Britney Spears: Classic or Dud?

Come on, that's a pointless question. You know how the little cillia in your ears dance a certain way when you like something? Well that doesn't happen when I hear Madonna, or Britney Spears.

I don't see how pointing out the weaknesses of other artists is supposed to convert me. And with the exception of about two of her tracks, I don't see any originality in her songwriter's work. The difference between her and Motorhead is overexposure. No one has ever shoved Motorhead down my throad. The Grateful Dead is a different story, but I digress.

She's also, at least ostensibly, a product for twelve-year-old girls.

Shurely shome mishtake?

It's pointless trying to change people's opinions.

Pointing out the ridiculousness/fallacy/logical inconsistency of the assumptions that underlie their opinions is fair game though.

products for forty year old men: suv's, viagra, "real music", george w. bush

Well, isn't that what it all comes down to? I could come up with specifics -- I find her voice (Britney's) thin and irritating. I find the beats (EVEN TOXIC) repetitive and annoying. But I just don't like it because I don't like it It's not an argument, it's an opinion. I'm not trying to argue you into disliking Britney.

By making it culturally inescapable. And the fact that we put this woman on a huge fucking pedistal for completely superficial reasons (ie: she looks like a porn star) is painful if you have anything called a soul. I know this is nothing new in society, but still...

I believe there's these things called 'turning off the radio' and 'iPods' and the like which can help you in this regard.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Britney Spears is quite deliberately targeted, or at least was until recently, at pre-teen and teen girls (though there is the likely deliberate secondary target of horny 20-50 year old men). The post I was referring to tried to point out that Britney is *supposed to be* a product. I agree that this has nothing to do one way or another with her being any good, but if you're going to talk about things in those terms, let's really follow their implications.

If Britney is just a *product* then all I should have to say is "I don't like it". That's it. I don't like Pepsi, I prefer Wendy's to McDonalds. If you're trying to make some sort of well-reasoned "argument" for her, then you're abandoning the idea that she's just a product to be liked or disliked.

You're implying that some people are "artists" and some are "products". This is bullshit.

You're implying that you know exactly which audience Britney was targeted at. This is highly fucking unlikely.

You're implying that Britney can only appeal to men (and not women) for sexual reasons. This is wilful bullshit.

Read half the posts above: "Classic!" "Yay Britney!" etc. Title of thread: "Classic or Dud?" I say dud. That bothers you so much that you need to keep prodding, hoping I'll slip and say something rockist so you can prove that there's no legitimate reason to dislike Britney?

"You're implying that some people are "artists" and some are "products". This is bullshit." I didn't initially use the word "product," a pro-Britney poster did. I wouldn't have called her that, but I ran with it to make a point.

Oh, come on! Replace your mental image of Britney with oh I don't know... Bea Arthur. How do you think that would fly?

Firstly, I'd guess plenty of people are sexually attracted to Bea Arthur.

Secondly, whether I find the image of Britney (never having met her socially) attractive or not, that isn't why, for example, "Toxic" gives me a raging bone-on. It's all about the music, maaaaaaaan.

You could say that about at least 50 percent of rock musicians though, even the ones that rockist critics adore.

Not when the market owns the market. And this is pretty much why I have problems with her music and her peers. It's like embracing Philip Morris or something. But I guess rooting for the underdog = rockism now too.

Some things I don't like about what I perceive as the anti-rockist approach:

1) That it tends to lead to judgments like the one I just described.

2) That it seems to over-emphasize top 40-type stuff (of which there is very little that I enjoy right now, no matter how hard I try).

3) That it seems to imply that I ought to spend more of my time listening to top 40 radio in order to avoid making rash generalizations, when I have enough other music I'm interested in pursuing to occupy all of my spare time. I don't feel the need to hear every new single to generalize that I don't like most of today's pop music. Granted there are occasionally new singles I like -- usually R&B or hip-hop. Admittedly, one or two of Britney's songs at least have beats I like, but I can't stand the singing.

4) That it seems to absolve its proponents of their own prejudices, which may include, as I have said before, actually liking pop music more than they would because it helps them prove to themselves that they are open-minded free thinkers.

5) That it seems to do away with the idea that any music can be truly "great" or "important" or more than just a matter of taste.

That said, I agree with many anti-rockist ideas, i.e. that albums are not necessarily better than songs, that it's delusional to think one can avoid commercial influence, that rock is not better than other genres, that "authenticity" is a foolish thing to prize in music.

But I would like to add that I think certain types of music are more complex or have more to digest or more to offer than others. Standing up to more repeated listenings doesn't necessarily make something objectively better, but I'll always have a deeper love for music that I find more engaging and complex, as opposed to fun songs with hot beats, even though I do like the latter.

And it can be yours too for the low price of $14.95.