Britney Spears: Classic or Dud?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Now listen, how has this obvious one not been done? Bloody Destiny's Child but not the Brit. Weirdos. Anyhow, Britney Spears: goddess on par with Marianne Faithfull or talentless silicone slapper? YOU BE THE JUDGE!

Ally, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

About as genuine as the "chicken" served by KFC, Britney Spears is pure product. Relevant? nope. Gifted? nope...or not in a musical sense at least. The one refreshing thing about Mz.Spears, however, is that unlike, say, Christina Aguilera, she doesn't pretend to be anything more than she is. You don't hear Britney attempting to pull off that shirll multi-octave hog-whistling that Aguilera and the boy bands attempt to do in a gesticulating R'n'B stylee. At the very tail end of the day, Britney's voice is the most fabricated studio creation to ever grace a Maxell cassette. Still, I'd be lying through my teeth if I said I didn't lust after her taut, silky midriff (preferabbly glazed with a sheen of post-coital dew). Going right to hell for that one, I'm sure.

alex in nyc, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

My generation's pride and joy. My generation is so much better than X. She is on her way to being better than Madonna. Her Pepsi commercial may not have got banned, but that means I get to see it regularly. She's a better dancer than Madonna ever was. Her Like A Prayer can only be imminent.

Otis Wheeler, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

Looks : Classic

Songs : All the ones I've heard (the hits) sound good. Gets extra points for cartoonish voice.

Attitude : All that virginal Christian/Mickey Mouse Club/lust-for- fame nonsense = DUD

Patrick, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

I like Max Martin.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

She's already way better than Madonna, Otie, or at least modern-day Madonna. She rocks the casbah. Granted most of her album tracks are crap but that doesn't matter because the singles rock, even the ones that all sound exactly alike. And she sounds like an evil slut robot, which is cool.

But total dud to her tanning bed addiction. What's that about? Weirdo.

Ally, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

Yeah, white women need to realize they have nothing on miscegenated chicks like Beyonce, let alone Indian girls, so unless they're gonna get some actual sun, they might as well try to look like Rose MacGowan, i.e. an albino. That's hot.

Otis Wheeler, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

YAY Britney!

james e l, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

That's what I'm sayin'. I don't need no skin cancer. It's bad enough I'll probably get lung cancer. BUT! If you are going to go all out and try to get dark, then don't go to a tanning bed. What's wrong with the sun??

Getting tans: Classic or Dud? Anyone who's seen me in person knows my vote on that one.

Ally, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

there should be a commercial that has a bunch of little kids of all colors and creeds saying, "i am britney spears." because she's a better role model than tiger woods and infinitely cooler to boot.

britney is the owner of all of our hearts. yes, all. she's the uber-madonna and the only thing better than her now is what she may likely become, but babe, ditch justin, eh? (and if madonna were to collaborate with brit, jesus would forgive her all her sins.) let's just hope that she avoids the pitfall that is "maturity" and heads straight for "mature audiences only." can't wait for the greatest hits album.

fred solinger, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

Regardless of whether you like her or not, Britney is pretty much guaranteed to be a classic on the strength of her puzzling frog voice. Her up-tempo singles tend to greatness, but I would cheerful STRANGLE THE GOD-AWFUL BALLADS (thus tying neatly into another thread, whee).

Dan Perry, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

For some reason over-tanning makes white girls lips look green, which isn't classic. Britney doesn't even look tanned though; she looks painted. Whatever she looks, she's got the style to carry it. I love how people think saying she's a product is some kind of insightful criticism, as if her fans are being mass-deluded into believing she's something else. Of course she's a product, she's a fucking pop singer! People don't go to music stores to buy souls, they go there to buy products. She's the most classic rock star since Slash.

Kris, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

Dude, if Tower would start selling souls, I'd be so there.

Ally, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

It's kind of spoiling the fun to use words like "classic" or "dud" with Britney.

