JanFan said:

MattyJam said:

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]

Janet has covered way more topics in music than Michael did that is a fact. Over the course of 4 albums she has sung about: independence, abstinence, love,sex,racism, bigotry, prejudice, illiteracy, killing of children,lonliness, drug addiction, African American women empowerment, depression, disillusionment, domestic violence, homophobia, lesbianism, cyber love,bondage,aids and death. You say Janet wouldn't dare do a song like those, I guarantee Michael wouldn't approach half of Janet's songs the way she did. He would never do a song like "What About," "Tonight's the Night," or any of her sex songs. You talk about derivative? All of Michael's albums from Bad to Invincible covered the same topics: sappy songs about world improvement, tabloids, paranoia about women who did him wrong and a few upbeat love songs. The same formula. Janet's albums were much more distinct. You can't compare what she sung about in Control to Rhythm Nation or what she sung about in janet.to The Velvet Rope. I will admit that her last few albums were derivative, but her entire discography isn't.

Well 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]

It is far from absurd. Jam and Lewis are far more adventurous than MJ. Adventurous doesn't mean "better" of more "successful" either.

I see that you guys have turned this into yet another Janet vs.Michael thread

never read so much dumping on classic bands ....stones,beatles, MJ ...

ScarletScandal said:

ScarletScandal said:

The Beatles. I don't see the hype. It sounds like they only put one album ever out.

Are you just trying to be a contrarian? There is a distinct difference between Help! and
Sgt. Peppers and Abbey Road.

Only someone with a cursory understanding of the Beatles would claim "it sounds like they
only put one album ever out."

Then again, if there is one band that this board has no appreciation for, and is supremely
ignorant of, despite Prince's uber-reliance on them musically and artistically, it's the Beatles.

duccichucka said:

MattyJam said:

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.

Well you seem completely unaware of the fact that MJ, unlike his sister, single handedly wrote AND produced many of his own songs which completely negates your entire first point. You seem to be under the false impression that he always worked with outside producers, when infact, many of his best songs were solely produced by Michael alone (Who Is It, TDCAU, Stranger In Moscow, Morphine, Speechless, Will You Be There).

And you think because you're an amateur musician that somehow you have authority to discuss such issues. Well, I've played instruments my entire life and am a multi-instrumentalist to a pretty high standard, but unlike you, I am not arrogant enough to think that this somehow makes my opinion more important or of more credence than anybody elses. Music is subjective, if you don't know and understand that, then your arrogance knows no bounds.

As for the genres JJ has explored, how many of them made any waves outside of her fanbase? Whenever she did a rock track like Black Cat or What'll I Do, it always sounded like Janet-trying-to-do-rock. It didn't sound convincing. Rock fans certainly didn't buy it. On the flip side, rock fans love Michael Jackson. He's had entire rock and metal tribute albums made in his honour. Beat It is a rock classic up their with Welcome To The Jungle, Jump, Livin' On A Prayer and Master of Puppets. Do you really think Guns N Roses fans listen to Black Cat? I think not. Bands such as Fall Out Boy, Alien Ant Farm, Bumblefoot, Chris Cornell have all done rock covers of MJ songs. You cannot say the same thing about Janet's laughable attempts at soft-rock.

MJ had huge success with disco, rock, gospel, pop, soul, new jack swing and power ballads. If you venture into his albums you will find everything ranging from classical orchestral music to showtunes and industrial rock. Janet was primarily known for her pop/R&B songs, whose album tracks focused on her wet minge and nipple rings.

[Edited 3/29/15 14:28pm]

MattyJam said:

duccichucka said:

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.

Well you seem completely unaware of the fact that MJ, unlike his sister, single handedly wrote AND produced many of his own songs which completely negates your entire first point. You seem to be under the false impression that he always worked with outside producers, when infact, many of his best songs were solely produced by Michael alone (Who Is It, TDCAU, Stranger In Moscow, Morphine, Speechless, Will You Be There).

And you think because you're an amateur musician that somehow you have authority to discuss such issues. Well, I've played instruments my entire life and am a multi-instrumentalist to a pretty high standard, but unlike you, I am not arrogant enough to think that this somehow makes my opinion more important or of more credence than anybody elses. Music is subjective, if you don't know and understand that, then your arrogance knows no bounds.

