meow85 said:

I love this classic response.

"Britney doesn't sell like she used to, she's nowhere near as successful"

"She just got #1"

"SINCE WHEN DO CHARTS MATTER ANY MORE?!"

Seriously, while other stars have had to wait years for their image to repair, Britney comes back mere months later from a full blown break down and manages to top the charts around the world.

It's no wonder others are jealous of her.

Yes, she's not as good at performing as she used to be and she should sing live more often. But the fact is she's still the reigning pop queen all these years later no matter how hard she's fallen.

Christina can barely find her own style and forte outside of "WAAAAAHAAHHOOOOOHHHHH!".

Xtina is not jealous of Broccoli Spears.

purplesweat said:

Britney spears is a zero talent, Michael jackson is a huge talent. Big difference.. its silly to even assume that Britney has been through the shit Mj has been through.

Plus, she never used to be a great performer in the first place, people tend to forget what the true meaning of a great performer, thats sad.

seeingvoices12 said:

And let's not forget the glaring difference between the two "talents" at the MJ 30th Anniversary gig, where Britney dueted on "The Way You Make me Feel" with him. EMBARRASSING (as if the show in general wasn't bad enough with Gloria Estefan and James Ingram struggling through a teleprompter while singing....well whatever song they butchered).

estelle81 said:

No, she is selling out arenas. There's proof.

Box Office Score Data: (13 Dates Released So Far)

New Orleans Arena New Orleans 16,810 / 16,810 (100%) $1,604,815

Philips Arena Atlanta 17,194 / 17,194 (100%) $1,695,449

American Airlines Arena Miami 18,644 / 18,644 (100%) $1,972,928

St. Pete Times Forum Tampa 18,929 / 18,929 (100%) $1,818,011

Prudential Center Newark 33,535 / 33,535 (100%) $3,865,005

TD Banknorth Gardens Boston 16,659 / 16,659 (100%) $1,909,235

Air Canada Centre Toronto 37,912 / 37,912 (100%) $3,714,316

Bell Centre Montreal 21,234 / 21,234 (100%) $1,911,733

Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum Uniondale 33,549 / 33,549 (100%) $3,623,790

Verizon Center Washington, D.C. 18,160 / 18,160 (100%) $1,859,147

TOTAL 232,626 / 232,626 (100%) $23,974,429
[Edited 4/25/09 2:59am]

Damn, what a bitter bitch!!!

Nick715 said:

I know right!!! britney fans are crazy
[Edited 4/25/09 9:19am]

purplesweat said:

Charts haven't mattered for years, but it's adorable that you're using that as proof Britney's worth anything.

I'd have some modicum of respect for the hillbilly if she actually sang live, didn't walk out on concerts, and put some effort into her choreography.

christina is way more talented than britney! however i like them both.

meow85 said:

What do you mean charts haven't meant anything in years? Why? Because nobody you like are topping them now? meow85, grow the fuck up. Please. I've grown accustom to the nasty comments on both sides when it comes to these types of arguments but don't try to get around reality. There's plenty of artists I don't enjoy that hit #1 but I'm not gonna sit here and deny success when I see it.

musicjunky318 said:

Charts don't mean anything and haven't meant anything for a very long time because they have nothing to do with record sales or popularity anymore. Chart positions are dictated by units moved, (meaning, how many get shuffled to stores) not units sold, and radio airplay is bought ahead of time by the record labels. That is a sad and simple fact of the business. Chart positions really don't mean anything and haven't for years. All it means when Britney -or any other performer -has a hit single and is on every radio and video station is that they've got a label to buy the space for them.

Educate yourself a little before you have temper tantrums defending something you're completely wrong on. It'll do you good.

meow85 said:

Britney is still more successful than xtina, regardless of if the charts mean anything or not. She's the most popular and if this article is true, xtina is a hater

End of story



Smooches;)

Christina doesn't care about Britney or her career.

estelle81 said:

Great post. I agree with almost every single word! You really hit the nail on the head why Brit is the bigger media star right now.

