Clips from Rhythm Nation, Janet and Velvet Rope , All For You Tours

One of my Favorites from RN Tour

Heres a clip of her singing live while dancing

BADASSS performance of RN

Okay so I have been watching alot of Janet lately as you can tell...

I mean I'm going to be honest... I dont think this woman is perfect but she is by far the best female entertainer of the last 25 years. NO QUESTION. (Im not counting Madonna because she more so came out in the 80's Janet did to but late 80s- and although I am a casual Madonna fan I just feel Janet is a better overall performer)

Nobody touches Janet. Nobody has the same creative live shows, creative/electrifying choregraphy and stage costumes. She just has the whole package. EACH OF HER TOURS HAD A THEME and ALL the performacnes WERE DIFFERENT or had different elements incorporated in the iconic choreography and different costumes for EACH TOUR

AND STILL TILL THIS DAY.... NOBODY touches her

Im not calling out no names but it just amazes me how Janet was doing these shows like 10-15 years ago which really isnt a long time ago and people seem to forget that she was a bad ass performer.

NOBODY OUT NOW DOES ANY THE THINGS ABOVE, NOBODY

NO real dancing, No real creative stage props/show etc, Nothing creative... So I am not to sure why people get so hype about these wack overrated perfomers now when they dont deliver a good performance like the shows above.

Recently 2011

Still pretty good (taking her age into consideration) but no costume changes, small venue and no elaborate staging. She needs to fire Gil (her choregrapher she has had for majority of the 00s) and find a more creative choregrapher. I would say hook back up with Tina Landon but I doubt that will ever happen again.

She needs to get back with Jimmy and Terry and get back to making more creative music.

What do you think happen? Do you think she can still sell out Stadiums/ Arenas if she makes her show more creative and creates more artistic music?

FOR THE ONES WHO HAVE TROUBLE DECIPHERING FROM WEAVE TOSSIN/BOOTY POPPING FROM DANCING.....

THIS IS A DANCING POWERHOUSE, take notes folks so I wont have to correct again

it's very simple

it's all deliberate

those involved in the industry who are in position to shape direction

they can't show footage of the great performers of the past

because if they did, it would show how drastic the entertainment value has declined

so they have to phase out the true presentation in order for the current brand of artists to exist

but this dynamic didn't just arise, it started in the late 80s

as those stars the industry tried to promote during the video age, the industry chose not to recognized the great contribution of the 70s

same thing during the 90s as those genuine artists of the 80s, their contribution was totally overlooked.....

the activity has operating in the prism of the pop ascension movement, so really what's happening is the industry is sabotaging itself w/out even realizing it, because when this movement took hold, it was never about musical contribution as much as it was about exploiting the virtues of culture.

they know today's female performers can't touch what Janet Jackson was doing back in the 80s and 90s....they know deep down in their gut that is the case

the problem is, we have a litany of individuals cast as performers who really shouldn't be in that position......

it's like in the NBA, ESPN and all those other stans are trying to hype up Lebron James and claim he's better than Michael Jordan when they know good and well he's not.....

[Edited 2/24/13 7:50am]

Scorp said:

it's very simple

it's all deliberate

those involved in the industry who are in position to shape direction

they can't show footage of the great performers of the past

because if they did, it would show how drastic the entertainment value has declined

so they have to phase out the true presentation in order for the current brand of artists to exist

but this dynamic didn't just arise, it started in the late 80s

as those stars the industry tried to promote during the video age, the industry chose not to recognized the great contribution of the 70s

same thing during the 90s as those genuine artists of the 80s, their contribution was totally overlooked.....

the activity has operating in the prism of the pop ascension movement, so really what's happening is the industry is sabotaging itself w/out even realizing it, because when this movement took hold, it was never about musical contribution as much as it was about exploiting the virtues of culture.

they know today's female performers can't touch what Janet Jackson was doing back in the 80s and 90s....they know deep down in their gut that is the case

the problem is, we have a litany of individuals cast as performers who really shouldn't be in that position......

it's like in the NBA, ESPN and all those other stans are trying to hype up Lebron James and claim he's better than Michael Jordan when they know good and well he's not.....

[Edited 2/24/13 7:50am]

We bump heads alot but this is a great post!

