SEANMAN said:

CharismaDove said:

I'm also pretty sure Beyonce was inspired by Janet a lot, but i don't really see any reason for Janet to be inspired by Beyonce..

She was, and she made a point in saying it on her HBO documentary, on Janet's MTV ICON special, in print and in interviews.

No need for jealousy and irrelevant competition, just admiration and acknowledgement of who came first and was the inspiration for those who followed...

purplethunder3121 said:

SEANMAN said:

She was, and she made a point in saying it on her HBO documentary, on Janet's MTV ICON special, in print and in interviews.

No need for jealousy and irrelevant competition, just admiration and acknowledgement of who came first and was the inspiration for those who followed...

Yes.

Mintchip said:

mjscarousal said:

I am not sure how people define a "good singer". There are a ton of good techical singers. You can pretty much find that anywhere. Hell I have that at my choir at my church! What makes a good singer however is their ability to convey emotion and connect with audiences which is something Beyonce has never been able to do unlike Janet who is a natural at it despite her limited vocals. While Janet is not a strong vocalist,I would much rather listen to her any day over a singer like Beyonce because she knows how to take you with her in a song. She knows how to become vunerable in a song and convinces me what she is singing she really believes. Not to mention, Janet is an artist while Beyonce appears to be just a "performer"

I thought Janet also did some questionable things after Michael's passing that were disappointing but there is no question she is an Icon and an artist that deserves more respect.

I'd like to see her come out with at least one more album before she calls it quits.

I think that's a great definition of a good singer.

I would agree. It's the same reason that I can't listen to some belters. They may be good from a technical perspective, but boy do they love to SCREAM (hi, Patti Labelle!). There's zero subtlety.

(Side note: I am also a Beyonce fan.)

Yeah, she was the kind of "artist" that could only have existed because of technology and changes in the industry. Studio technology to bolster her weak voice and rising budgets in the industry to pay for all the dancers needed to make her performances work. Also, the rise of the music video which meant you could become famous without paying your dues on the live circuit. Being a Jackson of course also meant she was able to bypass that gruelling process.

She was basically a precursor of Britney and J-Lo. These are products. The "artist" is merely the face of the product; the brand. And why not? It works, if you're into that kind of thing. Not everyone wants to swim in the deep end of the pool. Nothing wrong with paddling in the shallow end as long as you know that's where you are.

midnightmover said:

Yeah, she was the kind of "artist" that could only have existed because of technology and changes in the industry. Studio technology to bolster her weak voice and rising budgets in the industry to pay for all the dancers needed to make her performances work. Also, the rise of the music video which meant you could become famous without paying your dues on the live circuit. Being a Jackson of course also meant she was able to bypass that gruelling process.

She was basically a precursor of Britney and J-Lo. These are products. The "artist" is merely the face of the product; the brand. And why not? It works, if you're into that kind of thing. Not everyone wants to swim in the deep end of the pool. Nothing wrong with paddling in the shallow end as long as you know that's where you are.

Really grasping for those straws ain't ya?

MotownSubdivision said:

midnightmover said:

Yeah, she was the kind of "artist" that could only have existed because of technology and changes in the industry. Studio technology to bolster her weak voice and rising budgets in the industry to pay for all the dancers needed to make her performances work. Also, the rise of the music video which meant you could become famous without paying your dues on the live circuit. Being a Jackson of course also meant she was able to bypass that gruelling process.

She was basically a precursor of Britney and J-Lo. These are products. The "artist" is merely the face of the product; the brand. And why not? It works, if you're into that kind of thing. Not everyone wants to swim in the deep end of the pool. Nothing wrong with paddling in the shallow end as long as you know that's where you are.

Really grasping for those straws ain't ya?

Here we go again. I remember being on here many years ago debating Janet fans who refused to accept that her days on top were over. I was right, they were wrong. I remember debating MJ fans who refused to accept that he was creatively dormant, washed up. I was right, they were wrong. Now here's another fanbot with an aversion to reality. Care to explain exactly how I'm grasping at straws?

midnightmover said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Really grasping for those straws ain't ya?

Here we go again. I remember being on here many years ago debating Janet fans who refused to accept that her days on top were over. I was right, they were wrong. I remember debating MJ fans who refused to accept that he was creatively dormant, washed up. I was right, they were wrong. Now here's another fanbot with an aversion to reality. Care to explain exactly how I'm grasping at straws?

