Janet seems much more interested in showing her tits, than making good music. I'm serious btw. She should forget about her tits for a while and concentrate on improving her voice and doing something interesting.

ThreadBare said:

I agree. Her BEST work was when she worked with them. She has NOT released a ground breaking cd since they left.

I'm trying my best not to be depress about the reality that Janet may not have what it takes to remain in the music industry anymore.

She never could sing,lip syncs constantly,and looks dumb and ridiculous trying 2 b sexy with a manmade body-r these enough reasons??

TonyVanDam said:

Yep, I'm aware of that, but all that stuff sounds very typical of Jam & Lewis' production during that era. That's what makes me think it has more to do with her producers than it does with Elizondo.

TonyVanDam said:

Two words: Jermaine Dupree.

Well I dropped her ass beginning with the "Janet" album and haven't looked back. "Rhythm Nation" was the last great thing she did. After that, she sold out to shit hop.
.
.
[Edited 9/23/06 9:08am]

I'll tell you why I've hung around: I just like the genre of music. I don't have time to go into it, but the truth is, I enjoy a lot of types of music.

The reason I've stuck with Janet is that it's just light, danceable music--and I enjoy her videos and her performances. To me--no it's not life-changing or it hasn't been to me--but then again it has a good beat, nice music, pleasant vocals. It's just light--like reading popular fiction or a romance novel as opposed to literature.

I don't compare Janet to say someone like Bonnie Raitt whom I enjoy because she is an excellent guitarist, vocalist, singer, and songwriter. I enjoy Janet because she is more of a visual artist with some nice music even though I'm not going to be ooing and ahing over her as vocalist or musician. I do enjoy her as a performer and then her music just has this quality that I like about it. But in no way could I say that Janet is on the same level as Bonnie in the tradionally sense. In contrast, Bonnie Raitt is not the same type of performer as Janet either, so I don't think I would look for Bonnie to have the same type of presentation. Nonetheless, both of the women appeal to me as "artists" but for different reasons.

I just don't think Janet is the worst performer out there or even the worst music artist either. And the thing is that I don't think Janet is trying to be this innovative at this point in her career. She is just trying to come-up with a product that people can relate to and enjoy. She's not trying to make some deep statement about the social woes of the world. She is trying to create a vehicle to escape from that, I think.

6sixx6 said:

purplecam said:

am I the only person that likes most of JDs productions?

I know I suck he makes danceable stuff to me.

Isel said:

She's trying to get a hit; nothing more, nothing less. Whether the music is any good or not doesn't seem to be of much consequence to her.

whoknows said:

May I ask: what do you consider to be good music? I was just wondering about your taste in music--if you and I share the opinion of what artists we would considered good--at least some artists. I'm just curious more than anything else. Can't Janet have a hit and her music be enjoyable--just on a visceral level if nothing more?

I just have never understood this sort of negativity with Janet. I go through here, and read a lot of the threads, but Janet is always one of the artists everyone has something really emotional, for lack of a better word, to post about. It's like she really brings out the hate or dislike in people for some reason? She really doesn't even do that much to be controversial except for the SB incident. Really before that happened, nobody seemed to be as critical of her.

Isel said:

I am happy that someone that someone has sense on this site and an open mind. I'll give you props for that.

anyway I am glad crtics aren't like the people on this site because Janet is getting some of the best reviews she's gotten since the Janet Cd. People gave her 3 out of 4 , Usweekly 3 1/2 , AMG gave her 4 out of 5 ( which is the highest they ever gave a Janet cd)

purplecam said:

am I the only person that likes most of JDs productions?

I know I suck he makes danceable stuff to me.

Well I dropped her ass beginning with the "Janet" album and haven't looked back. "Rhythm Nation" was the last great thing she did. After that, she sold out to shit hop.
.
.
[Edited 9/23/06 9:08am]

vainandy said:

.....and it's all Mary J. Blige's fault!

But seriously, I believe that All For You & Damita Jo were Janet's 2 biggest f***ups (despite of a few songs that I like from then) because none of those 2 albums had a groundbreaking concept like the previous 4 albums before them.

Damita Jo in itself could have been a Britney Spears album.

whoknows said:

May I ask: what do you consider to be good music? I was just wondering about your taste in music--if you and I share the opinion of what artists we would considered good--at least some artists. I'm just curious more than anything else. Can't Janet have a hit and her music be enjoyable--just on a visceral level if nothing more?