Here is my issue:

Some of the entertainers we have today do have some level of talent but that is not really the problem. I just dont like how they call certain performers dancers when they are not dancers or call certain performers singers when they have average vocals OR call entertainers artists when they clearly are not artists. TO ME, the entertainers of today all are lacking in more than one area but for some reason they get credit in being exceptional in all areas of music/entertainment such as: dancing, singing, music, songwriting and creativity

Its terrible because your right. It is an industry thing and since music and entertainment has turned for the worse they have brought the bar down lower anytime all someone has to do is shake their butt to be entertaining.... they really call that shit DANCING today... I mean what the fuck is everybody smoking???

I will never understand it.

The ONLY female entertainer that I have been impressed with has been Janelle Monae as far as having the overall package (good music, good songwriter, plays instrument, good dancer, good live singer, creative shows) and while I love her...... even she still dont touch Janet.

You know my feelings already on Le bron James He is a average ball player to me and very overrated. It was also jacked up how he left Cleaveland I have no respect for him. He had to go to another team to win a Championship which Miami barely won and even still Thunder is still WAYYYY better than Miami

mjscarousal said:

Scorp said:

it's very simple

it's all deliberate

those involved in the industry who are in position to shape direction

they can't show footage of the great performers of the past

because if they did, it would show how drastic the entertainment value has declined

so they have to phase out the true presentation in order for the current brand of artists to exist

but this dynamic didn't just arise, it started in the late 80s

as those stars the industry tried to promote during the video age, the industry chose not to recognized the great contribution of the 70s

same thing during the 90s as those genuine artists of the 80s, their contribution was totally overlooked.....

the activity has operating in the prism of the pop ascension movement, so really what's happening is the industry is sabotaging itself w/out even realizing it, because when this movement took hold, it was never about musical contribution as much as it was about exploiting the virtues of culture.

they know today's female performers can't touch what Janet Jackson was doing back in the 80s and 90s....they know deep down in their gut that is the case

the problem is, we have a litany of individuals cast as performers who really shouldn't be in that position......

it's like in the NBA, ESPN and all those other stans are trying to hype up Lebron James and claim he's better than Michael Jordan when they know good and well he's not.....

[Edited 2/24/13 7:50am]

We bump heads alot but this is a great post!

Here is my issue:

Some of the entertainers we have today do have some level of talent but that is not really the problem. I just dont like how they call certain performers dancers when they are not dancers or call certain performers singers when they have average vocals OR call entertainers artists when they clearly are not artists. TO ME, the entertainers of today all are lacking in more than one area but for some reason they get credit in being exceptional in all areas of music/entertainment such as: dancing, singing, music, songwriting and creativity

Its terrible because your right. It is an industry thing and since music and entertainment has turned for the worse they have brought the bar down lower anytime all someone has to do is shake their butt to be entertaining.... they really call that shit DANCING today... I mean what the fuck is everybody smoking???

I will never understand it.

The ONLY female entertainer that I have been impressed with has been Janelle Monae as far as having the overall package (good music, good songwriter, plays instrument, good dancer, good live singer, creative shows) and while I love her...... even she still dont touch Janet.

You know my feelings already on Le bron James He is a average ball player to me and very overrated. It was also jacked up how he left Cleaveland I have no respect for him. He had to go to another team to win a Championship which Miami barely won and even still Thunder is still WAYYYY better than Miami

Agreed, especially the underlined

Scorp said:

it's very simple

it's all deliberate

those involved in the industry who are in position to shape direction

they can't show footage of the great performers of the past

because if they did, it would show how drastic the entertainment value has declined

so they have to phase out the true presentation in order for the current brand of artists to exist

but this dynamic didn't just arise, it started in the late 80s

as those stars the industry tried to promote during the video age, the industry chose not to recognized the great contribution of the 70s

same thing during the 90s as those genuine artists of the 80s, their contribution was totally overlooked.....

the activity has operating in the prism of the pop ascension movement, so really what's happening is the industry is sabotaging itself w/out even realizing it, because when this movement took hold, it was never about musical contribution as much as it was about exploiting the virtues of culture.

they know today's female performers can't touch what Janet Jackson was doing back in the 80s and 90s....they know deep down in their gut that is the case

the problem is, we have a litany of individuals cast as performers who really shouldn't be in that position......

it's like in the NBA, ESPN and all those other stans are trying to hype up Lebron James and claim he's better than Michael Jordan when they know good and well he's not.....

[Edited 2/24/13 7:50am]

Load of bollocks. I'd heard of previous decades artists in the following decade, i'm sure we all did. If you're really that good, your reputation endures. If you're not, you might fail to sell as many tix as you once did.

