TS: Janet vs. Michael

michael

I'll take Michael, if only because his good period lasted longer than Janet's. Also, on everything post-Janet, her voice has been mixed so low there's barely any reason for her to be on the tracks at all.

More points lost by Janet: she allegedly touched Jermaine Dupri in his bathing suit area, which is pretty grody to think about.

michael's highs (namely, off the wall and thriller... and half of bad... and a few tracks from dangerous) are far, far, far higher, but janet has been far more consistent (let's forget that damita jo debacle) so... janet.

It's very close...

Janet has been able to do everything Michael started out doing, but she kept updating and modernizing the aesthetic. They both sound very alike in an androgynous, "look a high pitched eunuch is singing!" kind of way, but only Janet is sexy - of course, much sexier. Michael's high points may be higher, but his voice is no better he isn't nearly as versatile as his sister, as she can convincingly go from an anti-racisism screed to a journal entry to a sex jam to a lounge number (as on Janet) without missing or faltering a Jam & Lewis beat. She makes it seem so easy, so professional, but then you reach a song like "Empty" on Velvet Rope, and you remember her singular vulnerable and insecure personality she first exposed us to in "Control," and realize that she's not the robotic aerobic-dance-athon creature she comes across as in her souless airbrushed tour routines, but remarkable healthy, sane, human and relatively as normal in her family/fame sitauion as one can be. As opposed to her freakazoid brother, who's style seems to have devolved into two sorts of songs: the upbeat wannabe-dance smash, and the trite and sickly-maudlin schmaltzy-album-killah-ballad.

Michael does gain points for _originality_ though, since Janet's entire career could arguably be called a shrewd composite of Michael and Madonna's peaks. But if you really analyze her music before her dire last two albums, she does demonstrate her own individuality, and honestly i'd take this banal half-workmnlike, half-insecure hypersexed personality over the otherworldly caricature-character of her brother's, a presenceso strange and so strong that's impossible to remove from the sheer act of listening to most of his music post-Thriller (even going back to Dangerous,...remember "Black and White" and "In the Closet" ?)

So, it's Janet, but not by much. Plus, she has much better skin.

Michael's highs are so astronomically higher that no further investigation is called for.

In my mind, Janet had 3 great albums: Control, Rhythym Nation 1812, and janet. And janet was where the patchiness started to creep in. After that, with the exception of a few stand out tracks, nothing else held water. If you add the Jackson 5 material to Off The Wall, Thriller, Bad, even Dangerous, there's barely a wrong note. Janet continued to put out material that just undermined the talent that she actually has. I think Janet is equally as talented as Michael, but Michael kept it contained for longer.

I don't even know if that makes sense.

thi thread is not funny. Stop it.

s

I kinda disagree, since I feel like Janet had a great run from Control to the terminally underrated Velvet Rope, 4 albums in total. MJ had two unimpeachable albums, OTT and Thriller, but then only a handful of singles of any strength after that, and I don't think he can really get all the credit for the J5 material. I also feel like Dmita Girlfriend can probably make an artistically successful return if she tries, whereas Jacko has easily fallen off forever and is now beyond hope. Her consistency and longevity override his extraordinary peaks for me

Don't forget some credit for Michael's precocious '70s solo singles ("I Wanna Be Where You Are" is my personal favorite).

Michael is timeless and towers above all at his best, Janet is better than average.

(i need someone like manthony Miccio to come support my contrarian position on this thread! but if i relisten to OTT i'll probably admit my errorand change my mind again)

janet her first 5 were brilliant then nothing good.
michael first 7 were brilliant.

janet peaked on control but her first two were brilliant.janet's first two flopped and her last two flopped.

Michael's 80s work means he has it. Still, from the late 80s onwards, Janet has been better.

Janet has always been rather uneven. And she's dated a lot better then Michael.

Michael at least clearly had his peak and valleys, and was better then Janet at the Peaks.

MJ is the winner.

Michael by light years. I think the 90s stuff is due for re-evaluation. "Earth Song" has got something great going on in amongst its preposterousness.

And the whole world has to answer right now
Just to tell you once again, Who's bad..

Both crap.

MIchael's psychosexual kinks still produces occasionally inspired music, even on half-assed albums like "Invincible." Janet pushed her oversexed personal to its limit on "The Velvet Rope," after which the law of diminishing returns kicked in. Since Michael's the better singer – his voice a rhythm instrument than ever – he provides a soupçon of friction on otherwise forgettable tracks. Whereas when Janet's bland, Jam-Lewis have to pick up the slack.

I like Janet a lot, she's got nothing to be ashamed of and she's got a lot of great songs (as recent as Doesn't Really Matter, which could go up against most of Michael's hits).

But really, come on now.

I wiqh MJ would have some rest and then get back to work to make one last great album and get his crown back !

Vic, you make a v. good case!