Yet she hasn't been plunged back to the same environment, and all the vile from her darker period was cut out.
Her current environment is extremely constricted and controlled, a far cry from her stressful and schedule-packed environment circa 2007. Much like you noted, drugs addicts who relapse go back to the same noxious environment; this is not the same for Britney. She is simply recording an album, doing extremely limited promotion, and touring which is largely isolated from extreme public scrutiny.
Were it not for the fact that she is Britney and will remain in the minds of the press for eternity, she wouldn't even be considered a celebrity because she's not even trying to be a celebrity.
Not disagreeing with the bolded at all, but don't you find it a a bit sad? That you and your followers put more energy into stanning for Britney and constantly trashing other artists in her name than Britney puts in her own career?
I am a fan of Britney, and since you seem to be so aware of my posting habits, you know that what I say is the truth. On principle Britney is one of my faves. But I can't stan for NotHereney. The music isn't the same (not bad, but not the same and I certainly can live without her new stuff), the personality isn't the same, the performances aren't the same. I can't stan for that. I have to
draw a line, and that line would be drawn for any other artist who did the same. Even Christina (even though she's too much of a fierce bitch to
ever compromise herself the way Britney has).
Not a valid comparison. Neither of those names, as far I know, were under a conservatorship, a critical detail.
The conservatorship is not the critical detail. It's the
embarrassing detail. The critical detail is that these were all wealthy people in the public eye who were unwell and had people in their lives who were close to them but did
not have their best interests in mind. And while that doesn't make it the definite case for Britney, it does establish a familiar pattern for celebrities who at one point were in a similar predicament.
I will have to see the extent of this distrust. Otherwise, this is an extremely cynical view and no matter how many paragraphs you want to punch out, it will remain cynical.
Not that it COULDN'T be true, but taking it as GOSPEL is even more deluded.
Cynicism in itself doesn't write off anything as being untrue.
Not that I'm even claiming it to be. My opinion of Britney's father is but one of the many things I consider when looking at the current profile of Britney. I don't take her father possibly being a leech as gospel. I just inisist that it's naive to write the possibility off entirely.
Honey, she looks TERRIFIED and PARANOID, but these traits are not necessarily indicative that a career in music is something she no longer wants. If she has some form of severe social anxiety, for example, the same traits will be present in everything she does outside her house; or even within her house in the proximity of strangers. By that logic, she should just quit LIFE.
What about the aspects of her life that don't require her to be in the public eye, if severe social anxiety is the name of the game here. Her music videos, that are filmed on closed sets, would still be good. Her music, which is recorded in a private studio, wouldn't be as impersonal as it has become.
Social anxiety only accounts for a small bit of Britney's lack of effort as an entertainment personality.
Or getting over it, however you want to WRITE IT. Focusing on semantics won't make the point go away
Preparation would be a better way to describe it. Then again, immediately throwing her back into the spotlight isn't exactly a good way to overcome mental episodes. I would never suggest Britney go away permanently. She has too much talent and a standing legacy for me to ever suggest that.
However, there's just simply no excuse to make for her not utilizing all that talent. And she's not. She is just simply an embarrassing shadow of her former self. The type of fan I am wants her to go away so that she can rediscover that innate thing in her that made her want to be a star in the first place. But that's just me. If there are people out there who are A-OK with her being physically and emotionally not here for her career outside of applying her voice to ready-made production, then I guess that's ok too. Just realize that you don't have the wherewithal to come for anyone else's faves. Because the simple truth of the matter is that, as she is today, the only thing Britney and her stans have to cling to are her sales numbers, because in
every other way she's an embarrassment to her former legacy. Personality, charm, performance ability, presence in her own damn music? Gone.
And as a Christina stan, that's the only thing that bothers me. Christina may not be as commercially lucrative as Britney, but it takes a mighty impossible leap to make the claim that Christina is
Not a successful artist. The fact of the matter is that she is. She's very successful. Hell many people in the industry consider her to be an
Icon at this point. So it becomes really freaking annoying that anytime someone in this thread wants to say anything nice about Christina we have to fend off 2 pages of
bullshit tea from the Britney stans who seem to want everyone to forget that Britney's basically a lobotomized hag at this point.
