Honestly, I've always thought she was kinda overrated. I never caught on to her hype. When I was little, I used to call her Christina "Agu-yeller," and used to resent people always comparing her to Whitney. To me, Pink was better/cooler.

WaterInYourBath said:

http://www.youtube.com/wa...tM#t=0m14s

THANK YOU!!!! I'm a fan and I know for a fact that she ain't selling no damn 8 million copies of any album no matter what style it's in and neither is anyone else...except for maybe that Justin Bieber kid but we all know why that would happen...teen girls keep the music industry alive ya'll. I'd be surprised if she can retain the title of 'platinum selling artist' with this album because Christina has never been the media darling; never, and that's partially due to her diva attitude. Anyone who honestly believes that any artist can go diamond or greater at this day in age really needs to either put the crack pipe down and go to rehab; or, they need to seek help with their obsession for their favorite artist before they end up doing so stalker shit and getting arrested...idol worship is bad; very bad.

If the album bombs due to bad material that's one thing; but, if it bombs because it doesn't sell over a million copies in a month than that's completely different. Britney ain't selling like she used to and her label threw shitloads of money into her recent videos and recent album promotion only to have it sell less than 300,000 copies in it's first week. That would really be considered a flop from the business aspect considering that she has two of the highest selling albums of all time from a female artist under her belt. She went from selling 20 million copies from each of her first two albums worldwide to selling less than 5 million copies worldwide with her 'Circus' album. From a financial standpoint, that would be considered a flop and she would be labeled a non-consistent artist, but in reality, I know that she's not going to pull those numbers because her fanbase has diminished over the years and CDs have been almost rendered obsolete thanks to the digital age which brings with it illegal downloading. Her numbers won't ever be what they once were no matter how great people say she is. That's called 'reality'.

If we're going to talk flop, let's go there. Beyonce sold 100,000 less copies of "I Am Sasha Fierce" than "B'day" in its first week so technically it would be considered a flop considering that with 'I Am Sasha Fierce' she has put waay more money into that album than she put into "B'day" because she made a video for pretty much every song on that damn album (about 8 videos) and with "B'day" she only released like 4 videos. Music videos ain't cheap and neither is promoting an album which is why some artists have their new albums come out without many people really knowing much about its release. I didn't even know Erykah Badu's album was coming out until a week before it dropped because there wasn't a whole lot of promotion for it, but that saved her and her label a shitload of money at the end of the day.

If we're going to talk numbers; let's talk numbers. Christina's last two albums of new material both sold a little over 300,000 copies in their first week, so if this new album is able to sell that amount; than that's not a flop...that's called 'breaking even'. As long as she's not making 8 music videos and doing shitloads of promotion for this new album, she'll probably come out the same as her previous albums unless it just stops selling after the first month; and if her new tour sells well, she'll do fine in the end. From a financial point of view, she'd probably be considered a consistent artist. It's when the consistency stops that labels start to drop artist's contracts but Christina has multiple Grammys and other awards behind her name so her label isn't going to drop her no matter how bad this one album does. It's the same with movie companies and Oscar winners who do a shitty film or two; they still have 'Oscar winner' in front of their name; so, they don't have to worry about not being able to find work because they are still considered marketable based off of that title. 'Thriller' became the highest selling album in music history, so everything MJ did after that was going to be considered a financial flop because how was he going top that? He wasn't; so he shouldn't have even stressed himself trying because it wasn't going to happen no matter how big a comeback he would have had (RIP Michael ). Again, that's being realistic.

The less money put out makes it easier to make a profit in the long run. It's the same in every business in the world, not just the music industry. Look at 'Avatar', that movie costed $500 million to make; but, it made $2 Billion fuckin' dollars...you don't have to be a mathematical genius to see that James got paid like muthafucka at the end of the day. At this point, James Cameron could shit in a box and film if for $500 dollars and it would probably make him a least a grande just selling it to some movie or internet company. He would still make a profit.

Christina's album hasn't even come out yet to see any numbers yet people want to talk out the side of their necks about it bombing when Christina hasn't sold 8 million copies of an album since her debut. How the fuck would she be bombing if she ends of pulling the same numbers with this album as she did with 'Stripped' and 'B2B'? Again, that would be considered 'breaking even'. Madonna's recent albums haven't sold shit compared to her stuff from the 80s and early 90s, but she seems to be doing just fine and her tour sales trump her album sells anyway. If she released an album that sold 10 copies and did a tour that grossed $500 million dollars, than who really gives two shits that she only sold 10 copies of an album because she still got stupid paid in the end. Profit is all that really matters at the end of the day since the music business has become more about the business than the music in the past 20 years anyway so let's just see if the album in it's entirety truly does sound as 'terrible' as those snippets and call it a day.

