SEANMAN said:

Arbwyth said:

I know! I think it's one of her most underrated gems. I can still remember it being so comforting to me when I was little and really, desperately lonely and scared. I know people like to give Janet flack for her voice and whatnot, but I think before criticizing her, we need to ask what we consider a good voice and why, and what the original purposes for singing were in the human race. Of course, there would have been multiple reasons our ancestors sang, but one thing that I keep coming back to is mothers singing their babies to sleep, and I can't really picture a voice better suited to that than Janet's.

[Edited 9/23/12 19:39pm]

EXACTLY. Janet's voice is unique because she can convincingly go from throaty rock ("Black Cat", "What About") to the softest of ballads ("Lonely", "Every Time"). She has wonderful timbre in her voice, and she has outstanding backing harmonies in her songs (the vocal layering in the chorus of "I Get Lonely", for example, is beyond compare).

You don't always have to be a caterwalling screamer and belter to get your point across.

Janet's voice complimented her music poignantly....it takes a great deal of ingenuity to accomplish that....

Scorp said:

SEANMAN said:

EXACTLY. Janet's voice is unique because she can convincingly go from throaty rock ("Black Cat", "What About") to the softest of ballads ("Lonely", "Every Time"). She has wonderful timbre in her voice, and she has outstanding backing harmonies in her songs (the vocal layering in the chorus of "I Get Lonely", for example, is beyond compare).

You don't always have to be a caterwalling screamer and belter to get your point across.

Janet's voice complimented her music poignantly....it takes a great deal of ingenuity to accomplish that....

She performed a stripped-down version of "I Get Lonely" on Rosie in 1998, a night after she won a Grammy for The Velvet Rope, that was magical. Just her and the piano player.

SEANMAN said:

Scorp said:

Janet's voice complimented her music poignantly....it takes a great deal of ingenuity to accomplish that....

She performed a stripped-down version of "I Get Lonely" on Rosie in 1998, a night after she won a Grammy for The Velvet Rope, that was magical. Just her and the piano player.

Scorp said:

SEANMAN said:

She performed a stripped-down version of "I Get Lonely" on Rosie in 1998, a night after she won a Grammy for The Velvet Rope, that was magical. Just her and the piano player.

It won't embed for the life of me, but here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shYihBTV1NA

I think her intonation is also really underrated, which has always struck me as weird since that's one of the few hard-and-fast ways you can judge a singer, and it's something that even a lot of highly regarded singers seem to need improvement on.

Arbwyth said:

Scorp said:

It won't embed for the life of me, but here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shYihBTV1NA

I think her intonation is also really underrated, which has always struck me as weird since that's one of the few hard-and-fast ways you can judge a singer, and it's something that even a lot of highly regarded singers seem to need improvement on.

Agreed about her intonation.

If the album gets remastered it would be cool if it included all the b-sides and unreleased tracks:

Any others i've missed?

Also it would be nice if the post would focus on Janet's amazing album and not other people!

SEANMAN said:

Arbwyth said:

It won't embed for the life of me, but here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shYihBTV1NA

I think her intonation is also really underrated, which has always struck me as weird since that's one of the few hard-and-fast ways you can judge a singer, and it's something that even a lot of highly regarded singers seem to need improvement on.

Agreed about her intonation.

Very nice Janet - didn't know she had it in her

SEANMAN said:

Arbwyth said:

It won't embed for the life of me, but here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shYihBTV1NA

I think her intonation is also really underrated, which has always struck me as weird since that's one of the few hard-and-fast ways you can judge a singer, and it's something that even a lot of highly regarded singers seem to need improvement on.

Agreed about her intonation.

she has a very pretty voice and compliments her songs in true fashion....

her keys are etched in stone

Azz said:

"A lot of what Janet did Michael had already done" That is utter rubbish Michael was mostly one dimensional. Michael copied Control when he did Bad, similarly, he copied Rhythm Nation when he did Dangerous. Michael never touched on sexual themes and don't even get me started on The Velvet Rope... It dealt with issues Michaels attempted-sqeauky clean image would never; he always marketed for maximum sales and I imagine he was much too childish to do so anway Sometimes I think it would have been better if Janet had never danced, because that's the only similarity they had. But even then... Each one of Janet's videos had new choreography and was more diverse - instead of just redoing boring signature moves. [Edited 9/22/12 10:13am] [Edited 9/22/12 10:17am]

Michael Jackson was one dimensional? -------> I guess trying to heal the world thru music

is one dimensional

Michael not selling/broaching sex was to his detriment? ------->I guess selling sex in order to

achieve some notoriety is cool;

I guess talking about sex isn't

too easy to do for subject matter

for an album as well

Why are you comparing Michael Jackson to his sister? They've nothing in

common other than they were related and pop singers. MJ's domain was

not similar to Janet's. Janet was a niche artist, for the most part - dance

halls, clubs, gay culture, sexual etc. MJ's context was universal, homie. His

was a cross-cultural, cross-generational, cross-country, musical attempt.

