So, yeah...

I obviously haven't been blogging in a while. Over a month, in fact. Something clicked when I started thinking about what I want to do in 2008. I realized I want to write more, but not just for my blog. I want to write bigger and better, dedicating more of my energy to submitting to magazines. Maybe even working on a larger project that's both quieter and more demanding than blogging and magazines, writing a book. So I realized something had to give and that something, for now, is this blog.

After two and some years of always thinking/worrying about what my next post is going to be about, after dedicating entire weeknights or even weekends to put together a post that, quite frankly, not a lot of people read, I decided that I've done it and I'm done with it. I've tried it, I've had my ups and downs with it, I've written posts that I'm really proud of and posts that I'd go back and delete if I was that kind of blogger. Some posts even helped lead to a freelancing gig which has lead to a permanent staff position with a magazine I really like and respect and really, what more can you ask than that?

And you know what? So far it feels great. After sitting in front of a computer all day at my regular job, I can come home and not sit in front of a computer all night if I don't want to. I can cook! I can bake! I can watch TV! I can have dinner with friends! I can work out! So many not-really-exciting-but-
exciting-for-me-because-let's-face-it-I've-been-blogging
-for-over-two-years-and-I-have-low-standards-for-what-
I-consider-exciting activities!!!

Notice what wasn't on that list of activities I can indulge in now that I'm not blogging? Writing. The funny thing is with all this new time on my hands I haven't exactly gotten around to doing the things I gave up blogging for in the first place. But we're now, what, 3 weeks into the new year? I can enjoy myself for a while, right? Plus, have you seen the new American Gladiators? It's pretty awesome.

Some people started blogging a long time before I did and are still going. I think that's great. Some people didn't blog nearly as long as I did before giving it up. I laugh in their faces. And I'm not saying I'm giving it up for a good, anyway. Just for now. Who knows? Maybe after three months or six months or a year I'll be clamoring to bust out a bunch of new posts on the latest pop culture shenanigans. I still haven't finished blogging about making all 125 (127?) recipes in Giada De Laurentiis' Everyday Italian even though it's been, um, quite some time since I started that project. So maybe when that happens I'll have to blog about it for closure and, you know, evidence. (If a virtual text few people read actually counts as evidence that I finished a project.)

The point is: I may pick this back up again, I may not. Who knows what the future holds besides God and Kanye West? In the meantime, here are a few of the things that I'll be doing/reading/consuming/eating whilst not blogging:

Reading Project Rungay - The best way to keep up with Bravo's addictive reality competition and enjoy the witticisms, snark and dead-on fashion critiques of Tom & Lorenzo. Project Runway's 4th season may not be its best (Oh my dear Lord, Ricky has to leave), but this blog makes it a lot more enjoyable.

Reading Janet Xone - With Miss Jackson's latest album, Discipline, hitting shelves on February 26th, this is really the best way to know about all the news, performances, reviews and stories concerning Janet. And if you haven't checked out her latest video for "Feedback," click here. Watch it more than once - it grows on you, especially once the killer choreography kicks in.

Eating Aromatic Noodles with Lime-Peanut Sauce - Part of the reason I've put Giada's Italian cookbook aside is because I picked up fellow Food Network host Ellie Krieger's latest book, The Food You Crave. So far the Pumpkin Muffins, Energy Bars, Baked Onion Rings with Ranch Dip, Vanilla Hot Chocolate and Whole Wheat Pancakes with Strawberry Sauce have all been great and healthy (another New Year's resolution). I loooove me some Asian peanut sauces because I basically love anything with peanut butter, so I'm thinking this recipe from Ellie will make me silly happy.

Using my new Netflix account - I just started my subscription and finally watched 2005's An Inconvenient Truth. Next up is the new, Oscar-nominated documentary No End in Sight. I'm going to be so smrt, s-m-r-t!