I don't actually think I've ever written anything on FT about her. She's always held up as something FT likes, though. But, OK, if I was doing the Top 100 Singles Of The 90s again I would probably put "...Baby One More Time" at No.1. (NB: there are about half-a- dozen singles I think this about every time I hear them, so "Top Ten" is probably a more factual answer)

I've actually started fancying Britney a bit which is really worrying. As I was saying to Ethan on IM (TomFT26, good people), it's kind of like if you were a Moonie and in an arranged marriage, and saw your new spouse every day and were constantly being reminded that you were meant to fancy them, you probably would end up doing so a bit.

Tom, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

I don't know that much about Britney Spears. From what I've seen, she's a very beautiful young woman. I have heard one or two of her records here and there, I think, and didn't like them at all, in any respect, as far as I can remember.

the pinefox, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

She's the kind of young woman welcome round the vicarage anytime.

Obligatory perving out of the way, Britney would be more suited to a Search/Destroy kind if thing - and I say search '... baby one more time' (the song) & (just about) 'Ooops, I did it again' (the song). Destroy: the Rest.

The Dirty Vicar, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

...about all this idea of Britney being attractive. Dear god, NO, not from where I sit. I can't fathom the appeal.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

I'm with the vicar music wise. But I care more about the looks - the slutty schoolgirl was a triumph; nothing since has worked. She needs to get Kylie on her case.

Guy, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

Britney wouldn't look like a devil doll even if she were to saw her legs off at the knees, so I don't see how talking to Kylie would help.

Nicole, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

Hmm...I'm not convinced by Britney. The patented Greenfield Snobbery Containment Device is working overtime to prevent me from simply dismissing her for being called Britney (what a horrible, horrible name). I don't undersatnd the visual appeal of her either, but its probably the schoolgirl costume that gets you 'orrid old lechers every time. But more to the point are her tunes REALLY any good? I don't think they're as good as everyone says, but she's still better than, say (picks name at 'random') Travis (wow! What a coincidence). I think its a bit early to decide totally C or D, as I have a feeling that in the near future she'll do something genuinely, undisputably bad (like an album of ballads for example), so for the moment I vote Cla. She has yet to earn the 'ssic'. PS Pale girls = Classic.

DG, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

Search: All the singles. Especially Lucky, which has vocal production gymnastics and the wonderful thing that she's not *really* sad that she's a star, but stars are supposed to be sad. Tim is right about "Born to Make You Happy" being great too. I think both albums are great. Brit's talent? Who knows? Songs + production + image = great product.

Sterling Clover, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

Well, I honestly do think her good tunes are THAT good. She definitely beats the piss out of most of Destiny's Child's "good tunes" besides Say My Name and Independent Women. There's just something about the way everything comes together for her that doesn't gel similarly on other Max Martin productions. She is very rock 'n' roll and I think that helps because he employs some psuedo- 80s metal technics into her songs and it makes it all sound different, from sappy teen pop (ie NSync) to really good, edgy stuff almost. Her voice is fantastic too - she can't sing one note, but she's got this great rasp going and the production makes her sound like an alien. Her lyrics can be really dark, all about lonliness and wanting these loser guys to come back to her, which is basically the theme of most pop songs but something about the turn of phrase in her lyrics are a bit psychotic almost. She is teen pop's Joy Division.

As for her appearance, she's a very cute girl, but she needs to stop with the weird orange tanned skin. That's my qualm. Her clothes are fine, they are ROCK. But the skin is like alien skin.

Ally, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

So that's burnt orange skin, green lips, mickey mouse ears, soul bought at Tower, and stomach covered in alex's dew...

The "No talent? So what abt the dancing then?" thingum also raises its quiet head again: is THAT "manufactured"? Or is, y'know, callisthenic physicality the anti-christ?

mark s, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

"She is teen pop's Joy Division."

Good! I hope she kills herself, too.

I heart britney, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

The only modern pop phenomenon who actually IS as good as her sales and popularity suggest. Oops I Did It Again is actually an excellent pop album - except for the Dianne Warren song of course - and "What U See (Is What U Get)" or "Can't Make You Love" me could easily have been big singles. "From The Bottom Of My Broken Heart" needs to be erased forever, though, but still CLASSIC.