He wasn't interested in sexual topics - his was an interest that cut across

boundaries that was an appeal to address international sensitivities and con-

cerns.

We always see Janet Jacksons - Madonna, Rihanna, any pop female singer who

can dance, put on a great live show and talk about sex. Some of these artists

are capable of being comparable (Rihanna) or even better than (Madonna) Miss

Janet Jackson. But you will never see any body comparable to Michael Jackson;

there is nobody who can touch the hem of his garment. Michael Jackson is in-

comparable. How so? You never see a Janet Jackson impersonator. There are

only two artists you see impersonated: Elvis and MJ.

Man, you better ask somebody.

And will y'all please get a hold on posting these big ass pictures?

My computer is fast as shit but it takes 3 fucken days for this

thread to load because I have to see a giant jpeg of Janet Jackson's

nubile face and someone's response to the giant jpeg of Janet Jack-

son's face included in the post, fer fucks-sake.

duccichucka said:

Azz said:

"A lot of what Janet did Michael had already done" That is utter rubbish Michael was mostly one dimensional. Michael copied Control when he did Bad, similarly, he copied Rhythm Nation when he did Dangerous. Michael never touched on sexual themes and don't even get me started on The Velvet Rope... It dealt with issues Michaels attempted-sqeauky clean image would never; he always marketed for maximum sales and I imagine he was much too childish to do so anway Sometimes I think it would have been better if Janet had never danced, because that's the only similarity they had. But even then... Each one of Janet's videos had new choreography and was more diverse - instead of just redoing boring signature moves. [Edited 9/22/12 10:13am] [Edited 9/22/12 10:17am]

Michael Jackson was one dimensional? -------> I guess trying to heal the world thru music

is one dimensional

Michael not selling/broaching sex was to his detriment? ------->I guess selling sex in order to

achieve some notoriety is cool;

I guess talking about sex isn't

too easy to do for subject matter

for an album as well

Why are you comparing Michael Jackson to his sister? They've nothing in

common other than they were related and pop singers. MJ's domain was

not similar to Janet's. Janet was a niche artist, for the most part - dance

halls, clubs, gay culture, sexual etc. MJ's context was universal, homie. His

was a cross-cultural, cross-generational, cross-country, musical attempt.

He wasn't interested in sexual topics - his was an interest that cut across

boundaries that was an appeal to address international sensitivities and con-

cerns.

We always see Janet Jacksons - Madonna, Rihanna, any pop female singer who

can dance, put on a great live show and talk about sex. Some of these artists

are capable of being comparable (Rihanna) or even better than (Madonna) Miss

Janet Jackson. But you will never see any body comparable to Michael Jackson;

there is nobody who can touch the hem of his garment. Michael Jackson is in-

comparable. How so? You never see a Janet Jackson impersonator. There are

only two artists you see impersonated: Elvis and MJ.

Man, you better ask somebody.

And will y'all please get a hold on posting these big ass pictures?

My computer is fast as shit but it takes 3 fucken days for this

thread to load because I have to see a giant jpeg of Janet Jackson's

nubile face and someone's response to the giant jpeg of Janet Jack-

son's face included in the post, fer fucks-sake.

You do not know whatyou are talking about

Yes, Michael was one dimensional. A man repeatedly singing 'heal the world, make it a better place' ISN'T going to help anyone. Atleast Janet took a more realistic approach towards it, and focused more on education - something that the goverment CAN actually improve. Then again, Michael was always childish in his thought process, and maybe thats why there was no depth in his music. He was only interested in big numbers and didn't trust people in suits - which is telling of his mental age.

I never said Michael 'not selling sex was to his detriment'. I was saying how Janet and Michael was different. Janet wasn't trying to be cool, it was about her becoming more comfortable with her sexality. And saying 'heal the world make it a better place' is also an extremely easy subject matter, with no depth.

