if you listened to Bruce and did not like him then I would respect that, it's all preference. I could very well say that Hammer is the greatest MC of all time and no one could tell I'm wrong, but I'd get a lot of funny looks.

P.S. Baseball does change with the years, a lot.

[Don Breezio]

i would say that question is pointless because its two different types of music. thats like saying..."dude...dell computers are way better than a monopoly board"...but then again...according to you since its all part of the gaming industry then they should be compared.  

and no...baseball rarely changes...the only thing in baseball that has been a major change was when black people were allowed to play in the MLB and there was no more negro league and when they started doing interleague play...other than that it hasn't changed at all...its still the same rules as it was before.

so yes i could compare babe ruth and barry bonds...but then again...babe ruth wasnt the greatest player of all time or anything and considering if i remember correctly the only record he still holds is being the all time strike out king? i would think that was pretty obvious.

[Neji Huga]

"You're opinion is wrong!"
"No, YOU'RE opinion is wrong!"
"-I- listen to good music!"
"No, -I- listen to good music!"

 

Lmao.... As Always... Thanks for the Song! Luke

[Now_Im_Not_Banned]

That's like saying "Who's better; Wayne Gretzky or Michael Jordan?"

[West C. Connected]

Holy shit I just noticed I type You're instead of Your, I never do that.

[Shallow]

i would say that question is pointless because its two different types of music. thats like saying..."dude...dell computers are way better than a monopoly board"...but then again...according to you since its all part of the gaming industry then they should be compared.  

and no...baseball rarely changes...the only thing in baseball that has been a major change was when black people were allowed to play in the MLB and there was no more negro league and when they started doing interleague play...other than that it hasn't changed at all...its still the same rules as it was before.

so yes i could compare babe ruth and barry bonds...but then again...babe ruth wasnt the greatest player of all time or anything and considering if i remember correctly the only record he still holds is being the all time strike out king? i would think that was pretty obvious.

First I would like to apologize for the length of my posts, because I know you don't appreciate it but:

Since your not much of a baseball fan I'll clue you in on some changes, major ones. In 1920 they released a new ball that allowed the pitchers to throw five to ten mph faster, it helped the hitters get a lot more homeruns, which explains why guys like Ty Cobb, Jonas Wagner, and Joe Jackson didn't have to many homeruns. Another major change is the salaries, today players are full time ball players and train for the off season, back then when the season was over players had to go get a real job and make due. This I mentioned this is less time practicing can have an effect on your game. One more thing I'll mention is with regards to the Babe's homerun count, Yankee stadium back then had a staight away centre of 450 and most other parks were longer as well, and Ruth had like 15-20 pop outs in the centre field warning track the year he hit 60, in todays field that would have meant 75-80 homeruns for the year, and who knows how many more warning track catches would have been HRs in other fields. As for the Hank Aaron record, Aaron had over 3000 more at bats and almost 1000 less intentional walks during his career, which means 4000 more chances to hit homeruns and he hit a little over 40 more than Ruth.

Also I never said Babe was the greatest, but you tell mee another player who has mutiple 40+ homerun seasons and ERAs under 2.0 with 30 games pitched, not even the great Satchel Paige can say that, (but you probably don't know who that is).

Sorry to get off topic but putting down Bruce is one thing, but putting down baseball, that's playing with fire. But to reply to your statement of Monopoly vs a PC, that is difference. Music is universal and will always be the same at heart, it only appears to be different on the outside. Both Jay Z and the Beatles have songs that reflect their outlook, both use musical accompaniment to establish a mood, both use lyrical wit to enhance and encrypt their message. Music is music, just because it sounds different doesn't mean it is. Jay Z and Nas sound different but it's okay to argue who's better with them. Just because the beatles sing and Jay Z talks doesn't mean its all that different.

I remember seeind an old McDonalds commercial  where an old man is walking with his grandson eating the new fries they were pushing at the time, and there is this guy rapping on a street corner. The kid asks his grandfather "whats he doing?" and the grand father says he's rapping, the kid asks why, and the grandfather replys "Because he can't sing". I assure if Jay felt he could sing he wouldn't be rapping.

With that being said and being pretty much irrelevent ( I liked that commercial), the meaning behind music now and music in the 60s (everything from Bob Dylan to today) has the same thing behind it, an introspective or retrospective message conveyed through lyrics and music.

and if I want to say the Beatles were better at doing that than Jay Z is I can, and I feel it is not unreasonable to do so.

[Shallow]

Holy shit I just noticed I type You're instead of Your, I never do that.

Hey, don't worry about it.

