Today on Blogcritics
Home » Janet Jackson Album Sucking Wind

Janet Jackson Album Sucking Wind

Janet Jackson sure has a lot riding on hosting Saturday Night Live this weekend.

She needs something to kick in, cause her new album so far has sucked wind. It debuts at #2 this week in Billboard with approximately 381,000 domestic sales – a little over half of what her last album did. This makes Damita Jo her first album NOT to debut at #1 in 15 years.

Further she’s had TWO singles from the album now, neither of which made any impression at radio. Unless the SNL gig jump starts this thing, it’s pretty well dead in the water.

This suits me fine. Her music sucks. It only ever was mediocre at best and has deteriorated from there. She doesn’t DESERVE to sell millions of records.

Further, I’m glad to see that her dumb whore tactics aren’t doing her any good. The Superbowl thing obviously is NOT helping sell records. She was in her more early state a “good girl” as it were – naturally modest. As her career has faded, however, she went to adding in more explicit stuff, such as some lesbian schtick on The Velvet Rope. She’s got some stuff about blowjobs here. Then there’s the Superbowl.

Just go away, please.

Look, your music sucks, no matter what kind of sex acts you’re willing to perform to convince us otherwise.

About Gadfly

  • Chris Kent

    I would never buy a Janet Jackson album, but then again I would never buy a Britney or Madonna album either. They are all from the same Pop genre. They have all committed similar acts on live television to blatantly promote themselves.

    It’s still too early to define just what the infamous Super Bowl stunt will mean to Janet’s career. If I had to bet, I would say the stunt will prolong her career years from now. The backlash is still in full swing. But the infamy will eventually extend her career.

  • Sandra Smallson

    Barger: Further, I’m glad to see that her dumb whore tactics aren’t doing her any good. The Superbowl thing obviously is NOT helping sell records.

    Sandra: LOL..BECAUSE it never does. I have said too many times on this site that this myth you pop haters perpetuate about sex acts pushing records off the shelf is just something you use to delude yourselves into thinking, nobody can like this music surely, it must be the self-promotion that’s done it. Get over that hurdle. Some people do like the music. It’s funny how you use Janet’s chart position as a sign of a fading career..and her record sales..I thought such things had no bearing on the quality of the music?! Aren’t Artists who are commercially successful Non- Artists? Or if anything, Artists who have sold their souls? You people just can’t make up your minds. Get over it.

    Some people do like Pop music and could not care less what antics our acts get up to. Just like those of you who like Rock could not care less if hotel rooms are smashed, bat’s heads bitten off, guitars strummed nude or set on fire, drugs taken regularly. Lennon in his day lying nude with wife in window for all to see..y’all don’t care about that..you buy the music cos you like it. Well, the people who bought Janet’s record and buy all the records you don’t like, buy it BECAUSE they like it. FREE YOUR MIND AND THE REST WILL FOLLOW.

    Personally, I hate Janet’s new single. Boring. The only Janet song I would want to own is “lets wait a while”. I haven’t heard the Album yet and I bet neither have you, Barger. But as usual, your statements are a result of the state of your mind..Closed. If Janet is going through a sexual phase in her life right now, albeit a decade after she took every opportunity to insult Madonna for going through the same phase:)..it’s her choice. She can express herself as she likes. If she wants to sing about love/sex..etc let her do so.

    Nobody tells Eminem that he raps about controversial sunjects to sell records. When has that one ever come up with just a normal topic rap song like JayZ..if his mother is not taking drugs, he wants to beat up Britney, or whatever else is wrong with the schizophrenic. Men wont see that as a publicity stunt..but a publicity stunt is a publicuty stunt. regardles of who or what form it takes. Timberlake singing and doing a video about Britney is to draw attention, Beatles deciding to match on the Zebra crossing in the famous Abbey road was a publicity stunt..Jimi Hendrix setting alight his guitar is a publicity stunt. Prince changing his name to a symbol was a publicity stunt, George michael inundating us with info about his “open” gay relationship is to draw attention. They are Artists, they will express themselves however they feel they want to,. Some will like it, some wont.

    You clearly do not. The only reason I actually argue with people like you when u make such comments it’s because y’all seem oblivious to your double standards. If somebody came to me and said, I hate commercial music..gimme the Cds of the bands that play at Ronnie Scott over any other artists..and he or she makes no exceptions..that person deserves my respect on holding firm to their opinions. But when your opinion shifts either according to gender or genre of music as often as we all eat food, then your opinion is useless. Pull the other leg Al barger. The house rules might be saving you right now:) but you are not fooling anybody.

  • Chris Kent

    A really great point Sandra! I suppose Jim Morrison exposing himself on stage in Miami is equally infamous, yet we consider that as just a tortured artist expressing himself……but in reality, I suppose he did the same thing as Janet, only he was incredibly drunk and slurring his speech while carrying around goat (among other things).

    I guess the fact that she was a woman (and perhaps even a black woman?) doing such a thing strikes us men as blatant, yet we see John Lennon adorned in nothing but spectacles (not a pretty sight!) and we think he is an artist making a statement.

    I still loathe Pop music, though I guess as a child I sang and danced (and skated) to The Monkees, the Jackson 5, KC and the Sunshine Band, the Bee Gees and other crap with similar glee……

    Interesting….

  • Antfreeze

    Lennon and OHNO! were making an artistic statement. It’s not like they got naked and said, “OOps, our clothes accidentally fell off!”

  • Eric Olsen

    On some level it’s all “pop music” – I think drawing hard lines is fairly meaningless.

  • Chris Kent

    On some level it’s all Rock music, on some levels it’s all blues, jazz, country, etc……All music derives from the same source. If we truly love music then we love all forms. I love music, just not the most commercial forms……But hey, I own a Neil Diamond CD and play it (in private) quite a bit……But then again, he does write his own songs and actually plays an instrument…..though granted, it’s headed straight for the elevator upon release……

  • Sandra Smallson

    Glad we agree on my main point here, Chris. It’s a point I make in almost every post about music. It restores ones faith in public perception that atleast one person does not feel it takes away from their main opinion on what music they prefer to accept/admit that double standards are all over the place and therefore their disregard for other Musicians or types of music are without credence for some, like myself.

    Antfreeze..Oh potato, schmotato..go sell crazy someplace else, I’m all booked up here. Yoko and john were no more making an artistic statement than alanis was at the Juno’s or janet was IF she intentionally revealed her breast.

    If anything, if accidental, then the poor gal should be pitied, while Yoko and John who deliberately took off their clothes should be derided just as we do the current crop of Stars. What sort of statement is it, that the only way to get the point across is to be starkers? :) They are artists. it’s all about attention. They know how to get it. When they get it, they then make their music or get their political point across.

    What I always say when they call some of my preferred female musicians sluts(ofcourse, clearly ignoring their male counterparts doing the same stuff)..since when has chastity got anything to do with the quality of music or the credibility of an Artist? If that were the case, we would be in high shortage.

    Eric, you reveal that the lines on music genres are blurred in your opinion. I wondered that on your Rockbands list. If anything, the Beatles were a pop band and the Rolling Stones are the true rock and roll band. But if the lines are blurred in your view, then your list clearly does not depart from your school of thought.

  • http://www.unproductivity.com Tom Johnson

    It’s funny how you use Janet’s chart position as a sign of a fading career..and her record sales..I thought such things had no bearing on the quality of the music?!

    When your primary aim and concern is to be one of the top-selling acts, yes, yes it is entirely indicative of the quality of the music. Why is this such a hard concept to grasp?

  • Sandra Smallson

    Tom Johnson, are you Janet Jackson’s mind? Are you in her employ? On what do you base the assertion that her primary aim is to be one of the top selling acts rather than to make music?

    You base it on your own flawed judgments made because of your entrenched mindset. There is nothing difficult to grasp. The difficulty is in freeing your mind, it seems.

    I can not see what Janet does, that is different from other artists. How do any of her actions show that her primary aim is to be one of the top selling Acts?

    Only a non-musician will decry commercial success. if these people made music just because they wanted to make music they would have no need for record contracts or live shows. They would make the music in the quiet of their homes and listen to it themselves.

    A musical artist likes to express themselves through their music. They like to share their music with others. Clearly, this is why they do shows. This is why they release albums and singles. This is why they get record deals so they can make a pretty mint from their music. Only non-musicians make empty comments about selling out and being true to themselves. These artists have got a living to make. Do you think the less commercially successful artists would say know to Janet’s 50million Album sales? The more commercially successful you are, the more people have heard your music. It means, the more people have been touched by your music.

    You can go on a self important trip about Acts that have sold 10,000 copies and how they haven’t sold their souls or how THEY are the ones that really make music. That’s just hogwash, i’m afraid. Total poppycock. Any real artist will tell you that, the more people their music reaches, the better. Some may not sell as many Albums but they are on the road every day of the year playing their music to the public. If they could play Arenas like janet, instead of clubs they would love it. why? it’s more people hearing your music and being touched by it one way or another. I repeat, only non-musicans deride the importance of commercial success. True Muscians know it’s worth. Some may say otherwise, in interviews, to appear “deep” but actions speak louder than words. If you are not in it for the money or the commercial success or the fame as a Musician then why do you have a record deal? Why are you playing shows? Sit in your garage and play your music to just family and friends. THEN, you can talk. But don’t try to sell your music and then when you dont sell as much as your peers, you start giving me some cock and bull story of how “commercial” music is these days. One has got to be really ignorant to fall for that story.

    I don’t judge music by how much it sells or not. I don’t even like janet’s music. But what nonsense, to say that you will judge the quality of her music by her sales because her primary aim is to be a top seller? What an opinion! It says a lot about you, Tom Johnson. Than about Ms Jackson. If not for the House rules, i would have told you exactly what it says about you:) But, I don’t want to waste one of my warnings on something that I think it only takes a re-reading of it yourself to see how stupid that opinion is. Just downright ridiculous.

    Not only do you have no reason to say her aim is to be a top seller, other than the fact that it is your opinion…your view on what is good music or not is severely damaged because the issue of what her aim is should have no bearing on the actual quality of music itself. Do you not see that? LOL. Unbelievable!

  • Sandra Smallson

    know=no

  • JR

    know=no

    Yeah, that about sums it up.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    I thought Janet’s music was crappy when she was selling big boat loads, and it has only deteriorated. I mentioned sales here in the same column, but that is a separate issue. The Beatles were both the greatest and biggest selling artists, 50 Cent is selling boatloads but still sucks.

    A lot of people like Janet Jackson’s records- or at least her old records. I wouldn’t deny that. Hey, a lot of people buy Insane Clown Posse records, and they’re a couple of notches lower than Janet on the artist scale. At least a few of her songs are in fact halfway legitimate SONGS. “What Have You Done for Me Lately” ain’t going to compete with, say, classic Motown, but it’s at least minimally listenable.

    I, for one, have never said that John Lennon’s nude album cover was any artistic statement. The album it covers was just garbage. The picture is a mildly interesting bit of self-indulgence.

    Even at that, though, it doesn’t have quite the air of prostitution. He wasn’t doing it thinking it would sell records. The opposite actually was the effect, for starters because it wasn’t a real album.

    Further, I don’t object to honest sexual expression in music. Jebus, it’s rock and roll here. I wouldn’t even criticize Christina Aguilera, for example, in general for sleaziness. That’s just who she is, and Rand bless her.

    What I object to is just pure cheap prostitution. Janet’s obviously going through motions of whoredom to try to sell herself, not because she’s got such a fever that she has to express.

    Yes, Sandra, you certainly do invoke the double standards thing in nearly every post about music- whether it applies or not. You can save the double standards talk for someone else, though. I never put any stock in the whole Madonna/whore schtick.

    If you think that ART is Janet’s main point, then you’re just not getting it. This isn’t just her, but many acts. I don’t condemn just wanting to be a rock star- nice work if you can get it, but if it ain’t about the music, I’m probably not going to be interested.

  • Sandra Smallson

    Al: Even at that, though, it doesn’t have quite the air of prostitution. He wasn’t doing it thinking it would sell records. The opposite actually was the effect, for starters because it wasn’t a real album.

    Sandra: I presume this is because you were in Lennon’s mind at the time just as you have miraculously inhabited Ms Jacksons mind right now?! Like I say Al, we see it as we want to see it. It is all subjective. I have written in the Alanis at Juno post, why I believe Janet’s superbowl stunt was not a marketing ploy..I can’t be bothered to go into it again because I have stated ad nauseum that this whole marketing ploy thing is a myth but far be it from me to be the one to wake people up from this baseless opinion. I am not arguing that Ms Jackson’s breast exposure was Art or not. I am saying that it was an expression, artistic maybe, of some kind..the publicity stunt kind if you like..to shock middle America. Lennon lying naked in a bed with his wife is not art either and it’s your business if you don’t see it as “prostitution” I in retrospect, saw it as madness exhibited by a self-obsessed, self important musician who gave far too much credit to his own opinions..hey..didn’t stop me from loving “Imagine” and “Jealous Guy”..don’t care how much they sold or not. Never a fan of the Beatles. They are not the best band to me..again, this word “subjective” that some seem to hate…but it is as it is.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Sandra, you may state ad nauseum that Janet’s Superbowl stunt was not a marketing ploy, but that doesn’t change the fact that it obviously was exactly that. What, you want to argue that it was an artistic statement? Please.

    Again, you keep up the “it’s all subjective” nonsense. That’s just a backward way of saying that you can make up any kind of foolishness to support the position that you want to take without having to support it or make any sense. It’s all subjective, so one position is as good as another.

    Well, no it is NOT. Janet Jackson isn’t sticking the titty in our faces because she’s an artist. You wouldn’t see Joni Mitchell doing that, would you?

    I’m not in her mind, or John Lennon’s, so I can’t tell everything going on. However, what is going on in their minds comes out to a significant degree in their words and actions. Janet Jackson has rarely if ever made any move that indicates artistic intent.

    Janet Jackson (along with many other pop singers) has defined herself as a prostitute and a cheap whore. You can be as belligerent and nauseous as you want, but it won’t change the facts.

  • Sandra Smallson

    Only a close minded individual would think that saying something is subjective is a backward way of backing out of an argument. NO. Mr Barger. Use your brain. It’s the little things that count:)In actual fact, it is a polite way of saying..geez, your opinion is daft but hey, to each his or her own. That’s exactly what it is. Politely trying to give you space to hang yourself with a rope of ignorance. (that’s not a personal attack, is it Eric? Phil?:)

    JJ’s act was not a marketing ploy in my opinion because there are no facts that show it is. There is no mathematical evidence to support the notion that these sexual acts increase record sales. I have given examples elsewhere. You can continue to delude yourself that they do and use that to be derogatory towards such artists, you do them no harm. You simply reveal yourself as ….(fill in the gaps)

    Delusion seems to permeate all your posts Al..if you truly believe I have given no facts or points to support my view, then the level of delusion is worse than first suspected.

    I don’t give a rats ass what Joni Mitchell does. Joni Mitchell was never as mad as Janis Joplin or Jimi Hendrix or as worried about appearance as karen Carpenter..doesn’t stop any of them from being good Muscians in ny view. Besides, in knowing Joni Mitchell’s appearance, one would pay her not to see her breasts so ofcourse we wouldn’t see her doing that. She’s nothing, if not smart.

    John Lennon’s moves to indicate Artistic intent were what exactly? LOL..You dig yourself deeper and deeper..

    JJ hasn’t defined herself as a prostitute and a cheap whore no more than you have defined yourself as a , close minded sexist bigot…some may think that about you on this site, but that may not be what you are, as you are always at pains to explain…you may think that about Janet, but that is not what everybody sees her as. Not only because there is no basis to see her as such but because there is nothing factual about such an unfair and ignorant comment..To call it a fact because you feel it is one, only enhances the opinion of those that may see you as what I have described above via your “words/opinions”..

    Tar people with the same brush you wish to be tarred Al Barger. Don’t say because of Blogcritics rules, you can pass judgment on public persons with a flawed reasoning and not expect the same reasoning to be applied when judging you..

    You should stop writing about anything to do with music, Al barger. You are clearly out of your depth. You would be out of your depth in a car park puddle.

    P.S..see what I mean, Eric? Phillip? Giving these people carte blanche to say whatever about so called “public persons=fair game” causes this bias. How do you make your point without using that same brush to paint a picture of themselves?..You’ve gotta be able to take what you dish out.

  • Kiana

    I have always liked Janet Jackson since I was in high school. It was not until this year whehn she released her album that I realized that she is selling sex, I know women want to to be sexy and all but is there anything else going on???

    I read some of the lyrics and I felt bad for her. Now that Janet is older she may feel that she has to compete with a younger generation by being more sexual but it is gonna really put a end to her career. The older she gets the more “unclean” she has become.

    Janet is beautiful in every way and keeping your clothes on is what makes a woman sexy and leaves something to the imagination. That is why no one is playing that crap on the radio, we already know Janet’s next move……SEX and it is played out, learn something new. The Rythm Nation album was awesome and sexy it had something to say about life and it was something for everyone.

    When people hear music they want to relate to it and share what the artist is saying, we don’t want to hear porn, it is enough of it in the world.

    This is about Janet’s music and right now it is poorly done and I don’t think she realize it is sending messages to her fans that “I don’t care about myself I just want to sell CD’s” Janet respect yourself and know who you are and stop trying to be on both sides your music has sold you out again.

  • Erika

    Ya’ll really need to stop hatin on Janet. The only reason this album isn’t like the others is cuz she didn’t work with the same producers as with her previous albums. It wasn’t true to the Janet we are used to and It was really different. Oh, and as for her singing about sex a lot she writes from the heart. She writes what’s on her mind and that just so happened to be sex. She is really in love with Jermaine Dupri and my guess is that he is really puttin it down!…LOL N E ways Ya’ll just stop hatin. She probably makin more money than all yall anyway.

  • Rafael

    First of all — you are all Major Haters & Janet is still Extremely HOT!!! — What you idiots never understand is that as long as everyone (including jerks like you) is still talking about Janet — She’s still on top. *** Oh & her career could COMPLETELY fade away right now — Who Cares?? – I can GUARANTEE you that you simpletons could work for the rest of your lives & You’ll never feel the power or prestige of that kind of fortune or fame. — Janet (whether you like it or not) has left quite some legacy here on this earth. She will be played on the radio , in people’s homes & talked about practically forever. — Have any of you NOBODIES left an impression like that???? Your entire lives will pass and will be totally transparent. At least Janet Jackson will be remembered , even by people who don’t like her , Now that’s Talent…..Nuff Said!!!!

  • justme

    Please don’t tell me that non Pop artists are better in term of, they don’t do publicity stunt. It is all part of who they are. They express themselves in various way. Now of course, the core of Janet Jackson’s fail has got to do with her music. I can’t stand listening to her last album (what is that called again?). If only the music is good, all the publicity stunt will help her to the top. Unfortunately, her music is just plain bad.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Justme, I concur. The main problem is that Janet Jackson’s just not a particularly talented musician, has never really been oriented to actual music, and what little inspiration she might have had in that way has long faded.

    I’m not saying that artistes don’t do publicity stunts, or that I’m even opposed. I LOVE a good publicity stunt. It’s the tacky, tawdry, MINDLESS nature of stuff like the Superbowl nonsense that I object to.

  • country gurl

    Look chris kent and sandra whoever, you have no right to make any types of comments about MY IDOL JANET. First of all who are YOU to be talking that way about a MEGA Super star who has been in buisness forever. Secondly please stop with the whole SUPER BOWL thing cause it is so tired. Thirdly when YOU start making songs producing,acting, and wining Grammy’s and being nominated for Oscars, MAYBE thats when your opinion will matter. And it’s not like you not entitled to your opinion because you are but how rude and ignorant can you be?!