Im not comparing Michael to Janet, others were already comparing, you are just choosing to pick my post.

You obviously haven't listened to any of Janet's music to say she was a niche artist. You only need to to listen to TVR or RN to realise that is a silly comment.

'any pop female singer who can dance, put on a great live show and talk about sex' - What are you talking about. Janet didn't even really talk about sex until her third album. Actually... she did on Control, telling people to wait awhile. So clearly, once again, you do not know what you are talking about.

Just because their are artist that copy Janet who are talentless, doesn't, in any way, degrade what she was/is. Otherwise the same could be said for Michael, with Justin Bieber and Usher and Justin Timberlake copying him.

SO, someone has to be impersonated for them to be talented? What kind of nonsense are you talking about. Are you meaning to say Elvis and MJ are the only good artists, because thats FAR from the truth.

What a silly post.

[Edited 9/24/12 9:29am]

mjscarousal said:

Post of the year.

duccichucka said:

mjscarousal said:

Post of the year.

What were some of your favorite highlights on the album, Im interested in knowing since you like Mozart and classic stuff

One of her BEST performances... speechless... best FEMALE pop singer that dances of all time.

Azz said:

duccichucka said:

Michael Jackson was one dimensional? -------> I guess trying to heal the world thru music

is one dimensional

Michael not selling/broaching sex was to his detriment? ------->I guess selling sex in order to

achieve some notoriety is cool;

I guess talking about sex isn't

too easy to do for subject matter

for an album as well

Why are you comparing Michael Jackson to his sister? They've nothing in

common other than they were related and pop singers. MJ's domain was

not similar to Janet's. Janet was a niche artist, for the most part - dance

halls, clubs, gay culture, sexual etc. MJ's context was universal, homie. His

was a cross-cultural, cross-generational, cross-country, musical attempt.

He wasn't interested in sexual topics - his was an interest that cut across

boundaries that was an appeal to address international sensitivities and con-

cerns.

We always see Janet Jacksons - Madonna, Rihanna, any pop female singer who

can dance, put on a great live show and talk about sex. Some of these artists

are capable of being comparable (Rihanna) or even better than (Madonna) Miss

Janet Jackson. But you will never see any body comparable to Michael Jackson;

there is nobody who can touch the hem of his garment. Michael Jackson is in-

comparable. How so? You never see a Janet Jackson impersonator. There are

only two artists you see impersonated: Elvis and MJ.

Man, you better ask somebody.

And will y'all please get a hold on posting these big ass pictures?

My computer is fast as shit but it takes 3 fucken days for this

thread to load because I have to see a giant jpeg of Janet Jackson's

nubile face and someone's response to the giant jpeg of Janet Jack-

son's face included in the post, fer fucks-sake.

You do not know whatyou are talking about

Yes, Michael was one dimensional. A man repeatedly singing 'heal the world, make it a better place' ISN'T going to help anyone. Atleast Janet took a more realistic approach towards it, and focused more on education - something that the goverment CAN actually improve. Then again, Michael was always childish in his thought process, and maybe thats why there was no depth in his music. He was only interested in big numbers and didn't trust people in suits - which is telling of his mental age.

I never said Michael 'not selling sex was to his detriment'. I was saying how Janet and Michael was different. Janet wasn't trying to be cool, it was about her becoming more comfortable with her sexality. And saying 'heal the world make it a better place' is also an extremely easy subject matter, with no depth.

Im not comparing Michael to Janet, others were already comparing, you are just choosing to pick my post.

You obviously haven't listened to any of Janet's music to say she was a niche artist. You only need to to listen to TVR or RN to realise that is a silly comment.

'any pop female singer who can dance, put on a great live show and talk about sex' - What are you talking about. Janet didn't even really talk about sex until her third album. Actually... she did on Control, telling people to wait awhile. So clearly, once again, you do not know what you are talking about.

Just because their are artist that copy Janet who are talentless, doesn't, in any way, degrade what she was/is. Otherwise the same could be said for Michael, with Justin Bieber and Usher and Justin Timberlake copying him.

SO, someone has to be impersonated for them to be talented? What kind of nonsense are you talking about. Are you meaning to say Elvis and MJ are the only good artists, because thats FAR from the truth.

What a silly post.

