PatrickS77 said:

No one has to honor it when it's a desperate, pandering attempt at a comeback that completely sucks on every level.

Raze said:

Well, I think it is! She doesn't give up and is still trying! She could also say that's it.. she got nothing more to prove... she's one of the biggest musical stars of the 80ies, 90ies and early 2000... and yet she's still hungry to do it all again!

And it's not like all of her recent songs are bad! There are some good songs on each of her last 3 albums! She just hasn't been that successful!

PatrickS77 said:

Unless she's going to put some effort, thought, or talent into it, then she might as well not bother. And I don'g respect her attempts to do so when it's as lazy and thoughtless as the last 2-3 projects have been.

Like I said.. not all of those songs are that bad! There are some which I like quite a lot!

PatrickS77 said:

compared to her output from 86-97 they are.

If you say so...

Raze said:

So, don't honor it. No one's making anyone even comment, much less honor an artist's work.

Raze said:

Oh, so you're one of the folks who sits back with arms folded and say,"Dammit! Impress me or get the hell outta' here." Again, you don't even have to comment on her material much less listen to it.

i wonder if janet's last 2 albums that people claim sucked so bad were big sellers would she still catch the flack she gets now, and how come in every janet thread the number of years she hasnt been any good keep changing(5yrs,10yrs,15yrs).all for you was her biggest 1st week debut and that was in 2001, so how could her career have been over 10 years ago? janet and madonna are the only artists to have a #1 record in the 80's,90's, and 00's. so what her last 2 albums 'only went platinum', i think she has earned the right to 'flop' and still keep going if she wants to.

lowkey said:

Janet Jackson and Madonna are not the only artists who have had a #1 record in the '80s, '90s, and '00s. There are few but these two are not the only ones.

I think other than the stale music, there has been terrible promotion on the part of both Virgin Records and Janet Jackson herself. I am sure if she is able to have a successful image and sound makeover, this new album will do fine.

Most people who have written "harsh" criticism are fans of her music. I think they all want her to succeed.
[Edited 10/5/07 22:00pm]

kanamit said:

so give janet a chance to prove people wrong

Rodya24 said:

please list the other artists to have a #1 pop single in the 80's,90's and 00's

lowkey said:

since when did her last two albums go platinum? i mean, i loved me some janet until 20yo, and i am totally unaware of damita jo or 20yo going platinum. janet needs to regroup. she needs to realize that shaking your tits and ass ain't gonna move a record.

janet needs to stop giving up when a record isn't an instant smash success. a lack of touring for the past two records is lazy and it sends a bad message about her work. if she can't be bothered to go out and support her own work, why should anyone feel the desire to spend money on it?

this is not the 90s. generally speaking, cds aren't selling the way they used to. artists have to get innovative, they need to be creative. look at radiohead...they are utilizing what will be an industry changing method of selling music; thinking outside of the box is what the future has in store for music.

if janet's method of selling records continues to be selling her ass, she's done. if she continues to hop on the latest music trends instead of doing what she does best, she's done. it's just that simple.

lowkey said:

Are you speaking of the US only? If not, Michael Jackson. There are others as well. If you are interested, I suggest you check out Wikipedia.

And please I do not want to participate in the hijacking of this thread into another debate over which artist has been the most commercially successful. The fact of the matter is commercial success is not the most important determinant of good music. In fact, it should be one of the least important.

The songs on All For You, Damita Jo, and 20 YO, with the exception of some great tracks, are for the most part stale. I think Janet Jackson needs a sound and image makeover. Despite all my criticism, I want her to do well -- like most people who have written in this thread.

lowkey said:

michael jackson-70's 80's 90's 00's


i'm trying to think of more.....
[Edited 10/5/07 22:13pm]

Janet's last two albums were SHIPPED platinum but neither album SOLD a million though though I think if you do platinum, you're alright. Not as good or great as before but respectable. It's the songs Janet's struggling with.

Timmy84 said:

I think the promotion has been bad as well. Starting from the single choices and when these singles were released, it seems like Janet Jackson and her record label have made one mistake after another.

Another thing that has surprised me is that songs like "Call On Me" and "So Excited" did well on the R&B and Dance charts respectively, but both Damita Jo and 20 YO sold so poorly. Has the general public lost interest in Janet Jackson?

