luthia
Blueblood
Posts: 1,653
Feb 7, 2006 23:47:32 GMT -4
|
Post by luthia on May 23, 2013 19:12:35 GMT -4
There is no way that she is a billionaire. She is not in Oprah territory. Just because her films, music and tours grossed millions does not mean that she pocketed all of that money, especially recently when all of her albums since the one she did in 2001 have flopped. In addition, she has been playing smaller theaters in the past few years because she is no longer able to fill larger venues.
I love me some Janet, but she is not a billionaire. And, I highly doubt Madonna and others are. Oprah is though.
|
|
mrpeanut
Landed Gentry
Posts: 543
Jun 9, 2010 15:00:08 GMT -4
|
Post by mrpeanut on May 23, 2013 22:34:10 GMT -4
Yeah, I think her actual net worth before marrying Wissam was somewhere in the $200-300m range. That's still some walking around money.
I'm actually not sure if there is any musician who qualifies as a bonafide billionaire? Paul McCartney is the richest of them all, and I think most estimates have put his upper end at "only" $800m.
|
|
|
|
Post by discoprincess on Jun 3, 2015 12:45:23 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by deeconsistent on Jun 3, 2015 14:24:47 GMT -4
I love Janet (I listened to at least three Janet songs at the gym this morning), but it is so irritating when celebrities on the downward side of their careers pretend that shrinking options = maverick business decisions. She isn't "making history" and she didn't leave the major studio system of her own accord. |
|
|
|
Post by ikmccall on Jun 3, 2015 18:00:11 GMT -4
She must have been bored being a stay at home wife of a billionaire in the Middle East.
|
|
|
|
Post by discoprincess on Jun 3, 2015 18:45:37 GMT -4
She must have been bored being a stay at home wife of a billionaire in the Middle East. At least Janet has some musical talent to offer the masses as opposed to Iggy. Some people think it's a shame her career never really recovered from Nipplegate while JT came out relatively unscathed. Maybe Janet can do a residency in Vegas. |
|
|
|
Post by LurkerNan on Jun 4, 2015 18:11:58 GMT -4
Probably. MJ still has a lot of rabid fans who are probably poised to transfer their affections to another Jackson.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hamatron on Jun 4, 2015 20:35:48 GMT -4
Janet Jackson is huge in her own right, too. I think it's weird how history seems to be forgetting her. Up until Nipplegate, she was right up there with Madonna in terms of pop supremacy. In fact, I always thought it was weird that Britney was compared to Madonna so frequently when it seemed pretty obvious that Janet Jackson was a huge influence, right down to the kid actor to teen pop star transition. "I'm a Slave for You" is totally Janet-era Janet Jackson, for example. "Not a Girl, Not Yet a Woman" totally reminds me of "Again." Half of the pop vids coming out these days wishes they were "If."
|
|
|
|
Post by Mutagen on Jun 4, 2015 20:52:20 GMT -4
I was on a Janet kick a little while back, Hamatron, and I could not agree with you more. Her catalogue of hits is staggering when you really stop and go back through them, and on the whole, for me her hits have aged a little better than Madonna's. And yeah, the choreography on "If" is untouchable.
|
|
Gigiree
Sloane Ranger
Procrastinators Unite. . . Tomorrow.
Posts: 2,555
Jul 23, 2010 10:27:31 GMT -4
|
Post by Gigiree on Jun 4, 2015 21:38:13 GMT -4
Miss Jackson also puts on a helluva fine live show. I saw her in concert around 1994 during her tour for her Janet. album, and it was one of the best concerts I've seen. Great songs, choreography was on fleek, and the show was on level 11 from beginning to end in terms of energy. I would definitely be willing to shell out some bucks to see her live again.
|
|