[Edited 9/24/12 9:29am]

1. Singing about "Heal The World" 80 billion times is fine with me: Jeezus was one dimensional

too - heal.the.world. Besides, that is a lazy caricature of MJ. Not every song was "Heal the

World." You're acting like MJ was a one trick pony. Get the fuck outta here with that shit of

bull.

2. You're the one who brought up the fact that Janet's interested in sex made her a more

dimensional act than MJ. Because I called you out on that, you wanna bring up Janet's interest

in education now? LeRoy please. And I never said that you said MJ's uninterest in singing about

sex was to the detriment of his career. That was what you were implying - that his inability

to stretch his material out to include sex was a reason why he was one dimensional. Read

with comprehension. You weren't simply stating "Oh, MJ and Janet were different," dude.

You said:

Michael never touched on sexual themes and don't even get me started on The Velvet Rope... It dealt with issues Michaels attempted-sqeauky clean image would never

Why mention this if you weren't implying that to MJ's detriment, he didn't touch on sexual themes,

as if sexual themes is such a dimension that's never been touched before and its inclusion

proof of one's ability to extend their musical dimension. Shit of bull, homie. So Janet Jackson

did a bunch of sex songs and MJ did Dirty Diana and In The Closet and that makes Janet

Jackson more dimensional than MJ - right.

No.

Im not comparing Michael to Janet, others were already comparing, you are just choosing to pick my post.

Yes, I picked your post because it was especially shit of horse.

You obviously haven't listened to any of Janet's music to say she was a niche artist. You only need to to listen to TVR or RN to realise that is a silly comment.

What? So I never heard Control, 1814, The Velvet Rope, janet? Janet Jackson had a specific

audience and catered to that audience. I stand by my statement: she was a niche artist.

On a large scale? Yes. But clearly MJ attracted a wider audience than Janet Jackson did be-

cause of his primary interest (based on his childish manners) was global. The next time I

see footage of people FAINTING at a Janet Jackson show, I'll come back to this thread and

apologize to you. MJ had a mission that I believe was straight from God hisself:

"Psst. Yo. Mikey. Heal the mutherfucking world thru your music. Yes, this may make you one

dimensional according to Ass, who'll want you to do songs about fucking, but heal the world. You will pay the price: your father will beat you. You will lose your own childhood. You will

probably get addicted to drugs because of the emotional, mental and physical pain and strain

on your body. You will be misunderstood and will probably need counseling but never seek it.

Some of your brothers will despise you. Some of your sisters will pose nekkid in order to

steal some of your limelight because of their jealousy. Others will take advantage of your

concern for children and use it against you to strongarm millions from you. Okay, you'll

probably have the worst fashion sense in the world, but I want you to heal it through your

music."

"I'll do it."

It (TVR) dealt with issues Michaels attempted-sqeauky clean image would never; he always marketed for maximum sales and I imagine he was much too childish to do so anway

So the fuck what? That is the one criteria, that an artist deals with dimensions away from a

squeaky clean image, that you have? MJ created albums for market appeal because he simply

wanted market appeal, dude. If you want to reach 10 people, you make your product more

accessible. If you want to reach only 3-5 people, you don't aim as high. I don't understand

why you hold this against Mike. He wanted big sales (as if nobody else wanted to have big

sales) and you hold that against him? You know what he did with the some of the money from

those big sales?

C H A R I T Y

Did you hear that recording of MJ drugged outta his mind? It was release last year I think. In

it, MJ is drugged the fuck up, but he's still talking about reaching out to children. That dude

had an authentic calling from God.

What are you talking about. Janet didn't even really talk about sex until her third album. Actually... she did on Control, telling people to wait awhile. So clearly, once again, you do not know what you are talking about.

Wait...so you knock MJ for not being involved with sexual issues on his albums, but that Janet

was, so she had more dimensions than he did; but you then say Janet doesn't talk about sex

until her 3rd album, but, wait, she did broach it in Control, and then you tell me I don't know

what I'm talking about?

Just because their are artist that copy Janet who are talentless, doesn't, in any way, degrade what she was/is. Otherwise the same could be said for Michael, with Justin Bieber and Usher and Justin Timberlake copying him.

What? You could make the argument that Janet Jackson was copying Madonna. But I didn't say

anything about "copying." The word I used was "comparable" in the sense of making a "com-

parison." There is a difference between comparing and copying - so stop putting words in my

mouth and creating strawman arguments.

SO, someone has to be impersonated for them to be talented? What kind of nonsense are you talking about. Are you meaning to say Elvis and MJ are the only good artists, because thats FAR from the truth.

