smoothcriminal12 said:

mjscarousal said:

But what does that have to do with her talent and music? That doesn't necessesarily mean that she sucks just because he is more popular You also have to factor in the fact that he has a label that is willing to back him on a bigger platform compared to her label and also the industry endorses him more compared to her. Also, his music is more pop "friendlier" compared to hers.I agree she is no MJ or Prince type of talent but she is nonetheless very talented in multiple areas in comparision to her peers. She is a good songwriter, has a good ear for music, experimentation, composition and creativity. She is unique in that respect and she really tries to push the boundaries musically in today's generation of Beyawnces and Rihonies. The ArchAndroid is a underrated classic.Oh and welcome back!

Thanks! It's good to be here again. What I'm trying to say is that people who hailed her and continue to hail artists like her and D'Angelo as the next big things are misguided. The next major thing won't be a retread of what has come before - they'll take from their influences and use it to become larger than life. What I was saying is that Bruno has a better chance than Janelle because he already has the notoriety and a better ear for hits, so if he really makes a ploy to be the next great thing he can do it (which would require a lot of hard ass work, a kick ass life show, and

songs that will outlast his generation).

I think being "pop friendly" is a necessity. Michael was hella pop friendly. Prince at the pinnacle of his game knew how to craft a good hit. Even James knew how to get crossover success. I think a mark of a genius is being able to craft hits that the general public can relate to as well as the "underground" and music enthusiasts.

You bring up a lot of good points. By the way, I actually really like Bruno Mars. I love Bruno and Janelle actually. They both try to be creative with their music and performances (whether people like them or not ). However, I disagreed with your definition of having the ("it") which you insisted primarily consisted of popularity. Because just because you are popular does not mean you necessesarily have "it" or have what it takes to be an legendary artist. You have to remember that the industry today is very different from the way it use to be and how artists become popular is also very different. It is not necessarily based on talent or even having a hit for that matter. I DO agree however, that when you are on a mass platform that you have a chance to do something iconic or something that can leave a lasting impression to a larger group of people s but at the same time I don't think any of that matters if you have artists who are unable to make classics, iconic moments or music that leaves lasting impression with a big platform

Lastly, the reason why MJ, Prince etc are legends not because they made pop friendly songs but because what they did was ground breaking and made a long lasting impact on people. In other words, it wasn't just being popular or having the "it" that did that a lone. I just don't think using them are probably appropiate examples because they were unique and exceptions, they were able to be popular AND produce creative songs AND reach a lot of people with the music at the same time. The way the industry is now it is mucha harder to combine those things because the pop stars dont have that same talent and dont care to be creative or make a lasting impact with the music.

mjscarousal said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Thanks! It's good to be here again. What I'm trying to say is that people who hailed her and continue to hail artists like her and D'Angelo as the next big things are misguided. The next major thing won't be a retread of what has come before - they'll take from their influences and use it to become larger than life. What I was saying is that Bruno has a better chance than Janelle because he already has the notoriety and a better ear for hits, so if he really makes a ploy to be the next great thing he can do it (which would require a lot of hard ass work, a kick ass life show, and

songs that will outlast his generation).

I think being "pop friendly" is a necessity. Michael was hella pop friendly. Prince at the pinnacle of his game knew how to craft a good hit. Even James knew how to get crossover success. I think a mark of a genius is being able to craft hits that the general public can relate to as well as the "underground" and music enthusiasts.