EdwardO, Wednesday, 2 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

First album is LOUSY beyond the (classic) title track (and I s'pose "Crazy"). "Oops" and "Stronger" are fine, sonically excellent; Max Martin's Mutt Lange to Britney's Def Leppard. The robot frog voice is (I s'pose) classic; just bizarre, like if Roger Troutman's famed Zapp effect were deployed as a "normal" singing voice. The ballads are horrendous (and ill suited to the robot frog). The dance steps in "Oops" are geeky yet oddly carnal (don't ask me to explain). The orange skin doesn't bother me. The looks aren't as good as (plucks name at "random"), erm, erm, that one girl I like in S Club. The pigtails were classic. General singles rule: uptempo = classic, slow = dud. An enigma, could go either way in time: will the real Britney Spears please stand up?

AP, Thursday, 3 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

Her singing sometimes sounds to me like a female teenpop version of the ultra-nasal Funkadelic/Cameo-type funk voice.

Patrick, Thursday, 3 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

I'm not listening to Britney nearly as much now as I was this time last year, though reading about her now I'm reminded of why she is so damn good. To me, she's all about association, about why mass culture is at once enlightened and doomed and all-pervasive and fragile. It's why I sort of love America. "Born To Make You Happy" and "Don't Go Knocking On My Door" in particular speak to me.

Tim, Thursday, 3 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

Patrick observed: "Her singing sometimes sounds to me like a female teenpop version of the ultra-nasal Funkadelic/Cameo-type funk voice."

You're quite correct there and a good thing it is too. Classic of course. The ballads I don't have any time for. The rest is catholic- cyber-doll-pop-sypmhonic-funk of the highest order.

Omar, Thursday, 3 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

I cannot separate her music from her image, which utterly repulses me on every level from sexual to intellectual. Oh wait, I don't like her overproduced, poorly written excuse for music, sung in a gargled- vocal style which makes even Lloyd Cole sound syruppy, either. I can't even get into her on a Warholian "oh, isn't this an interestingly manufactured plastic pop culture phenomenon" level. She just frightens me.

If one could make a time capsule of "The Most Perlexing Trends In Early 00s Culture" to be opened in the future by space aliens, surely it would contain Britney and Eminem.

kate the saint, Friday, 4 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

a virgin/whore post-lolita sexdoll singing catchy pop and a lower-class genius appropiating a previously-'black' artform to unseen degrees of respect are 'perplexing trends'? perplexing if you missed the last fifty years of pop music and american culture, maybe.

ethan, Sunday, 6 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

Ethan, you took the words out of my mouth.

Sterling Clover, Sunday, 6 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

At the risk of appearing to be a Salon.com mole, I'm going to point you to another one of their excellent articles that says what I feel about Ms. Spears far better than I myself can articulate at this moment. Oops, she's doing it again.

Perverts. ;)

Kim, Sunday, 6 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

That article can be immediately thrown in the trash, if just for the fact that they referred to Tiffany as "raven-haired". Clearly, Salon isn't as familiar with pop culture and music as it'd like to claim.

Ally, Tuesday, 8 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

I liked her before she sold out and starting doing Diet Pepsi ads.

bnw, Wednesday, 9 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

Bnw, I'm hiring you as my style consultant.

Sterling Clover, Wednesday, 9 May 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

one month passes...
Well, I'll admit, her songs are definitely catchy-if you're between the ages of 7-13. These are the ones who demand their parents'$15 purchase her albums, not to mention her dolls and other memorbilia- these are the little girls who see her strip half naked on MTV and shake her ass like she's a go-go dancer, then go in their bedrooms, sneak their older sisters' lipstick and halter top, and try the same moves in a full-length mirror. Now, you tell me.

Lea, Friday, 15 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

Little girls do that too? Cool, now I don't feel so alone in the world.

Nicole, Friday, 15 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

I have a Britney doll.

JM, Monday, 18 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

To elaborate on the previous: she has the plaid skirt and tied-off shirt a backpack with a microphone and thigh-highs. She lost her knickers.