I just have never understood this sort of negativity with Janet. I go through here, and read a lot of the threads, but Janet is always one of the artists everyone has something really emotional, for lack of a better word, to post about. It's like she really brings out the hate or dislike in people for some reason? She really doesn't even do that much to be controversial except for the SB incident. Really before that happened, nobody seemed to be as critical of her.

TonyVanDam said:

Well, in all fairness to Janet, even if her current work ain't all that, she has accomplished ALOT!. I was just taking a look at her entire catalog of songs not to mention her musical achievement and humanitarian awards (I could imagine what her showcase looks like in her house) and she has done more than well for herself. So I don't think we should entirely knock her down because her music now-a-days are not up to par.
[Edited 9/23/06 20:26pm]

I really don't think the Superbowl incident is the reason for all of the "backlash" against Janet. Something that I noticed during her Damita Jo album was that the same DJ's who have always loved her started saying that she CAN'T sing. Of course, these same DJ's have always known that she doesn't have a voice, but they overlooked it because they loved how she looked. I now hear the exact same thing that I did during the Damita Jo album, they all say that she can't sing. When they played "Call on Me", and that was very seldom in my area, they would never comment and just move on. DJ's in my area LOVED Janet and would overlook any flaw(weak voice) because of their love for her. It doesn't seem the same now, because they have finally admitted that she is not a good singer. It has been even more obvious with the rise of Beyonce who can do it ALL-sing her ass off, excellent entertainer/performer, etc. Janet's constant USE of her looks/sex appeal has become a turnoff for the people who USED to love that sort of thing.People are beginning to notice her talent or "lack of singing skills" when they never did before. When you hear MEN saying that she needs to KEEP her clothes on, then you know that something is wrong.When you hear DJ's say that, it really is surprising. I can't believe that this is the same woman who sat on Entertainment Tonight and said that when a person TRIES to be sexy, then they are not sexy at all. It seems that she is not living by her own words. She was much sexier, when she didn't TRY to be sexy.Rene Elizodo's input was more than people want to admit. When he was around, you did't have this type of desperation to "look sexy". Her sexiness was natural. Now, it looks forced.

Isel said:

I really don't think the Superbowl incident is the reason for all of the "backlash" against Janet. Something that I noticed during her Damita Jo album was that the same DJ's who have always loved her started saying that she CAN'T sing. Of course, these same DJ's have always known that she doesn't have a voice, but they overlooked it because they loved how she looked. I now hear the exact same thing that I did during the Damita Jo album, they all say that she can't sing. When they played "Call on Me", and that was very seldom in my area, they would never comment and just move on. DJ's in my area LOVED Janet and would overlook any flaw(weak voice) because of their love for her. It doesn't seem the same now, because they have finally admitted that she is not a good singer. It has been even more obvious with the rise of Beyonce who can do it ALL-sing her ass off, excellent entertainer/performer, etc. Janet's constant USE of her looks/sex appeal has become a turnoff for the people who USED to love that sort of thing.People are beginning to notice her talent or "lack of singing skills" when they never did before. When you hear MEN saying that she needs to KEEP her clothes on, then you know that something is wrong.When you hear DJ's say that, it really is surprising. I can't believe that this is the same woman who sat on Entertainment Tonight and said that when a person TRIES to be sexy, then they are not sexy at all. It seems that she is not living by her own words. She was much sexier, when she didn't TRY to be sexy.Rene Elizodo's input was more than people want to admit. When he was around, you did't have this type of desperation to "look sexy". Her sexiness was natural. Now, it looks forced.

Isel said:

I really don't think the Superbowl incident is the reason for all of the "backlash" against Janet. Something that I noticed during her Damita Jo album was that the same DJ's who have always loved her started saying that she CAN'T sing. Of course, these same DJ's have always known that she doesn't have a voice, but they overlooked it because they loved how she looked. I now hear the exact same thing that I did during the Damita Jo album, they all say that she can't sing. When they played "Call on Me", and that was very seldom in my area, they would never comment and just move on. DJ's in my area LOVED Janet and would overlook any flaw(weak voice) because of their love for her. It doesn't seem the same now, because they have finally admitted that she is not a good singer. It has been even more obvious with the rise of Beyonce who can do it ALL-sing her ass off, excellent entertainer/performer, etc. Janet's constant USE of her looks/sex appeal has become a turnoff for the people who USED to love that sort of thing.People are beginning to notice her talent or "lack of singing skills" when they never did before. When you hear MEN saying that she needs to KEEP her clothes on, then you know that something is wrong.When you hear DJ's say that, it really is surprising. I can't believe that this is the same woman who sat on Entertainment Tonight and said that when a person TRIES to be sexy, then they are not sexy at all. It seems that she is not living by her own words. She was much sexier, when she didn't TRY to be sexy.Rene Elizodo's input was more than people want to admit. When he was around, you did't have this type of desperation to "look sexy". Her sexiness was natural. Now, it looks forced.