People elevate her beyond what she really was. She aint no Beatles, Stones, Bowie, Wonder, Springsteen, Prince, MJ, Madonna etc It's really that simple. Utterly preposterous notion scorp.

Marrk said:

Scorp said:

it's very simple

it's all deliberate

those involved in the industry who are in position to shape direction

they can't show footage of the great performers of the past

because if they did, it would show how drastic the entertainment value has declined

so they have to phase out the true presentation in order for the current brand of artists to exist

but this dynamic didn't just arise, it started in the late 80s

as those stars the industry tried to promote during the video age, the industry chose not to recognized the great contribution of the 70s

same thing during the 90s as those genuine artists of the 80s, their contribution was totally overlooked.....

the activity has operating in the prism of the pop ascension movement, so really what's happening is the industry is sabotaging itself w/out even realizing it, because when this movement took hold, it was never about musical contribution as much as it was about exploiting the virtues of culture.

they know today's female performers can't touch what Janet Jackson was doing back in the 80s and 90s....they know deep down in their gut that is the case

the problem is, we have a litany of individuals cast as performers who really shouldn't be in that position......

it's like in the NBA, ESPN and all those other stans are trying to hype up Lebron James and claim he's better than Michael Jordan when they know good and well he's not.....

[Edited 2/24/13 7:50am]

Load of bollocks. I'd heard of previous decades artists in the following decade, i'm sure we all did. If you're really that good, your reputation endures. If you're not, you might fail to sell as many tix as you once did.

People elevate her beyond what she really was. She aint no Beatles, Stones, Bowie, Wonder, Springsteen, Prince, MJ, Madonna etc It's really that simple. Utterly preposterous notion scorp.

You know what Mark YOUR RIGHT! T

This coming from a huge Michael Jackson fan

She is not in their categories of talent (although I do think she by far has more raw talent than Madonna)

With saying all this, it does not change that she was a BAD ASS female PERFORMER in her prime, period.

No one is saying she was Mozart

No one is calling her a genius

But she damn sure busted her ass on that dance floor and gave us creative elaborate shows. She was/is talented whether she is a Mozart talent or not.

NO FEMALE performer TODAY (besides obviously Madonna but Im not counting her because she is not of this generation) is doing the same shows Janet did or has the same level of dancing skill and athleticism, PERIOD.

And she does DESERVE more props/credit than what she gets especially as an FEMALE entertainer.

Please point out where I said she was a Prince or MJ? I just insisted that the bar has dropped low as far as PERFORMERS and that she deserves more props than what she gets as a performer. I dont think Scorp suggested anything of the like which you are implying in this post.

It IS true the industry has made the bar lower

It IS true the industry/media calls certain performers entertaining ... when they are not.

[Edited 2/24/13 8:53am]

I've never been to a Janet concert, and never wanted to go. It's "the voice" for me, as I've said many times. All else is secondary or icing on the cake. That's how I got to this board. I became a Prince fan by being taken in listening to his voice on the radio. Not seeing him dance. Dancing is great, but it's about the singing for me, first and foremost. I did listen to Janet during the Control era, and I do love her dancing from that period. I liked Control best, think her voice was a bit stronger during that period, and the beats strong. I've had other songs by Janet, but they were given to me for free. Janet's voice is too weak and thin for me to really be into her, and her whole body of work that way. *shrug* I'd say I'm a Michael fan, not a Janet fan.

Marrk said:

Scorp said:

it's very simple

it's all deliberate

those involved in the industry who are in position to shape direction

they can't show footage of the great performers of the past

because if they did, it would show how drastic the entertainment value has declined

so they have to phase out the true presentation in order for the current brand of artists to exist

but this dynamic didn't just arise, it started in the late 80s

as those stars the industry tried to promote during the video age, the industry chose not to recognized the great contribution of the 70s

same thing during the 90s as those genuine artists of the 80s, their contribution was totally overlooked.....

the activity has operating in the prism of the pop ascension movement, so really what's happening is the industry is sabotaging itself w/out even realizing it, because when this movement took hold, it was never about musical contribution as much as it was about exploiting the virtues of culture.

they know today's female performers can't touch what Janet Jackson was doing back in the 80s and 90s....they know deep down in their gut that is the case

the problem is, we have a litany of individuals cast as performers who really shouldn't be in that position......

it's like in the NBA, ESPN and all those other stans are trying to hype up Lebron James and claim he's better than Michael Jordan when they know good and well he's not.....