I'd say Britney's show, which I went to (my friend had a ticket and gave it to me for fee - WOULD NEVER PAY TO SEE THAT WOMAN) - was pretty much THE WORST POP CONCERT I HAVE EVER BEEN TO IN MY LIFE! I have seen all the below artists, some multiple times:

Madonna
Janet Jackson
George Michael
Annie Lennox
Paula Abdul
NSync
Justin Timberlake
Christina Aguilera
Pink
Hansen
Mya
TLC
Destiny's Child
Enrique Iglesias
Cher

and NONE of them have been anywhere near as bad as this latest Britney turd of a stage show! In fact, she makes Justin or Mya or Kelly Rowland look like seasoned legends! By comparison, they are Tina Turner and shit. Seriously.

SHE HARDLY EVEN DANCES! Elbow jerk here, Rhythmn Nation drill there, but, all in all, it's her LIP SYNCHING while WALKING to the beat. And being pulled up on little circus trapezes and ropes and being blindfolded and shit. It is a MESS! And while the Circus concept was cool, it's totally a rip on The Girlie Show - and all the performers are DECENT except her! She looks half asleep, catatonic, like she is sleepwalking through and old Mickey Mouse Club gig with the 'racy' and 'adult' themes randomly, and profusely built in - S&M, bondage, blindfolding, lace, leather - whatever. It's wack. It feels inauthentic as shit. And people saying she's lipsynching MOST - no, she is LIP SYNCHING all of it! No ballads, no live instruments, (there is a tiny 'band' under the stage); it's just one big, BAD music video come to life. It's A MESS! MESS MESS MESS! And to top it off...though the circus performers in the 'preshow' part are good, in the middle of the show everyone stops cold while the Jumbotron screens blare a HUGE still ad for Virgin Mobile cell phones for about 120 seconds. For real. She had them put up a ton of dough to help offset expenses for this absurd, excessive, gluttonous production - the 'X rated Circus' - gee, that hasn't been done in Vegas 100,000 times in 100,000 different shows already! AND THE WHOLE PRODUCTION STOPS TO PIMP A CELL PHONE!

Far as dancing/singing, I think that excuse is viable, still. But I'm a pop slut. But think about it - the Artists who are great at dancing AND singing live a la James Brown, Prince, Tina Turner, Christina, Pink, etc. tone the dancing WAY DOWN so it's more just grooving on a simple series of steps than outright Janet Jackson / Paula Abdul / Madonna / Michael Jackson non stop hip hop routines. It makes sense to me why these acts have lipsynched for PORTIONS of their shows.

I think too, Christina came out bubble gum then for so long has been dead set on being a 'serious Artist' - she's done a record in Spanish, a 1930s/40s/50s throwback set, and there were many singer songwritery james on "Srtipped," - it's like girl, we GET IT. YOU ARE AN EDGY, SERIOUS, artist - or whatever. But it's backfired - she's alienated a lot of the bubble gum audience and also will always be some what of a joke to the Radiohead and Tori Amos crowd. You can't have it both ways.

meow85 said:

I bet if the Backstreet Boys suddenly got to number one and were all over radio you wouldn't be saying any of this. I see right through your bitterness.

And I agree with badujunkie that the Circus tour could be a LOT better. I was quite disappointed with all the lip syncing, lack of songs from the new album and the sexual theme once again. I haven't actually enjoyed this era all that much but it irks me when biased orgers come in to any Britney thread and try to act like she's just some flash in the pan. Hello, it's been ten years already and she's still getting #1s, sell out tours, saving shows from being cancelled with two crappy cameos. She IS successful and you'd think most adults would be mature enough after TEN YEARS to admit it. But, no.

badujunkie said:

Man, I wish I could have gone to a TLC concert.