skyecute said:

So now, let's make a distinction between subtle sexiness and overt sexiness. So now because Janet is 40, her sex-appeal is forced and too much? Are you sure it's not because she's 40? Much younger, Christina has been way more overt than Janet, but that's OK for Christina, and of course Christina can sing--so she gets a pass. And of course there is Jessica Simpson who is a beautiful girl and has a nice voice, but to watch her perform is quite painful--well it looks painful because her expressions indicate she must be in some sort of pain. But Jessica is young and beautiful, so people aren't quite as critical. Well what does being good-looking have to do with being a good vocalist or performer anyway? In addition, there have been quite a few mediocre if not downright bad singer capitalizing on their sex appeal who have been quite successful in the music business. In fact, with certain genres, a performer doesn't even have to sing at all.

For those who attempt it, Anthony Keides of the Peppers and even Mick Jaggar of the Stones can't sing either---particularly Anthony live.I remember the first time I heard Anthony K. sing live: I was shocked. He sang so off-key that my ears hurt. It was horrible. And Mick, well people criticize him, but it's not that serious because "it's the Stones, man." He still projects this image of a hard-living rocker even in his 60's even though I've read he's far from the party-boy he used to be. Plus they and others men young and old still flaunt their sex-appeal.

Then are Janet's contemporaries like Madonna. Madonna can't sing, but somehow she always seems to have an answer for any controversy that comes her way and the general public plus people in the music industry are more than willing give her a pass. At age 50 Madonna is humping dancers in videos and still writhing around on stage, but people in the music industry and some in the media-- her good friend Liz Smith and MTV come to her defense.Don't get me wrong: I say Madonna can to what she wants. I'm not going to agree with it all the time, but she can do what she wants. She apparently puts on a good show, but it's a different style of show than say Bonnie Raitt would present. The only reason I'm bringing Madonna up is that it seems people--some in the music industry-- praise Madge and others, but just don't want to give Janet a break for doing essentially the same thing.

From my observation, after the Super Bowl, it just became fashionable to bash Janet--as someone said earlier like she represents everything wrong with the music business. Well, the truth is that there are some respected artists who have the same weaknesses as Janet. But somehow these vocally-challenged performers aren't criticized as harshly or their weaknesses are completely overlooked. There have been a lot of people in the music business who can't necessarily sing. I could name a few legends who can't sing or have weak voices. But they have strengths in other areas--even genius in other areas that more than make-up for it. Well Janet might not be a genius, but she is a very strong performer--entertaining performer if nothing else. I just think people judge her way too harshly, and now it's "in" to diss her because if fans like me enjoy her, well we obviously don't know real music. That's not the case at all because I have a varied music collection and really suppport live bands more than anything else. I just enjoy Janet and her style, too.

As far as the sex-up image stuff, well I guess it's OK for younger performers (and even older men) to exploit their sex-appeal, but not Janet?? To me, if a person is going to criticize Janet for exploiting that side of herself, well he/she should have been criticizing her all along because overweight or not--whether her sexiness is understated or overt, Janet has always been beautiful. Would an unattractive Janet whether she could sing or not have made it at all? And then if these same people are going to criticize Janet and then these younger artists, criticize the entertainment industry as a whole because "looks matter" in promoting all of its female "stars" nowadays. Why should Janet be made the scapegoat when there are so many to choose from--even among those who are more gifted singers? This is what I don't understand. And I'm someone who is pretty objective because I know Janet is not as strong vocally and musically as some or as gifted on many levels. But as I stated before, I still don't think she is the worst music artist either. I just think it's become fashionable for the same people who promoted her early-on to now bash her because they don't have the guts just to take her for what she is--like apparently they can with other artists whom they promote non-stop.

