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?
That's the stanning game, doll. Whatever she's doing really doesn't matter.
And if you think that's ridiculous, do I need to remind you what thread you're in?
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.
It is embarrassing, but it remains critical; because what the conservatorship entails is that Britney has a gaggle of people external to her entourage also monitoring her well being. The conservatorship adds an entire new web of things to consider when trying to claim something is awry behind the scenes.
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.
And I agree that it very well could be the case, but so very improbable. It honestly reads like a piece from The Sun.
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.
Social anxiety or another mental illness can be crippling, dear. In the same sentence, I stated how it could arise even outside the public eye. It could absolutely account for all her deficiencies.
To illustrate: it doesn't matter if she spends months practicing for a single performance if she gets on stage with a terrible bout of anxiety; and note that I'm not arguing any handicaps she might have excuse the very fact that she chooses to provide a shoddy performance, but she might actually be trying.
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.
And we will keep disagreeing there. Honestly, to me it seems the only way to return to glory in the spotlight is to deal with her demons regarding the spotlight, and she kinda needs to be in the spotlight for that to even occur. As it stands, her environment seems to be controlled so as to not be detrimental to her health, so I really don't see any issue to begin with.
Making music was not the thing that sent her on the wrong path; factors peripheral to her career were, ultimately, her downfall. A recording career, from what I can deduce, remains her "safe heaven" and I would say she still wants to keep doing 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.
Yes, sales numbers, which are the FUNNEST to throw around. But my point way back in the very first post is that Britney stans also cling to her musical output, which continues to be solid and even influential (note how the structure in songs from Femme Fatale have already been pilfered by other lessers). I'm not contesting your opinion regarding her music as of late, but it is ultimately meaningless. So many people love her music, and radio-wise, she is actually at her PEAK.
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.
Ignoring that every faction has the hots to drag Xtincta, not just the Britney stans.
HMM.
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.
How is that any proof when it's just ONE GREEN out of a GAGGLE of YELLOW? It's not even her most recent output.
Her tendency, no matter how much you want to deny this, is to release critically SUBPAR music; and that's why I tied it into her commercial success, or lack thereof. Xtincta's only noteworthy commercial achievements were her first two albums, and noteworthy is used LOOSELY considering many of her peers around the same time sold LEAGUES MORE.
There has been a DRASTIC decline in commercial sales in every album (much more than it can be explained by the general decline in the industry), and one can't help but point to her mixed-at-best critical reception as part of the reason why she has been SHEDDING FANS like a cat sheds its fur.
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.
You know, it's funny that you keep bringing up this BNA Grammy. I just stumbled upon this in the award's Wikipedia page:
"It is sometimes asserted, with varying degrees of sincerity, that winning the award is a curse, as several award winners (particularly from the late 70s and early 80s) were never able to duplicate the success they experienced in their debut year."
Just a bunch of superstition, but I can't help but LOL at how FITTING it is with Xtincta!
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.
It is not mooting any point because a Grammy award does not establish a particular critical reception. You can argue the album was not abhorrent, but there is simply no evidence to suggest the aggregate score would have increased. It is purely a GUESS on your part.
Want some evidence as to its reception? The album received
MIXED REVIEWS. Likelihood of redeeming her SUBPAR AGGREGATE is almost NON-EXISTENT.
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
And whose status quo might this be? Nevermind that you've deflected the original point. YES, that #1 counts as a hit in her catalogue like any other. NO, it is not representative of her power or relevance in the radio by any measure.
Xtincta has been unable to get a hit of her own for YEARS. That is fact, and that particular fact is all the more relevant as her upcoming output is a SOLO effort and not a FEATURING STINT.
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.
It's true tea only in YOUR MIND. Not sure how many times one must repeat that a one-off night is not indicative of a show's HEALTH. What IS indicative of health is TREND, and much like
NBC agrees, the trend is WORRYINGLY DOWNWARD. What you are claiming right now goes against what the very people FINANCING the show BELIEVE.
Let me also educate you on the move to the Winter season. Viewership in those months (and the Fall) is about a THIRD higher than they are in the SUMMER. NBC did not move the show to a Winter (and now Fall) timeslot to suffer a DROP in ratings, or (since you keep INSISTING on the Finale's numbers) an increase in ratings that is BELOW the increase in TV VIEWERSHIP.
And no, this has nothing to do with Britney going on X Factor. Please, I've been going in on The Voice before Britney was even rumored for X Factor, ever since it became apparent the show treats its contestants as props for the promotional gain of its judges. Absolutely vile.
Ummm, Christina only did a handful of performance 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 withing the Billboard Top 10 and WENT PLATINUM. Respectable for a greatest hits album.
The album didn't go Platinum in the United States. It doesn't seem to have even cleared a million worldwide.
By all accounts underwhelming, and what's interesting about this is that these types of compilations (at least the first major ones) are in a way indicative of how much a public values an artist's output. See Madonna, Whitney, Britney, et al any other artist whom is often considered a POWERHOUSE.
That Keeps Gettin' Better (lol) underperformed is quite FITTING.
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.
Nearly 6 years of being nothing but an afterthought for the recording industry say otherwise. Would you say BRANDY'S CAREER is not DEAD? Xtincta is very much REMINISCENT of the felon.
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.
No. Absurd that you would even claim this. You have a point with the Sesame Street artists whom can't even claim to be a fad, but Xtincta's commercial achievements is nowhere near more than "most."
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 is her choice to make, but it still must be taken into account, because it means that all of her album except the last one were HITS.
Not impressive when Britney's first two albums outsold her entire catalogue. Backstreet Boy's one album outsold her entire catalogue. The list goes on. And honestly, we're now delving into WHAT IF, COULD HAVE territory. Point is, her output is far from being commercially NOTEWORTHY.
While I'd like to think that Christina won he 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 mean not a thing to me.
Absolutely. The committee is vile.
Hmmm...Not only is the idea of RCA kicking her so ridiculous it's not even worth discussing
It was actually a HOT TOPIC in the wake of Bionic. The possibility is certainly there, especially considering colossal artists have been dropped from their labels. Didn't Mariah meet that fate?
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.
Not exactly a receipt for respect when artists like Katy Perry or Rihanus have a gaggle of equally talented producers wanting to work with them again.
It's more of a sign that she's professional. Good for her.
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.
That was in reply to the claim that Xtincta's standards are somehow storied or impressive to many people in this thread. They are not.
And yes, there is a lack of diversity in this thread, though at the very least the community now seems to be sustainable (unlike just a few months earlier where the very existence of the thread was in question). This is all very peripheral to Xtincta's predicament, though.
Christina is a LEGEND. Her place in this industry is CEMENTED. DEAL.
I agree, she truly has CEMENTED herself at the bottom.