[Edited 2/24/13 7:50am]

Load of bollocks. I'd heard of previous decades artists in the following decade, i'm sure we all did. If you're really that good, your reputation endures. If you're not, you might fail to sell as many tix as you once did.

People elevate her beyond what she really was. She aint no Beatles, Stones, Bowie, Wonder, Springsteen, Prince, MJ, Madonna etc It's really that simple. Utterly preposterous notion scorp.

you must have overlooked what I just posted

I guess I have to quote my own words so what I mentioned isn't distorted

those involved in the industry who are in position to shape direction

they can't show footage of the great performers of the past

because if they did, it would show how drastic the entertainment value has declined

so they have to phase out the true presentation in order for the current brand of artists to exist

but this dynamic didn't just arise, it started in the late 80s

as those stars the industry tried to promote during the video age, the industry chose not to recognized the great contribution of the 70s

same thing during the 90s as those genuine artists of the 80s, their contribution was totally overlooked.....

I didn't say the public...I said THE INDUSTRY.....

many of the great musicians and entertainers of the 70s were disowned by the industry for as long as a 10 year stretch

perfect example was BARRY WHITE...THE MAESTRO as he was so accurately called....

this guy sold over 100 million records alone in the 70s, and was making stellar music w/each production

and as soon as the 80s hit, he was totally pushed out by the industry

so....was it because he lost his talent all of a sudden.....no way.....

it was because the industry wanted to promote the rise of the video age and promoted individuals to became stars in order to appeal to the widest commercial audience imaginable, and if you were deemed too close to culture, the industry was not going to deal with you

we didn't hear from Barry White until he performed on Quincy Jone's classic production THE SECRET GARDEN in 1990

another group.....LOOSE ENDS of the mids 80s, was arguably the greatest musicians on the planet, and their style was being co-opted by more well recognized producers such as Chucki Booker and even Teddy Riley to an extent.....

I know another guy personally, and he had a two hour talk with me and spilled the beans 10 years ago...this guy was a rapper, and he happened to work on the same label as WILL SMITH when he was performing with JAZZ JEFF....

this cat told me that he was write rhymes for himself, and cut them as songs, then the label would take that song and the style of the rap and literally give it to WILL to perform, making him a superstar because of the image he projected, while the guy who blood, sweat, and teared in the background was never given a fair shake

then you have a ton of great white musicians who were just as shunned as the black ones during those years.....

a guy like Boz Scaggs, cool as ice, when the video age arrived, he was pushed out by the industry

then you have Kenny Loggins, I thought this guy was A1, and while he was being pushed out, his music was being sampled by the likes of KIRK FRANKLIN and the like.....

PHIL COLLINS probably got the rawest deal by any of the leading white artists of the 80s....this guy was stellar, always brought the goods, but because he was an older guy, the industry didn't want to touch him by the time the 90s hit.....

PAT BENATAR......you mean to tell me she could take a number of today's female artists to school. She would teach them all a lesson on what it really means to be a performer. she didn't have to sell sex to earn record sales like Madonna did by the time 90s hit....

I'm a tell you what JANET JACKSON is....she's the woman who dropped the tightest, best album by any female artist in the past 24 years when she unleashed Rhythm Nation 1814, an album so crisp, even the most recognizeable figure in music, her own brother Michael Jackson was playing her songs from that album while he was dance rehearsing......

tell me another female artist since the turn of the new millenium who has dropped a song as socially conscious as STATE OF THE WORLD or LIVING IN A WORLD THEY DIDN'T MAKE....

I'll be waiting....

mjscarousal said:

Marrk said:

Load of bollocks. I'd heard of previous decades artists in the following decade, i'm sure we all did. If you're really that good, your reputation endures. If you're not, you might fail to sell as many tix as you once did.

People elevate her beyond what she really was. She aint no Beatles, Stones, Bowie, Wonder, Springsteen, Prince, MJ, Madonna etc It's really that simple. Utterly preposterous notion scorp.

You know what Mark YOUR RIGHT! T

This coming from a huge Michael Jackson fan

She is not in their categories of talent (although I do think she by far has more raw talent than Madonna)

With saying all this, it does not change that she was a BAD ASS female PERFORMER in her prime, period.

