PricelessHo said:

I dont know her stats for over in the UK but her worldwide sales are pretty big, i know all of her singles were pretty much released their, including some that werent here, "i love rock n roll" being one, and the video too.

lastdecember said:

If an artist is over-hyped by their fans and the media, than when I hear their music, I expect to hear something amazing. Don't get me wrong, Britney has had some great songs, but nothing mind-blowing, jaw-dropping, slap-my-momma-than-myself phenomenal, but that's just my opinion. For me, Britney's always just been 10% musical talent and 90% image. She has very good marketing and great producers, songwriters, choreographers, and video directors, but take all that away and there's really nothing there to throw a party over. Out of all the pop icons, I think Britney 'phoned in' more than any other pop artist who has released an album in the last two years. I remember reading somewhere that one of her producers said they had to do alot of "Blackout" without her because she stop showing up after a point. After 10 years in the music biz, I guess I should stop expecting to see something new from Ms. Spears because she reached the peak of her abilities years ago and is now totally going off of fan support and media hype...something that many pop stars, young and old, do and it drives me nuts. Even Christina, Justin, and yes Jessica Simpson (oddly enough) have managed to try to do different things with their music and/or taken more initiative to try to have a bigger hand in the production of their albums. Britney wanted to be in control of her career and now she's right back to having her record label and her manager making decisions for her. I guess she really is just a one-trick pony after all. I will say this, she's 10 times better than that Miley Cyrus girl...I can't stand that child.

estelle81 said:

But still there is a huge difference with Xtina and Jessica Simpson and even mandy moore than Britney, just because someone is an ICON doesnt mean they are a great "artist", there are plenty of ICONS that are not very artistic. I dont see the Hype of Britney spoken of, i mean like i said earlier in this post if they are looking for anything BUT image then people are lieing, sure u get catchy songs from her but are we really looking to her for great advancements in music? As for not having a hand in her career, she actually has had more of a hand than many think or many out there, and a much earlier age. This is why it bugs when someone like Mariah Carey, cant get "IT" done, she tries to compete by lowering the bar of what we should expect from her, which is why mariah, though very successful, will not get the respect that the others that have been equally and more successful than her get.

And also to add, why believe HYPE, this is why everyone is a letdown> this whole generation is built on HYPE by their labels,friends,producers etc..instead of letting their work SPEAK. I dont listen to hype i listen to music. This is why when people "rag" on Alicia Keys because of the HYPE they read i laugh because why do you buy HYPE? you are supposed to create your own for an artist within yourself.
[Edited 10/11/08 9:03am]

lastdecember said:

I agree to an extent. Britney was meant to be more an image used to promote good pop songs than a real musician, but still, she gets waaay more praise than she deserves, just my opinion. I think that she is one of the luckiest celebrities on the earth because people are willing to keep giving her multiple chances to redeem herself...some celebs wish they could be soo lucky.

I remember when Janet released "Feedback" and how people were saying, "It sounds like a castoff from 'Blackout'"; and, "Janet's copying Britney's sound"... First off, Britney don't have a sound; her producers do. That computerized vocal nonsense was being done back in the early 90s, so I still think those people crediting Britney with her 'own sound' were either 1) smoking crack, 2) too young to remember at least Blackstreet, and 3) seem to want to ignore the idea that producers had to do something with Britney's tobacco ravaged voice. For an artist who never really had that much of an amazing voice (yes, I've heard her pre-fame voice and it is what it is, not bad, but not spectacular either), she should be the last one to pick up a cigarette...listen to Madonna, Britney, and put the Marlboros down.

I agree with you on Mariah. I have come to hate the direction that Mariah keeps flowing in. It does nothing for her but cheapen her sound and her vocal ability, which. sadly, isn't what it used to be, but is still one of the best in music history. Mandy Moore was smart to realize that she had a better shot as an actress than a pop singer...even though her movies aren't exactly amazing. Jessica Simpson's popularity went out the window after she got divorced, so I believe that was the main reason people liked the girl, especially since she wasn't all that big before she got married. Christina is Christina, nice to see that she's stopped talking crap about other artists...she was bad about that for a while. I've loved her voice since the MMC and her song, "Reflection", from the 'Mulan' Soundtrack is still one of my all-time favorites from any artist...very well executed by Chrissy at such a young age.

