musicjunky318 said:

trueiopian said:

Excuses, excuses, excuses.

iTunes store launched in 2001. That's just 2 years after Britney's debut.

?????????????????????

So? It didn't take off until much later.

That doesn't really mean anything.

Excuses.

and what doesn't mean anything?

trueiopian said:

musicjunky318 said:

?????????????????????

So? It didn't take off until much later.

That doesn't really mean anything.

Excuses.

and what doesn't mean anything?

No one was thinking about I-tunes in 2001. I didn't matter whether or not it was here, it was irrelevant.

musicjunky318 said:

trueiopian said:

Excuses.

and what doesn't mean anything?

No one was thinking about I-tunes in 2001. I didn't matter whether or not it was here, it was irrelevant.

That's when we still had the music megastores and shit so no it didn't matter...UNTIL they close around the time Gaga came out.

But yeah it was out for a while. At the time the iTunes thing was considered a joke.

musicjunky318 said:

trueiopian said:

Excuses.

and what doesn't mean anything?

No one was thinking about I-tunes in 2001. I didn't matter whether or not it was here, it was irrelevant.

Wow, you're reaching. Regardless, iTunes was relevant a couple years later.

It still won't change the fact that Britney only has 4 #1's. Embarrassing.

Timmy84 said:

musicjunky318 said:

No one was thinking about I-tunes in 2001. I didn't matter whether or not it was here, it was irrelevant.

That's when we still had the music megastores and shit so no it didn't matter...UNTIL they close around the time Gaga came out.

But yeah it was out for a while. At the time the iTunes thing was considered a joke.

Exactly. Someone gets it. It's like saying the personal computer itself began in the 70s.

But you can't compare the launch with the way it's a part of society now.

trueiopian said:

musicjunky318 said:

No one was thinking about I-tunes in 2001. I didn't matter whether or not it was here, it was irrelevant.

Wow, you're reaching. Regardless, iTunes was relevant a couple years later.

It still won't change the fact that Britney only has 4 #1's. Embarrassing.

I-tunes only reached relevancy around 2005-6.

And if you read the article you would know why she has 4 but I see you haven't bothered.

musicjunky318 said:

trueiopian said:

Wow, you're reaching. Regardless, iTunes was relevant a couple years later.

It still won't change the fact that Britney only has 4 #1's. Embarrassing.

I-tunes only reached relevancy around 2005-6.

And if you read the article you would know why she has 4 but I see you haven't bothered.

That's not true. It started in 2003 and onward.

I'm not here for excuses. Artists from the 80's and 90's were able to garner that amount of #1's with one album.

trueiopian said:

musicjunky318 said:

I-tunes only reached relevancy around 2005-6.

And if you read the article you would know why she has 4 but I see you haven't bothered.

That's not true. It started in 2003 and onward.

I'm not here for excuses. Artists from the 80's and 90's were able to garner that amount of #1's with one album.

No it didn't. I'm telling you. Billboard only changed their policy to allow downloads to count in 2005. All before that it meant nothing and wasn't a hot commodity.

This is part of the reason why "Toxic" "Everytime" etc. didn't hit #1.

musicjunky318 said:

trueiopian said:

That's not true. It started in 2003 and onward.

I'm not here for excuses. Artists from the 80's and 90's were able to garner that amount of #1's with one album.

No it didn't. I'm telling you. Billboard only changed their policy to allow downloads to count in 2005. All before that it meant nothing and wasn't a hot commodity.

This is part of the reason why "Toxic" "Everytime" etc. didn't hit #1.

Explain why other artists from the 80's and 90's were able to rack in many #1 hits without the help of iTunes.

trueiopian said:

musicjunky318 said:

No it didn't. I'm telling you. Billboard only changed their policy to allow downloads to count in 2005. All before that it meant nothing and wasn't a hot commodity.

This is part of the reason why "Toxic" "Everytime" etc. didn't hit #1.

Explain why other artists from the 80's and 90's were able to rack in many #1 hits without the help of iTunes.

More radio support, physical single releases, and non-Clear Channel bans.

musicjunky318 said:

trueiopian said:

Explain why other artists from the 80's and 90's were able to rack in many #1 hits without the help of iTunes.

More radio support, physical single releases, and non-Clear Channel bans.

LOL! Tried it.

trueiopian said:

musicjunky318 said:

More radio support, physical single releases, and non-Clear Channel bans.

LOL! Tried it.