You bring up a lot of good points. By the way, I actually really like Bruno Mars. I love Bruno and Janelle actually. They both try to be creative with their music and performances (whether people like them or not ). However, I disagreed with your definition of having the ("it") which you insisted primarily consisted of popularity. Because just because you are popular does not mean you necessesarily have "it" or have what it takes to be an legendary artist. You have to remember that the industry today is very different from the way it use to be and how artists become popular is also very different. It is not necessarily based on talent or even having a hit for that matter. I DO agree however, that when you are on a mass platform that you have a chance to do something iconic or something that can leave a lasting impression to a larger group of people s but at the same time I don't think any of that matters if you have artists who are unable to make classics, iconic moments or music that leaves lasting impression with a big platform

Lastly, the reason why MJ, Prince etc are legends not because they made pop friendly songs but because what they did was ground breaking and made a long lasting impact on people. In other words, it wasn't just being popular or having the "it" that did that a lone. I just don't think using them are probably appropiate examples because they were unique and exceptions, they were able to be popular AND produce creative songs AND reach a lot of people with the music at the same time. The way the industry is now it is mucha harder to combine those things because the pop stars dont have that same talent and dont care to be creative or make a lasting impact with the music.

Not just pop stars. look at Kevin Hart. I can't figure out why this guy is so popular.

I've seen her live a bunch of times, although not very recently. She is really good but the entire show was choreographed to a tee, they seemed unable to break free from what they had planned. They had very different lineups each time but it sounded the very same every time. The first time she had no horn section or backing singers yet she still found time to thank the horn section in Tightrope, the entire show is running on banks of midi plugins and pre-recorded backing vocals. It bugged the hell out of me because if you just focus on her you can see how good a performer she is underneath it all, she just needed room to breath.

In regards the albums I'm a bit on the fence with them. I agree with OP that she's lacking a style of her own. I think if she was given room on her albums as well she'd be awesome. Having said that, I really thought Dance Apocolyptic was gonna break out and be a proper hit, was very surprised when it fairly sank. I thought she was really onto something there, that the album itself didn't live up to.


Basically she needs to do a Dirty Mind.

[Edited 5/22/15 11:06am]

mjscarousal said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Thanks! It's good to be here again. What I'm trying to say is that people who hailed her and continue to hail artists like her and D'Angelo as the next big things are misguided. The next major thing won't be a retread of what has come before - they'll take from their influences and use it to become larger than life. What I was saying is that Bruno has a better chance than Janelle because he already has the notoriety and a better ear for hits, so if he really makes a ploy to be the next great thing he can do it (which would require a lot of hard ass work, a kick ass life show, and

songs that will outlast his generation).

I think being "pop friendly" is a necessity. Michael was hella pop friendly. Prince at the pinnacle of his game knew how to craft a good hit. Even James knew how to get crossover success. I think a mark of a genius is being able to craft hits that the general public can relate to as well as the "underground" and music enthusiasts.

You bring up a lot of good points. By the way, I actually really like Bruno Mars. I love Bruno and Janelle actually. They both try to be creative with their music and performances (whether people like them or not ). However, I disagreed with your definition of having the ("it") which you insisted primarily consisted of popularity. Because just because you are popular does not mean you necessesarily have "it" or have what it takes to be an legendary artist.

No, not primarily at all. Popularity is one of the factors that can help you become the next big thing, and one of the common factors that all the "biggest things" have had is a certain degree of popularity, from Mozart to the Beatles to Michael.

You have to remember that the industry today is very different from the way it use to be and how artists become popular is also very different. It is not necessarily based on talent or even having a hit for that matter. I DO agree however, that when you are on a mass platform that you have a chance to do something iconic or something that can leave a lasting impression to a larger group of people s but at the same time I don't think any of that matters if you have artists who are unable to make classics, iconic moments or music that leaves lasting impression with a big platform

But again, these artists have a distinct advantage over artists like Janelle or D.

Lastly, the reason why MJ, Prince etc are legends not because they made pop friendly songs but because what they did was ground breaking and made a long lasting impact on people.

But in the end it all boils down to the music, and their ability to combine genius music with their pop sensibilities certainly helped and was probably one of the primary reasons that their genius is recognized. Motown 25 wouldn't really matter all that much is Billie Jean was just an okay song.