I'd say you're grasping at the same straws that many a Janet detractor over the years have grasped at. Her pedigree, the people hired to help her, her weak voice, yadda yadda yadda. It's been the same since she first hit big with CONTROL and it's still the same, tired old song 28 years later. Janet Jackson was and is an institution in the pop music industry. If she never put out another album again, her catalogue of hit Pop and R&B songs will stand the test of time. She's a damn good dancer, so her needing other dancers to "make her performances work" is a moot argument (ever see The Pleasure Principle?). Is she the best singer? No. But there are many other pop singers in her generation and this one with lesser pipes. Why does one have to be a "fanbot" to express an opinion that someone saying unflattering things about her career is grasping at straws? Because, to be honest, you kinda are.

SEANMAN said:

midnightmover said:

oh the J-stan's yaddda yadda yadda never ends too. More than half of her discography is pretty forgettable (some of them are embarassing). It's been 17 years since her last good album. Having said that, I do consider Control, janet. and TVR very good albums...I'd even go as far as calling the first 2 classics.

Scorp said:

midnightmover said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Really grasping for those straws ain't ya?

Here we go again. I remember being on here many years ago debating Janet fans who refused to accept that her days on top were over. I was right, they were wrong. I remember debating MJ fans who refused to accept that he was creatively dormant, washed up. I was right, they were wrong. Now here's another fanbot with an aversion to reality. Care to explain exactly how I'm grasping at straws?

How can someone decide when an artist is washed up? It seems that your comment suggests that you've somehow got the monopoly on being able to figure out when someone is considered washed up. How did you make this determination that everyone else is wrong? Janet's most recent tour did very well and MJ was on track to do very well for the This is It tour. So, where are you getting your facts about people's careers being over?

SEANMAN said:

midnightmover said:

Here we go again. I remember being on here many years ago debating Janet fans who refused to accept that her days on top were over. I was right, they were wrong. I remember debating MJ fans who refused to accept that he was creatively dormant, washed up. I was right, they were wrong. Now here's another fanbot with an aversion to reality. Care to explain exactly how I'm grasping at straws?

I'd say you're grasping at the same straws that many a Janet detractor over the years have grasped at. Her pedigree, the people hired to help her, her weak voice, yadda yadda yadda. It's been the same since she first hit big with CONTROL and it's still the same, tired old song 28 years later. Janet Jackson was and is an institution in the pop music industry. If she never put out another album again, her catalogue of hit Pop and R&B songs will stand the test of time. She's a damn good dancer, so her needing other dancers to "make her performances work" is a moot argument (ever see The Pleasure Principle?). Is she the best singer? No. But there are many other pop singers in her generation and this one with lesser pipes. Why does one have to be a "fanbot" to express an opinion that someone saying unflattering things about her career is grasping at straws? Because, to be honest, you kinda are.

Those criticisms are persistent for the simple reason that they are true. And I notice you didn't actually rebutt a single one of them, just fired off a series of non-sequiters and empty assertions.

And by the way, you do realise that the Pleasure Principle was a video, not a live performance right? Therefore it's irrelevant to the point you thought you were addressing. It's also worth noting that every single part of it was choreographed. That's a big difference between her and her brother. Choreographed dancing was just one part of what he did. With Janet it was ALL she did. She was completely reliant on her choreographers. In this she was very much a precursor to Britney Spears.

go2theMax said:

SeventeenDayze said:

midnightmover said:

Here we go again. I remember being on here many years ago debating Janet fans who refused to accept that her days on top were over. I was right, they were wrong. I remember debating MJ fans who refused to accept that he was creatively dormant, washed up. I was right, they were wrong. Now here's another fanbot with an aversion to reality. Care to explain exactly how I'm grasping at straws?

How can someone decide when an artist is washed up? It seems that your comment suggests that you've somehow got the monopoly on being able to figure out when someone is considered washed up. How did you make this determination that everyone else is wrong? Janet's most recent tour did very well and MJ was on track to do very well for the This is It tour. So, where are you getting your facts about people's careers being over?

What planet are you living on? MJ spent the last decade of his life doing next to nothing. I notice even his fans who argued with me at the time are conceding this now. When they tried to find new material to release after his death, they had to go back years to find stuff and the more recent songs were all written by other people. They were so desperate they even resorted to using fake tracks and passing them off as Michael, lol.

