i suspect that artists bring their "A-game" to the Garden. so how was Janet this past Saturday? i saw her in Detroit, this past Tuesday and enjoyed the show. curious to see how things went in NY and how the media covered her

Crowd shot:



I had fifth row floor but I couldn't make the rescheduled date

well it looks rather full at the Garden. that's a good sign

from the New York Times:


November 3, 2008
Music Review | Janet Jackson
High-Gloss Pop With Spectacle to Spare
By JON PARELES
Janet Jackson has had a rough year. Her current album, “Discipline,” arrived in February to such disappointing sales that in September, with fewer than a half-million copies sold, she ended her contract with the label, Island Def Jam, leaving her independent. So there was an extra edge during her Madison Square Garden show on Saturday when she shouted, at the end of her song “Control”: “I’m on my own, and I’ll call my own shots!”

Her first tour in seven years started shakily this fall, with shows suddenly canceled or postponed. Her spokesman said that Ms. Jackson, 42, suffered from vestibular migraines that could cause dizziness — a problem for a performer who, in concert, is more a dancer than a singer. The tour’s original opening act, LL Cool J, dropped off the bill.

Yet none of that weighed down Ms. Jackson’s Garden show, which had been postponed from Oct. 16. She strutted through a full-tilt arena spectacle like those she has mounted since her multimillion-selling days in the 1980s and ’90s, with dancers, video screens, pyrotechnics and lip-synching. (How much Ms. Jackson was actually singing during the concert is open to conjecture. Except for stage patter, her voice was rarely fully exposed as she shared lead vocals with recorded tracks.) But the foundation for all that razzle-dazzle was one of the most durable catalogs of hits from the music-video era, and plenty of them. Ms. Jackson’s set list had three dozen songs, and all but the oldest and most recent ones triggered immediate singalongs.

Her constant subject is longing: for sex both tender and kinky but also for companionship and devotion. To pack all those songs into just over two hours onstage, she turned them into medleys, grouped by musical style.

There were minisets of keyboard-driven funk like “Nasty,” of creamy ballads like “Again,” of upbeat pop like “Escapade,” of hip-hop-tinged R&B like “Got Til It’s Gone” (with Q-Tip rapping on the video screen) and of guitar-driven rock like “Black Cat.” She had a costume for each one and endless variations of her familiar angular stop-and-start dance moves; the men in her troupe spun through gymnastics or groveled at her feet.

With her hair pointing skyward in a faux-Mohawk, Ms. Jackson appeared in futuristic sparkles, in a skintight red formal dress, in a maroon bodysuit with glittery epaulets and in quasi-dominatrix lingerie. Her long set piece was the title song of “Discipline.” A man taken from the audience was suspended in a leather harness above a supine Ms. Jackson, who groped between his legs in video close-ups. At the end he babbled about his love for Ms. Jackson into a convenient microphone.

Ms. Jackson also reclaimed the pop she made as a teenager, before she became her own producer, with a medley from her 1982 debut album, “Janet Jackson.” Now they sound like the beginning of a style that would merge her brother Michael Jackson’s melodic choruses with the synthesized Minneapolis funk of Mr. Jackson’s 1980s rival, Prince. That fusion helped shape Britney Spears, Beyoncé, the Pussycat Dolls and much other current pop-R&B.

Ms. Jackson is the kind of performer who made the most of pop’s blockbuster era. She has always relied on every enhancement of the old star system. She hired skillful collaborators, catalyzing the best work from her longtime producers and songwriting partners, Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis. (Recent songs, without them, have lacked for melody.) Studio techniques polished her modest coo of a voice, and videos and photo sessions disseminated her combination of girlish smiles and sultry teases. High-gloss pop is her rightful medium, and it could well be endangered by the new austerities of the recording business and the world economy. But in all their artificial splendor, her old songs still gleam.

JackieBlue said:

This is an excellent point. As the money drains out of the industry and the economy falters you'll probably see less and less money-driven performers like Janet and Britney emerging. All that razzmatazz was affordable for labels in the past, but with budgets shrinking they may not be able to afford it anymore. You never know, that could lead to a resurgence of more talent-driven performers. Hey, we can always hope, can't we?

janet is very talented and i'm amazed more by her drive during rehearsals- her work ethic is incredible and she is an inspiration for many

i think without all of the dazzle she would still shine

The Garden was on fire....House was packed and She gave it her all, I had a better time than i did when i saw her in NJ.

banks said:

The Garden is always the best place to see a show in the NY/NJ. My most memorable shows were at the Garden or Jones Beach, another place I love.

Glad you had a good time. Maybe we'll meet up at a Prince show one day.
[Edited 11/3/08 7:19am]

JackieBlue said:

oh Jb... I'm not worried... I'm sure we'll meet sooner or later

I enjoyed the entire show. I almost forgot how many hit's this woman has under her belt.Janet hater's on this site can say what they want, but Janet Jackson has a career that these female pop stars of today can aspire to. I was almost hoping that she would leave "Rhythem Nation" out of her set, but with the political climate of the country, that song took on a whole new meaning, and she performed the hell out of it. Note to Janet: Where is your gaydar? With all the queens she surrounds herself with, she should know if the men she plucks out of the audience are screaming queens (like the one on the "All For You" tour live from Hawaii). As soon as I heard the guy speak in her mic, all I could say was "HOWYOUDOIN".
[Edited 11/3/08 11:25am]

totaldiva said:

The show was great. The entire 400 section near the ceiling was empty though.

I wish I didn't read about the setlist before the show because I would have fallen out of my chair when she introduced "Young Love". I've been waiting decades to hear pre-Control songs performed live. However, most of the crowd had clearly lost interest by the end of 1984's "Don't Stand Another Chance".

totaldiva said:

I have a serious question: How many straight guys would really pay $300 to be on the floor near the stage from where Janet chooses her guests? I always thought her most devoted male fans are the gay ones so finding a straight man that close to the stage would be tough.

I was there and she was absolutely amazing. 2 1/2 hours of non stop jams!
The crowd was on their feet dancing throughout the majority of the show.
A good time was had by all!

midnightmover said:

I dont buy into it. Its the public for the most part that builds up the icons. The era that Janet blew up was an era that had tons and tons of music and diversity that just doesnt exist now, despite all the music that is available on the net, alot of it, is just plain crappy bands. Labels may invest much less, and they do now, labels dont pay things like video costs anymore, that comes out of the artists paycheck and sometimes their pocket. You will see the disappearance of the video in years to come, you will also see the disappearance of a major label or two or more. Labels will go with the easy buck, especially now, and they can make an easy buck now by releasing an album by one of the chicks from the HILLS than they can make off building a new band that can play which is not profitable at all, maybe in the 70's and 80's it was. So all you will see is the disapperance of the video, and maybe a few labels, but you wont see the disapperance of the "easy profit".

lastdecember said:

I think you missed the point. Like you said, labels now have less money to invest in launching artists. To launch an artist like a Janet or a Britney means a big investment in dancers, choreographers, video directors, etc. If labels can no longer afford all that, then they may be more keen to sign artists who can function independently of that. Perhaps people who have proved themselves on the club circuit for instance. Of course, none of us are fortune tellers here, so we don't know, but we can certainly hope.