Reading Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife by Mary Roach - After reading Roach's Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers, I've been dying (no pun intended, especially because it's not a very good pun) to read her follow-up. If she explores the soul with as much humor, eye-opening research and intelligence as she did corpses, then the wait will have been worth it.

Rooting for Atonement at the Oscars - I just saw it and am hoping it wins something big, even though I haven't seen There Will Be Blood yet. Seriously, this adaptation of the Ian McEwan novel (which I really liked) is gorgeous, well-acted and, to employ a cliché, heartbreaking. Knowing the general rule that the movie is never as good as the book, I was surprised to fall in love with this movie so much. Even though it drags in the middle (just like the book), I couldn't help but completely buy into the whole production. And it has James McAvoy looking adorable and delivering a fantastic performance? Done and done. Dear Striking Writers, The Oscars better take place so I can see Mr. McAvoy in a tux. Sincerely, Me.

Well, that's it for now. Enjoy.

Take care.

Goodbye?

Feedback on Janet Jackson's "Feedback"

Is there anyone who can disappoint us like our idols? Is it even fair to be disappointed if an artist's new work can't compare to her prime years? Should we just take her new work on its own terms, as a sign of where she is today as opposed to where we want her to be?

So many serious questions for just one new song, especially a song so desperate not to be taken seriously. Janet Jackson's newest single, "Feedback," from her upcoming album, Discipline, leaked online yesterday. (If you go to her new website, it starts playing automatically.) It's a funky, electro-pop club-banger with a music-as-sex metaphor. "Strum me like a guitar, blow up my amplifier," she demands. "Crank it up, give it to me some more...I want some feedback! Feedback!"

The song is getting understandably mixed reviews: It's hot, it'll be great in the clubs or for working out, finally Janet is competing with Britney and Rihanna for the dancefloor and the pop charts. Or: it's not hot, there's way too much vocoder, doesn't anyone actually sing anymore?, Janet shouldn't have to compete with Britney or Rihanna.

Both sides have a point. This is a hot song. Producer Rodney Jerkins gives it heavy percussion and some fat, juicy synths. This is what you want to hear at 2 a.m. when grinding on that stranger after too many rum and Cokes. But, at the same time, people expect more from Janet than just a modern yet generic dance song that sounds like a cast-off from Britney's Blackout. Jerkins, in his urge to put Janet back on the dancefloor, was too eager to make sure Janet's doing what everyone else is doing. He forgot he was working with Janet motherfuckin' Jackson. Janet's sound has never been especially trendy. Listening to Rhythm Nation 1814 or The Velvet Rope doesn't illuminate the musical landscape of their times, it just illuminates what Janet was doing at the time (and what her longtime producers Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis were doing to complement it). "Feedback" just tells us that Jerkins picked a track he could have used for anyone - a good track, mind you - and gave it to Janet. (I'm also pretty sure he wants the phrase "feedback" to be 2008's "sexyback." We'll see.)

So what does "Feedback" tell us about where she is in her life now? Um, she still feels sexy. So, good for Janet, yawn for the rest of us. Wasn't it great when Janet had actually had something to say? She doesn't have the pipes of Mariah or the media manipulation skills of Madonna, but Janet used to actually have ideas and thoughts, some even tough or challenging for the normally superficial world of diva pop. In "Feedback," when the lyrics aren't generic, they're downright strange. "Flyer than a pelican"? I didn't know pelicans are fly. With those enlarged pouches underneath their breaks, I always thought of them as the deformed, goiter-afflicted cousin to the supa-dupa fly swan. And "my swag is serious, I'm heavy like a first-day period?" For real? Janet, it's called a Rough Draft. Just because you think it, or just because you write it down, does not mean it should make it to the Final Draft, you know? As you so directly demanded during an interlude in Rhythm Nation: Edit.