JM, Monday, 18 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

Finally got around to buying the first album and it's a highly enjoyable pop listen - less extreme sonically than Ooops but everyone has to relax a little bit sometimes. Very surprised that you can still buy the record with pre-implants pictures, though.

Tom, Wednesday, 20 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

Have you noticed how at the end of that Pepsi commercial a very ghoulish Bob Dole tells his DOG, "Easy now, fella"? The bestial implications from the Viagra-peddler are--well, ew!

X. Y. Zedd, Wednesday, 20 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

The Brit-vid part of the commercial is fine, but all of the ephemera surrounding it (drooling fry cook, overweight bowler, etc.) is resolutely creepy.But Pepsi seems to prefer to employ some creepy elements in every commercial, the horrid little Pepsi girl is proof of that.

Nicole, Wednesday, 20 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

The creepiness around Spears is what she is all about. That Pepsi ad is the best thing she's done, hands down. It sums up the Britney sensation perfectly in just over a minute.

Mark, Thursday, 21 June 2001 00:00 (eighteen years ago) Permalink

three months pass...
She _is_ creepy, isn't she? It's like she represents in her 100 pound package everything sick and twisted and enticing about modern society. She is hot, but why pick her out and make her an erotic fixation for the whole world? I know several who are far more attractive, and I live in a tiny town. Needless to say, her music is so awful it's hard to find words to describe it. And Christina's voice _is_ quite good, if a bit clenched.

Jim Jones, Sunday, 23 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

I don't care if Christina has a good voice. It's meaningless until I hear it over a Neptunes production.

Honda, Sunday, 23 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

I think everyone alive knows someone hotter than Britney, she's pretty and all but it's not like she's all that or anything, and the photo I saw of her in RS with the Neptunes was downright scary - Britney after a bender!

Christina just has some ass awful songs, that's her problem.

Ally, Monday, 24 September 2001 00:00 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

two years pass...
(and if madonna were to collaborate with brit, jesus would forgive her all her sins.)

Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Sunday, 15 February 2004 02:42 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Solinger, you bastard!

nate detritus (natedetritus), Sunday, 15 February 2004 02:48 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Well, maybe Jesus did.

These days I just shrug. Couple of good songs, though (I will go to my grave insisting "Baby One More Time" is NOT one of them and that the allegedly similar "Oops I Did It Again" is thousands of times better thanks to the bassline).

Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 15 February 2004 02:50 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

nor does anyone know what wilco or franz ferdinand would sound like without electronic guitar tuners, but i don't hear anyone complaining about that.

fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 18 November 2004 20:45 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

That's not a valid analogy because a) presumably those guys (like most guitarists with even a decent ear) can actually tune an instrument to a reference pitch (like from a pitchpipe or a piano) without an electronic tuner if they have to.

Further, electronic guitar tuners aren't constantly looking for deviations in pitch and correcting them on the fly while somebody is playing.

martin m. (mushrush), Thursday, 18 November 2004 20:48 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I mean I was being facetious with the first comment, but there is a big difference.

martin m. (mushrush), Thursday, 18 November 2004 20:50 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

actually, the professional music world is loaded with guitarists who couldn't tune a guitar without a tuner even if you gave them a reference pitch and pointed a gun at their head.

and also actually, autotune is commonly used to correct wayward instrumental playing in studios. maybe not as common as it's used to correct wayward pitch. but i can assure you it IS used for that.

fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 18 November 2004 20:53 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

oh, and one more thing: what makes you think britney can't sing reasonably on pitch if she has to?

fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 18 November 2004 21:02 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

That's what I meant by facetious... I've no idea how on pitch she is without Autotuner. I don't have a beef with the use of Autotuner, and I don't have some kind of rockist view that using it is any less "authentic" than using, say, delay, reverb or chorus, at least one of which can be heard on just about every vocal track from 1950 to the present.

I do know that everything I've heard of Britney's stuff smacks of Autotuner on the vocals, and yes, I can hear the effect. I've even used it on my own vocal tracks on occasion and I actually do own the software. (It's a legitimate registered copy even...)

