New topic
Printablemeow85 said: trueiopian 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] 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. being a jackson may have gotten her a record deal,but i disagree that her success had anything to do with her brothers. janet's first album was released during the thriller era and flopped, anything associated with mj at that time blew up, just ask rockwell, but janet didnt. her 2nd album had her brothers singing and producing and it flopped. janet got out there and found her own identity and hooked up with the right producers and made her own success. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: trueiopian 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. 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! you can count me as one of those people cause i dont see nothing great or even good about bob dylan, i notice that its like some kind of unspoken rule to praise certain artists as being great and at the same time dismiss others as untalented or products, even if your ears dont support the argument. if you like bob dylan more power to you but he cant sing at all to me. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU 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! No, it's not mean. I respect your opinion. I know many people say this about Janet. I honestly don't think there's a way to define talent. What may be amazing to you, may not be to me. I for one don't get the hype with Madonna. She's not a good singer (no range), lackluster dancer and performer. Some would say she's the best thing since slice bread. I don't see it. I personally adore Janet's voice and like many of her fans wish she would do music that would highlight her vocals more and not drowned them out. I know she's not a powerhouse but that's what makes her standout. Her dancing can't be disputed she really has revolutionized the art of choreography. I can't speak for Madonna since I'm not a fan of hers but she is really smart by making her shows so visually appealing. Janet has brought something new to music that's why her career skyrocketed the way it did. She changed the whole game with the janet. album. Ended careers with RN1814. Female artists started replicating her image and sound. Paula Abdul, anyone? Also the same can be said about her work in the late 80's. Which started the whole New Jack Swing movement. Many artists have proclaimed one of their albums is their Control. Jay-Z said this about Rihanna's Good Girl Gone Bad album. Aaliyah said this about her self-titled album. P.Diddy openly said that he was sculpting Cassie's career after Janet's and that he's looking for the next Janet. I can go on and on, really She really is an important figure in the Pop and R&B world. That's why all the female artists now is just doing what she did before. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lowkey said: you can count me as one of those people cause i dont see nothing great or even good about bob dylan, i notice that its like some kind of unspoken rule to praise certain artists as being great and at the same time dismiss others as untalented or products, even if your ears dont support the argument. if you like bob dylan more power to you but he cant sing at all to me. He was the voice of a generation during a time of social changes. I think people were just too high to know how awful he really is | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
rebelenterprise said: 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... They have pills for that these days, you know.  "A Watcher scoffs at gravity!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mancabdriver said: meow85 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. 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. I didn't say he brothers were responsible for her success, I said her name was responsible for her getting signed in the first place, an opportunity many talented artists who don't have nepotism to rely on don't get. "A Watcher scoffs at gravity!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
lowkey said: meow85 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. being a jackson may have gotten her a record deal,but i disagree that her success had anything to do with her brothers. janet's first album was released during the thriller era and flopped, anything associated with mj at that time blew up, just ask rockwell, but janet didnt. her 2nd album had her brothers singing and producing and it flopped. janet got out there and found her own identity and hooked up with the right producers and made her own success. Being signed in the first place happened because of who she was related to. Anything else she accomplished after that is great, but it's that first foot in the door that I'm talking about. If she was just Janet Jones or whoever, her chances of being signed in the first place would have been MUCH more slim. "A Watcher scoffs at gravity!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
R e a c h i n g
 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
midiscover said: lowkey said: you can count me as one of those people cause i dont see nothing great or even good about bob dylan, i notice that its like some kind of unspoken rule to praise certain artists as being great and at the same time dismiss others as untalented or products, even if your ears dont support the argument. if you like bob dylan more power to you but he cant sing at all to me. He was the voice of a generation during a time of social changes. I think people were just too high to know how awful he really is I was born in 1985. I listen to Dylan now -sober, natch -and the guy is a goddamned genius. Yes, his voice sucks. It really, really does. But I think people who focus on the sound of his voice have completely missed the point. He has some of the most powerful lyrics and songwriting in modern music. Who cares if a vocalist has a good voice if all they're singing about is juvenile fantasies about love, and poorly written fantasies at that? Besides, though I doubt he did it on purpose, I think it's important in a way that Dylan's voice isn't that good. He's a voice of the people, and most people can't sing. Not being a good singer makes him common; one of us. How's "the voice of a generation" going to sound like an operatic tenor? "A Watcher scoffs at gravity!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
midiscover said: R e a c h i n g
The only people in this thread reaching are those who insist Janet's last name held no benefits for her. "A Watcher scoffs at gravity!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
meow85 said: midiscover said: R e a c h i n g
The only people in this thread reaching are those who insist Janet's last name held no benefits for her. Benefits? LOL! Yes, she got a contract because her father was the man behind all the Jackson's careers early on. Janet and Michael were the ones that made it. If anyone STILL insists she's riding on her name they're just pressed. We left that arrogance before she released Control. Catch up | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
midiscover said: meow85 said: The only people in this thread reaching are those who insist Janet's last name held no benefits for her. Benefits? LOL! Yes, she got a contract because her father was the man behind all the Jackson's careers early on. Janet and Michael were the ones that made it. If anyone STILL insists she's riding on her name they're just pressed. We left that arrogance before she released Control. Catch up Snarkiness isn't cute, especially when you haven't bothered to read the posts you're replying to. I said she got signed because of her name. What she did after was up to her and her handlers, but that initial advantage was a HUGE one most talented performers don't get. It can't be understated what a huge advantage even being signed is. "A Watcher scoffs at gravity!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
meow85 said: midiscover said: Benefits? LOL! Yes, she got a contract because her father was the man behind all the Jackson's careers early on. Janet and Michael were the ones that made it. If anyone STILL insists she's riding on her name they're just pressed. We left that arrogance before she released Control. Catch up Snarkiness isn't cute, especially when you haven't bothered to read the posts you're replying to. I said she got signed because of her name. What she did after was up to her I've read the thread. There are many artists who are signed under huge labels that we have never heard of. Just look up there some record label sites and you'll see. Just because Janet was signed really doesn't mean anything. She wasn't treated any differently from the other artists. Her first two albums didn't do well. Is it because she's a Jackson?