No one is saying she was Mozart

No one is calling her a genius

But she damn sure busted her ass on that dance floor and gave us creative elaborate shows. She was/is talented whether she is a Mozart talent or not.

NO FEMALE performer TODAY (besides obviously Madonna but Im not counting her because she is not of this generation) is doing the same shows Janet did or has the same level of dancing skill and athleticism, PERIOD.

And she does DESERVE more props/credit than what she gets especially as an FEMALE entertainer.

Please point out where I said she was a Prince or MJ? I just insisted that the bar has dropped low as far as PERFORMERS and that she deserves more props than what she gets as a performer. I dont think Scorp suggested anything of the like which you are implying in this post.

It IS true the industry has made the bar lower

It IS true the industry/media calls certain performers entertaining ... when they are not.

[Edited 2/24/13 8:53am]

thanks MJCAROUSAL....I appreciate ya

mjscarousal said:

Scorp said:

it's very simple

it's all deliberate

those involved in the industry who are in position to shape direction

they can't show footage of the great performers of the past

because if they did, it would show how drastic the entertainment value has declined

so they have to phase out the true presentation in order for the current brand of artists to exist

but this dynamic didn't just arise, it started in the late 80s

as those stars the industry tried to promote during the video age, the industry chose not to recognized the great contribution of the 70s

same thing during the 90s as those genuine artists of the 80s, their contribution was totally overlooked.....

the activity has operating in the prism of the pop ascension movement, so really what's happening is the industry is sabotaging itself w/out even realizing it, because when this movement took hold, it was never about musical contribution as much as it was about exploiting the virtues of culture.

they know today's female performers can't touch what Janet Jackson was doing back in the 80s and 90s....they know deep down in their gut that is the case

the problem is, we have a litany of individuals cast as performers who really shouldn't be in that position......

it's like in the NBA, ESPN and all those other stans are trying to hype up Lebron James and claim he's better than Michael Jordan when they know good and well he's not.....

[Edited 2/24/13 7:50am]

We bump heads alot but this is a great post!

Here is my issue:

Some of the entertainers we have today do have some level of talent but that is not really the problem. I just dont like how they call certain performers dancers when they are not dancers or call certain performers singers when they have average vocals OR call entertainers artists when they clearly are not artists. TO ME, the entertainers of today all are lacking in more than one area but for some reason they get credit in being exceptional in all areas of music/entertainment such as: dancing, singing, music, songwriting and creativity

Its terrible because your right. It is an industry thing and since music and entertainment has turned for the worse they have brought the bar down lower anytime all someone has to do is shake their butt to be entertaining.... they really call that shit DANCING today... I mean what the fuck is everybody smoking???

I will never understand it.

The ONLY female entertainer that I have been impressed with has been Janelle Monae as far as having the overall package (good music, good songwriter, plays instrument, good dancer, good live singer, creative shows) and while I love her...... even she still dont touch Janet.

You know my feelings already on Le bron James He is a average ball player to me and very overrated. It was also jacked up how he left Cleaveland I have no respect for him. He had to go to another team to win a Championship which Miami barely won and even still Thunder is still WAYYYY better than Miami

omg...that's funny.......lollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

thanks for that....

and you're right...lebron james ditched on to another squad and formed a superteam to win his league mandated title...OKC was robbed.....Kevin Durant was robbed..

MadamGoodnight said:

I've never been to a Janet concert, and never wanted to go. It's "the voice" for me, as I've said many times. All else is secondary or icing on the cake. That's how I got to this board. I became a Prince fan by being taken in listening to his voice on the radio. Not seeing him dance. Dancing is great, but it's about the singing for me, first and foremost. I did listen to Janet during the Control era, and I do love her dancing from that period. I liked Control best, think her voice was a bit stronger during that period, and the beats strong. I've had other songs by Janet, but they were given to me for free. Janet's voice is too weak and thin for me to really be into her, and her whole body of work that way. *shrug* I'd say I'm a Michael fan, not a Janet fan.

Thanks boo!

