New topic
Printablejayaredee said: sallysassalot said: madonna was smart enough to use the right mediums. yeah, she's been vulgar or sexually provocative on tv...but on cable or late night. madonna would never be so stupid as to go on the super bowl, the most watched sporting event of the year and one where all of middle america is watching, and show her tit. Great, this will be officially 300+ posts now. 
All I have to say is Janet wanted attention and she got it. Now let everyone come in and say it was all racism. Isn't that the same reason MJ gave when he was accused of being a child molester 2 times? The (over)reaction was definitely racist (AND sexist). If it wasn't, you wouldn't be seeing Justin Timberlake around everywhere today like nothing ever happened. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
jayaredee said: sallysassalot said: madonna was smart enough to use the right mediums. yeah, she's been vulgar or sexually provocative on tv...but on cable or late night. madonna would never be so stupid as to go on the super bowl, the most watched sporting event of the year and one where all of middle america is watching, and show her tit. Great, this will be officially 300+ posts now.
All I have to say is Janet wanted attention and she got it. Now let everyone come in and say it was all racism. Isn't that the same reason MJ gave when he was accused of being a child molester 2 times? mj is innocent, so let's not go there. trial by media is some bullshit. i think the "forgiveness" extended to justin yet not janet is certainly race-based. there can be no other explanation. if it was not an accident, then he holds just as much responsibility as janet. if it was an accident, there's no need to treat janet so harshly. the only logical explanation for difference in treatment is race and gender. as i said, though, if she kept her titty tucked away until a more appropriate moment (say, a later time and different network) none of this would have been a big deal. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Harlepolis said: sallysassalot said: maybe. one thing's for sure though, it was an incredibly inappropriate moment for her to be "daring" (if it was on purpose). she messed up. you can blame it on racism all you want. i prefer to blame it on the person who decided plopp her titty out on primetime television. Oh dahling! There were FAAAAR more inappropriate moments on primetime TV. The American public(and middle America) is not that hypersensitive about so-called inappropriate imagery. Janet didn't have to be dumb enough to take it there,,,,but somehow like Kramer's incident, I'm glad she did becoz it exposed ALOT of so-called liberal driven people  what are those far more inappropriate moments? i'm not suggesting they don't exist, i'm just wondering what time and during which programs. it does make a difference believe it or not. people know not to let their kids watch nypd blue. they don't know not to let them watch the freaking super bowl half time show. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sallysassalot said: Harlepolis said: Oh dahling! There were FAAAAR more inappropriate moments on primetime TV. The American public(and middle America) is not that hypersensitive about so-called inappropriate imagery. Janet didn't have to be dumb enough to take it there,,,,but somehow like Kramer's incident, I'm glad she did becoz it exposed ALOT of so-called liberal driven people what are those far more inappropriate moments? i'm not suggesting they don't exist, i'm just wondering what time and during which programs. it does make a difference believe it or not. people know not to let their kids watch nypd blue. they don't know not to let them watch the freaking super bowl half time show. I don't know if you're aware, but both dick AND tits appeared on live TV as early as the late 1950's, and nobody went nuts. For example, the hilarious moment when Oscar winner Red Buttons' medical examination gown was accidentally ripped off by a fellow actor leaving him stark naked. Streakers were used as publicity stunts for the Academy Awards when ratings were low in the early 70's, and nobody cared. Nude man goes across stage and David Niven quips about his "shortcomings" - scripted TV [Edited 12/30/06 8:38am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
thats your opinion.