The This Is It tour (which never happened) was the final proof. I said at the time that he was forced into it by his massive debts and that has been confirmed. I said at the time there would be no new ideas in the show and I was proven right. I said at the time he was in no state to be touring and that has also been confirmed. Just read Kenny Ortega's horrifying email from a few days before his death (please don't bother replying if you can't address that). There's no doubt about it. If not for that tour he would still be alive today.

As for Janet I never said she couldn't tour. Read my post again. I said her "days at the top were over" and that also has been proven right. Her last real hit was 13 years ago. A decade ago some of her fans didn't realize her heyday was over. I did and said so. I was right. They were wrong.

[Edited 8/5/14 4:11am]

I always thought that Janet Jackson was overrated. She has a mediocre voice, but is a great

dancer. She was not a songwriter like her brother, and she was mostly a product of the

producer(s) she was working with: so, who was Janet Jackson, really, since her musical identity

seemed to be constructed mostly by others? And I'm sorry, but as soon as a female artist

starts concentrating on selling sex first instead of art, I lose interest in your music.

But she was more daring than Michael: she ventured into different genres of music and was

unafraid to stretch out. Mike's albums all had that "save the world or die trying" sensibility

that meant he never strayed far from his musical template. Her live shows appeared to have

been awesome and I think 1814 is a better album than Bad, the second half of Dangerous,

HIStory, and Invincible. And Control, again, because of Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, is a

musical behemoth.

She was good, but she wasn't great.

BlackCat1985 said:

go2theMax said:

oh the J-stan's yaddda yadda yadda never ends too. More than half of her discography is pretty forgettable (some of them are embarassing). It's been 17 years since her last good album. Having said that, I do consider Control, janet. and TVR very good albums...I'd even go as far as calling the first 2 classics.

Says who? You! Janet has one of the best discography out there. Just because you don't believe so doesn't make it so.

Says who? You!Janet has one of the worst discography out there. Just because you don't believe so doesn't make it so.

See...it works both ways

midnightmover said:

SeventeenDayze said:

How can someone decide when an artist is washed up? It seems that your comment suggests that you've somehow got the monopoly on being able to figure out when someone is considered washed up. How did you make this determination that everyone else is wrong? Janet's most recent tour did very well and MJ was on track to do very well for the This is It tour. So, where are you getting your facts about people's careers being over?

What planet are you living on? MJ spent the last decade of his life doing next to nothing. I notice even his fans who argued with me at the time are conceding this now. When they tried to find new material to release after his death, they had to go back years to find stuff and the more recent songs were all written by other people. They were so desperate they even resorted to using fake tracks and passing them off as Michael, lol.

The This Is It tour (which never happened) was the final proof. I said at the time that he was forced into it by his massive debts and that has been confirmed. I said at the time there would be no new ideas in the show and I was proven right. I said at the time he was in no state to be touring and that has also been confirmed. Just read Kenny Ortega's horrifying email from a few days before his death (please don't bother replying if you can't address that). There's no doubt about it. If not for that tour he would still be alive today.

As for Janet I never said she couldn't tour. Read my post again. I said her "days at the top were over" and that also has been proven right. Her last real hit was 13 years ago. A decade ago some of her fans didn't realize her heyday was over. I did and said so. I was right. They were wrong.

[Edited 8/5/14 4:11am]

Despite what was outright sabotage by Sony, the Invincible album did really well. I think a lot of people liked the album and it had solid tracks on there. To me, it seems like you're just looking for any old reason to hate Janet and MJ. As far as MJ's wealth goes, it was mostly tied up in assets. I think MJ upset a lot of people when he bought up all the catalogs that he did back in the day. I think what he purchased is worth a billion dollars now. And why do people on the Org care so much about hits? There are plenty of crap songs out there by artists right now that are "hits" because their label bought the air time on the radio.....it's called pay n' play.

duccichucka said:

I always thought that Janet Jackson was overrated. She has a mediocre voice, but is a great

dancer. She was not a songwriter like her brother, and she was mostly a product of the

producer(s) she was working with: so, who was Janet Jackson, really, since her musical identity

seemed to be constructed mostly by others? And I'm sorry, but as soon as a female artist

starts concentrating on selling sex first instead of art, I lose interest in your music.