Great post to you as well. I agree with you on all areas, even the bolded part. I realize that alot of artists who rely heavily on dancing do lip-sync PORTIONS of their shows, which is tolerable if it's minimal, the dancing is actually good, and/or they actually try to either play an instrument or have offered more, production-wise, to their music. Britney really hasn't done much except sing on the majority of her albums and has always paid a choreographer to make her dance routines (even Paula Abdul was able to make up her own choreography when she was doing tours back in the day). One of the few songs that she did have a hand in making, "Someday (I Will Understand)", is actually a really nice song. If she is ever able to stand up for herself and steadfastly demand more creative imput in making her music, I wouldn't be so harsh on her. If Christina, Pink, and Justin were able to do it, than she really has no viable excuse for not being able to do the same IMO, especially with the numbers she's pulled in over the years...she's outsold them all.

For as much star power as she has, she still remains a puppet to her label and that's pretty sad. Either she's not strong when it comes to standing up for herself or she's just lazy and used to having others do all the real music-making for her, either way, neither reason is good. The sexed up thing is beyond old and she needs to start working on real credibility because she's not getting any younger. The sex kitten image is played out; that goes to Mariah and Janet too; and I actually really like them. If either one of these two were in the place Britney is now, I would be saying the same thing about them, but Mariah and Janet have actually written many of their own songs over the years.

Honestly, if her voice wasn't soo average, I really wouldn't have that much of a problem with her, talent-wise. Lord knows that Britney isn't the only artist in history to rely heavily on songwriters and producers to make her a star. Whitney didn't really write or produce on her albums, but she could sure sing her ass off and that's really what made me love her, before Bobby and the crack that is. With Britney, I have a hard time giving her any large amount of credit for her hit songs because they are due to someone else and her voice is far from being amazing. Without good songs, she's really nothing special and that goes for lots of artists who rely more heavily on image than vocal strength and making the music itself. If this was the first 2 years of her career, I would give her the benefit of a doubt because labels don't really like giving new artists that much creative freedom, but it's been 10 years...it's time for her to really step it up now.

Britney's dancing has really been reduced to excessive hair-flips, little spins, extravagant stage designs and costumes, and relying on an abundance of back-up dancers to help sell her. MJ can mesmerize people by doing just the Moonwalk and has proven that he doesn't always need a bunch of back-up dancers to make him look good...plus, he actually makes his own music, so comparing him to Britney makes me feel like I'm insulting the man. She's nowhere near his level and never will be IMO.

I also agree with your last statement about Christina. When she turned her back on her bubblegum pop image, she alienated a large amount of her fanbase. Had she have remained that type of an artist and learned to hold her tongue and not act soo diva, there's a big possiblility that she could be pushing just as many numbers as Britney has managed to do. At the end of the day, Christina's a vocalist, nothing more, nothing less. Britney is more the image with the soundtrack. They have always been very different from each other because of this, so I never really got all the comparisons besides the obvious: they are both girls; they are both blond (Christina being the natural blond); they both were on the MMC; they both had debut albums at about the same time that were bubblegum pop; and they are both mothers now...other than those factors, they really aren't anything alike. Christina could always outsing Britney; and at one time, Britney had the ability to outdance Christina (not to sure about that nowadays).


Either way, I feel that both of them should be putting all their energies into being good moms above anything else. The presence of kids overshadows all the money, fame, and success for me in anyone's life, regardless of whether they are a celebrity or not and I feel that Britney should be working harder at trying to get custody of her life and her kids instead of doing world tours, especially since she's the sole bread winner in that family. But, since she has to pay soo many people, I don't think she'll ever be able to really take a break. When I look at Britney, all I see is a women who has been programmed to smile in front of the flashing cameras, but is obviously not in a happy place at the moment. All the fame and money in the world will never be better than personal freedom and genuine happiness...it's gotta suck to be her at the moment, don't care what her fans say. Besides the fact that Britney seems to be a nice, down-to-earth girl from interviews I've seen of her, she doesn't really have any other attributes that I find to be amazing and praise-worthy. Just my

purplesweat said:

If the Backstreet Boys suddenly got number one, I'd be shocked and I'm still a fan. Boy bands have a history of being big; and, then disappearing only to be replaced by a new boy band; now it's the Jonas Brothers. BSB are still touring and making albums. They still pull large crowds in many countries outside of the US, so I wouldn't say they aren't doing well for themselves at the moment especially if they have a good record contract; which I'm pretty sure they were smart enough to do after the whole Lou Pearlman episode and fighting with their label for putting NSync on their roster a few years back. They have money, success, and more privacy nowadays. I'm pretty sure that for public figures nothing beats having some amount privacy.