I agree with the points you made. Janet does have a weak voice but I would say her strongest eras as a singer were Control/RN. I mostly love her because she made relatable music and she was a good performer. Control, RN, VR, Janet are really strong albums where I can look past the voice. I definitly agree elaborate shows/performances should not excuse that. However, I just wanted to remind some people of what REAL dancing is and creative staging is since they call some of these female performers dancers and creative and they are really not.

mjscarousal said:

MadamGoodnight said:

I've never been to a Janet concert, and never wanted to go. It's "the voice" for me, as I've said many times. All else is secondary or icing on the cake. That's how I got to this board. I became a Prince fan by being taken in listening to his voice on the radio. Not seeing him dance. Dancing is great, but it's about the singing for me, first and foremost. I did listen to Janet during the Control era, and I do love her dancing from that period. I liked Control best, think her voice was a bit stronger during that period, and the beats strong. I've had other songs by Janet, but they were given to me for free. Janet's voice is too weak and thin for me to really be into her, and her whole body of work that way. *shrug* I'd say I'm a Michael fan, not a Janet fan.

Thanks boo!

I agree with the points you made. Janet does have a weak voice but I would say her strongest eras as a singer were Control/RN. I mostly love her because she made relatable music and she was a good performer. Control, RN, VR, Janet are really strong albums where I can look past the voice. I definitly agree elaborate shows/performances should not excuse that. However, I just wanted to remind some people of what REAL dancing is and creative staging is since they call some of these female performers dancers and creative and they are really not.

No prob! See, I am attached to the vocals. The voice is number one for me, always will be. If it's a good song with weak, watered down vocals, then I'm wishing that someone else was singing it. I can't get past that part. Dancing is far down on the list. I want to know can you sing acapella, no instrument, and hold it down? If you can't, you're not going to hold my attention as an artist. As a kid I listened to Chaka, Teena, folks like that, so I can't get with the songs that have a thin voice on lead. I understand your points about the dancing too, but it's about hearing the songs, long before any visuals come into play.

I'd say no. She hasn't had a hit here in over 10 years, her albums get to 63 then vanish off the charts. She filled the Royal Albert Hall though in 2009 or '10. Unless she has some Cher like comeback, a big hit like Believe or teams up with her brothers then arenas will be filled. But I don't even think Rhythm Nation was that big here either, it was huge in America & Japan but not in Europe really. Janet. was bigger, her only number 1 record here. But Together Again always appears on 'Should've been number 1' countdowns.

[Edited 2/24/13 10:28am]

[Edited 2/24/13 10:38am]

No she can't. She had a good run in the late eighties/early nineties, especially considering her limited vocal abilities, but her time has passed -as her album sales clearly show- and there are others filling her spot.

whitesockedfunk said:

No she can't. She had a good run in the late eighties/early nineties, especially considering her limited vocal abilities, but her time has passed -as her album sales clearly show- and there are others filling her spot.

Never understood how is it that The Spice Girls and News Kids on the Block can captalize on the whole nostalgia thing, but Janet Jackson can't.

whitesockedfunk said:

No she can't. She had a good run in the late eighties/early nineties, especially considering her limited vocal abilities, but her time has passed -as her album sales clearly show- and there are others filling her spot.

Janet has absolutely nothing to prove.....at all....

Janet's greatest miscalculation is similar to a litany of female r&b artists

when the 200s arrived, she tried to appeal to an exclusive youth oriented crowd, hip-hop oriented and that caused her album sales to decline rather than relying on what made her truly successful

but that wasn't even her fault as much as the direction the recording industry dictated....

nobody is feeling her spot because record sales as a whole has declined drasticually........

I'd watch her do anything.

US / Asia - probably

Australia / NZ - maybe

Europe - no

I think Janet can have a successful tour in Asia. Japan has always loved her, and the Japanese love to go to any shows.

Janet has never been a huge star in Europe, but the Europeans have respect for veteran artists, so stadiums - no, but Janet can fill arenas in major European cities: London, Berlin, Madrid.

whitesockedfunk said:

No she can't. She had a good run in the late eighties/early nineties, especially considering her limited vocal abilities, but her time has passed -as her album sales clearly show- and there are others filling her spot.

More like 1986-2004. Damita Jo did manage to sell over 3M worldwide.

MadamGoodnight said:

mjscarousal said:

Thanks boo!

I agree with the points you made. Janet does have a weak voice but I would say her strongest eras as a singer were Control/RN. I mostly love her because she made relatable music and she was a good performer. Control, RN, VR, Janet are really strong albums where I can look past the voice. I definitly agree elaborate shows/performances should not excuse that. However, I just wanted to remind some people of what REAL dancing is and creative staging is since they call some of these female performers dancers and creative and they are really not.

