(ThyBlackMan.com) It seems the media is desperate for Janet Jackson to quit the industry. Despite Janet and her team admitting on various occasions that a new album is in the pipeline, the media just refuses to acknowledge it.

Instead they repeat the same mantra: Janet has quit the industry, gone into hiding, converted to Islam and refuses to see her family – with gossip about her brothers begging for money and her suffering from severe OCD.

In reality: Janet is recording an album, has visited her family last month (even supporting her mother Katherine to court), has always supported her brothers when necessary (though they are in no need of support right now, as they are on a very successful tour) and showed no sign of OCD when she was recording (even putting her feet on the table where she would later be mixing on wearing shoes – no OCD sufferer would do this.) No word on her converting, but Janet has always been a very strict Christian, with her book True You referring to biblical quotes, praying and bible reading quite a lot. You don’t change something so important to you in the blink of an eye.





Janet told Billboard last month: “I am working on a new project now.” Soon after Miss Jackson was pictured at a writing session with producer Tommy Parker and Ian Cross, the A&R and Producer Engineer at Janet Jackson Music. Parker is also a writer/producer at Darkchild Records.

For some reason the media seems to have always resented Janet’s success in the 80?s and 90?s, when her rise started with “Control” they immediately claimed it was just because of her famous brother, Michael. A very silly idea, seeing her first albums never charted and if you were to go by this rule all his brothers and sisters should have had massive hit records.

Then they started comparing her to Madonna and critics seemed to love explaining why Madonna did things better than Janet, despite Janet often scoring bigger chart successes than the ambitious blonde.

Before you continue reading realize that I have nothing against Madonna, but there are some facts that need to be told.

Still, the critics got their way, after 2004 and now take great pride in belittling Janet’s (in their eyes) lack of success. To some she is even seen as a “has been”. A very successful “has been”: her last album debuted at number one, and so did two of her recent movies.

Recently it has become clear that they are effectively trying to wipe her out of musical history. The fact that without her artists like Britney, Rihanna’s and Beyoncé’s would not exist is alien to them.

The Superbowl is always cited as the reason of her fall. But they forget: She played THE SUPERBOWL. There is a reason she performed at the Superbowl as she was one of the biggest female singers in history in music up until 2004. You can divide her career between the time leading up to the Superbowl and the time following it.


But come on, people. Of course Janet’s decline had nothing to do with a “nip slip”. Yes, it was a “wardrobe malfunction” in front of a massive audience, but should it really be still be important 10 years after? Many female artists fell out of their dresses at public functions, even at kids award shows. And come to think of it, if a nip slip could cost you a career Madonna wouldn’t have had a career in the first place.

It seems as if the industry was always hoping for an incident like this, so they could at least wipe one Jackson from history.

Look at the dates: the bogus allegations towards Michael started in 2003 with the court case in 2005, discrediting his sister the year in between was obviously part of the plan. They would have found a way to do so without the incident. Janetwas immediately blacklisted, but not Justin Timberlake, whom was also part of the act.

The only reason “Damita Jo”, that followed the incident, sold less, was due to lack of radio and MTV support and promo, which was due to her Superbowl performance. It was clear that the aftermath of this would be used to taint the singer ever since.

The second album following “Damita Jo”, “20 Y.O.” proved this, suffering again from lack of promo and continuing boycott of her music on radio and TV.

When “Discipline” came along they had to ease on the boycott a little and the result? Her 6th number 1 album, making her the only performer ever to have 6 albums debut at number 1.

Despite the media ignoring and ridiculing her, Janet Jacksonstill managed to sell millions and did a very successful tour. Still the media treat her like she’s nothing. They purposely ignore her.

Some claim that she was too old to be sexy anymore. Madonna is walking around in nothing but suspenders aged 55, Janet is 8 years younger.



During the years before The Superbowl Janet and Madonna were seen as equal. But after the Superbowl Madonna suddenly pushed forward as the biggest female singer of the 80?s and 90?s. It was as if everyone had been waiting for Janet to slip up. Janet Jackson had paved the way for many, but everything that should be rightfully accredited to her (and in some instances Whitney Houston) now went to Madonna.

It has now gone to the point where Madonna might as well have been the only female singer in the 80?s and 90?s until Britney Spears, JLo (discovered by Janet) and Destiny’s Child came along.

For those that don’t realize, Janet Jackson is a true artist whom changed the music and music industry. Janet actually spent much more time at the top of Billboard Hot 100 then Madonna. Her longest chart score was “That’s The Way Love Goes” 8 weeks at the top of the chart, Madonna’s was “Take A Bow” 7 weeks.

