Maybe late to the party- but I just found Alice Smiths cd...amazing stuff! Personally I think she beats a lot of the current singers that have found their way to the spotlight...and her music is WAY more interesting!I'm getting ready to listen to Chrisette Michele who I hear great things about.
So- with artists like this why are we subjected to all these prefab artists like Beyonce, artists with potential that never seem quite realized like Alicia Keys and plain old off key singers like MJB? I consistently hear complaints about the state of contemporary music and yet artists that ARE making something good like these two...no one (or not the public at large anyway) pays much attention and just sticks to more of the same. Do we just WANT mediocrity?
I know everyone has different tastes - but sometimes it is pretty clear who is an artist and who is a product. And I'll say Alicia is a good artist...with a bit too much pop veneer spread on her for my taste.

Zannaloaf said:

= IMAGE, LOOKS, HAIRCUT, IMAGE, FASHION, LOOKS...
Thats about it nowadays...

Tits, ass, and an excellent PR team.



I fucking hate it.

Its all media related, and we asked for it when we let MTV in the door back then. So blame people like Prince,MJ,Janet,Madonna etc...who all created the beast and the way things would be marketed. Though people dont like to admit that these artists and many others all paid in to this thought process, we are pissed now because those artists are victims now and not players, so we have finally realized it.

lastdecember said:

I'm more inclined to put responsibility on the shoulders of the likes of Madonna or Janet rather than Prince or Michael. The latter have solid talent of their own and could reasonably be successful without videos, but Madonna was trading on her look and Janet on her name.

It's all entertainment.

Movies are flashy, but not that moving, and they can't deliver on the storyline or the characters. TV has its moments, but basically it delivers with a 3rd grade level of intelligence.

Hell, it's not just entertainment. Food is packaged the same damn way!

meow85 said:

Yea, because the Jackson name got the whole family far Pft. That argument lost merit long ago.

To the OP, It's not hard to understand. Artists like Beyonce and Alicia Keys are marketable therefore they can bring their record labels large sums of money. Record labels will NOT waste time on someone they think isn't marketable even if they're exceptional singers/musicians. That's life. The same can be said about a variety of things (food, film, stores,etc.) not just music.
[Edited 2/9/10 15:05pm]

NDRU said:

Well thats the thing though, now Music is not relevant like it was and thats why you have these "media stars" like Beyonce or Alicia or Justin, who at the end of the day, are talented, but they arent what i call Music stars, sorry, but i dont, i like Alicia but she still is a media star, not a music star. I feel this way mainly because of the approach, everytime one of those i just mentioned does a record its a friggin MEDIA event, they have to have a movie out, a video out, a single out, a magazine out, a clothing line out, because there is so much riding on it. Elton John said it best recently when he said "i would never want to be coming up now, you have to succeed day one commercially or BYE BYE" he went on to say, i could sit back tour, play clubs, sell slowly and NO ONE bothered me with being dropped, now i would be gone after a few months.

lastdecember said:

True. To continue with my food analogy, real food might have some bad spots, it might go rotten. Today's artists have flawless albums with no nutritional value.

trueiopian said:

Oh, come on. You can't tell me Janet would have gotten as far as she did if she was just Janet Jones or Janet Allan or anybody else but Michael/the J5's little sister.

There is a such thing as a secret society who decides what the mainstream is and isn't...Don't wanna get in2 the name of it on here, but it does exist, & alot of people know about it. The proof is out there....the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards were very blatant with symbolism, and so are numerous music videos by these "so-so" singers/artists you're referring to (as well as a couple of big name NBA Stars...youtube it). Taylor Swift, "Album of The Year"???...No Way in Heaven, but maybe there is a way in Hell. Sad to say, but it's the truth....Let's just say even though Prince has moonlighted with Major Record Labels over the last decade (Columbia/Universal/Arista), there is a reason why he hasn't committed fully with one since Warner Brothers...and there also is a reason why he has been more religious as well.

There are great artists out there, but the reason they don't get the promotion and play they deserve is because of what they're not a part of. "The Family", as P Diddy, Jay-Z & Beyonce' have put it in interviews. The reason for their seemingly "everlasting" success...Prince, 2Pac & Michael Jackson to name a few all spoke out about & against this, and this is part of the reason why the industry is seeing such "hard times", as well is the reason why all three of those artists have seen hard times in their careers as well...