No prob! See, I am attached to the vocals. The voice is number one for me, always will be. If it's a good song with weak, watered down vocals, then I'm wishing that someone else was singing it. I can't get past that part. Dancing is far down on the list. I want to know can you sing acapella, no instrument, and hold it down? If you can't, you're not going to hold my attention as an artist. As a kid I listened to Chaka, Teena, folks like that, so I can't get with the songs that have a thin voice on lead. I understand your points about the dancing too, but it's about hearing the songs, long before any visuals come into play.

I agree!

I just think Janet has a strong catalogue which mostly consists of Control- VR. For me, the LYRICS, the messages and overall music composition is what counts. Now I do care about the singing first and foremost but if your music is bad I dont care how good you sing.

You can have a voice like Whitney and have garbage music and there still is no legacy there. Although Janet might not be able to sell like she once did she does have alot of classics.I cant say the same for the female performers out now because Janet was not only a performer, she was an artist as well.

But your right dancing, staging, entertainment etc is secondary but in Janets case I feel her lyrics and music productions compensate for her voice. (I do realize alot of people cant get pass that which is understandable)

Now if all her music was bad I dont think I would be fan even if she was a good performer. I am mostly a fan of her Control- VR material specificially. Her 00's material for the majority is bland and I dont care for it at all.

whitesockedfunk said:

No she can't. She had a good run in the late eighties/early nineties, especially considering her limited vocal abilities, but her time has passed -as her album sales clearly show- and there are others filling her spot.

Thanks for responding to the question but I disagree with the last comments.

Janet sold between 75-100 million copies. NONE of the female entertainers today have sold that many albums and NO singers like Adele/ Norah Jones does not count because they are not entertainers. Her Janet album alone sold over 20 million copies which performer today is selling that off one album???

Maybe they might be selling out stadiums but there records are not selling and there not making iconic/classic music. (Which is the most important thing to be honest)

Also, her peak was around 2001. She was still selling out stadiums up until 2001.

[Edited 2/24/13 11:35am]

mjscarousal said:

whitesockedfunk said:

No she can't. She had a good run in the late eighties/early nineties, especially considering her limited vocal abilities, but her time has passed -as her album sales clearly show- and there are others filling her spot.

Thanks for responding to the question but I disagree with the last comments.

Janet sold between 75-100 million copies. NONE of the female entertainers today have sold that many albums and NO singers like Adele/ Norah Jones does not count because they are not entertainers. Her Janet album alone sold over 20 million copies which performer today is selling that off one album???

Maybe they might be selling out stadiums but there records are not selling and there not making iconic/classic music. (Which is the most important thing to be honest)

Also, her peak was around 2001. She was still selling out stadiums up until 2001.

[Edited 2/24/13 11:35am]

excellent, excellent points....

Edit:

The ignorance in this thread is astounding.

[Edited 2/24/13 12:01pm]

OfftheWall said:

I'd say no. She hasn't had a hit here in over 10 years, her albums get to 63 then vanish off the charts. She filled the Royal Albert Hall though in 2009 or '10. Unless she has some Cher like comeback, a big hit like Believe or teams up with her brothers then arenas will be filled. But I don't even think Rhythm Nation was that big here either, it was huge in America & Japan but not in Europe really. Janet. was bigger, her only number 1 record here. But Together Again always appears on 'Should've been number 1' countdowns.

She sold out three dates at Royal ALbert Hall in 2011.

Her Up CLose and Personal tour has been far, far more successful than her brothers recent tour. If she teamed up with her brothers it would be a big mistake for her.

I question your knowledge on the subject

[Edited 2/24/13 11:55am]

Discipline went to number one in the US, received 'generally favourable reviews' and sold over 500,000 in the US and over 100,000 in Japan. Considering the current state of the music industry, where even current artists like Chris Brown and Rihanna - supposed entertainers - who DON'T sell 280,000 in their first week like Janet did, Janet's albums and career isn't in such a poor state like some of you claim. Discipline was also an abondoned project by both parties (janet and the label)

[Edited 2/24/13 12:10pm]

Marrk said:

Scorp said:

it's very simple

it's all deliberate

those involved in the industry who are in position to shape direction

they can't show footage of the great performers of the past

because if they did, it would show how drastic the entertainment value has declined

so they have to phase out the true presentation in order for the current brand of artists to exist

but this dynamic didn't just arise, it started in the late 80s

as those stars the industry tried to promote during the video age, the industry chose not to recognized the great contribution of the 70s

same thing during the 90s as those genuine artists of the 80s, their contribution was totally overlooked.....

the activity has operating in the prism of the pop ascension movement, so really what's happening is the industry is sabotaging itself w/out even realizing it, because when this movement took hold, it was never about musical contribution as much as it was about exploiting the virtues of culture.

they know today's female performers can't touch what Janet Jackson was doing back in the 80s and 90s....they know deep down in their gut that is the case

the problem is, we have a litany of individuals cast as performers who really shouldn't be in that position......

it's like in the NBA, ESPN and all those other stans are trying to hype up Lebron James and claim he's better than Michael Jordan when they know good and well he's not.....