When I said that Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson required music producers to help them
create albums, I was speaking specifically to the point you made about her music being more
derivative than his, while indicating that both of them derived their ideas and musical expressions
from working with other musicians, dissimilar to Prince, for the most part. So you're talking out of
your ass when you critique her music as being more derivative than his. I am aware of how
MJ "wrote" music, i.e., he sang instrumental and vocal melodies into a voice recorder. But don't
get it twisted; he was not a recording artist who was remotely autogenous, like Prince. Those
songs you listed as his "best" aren't his best in my opinion. His best work was produced by
Quincy Jones and Teddy Riley, not himself. MJ's particular talents did not include music produc-
tion as a forte.

I think because I have some training in music production and am a musician means that I can

intelligently qualify my opinions on matters pertaining to music. I'm not being arrogant when
I claim that having some ideas of how album production occurs means that I may approach the
listening experience distinct from someone without my experiences. Your arguments are half-
baked and lazy, and you can't hide behind the claim "music is objective" when you're in a dis-
cussion with me, as you couldn't back up one single claim you made to me after calling my post
"absurd." And why is it that when someone around here speaks intelligently and cogently
about certain topics, they get called arrogant? That lets you know that the quality of posts in
this forum absolutely suck. Anyways, I did not mean to come off as arrogant; I just fire on all
cylinders when my posts get called "absurd" as I put a lot of thought into composing them and
try to make sure that when I open my mouth, I kinda know what I'm talking about.

MattyJam said:

As for the genres JJ has explored, how many of them made any waves outside of her fanbase? Whenever she did a rock track like Black Cat or What'll I Do, it always sounded like Janet-trying-to-do-rock. It didn't sound convincing. Rock fans certainly didn't buy it. On the flip side, rock fans love Michael Jackson. He's had entire rock and metal tribute albums made in his honour. Beat It is a rock classic up their with Welcome To The Jungle, Jump, Livin' On A Prayer and Master of Puppets. Do you really think Guns N Roses fans listen to Black Cat? I think not. Bands such as Fall Out Boy, Alien Ant Farm, Bumblefoot, Chris Cornell have all done rock covers of MJ songs. You cannot say the same thing about Janet's laughable attempts at soft-rock.

MJ had huge success with disco, rock, gospel, pop, soul, new jack swing and power ballads. If you venture into his albums you will find everything ranging from classical orchestral music to showtunes and industrial rock. Janet was primarily known for her pop/R&B songs, whose album tracks focused on her wet minge and nipple rings.

[Edited 3/29/15 14:28pm]

duccichucka said:

MattyJam said:

duccichucka said:

Strong counter argument. Your years of studying music production have obviously served you well. By the way, the words "objective" and "subjective" do not mean the same thing. You may wanna look that up.

My ironically strong counter argument to your most recent post is to indicate how disastrous it
is intellectually. And you're a hypocrite: I asked you to show us how Janet Jackson was more
derivative than Michael Jackson and you've offered nothing in regards to showing us how you
reached that conclusion. I specifically asked you two questions:

1) Show how Janet Jackson's music is more derivative than Michael Jackson's music.

2) Show how you arrived at the conclusion that Janet Jackson wouldn't "dare record" songs
like the ones you mentioned.

So, where's your counter-argument, hunh? But do not fret over this: I know you cannot provide
one as you haven't the ability. I'm just being a dick (mostly because you are, though).

And sue me for writing "objective" when I should have written "subjective." The spirit of my
post and its argument is still on point and sound.

Justin Bieber and all of the other crap of today

KingSausage said:

ScarletScandal said:

The Beatles. I don't see the hype. It sounds like they only put one album ever out.

Yes. Clearly Abbey Road is identical to their early stuff. Right.

