[REMOVE ADS]




Results 1 to 33 of 33
  1. #1

    Janet Jackson IS Big. It's the radio that got small.


  2. #2
    I am curious. Did Janet Jackson ever record anything for Motown?

  3. #3
    We saw this tour earlier in the year. My seats could have been better, but it was still a hellifying set. Too bad she didn't do "The Skin Game" when we saw her! Thanks for posting.

  4. #4
    I just browsed through Janet's discography on Wikipedia and was surprised to see she never recorded for Motown, not one song. Any reason why?

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by sansradio View Post
    We saw this tour earlier in the year. My seats could have been better, but it was still a hellifying set. Too bad she didn't do "The Skin Game" when we saw her! Thanks for posting.
    Great, great reviews all around for this performance. Good for Janet and her fans! And glad you got to see the tour.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by marv2 View Post
    I just browsed through Janet's discography on Wikipedia and was surprised to see she never recorded for Motown, not one song. Any reason why?
    Perhaps the reason that Janet Jackson never recorded for Motown are that by the time she made her first album (in 1982), Michael & The Jacksons had left the company far behind (with brother Jermaine Jackson soon to follow). Also, it's not known if Motown pursued signing Janet to the label at that time.

  7. #7
    Janet Jackson is one of the biggest cultural icons of our time. I don't know why people wanna deny she's BIG TIME.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Motown Eddie View Post
    Perhaps the reason that Janet Jackson never recorded for Motown are that by the time she made her first album (in 1982), Michael & The Jacksons had left the company far behind (with brother Jermaine Jackson soon to follow). Also, it's not known if Motown pursued signing Janet to the label at that time.

    Thanks Motown Eddie. I was wondering if she had recorded an odd single or such while her family was still on the label.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by marv2 View Post
    I just browsed through Janet's discography on Wikipedia and was surprised to see she never recorded for Motown, not one song. Any reason why?
    LOL everyone knows she's not a Motown artist. But the Motown connection is there with her family. That's the only excuse why it's here.

  10. #10
    Maybe it was because Motown was just not very conducive to artist creativity. Strange thing, though, by the late A&M Records wasn't either. Joe Jackson probably also looked at how Motown treated artists like Teena Marie, and Janet's own brothers in earlier years and decided that Motown was not the place to go.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by soulster View Post
    Maybe it was because Motown was just not very conducive to artist creativity. Strange thing, though, by the late A&M Records wasn't either. Joe Jackson probably also looked at how Motown treated artists like Teena Marie, and Janet's own brothers in earlier years and decided that Motown was not the place to go.
    Motown and A&M were in the same building IIRC... that COULD be another reason he picked A&M over Motown. He obviously didn't want any more of his kids being in Motown after the mess his eldest sons had to deal with.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by midnightman View Post
    Janet Jackson is one of the biggest cultural icons of our time. I don't know why people wanna deny she's BIG TIME.
    What kind of idiot is denying that? I swear people these days wear negativity like a badge of honor. What would possess someone to say such a thing? Obviously Janet isn't the hitmaker she was in years past, but a legend of her stature never drops below Big Time status. She'll be big time even after she's dead.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Motown Eddie View Post
    Perhaps the reason that Janet Jackson never recorded for Motown are that by the time she made her first album (in 1982), Michael & The Jacksons had left the company far behind (with brother Jermaine Jackson soon to follow). Also, it's not known if Motown pursued signing Janet to the label at that time.
    There's no way anyone in Joe's family was signing to Motown after the brothers left. Jermaine stayed obviously, and for obvious reasons, but Joe would've shut it down if Janet had even hinted about making Motown her recording home after that point. And even if Janet had become a Motown recording artist, I'm pretty sure we can all guess that she probably would've never become Janet "Miss Jackson If You're Nasty" Jackson and thus would've missed out on one of the greatest entertainers of all time.

  14. #14
    I could not name a single Janet Jackson song.

  15. #15
    And Perhaps the most successful artist who really doesn’t have much of a voice?

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    What kind of idiot is denying that? I swear people these days wear negativity like a badge of honor. What would possess someone to say such a thing? Obviously Janet isn't the hitmaker she was in years past, but a legend of her stature never drops below Big Time status. She'll be big time even after she's dead.
    Not that many but they're out there. Especially if they're stans of her former rivals...

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by luke View Post
    And Perhaps the most successful artist who really doesn’t have much of a voice?
    I think you mistook Janet for Jennifer Lopez. Janet's got a voice. Don't hate. LMAO

  18. #18
    No hating! Lol. She and Jennifer and Paula!

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by luke View Post
    No hating! Lol. She and Jennifer and Paula!
    Don't often agree with you Luke, but i am with you 100% of the way here.

  20. #20
    Never ever bought a Janet Jackson record, never felt the need. She was overhyped & in the main, vocally talentless, it was the family name that got her noticed & got her big recording contracts. If I never get hear any of her tracks again, I don't think I'd notice (& I certainly wouldn't care).
    Also have the same attitude to Jenny Froblock & Paula, I'm more than happy sticking with real singers.