In other words, it wasn't just being popular or having the "it" that did that a lone. I just don't think using them are probably appropiate examples because they were unique and exceptions, they were able to be popular AND produce creative songs AND reach a lot of people with the music at the same time. The way the industry is now it is mucha harder to combine those things because the pop stars dont have that same talent and dont care to be creative or make a lasting impact with the music.

But then again it's all about perspective. Bruno Mars has only done two albums, and it took Prince five albums to get to the point where he started to get some major recognition and release music that had truly consistent, genius quality (sure the run is officially from Dirty Mind - Lovesexy, but the quality really went up around 1999).

I think we primarily agree on many points, to be honest.

Janelle Monae is "it" she just missed that blast of fame that Lady Gaga got,which she should have gotten because her album was an absolute match in creativity and genius to Lady Gagas album.Folks just missed her or came on board late but stayed loyal once they got into her. For those who think and feel that shes overrated not that talented and not original, watch her performance of Goldfinger for the president and the first lady and shut up.

smoothcriminal12 said:

I posted this one okayplayer as is...thought it would be cool over here too.

This is something that's been on my mind for a while...

As much as I love Janelle Monae (believe me, I am a HUGE fan), I simply didn't get it - and still don't get it - when people dub her the "next big thing", or as the successor to any of the greats.

I've yet to see anything truly original from her. When I listen to her albums I can almost pinpoint every idea and every single inspiration to something that came before her, whether it be Stevie Wonder, Prince, Michael Jackson or James Brown. Tightrope, as good as it may be, sounds like a retread of a style that's been around for a long time, dating back well before Janelle's existence.

She's a decent performer, but nothing more than that. When I look at Prince during the Purple Rain Tour, James on the TAMI show, or Michael at the 1988 Grammys, I see true performers. Geniuses who set the stage on fire with their craft, who knew how to work an audience. Janelle's performances don't give me that feeling. Her dance moves are not very good and her stage presence is just okay. She doesn't have it like James did. She doesn't have it like Michael did.

This is the underlying sentiment of my post - people seem to think that the next successor to the greats will be someone like Janelle or D'Angelo - but they won't. Imitating what came before you is fine, but when it becomes pure mimicry, it's purely derivative. I understand that everyone pulls from their influences, but when I see Prince during the Parade Tour doing the best James Brown impression he can muster, I STILL feel like I'm seeing Prince. When I see Michael bust out in his best James Brown during the HIStory Tour, I'm still seeing Michael as a force of nature in his own stratosphere, just paying homage to his influences. When I see Janelle or D, I don't feel the originality mixed in there. All I see is someone desperately wishing they were from a time that's not there's.

The next big thing will probably steal a thing or two from their influences, but it will be so big and shine so bright that we will still be able to feel the originality for it. It's like Michael during Motown 25. People knew that the moonwalk wasn't his and that the opening was straight out of Fosse's book but no one cared because he elevated to his own level. He made it his own and put his own spin on it. THAT'S what Janelle and D need to even be in consideration. They need to be able to pull from their influences and still imbue it with their own originality. Furthermore, they need to be able to connect their own artistry with the general public, which means hits. Someone like Bruno Mars could be in that position. I see a lot of his influences in him, but the guy's got chops. He's smart and he's a brilliant performer, and if he works at it and comes back even stronger when his next album comes around the show could be over.

I don't mean to upset anyone. I'm just trying to let out what I've been thinking for the past little while.

I like Monae and Jidena is cool too and they have chemistry like its about to pop off.

no-one is more opinated than celebrities, and no one feels that anybody else isnt intitled to an opinion than a celebrity.

if only celebrities had an opinion on things other than each other to get their "armies" fired up, it could a very useful platform.

.

[Edited 5/23/15 4:24am]

Because she doesn't fit neatly into any of the boxes that the music industry likes to promote, she'll never rise to levels of others that play the game more, and that's fine. If that's what you mean by "it" then you're right. But she's doing her thing, and those that appreciate her style of artistry will continue to support her. Me personally, I would put either of her albums on before I put on Bruno Mars or any other person you think is the "it" person at the moment.