Janet Jackson is the only artist EVER to have 7 Top 5 singles from one album “Rhythm Nation 1814? and biggest debut tour ever with 2,5 million tickets sold. She was also the first one who used hands-free microphone in 1986, only later adopted by Madonna.

Janet Jackson also won more American Music Awards then any other female artist and was named as the first MTV Icon in 2001.

She also had 3 #1 movies and one #1 bestselling book. She was the first artist with #1 singles in the 80?s, 90?s and 00?s at the Billboard Hot 100. Her dance are still copied by many new female singers

Still it looks like she will never truly be recognized for what she did. She said in her book True You that for the last few years she suffered from racism in the industry, saying “doors that had opened for others were closed in my face, just because of the color of my skin. (…) Today’s racism is more disguised and subtle. But it’s there – and it hurts on many levels.”


http://thyblackman.com/20...s-in-2017/

drivel

MoBettaBliss said:

drivel

Ridiculous article. First of all, Janet Jackson is recognized as a famous pop star.

Second of all, it's silly to blame other people such as Madonna or the media if her reputation has fallen. The main problem is that she has cancelled far too many tour dates. I don't care if you are a pop star or work in an office or a bank or clean houses, if you repeatedly don't show up for work with only a vague explanation, your reputation will suffer.

The thing is, Janet's continued to work and do what she wants, either professionally or privately. Despite the alleged media blackout, they couldn't ignore Unbreakable debuting at number one, and as her first independent release. They couldn't ignore the tour. And they sure aren't ignoring her pregnancy. I guarantee you they're still scampering for that first baby photo.

As far as the "converted to Islam" thing, I think that goes away above Janet (whether she's converted or not). It's the media's constant Islamophobia propaganda. That gets political, and I won't dig into that here, but the media would use anyone who was married to a Muslim as a whipping boy/girl for fear mongering. (Of course, the hypocrisy is that the media serves that fear with a forked tongue while simultaneously assuming the posture of tolerance to all religions.)

PS Just to be specific, she wasn't a Christian. She was a Jehovah's Witness. While some would lump all beliefs that acknowledge Jesus Christ in some regard as Christian, it's simply not true. There are precepts in Christianity that Mormonism and the Kindom Hall ignore and set them apart from traditional Christianity. I'm not here to hijack the thread for a religious debate. Just putting that detail out there. Prince would have never called himself a Christian either - hell, he didn't necessarily (publically that I remember) when he was a Seventh Day Adventist early on.

Back to Janet - I'm not sure why the media has such a vendetta against her. Madonna has strolled out tits out on the catwalk with Jean-Paul Gaultier, published a Sex book (which I proudly own), and still evokes religious imagery in her concerts (the most recent being the last supper setup, and scantily clad nuns while singing "Holy Water" while singing "yeezus likes my pussy best". She's still selling out stadiums, yet Janet's the bad one for a nip slip. Hell - who doesn't like a titty?!

What a poorly written article. I probably should have stopped at "Janet Jackson, Madonna, Music Industry...."

Musicslave said:

What a poorly written article. I probably should have stopped at "Janet Jackson, Madonna, Music Industry...."

I wouldn't deign to even call it an article.

IMO, there is an effort overall to erase/minimize the accomplishments of the true pioneers/legends in music (MJ, Prince, Janet, Madonna, Whitney, etc) in order to make the current crop of pop stars more superior, despite them being mediocre.

mjscarousal said:

IMO, there is an effort overall to erase/minimize the accomplishments of the true pioneers/legends in music (MJ, Prince, Janet, Madonna, Whitney, etc) in order to make the current crop of pop stars more superior, despite them being mediocre.

Ehhh, I'm not sure there's logic in that idea though. What's the point of it? They can't erase Whitney, or Rhythm Nation 1814, or Like A Prayer or Purple Rain, etc. Those are there, and will be forever. Hell some of them are in the national archive.

I have to believe that a lot of music consumers today know that much of the stuff they listen to is bullshit on some level. Meaning, they know about autotune, and big named producers, things like that. There have been endless stories and exposés on that person lip syncing here or this person not really singing fully live, etc. Britney comes to mind, Katy Perry (who keeps her artsy funhouse schtick going as long as possible before everyone realizes Kate Hudson can't sing a lick). The list goes on. As much as I love Madonna, she has her moments of not singing live (usually "Vogue", and a handful of others).