Autotune is commonly used to correct the playing of bass, particularly fretless bass (where it much more possible to be slightly off even if your instrument is completely intonated and in tune). I've also been present at a recording session where it was used on a theramin... another instrument difficult to control with perfect pitch.

I have never seen or heard of Autotune being used on guitar although it's certainly possible. It'd have to be the software version though, as the hardware units simply don't track quickly enough to handle any kind of hammer-on or pull-off technique. Not to mention how badly the hardware box would completely freak out the second a guitarist hits more than one string at the same time.

I have never met a professional guitarist who can't at least tune a guitar to itself. But then, I grew up in Nashville where throwing 10 rocks means you injure 9 session guitarists and one struggle Christian or Country songwriter.

martin m. (mushrush), Thursday, 18 November 2004 21:34 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

struggle = struggling above, obv.

martin m. (mushrush), Thursday, 18 November 2004 21:36 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

haha in athens throwing 10 rocks means you hit 10 guitarists that can't tune their guitar

cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 18 November 2004 21:38 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

wow, not only are you good musicians with good ears in nashville, you're good rock throwers, too! you throw 10 rocks and actually hit 10 people? that's the kind of talent that autotune can NOT help you with.

we're pretty good at throwing rocks here in new york city, too, but we're not quite as adept at tuning our guitars.

and, yup, fretless bass is where i've most seen autotune used. my general point, which i think you agree with, is that everyone's getting help from somewhere these days, electronic or otherwise.

fact checking cuz (fcc), Thursday, 18 November 2004 21:41 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Autotune, when I notice it, just sounds weird to me -- it flattens the voice. But then again, maybe more often than not I'm not even realizing it's there.True, though, that most bands today are getting some kind of "help" in the studio -- heck the recording process itself is "help".

Tim, I find your line of thought about doing post-marxist, pomo, etc. readings of Britney troubling, not because I don't think you should do it, but because, again, I think you're trying to justify music's value by how good an object of critical inquiry it makes. I'm not saying that's the only reason you like it, but I don't think it makes a valid point as to why the music is good. An interesting reading could be done of almost any cultural object.

Hurting (Hurting), Friday, 19 November 2004 00:02 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

and, yup, fretless bass is where i've most seen autotune used. my general point, which i think you agree with, is that everyone's getting help from somewhere these days, electronic or otherwise.

Yes, I agree with you... I was being facetious like I said. But I do think the tuner's not the same as the Autotuner is all. Nit-picky perhaps...

I don't live in Nashville any more, and I did live in NYC for quite some time before I ended up here on the west coast (Seattle). My rock-throwing comment was a joke about Nashville. (You'd be amazed at how many session guys are around, seriously. They are a totally different breed of musician who get paid to play whatever the hell you want and play it well. It's as baffling to me as it is impressive. And no, I'm not one of them. Nor do I think I could be one without an assload more training and practice.)

Autotune, when I notice it, just sounds weird to me -- it flattens the voice.

Well yeah, the problem is that the human voice isn't pitch perfect even when it's singing a single note... You don't notice the slight deviations that give the sound of a voice a distinct character, but you do notice when they are gone, and Autotune can and does get rid of a lot of them.

heck the recording process itself is "help".

Absolutely. And the use of tape instead of digital media does something to the sound at least as significant as Autotune. It's a totally different discussion (and no I'm not an analog snob or anything), but I think the current trends in the recording/mastering process are qualitatively less good than they have been in years past. Not because I think "the 70s sound" is better than "the 90s sound" or whatever, but because overcompression (among other things) has left us with music that actually causes listening fatigue even on equipment designed to minimize this effect. It's not a question of "Oh I think tape sounded better" or "The way they used to record [instrument] before the dawn of [newer technique] sounded much better." It's actually "I can't listen to this for more than an hour without getting a headache even though I actually like the song."

martin m. (mushrush), Friday, 19 November 2004 00:18 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Might I add that genre-bending =/= interesting. Not necessarily, anyway. I don't like the particular way in which Britney bends genres -- it always sounds thrown together to me like someone said "Hey, wouldn't it be crazy if we threw together x and y?" without really spending much time developing a workable fusion of the two.