She's on the auction block now, going too commercial. There's still Badu.

My friends all dig her and try to convert me with tracks I don't know, but I haven't been fooled yet.

2freaky4church1 said:

She's on the auction block now, going too commercial. There's still Badu.

Literally!
[img:$uid]http://clatl.com/binary/114b/1344975376-janelle_monae_covergirl.jpg[/img:$uid]

There are a tonne of artists that seem like knock-offs of original greats, and I do like some of them (Ciara) so this point doesn't really make sense to co-sign.

You don't have to like Janelle Monae, and if she's going to pop, she'll pop. I probably still won't like her.

Janelle is JANELLE, and everybody else she is compared to is unfair. Comparing one person to 4 to 5 other people? On a Prince forum? (Jimi, Sly, James Brown, Stevie) Really? Let her be.

Also too, I have to make this point because it contributes to why Janelle hasn't blown up yet,

She actually has some radio friendly songs that could be hits....nobody wants to talk about that though. There is a secret operation going on in the industry to keep certain artists on top and certain ones at the bottom. The powers that be are forcing 5 pop stars down our throats despite the the fact that the general public wants more acts Its gotten to the point now that we just have grown to accept the crop of artists the industy chooses to promote.Thats why I dont really think its fair to use artists of the past as examples because they came up in a completely diffeent industry. The current industry is very corrupt and a lot of why certain artists are not as popular as they probably could be is not necessarily because its their fault. Same reason why, the reason why it appear ssome pop singers are more successful is not necessarily because a lot of people like them.

Graycap23 said:

Not just pop stars. look at Kevin Hart. I can't figure out why this guy is so popular.

Yep this fits nicely into my above point. He is popular because the entertainment industry endorses him to a wide audience and he has a good team around him but as I mentioned above none of that necessarily reflects his comedic genius or talent.

[Edited 5/23/15 21:39pm]

babynoz said:

deebee said:

Thing is, when you set the bar that high (Prince, James, Stevie, MJ, etc), you're kind of unchariably setting her up for a fall, as it's so rare that an artist measures up to that legendary status. And, as for being "it", that's probably an even tougher yardstick - as much of what finds its way to our ears in everyday life doesn't really hit that bullseye we've each individually got imprinted on our musical souls. Hell, even the greats didn't always hit that spot. (The MJ I saw on the HIStory tour was a disappointing shadow of his former self, who dutifully rehashed his old moves and mimed through 90% of the gig, for example.) We tend to hold onto idealised versions of the greats, not the more mixed reality that even a great perfomer's career usually comprises.

Against a less dauntingly high yardstick - say, against her peers, particularly on today's R&B scene - I think Janelle measures up pretty well. People have different tastes, but there's a lot in what she's offering that works for me. I like her voice, with its 'young Michael Jackson' purity of tone. I like her dancing, which seems organic and expressive, and a nice change of pace from the hoochiemamaisms the rest of her cohort seem obsessed with. I like what she's bringing in terms of some kind of 'message'. For some, the whole Afro-futurism thing will feel a bit contrived, and maybe they want something more raw and unsublimated. But, as I see it, in these times of ours when everone 'bears their soul' (and their arse), whether or not they have much soul (or arse) to bear in the first place, and even the tedious Smith children offer us maudlin confessionals about their ishoos, expressing what you have to say in the sublimated form of a kooky sci-fi conceit seems somehow more interesting. Granted, the last release seems to suggest a dip in her quality control, but the rest of the material's been of a high standard, I think. Even the second album, slated as being her capitulation to the label bosses (which does, it's true, have a slightly more conventional contemporary R&B sound), features stuff like Sally Ride, which is crackingly good. Plus, the performances I've seen from her promotion of it had a genuinely buoyant and uncontrived vibe going on in them.

