xperience319 said:

I've heard reports saying that she's worth $500 million, some saying she's worth $450 million, and some saying she's worth $360 million, but she's no where near the billionaire club...this divorce isn't really helping her either. She agreed to give Guy $60 million in cash and assets, but now they are having a custody battle and that's where money issues can really get nasty. Child support for rich people ain't no joke. Diddy pays like $15,000 a month in just child support (not including school tuition and other things) and Britney pays K-Fed like $20,000 or something like that a month and I don't know if that's for one child or both. Child support can burn a nice sized hole in your fortune with the quickness. The saddest thing is that the kids get stuck in the middle no matter how rich their parents are.

lastdecember said:

exactly!

VoicesCarry said:

it really was nice of her to contain all of the nasty business in one song/performance for this album/tour

I think Madonna puts on better "theatre" than Janet. Plus it seems Madonna appeals more to international audiences because she is into that electronica.

Timmy84 said:

100% correct.....starting with Dupree.

totaldiva said:

I hear what you're saying but like I said....she doesn't do this alll the time.The last time she made an album like this was in 1994 ('Bedtime Stories').For most of her career,she has worked with producers who weren't well-known by the masses.I'm not gonna criticize her for making the occasional "sellout" album because who knows....the next album might be produced by a newcomer that we've never heard of.

VoicesCarry said:

Look,if you wanna go on believing that Janet's problems are because of the
SuperBowl and her race,then there's nothing else that I can say to you.There are many ways that Janet can overcome that backlash (which most people don't care about anymore) but she won't do it.But go ahead....keep blaming it all on her race.

VoicesCarry said:

Unfortunately, they chose this image to lead the album concept and art design which is what people see in stores.

My point was she could be more successful right now if she made people forget the cum-soaked S&M or other racy image for at least a couple albums.

Here in the UK Janet lost most of her fans with All For You, so clearly that had nothing to do with the Superbowl. People just got bored of her and moved on, as they do with most artists eventually. I think it was inevitable that the same thing would happen in America as her music got so bad and her act didn't change at all. People get bored. It's that simple.

The Superbowl was great though because (like MJ's child abuse allegations in 1993) it put a definite "closed" sign on that era of her success, which IMO was coming to an end anyway (the loss of her European audience was a precursor to that). To ignore the age factor here is just insane. Pop music always disregards older artists. That's the nature of pop. In that sense, Madonna is a FREAK! No one else has done what she's done. So expecting Janet to match Madonna's unique achievement is silly. Madonna was always far more iconic than her and is clearly a million times smarter.

estelle81 said:

Totally false Miley cyrus will never be a billionaire the Media make up sh!t, i can remember Madonna promoting hard candy on radio and the DJ said to M your worth 300 million dollars,then Madonna laughed and said is that all,Madonna is probably worth over half billion or more.Worldwide Madonna has always been more successful than Janet.

xperience319 said:

she has an estimated forture of 600million

SoulAlive said:

And if you wanna go on believing that you live in some magical world where black artists don't experience discrimination because they're successful, there's nothing else I can say to you.

Of course her problems are because of the SuperBowl....when people talk about her career now, it's pre- and post-SuperBowl. And, yes, race, sex, age and the way she handled it were all factors in the backlash.
[Edited 11/1/08 10:01am]

In Europe at least Janet was never a superstar. Up until 1993 she was just the young sis of Michael who managed to do two good albums. In fact up until 1991 she had only two UK Top 10 hits. I think she started be taken seriously with the Janet album but then messed up her success by doing again and again the same type of music. Around "All For You" she was off the public radar.
Madonna on the other hand was always the queen of pop. In 1993 her popularity took a serious dive but she progressively rebounded. Her personality, her songs, her videos, her attitude, her shows and her constant change of musical styles along with the images put her way above all the competition but Janet was never big in Europe anyway. She doesn't even have a UK#1 hit whereas all the other divas do
That said I always enjoyed Janet's music and I think she is much better than any other diva except Madonna of course. Definitely better than Mariah.I still remember all my excitement when "Rhythm Nation" or "Escapade" was getting played in the clubs the first year I was doing clubbing
[Edited 11/1/08 10:59am]

madsgreat said:

The only artist that I know for sure is worth over a billion dollars is Paul McCartney and that was before that nasty divorce, so I don't know, but Paul has been around for more than 3 decades, so I would hope he had that much or close to that amount by this point. He would have more had MJ not have bought much of the Beatles' cataloge...that was one damn smart move, MJ.