Looking ahead, what does "Feedback" tell us about the album? (Especially considering the title Discipline doesn't tell us anything.) Her strongest lead singles have always told us what to expect from their sources. 1986's "What Have You Done for Me Lately" gave us both the defiant young woman and Jam & Lewis' heavy beats that dominated Control. 1993's "That's the Way Love Goes" introduced the softer, warmer, sexier sounds on janet. And 2001's "All For You" revealed Janet's new post-depression, post-divorce liberation covered on All For You. So what should we get from "Feedback"'s ridiculous overuse of the vocoder - that Janet is so intent on objectifying herself that she's reduced herself to something barely human? Or that she and Jenkins are both lazy?

Also, now that Janet's signed with a new record label, her boyfriend Jermaine Dupri's Island Records, it will be interesting to see how they market her compare to Virgin, her previous label. Many fans were upset with how badly Virgin could screw up even a solid Janet record (only 3 singles from All For You?), but I'm not sure Dupri is objective enough to work his magic with his girlfriend the way he can with her competitor, Mariah Carey (Dupri engineered her major comeback a few years ago). Is "Feedback" the official first single from Discipline or are they just throwing it out there to whet fans' appetites and get some, well, feedback on Janet's new direction? It's still almost two months before the album actually drops on Feb. 26, 2008 and "Feedback" hasn't even been released to radio yet. Will there be a video? Will people be sick of it by the time they see her perform it again and again during her inevitable onslaught of media performances in February?

As for that new promo pic, seen here above: too much Photoshop, I'm over the bangs and the clothes? Like a hooker in A.I.: Kubrick up top, Spielberg on the bottom. The weird thing is, that sounds like I hate it. I don't. But again, like the entire booklet included with 20 Y.O., this is a pretty straightforward magazine editorial, not an iconic, memorable image for a new Janet Jackson album.

With "Feedback"'s futuristic (read: modern with an ego) sound and the plethora of new producers working on Discipline, it sounds like Janet's trying to step up her game. Here's hoping they're actually paying attention to "Feedback"'s feedback so they can make her flyer than a pelican, swan, pigeon, booby, or any other aviatic creature they find so strangely hip.

Also check out: Mag Hag Reviews the News.
And: What Do I Call Her if I'm Not Nasty?

Mag Hag Reviews the News

I'm such a follower of magazines that I could assemble a fort with all the piles around my apartment. Maybe I have already, but that's not the point. The point is that I kind of ignore them until I'm between books and then I go through my "magazine purge" to catch up. So I just thought I'd summarize some of the best and worst articles, issues and stories that have finally landed in my hands in the past few weeks.

The Advocate - September issue: Hey, did you know that Every. Single. Homosexual. in America is already planning on voting for Hilary Clinton? You didn't? Really? Me neither, until I read this cover story on The Hils. (Get it? Like "The Hills" but with less bleach!) I really wish someone would warn me what my peeps are planning for my future so I don't get my membership card revoked when I accidentally think for myself. I also wasn't aware that signing on for this whole "gay" thing included pre-determined presidential candidates. Sorry, Obama! See ya, Edwards! Nice knowing you...um...other guys! I can't wait for the mag to tell me what else is in my future: the jobs I'll choose, the cars I'll buy, the turkey I'll eat (well, that one will be true in like 3 days). It's so comforting to know that my glossy-paged future will show up on my doorstep twice a month.

Time - 10/15 issue: Great. Just as my love for yoga blossomed this past summer like a lotus flower in spandex, I find out from this Time article that 50 minutes of yoga burns as many calories as a 50 minute walk, or less than are in three Oreos. I wasn't getting into it because I thought it was the best cardiovascular exercise (like, say, checking on my Trader Joe's gingerbread spice cake in the oven - up! down! up! down!), but this is still disappointing.