That said, I saw her last year, and, though it was an enjoyable show, I was a bit disappointed that she didn't really connect with the audience as well as I anticipated. She never really 'broke character' and let us into anything more personal, or served up anything that was really 'special' for the crowd on the night to take away. So, perhaps she's still got some developing to do as a performer. I can kind of see how maybe that aspect of her shtick - that she always seems a bit 'distant' or something - might not work for people. Generally works for me, though. Strokes/folks.

[Edited 5/22/15 5:49am]

This.

I either like something or I don't regardless of who deems it popular or not. Why does she have to be "it"?

I would add that I love both Janelle and Bruno. What they have in common for me personally is that they both saved me from mid-tempo hell. I like to say they got "pepper".

Anything that saves us from mid-tempo hell is to be encouraged.

mjscarousal said:

Also too, I have to make this point because it contributes to why Janelle hasn't blown up yet,

She actually has some radio friendly songs that could be hits....nobody wants to talk about that though. There is a secret operation going on in the industry to keep certain artists on top and certain ones at the bottom. The powers that be are forcing 5 pop stars down our throats despite the the fact that the general public wants more acts Its gotten to the point now that we just have grown to accept the crop of artists the industy chooses to promote.Thats why I dont really think its fair to use artists of the past as examples because they came up in a completely diffeent industry. The current industry is very corrupt and a lot of why certain artists are not as popular as they probably could be is not necessarily because its their fault. Same reason why, the reason why it appear ssome pop singers are more successful is not necessarily because a lot of people like them.

Graycap23 said:

Not just pop stars. look at Kevin Hart. I can't figure out why this guy is so popular.

Yep this fits nicely into my above point. He is popular because the entertainment industry endorses him to a wide audience and he has a good team around him but as I mentioned above none of that necessarily reflects his comedic genius or talent.

[Edited 5/23/15 21:39pm]

I feel like this statement could describe just about any era in popular music.

smoothcriminal12 said:

mjscarousal said:

Also too, I have to make this point because it contributes to why Janelle hasn't blown up yet,

She actually has some radio friendly songs that could be hits....nobody wants to talk about that though. There is a secret operation going on in the industry to keep certain artists on top and certain ones at the bottom. The powers that be are forcing 5 pop stars down our throats despite the the fact that the general public wants more acts Its gotten to the point now that we just have grown to accept the crop of artists the industy chooses to promote.Thats why I dont really think its fair to use artists of the past as examples because they came up in a completely diffeent industry. The current industry is very corrupt and a lot of why certain artists are not as popular as they probably could be is not necessarily because its their fault. Same reason why, the reason why it appear ssome pop singers are more successful is not necessarily because a lot of people like them.

Yep this fits nicely into my above point. He is popular because the entertainment industry endorses him to a wide audience and he has a good team around him but as I mentioned above none of that necessarily reflects his comedic genius or talent.

[Edited 5/23/15 21:39pm]

I feel like this statement could describe just about any era in popular music.

I disagee. Today's industry is very different from previous eras and the way artists become popular is different as well. There was more variety and diversty amongst the pop stars compared to today's generation. I am not sure why you think every era operated the same when there is a clear difference in today's generation. In addition, the past pop stars like the ones you like to use as examples, were popular because people geniunely liked not because they were being "forced" down our throats like some of the pop stars of today.

First off, I question whether the original poster is a "huge fan" of Janelle's, since most of the post is quite negative. Seems more like trolling, so I will keep my reply short.

It's probably unfair to say any artist is "it" - Prince included, because then we will be disappointed by them. Also, all great artists are influenced by those who came before them. Of course we can hear echoes of MJ and Stevie Wonder in Janelle's songs!

I love Janelle's music and live shows; so I feel I can accurately call myself a "fan" (well, a fAndroid actually).

[Edited 5/25/15 9:07am]

smoothcriminal12 said:

I posted this one okayplayer as is...thought it would be cool over here too.

This is something that's been on my mind for a while...