I want you to read my post again, Azz:

Michael Jackson is incomparable. How so? You never see a Janet Jackson impersonator. There are only two artists you see impersonated: Elvis and MJ.

I never said someone had to be talented in order to be impersonated. You created another

strawman argument. I said that because you see Elvis and MJ impersonators (and maybe

Madonna impersonators) that this is indicative of their incomparable-ness. MJ is trans-

cendent because you see people on the street impersonating him. You see people on the

street impersonating Elvis. You don't not never see Janet Jackson being impersonated.

You would have my respect if you had simply said: I don't like Michael Jackson as much as

I like Janet Jackson. But you came in here like you were the don and were going to shut

down MJ's legacy: that he was one dimensional. That's horse/bull shit and I called you out

on it. I understand you wanting to save face but c'mon homie, you gotta give Mike his props;

this "childish" one dimensional ninja shut down the godamn world wide web when he passed.

I stopped reading at Michael Jackson was God sent.

Sometimes I forget that not all people here are normal or sane.

throwing shade over michael is really boring, and this topic is supposed to be about rhythm nation, let's go back to it

always enjoyed that janet rosie performance by the way, she looks great, sounds great and that is proof she could sing

alphastreet said:

throwing shade over michael is really boring, and this topic is supposed to be about rhythm nation, let's go back to it

always enjoyed that janet rosie performance by the way, she looks great, sounds great and that is proof she could sing

I'm backing this bolded line.

Love the era. Please members talk about Janet ie Rhythm Nation.

OldFriends4Sale said:

alphastreet said:

throwing shade over michael is really boring, and this topic is supposed to be about rhythm nation, let's go back to it

always enjoyed that janet rosie performance by the way, she looks great, sounds great and that is proof she could sing

I'm backing this bolded line.

Love the era. Please members talk about Janet ie Rhythm Nation.

Frankly, this thread was back on track until duccichucka came along and stirred up shit. Yes, some people here were talking shit about MJ earlier in the thread, but at some point MJ fans need to not learn not to respond to every damn thing that people say about him, or drag him into conversations that have nothing to do with him. It's called being an adult. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that, once a conversation is back on track, posters will refrain from dragging it back off track just because somebody earlier in the thread insulted someone they like and they just have to have the last word.

[Edited 9/24/12 15:17pm]

Arbwyth said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

I'm backing this bolded line.

Love the era. Please members talk about Janet ie Rhythm Nation.

Frankly, this thread was back on track until duccichucka came along and stirred up shit. Yes, some people here were talking shit about MJ earlier in the thread, but at some point MJ fans need to not learn not to respond to every damn thing that people say about him, or drag him into conversations that have nothing to do with him. It's called being an adult. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that, once a conversation is back on track, posters will refrain from dragging it back off track just because somebody earlier in the thread insulted someone they like and they just have to have the last word.

[Edited 9/24/12 15:17pm]

I've seen worse when it comes to mj bashing, my issue is over being disgusted with how others are acting overall than the bashing to be honest when they suddenly start coming in here and attacking fans for simply being fans that are having a civil conversation about music. If they aren't fans, this is not the topic to discuss it, nor is it a forum for personal attacks.

[Edited 9/24/12 15:24pm]

Azz said:

I stopped reading at Michael Jackson was God sent.

Sometimes I forget that not all people here are normal or sane.

I am insane.

But what you've just pulled is a cowardly way out of a debate. You missed the

point of my post and, listen - save your face. I don't want to argue with you

much more.

I don't think MJ was one dimensional and I think the claim that he was is

unfounded and groundless.

alphastreet said:

Arbwyth said:

Frankly, this thread was back on track until duccichucka came along and stirred up shit. Yes, some people here were talking shit about MJ earlier in the thread, but at some point MJ fans need to not learn not to respond to every damn thing that people say about him, or drag him into conversations that have nothing to do with him. It's called being an adult. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that, once a conversation is back on track, posters will refrain from dragging it back off track just because somebody earlier in the thread insulted someone they like and they just have to have the last word.

[Edited 9/24/12 15:17pm]

I've seen worse when it comes to mj bashing, my issue is over being disgusted with how others are acting overall than the bashing to be honest when they suddenly start coming in here and attacking fans for simply being fans that are having a civil conversation about music. If they aren't fans, this is not the topic to discuss it, nor is it a forum for personal attacks.