But she was more daring than Michael: she ventured into different genres of music and was

unafraid to stretch out. Mike's albums all had that "save the world or die trying" sensibility

that meant he never strayed far from his musical template. Her live shows appeared to have

been awesome and I think 1814 is a better album than Bad, the second half of Dangerous,

HIStory, and Invincible. And Control, again, because of Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, is a

musical behemoth.

She was good, but she wasn't great.

Although it seems you're not a fan of hers, it seems that your perspective on her fame, output, etc. is fair. As far as selling sex goes, I think that was and is (sadly) an industry standard. This is especially true in pop music. Janet was a master at reinvention and her mark in music history can't be disputed because look at all of the copycats that have followed even to this day.

Sweet Janet. Well...here's MY take:

1. "Control" was an R&B masterpiece as far as marketing, production values and overall sound go. It introduced new sounds and catered to a bubblegummy pallate that wasn't afraid to "throw down."

2. "Rhythm Nation" built itself upon "Control's" example, but pushed the envelope even further by using a more "socially empowered" vehicle to drive its points home, however, it really wasn't THAT political nor empowering. It merely turned the volume up a bit more.

3. "Janet." is the one that started her new exploration of sexuality and which began those terrible interludes that got even worse over time with each subsequent release.

4. "Velvet Rope," was more of a "Control Part Two" for me and it presented eloquently with its darker hues. It had SOME elements of "Rhythm Nation."

5. "All For You" was joyous until the second single and that's what killed the album's life. "Son Of A Gun" should NEVER have even been considered for single release!!! And Carly SIMON?...WTF is SHE doin' up in that MIX?! The sample worked, but the lyrics bombed all around. Again, gems scattered throughout, but this was a major bid for a more "Pop-realized" album.

6. "Damita Jo," like "20 Y.O." did itself in with its ridiculous title alone, especially the latter, however both boast SOME good music. It's too bad that the titles killed what could have been excellent releases. The lead single on the former album was NOT a very good choice and said album from which it was culled couldn't help its own downward spiral. The only reason "Call On Me" was so successful was that it featured a hot, at that time, rapper (Nelly.) Otherwise, weak song from an even weaker album.

6. "Disclipline" tried, but that sexual overtone coupled with a sado-masochistic, photographic overtone didn't help it to explode. Again, some hidden gems throughout, but on the whole, weak.

Leave the "sex" to Madonna, as only she can really work it to the point that it's credible and successful.

7 & 8: I saved the two PRE-"Control" albums for last where they were merely developmental in her artistry but lacked cohesion and theme. They are what they are. Every artist starts somewhere. Both eponymously and sophmorically, her producers tested the waters for what was to come and literally gave her an image/sound makeover, which, at that time, was heroic and commendable. "Janet Jackson" and "Dream Street" were the "bubblegum" that STUCK on "Control."

Was she good? Yes. Very, but again, "good" is a personal opinion. Janet Jackson is a PRODUCER'S artist. Without the "right" producers, the "right" result for Miss Jackson is fully dependent upon the trend at the given time and the producers' abilties to rope said trends in coupled with her (Jackson's) ability to let her image speak for that which is being represented muscially. I wouldn't say that she "wasn't good." I'd say that there are different stokes 4 different folks and that her favor came into play via the preferences of a vast majority. She was iconic for a time. Of course, being a Jackson factors in too. Thin, weak voice with the right producers/material determines her impact/success within an everchanging, ever-Autotuned, ever-talentless (for the most part) industry.

[Edited 8/5/14 13:34pm]

BlackCat1985 said:

SEANMAN said:

I'd say you're grasping at the same straws that many a Janet detractor over the years have grasped at. Her pedigree, the people hired to help her, her weak voice, yadda yadda yadda. It's been the same since she first hit big with CONTROL and it's still the same, tired old song 28 years later. Janet Jackson was and is an institution in the pop music industry. If she never put out another album again, her catalogue of hit Pop and R&B songs will stand the test of time. She's a damn good dancer, so her needing other dancers to "make her performances work" is a moot argument (ever see The Pleasure Principle?). Is she the best singer? No. But there are many other pop singers in her generation and this one with lesser pipes. Why does one have to be a "fanbot" to express an opinion that someone saying unflattering things about her career is grasping at straws? Because, to be honest, you kinda are.