Personally, I define "Icon" as someone who is either musically amazing in some aspect, ie vocally amazing, great song-writing/producing ability, and able to play an instrument with expertise; or can at least re-invent themselves. Madonna has re-invented herself and so has Janet and even Mariah to an extent...not all of them have been great re-inventions, but at least they stepped out of their comfort zones at some point. Personally, I don't think Britney has done anymore on her albums than any of the other pop artists who are her age or came out at the same time that she did...in fact, I think she's done the least out of the bulk of them, but has gotten the most hype.

Plus, she's released more albums than any of her peers, so she should be able to do something at this point besides stand in front of the popper and do mediocre singing. Try something new dammit!!! Even her videos have the same formula...half-naked Britney at some point, slightly different dance routine from the previous video..only slightly, and lots of hair flipping (that's her signature)...I can always expect to see at least one of these 3 at some point in all of her videos. She became predictable a long time ago for me, career-wise anyway. If she's as much of an icon as many make her out to be, than taking a few years off to focus on the most important things in her life, her sons, shouldn't hurt her at all if she's got the goods and can deliver. To have a comeback, you have to actually leave and she hasn't gone anywhere. Just my

estelle81 said:

But the formulas you are speaking of are the ones that everyone is following, listen to the new Rihanna track "sexuality" hmm wonder what that video is gonna be like. The thing that does get me is the double standard with the male and female artists, we will see comments on a britney or rihanna video talk about how little they wear or they should not be so "sexy" and then i see the new usher video and its basically something that should be on late nite on the showtime channel and all the comments are "thats hot", so im thinking if a Mariah or janet or britney would have done that "usher" video what would the talk be?

As for ICON, britney,beyonce,justin etc are all Media Icons, none are music icons, no matter how much the public says it or their loyal fans say it. I think that shows the difference in time periods, i cant think of one music icon in the last decade or so. To me a music ICON is Prince or Elton John, both have the output, both took over their "heydays" and both influenced tons of others.

I liked it a lot. It's a bit much with the special effects but it was a lot of fun and sexy. Reminded me a bit of Paual Abdaul's "Cold Hearted".

lastdecember said:

I agree with you 100% on the icon statement. If an artist, male or female, is more known for their image than the quality of their music, than referring to them as a 'musical icon' is a little much. I am soo tired of seeing Usher (or as I like to call him 'Curious George') take his damn shirt off...that goes for 50 cent too I don't like double standards at all, so that goes for celebs and non-celebs for me. Why can't a normal girl walk around half dressed like some of these female artists without being called a 'slut', 'whore', or 'hoochie', but you see these videos of these women rolling around half naked and dry-humping everyone in the video and people think it's hot and sexy... Double standards are always going to be stupid.

I HATE this song. Really dull, she's definitely dipping into bad gay-icon territory.

But she does look undrugged and happy, and that's a tradeoff worth making in my book.

I never read that anywhere, her producers for that album always said she was very professional. It would seem they were telling the truth since a few of them are working with her again for this upcoming album.

good to see her in fighting form again.

I think she really never had anything to offer musically. She's just all image. The music is secondary. Not even secondary. Music is like in 4 or 5th place when people think of her.

I think she should just raise her kids, and have a normal life.

Paris9748430 said:

I honestly don't think she could live a normal life. Just my gut feeling.

lemondrop said:

Too true. Paparazzi camp outside her house.

loves it.

very excited for the new album.

purplesweat said:

That too, but I sorta meant normal in the sense that I can't see her being satisfied staying at home and taking care of children.

I think when people have been in the limelight from such a young age, they just wouldn't have any idea how to live a so-called normal life.

purplesweat said:

They don't in Louisiana.

Paris9748430 said:

They still follow her there.

I'm not feeling the song but I'm glad Britney is back and looking fly.

shesoffthewall said:

Yep. Basically how I feel too. lol.