  21. #21
    I've been a Janet fan for as long as I can remember. Some of her songs are on the soundtrack of my life. But my opinion of her vocally was that she probably couldn't sing. All her live stuff appeared to be prerecorded, which I figured was necessary for someone with such high energy performances, but I also felt like it was because in reality she didn't have much of a voice. I changed my mind when I saw this clip from her on Rosie Odonnell's show back in the late 90s singing "I Get So Lonely" live. Her voice alone would never be a favorite of mine. She's not one of those "sing the phone book" singers, but she did change my mind about whether she had any vocal talent, and to my ears she does.



    But good singer or not, like or dislike, she's a legend and that aint changing.

  22. #22
    With Janet's hit-making years, the focus isn't her vocal, it's about the music and the overall production of it. If you're looking for a world-class singer, she ain't it. Frankly, I don't know why people ignore everything in a recording or a stage performance except for the singing. I listen to/look at the entire package.

    I have all of Janet Jackson's albums up to the "janet." album from the mid-90s. The one I listen to all the way through is "Control" from 1986. The production was courtesy of Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis, as was the Rhythm Nation 1814" album, and you know the big appeal was the music itself.

    The reason Janet, and many others use pre-recorded musical backing is because it's hard to sing while doing the high-energy dancing on stage. That should be obvious.

    As for Janet's singing ability? She doesn't project very well. She has a naturally light, whispy voice. She can sing, though. Maybe you guys are expecting her to belt one out like Aretha Franklin or something. She's just not that kind of singer.

    When I listen to music, I listen to the whole package, not just focus on one element. But, that's me. The music, instrumentation, the mix, the mastering, the performance, everything. And, to me, the vocal is just another instrument. I do not value it above all else. You may be different.

    Caio!

  23. #23
    Soulster I think it depends on the individual. Music moves everyone in different ways. I'm attracted to certain voices and certain instruments. Sure, there are songs that I love for the lyrics or for the danceability, but that's not usually what first attracts me. Janet's voice on record is pleasant enough, but my attraction to her songs really is the overall production. Jam and Lewis ultimately are the reason why I love the Control album so much. But if we're having a conversation about vocals, Janet doesn't come to my mind as a voice that I love. But her songs, particularly in the 80s and the 90s, are fantastic.

    Here's my favorite Janet song.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by soulster View Post
    With Janet's hit-making years, the focus isn't her vocal, it's about the music and the overall production of it. If you're looking for a world-class singer, she ain't it. Frankly, I don't know why people ignore everything in a recording or a stage performance except for the singing. I listen to/look at the entire package...
    When I listen to music, I listen to the whole package, not just focus on one element. But, that's me. The music, instrumentation, the mix, the mastering, the performance, everything. And, to me, the vocal is just another instrument. I do not value it above all else. You may be different.
    Exactly. For me, the music is the thing. A great record is a great record. And I know that a great recording is a matter of taste. I think making a great recording is an art form.
    The reason Janet, and many others use pre-recorded musical backing is because it's hard to sing while doing the high-energy dancing on stage. That should be obvious.
    Well, yeah! Who could really do it? Maybe MJ, James Brown. Did Fred Astaire really sing as he danced in all his classic films? (I don't know)

  25. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    Soulster I think it depends on the individual. Music moves everyone in different ways. I'm attracted to certain voices and certain instruments. Sure, there are songs that I love for the lyrics or for the danceability, but that's not usually what first attracts me. Janet's voice on record is pleasant enough, but my attraction to her songs really is the overall production. Jam and Lewis ultimately are the reason why I love the Control album so much. But if we're having a conversation about vocals, Janet doesn't come to my mind as a voice that I love. But her songs, particularly in the 80s and the 90s, are fantastic.

    Here's my favorite Janet song.
    I have liked and loved many kinds of voices. The terms "world-class" and "a singer's' singer" are honorable but ultimately subjective. There's a thread going on in the SDF Forum about which singers sound most like Aretha. I think Patti Labelle, at this point, may be able to "out-sang" the Queen, but Aretha's music still makes her the Queen (imho).
    When I Think of You is also my favorite by Janet. It always makes me smile.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    Jam and Lewis ultimately are the reason why I love the Control album so much.

    Here's my favorite Janet song.
    For awhile in the 80's & 90's Jam & Lewis were the Holland-Dozier-Holland of their time.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    Janet's voice on record is pleasant enough, but my attraction to her songs really is the overall production. Jam and Lewis ultimately are the reason why I love the Control album so much. But if we're having a conversation about vocals, Janet doesn't come to my mind as a voice that I love. But her songs, particularly in the 80s and the 90s, are fantastic.
    This is my position exactly!

    As a drummer, I always notice the drums first, and the rhythm second. The vocals and lyrics are like an afterthought to me.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by lucky2012 View Post
    I have liked and loved many kinds of voices. The terms "world-class" and "a singer's' singer" are honorable but ultimately subjective. There's a thread going on in the SDF Forum about which singers sound most like Aretha. I think Patti Labelle, at this point, may be able to "out-sang" the Queen, but Aretha's music still makes her the Queen (imho).
    When I Think of You is also my favorite by Janet. It always makes me smile.