But as long as we can go on myspace.com, and listen to pretty much any CD/track we want to, there will be no need to buy or support any of what the FAMILY is trying to brainwash us with. It's unnecessary...

meow85 said:

If this really were the case then the other Jackson's that ventured out on solo careers (basically all of them) should have multi-platinum albums and a string of hits on various charts worldwide. Do you see how dumb this argument is? If anything her last name hurt her more than help her. In addition, she stopped putting her last name on her albums since '93 - which was when when her most successful album to date was released.

meow85 said:

yes every jackson has not become a superstar, but they've all had the chance.

meow85 said:

If Janet Jones released 'control' then yes she would still have the same success.

She only has JOE JACKSON to thank for her first record deal (as should the Jackson 5 and MJ)
and JAM & LEWIS for her sound

Her brothers had very little to do with her success.

trueiopian said:

but the point is, they have all had the chance to make records on the sole basis of their name. That's more opportunity than 99.9% of singers get.

Yes she made more of her opportunity than LaToya & Rebbie, and showed some talent & show biz savvy, but she had a huge head start.

NDRU said:

And?

Yes, her father got her a record deal with A&M when she was 16 but do people honestly think that's why she lasted more than 25 years in the industry? Joe also got Latoya Jackson a record deal before Janet even had an album out. What happened to Latoya? Her album went by unnoticed while Janet was able to get a couple of hits and sale more with her debut. What about Marlon? Rebbie? and Jackie? all went by unnoticed and their last name didn't matter.

It cracks me up how people truly believe the Jackson's are all that and a bag of chips. The only ones that lived up to the hype is Janet and MJ. Jermaine did to a certain degree. The end. So saying she only got this far by riding on her last name is rubbish. If the other Jackson's haven't then this argument is invalid.

Janet only has to thank her father Joe for getting her a record deal though he doubted her early on in her career. Then she can thank herself for making wise decisions throughout MOST of her career and overall being talented.
[Edited 2/9/10 15:43pm]

trueiopian said:

I'm not arguing with you, only that she might not have ever had the chance to make a Control with Jimmy & Terry if she was not a Jackson. Most people don't get opportunities like that.

But of course she has had staying power that most of her siblings have not. And she even became bigger than Jermaine, which I don't think many people would have predicted in the early 80's. With Michael spending so much time out of the spotlight, she even rivaled him here & there. I doubt anyone thinks her entire career is due to her last name, only the head start, and she certainly had one.

Timmy84 said:

normally I stay far away, I don't know why I decided to open my big mouth

NDRU said:

Bait's a motha.

NDRU said:

I'm not arguing either. We're having a civilized discussion

*locks Midiscover out*

Might? Exactly, you can't tell determine this. You're just going by ASSumptions. Control could'nt have been recorded by anyone. Seeing that it was about her life. Even if Sharon Bryant recorded with J&L it most likely would've flopped. One of the main reasons why Control was successful was because of the growth in Janet's image. Anyways, Jimmy & Terry weren't on Quincy Jones status (Jimmy's words, not mine) when they met Janet. I believe they contacted John McClain (it could be the other way around) to work with her and Janet wanted to work with them as well. Besides she was already fooling around with the Minneapolis sound before Control. Janet worked with Jesse Johnson on her Dream Street LP and that did horribly.

Agreed, she definitely had a push but if she wasn't as determined and wise as she was I highly doubt she would've even made it past Dream Street.

^^UGH! the shadee ^^

how the fuck did this become about Jansus?

lastdecember said:

I agree 100%. I think those 4 really brought a new way of marketing new material and garnering a lot of attention.... but at the same time we're all damned with all these shitty "artists" because of those 4 people

rebelenterprise said:

But this has been going on forever.... I mean Tommy Mottola can pick up a phone and get Mariah Carey's "glitter" blacklisted and then in turn Benny Medina can pick up a phone and a check book and get Jlo's album put on the back burner and taken off playlists. Daddy Knowles can make a call and Get sony to shelve Amerie's "One thing" song until his daughter can come up with a similar song and beat her to the punch. But this has always been the case, i mean there is a thread on this forum about the band STYX, and in their Behind the Music special they mention "losing their bullet" for the song "come sail away" so guess how they got it back and played, they and their managers bought gifts for djs, and drugs too, and take that to today, Singer MYA makes a reference about "50Cent" and he picks up the phone and MYA is suddenly shelved and dropped and her album at the time "Moodring" which had a rising single "FALLEN" headed for the Top 10 all of a sudden no one played it after the call. The record company and higher ups have always been doing things like this, but now its just the law of the land because the corporations are so blatant and have their hand in EVERY form of media

trueiopian said:

This is a key difference. I think some of the Jacksons made one or two albums just because they could, not because they had anything specific to offer the world, and Janet appeared to be no different...until she did Control.