[Don Breezio]

First I would like to apologize for the length of my posts, because I know you don't appreciate it but:

Since your not much of a baseball fan I'll clue you in on some changes, major ones. In 1920 they released a new ball that allowed the pitchers to throw five to ten mph faster, it helped the hitters get a lot more homeruns, which explains why guys like Ty Cobb, Jonas Wagner, and Joe Jackson didn't have to many homeruns. Another major change is the salaries, today players are full time ball players and train for the off season, back then when the season was over players had to go get a real job and make due. This I mentioned this is less time practicing can have an effect on your game. One more thing I'll mention is with regards to the Babe's homerun count, Yankee stadium back then had a staight away centre of 450 and most other parks were longer as well, and Ruth had like 15-20 pop outs in the centre field warning track the year he hit 60, in todays field that would have meant 75-80 homeruns for the year, and who knows how many more warning track catches would have been HRs in other fields. As for the Hank Aaron record, Aaron had over 3000 more at bats and almost 1000 less intentional walks during his career, which means 4000 more chances to hit homeruns and he hit a little over 40 more than Ruth.

so basically what you're saying is that the last big change you can remember happened 80+ years ago...considering music changes everyday...with every song thats released and with every new artist that comes out...you don't know shit.

Also I never said Babe was the greatest, but you tell mee another player who has mutiple 40+ homerun seasons and ERAs under 2.0 with 30 games pitched, not even the great Satchel Paige can say that, (but you probably don't know who that is).

1) yes i do know who satchel paige is...i used to be a HUGE baseball fan...now im just bored of it.
2)so just a question here...you said show u another player with 40+ homerun seasons with ERA's under 2.0 with 30 games pitched? well...considering only half of the MLB even is possible to meet those requirements you are again fucked because pitchers do not bat in the american league. only in the national. thought you'd take that into consideration  

Sorry to get off topic but putting down Bruce is one thing, but putting down baseball, that's playing with fire. But to reply to your statement of Monopoly vs a PC, that is difference. Music is universal and will always be the same at heart, it only appears to be different on the outside. Both Jay Z and the Beatles have songs that reflect their outlook, both use musical accompaniment to establish a mood, both use lyrical wit to enhance and encrypt their message. Music is music, just because it sounds different doesn't mean it is. Jay Z and Nas sound different but it's okay to argue who's better with them. Just because the beatles sing and Jay Z talks doesn't mean its all that different.

how is monopoly vs. pc different? if you're using a pc for gaming and a monopoly board for gaming then according to your logic that should be the same thing. and i also never put down baseball....so don't put words in my mouth. jay & nas are in the same time period, and do the same type of music, (and even have similar styles) so you're point is out the window. the beatles & jayz are 2 different time periods, & 2 different types of music.

I remember seeind an old McDonalds commercial  where an old man is walking with his grandson eating the new fries they were pushing at the time, and there is this guy rapping on a street corner. The kid asks his grandfather "whats he doing?" and the grand father says he's rapping, the kid asks why, and the grandfather replys "Because he can't sing". I assure if Jay felt he could sing he wouldn't be rapping.

dude...i would be willing to bet jay-z would much rather rap...you act like rapping is the last resort or something...

and if I want to say the Beatles were better at doing that than Jay Z is I can, and I feel it is not unreasonable to do so.

no its not unreasonable at all...but it is unreasonable to make wack ass threads and then write essays about how everybody should agree with you because bruce springsteen & michael jackson & r. kelly all do the same thing so we can compare them even though they are totally different.

[Shallow]

All of Baseball's changes didn't happen 80 years ago, I was just comparing Ruth's time to Bond's time. Also the fact that Ruth could excel in both pitching and batting is a testament to his ability, it's not that half the pitchers in the league don't bat, it's that none of the pitchers can bat. If Babe Ruth was playing today and wanted to be a pitcher in the AL, chances are they would also have him play DH. If any one else could do it, you'd see it be done.

Also you seemed to ignore my statement saying that all music post-50s has the same essence.

This is an open forum where fans are free to discuss. if yu don't like my "wack ass" threads, then don't read them. I am not trying to persuade people towards Springsteen, or even pull them away from R.Kelly. The problem with Kelly was I felt he was getting over praised on this forum, and decided to add my 2 cents. I think he's good, I also think Paul Pierce is good, but when someone tells me he's better than Larry Bird, I argue. If you don't like Springsteen, fine, if you've never really listened to him then don't compare him. And for the record, in the early to mid 80s Jackson and Bruce had very similar music.

[Don Breezio]

the fact that you think r. kelly is over praised on this forum is what i can't figure out...i'm the only one on here in like the last 2 months to make any threads pertaining to r. kelly...in fact most of the time when a thread is made about him and its not made by me its either dissing him or talking about him banging a 12 year old.

and i also never compared r. kelly & springsteen...you did...i never said r. kelly was better than springsteen i said its 2 different types of music and they shouldn't be compared.

post 50's has the same essence? are you fuckin insane? sure the temptations and jagged edge have the same essence...but they are the same type of music. you need to learn that everything isn't just black and white...its not this vs. this...let people have their own opinion and don't come in my threads telling me how the artist i like is a crappy artist. if you're gonna do shit like that make your own thread.

