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...

Isel said:

So you think Janet Jackson should tour?

Rodya24 said:

Sure, why not--if SHE WANTS to tour. She has to be excited about it, but I just don't get the impression she has been excited about touring at all. Even with the All4You tour, didn't she say that Gil and Shawnette talked her into it?
I just don't think Janet likes the drudgery of a tour. Plus.. I DO believe Janet just can't keep doing the same ol same ol because with her type of shows.. it just doesn't work.. However, maybe even it WOULD work if Janet herself were more committed to it and excited about it.

See, I just don't think Janet is as committed to music anymore, really. It's great she has a cd coming-out.. and it might be really good, but I just don't see her very excited about her music. I have a feeling if her acting career takes-off, music might take a back seat, don't you?

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...

Can I veto certain people from responding to Janet threads.

I never seen so many essay like posts on someone they don't particularly have any respect or admiration for

???

mancabdriver said:

You should've seen the crazy-ass MJ threads. We're just as crazy and again talking about a Jackson's personal life. We gotta stop this shit. Embattled Warrior was freaked out over the MJ marriage thread.

Isel said:

I kinds agree with u on that but the problem here is i don't think Janet can be considered as a legend, famous and rich, sure, but not a legend.At best she is MJ little sister who can imitate him but that's all.If it wasn't for Mj she would probably be dancing in obscure clubs in Gary, Indiana,That is the difference between a legend and a famous person.