This is just to say...
Shame on Entertainment Weekly for approving Margeaux Watson's review of Janet Jackson's Discipline, in which ageism (and probably sexism) supplants criticism. The offending paragraph reads:
If you thought the 41-year-old Jackson, not unlike Madonna and Prince, would drop the nympho shtick and embrace more age-appropriate songwriting and production instead of competing with the Beyoncés and Rihannas of today...you'd be wrong. Fans rejected the childish, soft-core dirty talk of 20 Y.O. ,but rather than see that as a signal to grow up, Jackson scuttles the maturing process and regresses even further to the creepy, X-rated lyrics that weighed down 2004's Damita Jo. ''I misbehaved/And my punishment should fit my crime/Tie me to something/Take off all my clothes/Daddy, I want u to take ur time,'' she coos on the title track, an S&M fantasy that borders on a repressed incest memory, set to an R&B slow jam co-written and produced by Ne-Yo.
The Puritanism runs thick: Janet's "childish," not yet grown up and even regressing for including a song (one! ONE!) about S&M. Watson packs in the qualifications, as though she's trying to divert us from what she's really saying: at 41, Janet shouldn't be talking about sex. I'll up the explicitness and say: bullshit. First of all, don't fetishes tend to develop as a result of extended sexual maturation? I know it's not always the case, but still: in any facet of life, it seems that it takes time to cultivate taste, explore interests and build experience to make experimenting worthwhile. Frankly, I don't want to hear anyone under 40 tackling S&M (I've never been really into The Velvet Rope, go figure) -- leave the advanced stuff to the grown-ups, thanks. Secondly, I guess by labeling this "shtick," the implication is that Janet's being insincere. Whatever. She's famous enough to make reclusiveness a smart choice. What else is she going to do in her downtime but have sex? Besides, when you're a superstar of that magnitude, you have little chance for normalcy when it comes to social interaction. It seems as far as life experiences go, sexual encounters and the personal pleasure derived from them are among the most plausible topics that Janet reports on.
On top of all of this, the fact that "Discipline" comes off as a repressed incest memory is exactly what's so fascinating about the song, anyway. Hello? She's a Jackson! She's endured obvious abuse! Furthermore, that family has made a practice of communicating about every aspect their lives in mixed signals and riddles. A song like this could be something of an S.O.S. Janet's sending from the guarded palace from which no Jackson escapes, no matter where he or she goes.
And just so you aren't confusing this for blind idolatry, I think it's perfectly reasonable to dislike this album. Maybe in ways other than sex, Janet isn't age-appropriate (although, again I say: Jackson = arrested development = fascinating). It's perfectly reasonable to critique Janet's public exploration of sex that's been happening for literally 15 years. Though I have no problem with Janet doing this (I think it actually becomes only bolder as she gets older), I also have no problem with people feeling like they've heard it all before and being over it. A request for new ideas to add to public discourse is a fair request, indeed. However, that's a matter of quantity. Making this about age is straight-up intolerant. Hateful, even. But at least that makes the sentiment transparent: as is always the case with hate, the problem doesn't come from the hated, but the hater.
Totally agree. Most reviewers can't seem to see past their narrow-minded blinkers as far as Ms. Jackson is concerned. I wish I knew why.
Posted by: ryan | February 16, 2008 at 03:31 PM
Great commentary. I have long despised EW's music coverage. Every week I get to the music review section and throw the magazine across the room in frustration. The coverage is heavy on generalizations and judgements based on almost everything besides the actually music and way short on actual criticism. They really need to be called on it and I appreciate you doing so here.
Posted by: Susan | February 16, 2008 at 03:48 PM
There were creepy lyrics on Damita Jo? Where? I missed them!
Posted by: RD | February 16, 2008 at 04:37 PM
Once again your review of a review is spot-on. I love this blog for many reasons, but that is in the top 3, to be sure. I just made a 'BANG' cd mix (sexified songs that set the mood for, well, you get the idea) over on my blog and I hope when I'm 40-something that I'm still inspired enough to do the same thing. Fingers crossed, for real.
Jules
House of Jules
Posted by: bigpikchur.blogspot.com | February 16, 2008 at 04:46 PM
Bless you. Seriously. Only a sanctimonious bitch who fears a) growing old and b) sex that defies vanilla boundaries would write a review that manages deftly to marry ageism and sexism with such high-handed blindness.
Thanks for calling Ms Watson and EW on their collective shit. It's one thing to not like a song or a singer; it's quite another for one to express one's dislike in these terms.
Posted by: chelsea g | February 16, 2008 at 04:59 PM
Soooo nicely put. You are so right - I'm sure she wouldn't have said the same thing about a man. I wonder how old this Margeaux Watson is...perhaps over 41?
Posted by: Laura | February 16, 2008 at 06:15 PM
Thank you for standing up for us ancient of days forty somethings who still enjoy some variety with our sex lives. It's refreshing to see someone not yet thirty get that. I sure didn't before I was thirty.