[Shallow]

Let me further explain, first I distinctly read the word "genius" with regards to R Kelly on a couple threads. Second I confused you with the Not For These Times guy, sorry. Third the seence of songwriters, the serious ones. Bob Dylan helped change the way artists write lyrics, the beatles perfected the music side, and since then every "artist" that creates music falss under that establishment some how. Not to confuse artists with entertainers, which I see as being different. Some peoples whole purpose for being in the music business ids to entertain and make money. For others it is to create music, with messages they want to release (not that they don't entertain or apprecite the money). I put R Kelly in the latter category, and see him as more than just an entertainer. The temptations, as much as I love them, are just a group of good singers with presision in their dance moves. They are not, in my opinion musical "artists" or creators.

And lastly, when you start a thread you're supposed to expect bad as well as good responses. What do you want, to say something and have everyone agree with you? I like R Kelly and "I" think he's good but not great. I have the right to say that, and you have the right to tell me I'm wrong. I only mentioned Springsteen because I am obviously a big fan, and wanted to promote him on the forum, much like you wanted to promote R Kelly. I'm sorry I used your thread, just let me know how I can make it up to Luke(no sarcasm intended), I'll do anything (non-sexual).

[Don Breezio]

all im sayin is that you can say you disagree or whatever...but don't come in and start making wack ass comparisons...and one final thing i want to point out before i diss jome so he can lock this thread is that you obviously don't take music into context...you're talking about song writers and their lyrics having the same essence...well did you ever take into account that bob dylan's lyrics vs. r. kelly's lyrics are different? i'm gonna pull the race card out right now and it might piss someone off so if so im sorry...but the fact is black and white people relate to totally different lyrics...why do you think you rarely see a black guy in a rock band? its not very often...why do you think there arent very many white people in rap? because people want something they can relate to. personally i relate the best to punk music because well...im a little bitch.   most of the other people on this board who listen to the westcoast side of things....i bet over half of them live somewhere in LA or near there. and most of the people who live somewhere around there and post about a lot of westcoast rap...don't post about springsteen why? because they can't relate to him as well...my point of this long ass post is that you need to take music into context...as i said before...you can't expect a beatles album from jay-z...unless danger mouse is on the boards.

[Shallow]

all im sayin is that you can say you disagree or whatever...but don't come in and start making wack ass comparisons...and one final thing i want to point out before i diss jome so he can lock this thread is that you obviously don't take music into context...you're talking about song writers and their lyrics having the same essence...well did you ever take into account that bob dylan's lyrics vs. r. kelly's lyrics are different? i'm gonna pull the race card out right now and it might piss someone off so if so im sorry...but the fact is black and white people relate to totally different lyrics...why do you think you rarely see a black guy in a rock band? its not very often...why do you think there arent very many white people in rap? because people want something they can relate to. personally i relate the best to punk music because well...im a little bitch.   most of the other people on this board who listen to the westcoast side of things....i bet over half of them live somewhere in LA or near there. and most of the people who live somewhere around there and post about a lot of westcoast rap...don't post about springsteen why? because they can't relate to him as well...my point of this long ass post is that you need to take music into context...as i said before...you can't expect a beatles album from jay-z...unless danger mouse is on the boards.

1) Just because you don't feel two artists aren't comparable does not give you the right to say that it cannot be posted. Hell one guy once said Dre was better at creating music than Beethoven. Hmmm one guy can write and play music even though he can't hear it , and the other does nothing but have musicians replay old songs. The point is I think it is completely insane to compare Dre and Beethoven in music, it's like comparing Jordan and Gretzky in hockey, but I would never tell that person he shouldn't post his thoughts.

2) Bob Dylan's lyric "are" different, mainly better. More complex, at times more poetical, more meaningful, more consistant, and more revolutionary. Don't give me that race bull shit. What does  R. Kelly speak of that makes him so "black", white people don't have sex, white people don't ..... I'm sorry I can't think of another type of R Kelly song right now. The fact is most black people in the 60s that heard Dylan, loved him. Hendrix was one of his biggest fans. Who else was writing songs in 1964 about black maids murdered by the children of their opppressing white employers, and how the bull shit justice system only gave the guilty a six month sentence? ( The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carrol)

3) You see plenty black people in rock, it's callled Hip Hop, just ask Chuck D. Dylan inspired songwriters in the 60s to push it to the limit and expand. These song writers include Smokey Robinson, which had an effect on Marvin Gaye and his What's Going On album, which influenced hundreds of rap pioneers to start spitting about there surroundings, which is what Dylan made famous, (not invent).

