US rockers Godsmack are guilty of this.

Good band, good songs, great singer... but all their albums sound identical.

NorthC said:

One name appears in big, big letters: L E N N Y K R A V I T Z [Edited 3/28/15 5:06am]

Hmm....

There is a difference between Let Love Rule and 5, though.

The Rolling Stones

Rage Against the Machine
Jay-Z
N*E*R*D
Michael Jackson
Beyonce
Ahmad Jamal
Stevie Ray Vaughan
Oasis

duccichucka said:

Michael Jackson

Dangerous sounds nothing like Off The Wall sounds nothing like Bad sounds nothing like HIStory.

It was only with Invincible where he'd started to sound a bit predictable.

[Edited 3/28/15 5:45am]

duccichucka said:

MattyJam said:

without a doubt lenny kravitz, same rehashed material since circus.

MotownSubdivision said:

The famous examples are KISS and The Ramones.

MattyJam said:

duccichucka said:

Michael Jackson

Dangerous sounds nothing like Off The Wall sounds nothing like Bad sounds nothing like HIStory.

It was only with Invincible where he'd started to sound a bit predictable.

[Edited 3/28/15 5:45am]

Sorry...

But Off The Wall, Thriller, and Bad all sound the same. And I'm not even talking about the
solo records he released before Off The Wall which certainly sound similar. Dangerous and
and HIStory and Invincible are more of the same as well. I understand that his stuff in the
80s was mostly pop with a few hard rock flourishes and schmaltzy R&B lite stuff; and that
that stuff is different than his reliance on New Jack swing and hard hitting R&B productions
in the 90s and early aughts, so you have a point, Matty.

However, all of his records feature the big kumbaya tune, the paranoid tune, the hard
rock tune with a featured hard rock guitarist, the in-your-face productions of a trendy
R&B producer (Temperton, Riley, Jerkins), and soft cock pop-rock.

You only need one Michael Jackson record, really, but I understand if there are some detractors
here.

NorthC said:

duccichucka said:

The Rolling Stones

Rage Against the Machine
Jay-Z
N*E*R*D
Michael Jackson
Beyonce
Ahmad Jamal
Stevie Ray Vaughan
Oasis

The Rolling Stones have done blues, country, psychedelic pop, rock, reggae, even a bit of funk on Black and Blue. There's a big difference in their sound before and after the departure (and death) of Brian Jones

Every single Stones album sounds just like the previous one. It's not like they ditched their
songwriting structures and hired Nigel Godrich or Kanye West to produce albums. They do
Americana music, for the most part, and do it well.

If you want a good Stones record, you really only need to choose between Sticky Fingers or
Exile On Main St.

MotownSubdivision said:

Most of today's pop stars.

Most of Motown, too.

duccichucka said:

MattyJam said:

Dangerous sounds nothing like Off The Wall sounds nothing like Bad sounds nothing like HIStory.

It was only with Invincible where he'd started to sound a bit predictable.

[Edited 3/28/15 5:45am]

Sorry...

But Off The Wall, Thriller, and Bad all sound the same. And I'm not even talking about the
solo records he released before Off The Wall which certainly sound similar. Dangerous and
and HIStory and Invincible are more of the same as well. I understand that his stuff in the
80s was mostly pop with a few hard rock flourishes and schmaltzy R&B lite stuff; and that
that stuff is different than his reliance on New Jack swing and hard hitting R&B productions
in the 90s and early aughts, so you have a point, Matty.

However, all of his records feature the big kumbaya tune, the paranoid tune, the hard
rock tune with a featured hard rock guitarist, the in-your-face productions of a trendy
R&B producer (Temperton, Riley, Jerkins), and soft cock pop-rock.

You only need one Michael Jackson record, really, but I understand if there are some detractors
here.

Uhm, what?