[Edited 9/24/12 15:24pm]

Oh, I definitely agree with you. I probably should have made it clearer that I wasn't taking issue with anything you wrote. I just wish some MJ fans here would learn to leave well enough alone when people go after him -- sometimes all it accomplishes is fulfilling the stereotype of them being crazy and obsessed. It's not always worth a fight, and sometimes it's just too easy to set some of them off, especially when you're communicating on the Internet where there are tons of people who thrive on setting people off. They're like sitting ducks for that type of person.

On a strange note, has anybody ever heard of an album called The World's Greatest Tribute to Janet Jackson? It's some shit that literally just appeared on my Pandora. First of all, it is not the world's greatest tribute to Janet. It is terrible. Second of all, NOT ALL THE SONGS ARE EVEN SONGS SHE DID. For example, shitty covers of "I Will Survive" and "Ring My Bell" are on there. I cannot even begin to comprehend this fuckery.

[Edited 9/24/12 15:40pm]

Arbwyth said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

I'm backing this bolded line.

Love the era. Please members talk about Janet ie Rhythm Nation.

Frankly, this thread was back on track until duccichucka came along and stirred up shit. Yes, some people here were talking shit about MJ earlier in the thread, but at some point MJ fans need to not learn not to respond to every damn thing that people say about him, or drag him into conversations that have nothing to do with him. It's called being an adult. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that, once a conversation is back on track, posters will refrain from dragging it back off track just because somebody earlier in the thread insulted someone they like and they just have to have the last word.

[Edited 9/24/12 15:17pm]

THIS.

Arbwyth said:

alphastreet said:

I've seen worse when it comes to mj bashing, my issue is over being disgusted with how others are acting overall than the bashing to be honest when they suddenly start coming in here and attacking fans for simply being fans that are having a civil conversation about music. If they aren't fans, this is not the topic to discuss it, nor is it a forum for personal attacks.

[Edited 9/24/12 15:24pm]

Oh, I definitely agree with you. I probably should have made it clearer that I wasn't taking issue with anything you wrote. I just wish some MJ fans here would learn to leave well enough alone when people go after him -- sometimes all it accomplishes is fulfilling the stereotype of them being crazy and obsessed. It's not always worth a fight, and sometimes it's just too easy to set some of them off, especially when you're communicating on the Internet where there are tons of people who thrive on setting people off. They're like sitting ducks for that type of person.

On a strange note, has anybody ever heard of an album called The World's Greatest Tribute to Janet Jackson? It's some shit that literally just appeared on my Pandora. First of all, it is not the world's greatest tribute to Janet. It is terrible. Second of all, NOT ALL THE SONGS ARE EVEN SONGS SHE DID. For example, shitty covers of "I Will Survive" and "Ring My Bell" are on there. I cannot even begin to comprehend this fuckery.

[Edited 9/24/12 15:40pm]

I've seen several Janet tribute CDs, but never that one. I own one and it's pretty bad, but I'm glad I own it anyway for novelty's sake.

Here are two--a string quartet tribute and the one that I own, with the mock Velvet Rope cover.

Two more RN-era interviews

Arbwyth said:

alphastreet said:

I've seen worse when it comes to mj bashing, my issue is over being disgusted with how others are acting overall than the bashing to be honest when they suddenly start coming in here and attacking fans for simply being fans that are having a civil conversation about music. If they aren't fans, this is not the topic to discuss it, nor is it a forum for personal attacks.

[Edited 9/24/12 15:24pm]

Oh, I definitely agree with you. I probably should have made it clearer that I wasn't taking issue with anything you wrote. I just wish some MJ fans here would learn to leave well enough alone when people go after him -- sometimes all it accomplishes is fulfilling the stereotype of them being crazy and obsessed. It's not always worth a fight, and sometimes it's just too easy to set some of them off, especially when you're communicating on the Internet where there are tons of people who thrive on setting people off. They're like sitting ducks for that type of person.

On a strange note, has anybody ever heard of an album called The World's Greatest Tribute to Janet Jackson? It's some shit that literally just appeared on my Pandora. First of all, it is not the world's greatest tribute to Janet. It is terrible. Second of all, NOT ALL THE SONGS ARE EVEN SONGS SHE DID. For example, shitty covers of "I Will Survive" and "Ring My Bell" are on there. I cannot even begin to comprehend this fuckery.