but the facts show a different story. Good or bad, the "all for you" tour and album was successful. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: sallysassalot said: what are those far more inappropriate moments? i'm not suggesting they don't exist, i'm just wondering what time and during which programs. it does make a difference believe it or not. people know not to let their kids watch nypd blue. they don't know not to let them watch the freaking super bowl half time show. I don't know if you're aware, but both dick AND tits appeared on live TV as early as the late 1950's, and nobody went nuts. For example, the hilarious moment when Oscar winner Red Buttons' toga was accidentally ripped off by a fellow actor leaving him stark naked. Streakers were used as publicity stunts for the Academy Awards when ratings were low in the early 70's, and nobody cared. Nude man goes across stage and David Niven quips about his "shortcomings" - scripted TV
[Edited 12/30/06 8:35am] i'm not aware. and yet its still very different. first of all, find me a young kid watching the oscars. second of all, its very obvious that janet jackson was paid to perform. as a paid performer, she had no business doing that. if janet was paid to streak for ratings, she wouldn't have got all the criticism. she needed to do what she was hired for AND keep in mind her audience. every good performer knows her audience. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sallysassalot said: VoicesCarry said: I don't know if you're aware, but both dick AND tits appeared on live TV as early as the late 1950's, and nobody went nuts. For example, the hilarious moment when Oscar winner Red Buttons' toga was accidentally ripped off by a fellow actor leaving him stark naked. Streakers were used as publicity stunts for the Academy Awards when ratings were low in the early 70's, and nobody cared. Nude man goes across stage and David Niven quips about his "shortcomings" - scripted TV
[Edited 12/30/06 8:35am] i'm not aware. and yet its still very different. first of all, find me a young kid watching the oscars. second of all, its very obvious that janet jackson was paid to perform. as a paid performer, she had no business doing that. if janet was paid to streak for ratings, she wouldn't have got all the criticism. she needed to do what she was hired for AND keep in mind her audience. every good performer knows her audience.Actually, it's not very different, since we're talking about reaction on a national scale. If you watch the Superbowl performance, you can't see her breast because they cut to a long shot and you're looking at it from about 150 feet away, for 2 seconds. How this could incite moral outrage is completely beyond me. Most people completely missed it, until they woke up to it the next morning. But there were a bunch of photogs in the first row who got great high quality close-ups and then plastered them all over the front pages the next day. Parents who let their kids watch the SB half-time show are not stupid. The previous year you had Britney on stage writhing in hot pants, and booty girls were no strangers to the show either. They should have been used to sexual content in the show. [Edited 12/30/06 8:51am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
i'm not feeling the comment that said, "now let everyone come and claim racism like when MJ was accused of molestation twice". if you read the actual posts you'll see that it's already been stated that a bad decision is a bad decision, PERIOD. black people are NOT monolithic and many know when race really IS the reason for certain types of treatment. this ISN'T one of them. i agree that the only way it factors in is in Justin's exemption from the whole dialogue and ultimately rightfully so in that it had to be HER idea to let HIM expose her titty, his compliance has "secondary consequences" if u will. janet has a long way back if she ever gets back. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: sallysassalot said: i'm not aware. and yet its still very different. first of all, find me a young kid watching the oscars. second of all, its very obvious that janet jackson was paid to perform. as a paid performer, she had no business doing that. if janet was paid to streak for ratings, she wouldn't have got all the criticism. she needed to do what she was hired for AND keep in mind her audience. every good performer knows her audience.Actually, it's not very different, since we're talking about reaction on a national scale. If you watch the Superbowl performance, you can't see her breast because they cut to a long shot and you're looking at it from about 150 feet away, for 2 seconds. How this could incite moral outrage is completely beyond me. Most people completely missed it, until they woke up to it the next morning. But there were a bunch of photogs in the first row who got great high quality close-ups and then plastered them all over the front pages the next day. [Edited 12/30/06 8:45am] it is very different.
if she intentionally plopped her tit out, it was offensive. it doesn't matter how long or far away, people have every right to be pissed. its bad enough you can't watch tv without hearing curses or see advertisements without sex being shoved down your throat, but now you can't watch superbowl with your kids for fear of nudity. its not up to janet jackson to decide when someone's kids are old enough to see tits. she was out of line, and america let her know. when a woman's big black titty popped out on the price is right, while she was "coming on down," nobody made a stink. rightfully so since it was an accident. different circumstances get different reactions. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sallysassalot said: if she intentionally plopped her tit out, it was offensive. it doesn't matter how long or far away, people have every right to be pissed. its bad enough you can't watch tv without hearing curses or see advertisements without sex being shoved down your throat, but now you can't watch superbowl with your kids for fear of nudity. its not up to janet jackson to decide when someone's kids are old enough to see tits. she was out of line, and america let her know.