@SEANMAN I absolutely love you! People always talk shit about Janet and you stay knocking them down. They never want to give her credit. But they stay praising Madonna. Who was the least talented of all of her contemporaries. They love to say that she is a product of her brother, but can never answer the question of why none of the Jacksons outside of Mj and Janet had huge careers. Like you said Janet does not need to release another album because her legecy is already cemented in music. If one could call Madonna a legend/Icon then Janet most definitely can be called one.

Notice how all the detractors continuously come back to the thread time and time again? And for what? It's pretty sad, actually.

go2theMax said:

oh the J-stan's yaddda yadda yadda never ends too. More than half of her discography is pretty forgettable (some of them are embarassing). It's been 17 years since her last good album. Having said that, I do consider Control, janet. and TVR very good albums...I'd even go as far as calling the first 2 classics.

For an artist with such a "forgettable" backlog, you sure are making a lot of appearances in her thread . Give it up. She's made 9 studio albums so far, and I'd say that about 5 of them are classic Janet Jackson as far as what her fans and the public at large expect from her output (that's more than half, in case your math is a little off). Janet's songs are the soundtrack to the mid-late '80s, the entirety of the '90s and the first part of the new millennium. Millions of albums sold, ten Hot 100 #1s and a laundry list of top 10s attest to this. And you're still tap-tap-tappin' on your keyboard to an internet forum about how "forgettable" her music is. GTFO with that bull-ish.

utopia7 said:

Scorp said:

Janet ain't worried about all that static

she unleashed a billion dollar manifesto last year that had all the pundits realing...lolll

she ain't gotta release another record in her life

and quite frankly why would she considering all the flack she has received the last 5 years buy "experts" who are just frolicking....

she's doing exactly what she needs to do and that's absolutely nothing

she has nothing to prove....

RHYTHM NATION 1814 was so profound, she encouraged young women who were once in peril to stop taking drugs and pursue further education

and when your music is influencing in on that level, you are making a great contribution to the arts

its' been 25 years, a quarter century since she released that album and there hasn't been another female artist since who has made an album that brilliant, especially what the contemporaries of today are putting out.....

33

Applause!!!!!Teach!

Yass!! **Bowing Down**

[Edited 8/5/14 16:21pm]

LaToya Jackson is better than Janet. Hell, she's even better than Michael.

SeventeenDayze said:

duccichucka said:

I always thought that Janet Jackson was overrated. She has a mediocre voice, but is a great

dancer. She was not a songwriter like her brother, and she was mostly a product of the

producer(s) she was working with: so, who was Janet Jackson, really, since her musical identity

seemed to be constructed mostly by others? And I'm sorry, but as soon as a female artist

starts concentrating on selling sex first instead of art, I lose interest in your music.

But she was more daring than Michael: she ventured into different genres of music and was

unafraid to stretch out. Mike's albums all had that "save the world or die trying" sensibility

that meant he never strayed far from his musical template. Her live shows appeared to have

been awesome and I think 1814 is a better album than Bad, the second half of Dangerous,

HIStory, and Invincible. And Control, again, because of Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, is a

musical behemoth.

She was good, but she wasn't great.

Although it seems you're not a fan of hers, it seems that your perspective on her fame, output, etc. is fair. As far as selling sex goes, I think that was and is (sadly) an industry standard. This is especially true in pop music. Janet was a master at reinvention and her mark in music history can't be disputed because look at all of the copycats that have followed even to this day.

You could argue that Janet Jackson was simply copying Madonna; and that any JJ copycat is

really building off of what Madonna did first.

Another thing Madonna did first was reinvention. But one could argue that instead of Madonna

and JJ being inventive, they actually continued to morph into new personas because they did

not know who they really were. For example, Michael Jackson knew who he was, therefore, his

persona hardly went through the many changes that Janet Jackson did.

I think there is some patriarchy underneath this, however. Men get to be who they want to be.

Women get to be who men want them to be. I could be overthinking this. . .

midnightmover said:

SEANMAN said:

I'd say you're grasping at the same straws that many a Janet detractor over the years have grasped at. Her pedigree, the people hired to help her, her weak voice, yadda yadda yadda. It's been the same since she first hit big with CONTROL and it's still the same, tired old song 28 years later. Janet Jackson was and is an institution in the pop music industry. If she never put out another album again, her catalogue of hit Pop and R&B songs will stand the test of time. She's a damn good dancer, so her needing other dancers to "make her performances work" is a moot argument (ever see The Pleasure Principle?). Is she the best singer? No. But there are many other pop singers in her generation and this one with lesser pipes. Why does one have to be a "fanbot" to express an opinion that someone saying unflattering things about her career is grasping at straws? Because, to be honest, you kinda are.