Details - October issue: Hey, did you know that Brad Pitt has, like, four kids? Which makes him a dad?!?! Luckily, Details illuminates the mystery that is Lé Pitt with a full two-page profile that also includes such nuggets of trivia as: he has a new movie! He's "partners" with Angelina Jolie! He's a worldly do-gooder! Although I will say in their favor, since they're profiling probably the most photographed man on Earth, photographers have to become more creative in what they do with him (not that you can tell by the waxy cover shot, but whatevs). Lé Pitt has a huge spread where he's saturated, inverted, negative-d, overlapped and more. It doesn't quite top his Rolling Stone-cover-in-a-skirt from a few years back, but it shows effort, however schizophrenic it actually appears.

Also, I never quite understood their whole "Gay or _______" feature on the last page of every issue. Is it satirizing how much gay culture has seeped into the mainstream? Or the two were blurred to begin with? Well, apparently, I won't have to worry about that anymore. Details is quitting the four-year-old feature like an inconveniently misbehaved orphan.

The Economist - 11/3 issue: Holy shit! Did you know that there are 218 million laborers worldwide who are under the age of 14? I was kind of skimming through the cover story about religion when I came across a column about Gap and how the retailer found out one its subcontractors was using child labor (more info here). 218 million. That's crazy. A positive twist, however: "Rather than simply cutting off factories employing children, Gap imposes and enlightened form of punishment: it requires suppliers to stop using child workers and to provide them with school instead, while continuing to pay them regularly and guaranteeing them a job once they reach the legal age." Wow. Even if it is just a PR move, that's pretty great. Too bad their clothes still kind of suck.

Jet - 10/22 issue: Jermaine Dupri wrote his new book, Young, Rich, and Dangerous: The Making of a Music Mogul, because, as he says, "No one is giving these young kids a book to read about something they love nowadays." Which is pretty cool and probably true considering how huge music is as a common reference between people. However, I don't really care about Dupri. I do care about the fact that he's dating Janet Jackson. Whenever anyone asks her about marrying her long-time boyfriend, she does her shy shrug thing and is all "if he wants to" or "if it's supposed to happen." But the article, unlike others, also mentions that if she does, she'll be a stepmother! No one brings that up! Dupri has a 9-year-old daughter. Can you imagine Janet as a stepmother? That poor girl will need earplugs to sleep through Janet and Jermaine's sex-a-thons. And the eating habits she'll pick up? One day it will be waffles and ice cream, the next a single lettuce leaf. It's a good thing she's cute.

Out - November issue: Out has this kind of great article about how aging gay authors, after chronicling the post-Stonewall life, now tackle something many of them only hoped to experience after watching many of the friends succumb to AIDS: aging. It's interesting to see how writers from Andrew White to Felice Picano address the issue differently.

However, the article then kind of address the so-called ageism of gay culture. White complains that while aging straight guys like Hugh Hefner are surrounded by young, beautiful women, the same can't be said for Gore Vidal. I'm kind of over this argument. Hefner is an exception. Yes, there might be more May-December romances between straight older men and younger women but so what? For the most part, most twenty-something women are not attracted to sixty-something men, and if they are, it's not always for the most heart-tugging reasons. Relationships between young men and older women are even rarer, something proven by the necessity of the term "cougar." (It's such a novelty that our culture is only now getting around to nicknaming it.) Notice, too, he compares a porn king to an author. Is any elderly author, straight or gay, ever surrounded by scantily-clad groupies 24 hours a gay? If White wants to live with a gaggle of gym bunnies, then maybe he should start a porn mag like Hefner did.

But it's the hypocrisy behind White's statements (he's comphttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.giflained in other articles, too) that really bug me. As a 67-year-old man, he wants the attention of twenty-something men in bars because they're the most sexually attractive, right? So, if he thinks they're the most attractive, wouldn't they also find other twenty-something men the most attractive and not, say, sixty-something men? I mean, if White isn't even attracted to men his own age, why should I be? The kicker is that White does have a partner...twenty-five years his junior. Something tells me that if his aging isn't exactly graceful, it should at least be grateful.

There's so much more, but those are the facts and follies that caught my attention. Until next time, mag hag out! (Aaaand gross. I need a new sign-off.)

Also check out: 3 Reasons Why I Love Kelly Clarkson.
And: Why I Love The Onion.

Random Thoughts: The Devil and Miss Stone, 300-Pack Abs, and Akon's Vibe

Some pop-culture-related nuggets that have been floating around in my head:

- Last summer I posted my positive review of The Devil Wears Prada to Blogcritics and got some feisty comments. “It’s not as good as the book!” “It glamorizes unhealthy female body image!” “There’s no conflict!” To which I say: no, yes and kind of. Now that I’ve rewatched it on DVD and also read the book, I still want to praise Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt and Stanley Tucci. What Lauren Weisberger, the book’s young author, couldn’t understand was that her boss could be both a bitch and a brilliant woman who is incredibly good at her job. It is too bad that the heroine deems slimming down to a size 4 (from an elephantine size 6) as a major accomplishment, and yes, the boyfriend is lame (he’s an aspiring chef and he’s complaining about her schedule?), but overall, the film is still entertaining fluff.

- In the spirit of re-thinking, or amending past reviews: my love, or should I say my really like, for Janet Jackson’s 20 Y.O. has sufficiently waned to wonder what exactly is wrong with it. I know it’s underwhelming, and I know I’m tired of her obsession with sex, but what else is there? It didn’t hit me until I listened to the chorus of “Show Me” for the 800th time: “Show me, ‘cause actions speak louder than words.” No shit? I mean, she’s forty, and this is what she’s learned? A cliché that’s older than she is? Since the whole album is based on how she’s a forty-year-old woman who still looks/feels/acts like a twenty-year-old, I had to ask: should a forty-year-old want to think like a twenty-year-old? How is that a good thing? If it means trite “insights” like that, then guess what? It’s not.

- Why are songs that are about how inspiring music is so uninspiring themselves? I was reminded of this when listening to Joss Stone’s new CD and her song “Music.” It’s so laid-back it’s practically asleep. I mean, the song is fine, I guess, but if music is really so awesome then why is its tribute so comparatively boring? It reminded me of Leela James' "Music" (even these titles are boring) which I found equally odd – all about how amazing music is, yet so underwhelming itself. Which made me think about Lauryn Hill’s “Superstar” which at least had good lyrics but was still a mid-tempo chill-out that embodied her own accusations: “everything you drop is so tired.” Ironically, Hill guest-raps on Stone’s “Music.” It doesn’t help.

- What is up with AfterElton.com’s horrible book section? They feature only four items right now – scratch that, make it three, as they actually repeat the same link twice. And the big feature is an interview with Augusten Burroughs from May 2006! Their other sections like movies and especially TV are chock-full of articles, columns and recaps. Granted, if the site is about how gays are portrayed in the media, then I guess TV probably has a bigger impact than literature, but when Bookslut features new interviews with Edmund White and Andrew Holleran in the last two months, you have to wonder who’s asleep behind the wheel at AfterElton.

- In his gorgeous new Italian cookbook, Jamie's Italy, Jamie Oliver recommends a local treat: drizzle really good olive oil over really good vanilla ice cream and sprinkle with sea salt. I tried it. I think I need better olive oil.



- I love how, in his new interview in Vibe, Akon basically admits over and over again that he lies whenever he feels like it, leading one to believe that you probably shouldn't believe anything he says. And yet, somehow, I don't think that will affect his career at all.



- And finally...I finally saw 300. There’s a minor hubbub in the gay community over its portrayal of the villains in the movie. I was doubtful going in, but now I kind of agree. Frank Miller, who’s historically inaccurate graphic novel the movie is based on, clearly has some (probably unconscious) prejudices that he needs to work out. His heroes apparently have to be white and very heterosexual, virile, macho and hirsute who live to sleep with only women (again, historically misleading) and kill people. His villains, on the other hand, are be-jeweled, manicured, effeminate RuPaul clones who stage massive orgies with lesbians, trannies and hunchbacks. It’s not just offensive for the stereotypes and negative associations he’s passing on to young straight men everywhere (as if an R rating is keeping out the teens), it’s lazy, outdated shorthand to contrast the “other” from the straight, white, male protagonist.

I wonder if it would bother me less if I really enjoyed the movie, but I hope not. As it was, the special effects were cool, the Abercrombie & Fitch models - I mean, the cast - looked good in leather briefs and capes, but I didn’t care about any of the characters.

(Thanks to AfterElton for the pic.)

Also check out: If She's the Devil, Then Hell Must Be Fabulous.
And: What Do I Call Her If I'm Not Nasty?
And: Soul Sisters: Amy Winehouse and Joss Stone.

What Do I Call Her If I'm Not Nasty?

(Blogger's note: This post was chosen by Blogcritics as an Editor's Pick of the Week, 10/4-10/10. Assistant Music Editor A.L. Harper said: "Janet Jackson still talks to my naughty side and Don Baiocchi knows it. His review of Jackson's latest album, 20 Y.O., convinced me to buy the album and I love it!" I can feel the power coursing through my critic-veins as we speak. Thanks, A.L.!)

It was twenty years ago that Janet Jackson broke out onto the pop and R&B charts with Control, a defiant independence anthem that paved the way for the culture warrior she embodied in 1989's Rhythm Nation 1814. Those two blockbuster albums barely hinted at the nymph beneath the armor, and soon their angular, industrial beats were replaced by a softer, warmer sound on 1993's janet. Emerging like a gym-toned Venus on the cover of Rolling Stone, Janet announced that, at 27, the shy pop star of "Let's Wait Awhile" had found her G-spot.

It's been a bumpy road since that hit-machine triumvirate for Ms. Jackson, with sales declining even before the infamous wardrobe malfunction. Each successive album has had at least one great single ("Together Again," "All for You," "I Want You"), but after 2004's disappointing, sex-drenched Damita Jo, Janet (and her record label) seem eager to remind people why she's still around.

Which leads to 20 Y.O., her ninth album. The title is a reference to both how old she feels (with a body to match) and to her breakthrough in 1986. The album is at odds with itself, trying to reclaim the dance hits of the 80's and 90's without losing the liquid R&B of her more recent albums, all while trying to create a modern sound to attract new fans without alienating long-term fanatics. Whew. That's a lot of pressure to put on eleven songs.

And Janet is responding to that pressure by having nothing but fun. No angst, no anger, no nasty boys or son-of-a-guns to piss her off, which is strange, since Control was all about asserting herself. "I want to keep it light, I don't want to be serious. I want to have fun," she says in the opening spoken interlude. OK, fine, that sounds good, but then how is this a throwback to...oh, nevermind. The first half of 20 Y.O. is a five-song suite that blatantly tries to put Janet back in the dance clubs where she belongs. The album lead-off and second single, "So Excited," isn't the flawless dancefloor anthem fans were hoping for in the tradition of "If" or "Miss You Much." On any other Janet album, it would be a good 3rd or 4th single, but the breathy vocals and monotone chorus are way too laid back to create any urgent excitement promised by the title.

The one-two punch of "Get It Out Me" and "Do It 2 Me" are where the album really takes off, and either song would have made a much better lead single to announce that Janet's back, she's having fun and she's ready to dance. Her whispery coo is just one of two or three vocal personas that Janet pulls out on the former in a three-minute kitchen-sink anthem praising the mysterious skills of her lover, and while it may be trying too hard, I'd rather see Janet work her ass off to please her audience than coast on her charms.

The second half downshifts into "break it down" mode, with gauzy ballads and mid-tempo "Escapade" throwbacks that are much better than those descriptions would imply. This is where this album accomplishes what it set out to do. "With U" (aren't her U's and 2's so endearingly dorky at this point?) is a stripped-down ballad that recalls the forgotten beauty of 1990's "Come Back to Me" with a modern sound that Mariah should be jealous of. "Daybreak" and "Enjoy" are smooth, sweet trifles, complete with carnival charms, sing-along melodies and even a children's chorus in the latter.

The last two songs continue Janet's tradition of baby-making music. From "Let's Wait Awhile" to "Someday Is Tonight" to "Anytime, Anyplace" to "Rope Burn," Janet's sexual evolution has been a thoughtful, fascinating one, especially compared to the one-dimensional skankocity of many poptarts these days. Unfortunately, Damita Jo's "Warmth" and "Moist" were basically audio porn that brought Janet to a completely unsexy dead-end. Luckily, someone must have told her that less is more. "Take Care" and "Love 2 Love" are carefully crafted and reward repeat listenings. Especially "Love 2 Love," with Janet's jazzy vocals, pelvis-thumping bass bumps and second-verse beat break that add up to one of the most original sexy songs in the pop landscape right now. Cut it by a minute for a radio edit, throw it on commercial radio around 1am, and couples will be pulling over to see how far back their car seats decline.

The album isn't without its faults. The spoken interludes, a trademark of Janet albums, distract from what Janet's accomplishing now by insistingly (and ineffectively) reminding us of what she's done in the past, all while being the exact same interludes we've heard from her before (rain, inside jokes with her dancers, sexy phone calls, etc.). And while Janet doesn't have a powerhouse voice by any means, she still full-out sang on past hits like "Love Will Never Do (Without You)" and "All for You." The airy whisper that she now employs by default (such as on the entire Damita Jo album) is just plain annoying and detracts from her songs. Luckily, she doesn't indulge such laziness as much this time around.

Unfortunately, the marketing of this album makes no sense. It's a desperate combination of "I made a great album twenty years ago!" and "I want to be a stripper!" For the woman who made 1997's The Velvet Rope, a smart, dark, challenging album that no other contemporary pop star would dare to make even if they were could, this current direction is a little disappointing. Especially since it doesn't have all that much to do with the album, which is a celebration of a confident woman happily in love. And to kick off a comeback with the mediocre "Call On Me," a duet where she actually makes Nelly sing, is just plain wrong. Since she's basically banned on MTV after the Super Bowl incident (since, you know, MTV has such strict standards on how much skin its stars should expose), Janet needed something much stronger to break her way back into mainstream media besides a US Weekly cover touting her recent wait loss. "Call On Me" wasn't the way to do that, and "So Excited" didn't pick up the slack.

Marketing aside, Janet's crack production team of Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis are joined by her producer boyfriend Jermaine Dupri (who also helped orchestrate Mariah's comeback with The Emancipation of Mimi), and all are on their game here...for the most part. Certain details like the tinny hand claps in "Call On Me" are bizarre missteps, but most of their sonic creations, like the slinky electro-funk of "This Body," ensure that Janet is doing something different from her younger contemporaries and doing it well.

For all of its bump 'n grind aspirations, 20 Y.O. never fully merges the contradicting needs of Janet's smooth R&B and sharp dance-floor pop. Whether it pleases her legion of diehard fans while convincing the younger set who don't even remember Control to buy her album remains to be seen. The point is, Janet sounds as self-assured, sexy and relaxed as ever. While there may be no signature single like "Rhythm Nation" or "That's the Way Love Goes," this album has multiple singles ready to climb their way onto radio and up the charts. We'll see if a forty-year-old pop star (supposedly) free of neurosis can achieve what her assertive twenty-year-old self did two decades ago.

Janet Jackson's Career Trajectory in Five Easy Steps

If this 1993 hands-over-breasts cover...



Lead to this 1997 nipple-through-the-shirt cover...



Which lead to this 2004 catastrophe...



Does that mean that this 2006 itsy-bitsy-teeny-weeny-skanky-wanky bikini bottom cover...



...will lead to full out, full-frontal porn?

Discuss.