midnightmover said:

No Madonna is just way more famous, there's a boatload more pictures to choose from which means more bad ones. And no, I'm judging her fakeness by her performances, her music. Deborah Harry was a good looking woman and you can see she's a total natural. No fakeness. It comes across in peoples persona's. I'm sorry Susanna just doesnt have it. And I actually find Madonna back in the 80's to be far better looking than Susanna. She doesnt even play instruments and she's a more genuine artist then her.

" Deborah Harry was a good looking woman and you can see she's a total natural. No fakeness. "


She has had more surgery than a medical school.

Arnotts said:

Susanna Hoffs of The Bangles is 49, which puts her in the same age group as Madonna.

Rorywan said:

I said was, to indicate 30 years ago. And when I say words like 'natural' or 'fakeness' im referring to their artistic ability and performance

Arnotts said:

Nonsense. Show a randomly selected picture of either of them in natural light to any objective person and they would agree Susanna looks better. Sorry, but only a gay man or a weirdo would argue otherwise. Why did your girl have all that plastic surgery done? Because she knows it's all going to hell and she's desperate to roll back the years, but she's ended up just looking strange. Susanna still looks natural. Give me a choice between a natural beauty comfortable in her own skin, and someone with the face of Zsa Zsa Gabor and the body of Arnold Schwarzenegger and I'm sorry, but I don't have to think twice.

As for Debbie Harry, I love her. She wipes the floor with Susanna and Madonna, but if you actually knew anything about Susanna (which you don't) you'd know she's a very sincere and genuine person. She doesn't have the charisma of Debbie Harry or even Madonna, but to call her "as fake as any Paris Hilton type" is plain wrong.

midnightmover said:

I don't have to know her. I know barely anything personal about Blondie, but I can see from their songs and performances what a truely great band they were. The bangles were just throw away. And I stick by what I said. You could put Paris Hilton in Susannas place and it wouldn't change the band one bit.

And as far as the looks comment goes being a weirdo or gay has nothing to do with it. Or maybe it has, I don't take anything straight men say about looks to heart anyway, I'd much prefer to be told by a gay person I look good, it means more, we have a better eye for detail. I just find Susannah to be bland pretty. Madonna was more unique beautiful. Again I'm talking about in the 80's. I don't think its fair to judge people on looks past their 20's.
[Edited 7/11/08 8:48am]

Arnotts said:

Susanna had a great (and unique) voice, and wrote some great songs with the other girls in the band. She also has a great ear for harmonies. As far as I know Paris Hilton has none of these qualities, but if you know something we don't know, then by all means share it with us.



Well, in that case you're completely changing the subject. The whole point being discussed was that, contrary to the claims of some Madge fans, Susanna has actually aged better than Madonna, so she has no reason to be jealous of her on that score. That was the whole point.

Glindathegood said:

I have to say, I've never seen them showing as much skin before as they are in that picture. The bass player is actually new to the band and about 15 years younger than them so maybe they're just trying to keep up, I don't know. But if you look at their videos and photo shoots they weren't really at all sexual. Not in the way Madonna was. Go watch the videos for "Manic Monday", "Eternal Flame", "Walking Down Your Street", and it's NOTHING compared to what Madonna was doing. Sadly though, Madonna represented the future.

I agree there's nothing wrong with being hot and talented, but the pendulum has swung way too far in one direction. All the pop stars look and act like strippers now. Even a self righteous church girl like Beyonce has no problems imitating a street walker in her videos. There's no doubt, that this shuts out a lot of talented people, and if you want a perfect example of that, here's one right here..... http://prince.org/msg/8/275933

Glindathegood said:

Well, the difference probably is that in the 80ies they were basically musicians, but still young girls, who were in a male dominated industry and in the wake of Madonna got told by their record company to dress up and make them look hot! Of course, as a musician that have to stink when you have to impress through your looks and not through your skills! But now these girls are grown women, who still look hot... these days there is no record company telling them what to do! So it's their own choice and obviously they feel much more comfortable with making their own decisions in regards music, wardrobe and stuff! And if the good looks augments the package... especially if it's your free will to show it, then why not? Besides, they're in the business making music since almost 30 years now, they have hits which are still played on radio... they have nothing left to prove! So it's a totally different story if your at the beginning of your career or if you already had made a name for yourself!

And seriously, thinking about seeing Bonnie Rait dress like that is a scary thought! No offence to Bonnie Raitt!

I don't think she's criticizing Madonna per se... I just think she's using Madonna as a marker of when things in that regards have changed!