His records from Off The Wall to Dangerous have completely different productions styles. They have completely different type of beats and synths used on them. Even his vocal style changed considerably. There's some overlap between Off The Wall and Thriller with the R&B cuts, but you'd have to be really in love with your own obscurantist views on what counts as "sounding the same" to say that Thriller, Bad and Dangerous all sound the same. Having "similar formulas" on what type of songs you're going to put on your albums doesn't mean they would "sound the same".

duccichucka said:

novabrkr said:

duccichucka said:

Sorry...

But Off The Wall, Thriller, and Bad all sound the same. And I'm not even talking about the
solo records he released before Off The Wall which certainly sound similar. Dangerous and
and HIStory and Invincible are more of the same as well. I understand that his stuff in the
80s was mostly pop with a few hard rock flourishes and schmaltzy R&B lite stuff; and that
that stuff is different than his reliance on New Jack swing and hard hitting R&B productions
in the 90s and early aughts, so you have a point, Matty.

However, all of his records feature the big kumbaya tune, the paranoid tune, the hard
rock tune with a featured hard rock guitarist, the in-your-face productions of a trendy
R&B producer (Temperton, Riley, Jerkins), and soft cock pop-rock.

You only need one Michael Jackson record, really, but I understand if there are some detractors
here.

Uhm, what?

His records from Off The Wall to Dangerous have completely different productions styles. They have completely different type of beats and synths used on them. Even his vocal style changed considerably. There's some overlap between Off The Wall and Thriller with the R&B cuts, but you'd have to be really in love with your own obscurantist views on what counts as "sounding the same" to say that Thriller, Bad and Dangerous all sound the same. Having "similar formulas" on what type of songs you're going to put on your albums doesn't mean they would "sound the same".

Off The Wall to Dangerous doesn't really feature wholly different production styles: you've got his
vocals always up front; you've got the tight studio musicianship; the studiocraft is polished to a
sheen; R&B styles dominate. Sure; there is a difference between disco and New Jack swing. But
how Jackson incorporated them was always the same. For example, the production and song-
writing featured in "Working Day and Night" ain't too dissimilar from "Jam." And I disagree: his
vocals in Off The Wall are the beginning of the extreme hiccups, purposeful mispronunciations, and
rhythmic/percussive mannerisms he popularized later. So, from Off The Wall to Dangerous, there
is not a considerable change. There is some, but considerable? There is considerable change in
his vocal styles between Forever, Michael to Thriller most certainly.

I don't expect many to agree with me in this forum, but MJ's records aren't distinct the way Janet
Jackson's records were. And my views aren't obscurantism; they are founded in my training as a
musician who was an amateur record producer for awhile.

NorthC said:

duccichucka said:

Every single Stones album sounds just like the previous one. It's not like they ditched their
songwriting structures and hired Nigel Godrich or Kanye West to produce albums. They do
Americana music, for the most par t, and do it well.

If you want a good Stones record, you really only need to choose between Sticky Fingers or
Exile On Main St.

Those are the best, I agree with you there, but it's really not like when you've heared those two, you know the Stones. No way. [Edited 3/28/15 12:08pm]

I gotta disagree with you on that one, North!

Sorry! I fucking love the Stones: Exile On Main St. is my shit. But in my opinion, once you've
heard one Stones record, you've pretty much heard 'em all.

Lenny Kravitz

Mariah Carey

duccichucka said:

novabrkr said:

Uhm, what?

His records from Off The Wall to Dangerous have completely different productions styles. They have completely different type of beats and synths used on them. Even his vocal style changed considerably. There's some overlap between Off The Wall and Thriller with the R&B cuts, but you'd have to be really in love with your own obscurantist views on what counts as "sounding the same" to say that Thriller, Bad and Dangerous all sound the same. Having "similar formulas" on what type of songs you're going to put on your albums doesn't mean they would "sound the same".