How's is it put in the bible? Oh, right...
pointing out the speck in someone's eye while having a LOG in yours.
#BiblicalTea
And speaking of bullshit, now that I've addressed the areas of your post that were actually useful for discussion, let's get to the parts that are
absolute nonsense.
And I addressed the same thing, dear. The claim was given that Xtincta's music is a critical success when that's far from the truth, and those are the receipts. Xtincta simply has not known critical success, and quoting random bloggers or what some industry source once said is not disproving this. Critical consensus is a very specific term based on critics, and that's the reality.
Continuing this trend of using Metacritic...
Christina's Back To Basics album scored a 69. That's well in the green and a higher score than all of Britney's albums except for "Oops...I Did It Again" (which was flawless bubblegum pop, tbh). There, I've used your own source of "receipts" to prove you
dead-ass-wrong.
But it doesn't stop there.
Last time I checked The Grammy Committee didn't give out their awards based on sales, but on
critical merit as determined by their committee. And yet who got the
Best New Artist Grammy? Britney? Of course not.
Yet, AGAIN, I'm not seeing how the debut album would have changed anything. You are now conflating commercial success with critical success; her debut album was a commercial hit, but where are the receipts that it was critically well received?
Again, in the eyes of some people, Grammy awards equate to critical success. But that's beside the point.
The REAL point is the fact that, had they included what was, at the end of the day, one of Christina's BIGGEST albums that won her Grammys, her aggregate score would have likely been higher, rendering your point moot. In other words, attempting to make the claim that Christina has never known critical success, and using a chart that
doesn't include all of her albums to prove this, is misleading at best and idiotic and worst.
Because she has and IS, dear. Pretending Xtincta's guest stint is indicative of HER relevance in radio is woefully deluded. Unless you find a way to prove the song climbed the charts because of HER, that receipt is not valid for a single transaction.
But you're still WRONG, sis. And PAINFULLY so.
Regardless of whether or not YOU like it, that feature on "Moves Like Jagger" counted as a #1 for her catalog. It is YOU with the dissenting opinion.
And you know how it goes (at least, you should): if you're presenting an opinion that goes against the status quo the burden of PROOF is on YOU. What the means, and read this carefully, is that before I would have to prove that the song went #1 because of her, YOU would have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the song would have gone #1 WITHOUT her. So until I see some "Moves Like Jagger (NOT Feat. Christina Aguilera)" going #1 on the charts this is yet another point of yours that is dead-ass-wrong and moot. #NEXT
I could pay you to think and you would still be broke.
That receipt is not showing me anything when, AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, the prior weeks had both performance and result shows falling BELOW the ratings of Season 1. If I do recall, the performance final was also BELOW the Season 1 numbers.
That you're using the FINALE as a claim for the show's relevance is ignorant. Ignoring the fact that a one-off night is not indicative of anything, a finale tends to attract audiences that don't even care or watch the show. There were people who tuned in to see JUSTIN BIEBER, who have no interest in anything regarding the show. There are people who had ceased to watch the show and simply tuned in out of curiosity to see the festivities.
What is DAMAGING is the precipitous downward trend The Noise displayed in both ratings and viewership, and barring a miracle, that, my dear, is the clearest warning sign that the show is headed to a SHORT LIFE.
Regardless of it being a finale or not, that episode saw this last season of The Voice ending, not just on a high note, but a HIGHER NOTE than the 1st season. So not only is using that finale as a claim of the show's relevance NOT ignorant, it's TRUE TEA. Ignorance would be claiming that a show that ended it's season with higher ratings than the season before, and that dominated its time-slot for the 18-49 demographic EVEN WHILE in its ratings slump is irrelevant just because your fave signed on for a competing show.
In a way, that is true. Every artist who isn't actively promoting has pending relevance because, for all we know, their career could go awry in a short period of time.
But poor Xtincta's career has simply been irrelevant since 2007, and that's undeniable. Her Greatest Hits effort underperformed, despite extensive promotion. Bionic swept the bottom of the charts, despite even greater promotion. This isn't like Justin Timberlake, who is irrelevant to the current industry at hand because he hasn't done anything; Xtincta has TRIED to do PLENTY and every single attempt has been SOUNDLY IGNORED.