Posted by: Kristi | February 16, 2008 at 06:31 PM
Yeah, I myself, feel like i've heard it all before, and i AM over it as far as hearing Penny Woods sing about getting tied up, down and around, spanked and licked and teased, and extolling the joys of fellatio, et cetera....so that's why despite my grandiose love for Jan, she ain't getting nann of my money for this CD (i was too through with her S&M lite bit back when All For You came out...and the two records that followed that one only solidified my belief that homegirl can't dare make a record no mo' without the majority of it being sex-talk based)...but all that said, i love her like Aretha lovs Spaghetti strap ballgowns and no brassieres. I will jam endlessly to anything of hers i hear at the club (yes, the Cluuub)or on the radio, and just the sheer fact that her last name is what it is means she could never, ever, ever be on my shit list.
Still, its not about age to me, because homegirl is foine in her early 40's-but i sincerely wish she'd make one album-just ONE-where she didn't coo about p-p-p-pp-puttin' it in her mouth. C'mon, Janet. Sing about something else every once in awhile. Just try it!
Please. :(
Posted by: ATSWU! | February 16, 2008 at 08:13 PM
Sex is not an immature topic for any singer, it's only a matter of how it's executed.
I cannot think of a single person that has objected to Janet's explicitness and innuendo. In fact, most people like that about her. And I don't think it's fair that the EW reviewer implied her new material (as far as subject matter) is attempting to be on par with Rihanna and Beyonce. My god. Beyonce rarely invokes sex but when she does it's rather classy, playful and most of all, adult. Rihanna- never. And I hope not ever.
Furthermore, I totally agree with your conceit that the older an artist is, the more qualified they are to sing about sex. I'd rather hear it from Janet than, say, Soulja Boy.
Posted by: nOva | February 16, 2008 at 08:14 PM
great insight. i'm hoping you e-mail that to Ms. Watson as well - she probably thinks no one over 41 (which i'm assuming she is) should read blogs.
Posted by: imdone | February 16, 2008 at 10:19 PM
I would just like to point out that Madonna and Prince still make tons and tons and tons of money of talking dirty and singing about sex.
So why shouldn't Janet Jackson? What the fuck else is she going to sing about?
Posted by: gigies | February 16, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Even though I read the review, I understand what she's getting at (even though she can't say it in a straightforward manner): Janet has got to move on, and sing about other things besides sex.
Whatever.
As long as the songs don't suck (tee hee), I'll keep buying her albums.
Fuck, I bought 20 Y.O., so what does that say about me?
Posted by: Steven. | February 17, 2008 at 12:00 AM
OFF TOPIC: Rich, did you catch the Celine CBS special last night?! AMAZING!
"I might not be dat great wit de hip-hop music...."
Posted by: Ian | February 17, 2008 at 12:06 AM
margeaux is my homegirl and she is only 31. ima call her right now
Posted by: Ummmm | February 17, 2008 at 01:41 AM
We should all look like JJ at 41. She's dead sexy, with kind of an Anne Margaret thing going on. Who the hell cares what she sings about....it's pop music, for crying out loud.
Posted by: sean | February 17, 2008 at 08:27 AM
Discipline and Punish.
"The judges of normality are present everywhere." -- Foucault
Posted by: Tanith | February 17, 2008 at 08:44 AM
It's sad to here that she's releasing yet another disappointing album. I think I'm the only person who likes Feedback anyway.
Posted by: Brandon H | February 17, 2008 at 08:59 AM
Wait -- Is your new "My Hero" Jermaine Dupri during one of their bondage sessions?
Posted by: Tanith | February 17, 2008 at 09:07 AM
Rich, get over yourself. That EW reviewer is right on point. No self-respecting 40+-year-old woman should be talking about, let alone singing about, anything of a sexual nature. They shouldn't even be having sex. That's just disgusting.
I much prefer hearing the dirty sex-talk from barely-teens, because that's HOT. 14-year-olds should be singing about this shit, not 41-year-olds! Sex is for the (very very) young. Janet should be singing about stuff like shuffleboard and Celebrex. Now that's age-appropriate!
Posted by: nidra | February 17, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Rich, get over yourself. That EW reviewer is right on point. No self-respecting 40+-year-old woman should be talking about, let alone singing about, anything of a sexual nature. They shouldn't even be having sex. That's just disgusting.
I much prefer hearing the dirty sex-talk from barely-teens, because that's HOT. 14-year-olds should be singing about this shit, not 41-year-olds! Sex is for the (very very) young. Janet should be singing about stuff like shuffleboard and Celebrex. Now that's age-appropriate!
Posted by: nidra | February 17, 2008 at 12:38 PM
Funny, I don't see much about the way the music actually sounds in that review. Personally, I could give two shits whether Janet or Madge sing about their poons...as long as it's got a good beat and I can dance to it, rock it out!
Sadly, Janet's last two albums have been utter shit. Hopefully this one will be better..."Feedback" is decent.
Posted by: Captain Calamity | February 17, 2008 at 03:00 PM
my pet monster :)
i used to love that show
Posted by: | February 17, 2008 at 07:06 PM
EW's just hating 'cause she's got the light skins, dark skins, and them Asian persuasions.
Posted by: BlackRaspberry | February 17, 2008 at 07:43 PM
Idiotic viewpoints like nidra's are the reason we have teen pregnancy and outbreaks of chlamydia in public schools. Shuffleboard at 41? I wish you all the luck walker shopping when you're 30 then. Dumbass.
and your review is just fine Rich, as usual. :)
Posted by: Kyle-Steven | February 17, 2008 at 09:58 PM
sorry - I meant idiotic pedophile-like viewpoints.
Posted by: Kyle-Steven | February 17, 2008 at 09:59 PM