Off The Wall to Dangerous doesn't really feature wholly different production styles: you've got his
vocals always up front; you've got the tight studio musicianship; the studiocraft is polished to a
sheen; R&B styles dominate. Sure; there is a difference between disco and New Jack swing. But
how Jackson incorporated them was always the same. For example, the production and song-
writing featured in "Working Day and Night" ain't too dissimilar from "Jam." And I disagree: his
vocals in Off The Wall are the beginning of the extreme hiccups, purposeful mispronunciations, and
rhythmic/percussive mannerisms he popularized later. So, from Off The Wall to Dangerous, there
is not a considerable change. There is some, but considerable? There is considerable change in
his vocal styles between Forever, Michael to Thriller most certainly.

I don't expect many to agree with me in this forum, but MJ's records aren't distinct the way Janet
Jackson's records were. And my views aren't obscurantism; they are founded in my training as a
musician who was an amateur record producer for awhile.

If you can't hear a clear stylistic difference between a song like "Jam" and "Working Day And Night" there's really no point trying to discuss music with you at all.

Just because you are able to spot some similarities in an overall approach doesn't mean that things would "sound the same" when they obviously don't.

novabrkr said:

duccichucka said:

Off The Wall to Dangerous doesn't really feature wholly different production styles: you've got his
vocals always up front; you've got the tight studio musicianship; the studiocraft is polished to a
sheen; R&B styles dominate. Sure; there is a difference between disco and New Jack swing. But
how Jackson incorporated them was always the same. For example, the production and song-
writing featured in "Working Day and Night" ain't too dissimilar from "Jam." And I disagree: his
vocals in Off The Wall are the beginning of the extreme hiccups, purposeful mispronunciations, and
rhythmic/percussive mannerisms he popularized later. So, from Off The Wall to Dangerous, there
is not a considerable change. There is some, but considerable? There is considerable change in
his vocal styles between Forever, Michael to Thriller most certainly.

I don't expect many to agree with me in this forum, but MJ's records aren't distinct the way Janet
Jackson's records were. And my views aren't obscurantism; they are founded in my training as a
musician who was an amateur record producer for awhile.

If you can't hear a clear stylistic difference between a song like "Jam" and "Working Day And Night" there's really no point trying to discuss music with you at all.

Just because you are able to spot some similarities in an overall approach doesn't mean that things would "sound the same" when they obviously don't.

You are not paying attention to the nuance of my argument; there's no point in discussing music
with you if you're not going to be more attentive.

Yes, there is a stylistic difference between "Jam" and "Working Day and Night." No, there is not
much of a difference between their respective production values, studiocraft, and musicianship.
In this regard, and because of how I approach listening to an album critically (and being a
musician and former record producer), I hear similarities from Off The Wall all the way through to
Invincible that makes me think that one could consider that once you heard one Michael Jackson
album from 1979 - 2001, arguably, you've pretty much heard 'em all. Sure, Dangerous is New Jack
swing and Off The Wall is disco-lite on it's last gasp, but I've given you the context in which I hear
music, and in my opinion, Janet Jackson's oeuvre is much more colorful than her big brother's.

In other words, there is more to "sounding the same" than the context being that of genre.

NorthC said:

Okay, ducci, I was editing my post while you were responding, so it's a little different now. But if you fucking love The Stones, why limit yourself to one album? Anyway, this discussion is getting interesting. [Edited 3/28/15 12:27pm]

North, I mean, think about it:

Keith Richards' riffs all kinda sound the same. He's got that funky rhythm open G tuning thing
going on constantly. And they stick with that Americana template, only occassionally stretching
out beyond it.

I limit myself to one Stones record because there is a lot of music to be listened to. I want the
best of the best. This means choosing from their best work. If I listen to Exile, am I really
missing out on their stuff in the 80s and 90s or even in the 60s?

Who the fuck cares about the Stones in the 60s? Those albums are awful!