[Edited 9/24/12 15:40pm]

it doesn't matter if they don't like him or have opinions, what matters is that they come in here to name call fans and they are digging their own graves by doing that, and then like to cry about it saying we're attacking them when they're the ones who started instigating in the first place.

[Edited 9/24/12 17:26pm]

alphastreet said:

Arbwyth said:

Oh, I definitely agree with you. I probably should have made it clearer that I wasn't taking issue with anything you wrote. I just wish some MJ fans here would learn to leave well enough alone when people go after him -- sometimes all it accomplishes is fulfilling the stereotype of them being crazy and obsessed. It's not always worth a fight, and sometimes it's just too easy to set some of them off, especially when you're communicating on the Internet where there are tons of people who thrive on setting people off. They're like sitting ducks for that type of person.

On a strange note, has anybody ever heard of an album called The World's Greatest Tribute to Janet Jackson? It's some shit that literally just appeared on my Pandora. First of all, it is not the world's greatest tribute to Janet. It is terrible. Second of all, NOT ALL THE SONGS ARE EVEN SONGS SHE DID. For example, shitty covers of "I Will Survive" and "Ring My Bell" are on there. I cannot even begin to comprehend this fuckery.

[Edited 9/24/12 15:40pm]

it doesn't matter if they don't like him or have opinions, what matters is that they come in here to name call fans and they are digging their own graves by doing that, and then like to cry about it saying we're attacking them when they're the ones who started instigating in the first place.

[Edited 9/24/12 17:26pm]

OK, it's totally legit to take issue if people do that in the sticky -- the people who pop up there and talk shit are clearly just trying to be trolls. But elsewhere, I really don't think you can expect people to not speak their mind about either MJ or his fans, even if it's negative (the same goes for other artists as well).

This thread is a perfect example -- not you, but some other MJ fans have completely taken this thread off-topic and made discussion difficult and unpleasant for everyone else. If somebody says something negative about him in a non-MJ thread, one or two responses stating your disagreement should suffice. But if you (the generic you!) continue to pursue your agenda until you've taken the thread off point, then you're being disrespectul of the community and the people who want to discuss the original topic. Yes, maybe somebody else in the thread is being an asshole. But for the sake of everyone else, and for their own sanity, some of those fans just need to let it go and do some yoga or meditation or something. Or kickboxing, if that's your thing. . Because at the end of the day, they're posting off-topic and making things all about their agenda.

And really, has anyone ever seen anything productive come out of these flame wars? All it does is make discussion harder -- and honestly, sometimes people aren't really trying to instigate; they're just speaking their mind, and it just may not be what some fans want to hear. (Gods know it's often not what I want to hear!) But if they truly are instigating, we're giving them exactly what they want if we flame them back. So, just let some things slide. If somebody's being an asshole, let them be a lonely asshole with nobody to flame in their intolerable little bedroom.

And, in the interest of not taking this further off topic, I'm not going to say anything more about it.

SEANMAN said:

Arbwyth said:

Oh, I definitely agree with you. I probably should have made it clearer that I wasn't taking issue with anything you wrote. I just wish some MJ fans here would learn to leave well enough alone when people go after him -- sometimes all it accomplishes is fulfilling the stereotype of them being crazy and obsessed. It's not always worth a fight, and sometimes it's just too easy to set some of them off, especially when you're communicating on the Internet where there are tons of people who thrive on setting people off. They're like sitting ducks for that type of person.

On a strange note, has anybody ever heard of an album called The World's Greatest Tribute to Janet Jackson? It's some shit that literally just appeared on my Pandora. First of all, it is not the world's greatest tribute to Janet. It is terrible. Second of all, NOT ALL THE SONGS ARE EVEN SONGS SHE DID. For example, shitty covers of "I Will Survive" and "Ring My Bell" are on there. I cannot even begin to comprehend this fuckery.

[Edited 9/24/12 15:40pm]

I've seen several Janet tribute CDs, but never that one. I own one and it's pretty bad, but I'm glad I own it anyway for novelty's sake.

Here are two--a string quartet tribute and the one that I own, with the mock Velvet Rope cover.

Here's the one I came across today -- it doesn't even list artist names or anything. I'm guessing all involved are too embarrassed to be named:

http://www.amazon.com/Wor...B000R00PEO

Arbwyth said:

alphastreet said:

it doesn't matter if they don't like him or have opinions, what matters is that they come in here to name call fans and they are digging their own graves by doing that, and then like to cry about it saying we're attacking them when they're the ones who started instigating in the first place.