4) Springsteen (yes him again), also wrote about his surroundings, which were the poor streets of New Jersey. His first few albums are filled with tales of gang violence, murder, the streets, welfare, and various other criminal activity, the whole time creating characters that commit these acts and fall victim to society, but giving them a soul and personality that are relatable to any one who has ever been part of or near that style of life. And to those that weren't, he gave them a window into the depths of society's gutter. What makes this so different "lyrically" than most street rappers? I couldn't tell you.

To me, and to a lot of people Rock n Roll is not a sound, it is an attitude. A way for people to express them selves, and their problems with the society they live in, and every type of music that does so is Rock n Roll. Rap, metal, punk, RnB, rockabilly, whatever. It is not a style it is a state of mind.

P.S. the only reason Jay Z could not make a Beatles quality album is because he isn't talented enough to compete musically with any of the fab four. Ringo is the only one you can make an argument with. Jay is playing college ball and he's very good, but the Beatles are like the 50s-60s Celtics, 11 championships in 13 years.

[Don Breezio]

so then if its ok to compare bruce springsteen with r. kelly...how come its not ok to compare beethoven with dr. dre? personally i don't agree with comparing either of them but you just totally threw out a double standard.

the fact that you keep on this r. kelly only sings about sex thing shows you know absolutely nothing about r. kelly's music...you're even posting in a topic about a song where he's singing about god! r. kelly caters to more than just the black audience...thats why i feel he's one of the most talented out there right now...but for instance someone like jay-z talking about the hood, pimpin, slangin, etc...isn't exactly going to hit home for most white people. again im not trying to be racist but i think just about everyone on here knows its true...i dunno bout you but i rarely see a black guy in rock...and i rarely see a black guy listen to rock.

yes...most black people in the 60's loved dylan...because they could relate to his lyrics...the rock thats out nowadays really only relates to the upper class considering 90% of it is about girls dumping the guy...whereas hip hop is all about the streets (and/or money & women). you seem to forget that the stuff coming out in the 60's was TOTALLY DIFFERENT than whats coming out today.

rock and roll is a state of mind? you are right about that but only to a point...rock and roll is a lot more than that. yes you're right...just about every type of music now branched off from rock & roll at some point...but then again leaves & berry's can come off the same bush but you only eat one of them now don't you?

[Shallow]

so then if its ok to compare bruce springsteen with r. kelly...how come its not ok to compare beethoven with dr. dre? personally i don't agree with comparing either of them but you just totally threw out a double standard.

the fact that you keep on this r. kelly only sings about sex thing shows you know absolutely nothing about r. kelly's music...you're even posting in a topic about a song where he's singing about god! r. kelly caters to more than just the black audience...thats why i feel he's one of the most talented out there right now...but for instance someone like jay-z talking about the hood, pimpin, slangin, etc...isn't exactly going to hit home for most white people. again im not trying to be racist but i think just about everyone on here knows its true...i dunno bout you but i rarely see a black guy in rock...and i rarely see a black guy listen to rock.

yes...most black people in the 60's loved dylan...because they could relate to his lyrics...the rock thats out nowadays really only relates to the upper class considering 90% of it is about girls dumping the guy...whereas hip hop is all about the streets (and/or money & women). you seem to forget that the stuff coming out in the 60's was TOTALLY DIFFERENT than whats coming out today.

rock and roll is a state of mind? you are right about that but only to a point...rock and roll is a lot more than that. yes you're right...just about every type of music now branched off from rock & roll at some point...but then again leaves & berry's can come off the same bush but you only eat one of them now don't you?

I never said it's not OK to compare Beethoven to Dre, I just think it's stupid because Beethoven is light years better than Dre, it's like comparing someone to Jesus because they held the door open for an elderly lady. As for double standard, I actual did compare Dre and Beethoven, so how could you get the idea I would think that it cannot be done.

As far as the music being black and white is concerned. I disagree, I think it's the image people are attracted to. It's unpopular for black kids to like Rock music, and it's sometimes dangerous for white kids to try and rap ( I saw 8 Mile, I know what I'm talking about). Young black kids look up to rich older black thugs who get all the girls, and the actual music plays second fiddle. What black kid in a ghetto wants promote he likes songs about suicide, and rape. They want the bling, and the bitches. It's not the music, it's society. The same society that portrays black people as cooler and tougher, which is why you see all those stupid white kids with sagging pants and fake street accents.

Also, I didn't see a response to my Springsteen paragraph. Is it because you're downloading his entire catalog as we speak? Admit it he's amazing.