As much as I love Janelle Monae (believe me, I am a HUGE fan), I simply didn't get it - and still don't get it - when people dub her the "next big thing", or as the successor to any of the greats.

I've yet to see anything truly original from her. When I listen to her albums I can almost pinpoint every idea and every single inspiration to something that came before her, whether it be Stevie Wonder, Prince, Michael Jackson or James Brown. Tightrope, as good as it may be, sounds like a retread of a style that's been around for a long time, dating back well before Janelle's existence.

She's a decent performer, but nothing more than that. When I look at Prince during the Purple Rain Tour, James on the TAMI show, or Michael at the 1988 Grammys, I see true performers. Geniuses who set the stage on fire with their craft, who knew how to work an audience. Janelle's performances don't give me that feeling. Her dance moves are not very good and her stage presence is just okay. She doesn't have it like James did. She doesn't have it like Michael did.

This is the underlying sentiment of my post - people seem to think that the next successor to the greats will be someone like Janelle or D'Angelo - but they won't. Imitating what came before you is fine, but when it becomes pure mimicry, it's purely derivative. I understand that everyone pulls from their influences, but when I see Prince during the Parade Tour doing the best James Brown impression he can muster, I STILL feel like I'm seeing Prince. When I see Michael bust out in his best James Brown during the HIStory Tour, I'm still seeing Michael as a force of nature in his own stratosphere, just paying homage to his influences. When I see Janelle or D, I don't feel the originality mixed in there. All I see is someone desperately wishing they were from a time that's not there's.

The next big thing will probably steal a thing or two from their influences, but it will be so big and shine so bright that we will still be able to feel the originality for it. It's like Michael during Motown 25. People knew that the moonwalk wasn't his and that the opening was straight out of Fosse's book but no one cared because he elevated to his own level. He made it his own and put his own spin on it. THAT'S what Janelle and D need to even be in consideration. They need to be able to pull from their influences and still imbue it with their own originality. Furthermore, they need to be able to connect their own artistry with the general public, which means hits. Someone like Bruno Mars could be in that position. I see a lot of his influences in him, but the guy's got chops. He's smart and he's a brilliant performer, and if he works at it and comes back even stronger when his next album comes around the show could be over.

I don't mean to upset anyone. I'm just trying to let out what I've been thinking for the past little while.

Black music - as a part of black culture - is over. Post-Reconstruction segregation CREATED black culture. Post-Civil Rights Movement "integreation" has destroyed it. Today people -- black or otherwise - intentionally or unitentionally - can cop a black musical or cultural POSE - in other words they can embrace old FORMS of black musical and cultural expressions but NOT the content. (See Questlove. The man has proven you CAN make a career - and a rather lucrative one - posing as Buddy Miles.) But nevertheless they are still left grasping for the content. They can't find it because the content has EVAPORATED like a wisp of smoke. Hip-hop (inclusive of techno and house music and certain strains of 80s and 90s R&B) was the last legitmate forward movement of American black - and hence American period - musical expression. It gives me no pleasure to make these observations - none whatsoever - black cultural and musical expression form the core of the American cultural identity. The collapse of black culture IS the collapse of American culture. We watch the trainwreck and we live with the fallout -dozens of talentless to marginally talented hacks - all unfunky - like Janelle Monae, J. Lo, Robin Thicke, Bruno Mars - - not a single legitimate STAR to be found amongst them, to say NOTHING of a MUSICAL GENIUS. Horribly unlistenable new Prince albums one after another after another. Etc. etc. It's much worse for the 40+ among us - we KNOW something is SERIOUSLY wrong here but are really powerless to apply any cultural corrective. The kids may or may not think the older music is better if they've had meaningful exposure to it, but they never lived the moments that created it. We did.