Like I have said, she needs a sound and image makeover. Also, she needs to tour without rehashing the same dance moves and concepts.
[Edited 10/5/07 22:20pm]

Rodya24 said:

i only deal with the us, i could care less about overseas, and please tell me what was michael's #1 pop single in the usa in the 00's? as far as the recent music from janet its all objective, i liked damita jo and 20 y.o much more than all for you, i dont focus on sales to determine if i like the music or not but thats how a large amout of the public decide whats good or whats not, by record sales. also i will give you a little tip, do not rely on wikipedia for any kind of facts on any subjects, you didnt know that site is controled by fans and you can pretty much write whatever you want about your favorite artists.

Timmy84 said:

they were both certified platinum so i'm gonna call them platinum, remember before soundscan and the internet turned fans into record execs all we had to go by was the riaa certifications

lowkey said:

I see your point, I call them platinum too but hey I can see why people question that.

lowkey said:

It is "all objective"? So by your logic most of the public did not like Damita Jo and 20 YO?

We can agree to disagree about the whole debate on which artist has had the most commercial success. It has been beaten to death already in several other threads.

Rodya24 said:

who mentioned commercial success? i pointed out that people didnt start really bashing janet until her last 2 albums didnt do well commercially, you brought michael into the thread not me, someone claimed janet's career been over for 10 years so i asked how can her career have ended 10 years ago when she enjoyed major success with all for you. when i mentioned that janet and madonna are the only ones to have a #1 pop single in all 3 decades of course you had to rush in and school me on what happened across the water somewhere.

lowkey said:

*Sigh* Let us let this topic on which artist has been the most commercially successful rest. On a side note, a number of people on this forum are not US residents.

Perhaps the person who said that her career was over a decade ago was referring to the fact that her creativity as an artist seemed to have ended then.... I have no idea. You like both her recent albums. As this thread demonstrates, however, a number of people did not.

Rodya24 said:

I feel like I'm in London with all this world talk.

Timmy84 said:

LOL.

Also, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Paris, Rome, Toronto....!

I think that is one of the great things about the Internet. It allows people from different countries to speak on a forum like this.

Rodya24 said:

i am very aware there are people here who are not from the us, but sometimes it seems like the people from europe have this attitude like what they say is law and their musical taste is somehow better then everybody elses. and once again nobody was debating janet's commercial success vs anybody in this thread.as far as people not liking her recent music i would never argue with somebody about what they like or dislike, thats my point everybody have different taste,but in my opinion i dont think her recent down period was solely because of 'bad' music, i mean look at whats at the top of the charts.

I just think Janet needs more mature material suited to herself and her audience/fans. Whispering and talking bout her vagina is tried old and honestly kinda lame.

lowkey said:

LOL.

I am not from Europe but from East Asia. In Japan, Janet's singles still do well! In fact, I believe her last two albums (at least chart-wise) did better in Japan than in the UK.

I think the problem with Janet Jackson is that her music is appealing to neither the current generation nor for the most part her fanbase from the late '80s and '90s.

And yes, I agree. Her current poor commercial success is not based on bad music alone, but also on terrible promotion and no tours.
[Edited 10/5/07 22:57pm]

sassybritches said:

I wouldn't say it, if it wasn't true. But, it is both of her last two albums DID go platinum. As badly as some folks said they sounded, they'd gone platinum anyway. Good for her!
And, ANY artist I don't care who they are. How little or how well they are known, they need the support of their record company. No man is an island and neither are artist.

Ya know...

I was wondering about this..

I don't think people like Prince, Madge, Sting--even Gloria Estefan need to be "relevant" to the masses. Hey, I LOVE Gloria Estefan's new cd, 90 Millas--well the little bit I've heard of it, and I'm not so sure it will even be a hit--considering a lot of the "masses" seems to be enthralled with Gimme More...

Legends have already proved themselves: why do they have to continue to be "relevant" to the masses? Last year, I received Sting's Songs from the Labyrinth cd for a XMAS present, and it's not bad as far as chamber music goes. I don't think he was trying to appeal to the masses with that cd??

Anytime Prince performs, he creates buzz.. A lot of people would rather see him than some of the current "hitmakers" falling all over themselves on-stage.

I think the advantage of being a legend is that person is timeless.. as a performer at least because he/she has a body of well-received work, so he/she no longer has to PROVE his/her relevance. Heck even Barry Manilow still has fans...