I know that Janet is a mult-millionaire, and she's not going to be starving whether her music is a flop or a hit, but it's the double-standard on many levels that annoys me. If people are going to harshly criticize Janet, well at least be consistent and to the same thing with other artists--even some who aren't in the music/video type artist genre or in the music industry at all. I just don't think Janet has any more than any other artist who has the same weaknesses and then even strengths since sex-appeal is a strength but has somehow managed to have a career in spite and because them.
[Edited 9/24/06 5:50am]

Well I dropped her ass beginning with the "Janet" album and haven't looked back. "Rhythm Nation" was the last great thing she did. After that, she sold out to shit hop.
.
.
[Edited 9/23/06 9:08am]

skyecute said:

So now, let's make a distinction between subtle sexiness and overt sexiness. So now because Janet is 40, her sex-appeal is forced and too much? Are you sure it's not because she's 40? Much younger, Christina has been way more overt than Janet, but that's OK for Christina, and of course Christina can sing--so she gets a pass. And of course there is Jessica Simpson who is a beautiful girl and has a nice voice, but to watch her perform is quite painful--well it looks painful because her expressions indicate she must be in some sort of pain. But Jessica is young and beautiful, so people aren't quite as critical. Well what does being good-looking have to do with being a good vocalist or performer anyway? In addition, there have been quite a few mediocre if not downright bad singer capitalizing on their sex appeal who have been quite successful in the music business. In fact, with certain genres, a performer doesn't even have to sing at all.

For those who attempt it, Anthony Keides of the Peppers and even Mick Jaggar of the Stones can't sing either---particularly Anthony live.I remember the first time I heard Anthony K. sing live: I was shocked. He sang so off-key that my ears hurt. It was horrible. And Mick, well people criticize him, but it's not that serious because "it's the Stones, man." He still projects this image of a hard-living rocker even in his 60's even though I've read he's far from the party-boy he used to be. Plus they and others men young and old still flaunt their sex-appeal.

Then are Janet's contemporaries like Madonna. Madonna can't sing, but somehow she always seems to have an answer for any controversy that comes her way and the general public plus people in the music industry are more than willing give her a pass. At age 50 Madonna is humping dancers in videos and still writhing around on stage, but people in the music industry and some in the media-- her good friend Liz Smith and MTV come to her defense.Don't get me wrong: I say Madonna can to what she wants. I'm not going to agree with it all the time, but she can do what she wants. She apparently puts on a good show, but it's a different style of show than say Bonnie Raitt would present. The only reason I'm bringing Madonna up is that it seems people--some in the music industry-- praise Madge and others, but just don't want to give Janet a break for doing essentially the same thing.

From my observation, after the Super Bowl, it just became fashionable to bash Janet--as someone said earlier like she represents everything wrong with the music business. Well, the truth is that there are some respected artists who have the same weaknesses as Janet. But somehow these vocally-challenged performers aren't criticized as harshly or their weaknesses are completely overlooked. There have been a lot of people in the music business who can't necessarily sing. I could name a few legends who can't sing or have weak voices. But they have strengths in other areas--even genius in other areas that more than make-up for it. Well Janet might not be a genius, but she is a very strong performer--entertaining performer if nothing else. I just think people judge her way too harshly, and now it's "in" to diss her because if fans like me enjoy her, well we obviously don't know real music. That's not the case at all because I have a varied music collection and really suppport live bands more than anything else. I just enjoy Janet and her style, too.

As far as the sex-up image stuff, well I guess it's OK for younger performers (and even older men) to exploit their sex-appeal, but not Janet?? To me, if a person is going to criticize Janet for exploiting that side of herself, well he/she should have been criticizing her all along because overweight or not--whether her sexiness is understated or overt, Janet has always been beautiful. Would an unattractive Janet whether she could sing or not have made it at all? And then if these same people are going to criticize Janet and then these younger artists, criticize the entertainment industry as a whole because "looks matter" in promoting all of its female "stars" nowadays. Why should Janet be made the scapegoat when there are so many to choose from--even among those who are more gifted singers? This is what I don't understand. And I'm someone who is pretty objective because I know Janet is not as strong vocally and musically as some or as gifted on many levels. But as I stated before, I still don't think she is the worst music artist either. I just think it's become fashionable for the same people who promoted her early-on to now bash her because they don't have the guts just to take her for what she is--like apparently they can with other artists whom they promote non-stop.

I know that Janet is a mult-millionaire, and she's not going to be starving whether her music is a flop or a hit, but it's the double-standard on many levels that annoys me. If people are going to harshly criticize Janet, well at least be consistent and to the same thing with other artists--even some who aren't in the music/video type artist genre or in the music industry at all. I just don't think Janet has any more than any other artist who has the same weaknesses and then even strengths since sex-appeal is a strength but has somehow managed to have a career in spite and because them.
[Edited 9/24/06 5:50am]