Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

not judging them by personality. this is a thread about whose music sucks more.

i say backstreet boys

Only one of them has sucky music so what's the real question?

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Only one of them has sucky music so what's the real question? i hear many people now these days put both of them down.

Sure...MJ is history. But he's got a back catalogue that puts the BB boys to shame.

My vote then...BB boys as well.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Only one of them has sucky music so what's the real question?

You like them both, though.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You like them both, though.

-AC

Oh that AC. What a kidder!

No actually...I liked one song by the Backstreet Boys (even though it was pretty much fluffy Top 40 junk), and I think Michael Jackson made one of the greatest pop records of all time...that was actually good Top 40.

Go away, weirdo.

So I was right then? Yes.

-AC

AC you're incredible!! Leave it alone! And leave this thread alone! Stop continuously CHALLENGING me like a little kid!

"He likes the Backstreet Boys...Heeheehee"

Ever heard of stretching the truth?

Dork!

I heard that one Backstreet Boys song at a resuraunt the other day, the one that goes "Tell me whiiieeee", and I almost shouted it out. It really grabs you, that "whiiieee".


I vote MJ.

I often think "Why?" when I hear The Backstreet Boys, too, Morgoths.

-AC

Kidding, obviously, Michael Jackson being great...right? Please?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Kidding, obviously, Michael Jackson being great...right? Please? in the 80s so so

Originally posted by spidey-dude
in the 80s so so

Thought we are talking about their music...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Thought we are talking about their music... we are. afew songs in his 80s where ok. not the best though

Originally posted by spidey-dude
we are. afew songs in his 80s where ok. not the best though

What music do you like?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What music do you like? beat it is the only decent song he did. i hate that free willy song.

backstreet boys i cant think of one song i like

Originally posted by spidey-dude
beat it is the only decent song he did. i hate that free willy song.

backstreet boys i cant think of one song i like I meant generally.

Both.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I meant generally. i dont listen to along of music today as i used to do. i liked mostly early 90s rock and rap. mostly today its garbage. master P so so

I can't believe there are people here actually saying Michael Jackson wasn't anything short of great.

Typical.

As far as relevant albums is concerned, Thriller was like a bomb when it landed.

(and no...not "bomb" like that).

Too bad he'll never write a decent note again -

He wasn't anything short of great.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
He wasn't anything short of great.

Agreed.

afew of his albums where ok. backstreet boys i cant think of one.

Umm, Michael's Music doesn't suck.

It's actually being compared to the BS Boys...that's like comparing Prince to N'SYNC.

I don't know N'SYNC but I am pretty sure Prince is better.

Originally posted by EPIIIBITES


As far as relevant albums..

Here we go again....

Sorry...can't help it...but I think Thriller was quite relevant at the time.

Just because something isn't in the public eye doesn't mean it's irrelevant on today's music platform. It's still inspiring artists, the video is still shown every Halloween, and it's about as popular at weddings as the Electric Slide.

Music evolves, naturally. There's stuff that is ahead of its time, stuff that is timeless, and stuff that will just fall to the wayside. I think a lot of Micheal Jackson & his brothers work is highly "relevant" to this day. It doesn't have to be flying off the shelves, or burning up charts or even radio station telephone lines. The relevancy is in the inspiration, which is in plenty of pop artists.

He's no musical King Midas, but that doesn't mean that he should be underminded once his music stopped resembling that of what he's famous for. There's always THAT to consider. Of course he's made some less than stellar music, probably made on the fly to zap some debt. (Part of the reason he let go of some of the Beatles rights he owned.)

This whole issue of relevancy is just as subjective. Especially taking into consideration the mechanics of what makes music timeless, and even though publically fleeting, inspiring people to this day underneath it all.

I totally agree that music doesn't have to be popular to be relevant...that's true. I can think of lots of unknown artists in electronica that fall into that description.

But although I have lots to write about this...I don't think I'll do it here.

It's probably because electronica is a very saturated genre, with a lot of limitations. Everyone uses the same equipment, usually relegated to a singular member, maybe two, and conisdering it's underground, you can't have "breakthrough" music very often because it'll get written off as monotonous and repetative.

Originally posted by Funkadelic
I don't know N'SYNC but I am pretty sure Prince is better.

He is.