I know,right? The Beatles are a prime example of a band who truly evolved with each album

duccichucka said:

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

Seriously? Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed are two of my favourite albums by anyone ever, never mind just the Stones.

steakfinger said:

MattyJam said:

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]

It is far from absurd. Jam and Lewis are far more adventurous than MJ. Adventurous doesn't mean "better" of more "successful" either.

i dont exactly agree with this. the only time jam/lewis stepped outside the box was with janet. i think for whatever reason people cant allow themselves to admit janet played a muchbigger role in her music than whats assumed.

lowkey said:

Boston

duccichucka said:

MattyJam said:

duccichucka said: Strong counter argument. Your years of studying music production have obviously served you well. By the way, the words "objective" and "subjective" do not mean the same thing. You may wanna look that up.

My ironically strong counter argument to your most recent post is to indicate how disastrous it
is intellectually. And you're a hypocrite: I asked you to show us how Janet Jackson was more
derivative than Michael Jackson and you've offered nothing in regards to showing us how you
reached that conclusion. I specifically asked you two questions:

1) Show how Janet Jackson's music is more derivative than Michael Jackson's music.

2) Show how you arrived at the conclusion that Janet Jackson wouldn't "dare record" songs
like the ones you mentioned.

So, where's your counter-argument, hunh? But do not fret over this: I know you cannot provide
one as you haven't the ability. I'm just being a dick (mostly because you are, though).

And sue me for writing "objective" when I should have written "subjective." The spirit of my
post and its argument is still on point and sound.

1) Janet Jackson followed the blueprint of Michael's overall approach to music from the get-go. From her token rock tracks to combining smooth melody lines over heavy staccato beats and biting his elaborate and expensive shortfilms and group choreography.

2) I wasn't referring to themes, I was talking about styles of music. You hilariously claimed that Janet Jackson's music was more "colourful" and varied than her big brothers. I am saying, Janet catered to the pop/R&B market and did it well from 86-97. But Michael's music had global appeal and he is loved by fans of all genres. Whilst Janet may have been fairly exploratory in the subject matters she covered (mainly on RN and TVR), her music rarely strayed away from the signature Jam & Lewis sound. Whereas Michael's music was far more broad - both in its appeal and its content. Take a song like Morphine for example, which was a gritty industrial rock track likened by some critics to Nine Inch Nails. Or Little Susie which was a classically inspired showtune complete with a two minute choral music introduction. Michael wasn't afraid of stepping outside the realm of what was considered "cool." Look at his cover of Smile, that's like proper orchestral Streisand type stuff going on there. That would've been far too "uncool" and alienating for Janet fans and the dance halls and gay clubs that played her music.

[Edited 3/30/15 2:01am]

MattyJam said:

duccichucka said:

My ironically strong counter argument to your most recent post is to indicate how disastrous it
is intellectually. And you're a hypocrite: I asked you to show us how Janet Jackson was more
derivative than Michael Jackson and you've offered nothing in regards to showing us how you
reached that conclusion. I specifically asked you two questions:

1) Show how Janet Jackson's music is more derivative than Michael Jackson's music.

2) Show how you arrived at the conclusion that Janet Jackson wouldn't "dare record" songs
like the ones you mentioned.

So, where's your counter-argument, hunh? But do not fret over this: I know you cannot provide
one as you haven't the ability. I'm just being a dick (mostly because you are, though).

And sue me for writing "objective" when I should have written "subjective." The spirit of my
post and its argument is still on point and sound.

1) Janet Jackson followed the blueprint of Michael's overall approach to music from the get-go. From her token rock tracks to combining smooth melody lines over heavy staccato beats and biting his elaborate and expensive shortfilms and group choreography.

2) I wasn't referring to themes, I was talking about styles of music. You hilariously claimed that Janet Jackson's music was more "colourful" and varied than her big brothers. I am saying, Janet catered to the pop/R&B market and did it well from 86-97. But Michael's music had global appeal and he is loved by fans of all genres. Whilst Janet may have been fairly exploratory in the subject matters she covered (mainly on RN and TVR), her music rarely strayed away from the signature Jam & Lewis sound. Whereas Michael's music was far more broad - both in its appeal and its content. Take a song like Morphine for example, which was a gritty industrial rock track likened by some critics to Nine Inch Nails. Or Little Susie which was a classically inspired showtune complete with a two minute choral music introduction. Michael wasn't afraid of stepping outside the realm of what was considered "cool." Look at his cover of Smile, that's like proper orchestral Streisand type stuff going on there. That would've been far too "uncool" and alienating for Janet fans and the dance halls and gay clubs that played her music.