[Edited 9/24/12 17:26pm]

OK, it's totally legit to take issue if people do that in the sticky -- the people who pop up there and talk shit are clearly just trying to be trolls. But elsewhere, I really don't think you can expect people to not speak their mind about either MJ or his fans, even if it's negative (the same goes for other artists as well).

This thread is a perfect example -- not you, but some other MJ fans have completely taken this thread off-topic and made discussion difficult and unpleasant for everyone else. If somebody says something negative about him in a non-MJ thread, one or two responses stating your disagreement should suffice. But if you (the generic you!) continue to pursue your agenda until you've taken the thread off point, then you're being disrespectul of the community and the people who want to discuss the original topic. Yes, maybe somebody else in the thread is being an asshole. But for the sake of everyone else, and for their own sanity, some of those fans just need to let it go and do some yoga or meditation or something. Or kickboxing, if that's your thing. . Because at the end of the day, they're posting off-topic and making things all about their agenda.

And really, has anyone ever seen anything productive come out of these flame wars? All it does is make discussion harder -- and honestly, sometimes people aren't really trying to instigate; they're just speaking their mind, and it just may not be what some fans want to hear. (Gods know it's often not what I want to hear!) But if they truly are instigating, we're giving them exactly what they want if we flame them back. So, just let some things slide. If somebody's being an asshole, let them be a lonely asshole with nobody to flame in their intolerable little bedroom.

And, in the interest of not taking this further off topic, I'm not going to say anything more about it.

Yea please do because your post is clearly biased by insisting that MJ fans are the ones that turned the thread around when Janet fans are the ones that instigated the entire MJ bash fest Looking at the first page nobody is really talking about Michael. One poster makes a small remark and the Janet fans took it and ran with it and if someone has an opinion that they want to express I dont see anything wrong with it. Azz andothers were making some strong ignorant and bold claims so yes people are going to challenge them on this music site especially if their not true.

mjscarousal said:

Arbwyth said:

OK, it's totally legit to take issue if people do that in the sticky -- the people who pop up there and talk shit are clearly just trying to be trolls. But elsewhere, I really don't think you can expect people to not speak their mind about either MJ or his fans, even if it's negative (the same goes for other artists as well).

This thread is a perfect example -- not you, but some other MJ fans have completely taken this thread off-topic and made discussion difficult and unpleasant for everyone else. If somebody says something negative about him in a non-MJ thread, one or two responses stating your disagreement should suffice. But if you (the generic you!) continue to pursue your agenda until you've taken the thread off point, then you're being disrespectul of the community and the people who want to discuss the original topic. Yes, maybe somebody else in the thread is being an asshole. But for the sake of everyone else, and for their own sanity, some of those fans just need to let it go and do some yoga or meditation or something. Or kickboxing, if that's your thing. . Because at the end of the day, they're posting off-topic and making things all about their agenda.

And really, has anyone ever seen anything productive come out of these flame wars? All it does is make discussion harder -- and honestly, sometimes people aren't really trying to instigate; they're just speaking their mind, and it just may not be what some fans want to hear. (Gods know it's often not what I want to hear!) But if they truly are instigating, we're giving them exactly what they want if we flame them back. So, just let some things slide. If somebody's being an asshole, let them be a lonely asshole with nobody to flame in their intolerable little bedroom.

And, in the interest of not taking this further off topic, I'm not going to say anything more about it.

Yea please do because your post is clearly biased by insisting that MJ fans are the ones that turned the thread around when Janet fans are the ones that instigated the entire MJ bash fest Looking at the first page nobody is really talking about Michael. One poster makes a small remark and the Janet fans took it and ran with it and if someone has an opinion that they want to express I dont see anything wrong with it. Azz andothers were making some strong ignorant and bold claims so yes people are going to challenge them on this music site especially if their not true.

was just about to say this, and saying again, I don't care if they complain in other threads, I've seen worse when it comes to mj bashing over the years, and now I'm done with this topic.

how come janet looks like a naked velvet rope janet on that tribute album cover? is it just me? I've seen that at the virgin megastore when shopping in new york years ago, but didn't pick it up cause I wasn't feeling it when I heard it online, I prefer the originals and am not in a position to buy everything with janet's name on it anymore though I'm like that with everyone now.

[Edited 9/24/12 19:43pm]