See, this photos is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Janelle Monae and her group are POSING as Slave, Con Funk Shun, Cameo, Midnight Star or BT Express. This photo concept was ripped STRAIGHT off the back cover of literally 1,000 70s and early 80s funk LPs. Clearly Monae and Co. want to be EMBODY that era spiritually, and there is nothing wrong with that per se - but at best they can only copy the form - they can only copy the SURFACE of what that era was about - and they miss the entirety of its DEPTH. They cannot access the content. They cannot make THAT SPECIFIC MUSIC or a music CONNECTED to the THAT SPECIFIC MUSIC. They cannot FIND THE FUNK. It's not their fault, of course. It's just the way that history is playing out. The destruction of black culture is now at the stage where we have black artists AFFECTATING the blackness of other prior groups/era becuase there is no meaningful current incarnation of black culture for them to embody and present to the world as "their own."

CarolineC said:

First off, I question whether the original poster is a "huge fan" of Janelle's, since most of the post is quite negative. Seems more like trolling, so I will keep my reply short.

It's probably unfair to say any artist is "it" - Prince included, because then we will be disappointed by them. Also, all great artists are influenced by those who came before them. Of course we can hear echoes of MJ and Stevie Wonder in Janelle's songs!

I love Janelle's music and live shows; so I feel I can accurately call myself a "fan" (well, a fAndroid actually).

[Edited 5/25/15 9:07am]

YEA the OP is a wanna be ARTIST and a HATER!!!

getxxxx said:

CarolineC said:

First off, I question whether the original poster is a "huge fan" of Janelle's, since most of the post is quite negative. Seems more like trolling, so I will keep my reply short.

It's probably unfair to say any artist is "it" - Prince included, because then we will be disappointed by them. Also, all great artists are influenced by those who came before them. Of course we can hear echoes of MJ and Stevie Wonder in Janelle's songs!

I love Janelle's music and live shows; so I feel I can accurately call myself a "fan" (well, a fAndroid actually).

[Edited 5/25/15 9:07am]

YEA the OP is a wanna be ARTIST and a HATER!!!

Sweet of you to try and come at me but I am neither a wanna be nor a hater. I'm just expressing an opinion. And if it really riles you up that much then maybe public forums aren't your thing. I mean, even if my music is not to your taste at least I put in the effort rather than sitting behind my computer screen bashing and hating on someone a long way away from me.

I really like Janelle. I think she's creative and talented. This post is not hate on her, rather, I'm trying to say that the next big thing will not be someone that looks back, but someone who looks forward while still drawing from their inspirations. I definitely think she has the ability to do that, but I think it's gonna take a lot more than what she's putting forth right now. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's simply an opinion. And if you can't handle that then I'll reiterate that this discussion just might not be for you.

CarolineC said:

First off, I question whether the original poster is a "huge fan" of Janelle's, since most of the post is quite negative. Seems more like trolling, so I will keep my reply short.

It's probably unfair to say any artist is "it" - Prince included, because then we will be disappointed by them. Also, all great artists are influenced by those who came before them. Of course we can hear echoes of MJ and Stevie Wonder in Janelle's songs!

I love Janelle's music and live shows; so I feel I can accurately call myself a "fan" (well, a fAndroid actually).

[Edited 5/25/15 9:07am]

You know you can have "negative" opinions about something/someone that you do like. What I've found, actually, is that people overlook the actual meaning to the post and just post a knee-jerk reaction.

I'm going to ignore the middle part because I have nothing to say to that, but I think it's a tad reductive to write your own definition of what a fan is and then almost self-righteously pat yourself on the back, congratulating yourself on how good of a fan you are. I would consider myself a fan as well, I just have a few different thoughts on her.

well i always thought she was corny, but op may i ask why you are comparing her to mj,prince, james brown?

lowkey said:

well i always thought she was corny, but op may i ask why you are comparing her to mj,prince, james brown?

I think it's because those are the people she is most derivative of.

smoothcriminal12 said:

I posted this one okayplayer as is...thought it would be cool over here too.

This is something that's been on my mind for a while...

As much as I love Janelle Monae (believe me, I am a HUGE fan), I simply didn't get it - and still don't get it - when people dub her the "next big thing", or as the successor to any of the greats.

I've yet to see anything truly original from her. When I listen to her albums I can almost pinpoint every idea and every single inspiration to something that came before her, whether it be Stevie Wonder, Prince, Michael Jackson or James Brown. Tightrope, as good as it may be, sounds like a retread of a style that's been around for a long time, dating back well before Janelle's existence.

She's a decent performer, but nothing more than that. When I look at Prince during the Purple Rain Tour, James on the TAMI show, or Michael at the 1988 Grammys, I see true performers. Geniuses who set the stage on fire with their craft, who knew how to work an audience. Janelle's performances don't give me that feeling. Her dance moves are not very good and her stage presence is just okay. She doesn't have it like James did. She doesn't have it like Michael did.

This is the underlying sentiment of my post - people seem to think that the next successor to the greats will be someone like Janelle or D'Angelo - but they won't. Imitating what came before you is fine, but when it becomes pure mimicry, it's purely derivative. I understand that everyone pulls from their influences, but when I see Prince during the Parade Tour doing the best James Brown impression he can muster, I STILL feel like I'm seeing Prince. When I see Michael bust out in his best James Brown during the HIStory Tour, I'm still seeing Michael as a force of nature in his own stratosphere, just paying homage to his influences. When I see Janelle or D, I don't feel the originality mixed in there. All I see is someone desperately wishing they were from a time that's not there's.

The next big thing will probably steal a thing or two from their influences, but it will be so big and shine so bright that we will still be able to feel the originality for it. It's like Michael during Motown 25. People knew that the moonwalk wasn't his and that the opening was straight out of Fosse's book but no one cared because he elevated to his own level. He made it his own and put his own spin on it. THAT'S what Janelle and D need to even be in consideration. They need to be able to pull from their influences and still imbue it with their own originality. Furthermore, they need to be able to connect their own artistry with the general public, which means hits. Someone like Bruno Mars could be in that position. I see a lot of his influences in him, but the guy's got chops. He's smart and he's a brilliant performer, and if he works at it and comes back even stronger when his next album comes around the show could be over.

I don't mean to upset anyone. I'm just trying to let out what I've been thinking for the past little while.

Legit points, but as the sage Obi-Wan Kenobi said, "the truths we cling to, depend greatly on our own point of view."

When I was a teenager -- The Only Demographic That Seems To Matter To The Music Industry --
I was enthralled to MJ and Prince's performances, and completely immersed in Prince's work. My parents, to their own degrees, liked Prince's work too, but they always told me that Sly, Stevie, Jimi and James were doing the same things. I loved those older artists, they were part of my childhood, but over time I was able to appreciate those artists more BECAUSE I could hear their influences in Prince's work the more I listened to Prince.

Prince and MJ were the artists of my age, though, i could appreciate them for their own merits -- and for a long time, I judged newer artists by their standards, careful to parse any verse, song, solo, or move for potential "theft."

Now, I enjoy music more because I can take the artists on their own merits, and enjoy them, and take for granted that every artist "derives" from those that came before.

The youth determines which artists in their generation have "it."

"It" can't mean what it once did, because the music industry and model are far different, and musicians today face challenges those before them did not. But the kids and very young adults, for the most part, will decide which new artists will be "it" and/or will be revered moving forward. Not the older folks who grew up listening to the Princes and MJs of the world.

I support Janelle because she's trying to make interesting and compelling music and succeeds more often than she fails. Ditto with D'Angelo (when he drops something). I can speak to whether they are putting out good music, but not whether they have "it" in 2015. That's for the younger folk to decide -- JUST like the folk in my generation crowned Prince, MJ and the rest. Otherwise, I'm just the 21st century version of the Baby Boomers who thoiught real music was invented and ended before the late 1970's.