Few people are virtuosos like Prince, but still they get the respect they deserve! Even they said, when Prince stepped on stage to play with them in the 80ies, after seeing him play a guitar solo, they thought about giving up the guitar or practicing really, really hard! And even if they can't match Prince (like so many others can't either), they still are a great live band!

midnightmover said:

Nope, my next concert is not gonna be Janet! My next concert will be the B-52's, then Billy Idol, then Metallica, Madonna, Twisted Sister, Stevie Wonder, Queen + Paul Rodgers and then it will be Janet! And just because I liked the Bangles that much on sunday, that I spontaniously went to another gig yesterday doesn't mean, that I will not be enjoying Janet as well! I like different artists for different things! Not every show I go to has to be guitar oriented or soley about the music... sometimes I also enjoy the dancing, the spectacle and grandness surrounding it!

And whereas the Bangles, as great as they are, only play for like 75 to 80 mins (when I saw them in 2003 and also on sunday... yesterday was an extralong gig at almost 90 mins), Janet gives a 2+ hour show! So she's not investing less work and energy into her show than the Bangles! So each has something going for them and I appreciate each for what they are!

midnightmover said:

Agreed... that Hilton comment is laughable and pure ignorance!! Not even in the looks departement Hilton can compete with Susanna, not then and also not now!
[Edited 7/11/08 10:57am]

We know what we're getting with any given female music act these days. Some are artists. Some are singers. Some are entertainers. Madonna and Janet made the female entertainer a top draw in the pop music biz. The music video made them stars. They each had some good songs, a few very good songs, and couple of great ones. But they entertained. You knew what you were getting then. And you know what you're getting now. Their "product," however, has not aged well.

I think Hoffs is a little off. Madonna may have put the modern female entertainer on the map, but Janet I think is emulated even more in her sound, her look, and her dance moves. Even the younger "pop" stars, like Britney and Xtina, are more Janet clones than Madge clones.

Madonna now takes herself way too seriously. She's the polar opposite of what made her popular. She's dour, pretentious, and forgetful of the fact that she's not an artist, but an entertainer. She's playing herself for money and playing her loyal fans in the process. But she's not the only person who gets "credit" for today's stars. Janet deserves some too, and she's got the exact opposite problem; she's trying to pretend she's still 20.

Paris Hilton is famous for being famous. Paris Hilton, IIRC, didn't even go wood with her album. So Hoffs is off there too.

And finally, give me Hoffs over Madonna any day.


[Edited 7/11/08 10:38am]

PatrickS77 said:

Sounds like you got a raw deal there. Both the shows I went to were two hours long. Their live dvd is a full two hours as well, with no intervals, unlike Janet (make no mistake about it when you go to that Janet gig you're gonna be watching a lot of videos and intervals). Perhaps the departure of Michael Steele in 2005 has forced them to shorten the show or something. She always sang a few leads every night, but I'm not sure if her replacement can sing.

Anyway, hopefully you'll have a revelation at the Janet concert and realize what a fraud she is, but I won't hold my breath.

namepeace said:

Amen! Madonna was actually quite refreshing in the '80s because she seemed to have a sense of humor. Where did that go?



Spoken like a true heterosexual.

midnightmover said:

Good try, but no it's not! All of their recent shows (also in 2003, with Michael Steele still present, Abby Travis doesn't sing though) clocked in at around 75 to 80 minutes... I talked to some people about it! Also their official live DVD, the concert part, is only 70 minutes long!

Have you ever really seen a Janet show? There is a short video intro at the beginning and that's about it! During the VR tour there was a band solo, which lasted about 5 minutes, other then that it's Janet (and when there is video it's only in the background, with Janet still on stage... and very little at that)... 2 hours plus, when it's edited it clocks in at at least 2 hours.... your hatred (and some over the top praising) for some artists is really annoying! I mean, the whole point of this thread was to again mention you're hatred for Madonna through somebody else! And once you're at it you're taking a cheap shot at Janet as well! This thread is not about Janet!

And what revelation am I supposed to have?? To become the same arrogant, condescending snob as you?? I like Janet, and all the artists I mentioned before! That won't change!
[Edited 7/11/08 11:25am]

midnightmover said:

why does every topic you post in turn into a janet-bashing? i wonder if you might be rene elizondo or something. far as janet's shows are concerned, i think her fans pretty much knows what we gonna get and are fine with it, i would be pissed if janet showed up on stage with a guitar, we pay to see her dance her ass off and perform the dozens of hit songs she has recorded.anyway stop frontin,you already admitted you been to many janet shows,if she's such a fraud and you hate her so much why even bother to follow her career?