Ultimately the listening public knows when they see or hear bullshit. The problem is they don't care anymore. "Oh I know it's autotuned, but I don't care. I love this song!" They endorse the fakery and the bullshit, so it gets validated. It makes it okay. People thought Prince was being snotty when he used to chant "real music by real musicians" back in 2001, but think about that time frame. More than ever (to that point), it's when we really started to notice acts pulling fakery in concerts. And in their defense, while people pissed on boy bands, it was those boy bands who actually could sing as a group. We heard Nsync, Backstreet, 98º etc sing in a fucking bathroom or an underwater aquarium (good acoustics) and hear their harmonies. Despite the bubble gum music, I had some faith in that they were singing live most times... some of them were anyway.

Us old timers know there won't be another Whitney, or Prince, or Michael Jackson. Thank God we still have great performers like Madonna (who isn't a great vocalist, but can handle it, and puts on a visually stunning show every time), Janet, shit... I almost typed George Michael. I would venture to say that even Duran Duran puts on a better live show these days than someone like Rihanna or Chris Brown or Bieber. People know good, they know hype, and they know great when they see it.

TrivialPursuit said:

MotownSubdivision said:

I have to agree with this. There will always be sheep who will mindlessly follow whatever is popular but with the internet and wealth of knowledge we have at our disposal now there is no way that people can't see past the gimmicks of today's acts. It's worse now because while back in the day, people were largely ignorant of many of these things but now they defend them.

I appreciate this more coming from you.

TrivialPursuit said:

MotownSubdivision said:

TrivialPursuit said:

I appreciate this more coming from you.

What makes me so special??

I think you are one of the folks on here who have a good tap into the music industry, and know it well enough to acknowledge a good opinion wherever you see one. So if I happen to be that person, I consider it good kudos.

TrivialPursuit said:

mjscarousal said:

IMO, there is an effort overall to erase/minimize the accomplishments of the true pioneers/legends in music (MJ, Prince, Janet, Madonna, Whitney, etc) in order to make the current crop of pop stars more superior, despite them being mediocre.

Ehhh, I'm not sure there's logic in that idea though. What's the point of it? They can't erase Whitney, or Rhythm Nation 1814, or Like A Prayer or Purple Rain, etc. Those are there, and will be forever. Hell some of them are in the national archive.

I have to believe that a lot of music consumers today know that much of the stuff they listen to is bullshit on some level. Meaning, they know about autotune, and big named producers, things like that. There have been endless stories and exposés on that person lip syncing here or this person not really singing fully live, etc. Britney comes to mind, Katy Perry (who keeps her artsy funhouse schtick going as long as possible before everyone realizes Kate Hudson can't sing a lick). The list goes on. As much as I love Madonna, she has her moments of not singing live (usually "Vogue", and a handful of others).

Ultimately the listening public knows when they see or hear bullshit. The problem is they don't care anymore. "Oh I know it's autotuned, but I don't care. I love this song!" They endorse the fakery and the bullshit, so it gets validated. It makes it okay. People thought Prince was being snotty when he used to chant "real music by real musicians" back in 2001, but think about that time frame. More than ever (to that point), it's when we really started to notice acts pulling fakery in concerts. And in their defense, while people pissed on boy bands, it was those boy bands who actually could sing as a group. We heard Nsync, Backstreet, 98º etc sing in a fucking bathroom or an underwater aquarium (good acoustics) and hear their harmonies. Despite the bubble gum music, I had some faith in that they were singing live most times... some of them were anyway.

Us old timers know there won't be another Whitney, or Prince, or Michael Jackson. Thank God we still have great performers like Madonna (who isn't a great vocalist, but can handle it, and puts on a visually stunning show every time), Janet, shit... I almost typed George Michael. I would venture to say that even Duran Duran puts on a better live show these days than someone like Rihanna or Chris Brown or Bieber. People know good, they know hype, and they know great when they see it.

Of course that doesn't change their legacy and what they have done for the music industry. However, there is a media agenda to minimize and diminish those legendary artists in favor of the current crop of stars. I can post numerous media article and publications in which some article is minimizing Janet's accomplishments or Whitney's in order to boaster the accomplishments of a current star. Again, this does not change the impact those legends made but to a generation who might not be familiar with lets say a Sammy Davis Jr or Stevie Wonder, it might have more of a detrimental impact on how they see some artists and their impact. I also think its a stretch to conclude that everyone in the public (including kids, teens, etc) can automatically recgnize the music they listen too is not as good as the past. However, I will say I have been around a lot of young people who do. My point is whether people believe these media publications or not (that minimize/diminish accomplishments of legends) it still is something the media pushes to the masses in our current times and it is still a problem. The current stars should not be awarded or recgnized for contributing to things they have not done.