Martin, that last point about listening fatigue is intriguing. I've never heard of that before. Is there anything I can read about this?

Hurting (Hurting), Friday, 19 November 2004 00:24 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Googling the term seems to get you more marketing hype from audiophile equipment companies than actual technical definitions of it, but you can still get a sense of what it is from the first hits on the page...

It's not a marketing fabrication though... It actually does happen. Find a discussion forum about recording or engineering records and you'll see guys who spend hours recording and mixing bands talk about it and are concerned about it when purchasing monitors or headphones or whatever.

I would spend more time going into the details, but I'm headed out the door to an appointment...

martin m. (mushrush), Friday, 19 November 2004 00:33 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I think I'll stay on the fence for this one. Talentless silicone slapper on par with Marianne Faithful.

outspan, Friday, 19 November 2004 01:34 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"Tim, I find your line of thought about doing post-marxist, pomo, etc. readings of Britney troubling, not because I don't think you should do it, but because, again, I think you're trying to justify music's value by how good an object of critical inquiry it makes. I'm not saying that's the only reason you like it, but I don't think it makes a valid point as to why the music is good. An interesting reading could be done of almost any cultural object. "

Hurting, correct me if I'm wrong but it was you who brought up the ideology or worldview of Britney's songs as a valid basis upon which to dismiss them. Any ideological reading of a song is treating it as an object of critical enquiry. I brought up post-marxism and deconstruction because these areas of critical thought have greatly undermined the stability of the sort of surface level ideological reading you seemed to be attempting. My point being, if we are going to bring ideology into this, let's do so properly.

I'll state for the records that I don't need to draw on cultural studies in order to love a lot of Britney's music.

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Friday, 19 November 2004 01:43 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

No, you're confusing me with someone else. I read that post, but I didn't write it. What, are we all the same to you?

Hurting (Hurting), Friday, 19 November 2004 03:17 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Yeah, you rockists all post alike.

Every country has their stupid (AaronHz), Friday, 19 November 2004 03:20 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Sorry Hurting I momentarily got you and Leavis mixed up because you were responding to my response to him.

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Friday, 19 November 2004 03:27 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Can I just point out that the original F.R. Leavis was the worst literary critic ever? And D.H. Lawrence is shite? K Thanx Bye.

noodle vague (noodle vague), Friday, 19 November 2004 09:02 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

STOP GETTING TIM FINNEY WRONG

And nobody knows what Britney sans Autotune sounds like.

Going by the live SNL 'I'm Not A (Real) Girl, Not Yet An Upgraded Sexbot' of 3 years ago, not too bad.

B.A.R.M.S. (Barima), Friday, 19 November 2004 10:30 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"I brought up post-marxism and deconstruction because these areas of critical thought have greatly undermined the stability of the sort of surface level ideological reading you seemed to be attempting. My point being, if we are going to bring ideology into this, let's do so properly."

What might be the broad outlines or the paragraph abstract for a "proper", non-surface ideological reading of Britney's songs?

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Friday, 19 November 2004 10:48 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Hormones.

B.A.R.M.S. (Barima), Friday, 19 November 2004 10:55 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

i was just watching this entertainment program on chinese tv, which had a piece on western pop beauties. britney was one of them (alongside kylie, jessica simpson and christina [the host explained that christina isnt really a black person, it is just fake tan...]). anyway, it appears that in china, britney is called "xiao tian tian bu la ni" (little sweetie britney)!

then they had a segment on black pop beauties (beyonce, ashanti and then i stopped watching to post that britney trivia fact above).

not relevant to current focus of thread i know

lydia, Friday, 19 November 2004 10:59 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I'm not certain whether to jokingly shout "racist!" or applaud you for stopping at Ashanti ;-).

