TS: Michael Jackson vs Janet Jackson

Shit. Dire, implausibly overrated shit.

No comment on how she copped all his dance moves, video routines, lyrical "themes," and stage mannerisms etc since all that kinda sucked to start with.

oh wait, if there had been no michael jackson would there even be a janet ? muahaha

Michael: If one can get over the abjectly ridiculous global deification the man still enjoys, his music hasn't aged especially well (tell me "Billie Jean" doesn't sound completely dated....go on, tell me!). I honestly don't see what is so exceptional about his music. I don't. Sorry. You're free to disagree.

Janet: Maybe she does have nice bod, but her breathy voice ain't nothing to write home about (and no amount of flashy choreography or eye-catching, Herb Ritts-directed videos can change that).

Her voice is still breathy, rangeless crap, tho'.

How about this.....an olive branch. I'll retract the "shit" from my earlier statement. It's all perfectly respectable pop music.....but it's nothing MORE than that. I STILL say it's deplorably overrtated. In terms of Michael, I just cringe at how his vast hallelujah choir feverishly extoll the merits of his later work and hold it up on the same pedastal as his more justifiably celebrated earlier work, as if to suggest his music is infallible and that there has been no dip in quality whatsoever (when in truth he's running on fumes at best!)

Invincible [Epic, 2001]
Jackson's obsession with fame, his grotesque life magnified by his grotesque wealth, are such an offense to rock aesthetes that the fact that he's a great musician is now often forgotten. I use the present tense because (a) his skills seem undiminished and (b) as only Frank Kogan has listened dispassionately enough to remark, he's doing new stuff with them--his funk is steelier and his ballads are airier, both to disquieting effect. At 78 minutes this is too long, and especially given his history, "The Lost Children" is offensive. But the first three tracks are the Rodney Jerkins of the year, "2000 Watts" is the Teddy Riley of the past five years, and even the prunables offer small surprises. Don't believe the hype matters. A-

I think he means Quincy Jones.

But late-period Janet has been far more disappointing than late-period Michael, in my opinion. "Stranger in Moscow" and the Wyclef dub of "Blood on the Dance Floor" pretty much wipe the floor with almost everything on All for You ('cept the title track and "You Ain't Right").

Still, Invincible is dire.

It's all perfectly respectable pop music.....but it's nothing MORE than that.

Why does it have to be more than that? What makes pop music of lesser value than any other type of music? (So you know where I'm coming from: I have yet to hear a KJ song that I wouldn't describe as "perfectly respectable pop music", so I suspect we're using the term in different ways.)

Secondly, the reason I said "It's all perfectly respectable pop music.....but it's nothing MORE than that" is because the word genius is often used in tandem with the name Michael Jackson, and to say I find that a ridiculous overstatement is in itself an understatement.

Why? I'm not attacking you.

Secondly, the reason I said "It's all perfectly respectable pop music.....but it's nothing MORE than that" is because the word genius is often used in tandem with the name Michael Jackson, and to say I find that a ridiculous overstatement is in itself an understatement.

So you're honestly saying that you look at the level of mania his music inspired in people across the globe for something like 25 years and you think, "Eh, anyone could have done that"?

I didn't say that. I just don't think Michael Jackson should be considered one.

killing joke are the only geniuses evah.

I don't think Jackson's a genius, as it was largely Quincy Jones' knob-twiddling and arranging savvy that won Jackson his biggest hits. Moreover, fancy choreography augmented by frequent squeally crotch-grabs punctuated by fevered exclamations of "Sha-moan" is hardly the calling card of the conventional genius. But hey - this is only my opinion.

I'd sooner call George Clinton or Frank Zappa or Phil Spector or Lou Reed or even fuckin' Prince a genius before Michael Jackson.

I don't even know how to respond to this.

BUT TITO!!!!

(seriously now)

...tell me "Billie Jean" doesn't sound completely dated....go on, tell me!

Okay: "Billie Jean" does not sound completely dated. It's still as funky/creepy as it ever was. Easily one of his most successful attempts at "dark" tunes.

I listen to Michael, but the only Jackson I'd not feel physically discomforted by the presence of is Janet. So I take the side of...uh...TITO!

Actually, I'd always assumed this to be somewhat the case too, but the recent reissues of Thriller and Off the Wall have MJ doing these amazing home demos.

Oh and to address the original question, a handful of Jackson 5 singles, Off the Wall, and Thriller are like the greatest pop music of all time, whereas Janet's stuff is consistently surprising in it's quality, but is somehow held back by it's gloss.

You'd sooner award the title 'genius' to a one-trick-pony?

I'm saying that it's important if you're going to bandy the title "genius" around. Michael Jackson is arguably the best at what he does, but just because he excells at his brand of pop music, does that really make him a genius?

I love the Ramones, but I wouldn't seriously use the word "genius" in regards to them either.

I quite like to bore ally to death by reiterating someone else's joke a few million times.