It's the truth. Britney's core support comes from Pop stations. She doesn't get the Rhythmic & Urban backing a Beyonce or Rihanna does so her audience impressions don't reach the scale of a multi-format artist. Two, many of her early single releases were never given physical releases in order to maximize album totals. Three, by the time her third CD rolled around, she was banned by Clear Channel because she didn't want to use their entertainment company as a concert promoter. Therefore, all her singles from that era flopped hard on the Hot 100 since she was given little radio support. "Toxic" and "Everytime", from her fourth album In The Zone, performed strong on radio but were released right before Billboard began counting digital downloads. They would have both hit #1. Everything from Blackout should have and would have been monster singles across the board, the material was epic, but unfortunately Britney was in a middle of a personal crisis at the time. So there you go... Womanizer from Circus hit #1, 3 from her Singles Collection came out the following year (2009) and hit #1, and Hold It Against Me, first single from her new record just hit the top in January.

[Edited 3/13/11 15:58pm]

trueiopian said:

ThePopLover2 said:

YASSS!! That's another thing I've noticed! It's seems like Madonna is not brought up unless the Interviewer or the MEDIA, brings her up.

Um come on now. Madonna is seen as the female equivalent to MJ so she's always brought up and seen as the ideal pop female artist. Whereas Janet is seen as MJ's sister.

Exactly, which is a shame because Janet's influence is not only obvious but far-reaching

Amber from "Glee" says it's she'd like to do a Janet track on the show

Gaga talks on her admiration for Janet

Jennifer Lopez says "Pleasure Principle" inspired her to get into the business

Kelly Rowland gives Janet props beginning @ 5:07

@ 1:35, Pebbles says that if it wasn't for Janet, she wouldn't be where she was

^ Some might argue that a number of Janet's earliest videos are strikingly similar to videos Michael did before her.

So maybe they weren't copying Janet more than they were influenced by who SHE took cues from herself...

musicjunky is correct as far as britney's chart positions. you only have to look at the international chart positions for the same songs to realize that much.

chamber said:

^ Some might argue that a number of Janet's earliest videos are strikingly similar to videos Michael did before her.

So maybe they weren't copying Janet more than they were influenced by who SHE took cues from herself...

You're reaching . There's no way you can look at all of the videos I posted and say those artists are taking cues from Michael Jackson videos. The only thing I see that "Nasty" has in common with "Beat It" is that they take place on the street at night. The Janet influence is blatant in the Faith Evans video, the Mya video, the Peter Andre and Kelly Rowland videos, the Cassie video, etc. Peter Andre even did an interview where he said his song and video "Defender" were an homage to "Rhythm Nation". Did you even watch the clips of what those artists were saying?

chamber said:

^ Some might argue that a number of Janet's earliest videos are strikingly similar to videos Michael did before her.

So maybe they weren't copying Janet more than they were influenced by who SHE took cues from herself...

That doesnt make any sense

If they're going to copy MJ. Then Copy him! Not Janet. Let's Not act like MJ has never tooken cues from Janet before. That "Jam" Video was easily a reminiscent of Janet's "Pleasure Principle". The only video that was a resemblance to MJ's was "Dirty Diana" & "Black Cat". And Some even argue that "Black Cat" is more like "Control" than anything else

If Janet took from MJ or vice versa, So what! Their BROTHER & SISTER!

The problem is when outsiders steal from the familly.

silkylee said:

If Janet took from MJ or vice versa, So what! Their BROTHER & SISTER!

The problem is when outsiders steal from the familly.

I Just find it funny that it's okay for Madonna to grab her crotch and take cues from MJ, but when JANET does it, she marked off as a copycat and riding her brother's coattails

Lets just forget the fact that Michael and Janet are sibling though . But that's what makes Janet Unique and Underrated at the same time. She HAD too try different styles from MJ but no matter what she did, the media would constantly compare her to MJ.

I'm sorry, I need a moment

Back to britney

During the prime of Spears' fame, as little as I was, I put her in the same category as Timberlake: A wanna-be Jackson. Although, I always noticed how they would never fully admit their respective obsessions (Britney with Janet, Timberlake with Michael), but instead would dubiously compare themselves to legendary artists they have nothing in common with.....And then the two of them started dating. How ironic.

Anyway, Spears never reminded me of Madonna. She was all Janet then (albeit deficiently, lol), and still is today. I mean, if Spears is really so similar to Madonna (visually and musically), she and Gaga (who IS a Madonna-clone) would be comparable, which they certainly are not.