VinnyM27 said:

With "Stripped", 'Dirrty' got pulled early because of that issue with the music video, but than she dropped 'Beautiful' which I think ultimately saved that album in the end. It's totally possible for an artist to have a bad first single but have the B-Side or second single save the project. It wouldn't be the first time it's happened in music history.

Didn't 'Dirrty' only peak at 48 on the Hot 100? lol

Didn't 'Dirrty' only peak at 48 on the Hot 100? lol

Well, I stand behind my statement. Ya'll are resistant to change.

shipoffools said:

So are you, by your own statement. Think about it.

Well, I stand behind my statement. Ya'll are resistant to change.

Xtina (or Christina) has always been about change. There was the Just Be Free Era, then the Debut album era, then the Mi Reflecto and My Kind of Christmas era, then the Stripped era, then the Back 2 Basics era, and now the Bionic era.

She has always said that she doesn't care about popularity. Face it, Britney is much more popular, yet whose songs have more substance? Obviously Christina. Even Not Myself Tonight has more substance than ANYTHING that Britney has done.

I think this is an album that will be aimed at a specific target market. And yes, maybe it won't sell well. However, that doesn't make it a bad album. After hearing the samples of both discs, I'm excited about this album much more than any Christina album release, and I think it might turn out to be my favorite Aguilera album. Does that make MY musical tastes bad? Hell no. Everyone has different tastes.

What I react badly to are people that go, "Oh, it's a bomb!" without even hearing the full album. How do you know what the album will sound like? It doesn't come out for another two weeks! And how do you know that people won't be buying it? If people can buy stuff by the Black Eyed Peas (who suck, btw), they can buy Bionic. It's really immature to call her 'Floptina', when she's had such a legendary career up to this point. Even Prince has had periods where people were calling his new stuff bad, and yet lots of people tend to like that new (or old) stuff now.

Regardless, I've already dropped down $62 for the deluxe boxset, and will also be buying it on Itunes. Total $78. Eat that, haters.

ernestsewell said:

What is there to think about? Christina changed her sound, you all are upset and bitching about it. That's my own statement right there.

Regardless, I've already dropped down $62 for the deluxe boxset, and will also be buying it on Itunes. Total $78. Eat that, haters.

I'm sure Christina will thank you personally!

BklynBabe said:

Just don't cough during the thank you's.

I'm watching these Bionic interview videos. She's better off just singing. She's taking herself WAY too self-important.

I'm watching these Bionic interview videos. She's better off just singing. She's taking herself WAY too self-important.

This is like Mariah's Glitter but in reverse (album first, then movie). Can't wait for Burlesque! It's Floptina's epic Year of Floppage!

This is like Mariah's Glitter but in reverse (album first, then movie). Can't wait for Burlesque! It's Floptina's epic Year of Floppage!

Well, I stand behind my statement. Ya'll are resistant to change.

Xtina (or Christina) has always been about change. There was the Just Be Free Era, then the Debut album era, then the Mi Reflecto and My Kind of Christmas era, then the Stripped era, then the Back 2 Basics era, and now the Bionic era.

She has always said that she doesn't care about popularity. Face it, Britney is much more popular, yet whose songs have more substance? Obviously Christina. Even Not Myself Tonight has more substance than ANYTHING that Britney has done.

I think this is an album that will be aimed at a specific target market. And yes, maybe it won't sell well. However, that doesn't make it a bad album. After hearing the samples of both discs, I'm excited about this album much more than any Christina album release, and I think it might turn out to be my favorite Aguilera album. Does that make MY musical tastes bad? Hell no. Everyone has different tastes.

What I react badly to are people that go, "Oh, it's a bomb!" without even hearing the full album. How do you know what the album will sound like? It doesn't come out for another two weeks! And how do you know that people won't be buying it? If people can buy stuff by the Black Eyed Peas (who suck, btw), they can buy Bionic. It's really immature to call her 'Floptina', when she's had such a legendary career up to this point. Even Prince has had periods where people were calling his new stuff bad, and yet lots of people tend to like that new (or old) stuff now.

Regardless, I've already dropped down $62 for the deluxe boxset, and will also be buying it on Itunes. Total $78. Eat that, haters.

shipoffools said:

It doesn't have a bad sound to it and of course, Christina's vocals are strong (super strong. really)....but to say it has any substance? It's a sterech. I think people are hating just to hate to some extent, but honestly this is starting to feel like "Stripped 2.0" WITHOUT THE SUBSTANCE! I could be wrong, but the first two singles suggest absolutely nothing is going on upstairs....all downstairs! To let's say compare it to a Madonna album, it ain't "Erotica"....it's more like the Otto Von Whatever demos! Again, I'm not interested in samples right now, but those singles.....I'm just not jumping out to buy it just yet (or maybe at all).

BTW, a boxed set? That's just too much!

I fucked up - Glitter soundtrack *was* released first. So this *is* just like Glitter. Cool!!!