when a woman's big black titty popped out on the price is right, while she was "coming on down," nobody made a stink. rightfully so since it was an accident. different circumstances get different reactions. I find it VERY telling that a black titty on TV is "offensive" whereas letting kids watch 6000 murders on TV by the time they are 7 is considered "average". "now you can't watch superbowl with your kids for fear of nudity" There had always been NUDITY at the superbowl, and in fact a whole lot of sexual content, there was just NO NIPPLE in the past. Big deal! They should be thanking Janet, she has now ensured no hot pants for the next 10 years so you can rest easy as Paul McCartney takes the stage. [Edited 12/30/06 8:55am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: sallysassalot said: i'm not aware. and yet its still very different. first of all, find me a young kid watching the oscars. second of all, its very obvious that janet jackson was paid to perform. as a paid performer, she had no business doing that. if janet was paid to streak for ratings, she wouldn't have got all the criticism. she needed to do what she was hired for AND keep in mind her audience. every good performer knows her audience.Actually, it's not very different, since we're talking about reaction on a national scale. If you watch the Superbowl performance, you can't see her breast because they cut to a long shot and you're looking at it from about 150 feet away, for 2 seconds. How this could incite moral outrage is completely beyond me. Most people completely missed it, until they woke up to it the next morning. But there were a bunch of photogs in the first row who got great high quality close-ups and then plastered them all over the front pages the next day. Parents who let their kids watch the SB half-time show are not stupid. The previous year you had Britney on stage writhing in hot pants, and booty girls were no strangers to the show either. They should have been used to sexual content in the show. but theres a difference between somebody accidently flashing and a sexually suggestive dance capped off with a nipple being exposed...and wardrobe malfunction my arse...that was planned. Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sosgemini said: VoicesCarry said: Actually, it's not very different, since we're talking about reaction on a national scale. If you watch the Superbowl performance, you can't see her breast because they cut to a long shot and you're looking at it from about 150 feet away, for 2 seconds. How this could incite moral outrage is completely beyond me. Most people completely missed it, until they woke up to it the next morning. But there were a bunch of photogs in the first row who got great high quality close-ups and then plastered them all over the front pages the next day. Parents who let their kids watch the SB half-time show are not stupid. The previous year you had Britney on stage writhing in hot pants, and booty girls were no strangers to the show either. They should have been used to sexual content in the show. but theres a difference between somebody accidently flashing and a sexually suggestive dance capped off with a nipple being exposed...and wardrobe malfunction my arse...that was planned. Yes, you're absolutely right, there is a big difference. I still find it ridiculous that this became THE major issue in America, and that Janet's career was sacrificed while Justin's wasn't. It says a lot. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: sosgemini said: but theres a difference between somebody accidently flashing and a sexually suggestive dance capped off with a nipple being exposed...and wardrobe malfunction my arse...that was planned. Yes, you're absolutely right, there is a big difference. I still find it ridiculous that this became THE major issue in America, and that Janet's career was sacrificed while Justin's wasn't. It says a lot. but part of the blame also lies in how "Janet" reacted afterwards...her phony interviews and lack of repentance is just as much to blame as the media backlash. and mtv not playing her could just as much have to do with them getting revenge on an artist who crossed the line on their dime... Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sosgemini said: VoicesCarry said: Yes, you're absolutely right, there is a big difference. I still find it ridiculous that this became THE major issue in America, and that Janet's career was sacrificed while Justin's wasn't. It says a lot. but part of the blame also lies in how "Janet" reacted afterwards...her phony interviews and lack of repentance is just as much to blame as the media backlash. Janet has apologized many times, including a video apology issued days after the Superbowl. and mtv not playing her could just as much have to do with them getting revenge on an artist who crossed the line on their dime...
But they're playing Justin non-stop, so.... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said:[quote] sosgemini said: Janet has apologized many times, including a video apology issued days after the Superbowl. and mtv not playing her could just as much have to do with them getting revenge on an artist who crossed the line on their dime...
But they're playing Justin non-stop, so.... sadly, in addition to race and gender, justin's music sells. he's popular enough that it only benefits them to air him. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sallysassalot said: VoicesCarry said: But they're playing Justin non-stop, so.... sadly, in addition to race and gender, justin's music sells. he's popular enough that it only benefits them to air him. This is because they allow him radio play. Massive, massive quantities of it. MTV plays a lot of people who don't sell. They get paid either way. Labels buy contracts and the vids go on the air. Cassie and Jessica Simpson weren't exactly flyin' off the shelves. [Edited 12/30/06 9:33am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said:[quote] sosgemini said: Janet has apologized many times, including a video apology issued days after the Superbowl. and mtv not playing her could just as much have to do with them getting revenge on an artist who crossed the line on their dime...