[Edited 2/24/13 7:50am]

Load of bollocks. I'd heard of previous decades artists in the following decade, i'm sure we all did. If you're really that good, your reputation endures. If you're not, you might fail to sell as many tix as you once did.

People elevate her beyond what she really was. She aint no Beatles, Stones, Bowie, Wonder, Springsteen, Prince, MJ, Madonna etc It's really that simple. Utterly preposterous notion scorp.

I don't consider Beatles, Wonder, Springsteen or Bowie to be entertainers.

As far as performing is considered, Janet is on the level of Prince + MJ and she suprasses Madonna - who coincedentally can't sing, dance or act. That's why she is elevated to such a high level - and righfully so!

[Edited 2/24/13 12:07pm]

mjscarousal said:

Her Janet album alone sold over 20 million copies which performer today is selling that off one album???

you probably believe in 120 million for Thriller and 1 billion for Elvis Presley, right?

U.S. - only 40%? (7-8 million)
rest sold, probably in France (peak - 16th place) and Germany (5).
This album could not sell more than 14 million

----------------------

Damita Jo had decent sales (2.5 million), but fell in the charts.
US: 2
UK: 32
Can: 7
Aus: 18
Fra: 35
Ger: 21
Jpn: 10

it was a clear decline after All for You, which was the top 3 everywhere.

Azz said:

Discipline went to number one in the US, received 'generally favourable reviews' and sold over 500,000 in the US and over 100,000 in Japan. Considering the current state of the music industry, where even current artists like Chris Brown and Rihanna - supposed entertainers - who DON'T sell 280,000 in their first week like Janet did, Janet's albums and career isn't in such a poor state like some of you claim. Discipline was also an abondoned project by both parties (janet and the label)

[Edited 2/24/13 12:10pm]

Janet has went on to do a variety of successful movies. I personally think if she does not want to do music anymore she should focus on that and continue to grow with it. I am not trying to suggest her career is in a poor state but just acknowledging that her success in music has not been as big like how it was during her peak. (Also acknowledging how underrated she is)

I dont think its IMPOSSIBLE for her to achieve those things again but its definitly going to be alot harder (if that is something that she wants) She would need a REALLY solid album, Jimmy/Terry and a new choreographer. I personally think she should just focus on the R&B charts because she can easily find more success with that. Its been 5 years since Discipline was released, so there is anticipation there for her to release new music.

She needs to focus on being more creative with her music instead of chasing the pop charts. At this point, she has nothing to prove.

mjscarousal said:

Azz said:

Discipline went to number one in the US, received 'generally favourable reviews' and sold over 500,000 in the US and over 100,000 in Japan. Considering the current state of the music industry, where even current artists like Chris Brown and Rihanna - supposed entertainers - who DON'T sell 280,000 in their first week like Janet did, Janet's albums and career isn't in such a poor state like some of you claim. Discipline was also an abondoned project by both parties (janet and the label)

[Edited 2/24/13 12:10pm]

Janet has went on to do a variety of successful movies. I personally think if she does not want to do music anymore she should focus on that and continue to grow with it. I am not trying to suggest her career is in a poor state but just acknowledging that her success in music has not been as big like how it was during her peak. (Also acknowledging how underrated she is)

I dont think its IMPOSSIBLE for her to achieve those things again but its definitly going to be alot harder (if that is something that she wants) She would need a REALLY solid album, Jimmy/Terry and a new choreographer. I personally think she should just focus on the R&B charts because she can easily find more success with that. Its been 5 years since Discipline was released, so there is anticipation there for her to release new music.

She needs to focus on being more creative with her music instead of chasing the pop charts. At this point, she has nothing to prove.

great points MJCAROUSAL

as you mentioned, if she returns back to music, reuniting with Jimmy and Terry would be an awesome move.....she was going throught the motions with Jermaine Dupri