B.A.R.M.S. (Barima), Friday, 19 November 2004 11:04 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

hah, after posting that, i did run back down to catch the rest of it. they had alicia keys (agree), kelly rowland (wtf) and brandy (prettier a few yrs ago when she had the braids and own tv show).

lydia, Friday, 19 November 2004 11:32 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Kelly has sass, but yeah, not so hot. Brandy needs to put weight back on her face.

B.A.R.M.S. (Barima), Friday, 19 November 2004 11:46 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Brandy needs to release "Sadiddy" as a single because it owns.

The Lex (The Lex), Friday, 19 November 2004 12:04 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

i looooooooooooooooooooveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee britneyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy !

ahmed shagalampost, Friday, 19 November 2004 20:09 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

i get off on her dvd
she's so hot
"let me be ","cinderella"and "boombastic" and were masterpieces

britney, Saturday, 20 November 2004 07:53 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

one year passes...
I just heard 'Toxic' on local radio. I thought it sounded OK in a way. The voice sounded more ethereal, more distant and distractedly airborne, than I have heard or noticed her voice being before.

the bellefox, Saturday, 26 November 2005 16:15 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

four months pass...
(This actually becomes sort of relevant about five minutes in.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RujDatFeb0&search=Sang%20Won%20Park

Rockist_Scientist (RSLaRue), Monday, 24 April 2006 23:44 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Ah, my formative days.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Tuesday, 25 April 2006 02:26 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"Toxic" is still boring.

billstevejim (billstevejim), Tuesday, 25 April 2006 12:41 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

This was a good thread. Although I don't like reading threads where someone asks me to back up a statement I've made and then I never post anything to the thread after that.

Jonathan if you're still interested in reading involved dissections of pop ideology I can point you to numerous tedious (my fault mostly) threads on dissensus.

Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Tuesday, 25 April 2006 14:59 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

two years pass...

her face

Surmounter, Friday, 13 March 2009 01:53 (ten years ago) Permalink

i recently heard "toxic" for the first time in years and holy jesus has it got to be one of the best pop songs of the decade, if not ever.

samosa gibreel, Friday, 13 March 2009 03:30 (ten years ago) Permalink

True.

And Blackout is outrageously good.

Popture, Friday, 13 March 2009 07:50 (ten years ago) Permalink

We know!

Plaxico (I know, right?), Friday, 13 March 2009 10:55 (ten years ago) Permalink

I really really like "blackout" but couldn't give a shit about the latest album.

AleXTC, Friday, 13 March 2009 11:02 (ten years ago) Permalink

^^

Plaxico (I know, right?), Friday, 13 March 2009 14:52 (ten years ago) Permalink

you're missing out on some killer songs. it definitely has a few that aren't good. blackout didn't have that problem. but still, missing out.

Surmounter, Friday, 13 March 2009 15:58 (ten years ago) Permalink

six months pass...

http://i36.tinypic.com/r0o3ef.jpg

James Mitchell, Sunday, 27 September 2009 10:23 (nine years ago) Permalink

nine years pass...

Lies. (Maybe not.)

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 6 June 2019 01:58 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Her US chart history really is odd, I would have thought "I'm a Slave 4 U" and "Piece of Me" were top tens also

Josefa, Thursday, 6 June 2019 02:12 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I love “Til the World Ends”

Theodor Adorno, perhaps the greatest philosopher alive today (morrisp), Thursday, 6 June 2019 02:22 (two weeks ago) Permalink

listening to it now

recriminations from the nitpicking woke (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 6 June 2019 02:34 (two weeks ago) Permalink

what about "3"?

monotony, Thursday, 6 June 2019 06:45 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Huh I thought “Slave 4 U” was a top 10 hit in the US. In Europe and LatinAmerica it definitely was. Was the video too much or got censored for American audiences?

✖✖✖ (Moka), Thursday, 6 June 2019 07:44 (two weeks ago) Permalink

the "i'm a slave 4 u" video was really big on mtv. it was radio that didn't play it much compared to a lot of her other songs.

dyl, Friday, 7 June 2019 01:37 (two weeks ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.