But they're playing Justin non-stop, so.... yes, she's apologized but i've never took them as her being sincere. and as far as justin getting played, well...he b*tched himself out to them...did everything they wanted to make peace... and i think sassy has a point...justin is in right now. janet could be hip again if she actually came out with a song or video that was innovative. Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: sallysassalot said: sadly, in addition to race and gender, justin's music sells. he's popular enough that it only benefits them to air him. This is because they allow him radio play. Massive, massive quantities of it. MTV plays a lot of people who don't sell. They get paid either way. Labels buy contracts and the vids go on the air. Cassie and Jessica Simpson weren't exactly flyin' off the shelves. [Edited 12/30/06 9:33am] ok, that's true. i can't even argue it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sosgemini said: VoicesCarry said: But they're playing Justin non-stop, so.... yes, she's apologized but i've never took them as her being sincere. and as far as justin getting played, well...he b*tched himself out to them...did everything they wanted to make peace... and i think sassy has a point...justin is in right now. janet could be hip again if she actually came out with a song or video that was innovative. I agree. All she needs is one very good song that people remember (and a label that markets the song to pop), and she will be fine. [Edited 12/30/06 10:28am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Well the SB probably did that more...but also she can't sing. People can see through that. Shes 40 years old still acting like shes 20...but shes actually old news. The only thing that can save her would be if she could come out with a killer song that highlights her voice.
The problem is she can't do that because she doesn't have the talent. Mary J Bliege at some point will run into the same issue. People will one day wake up and realize that when she is on that stage perfroming they are going to say...damn for real...this chick can't sing. The reason I compare Mary and Janet is because neither one of them are much when it comes to singing. Everytime Mary gets on that stage and sing I laugh at her. People also clap sometimes people even give her a standing ovation. And I'm always like ...damn did they just listen to that chick sing? Janet is a little different bcause shes a perfromer...but people still want more from her now. She has no personality, and relies totally on her T&A. Well at 40 that aint enough. Janets career is over Dance... Let me see you dance | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Alexandernvrmind said: Well the SB probably did that more...but also she can't sing. People can see through that. Shes 40 years old still acting like shes 20...but shes actually old news. The only thing that can save her would be if she could come out with a killer song that highlights her voice.
The problem is she can't do that because she doesn't have the talent. Mary J Bliege at some point will run into the same issue. People will one day wake up and realize that when she is on that stage perfroming they are going to say...damn for real...this chick can't sing. The reason I compare Mary and Janet is because neither one of them are much when it comes to singing. Everytime Mary gets on that stage and sing I laugh at her. People also clap sometimes people even give her a standing ovation. And I'm always like ...damn did they just listen to that chick sing? Janet is a little different bcause shes a perfromer...but people still want more from her now. She has no personality, and relies totally on her T&A. Well at 40 that aint enough. Janets career is over i think Janet needs to use her love will never do intro voice more often...ya know, janet has a servicable voice...she just seems to be stuck in "baby whisper" mode...just like her brother is stuck in hiccup mode. its frustrating cause they both have such appealing vocal personalities but we rarely hear them. and mary j can sing...and sing beautifully...but live? sometimes she can be way off...maybe she is tone deaf or something...and ya know what? many folks said aretha couldn't sing when she first started... Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Shapeshifter said: I disagree as well. Compared to what followed - especially 20 JOkes - AFY is a masterpiece.
Janet's career is far from over. She just needs to do a successful greatest hits tour and release a decent, Troll-free album and she'll be back. Nice! I almost pegged you for a hater because of all the 20Jokes comments but to an extent, it's true. AFY is a nice pop album and has some strong writing (much stronger and more personal than the cockscuker songs on DJ and the simple fluff of 20YO. Janet's always been kind of pop and AFY was a perfect album to showcase that, if only for one album. At the end of the day, DJ suffered from "Superboob" and while the public may have been ready to welcome her back with open her arms with 20YO, it was probably her weakest of "her" albums (as opposed to the very first two, which were all about the producers). [Edited 12/30/06 11:35am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
the original Son Of A Gun is a masterpiece. I love love love Carly Simon's vocals on that song...especially when she gets all soulsista'd out. damn shame that missy elliot ruined the song with her remix.