I may not like Britney, but I will never say that she isn't successful because that would be a lie. In a matter of 10 years, she amassed a net worth of over $100 million dollars and has made herself into a household name in every country. That's some powerful figures and credentials no matter what anyone says, but what people are saying is that despite her worldwide fame and financial prowess, she's not really grown much as an artist and that's an aspect that can only truly be deemed successful or unsuccessful by one's personal opinion not just by chart rankings and sales figures.

One example that I use for measuring success is the Wal-Mart chain. It's like comparing the new Wal-marts to the old Wal-marts. The new Wal-Mart superstores of today suck in certain areas that the old smaller Wal-mart stores from 15 years ago excelled in. The store may be great because they carry everything, but they are destroying small businesses and monopolizing themselves. The quality and customer service have diminished greatly over the years and now the only reason I go there is because it's cheap, always open, and is right across the street from my job; but man, do I hate going up in that place...especially during food stamp time; mofos be three overflowing shopping carts deep up in there and only a few registers will be open, like they don't know it's food stamp day. Assholes.

The chain has turned into a double-edged sword as it's grown over the years. Despite this aspect, the numbers that this chain has grown to and the money they rake in per year can't be denied when it comes to success; but there are soo many people who hate this store; there's even a scathing documentary about the chain that came out a few years ago...definitely not pretty. Success is measured differently by everyone and Britney may be successful in the fame and wealth areas, but those aren't the only areas that matter at the end of the day. She's successful where most people who crave fame and wealth would envy, but not everybody thinks fame and wealth are better than integrity, personal freedom, and real happiness. I'm sure there are some indivduals who would be willing to take her life in a heartbeat; I'm definitely not one of those poor souls. All the money and fame in the world would never make me want her life. I may be in debt, but nobody tells me what to do and where I can go. Freedom is priceless. Oh, and technically, this is just as much a Christina thread than a Britney one, which is the main reason why I came in here.
[Edited 4/26/09 10:28am]

StarCat said:

Great!!

I like the animated photo and I'd actually consider paying to see them fight each other. It would be one helluva fight because I'm pretty sure they can both throw down if they have to.

The second pic was when Christina was abusing that spray on tanner (gross); either way, I still like her with dark hair more than the platinum blonde which I think is ugly on everybody.

As for the dual pregnant magazine covers, that was played out after Demi Moore did it back in the 90s, even though in this case, Christina would be jocking Britney but only because Britney was preggers first....they are both jockin' Demi so neither gets the originality credit on this one.

The 'infamous' kiss (still don't see why that got soo blown up), was the ultimate publicity stunt. Crazy how this little shock value stunt preceded Janet's 2 second nipple slip at the Superbowl, yet people hated on Janet more than these three and many accused her of 'polluting the minds of young children'. Dude, whatever to that nonsense. If one stunt was immoral, than they were both immoral; kids watch MTV just as much as they watch the Superbowl, so that excuse was crap. This stunt was just as lewd as the Superbowl stunt and I'm still annoyed that people praised them and crucified Janet...it was wrong, WRONG!

Thanks for the pics btw

estelle81 said:

I don't remember them kissing



Smooches;)

badujunkie said:

MsMisha319 said:

they didn't.

MsMisha319 said:

Its photoshopped.

Uh, I seriously don't remember any praise whatsoever for that kiss...don't mistake a ton of publicity for GOOD publicity.

Christina can outsing Britney any day. she shouldn't even waste her emotions on that.

purplesweat said:

LOL! I know I was joking


Smooches;)