It could very well be an elaborated monetary assumption by the media, but Miley has a ridiculously popular CHILDREN'S TV show, had a huge tour, a sold-out film to accompany it, and shitloads of merchandise. They estimate her at making close to $50 million a year if the success of her Hannah Montana franchise continues at this pace. Neither Madonna or Janet have this going for them; they don't have legions of underaged fans scooping up their merchandise, watching their TV show (because neither one of the have a TV show), or flocking to their shows with their parents in tow. When kids are involved, money matters are going to be doubled because whose going to take them to the concerts and pay for all the merchandise that they beg for...their parents.

So, concert-wise for example, if Madonna has 50,000 seats sold at one of her shows, Miley is going to have double that because they don't let parents into the venue for free, so she's getting a ticket sale per kid and one or two tickets sold to the parents, because someone has to be their to accompany the minor. That's why celebrities and artists who appeal to children have soo much money after only a few years in the business; that is if they make smart decisions when signing their contracts.

If NSync had known how to read a contract properly, they would have definitely gotten waaay more money in the beginning, but they all faired well in the end and they are a group of 5 guys...Madonna is a solo artist, always has been, so she never had to split the money with anyone, so she had better be worth close to half a billion at the least since she's been out since the mid-80s and NSync didn't debut until almost a decade later.

Britney's initial fanbase was young kids and teenagers and she's worth well over $150 million last I heard and she's only been out for 10 years. Hell, the Olsen twins are billionaires and they've been loaded for years now; and they are waay younger than Madonna, so it is possible for Miley Cyrus to be a billionaire if her popularity with younger audiences stays steady and she doesn't fuck up and do something stupid.

As much more 'popular' as Madonna is over Janet; Janet is one of the few, if not the only, female artists to have an album with multiple number ones on it...not sure if anyone has broken her record yet as almost 2 decades have passed since it was released. "Rhythm Nation" blew many artists out of the water and it's still something that Madonna has yet to achieve no matter how much more popular her albums are over Janet's. Madonna has always been the better businesswoman out of all the female artists, young and old, so she's definitely tops in that area, which is one of the main reasons I believe she's been around for soo long, that and her constant need to re-invent herself.

I don't get it, as much as I like all these artist (Janet, MJ, Prince, Madonna, etc.), some have achieved greatness where others have not and vice versa. MJ is amazing, but even he hasn't won an Oscar, yet Prince has, but he's no where near MJ's popularity throughout the world. Whose the most popular is soo high school to me, always has been and always will continue to be. I don't care how many people like an artist, because if the music sucks than I know that most of those people are just die-hard fans or individuals who get easily distracted by an artist's image and pretty flashing lights.

Personally, I go on smart business endeavors and career achievements to determine who's 'successful' to me, not how many people in whatever country likes this person. Mariah outsold both of them in the US with 'Emancipation of Mimi', and she didn't come out until 1990 or 1991. Plus, I think Mariah got paid over $100 million dollars when her record company broke her contract after 'Glitter' bombed and she supposedly had a nervous breakdown, so she's apparently not that dumb after all.

After Prince got out of his WB contract, he started selling his music online. Even though 'Crystal Ball' sold less than 500,000 copies worldwide, he still gets half of that money, because he didn't have to pay a record label, so if he was selling that set for $50 a piece and getting close to half of that, you can do the math and see who came out on top in the end. Making smart business decisions and learning how to read contracts is the most intelligent thing any artist or celebrity can ever do, so who cares if more people like one or the other, whoever signed the best contract is the winner in the end. Both are successful and neither one has an amazing singing voice, so they both came out on top IMO. Just my

marian said:

Sure, Janet was never huge in Europe, but she had a medium sized audience for most of the '90s. With All For You though, she lost about 75% of that audience. Those fans obviously got bored and moved elsewhere.

I think the only reason American fans held on longer was because she was such a bigger star there, so it naturally took longer for them to see past that and realise she just wasn't delivering anymore.

estelle81 said:

That is a good point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ation_1814
"Its seven commercial singles ... all peaked within the top five on the Billboard Hot 100 singles chart. Rhythm Nation 1814 subsequently became the only album in history to contain seven top five hit singles..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...of_the_USA
Madonna has achievements of her own but not from a singular album.