[Edited 3/30/15 2:01am]

1) and what's yer point, dude? It was never my contention that Janet Jackson wasn't influenced
by her brother. I was claiming that her body of work featured more forays into pop music sub-
genres than MJ, who, arguably, rarely strayed from his music template and he certainly rarely
strayed far from his interests and concerns as a lyricist. You're created a strawman argument
here: ain't nobody talking about whether or not she followed MJ's blueprint. Only a fool would
make that argument and I ain't no fool. So, yeah, this response from you is pointless.

2) who gives a shit about MJ's global appeal? Again, you're creating strawman arguments: I
never said that JJ had a more global impact. And you're still talking outta your arsehole: there
is no way for you to qualify "and he is loved by fans of all genres." But most importantly, none
of this section you provide answers the question as to why you assume Janet Jackson didn't
have the talent to cover topics that her brother did, and didn't sing those kinds of songs you
mentioned at all. In fact, as it has been pointed out to you by me and others, you're fucking
wrong! She did sing songs that talked about social issues, drugs, etc.

I'm looking at your avatar and realize that there is no way that you're going to approach this
conversation objectively. But in my opinion, qualified by having some familiarity with album
production and songwriting, Janet Jackson's body of work is much more varied musically and
lyrically than Michael Jackson's. In no way, shape, or form does this make her a better recording
artist. However, with all of this being said, I was speaking with a colleague who thought I was
fucking insane to claim that once you heard one MJ album, you've heard them all so we listened
to Dangerous together....

I may be wrong about that claim, but I am still maintaining JJ was more explorative musically and
lyrically.

KingSausage said:

ScarletScandal said:

The Beatles. I don't see the hype. It sounds like they only put one album ever out.

Yes. Clearly Abbey Road is identical to their early stuff. Right.

Shit, I don't know. It all sounds the same.

duccichucka said:

ScarletScandal said:

The Beatles. I don't see the hype. It sounds like they only put one album ever out.

Are you just trying to be a contrarian? There is a distinct difference between Help! and
Sgt. Peppers and Abbey Road.

Only someone with a cursory understanding of the Beatles would claim "it sounds like they
only put one album ever out."

Then again, if there is one band that this board has no appreciation for, and is supremely
ignorant of, despite Prince's uber-reliance on them musically and artistically, it's the Beatles.

Nope, not at all. I don't mind being ignorant of the Beatles boring ass music. Yawn.

ScarletScandal said:

duccichucka said:

Are you just trying to be a contrarian? There is a distinct difference between Help! and
Sgt. Peppers and Abbey Road.

Only someone with a cursory understanding of the Beatles would claim "it sounds like they
only put one album ever out."

Then again, if there is one band that this board has no appreciation for, and is supremely
ignorant of, despite Prince's uber-reliance on them musically and artistically, it's the Beatles.

Nope, not at all. I don't mind being ignorant of the Beatles boring ass music. Yawn.

Yes, "ignorant" is the operative word here, which means your opinion on the matter of the
Beatles having albums that all sound the same really can't be taken seriously, which kinda
means that you were just being a contrarian for the sake of bashing the Beatles, or practicing
ass-talk and doing a fine job at it!

To each their own, however!

ScarletScandal said:

Def Leppard.

Kem.

Cameo.

duccichucka said:

ScarletScandal said:

Nope, not at all. I don't mind being ignorant of the Beatles boring ass music. Yawn.

Yes, "ignorant" is the operative word here, which means your opinion on the matter of the
Beatles having albums that all sound the same really can't be taken seriously, which kinda
means that you were just being a contrarian for the sake of bashing the Beatles, or practicing
ass-talk and doing a fine job at it!

To each their own, however!

Lol

All I did was reply accordingly to the thread title. I pretty much figured The Beatles dick riding fans would pop up though. I think they suck. Stay pressed boo