[Edited 3/2/17 10:37am]

TrivialPursuit said:

MotownSubdivision said:

Well thanks dude but you're giving me too much credit! I mainly speak on what I think and try to base it on as much fact as possible but I'm still learning so much on music and what goes on in the industry. There's still many thigs I'm ignorant of and things I'm learning in due time. I actually owe most of what I've learned about music to being a member of this site.

Ahh well then fuck you. LOL (kidding!)

mjscarousal said:

TrivialPursuit said:

Ehhh, I'm not sure there's logic in that idea though. What's the point of it? They can't erase Whitney, or Rhythm Nation 1814, or Like A Prayer or Purple Rain, etc. Those are there, and will be forever. Hell some of them are in the national archive.

I have to believe that a lot of music consumers today know that much of the stuff they listen to is bullshit on some level. Meaning, they know about autotune, and big named producers, things like that. There have been endless stories and exposés on that person lip syncing here or this person not really singing fully live, etc. Britney comes to mind, Katy Perry (who keeps her artsy funhouse schtick going as long as possible before everyone realizes Kate Hudson can't sing a lick). The list goes on. As much as I love Madonna, she has her moments of not singing live (usually "Vogue", and a handful of others).

Ultimately the listening public knows when they see or hear bullshit. The problem is they don't care anymore. "Oh I know it's autotuned, but I don't care. I love this song!" They endorse the fakery and the bullshit, so it gets validated. It makes it okay. People thought Prince was being snotty when he used to chant "real music by real musicians" back in 2001, but think about that time frame. More than ever (to that point), it's when we really started to notice acts pulling fakery in concerts. And in their defense, while people pissed on boy bands, it was those boy bands who actually could sing as a group. We heard Nsync, Backstreet, 98º etc sing in a fucking bathroom or an underwater aquarium (good acoustics) and hear their harmonies. Despite the bubble gum music, I had some faith in that they were singing live most times... some of them were anyway.

Us old timers know there won't be another Whitney, or Prince, or Michael Jackson. Thank God we still have great performers like Madonna (who isn't a great vocalist, but can handle it, and puts on a visually stunning show every time), Janet, shit... I almost typed George Michael. I would venture to say that even Duran Duran puts on a better live show these days than someone like Rihanna or Chris Brown or Bieber. People know good, they know hype, and they know great when they see it.

Of course that doesn't change their legacy and what they have done for the music industry. However, there is a media agenda to minimize and diminish those legendary artists in favor of the current crop of stars. I can post numerous media article and publications in which some article is minimizing Janet's accomplishments or Whitney's in order to boaster the accomplishments of a current star. Again, this does not change the impact those legends made but to a generation who might not be familiar with lets say a Sammy Davis Jr or Stevie Wonder, it might have more of a detrimental impact on how they see some artists and their impact. I also think its a stretch to conclude that everyone in the public (including kids, teens, etc) can automatically recgnize the music they listen too is not as good as the past. However, I will say I have been around a lot of young people who do. My point is whether people believe these media publications or not (that minimize/diminish accomplishments of legends) it still is something the media pushes to the masses in our current times and it is still a problem. The current stars should not be awarded or recgnized for contributing to things they have not done.

[Edited 3/2/17 10:37am]

the same thing is happening in sports where Michael JOrdan is now being trashed and a whole new generation of basketball fans are being conned into believe LEbron James is the GOAT, even when Michael JOrdan was 6-0 in NBA finals and never needed two supersquads with two ther 20 ppg scorers plus on each supersquad to win

TrivialPursuit said:

Women in the industry face hypocrisy. Janet's brother Michael cancelled quite a few concerts, too, but no one has ever used it as an argument against him. The same with wardrobe malfunction - everyone decided to punish Janet even though it was Justin Timberlake who tore off the cloth (and far too many men appear onstage underdressed).

FullLipsDotNose said:

Women in the industry face hypocrisy. Janet's brother Michael cancelled quite a few concerts, too, but no one has ever used it as an argument against him. The same with wardrobe malfunction - everyone decided to punish Janet even though it was Justin Timberlake who tore off the cloth (and far too many men appear onstage underdressed).