''It's just Coolio's tireless attempt to discredit any opinion I might have by seeking to reducing me to a frothing characature.''

you have have only yrself to blame.

Alex, you shouldn't be complaining about people pointlessly bringing up Killing Joke. At least it's your FAVORITE band.

Pretty much everyone agrees Einstein was a genius.

But he didn't really understand quantum physics.

And he was crap at math.

Yet his two works on relativity pretty much single (double?) handedly elevated him to the rank of genius.

(I'm crap at both physics and math, so I'm only taking the word of other physicists/mathematicians on this, etc).

And the other unchallenged assumption on this thread is that "dated = bad"? Huh? Why?

Plus, the person who brings up Killing Joke the most on ILM (I think he manages to out-references both Dan and Ned wrt to the Cure!) is the very same Alex in New York who seems so outraged that others are now bringing up Killing Joke. I say this with no axe to grind whatsoever, since I probably enjoy as many KJ songs as I do MJ songs (ie/ not all that many, but the ones I do, I really like a lot... dated or not ;-) ) Plus, loving Killing Joke (or the Cure) enough to mention them on every thread is not a crime, but it seems pretty hypocritical to then berate someone (Julio, I think) for doing the very same thing, only in a negative way.

#2 "His" cameo in Scary Movie 3 (as seen via the trailer) is hilarious.

And that's all I gotta say about that.

Search: JJ's version of "What'll I do"
Destroy: "Together Again"

Arguably most classic thing she, or hell either, has done: that one interlude on Velvet Rope where the unisexed voice tells Janet over the phone that her "coochie's gonna fall out"

yes, much of it was expressed in cliches, and the whole s&m motif reeked on unoriginality after you-know-who had already buried that topic a half-decade prior (and no one believed it was more than a meaningless pose for JJ)---> but i think songs like "Empty" did at least somewhat succeed in conveying her dissatisfaction with everything around her. this was before her divorce happened, after all..it's more interesting in retrospect

it's probably her best album after/since Control's statement of familial independence - as it's the only one since that's actually FOLLOWED THROUGH on a coherent theme (rhythm nation was more about, uh, dancing, not racial harmony) - and u crits seem to agree since it almost cracked the Pazz & Jop top 25, her highest showing since Control

Michael has only been obsessed w/ making the same album again and again, not even *trying* to explore any different message than him being...Bad, Dangerous, Invincible, etc....I think JJ is starting to win thisin the long rounnd regardless of mindless mass cults. B

yes, much of it was expressed in cliches, and the whole s&m motif reeked on unoriginality after you-know-who had already buried that topic a half-decade prior (and no one believed it was more than a meaningless pose for JJ)---> but i think songs like "Empty" did at least somewhat succeed in conveying her dissatisfaction with everything around her. this was before her divorce happened, after all..it's more interesting in retrospect

it's probably her best album after/since Control's statement of familial independence - as it's the only one since that's actually FOLLOWED THROUGH on a coherent theme (rhythm nation was more about, uh, dancing, not racial harmony) - and u crits seem to agree since it almost cracked the Pazz & Jop top 25, her highest showing since Control

Michael has only been obsessed w/ making the same album again and again, not even *trying* to explore any different message than him being...Bad, Dangerous, Invincible, etc....I think JJ is starting to win thisin the long rounnd regardless of mindless mass cults. Besides, she has a stable nose.

:::sigh:::

I bring Killing Joke up when I feel that they actually relate to a discussion (and I will continue to do so when applicable), whereas Julio brings them up solely in the hopes getting my goat and discrediting me. In terms of weighing the merits of various members of the Jackson family, Killing Joke -- love'em or loathe'em -- play no part in the equation.

Look, if you wanna consider Michael Jackson a genius, then you just go right ahead and do....but pardon me if I think you're criminally cheapening the term in the process.

It's not that dated necessarily equals bad (hell, nine-tenths of the music I love sounds dated....and YES, that includes much of the catalog of K_____g J__e), it's that Michael Jackson's music is often heralded as veritably TIMELESS, and I just don't hear that.

In much the identical manner I've used Good Charlotte and Limp Bizkit to discredit Anthony, which I promise to try to stop doing in the future.

Most "geniuses" only ever have one or two good ideas - there aren't that many Isaac Newton's in the world. For instance, how versatile was Beethoven? Versatility is one of the least important aspects of genius - in fact it's not even an aspect of genius, when it comes down to it.

Between the two I choose MJ but JJ certainly had her moments, my favorite being "Anytime, Anywhere", which is sort of an R&B Blue Nile record because it is lush, cinematic, and very minimal and simple at the same time. That record has all the sublime tension of the moment before another person touches your skin.

He wasn't especially versatile in the sense that he produced dozens of operas or lots of ballet music and choral music however. Would I diss Beethoven? Get outta here! He the man!

My favorite is Op. 131, and the Quartetto Italiano renditions have a lot of fans. They are on Phillips two-fers.