Her career, at the moment, is DEAD. This is a fact. Her relevance is pending, not currently present, another FACT.
Perhaps she could revive her career, or not, but DEATH is her career's latest STATUS UPDATE.
Ummm, Christina only did a handful of performances for her greatest hits album, at the MTV Movie Awards. I wouldn't exactly call that "extensive promotion." And despite that, AND only being initially available at Target it still debuted within the Billboard Top 10 and WENT PLATINUM. Respectable for a greatest hits album. And while I won't make excuses for Bionic, I will say that Xtina had promotion cut off at the base when it was clear that the album wasn't going to be a hit, essentially cutting off any further success the album could have had.
But that's all beside the point. The point is that an artist with only one flop album under her belt and several lucrative projects to her name since then is not a "dead" artist. That claim is nothing more than desperate stan lingo.
"Dead" would be dropped from your label, releasing an album "independent" because you can't get major backing. THAT'S a proper definition for a dead project. When you're still an in-demand artist (and she definitely is. 10 million to do The Voice and being credited with making the judging panel interesting), and can still book studio time with pretty much ANY PRODUCER YOU WANT, you're not "Dead." At all. Not by any stretch. It's completely ignorant to believe otherwise.
Around 30 MILLION albums, dear. The 45-50 million figure that has been bandied about is for RECORDS SOLD.
Absolutely LUKEWARM performance for someone that debuted in the late 90s.
So? Even at that number of ALBUMS sold is still more than most people's faves. And if we're only counting albums then EVERYONE'S faves takes a nosedive.
What makes this even more impressive for Christina is that she accomplished this off the back of only 4 MAIN ALBUMS (3 with Bionic being a non-factor). Each album spread over the course of about 4 years. If she had the output of your typical pop star then I'd agree that her albums sold aren't as impressive. But her output isn't that high. Yes, that was her choice to make, but it still must be taken into account, because it means that all of her albums except the last one were HITS.
Not that Grammys matter in the greater scheme of things except for those reaching for a receipt. Beyoncé has 16. Chris Brown just took home a major one. It's odd, because I do recall yourself claiming the institution is broken, yet somehow Grammys are a receipt in regards to YOUR FAVE.
While I'd like to think that Christina won her Grammys at a time when they were actually difficult to obtain and not just tossed out like Halloween candy (seriously, Mariah only has 5. MARIAH), I'm won't disagree with you here. I only point out her Grammys to point disprove your idea she isn't critically acclaimed or respected. And the sad truth is, until the Grammy committee gets aired out for the sham that it is, it still has some standing merit in the industry in regards to what is and isn't critically acclaimed. In other words, it's a notch on her bedpost. The number of Grammys won means not a thing to me.
Yet again with the mythical industry respect. I don't know what crystal ball you bought off Dollarama, but Xtincta's future seems BLEAK should RCA kick her to the curve.
Hmmm...Not only is the idea of RCA kicking her so ridiculous it's not even worth discussing , let's continue:
Linda Perry
Xenomania
Sia
Max Martin
Le Tigre
Peaches
And really, we don't have to play the SERIES OF YOUTUBE VIDEOS of legends complimenting Christina Aguilera.
These are just artists/producers in the industry who have worked with her and would work with her AGAIN. So I don't know why you seem to think that an artist needs to have a gold statue erected in front of their label's headquarters to properly convey respect, but the proof is there in every other way.
Christina is a LEGEND. Her place in this industry is CEMENTED. DEAL.
If you want to base it off discussion, as noted repeatedly by many members here, the discussion is dominated by Madonna, Britney, Gaga and Rihanna. The rest are mere PASSING THOUGHTS. Around 95% of the time, this thread is discussing a woman who simply SHITS on your fave.
What kind of reasoning...
So. What you're saying is, because the discussion in this particular thread is dominated by
4 artists, that is sure enough sign of Christina's irrelevance and proof that she's "never known success" and "only knows failure"? So I'm guessing you would say the same exact thing about the rest of the artists mentioned in this thread that are not those 4 women?
Hmmm, I wonder what that is more an indication of...Christina Aguilera's failure, or
this thread's complete, utter, and embarrassing lack of diversity.
When your lovers are legends, who cares about the haters?
Sis, so eloquently put.