There is a lot of hypocrisy in what you said (meaning, you're addressing it perfectly). I just don't get why in 2017 women are still used in such sexist ways, mistreated, and often pitted against each other.

As far as the titty, Justin was supposed to do that, it was just too much that came off. We know this. I almost think it would have been an even more iconic shot when a red bra-wrapped titty sticking out of that black outfit she had on.

But you're right, and even Justin said that he got about 10% of the backlash, and Janet got 90%. Of course, he also left her out there, and didn't really do much beyond that to defend the situation or take more heat for it.

I'm a gay dude, and even I don't get upset about a damn titty. I love titties. I have a knack (it's true) for looking at a woman's boobs (helps more if I can cup them) and guessing her bra size, within one size. And for Janet to suffer for it 13 years later? Pffft, it's ridiculous. Let's not forget bands like Red Hot Chili Peppers have performed with just a stock on, or nude, and not gotten the backlash. Wendy O. Williams of The Plasmatics wore simple electric tape over her nipples, and still didn't get the backlash a black woman would for doing the same thing.

I swear janet fans are so hyperbolic. Janet was not all that from the beginning but she definatly wont be forgotten. Geez let the kids do their own thing janet had her time to shine 20 years ago.

heathilly said:

I swear janet fans are so hyperbolic. Janet was not all that from the beginning but she definatly wont be forgotten. Geez let the kids do their own thing janet had her time to shine 20 years ago.

Yep, I know ol' girl will be around for a long time. And that goes to the fan base keeping it all relevant. I suppose that sorta goes for any great artist: Prince, MJ, George Michael, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, the list goes on. The media or industry, IF they're doing this, can do whatever, but it doesn't change what's out there, the money earned, the concerts played, the songs recorded.

heathilly said:

I swear janet fans are so hyperbolic. Janet was not all that from the beginning but she definatly wont be forgotten. Geez let the kids do their own thing janet had her time to shine 20 years ago.

TrivialPursuit said:

MotownSubdivision said:

TrivialPursuit said:

Ehhh, I'm not sure there's logic in that idea though. What's the point of it? They can't erase Whitney, or Rhythm Nation 1814, or Like A Prayer or Purple Rain, etc. Those are there, and will be forever. Hell some of them are in the national archive.

I have to believe that a lot of music consumers today know that much of the stuff they listen to is bullshit on some level. Meaning, they know about autotune, and big named producers, things like that. There have been endless stories and exposés on that person lip syncing here or this person not really singing fully live, etc. Britney comes to mind, Katy Perry (who keeps her artsy funhouse schtick going as long as possible before everyone realizes Kate Hudson can't sing a lick). The list goes on. As much as I love Madonna, she has her moments of not singing live (usually "Vogue", and a handful of others).

Ultimately the listening public knows when they see or hear bullshit. The problem is they don't care anymore. "Oh I know it's autotuned, but I don't care. I love this song!" They endorse the fakery and the bullshit, so it gets validated. It makes it okay. People thought Prince was being snotty when he used to chant "real music by real musicians" back in 2001, but think about that time frame. More than ever (to that point), it's when we really started to notice acts pulling fakery in concerts. And in their defense, while people pissed on boy bands, it was those boy bands who actually could sing as a group. We heard Nsync, Backstreet, 98º etc sing in a fucking bathroom or an underwater aquarium (good acoustics) and hear their harmonies. Despite the bubble gum music, I had some faith in that they were singing live most times... some of them were anyway.

Us old timers know there won't be another Whitney, or Prince, or Michael Jackson. Thank God we still have great performers like Madonna (who isn't a great vocalist, but can handle it, and puts on a visually stunning show every time), Janet, shit... I almost typed George Michael. I would venture to say that even Duran Duran puts on a better live show these days than someone like Rihanna or Chris Brown or Bieber. People know good, they know hype, and they know great when they see it.

Nowadays we can have a group called Fifth Harmony that barely harmonizes in their music. What sucks is that the girls can actually sing but their material is cookie cutter trash. They have the talent but not the guidance and because of that lack of guidance their true talent doesn't really reflect in their music. The Backstreet Boys and NSYNC may have been label creations to but they were actually allowed to showcase their talent despite being bubblegum pop. It makes you wonder just how much different the scene could be if most of these acts were managed better. [Edited 3/3/17 19:53pm]

All artist need time to grow and come into their own. That used to be a thing back in the day but now they just find marginally talented pretty people and throw them on stage and expect for them to stick. If you look at anyone or anything great in any form there was always a development process. So today artist have it way harder than back in the day.

heathilly said: