Janet Jackson Headlining?

[sprocketrocket]

Just now, Quark said:

Personally it's curiosity as much as anything else. I'm just intrigued by the combination of statistics and @jntsrb absolute devotion to her in relation to a festival that, apparently, he (?) has no intention of going to.

It would be like me going onto a Coachella forum and defending Levellers to the hilt based on their longevity and sales in the UK to an audience that maybe knows one song and has no massive interest in them.

Nowt wrong with it and you are more than welcome on here to defend her as you will @jntsrb, but there's a clear element of the ridiculous that goes with it

100% this. 

[CaledonianGonzo]

Netty's gonna find a good chunk of her target market poached by Lizzo, myself included.

[jparx]

What a bizarre thread.

[Quark]

16 minutes ago, jparx said:

What a bizarre thread.

In general? Yes

On eFests a week before Glastonbury? Not even close.

[mazola]

I love it when the super fans turn up, if @jntsrb wasn't posting then there'd be nothing to see here.

I doubt I'll be there, but I hope she smashes it.

[marcoolio]

1 hour ago, gfest2009 said:

Yes, thats been monopolised by one person (who doesnt seem to have ever been or have any plans to attend Glastonbury) just posting random statistics and being unwilling to accept that some people just arent as big a fan on the artist as s/he is ?

You know what, you're right. @jntsrb shouldn't have to be the only one upholding Janet's honour in this thread, because they're not the only fan. And if they can't be there on Saturday, I will.

Because I was at this show in 1990, and although she may not be able to sing and dance like that now, I can't wait to see it on the Pyramid.

 

[H.M.V]

2 hours ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Netty's gonna find a good chunk of her target market poached by Lizzo, myself included.

Ditto. Grew up with a bit of Jan but Lizzo is where the party is at. 

[stuie]

 

3 hours ago, gfest2009 said:

Honestly, I was previously apathetic about her, but willing to give her a listen and maybe go along. You- and the egotistical poster edit- have managed to totally turn me off her, so well done ?

Exactly the same...

3 hours ago, jntsrb said:

As if that would change anything in her life and career. Overrating the self-importance is one of the main problems in conversation here.

We’re talking from our own perspective, that’s not self-importance! 

3 hours ago, jntsrb said:

Because she's too expensive. There is a reason she's the 7th richest star in history, according to Forbes.

She obviously wanted to do this for self exposure too. You really are full of Janet facts aren’t you! 

[H.M.V]

4 hours ago, jntsrb said:

Because she's too expensive. There is a reason she's the 7th richest star in history, according to Forbes.

She's not even in the top twenty. https://wealthygorilla.com/richest-singers-world/

[eFestivals]

5 hours ago, H.M.V said:

She's not even in the top twenty. https://wealthygorilla.com/richest-singers-world/

7th female star?

I'm no fan and jntsrb's posts have made me laugh (and scream) - but he has wised me up to a greater level of success for Janet than I'd thought was the case. I'd thought she was a poor seller who'd had some minor success off the back of her brother.

[marcoolio]

9 hours ago, H.M.V said:

Ditto. Grew up with a bit of Jan but Lizzo is where the party is at. 

Guess it'll be just me and Liam then

[CaledonianGonzo]

18 minutes ago, marcoolio said:

Guess it'll be just me and Liam then

If they're onsite Saturday you'll also likely be joined by folk like Kylie, Christine and the Queens and Janelle Monae.

[clarkete]

16 hours ago, Quark said:

Nowt wrong with it and you are more than welcome on here to defend her as you will @jntsrb, but there's a clear element of the ridiculous that goes with it

Surely being ridiculous is one of the core principles of efests? 

I've enjoyed @jntsrb's commitment and devotion to the task of being JJ' s unofficial spokesperson here.

I hope they've not been put off by the occasional teasy response, the majority I think have been good humoured.

One way or another I hope she goes down well. 

[jntsrb]

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by jntsrb

[admscott]

1 hour ago, SarahLu said:

What a bizarre thing to say

Possibly not the most bizarre thing I've said. I'd have to check the records.

[CaledonianGonzo]

6 minutes ago, admscott said:

Possibly not the most bizarre thing I've said. I'd have to check the records.

As a general rule, blindly blaming women for the crimes of their male relatives isn't much of a good look.

[admscott]

7 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

As a general rule, blindly blaming women for the crimes of their male relatives isn't much of a good look.

Enabling isn't the same as direct blame, in my experience. Unless I have the wrong end of the stick as to what that term means? Also, I wouldn't level it just at Janet, but at the whole family, amongst others. So I wouldn't say I'm "blaming a woman." 

[CaledonianGonzo]

1 minute ago, admscott said:

Enabling isn't the same as direct blame, in my experience. Unless I have the wrong end of the stick as to what that term means? Also, I wouldn't level it just at Janet, but at the whole family, amongst others. So I wouldn't say I'm "blaming a woman." 

From a distance it looks like they were largely estranged.

The rest of the family is a fair enough call, although obviously they played two years back to not much in the way of beef.

[admscott]

Just now, CaledonianGonzo said:

From a distance it looks like they were largely estranged.

The rest of the family is a fair enough call, although obviously they played two years back to not much in the way of beef.

Beef aplenty from me, despite being vegetarian at the time. 

[CaledonianGonzo]

2 minutes ago, admscott said:

Beef aplenty from me, despite being vegetarian at the time. 

Fair enough. I'm not saying that no eyebrows were raised, but it does seem to have been coming up more frequently as a stick to beat Janet with.  'Facilitator of kiddy fiddling' is a fairly loaded way to score points.

[waltere]

I think a couple of years ago The Jacksons were generally seen as alright because the furore around Michael had rather cooled since his death.

Now things are more pertinent since the documentary earlier this year re-opened and indeed probably worsened the issue

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, SarahLu said:

I personally have no issue with Janet or any other Jacksons playing the festival and I find the idea of holding people responsible for things their family members are alleged to have done a bit odd.  

Spot on.

And of course, almost all families would side with their family member against allegations there's reasons to disbelieve. They'll tend to give the benefit of any doubt to their family member.

Plus of course crims lie about their crimes, to their family as well as the old bill and others.

The family were (probably) wrong to believe him but there's nothing weird that they did.

[jntsrb]

 

[jntsrb]

The Sunday Tims:

 

Quote

WORLD EXCLUSIVE: In a rare interview, the queen of pop talks to Matt Rudd about becoming a mum at 50, growing up the youngest Jackson and how music is her therapy



Next Saturday evening, Janet Jackson will take to the Pyramid Stage. It’s too soon to say whether the 200,000 festivalgoers will be sunburnt or mud-caked — probably both — but she and her dance troupe will be resplendent in boas, sequins, catsuits and leather couture. “I’ve never been to Glastonbury,” she says. “Is it really always muddy? I’m excited. Hopefully they’ll like us.”

It’s certainly an imaginative booking. Janet Jackson wasn’t just big in the 1980s and 1990s. She was huge. A global icon. When Rhythm Nation was released 30 years ago, it broke all sorts of records and won all sorts of awards. Her 100m-plus album sales and counting make her one of the most successful recording artists of all time. In 1996, she…

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/magazine/the-sunday-times-magazine/interview-janet-jackson-on-michael-s-legacy-motherhood-and-life-in-pop-s-first-family-mnkg92pxj

[admscott]

19 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Spot on.

And of course, almost all families would side with their family member against allegations there's reasons to disbelieve. They'll tend to give the benefit of any doubt to their family member.

Plus of course crims lie about their crimes, to their family as well as the old bill and others.

The family were (probably) wrong to believe him but there's nothing weird that they did.

This is a good point. I'll have a rethink. It's a subject (generally) that is potentially too close to me to see objectively, I think. 

 

Also, great use of both 'crims' and 'old bill.'