yeah, all for you is a good album. Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sallysassalot said: jayaredee said: How long before everyone retaliates with Madonna comparisons  madonna was smart enough to use the right mediums. yeah, she's been vulgar or sexually provocative on tv...but on cable or late night. madonna would never be so stupid as to go on the super bowl, the most watched sporting event of the year and one where all of middle america is watching, and show her tit. personally, i think dropping race is a reason in this is case is a lame excuse. there are times when people have to take responsibility for bad decisions. this is one of those times. the only place race comes in is how quick everyone was to forgive justin. personally, i think that's more of a male/female issue but i am certain race comes in there, too. nonetheless, if ol' girl kept her titty in check, it wouldn't even be an issue. [Edited 12/30/06 8:17am] Forgive Justin....Most people forget he was even involved because of the media! It really didn't make him the bad boy that he wants to be (and he thinks that his new album has made him). It doesn't get acknowledged because he threw her under the rug. If it was a stunt, bullshit he wasn't involved and she was! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I don't know if it killed her career, but I was bored with her starting with that album. I bought it the day it came out, didn't hear anything new or fresh, listened to it all the way through several times, then sold it back within two weeks. It was boring and uninspired. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the first downturn, if that's what you call it, started with Velvet Rope? I recall sales being slow at the start, and their were negative reviews from early shows at the start of the tour. I remember Janet admitting to it and that she changed up things in the show to make it better.
I happen to love AFY. I think the CD has a lot of catchy hits: Trust A Try, All for You, Better Days, Son of a Gun, Doesn't Really Matter Remix, Someone to Call My Lover - those are great songs. Now as far as the AFY tour, for the first time, I was bored. The routines we've come to love, just seemed rehashed and tired and didn't have the same energy as the Janet tour. The exception was ofcourse the Trust A Try performance, that was incredible. If Janet is in the process of planning, I hope she's going to revamp some routines and change things up a bit. [Edited 12/30/06 12:23pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
TommyRoss said: I don't know if it killed her career, but I was bored with her starting with that album. I bought it the day it came out, didn't hear anything new or fresh, listened to it all the way through several times, then sold it back within two weeks. It was boring and uninspired.
not even Son of A Gun? Space for sale... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
The Superbowl "wardrobe malfunction" was really the beginning of the end of Janet, and I don't believe for one second that it was an accident. She was sporting one of the most elaborate nipple-rings I've ever seen.
Just like the Dixie Chicks (who spoke against the President) she's going to have a long uphill battle to get back to where she was before the Superbowl. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
sosgemini said: TommyRoss said: I don't know if it killed her career, but I was bored with her starting with that album. I bought it the day it came out, didn't hear anything new or fresh, listened to it all the way through several times, then sold it back within two weeks. It was boring and uninspired.
not even Son of A Gun? That the one with the You're So Vain sample? Yes, even that one. The sample made it sorta interesting, but otherwise it was too bitter (justified bitterness or not) for me. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
badujunkie said: I think that's what it is.
The artistic letdown that we know as "All For You" killed her popularity. Yes it sold a few million and scored a number 1 pop hit. Another top ten. But the true fans and casual consumers who bought and listened to the full length LP were the ones who put the nail in the coffin. It sucks. Had the album not sucked as bad as it did, its subsequent tour might not have sold so poorly in many markets. Hard core fans can say what they want (I'm one of them), but she played to SEVERAL 3/4 and 1/2 full houses on that tour. That's when our girl started to really feel the sting. She and her team rush-released an album (by her standards, at least) and came up with a publicity stunt to try to re-gain interest in her. We all know what happened next...I say if "All For You" had been a solid follow up to her most brilliant (albeit slow to sell big numbers) album, "The Velvet Rope," which had a more DIVERSE ECLECTIC and ultimately URBAN sound, and not a half assed POP album trying to compete with Britney Xtina and JLo, the tour would have been a bigger success and the Superbowl/Damita Jo fiasco would have never happened. 20 Y.O. is damn good, but it was already too late. It pains me to say it as a lifelong fan, but she seems to have run her course and is now going to be forced to be a nostalgia act...she already gave her first big performance at an awards show from this era with an opening of "Pleasure Principle..." Like I said before, The Velvet Rope album was Janet's final masterpiece. Everything else after that are just a bunch of mixed bags (20 YO being the best of the 3 mix bags of course!). | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