Those criticisms are persistent for the simple reason that they are true. And I notice you didn't actually rebutt a single one of them, just fired off a series of non-sequiters and empty assertions.

And by the way, you do realise that the Pleasure Principle was a video, not a live performance right? Therefore it's irrelevant to the point you thought you were addressing. It's also worth noting that every single part of it was choreographed. That's a big difference between her and her brother. Choreographed dancing was just one part of what he did. With Janet it was ALL she did. She was completely reliant on her choreographers. In this she was very much a precursor to Britney Spears.

Rebutting them would give credibility to them, and that wouldn't be wise, especially since all they really are are just meaningless chatter from someone who's still stuck on an opinion that died when Janet came into her own with a lasting, inspiring career. Talking to someone who's incredibly hung up on the "Janet Jackson only became a thing because she was MJ's sister" mystique, which is the EPITOME of bullshit by the way, is like having a convo with a brick wall. As for her dancing, it is an innate gift that choreographers were able to capitalize on. Period. She could always move, and she didn't need to prove it by ripping off L.A. breakdancers ala MJ to show it. Janet's dancing is more diverse, daring and intriguing than MJ's in that she has expressed the artform in many different ways, and her shtick didn't mostly include grabbing and thrusting her crotch and doing the moonwalk while yelling "HEE HEE HEE!"

duccichucka said:

SeventeenDayze said:

Although it seems you're not a fan of hers, it seems that your perspective on her fame, output, etc. is fair. As far as selling sex goes, I think that was and is (sadly) an industry standard. This is especially true in pop music. Janet was a master at reinvention and her mark in music history can't be disputed because look at all of the copycats that have followed even to this day.

You could argue that Janet Jackson was simply copying Madonna; and that any JJ copycat is

really building off of what Madonna did first.

Another thing Madonna did first was reinvention. But one could argue that instead of Madonna

and JJ being inventive, they actually continued to morph into new personas because they did

not know who they really were. For example, Michael Jackson knew who he was, therefore, his

persona hardly went through the many changes that Janet Jackson did.

I think there is some patriarchy underneath this, however. Men get to be who they want to be.

Women get to be who men want them to be. I could be overthinking this. . .

Madonna didn't do reinvention first - they actually did it simultaneously. Control was a significant evolution in both sound and image from Janet's first two albums.

midnightmover said:

SeventeenDayze said:

How can someone decide when an artist is washed up? It seems that your comment suggests that you've somehow got the monopoly on being able to figure out when someone is considered washed up. How did you make this determination that everyone else is wrong? Janet's most recent tour did very well and MJ was on track to do very well for the This is It tour. So, where are you getting your facts about people's careers being over?

What planet are you living on?

duccichucka said:

who was Janet Jackson, really, since her musical identity seemed to be constructed mostly by others?

I can (and will) dispute this.

CONTROL (about Janet's urge to break free from her family's constraints and strike out on her own)

RN (the nucleus for the album was born out of what Janet saw happening in the world at the time on news outlets like CNN)

janet. (the album's themes were love and sex, based on how secure and sexy Janet finally felt in her own skin)

TVR (a masterpiece the chronicled Janet's life dealing with depression, the loss of loved ones, domestic abuse, etc.)

AFY (an album about how happy Janet was after finally being free from a lengthy, unhappy secret marriage--the anti-VR)

DJ (an album that explored the different sides of Janet's personality)

20 YO (Janet wanted to celebrate the feel of the album that put her on the map...CONTROL. It didn't always work, but when it did--"Get it Out Me", "Enjoy", "Take Care"--it was great)

DISCIPLINE (Janet did press around the time of the album's release, saying that the title was derived from the discipline she learned at an early age to always be on time and professional in whatever she did)

**You can argue that her first two albums were just studio creations that didn't show us who the real Janet was because she has so much as said so herself. But to say that within all the output I just named, you didn't get to know who she really was and that the themes were constructed by others is just pretty silly.

[Edited 8/5/14 17:20pm]