Cinnie said:

When people like to throw out, 'this artist is more successful than this artist', I always give the Jennifer Hudson/Beyonce scenario. Beyonce was obviously more popular and successful than Jennifer Hudson...until 'Dreamgirls' came out. Beyonce was the popular one in Destiny's Child and became the successful solo artist and even did some films before 'Dreamgirls'. Jennifer Hudson went from being a contestant on 'American Idol', who only made it to the 7 spot, to being a Golden Globe and Oscar winning actress (can't remember if she has a Grammy ) and just released her debut album. Beyonce has waay more albums than J. Hud, but Beyonce don't have no Oscar, so whose more successful really? Jennifer was barely a signed artist and definitely had never been an actress, yet she has an award that actors who have been doing films for decades can't even say they have. If I was Jennifer and another artist came up to me saying they sold more albums than me so they were more successful than I was, than my only response would be, "Yeah, okay, see when you get 'Oscar-winner' put before your name on all your projects, than you come back and talk to me, but until than you can kiss ass." Seriously, if you have won an Olympic gold medal and/or the Noble Peace prize, can't nobody tell you shit, because they don't just hand those out to anybody. Achievements will always reign supreme for me over how popular someone is, but that's just me.
[Edited 11/1/08 12:31pm]

estelle81 said:

your math on the concerts doesn't make sense venues only have a limited number of seats a sell out by either miley or Madonna is the same. the only difference is the amount charged on the ticket. Madonna is going to gross north of 300million on this tour once it all said and done and how many artists do you see selling out arena and nearly selling out stadiums at $300 a pop?

Miley is just the replacement for Hilary Duff, as soon as the suits need a new girl Miley will be left in the wilderness

Arnotts said:

I didn't say all black artists were not successful. Michale piggy-backed on the success of the group he was in and appeared as non-threatening, non-controversial, and as limp-dicked as possible. Plus, he had Quincy Jones creating his music

LiquidGold said:

estelle81 said:

Jennifer won the Best New Artist Grammy without even having an album

LiquidGold said:

No she didn't. She won the Best New Artist at the BET Awards, lol.

work, perserverance, ambition, drive, work, intelligence = results

laziness, excuses, crying, avoidance, comfort = less results

Cinnie said:

Honestly, his "I love the animals and children" ass made him look so naive and innocent...who doesn't love that?

If Michael was never in the Jackson 5 and started as a solo artist at 20, he would have had a harder time climbing those charts. The Jackson family used to be a dynasty

Timmy84 said:

You sure?

LiquidGold said:

Nevermind. I looked it up. I knew she won that for something

LiquidGold said:

Either way, it shows just how meaningless awards are.

midnightmover said:

I saw it more as a testament to how good she was. She was on an album. Even though it was a soundtrack, she was on a lot a songs it, if not the majority. She's got killer pipes. I'm sure she'll win next year's Grammy

ehuffnsd said:

Honestly, I have no idea if they are both in the same size venues. That Miley Cyrus tour grossed over $70 million dollars and I don't know if that includes the movie tickets or just the concert tickets, but I'm sure it doesn't include the merchandise profit; and if she was asking for waay less money on tickets than Madonna and grossed this much, than that's a feat for a child personality who I think is tone deaf because she screams in many of the songs I've heard.

Either way, it's crazy to think that this 15 year old kid is grossing that much and really is just what you say, the new Hilary Duff. I do know that Madonna is not the only artist to be charging these ridiculous ticket prices. Barbara Streisand made over $90 million in 2006 on her tour which I'm sure wasn't any where near the size of Madonna's and didn't have all the elaborate stage designs and swarm of back-up dancers. Madonna may be pulling in a large amount for her tours, but how much is she shelling out to make them so visually stimulating? I remember Elton John was charging about this when he did some shows a few years ago. All I can say is that if Barbara can make that much money on a small venue, than, wow, she must have some extremely dedicated fans.

LiquidGold said:

That's because you're naive. No one gets awards based on how good they are. It's all about positioning. You have to get big name stars to your ceremony in order to ensure coverage, and you also have to avoid offending people as much as possible. So most awards are determined by politics, not talent. When MC Hammer won Best Rap Album at the Grammys in 1990, do you think it really meant he released the best album that year? Please.