NorthC said:

Are you just a Trolling Stone or what? If Aftermath and Beggars and Let it Bleed are awful, I guess I just like awful music! I do agree their 80s/90s work is forgettable though, but that still leaves some fantastic 60s/70s records.

Nice one!

But no, there's a lot going on in the 60s where listening to those albums isn't essential for me.

I will acknowledge that I am being highly critical, though.

duccichucka said:

duccichucka said:

in my opinion, Janet Jackson's oeuvre is much more colorful than her big brother's.

Absurd comment.

Janet's music is hugely derivitive compared to Michael's. She wouldn't dare record a song like Morphine, They Don't Care About Us or Little Susie and to be honest, she doesn't even have the talent to attempt such a song.

Michael was one of those rare artists - like Prince, or The Beatles - who could adapt to multiple different styles of music and still pull it off with as much passion and conviction as acts who are considered masters of those genres.

[Edited 3/29/15 1:09am]

MattyJam said:

MattyJam said:

duccichucka said:

in my opinion, Janet Jackson's oeuvre is much more colorful than her big brother's.

Absurd comment.

Janet's music is hugely derivitive compared to Michael's. She wouldn't dare record a song like Morphine, They Don't Care About Us or Little Susie and to be honest, she doesn't even have the talent to attempt such a song.

Michael was one of those rare artists - like Prince, or The Beatles - who could adapt to multiple different styles of music and still pull it off with as much passion and conviction as acts who are considered masters of those genres.

[Edited 3/29/15 1:09am]

This is one of the most ridiculously inane comments I've read in a long time, and I am quite sure
you won't be able to support any of it.

1) Show how Janet Jackson's music is more derivative than Michael Jackson's music. You are
hardly a musicologist, so I'm really eager to see how you reached this conclusion. And let me
remind you that neither of them could survive without supremely talented producers, whether
it be Quincy Jones or Teddy Riley for MJ, or Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis for JJ. Ultimately, both of
their music has been derived in some form from the creativity of someone other than themselves;
MJ did not possess Prince's instrumentalist skills or abilities to be a self-contained recording artist,
so let's get that straight right here. His music was not wholly autogenous so that you can bark
at me about JJ's music being "hugely derivative compared to Michael's" as if his music wasn't
ever derived from outside sources at all.

2) Show how you arrived at the conclusion that Janet Jackson wouldn't "dare record" songs
like the ones you mentioned: you must know her personally to make this statement. I could
counter that MJ never performed songs that explored his sexuality the way that Janet Jackson
did, but I wouldn't use this as a reason to slight his career the way you've managed to slight
hers. But this is a dumb argument on your part: essentially you're saying "Because singer A
doesn't have songs that cover the topics that singer B did means that singer B is better than
singer A." This is a flawed argument you have here, bro. But even more emphatically, you're
talking straight out of your asshole: Janet Jackson has performed socially conscious songs like
"They Don't Care About Us:" songs like "State of The World," "Rhythm Nation," and "The
Knowledge" speak to this claim. And I'm quite sure that "Black Cat" was written as a warning
against drug use (a quick Wiki search proves this) and that Janet Jackson has songs that
speak of neglection like "Little Susie." But even if she doesn't, how is this a strike against her?
Michael Jackson never did a song like Janet Jackson's "Warmth." Does this mean that we cast
aspersions against him because he wasn't interested in singing about sucking dick?

The reason why I think her body of work is more varied than Michael Jacksons is due to the
number of genres she touched upon in her career. In my opinion, she was more musically
explorative than her brother and was so on a more consistent basis. Nowhere in this claim
I'm making am I suggesting that she's a better recording artist. I'm only suggesting that I
struggle more to say "Once you've heard one album, you've heard them all" with Janet Jackson
than I do with Michael Jackson. In other words, her career, because of her more daringness,
is more colorful than MJ's. This is not a slight against him, so don't read it as such.

One final note about your ridiculous post: pulling something off with passion and conviction does
not mean that you pulled it off well.