From then on she showed that she was there and going to work her ass off to distinguish herself. You are right that anyone who attributes her entire career to her name is fooling themselves.

But in the spirit of this thread I am not sure that fact has been great for music in general. I believe Janet's talent is being hip, cute, and savvy about her career, not necessarily singing. She kinda proves the point about the thread. I don't hate her or her music, but I do believe she's a product more than an artist.

i dont know why beyonce get so much attention cuz she aint all that and lawd knows she cant dance and her singing is like a bird caught out there

NDRU said:

Honestly, tell me who's career is revolved around just singing? and lets not go off topic and comment on Janet's singing. Lets also not forget who's fan site this is too

How does this make her a product? When I think product, artists like Rihanna and Britney Spears come to mind. People that were prepped since their debut and their every move is manufactured.Their singles are interpreted by music excs. before release for assurance that the single will blow up. I don't see that with Janet. She has went against the grain and shelled out singles her record label weren't happy about. Her record label truly believed That's The Way Love Goes was going to flop. They wanted If to be the single because of the format and the whole tone of the song. Also, A&M wasn't happy with RN1814 because it was too dark and social. Basically, she's not a product. She doesn't take instructions. Janet does what she wants. I guess you'd have to follow her career to see this. But of course if you're outside looking in it does seem like she's a product. Yes, she made sure her image played a role in her music but that doesn't mean she's a product. If that were the case, Prince and MJ (who are praised on here) are products, as well.

Even the artists who people praise as exceptional singers leave little to be desired. Which is most likely why we hardly hear about them. The public loves suspense and uniqueness. If Janet's career is about being hip, cute and savvy then I highly doubt RN1814 would've been as successful as it was. That album is dark and socially-conscious. She was fully clothed throughout that era and wore only black. How's that cute? How's that hip? So she did not only prove that she's not a product she also proved that sexual innuendos was never a crutch in her career like some other artists that hit big by being overly sexual.

lastdecember said:

the difference is we had balance back then, we had madonna and janet but we also had whitney,anita baker,sade,luther,lionel ritchie,ect all of these artists were different so we had a nice variety to choose from. now it seems like everybody gotta do the same shit, and there can only be about 3 or 4 really hot artists at the same time.then they go and do these colabos which makes it even worse.

trueiopian said:

I'm not sure I could really answer this in a way that you would not find insulting to her. I realize she, like Madonna has put her own choices & concerns in her music, and been in control of them. So she is an artist, not just a corporate tool, and I respect your (and others' here) respect for her.

But to answer, I say she is a product and Madonna is a product because, unlike Michael or Prince, I am not sure they would amaze anyone with her singing & dancing alone. They need the image, looks, clothes, cute smile, producers, musicians, lights, videos, etc. Prince is a product, yes, but he can sit alone with a guitar and be great. Michael could just sing & be great. The flash is not necessary, even though they both used it. I am not convinced Janet has the talent for that. I know people will say she is a great singer, and that's fine, I just personally don't hear it. She's marketed herself brilliantly, though.

To use your "product" references, I will say she has a better track record than Britney or Rhianna. Britney is actually unpleasant to listen to, and furthermore has obviously based her image on Janet. Rhianna is just too young to have accomplished anything yet. So yeah janet has done a lot for herself. What I say above might seem mean, but it's actually a tribute to her that she's still been able to have the career she has and on her own terms. I just don't personally think she's really contributed anything new to music (even though she's done plenty of good music) and that's why I think she's a product.

But you know, if someone likes Janet more than Bob Dylan, I can certainly understand that!

lowkey said:

Oh i know that all too well, i have preaching that on these forums for years now, but the Chris Brown and Rihanna threads are what everyone is into still, so what can you do. Variety like the 80's will never exist again at least mainstream wise because music is not important to todays audience as harsh as that sounds, music is an afterthought, music is the "do you want fries with that" of the day. Once soundscan entered the picture in 1991 and Mtv was bought and sold over and over in the later 80's and BET was sold, this is what you got left with.