PatrickS77 said:

Are you sure about that? I admit I wasn't timing the gigs, but they certainly didn't seem brief to me. That official dvd actually had several songs taken out. I've got the bootleg which is full length. I forgot they were different. I'm gonna have to dig it up now.

As for Janet, mark my words. You are gonna have some long intervals where Janet is not on stage. I'll make a bet with you on that right now.

And what over the top praising? I haven't called Susanna Hoffs a genius, have I?

lowkey said:

Please learn how to read. I went to one Janet show in 1995. It sucked donkey's balls.

midnightmover said:

was janet on tour in 95? where did she perform, im pretty sure the janet tour ended in 94 but maybe im wrong.

midnightmover said:

Yes, I do... because I always get annoyed when I get short shows... especially when it's that much below 90 mins... granted, they play 18 to 20 songs, so it probably doesn't feel that short if you don't check the watch! They make up for it in charm and fun though! And if you find that bootleg let me know where to get it!


Geez, I've seen 23 Janet shows on 3 tours... so don't tell me about gaps (or Janet at all)! The gaps between songs are not longer than on other shows! She's on stage most of the time! And even if she takes longer to change dress, there is still something going on on stage and the entertainment is there for 2 hours plus!


Well, you lengthened her concert and shortened Janet's concert .... and all the countless Cyndi Lauper threads (not that I have anything against her though, I just heard that she has scheduled a full european tour now... so I probably will go see her in concert... it's been 6 years since I saw her last)!

lowkey said:

Yeah, you're wrong. I saw her at Wembley in 1995.

lowkey said:

You're wrong... she played Australia, Asia and Europe in '95 and I also saw her at Wembley, the last concert of the tour... met her in her dressing room afterwards, with Jimmy Jam present!!
[Edited 7/11/08 11:46am]

midnightmover said:

Janet is what she is. I've been to one show I got a free ticket for, and it was an elaborate production and very entertaining. I knew my girl wasn't going to blow the roof off with her voice. But everyone got what they paid for.
And Janet's one of my favorite entertainers; I love her earlier albums.

midnightmover said:

ok, so why did you pay to go see somebody you hate so much?

PatrickS77 said:

Never said nothing about the length of Janet's concert. I just know Janet has intervals in her show when she's not on stage, and you just confirmed it with the bit in bold (plus the five minute section you referred to earlier). I predict those intervals will be longer now. If I'm wrong you can come back and rub it in my face, but I don't think I will be.

And sorry, but if you read my comments on Cyndi's new album you'll see that I can be very critical of her too.
[Edited 7/11/08 12:08pm]

^^^LOL 1:1

@midnightmover
Regardless, the time she performs on stage is still longer than what the Bangles do and the entertainment is longer too! But anyway, they each are good at what they do and like I said before, this thread is not about Janet! And of course, no one knows what will happen on the new tour... we can talk about that in 3 months!
[Edited 7/11/08 11:57am]

lowkey said:

Sigh. I'm pretty sure I explained all this before. Basically, I loved Rhythm Nation. Thought everything after that was very average, but didn't really start disliking her until 1999. That's how you know my opinion of the concert (that it was empty and contrived) was an unbiased one since I was more or less a fan at the time. In my defense, I have to stress that I was very young at the time, and we've all got aspects of our past we're not proud of.

midnightmover said:

well i think we all have had artists we really liked at one point but over time we outgrew them or whatever, i dont see the point in overly bashing them. i've ran into alot of ex-janet fans on the internet, heard alot of different opinions. some people have complained that her shows are to similar but you are the only one i've heard say her show sucked. i honestly dont believe you attended the 'janet' concert in 1995 and didnt enjoy yourself at all.

NOTE TO MADONNA FANS: Please do not turn this thread into a photo war, because that is a battle you CANNOT WIN! So let this be the end of the matter...





Like I said before, case closed. Thank you.

^^^2:1 Hoffs

lowkey said:

Why is that so hard to believe? If it's any consolation, I didn't leave the building cursing her name or anything. I just walked out feeling strangely unsatisfied. I was appalled by the fake crying routine though. I've still never seen such a shameless stunt in a concert as that. And let me repeat, I was a fan at the time, but I found that unbelievably tasteless.

But anyway, this thread is going way off topic, so no more Janet talk I'm afraid. That case is also closed (for now).