    I definitely agree. I'd add terms like "singing someone under the table" also. I think people just have an incessant need to compare people. When it comes to voices, for me, there are definitely people who can sing and people who can't. But some voices knock me out while others don't do much for me, it has nothing to do with "world class" or any of that nonsense, it's just a feeling. Smokey Robinson has a beautiful voice, but I've never been into any of his songs based on his voice. I'm just not that into it as much as I am his brilliant story telling. On the flip, Marvin Gaye could sing the alphabet while sitting on the toilet, pausing to push and grunt, and I'd listen to it. Lol Same with Diana Ross. I can listen to her sing all day long, yet Kim Weston, who definitely has some jams that I love, and a lot of people probably consider her a "superior" singer- whatever that is- just isn't a voice I crave to hear. It is what it is.

  29. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by lucky2012 View Post
    For awhile in the 80's & 90's Jam & Lewis were the Holland-Dozier-Holland of their time.
    Yes, and they were writing and producing for a variety of people. Who would have ever thought of merging them with Human League?

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by soulster View Post
    This is my position exactly!

    As a drummer, I always notice the drums first, and the rhythm second. The vocals and lyrics are like an afterthought to me.
    That makes sense. As a singer, I notice the voice first, unless the music comes in with enough lead time to hook me. And I'm a sucker for good piano, drums and a horn section. But there have been times that a song starts off with the music giving me what I need only to have the singer come in and I'm suddenly turned off. And then the song gets turned off. Lol

  31. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by RanRan79 View Post
    I definitely agree. I'd add terms like "singing someone under the table" also. I think people just have an incessant need to compare people. When it comes to voices, for me, there are definitely people who can sing and people who can't. But some voices knock me out while others don't do much for me, it has nothing to do with "world class" or any of that nonsense, it's just a feeling. Smokey Robinson has a beautiful voice, but I've never been into any of his songs based on his voice. I'm just not that into it as much as I am his brilliant story telling. On the flip, Marvin Gaye could sing the alphabet while sitting on the toilet, pausing to push and grunt, and I'd listen to it. Lol Same with Diana Ross. I can listen to her sing all day long, yet Kim Weston, who definitely has some jams that I love, and a lot of people probably consider her a "superior" singer- whatever that is- just isn't a voice I crave to hear. It is what it is.
    Smokey, Marvin, Diana. At their best, my favorite singers.
    Re: Smokey I have to say it was his songs and his voice that caught my attention. It was 1965, the album Going To A Go Go, the four amazing singles on it. Before the album came out, with the group on the cover, I had heard The Tracks of My Tears on the radio and thought The Miracles was a girl group. Lol. (Hey, I was a kid.) After the album, I really appreciated his songwriting. I love his voice most when he's singing his songs.
    Re: Marvin
    Marvin is my favorite male R&B singer. I've loved his voice from
    Stubborn Kind of Fellow to How Sweet It Is to Grapevine to What's Going On to Let's Get It On and on too many songs to mention. Yeah, I bet he could sing the alphabet to me and I would listen. (BTW, I really didn't need the push and grunt imagery!)
    Re: Diana The soundtrack of my life. The voice I always inevitably return to. I'll say no more.
    Re "terms": I understand the term "a singer's singer" as pure admiration but "singing someone under the table" is nasty and says more about the person saying it than anything else.

  32. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by lucky2012 View Post
    Smokey, Marvin, Diana. At their best, my favorite singers.
    Re: Smokey I have to say it was his songs and his voice that caught my attention. It was 1965, the album Going To A Go Go, the four amazing singles on it. Before the album came out, with the group on the cover, I had heard The Tracks of My Tears on the radio and thought The Miracles was a girl group. Lol. (Hey, I was a kid.) After the album, I really appreciated his songwriting. I love his voice most when he's singing his songs.
    Re: Marvin
    Marvin is my favorite male R&B singer. I've loved his voice from
    Stubborn Kind of Fellow to How Sweet It Is to Grapevine to What's Going On to Let's Get It On and on too many songs to mention. Yeah, I bet he could sing the alphabet to me and I would listen. (BTW, I really didn't need the push and grunt imagery!)
    Re: Diana The soundtrack of my life. The voice I always inevitably return to. I'll say no more.
    Re "terms": I understand the term "a singer's singer" as pure admiration but "singing someone under the table" is nasty and says more about the person saying it than anything else.
    Sorry about the imagery Lucky! I agree with your thoughts on Marvin and Diana. Smokey is best on his own songs. His voice on it's own just doesn't move me, but in conjunction with his compositions he can't be beat. Who better to interpret his lyrics than the man himself? (He still sounds damn good too.)

  33. #33
    I don't know why people feel the need to compare. It's unfair to the singers. Janet's got her own uniqueness. Why compare her to Whitney or Patti??? What sense does that make, you know?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

[REMOVE ADS]

Ralph Terrana
MODERATOR

Welcome to Soulful Detroit! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
Soulful Detroit is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to Soulful Detroit. [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.