Lets be serious. When did the Jackson name really become as big as it is? When both Janet and MJ blew up. So saying "Oh she's a Jackson" is just bullshit and saying that Janet took advantage of just her name is reaching. She's talented and smart. These talented performers you speak of aren't marketable and most likely not appealing to the public (according to the A&Rs). It's not as huge of an advantage to get signed as you're making it seem like I said already, most artists hardly get any proper promotion or album release date under huge labels. Janet made it because she exhibited talent and was very marketable. Being marketable is important in the industry. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
NDRU said: trueiopian 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. 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. This is exactly right. And it's not taking anything away from Janet and her success. But the reality is that her name gave her the opportunity, and she made the most of it. I think it's a combination of timing, personality, the songs, everything. The best vocalists do not always make the best music. I think Jennifer Hudson's voice is incredible but I found her album unlistenable. * * *
Prince's Classic Finally Expanded The Deluxe 'Purple Rain' Reissue http://www.popmatters.com...n-reissue/ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Because we have such a so-so society and music business now!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Because we have such a so-so society and music business now!  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Timmy84 said:  I feel just like you do. So over that argument. Somehow the name "Jackson" almost always seems to work it's way into threads on here, even when it's not about them. I don't get it."And When The Groove Is Dead And Gone, You Know That Love Survives, So We Can Rock Forever" RIP MJ 
"Baby, that was much too fast"...Goodnight dear sweet Prince. I'll love you always | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
midiscover said: meow85 said: Snarkiness isn't cute, especially when you haven't bothered to read the posts you're replying to. I said she got signed because of her name. What she did after was up to her I've read the thread. There are many artists who are signed under huge labels that we have never heard of. Just look up there some record label sites and you'll see. Just because Janet was signed really doesn't mean anything. She wasn't treated any differently from the other artists. Her first two albums didn't do well. Is it because she's a Jackson?
Lets be serious. When did the Jackson name really become as big as it is? When both Janet and MJ blew up. So saying "Oh she's a Jackson" is just bullshit and saying that Janet took advantage of just her name is reaching. She's talented and smart. These talented performers you speak of aren't marketable and most likely not appealing to the public (according to the A&Rs). It's not as huge of an advantage to get signed as you're making it seem like I said already, most artists hardly get any proper promotion or album release date under huge labels. Janet made it because she exhibited talent and was very marketable. Being marketable is important in the industry. Being signed is the first step. She got that because of her last name, and if you think the Jackson family wasn't a popular commodity during the J5 years, you've managed to miss at least a decade of pop culture history. "A Watcher scoffs at gravity!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cinnamon234 said: I feel just like you do. So over that argument. Somehow the name "Jackson" almost always seems to work it's way into threads on here, even when it's not about them. I don't get it.Says the person with a Jackson in their avatar and a Jackson reference in their signature. "A Watcher scoffs at gravity!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
meow85 said: Being signed is the first step. She got that because of her last name, and if you think the Jackson family wasn't a popular commodity during the J5 years, you've managed to miss at least a decade of pop culture history. First step for what? If you think all the Jacksons were popular you'd have to be deluded. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
midiscover said: meow85 said: Being signed is the first step. She got that because of her last name, and if you think the Jackson family wasn't a popular commodity during the J5 years, you've managed to miss at least a decade of pop culture history. First step for what? If you think all the Jacksons were popular you'd have to be deluded. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Actually being signed with a label is the first step in having a commercially successful career. Without that first step, no performer could get anywhere, no matter how talented they might be. Janet eventually became successful because she does have some amount of talent, but she was signed because of her name. As for the less successful Jacksons? They turned out not to be any damned good, so they never made it anywhere. But how do you think they got signed in the first place, especially considering their relative lack of talent? "A Watcher scoffs at gravity!" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |