Skin

This hasn't been well received at all commercially, it may grow on people like Scream & Shout did but as of now, it's been one of her poorest starts sales wise since iTunes digital breakthrough in 2005. I like it for the most part, and I think it's fairly inventive. I think Britney is one of the few pop artists who is generally ahead of the trend musically speaking. This single for instance features a lot of electro-house, glitch and rave elements that a lot of pop artists haven't touched yet, even though dance has been building on popular airwaves since 2006. Well Britney isn't really of this time period in general anymore, so of course she is going to stick out compared to women whose careers started in 2007/2008. She's been in the industry for 15 going on 16 years now. She's not in the same place as them. It would be like comparing Janet in 2002 and Madonna in 1999 to Britney, Christina, BSB and Nsync when they first started out. Britney is in a completely different career phase than Rihanna, Katy Perry and Gaga are. For what it's worth Gaga isn't that big of a deal anymore either. Her career has been sliding since 2010. Same with Rihanna since 2011.

It doesn't. <iframe src="https://embed.spotify.com/?uri=spotify:track:spotify:track:2vTPWWm2Lgc6kI6a3Z3uXY" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" width="300" height="80"></iframe>

I feel that the cohesiveness of the show stayed until season 4. But during the middle seasons and beyond it dried up and died. After that the show became a character study about Buffy and her friends, which I was fine with as I think Buffy is probably one of the best heroines in television history. I just feel in general Buffy/Angel was much more effective at saying what they wanted to say in terms of theme and also wring more out of one in terms of emotional impact, even if they drifted away from their premises they were still emotionally resonant, while Supernatural just remains an empty husk. Supernatural is about family, love and tragedy and now all there is, is despair. Sam and Dean don't have anything together anymore, which is basically the reason for the show and the entire existence for it. The show isn't about Castiel, Benny or other people. It's about two brothers, hunting things, avenging their fallen family members and trying to heal -- but you don't get that any more, from either brother. I agree on Jimmy Novak, but Castiel is a dead end character and always has been, that was the problem with the angel arc in general. They weren't meant to exist on this show continuously in this way and it undercuts pretty much the genesis of the story that they do. There is no reason for Sam and Dean to hunt if they just have a super powered angel to bail them out every time. What is the purpose of them, then? Castiel always had an expiration date and the show has basically destroyed itself in trying to escape this fact and compensate him because of fan demand. There is a similar problem with Benny too, who is basically just a different version of Lenore a previously liked character from season 2/3. As to Castiel's relationship with Sam and Meg those seem pretty non-existent for the most part aside from a few brief scenes here and there. They never really had any kind of relationship. Castiel used Sam to hurt Dean, because Sam is just Dean's appendage and Castiel's brief scenes with Meg were mostly devolved into jokes and sexual tension that kind of led nowhere. Castiel is centric around Dean and exists solely to be his buddy. He doesn't feel like a real character and he never has. He's not human. He's an angel who isn't supposed to have human feelings or a real human identity. He shouldn't even still be on earth actually. The PTSD is the same story the brothers have had for years now though, it's nothing new. No new material to be found in either case as the show doesn't wish to get too emotional with their leads outside of one off speeches. Dean has had this storyline in particular before. He had PTSD in season four for being in hell for 40 years, Sam had PTSD for being in a cage with Lucifer for 180 years in season 6. It's all recycled ideas. It's the same formula, "something is wrong with Sam, but it all happens off screen", "watch while the good son Dean suffers silently on the inside and cries man tears for the 12,000 time!" As to the show moving away from key characterizations of Dean there are still far too many jokes about Dean objectifying women's bodies, watching animated porn and in general make sexist jokes for there to be real character progression. Ultimately the problem with Dean is that his overall persona is unlikable, even if the actions and choices that he makes are supposed to be seen as both noble and self sacrificing.

I still think he is the same character, so I still think he is the same person he always has been. I remember kind of liking Dean around season 3 because he seemed to be open to seeing more forms of grey and having a more open interpretation to what was "right" and what was "wrong." But they ruined that and basically made him whiter then white and he has been the same way for several seasons. The thing that I don't like about Dean is that he is annoyingly red neck. He is basically a himbo all about drinking beer, banging chicks and just being incredibly stupid. I think the brother dynamic worked very well in the earlier first four seasons but then they broke them apart and they never rectified or made their relationship better. I think the sad thing about Sam is that he really serves no purpose. He basically just exist to be a sidekick to Dean and bring up plot based problems and issues. When he was a character who truly effected things and had a point of view I found him to be incredibly interesting and I think that is what the show is missing, a true balance between two equal characters. I think the problem with Castiel is that he was a temporary character that was stretched out beyond his original use. He was originally only supposed to be on until 4-6 episodes and they kept him on because of fan reaction, with a great detriment to the show I think. The angel stories should have taken at most only 2 seasons in total. I'll disagree here too. I think Buffy and Angel were perfect in their runs for the most part. Even the worse season of those shows seem better to me then the worst seasons of Supernatural. Supernatural to me just seems boring.

The show was far better before they brought Castiel and all the other Angels, actually. Since they brought on the Christianity storylines everything has been all kinds of messed up.

You can thank Justin and Timberlake for that top 5 peak of 4 Minutes. Madonna hasn't had a solo top 5 hit in 12 years, her last solo radio hit was Die Another Day (2002) and since then she has had to rely on collaborations with younger artists to chart into the top 10. In other news Madonna is still a huge album seller, her album sold 740k worldwide this past week, she'll probably sell tons of albums even if she doesn't get any more Hot 100 hits.

I wish pop girls today danced like this. It actually kind of reminds me of the routines some of them used to do when Christina/Britney/Jessica first came out.

I actually liked Chris Stamp. I preferred him as Ryan's father as it did away with all that sillyness about being an evil Lavery monstrosity Megan played with so extensively.

VI is heavy set too though.To be honest I don't think of any of the men listed in the last few posts as being sexy. Susan looks amazing though, she looks like she is in her 40's in that clip.

I'll disagree about this point. I don't think AMC ever lost it's family values in story telling. There was always a sense of familial unity on the show in some form, even in the later years. I will say the one thing that did suffer on AMC was it's overall sense of community/environment and it's friendships. Even with AMC's more campy storylines there was always some heart to them it was very rare to find a character who was truly bad on AMC because there was always some form of redemption given to the characters and that was almost always done on the basis of love and family. What you are talking about to me sounds more like OLTL then AMC. OLTL was always the show that was the colder, grittier, risk taker where evil had a face and had several names and in some cases flourished. That was the show where damaged characters truly thrived. AMC was never played that way to me. AMC was for the most part always bright and happy even at it's darkest it was still significantly brighter then OLTL at it's darkest.

I can't watch Steve Burton anymore. I just automatically close myself off whenever I see him in any capacity. It's sad how much I can't stand the character of Jason Morgan these days. Who are those OLTL characters in the Love in the afternoon Promo? This was one of the storylines that got me hooked into GH actually. The whole Alexis/Sonny/Carly drama is what kept me watching and was one of the first storylines that introduced me to the show. That and Lucky/Liz and Gia/Nikolas.

She also killed Ritchie with a tire-iron. Who knew Annie had it in her?

This is pretty much the way I feel about it. If they are advertised as amazing singers and they lip it's worse to me then if they are advertised as performers/entertainers/dancers and they lip sync. Santana for instance doesn't sing a word in his concerts and just plays the guitar and people come out in droves to see him. Different expectations for different artists/performance styles. They are all valid.

Except that's not why your going. You can say it's all about the music but that's not why you are there. You are going to the concert to see the person live. You are going to see a "larger then life popstar/rockstar/artist, live in person." That is why those ticket prices cost so much and why people spend upwards of $300 dollars for a front row standing admission ticket. It's a celebrity appearance/citing first of all. Again people aren't going to a Madonna concert to see her sing, she's a poor live singer even on her best of days. You are going to see Madonna because you want to see the woman who has changed the landscape of pop music and who has persisted in pop culture for nearly 30 years. You are paying for the spectacle and the perfection of it all and if pre-recorded vocals gives it that kind of atmosphere of grandness who cares? Especially when you know and recognize the fact that it's her voice that produced said vocal? Ultimately the reason you are going to see these singers/performers/entertainers/artists and pay big money for them remains the same. You are going first and foremost to see them. Be in the same arena/room/stadium as them and watch them do what you like watching them do sometimes sing, sometimes dance, sometimes both, sometimes play an instrument, etc. I don't even understand this lip syncing argument especially for artists who make it known that their main focus is not singing. I could maybe understand it for the major vocalists to an extent because their voices are the reasons they are popular but others who make it known that they don't focus on singing it's ridiculous. I won't get into the fact that nearly all of the greats at one point have lip synced. Some television shows and special events have even required it. There were several artists back in the 50's, 60's and 70's who had to pre-tape their performances and lip sync to the recorded vocals for their performances because television hosts didn't like giving them the freedom to perform live on air. So the "old times" are no better then the "new times" on that front. Micheal Jackson lip synced a lot during his Dangerous tour because he was very ill and suffered from dehydration, migraines and numerous physical injuries -- is he talentless and useless because he lip synced? I am almost sure most of the general public would disagree with that assessment. If you care about the art of music and not the entertaining aspect of it there most certainly are musicians and indie artists you could choose to listen to and follow. There are tons of small myspace artists just waiting to perform at their local mom and pop coffee shop for you and serenade you with their songs they spilt blood, tears and sweat over. if you yearn for "true, meaningful music with unaltered vocals and non-commercialized songs" all you have to do is go out and find it. Popular music and the music industry as a whole has and always will be a business about the all mighty dollar. Either embrace that or don't listen to pop music or follow it's huge acts. This isn't a new phenomenon what so ever. I am sure there were "talentless" pop stars back when you were growing up to. Just like there are "talentless" pop stars now.

Twitter and Facebook (from what I have seen) haven't been as kind there are also some blogs that have responded negatively to it. I don't think it will matter though. The performance wasn't a disaster and it brought tons of publicity to her music. She's winning.

Compared to who? Compared to today's performers Rihanna, Ke$ha, Katy and the like have horrible shows. Britney probably has the best show out of all of them. Her shows are actually pretty expensive and they all have extensive themes, sets and props for all of her performances which can't really be said about a lot of current pop stars who just kind of show up and walk around a stage for two hours. As far as dancing goes no one really dancers anymore in the pop industry. The days of the Janet's, Micheal's and hardcore Boy band dancing are long gone. That being said Britney will definitely do some dance routines in cages, swing around on top of giant guitars, perform on swing sets, dance on lifts and do more. That's not in your typical pop show nowadays. She is not as intense of a performer as she was in previous years. But she definitely has a show that encompasses a lot in terms of spectacle and if you enjoy that kind of show you most certainly will have a fun time watching everything come together. I liked Vogue and Give Me All Your Love the rest was pretty uninspired and boring even though I liked the dance break in Music. I can't believe how many people she brought into her set though. Cee Lo, LMAFO, Nicki and MIA. That's a lot. She should have chose better songs. Open Your Heart? Like A Prayer? Music? She needed powerful energy movers. Any of her 80's material could have done the trick. Maybe Ray Of Light, Express Yourself and Into The Groove.

One of the tracks on her new album is called Gang Bang. Track list. » Girls Gone Wild » Gang Bang » I'm Addicted » Some Girls » I Don't Give A » Turn Up the Radio » Give Me All Your Luvin' » B-day Song » Superstar » I'm a Sinner » Masterpiece » Falling Free » Love Spent » I'm F---ed Up » Beautiful Killer

Most singers who lip sync do so because they have other things happening regarding their performance. The focus is either split on different things be it dance moves, acrobatics, tricks or other demanding performance styles that physically exhaust them to the point of producing a weaker vocal which is why the backing vocal is needed. In some special cases it's just better to lip sync then it is to give a live vocal especially in terms of illness. Then there are also technical issues to take into account by the way the stadium/stage is built and sound issues that could arise through live vocals. As long as it's their voice I don't really have a problem with it, especially if the performer is doing it for the reasons specified above. You can almost always find a raw vocal of an artist performing at least a song or more live, so I don't think there is much merit to the argument that most lipsyncers can't produce a live vocal in some capacity. If their standard of singing is not up to your own accord of what it should be that's your opinion. But again what are you expecting from someone who isn't known explicitly for their voice or vocal talent? You shouldn't really be expecting Whitney-esque vocals from someone who is not known for their voice. I think standards need to be re-evaluated when you take things such as that into consideration. There was actually quite a controversy about it. You can see it all on wikipedia if you are interested.

That is still considered by and large to be lip syncing. Any time when an artist isn't singing the entire song live and has a heavy back track, pre-recorded live vocals, has their cd playing in the background or has their mic lowered to hear the other non-live vocals is essentially "lip syncing". I more or less don't care about lip syncing as long as it's the singers own voice that is being used. Even if a pop artist only lip syncs one time they can still be criticized for lip syncing. Once you put black into white you will always get grey. No matter how much white you put back into it. I don't understand the criticism of lip syncing anyway. Everyone will do it at some point in their career. Even great vocalists like Mariah, Whitney and others have had to lip sync at major events and some of those are considered to be their best vocal performances ever (Whitney Houston's National Anthem was lipped). I only care if a person can put on an amazing show, people who see Madonna aren't going to see her sing anyway. They are going to see an amazing show and see a woman who has stayed relevant in pop culture for 30 years. Britney actually has been singing more live on her most recent tour specifically because she cut down her choreography. This being said artists who aren't known specifically for their voices will always be targets for lip syncing criticism.

She's under Live Nation technically. She just shopped her record out to Interscope to release it/back it. She doesn't really have a deal with them. They receive proceeds from the album sales, singles sales, rights, etc. while Live Nation gets money from her tour. She will do this for all of her future albums until her Live Nation deal is up in 10 years or so. I doubt Madonna wants to be shackled to a record label like she was with Warner Bros. for years. During her last few album releases she was very unhappy with them. I don't mind Madonna making fun, uptempo dance music. I loved Confessions on a Dancefloor. However when she is teaming up with the likes of Timbaland, MIA, Nicki Minaj and Justin Timberlake to get a hit I think that reeks of desperation to stay relevant. Which is appropriate, considering the last time Madonna had a solo hit was back in 2005 -- she hasn't had a solo radio hit in even longer. Again I don't think her overt sexiness is a problem either. It's the fact that she is blatantly producing poor quality pop tracks that women in their 20's and 30's are singing. To be honest Katy Perry could be singing this song and that's the problem. Madonna always did it her way, now she is following the very people she paved the way for. How the mighty have fallen. Age is kind to no one. She's lipsynced a fair deal and has gone under fire from it from many publications (the UK has been her harshest critics in this department) so the comments are warranted. She will likely lip sync at the Superbowl too. No. The Britney fan in me rebels.

Interscope.

That's my main problem with it. It makes no sense. Pratt basically just killed the character off only to recreate her again after only a few months, and then the character persisted for years afterwards! I don't understand. I could get killing Babe off, she did little if anything the last year she was on, but why kill her and then virtually bring her back in a boring incarnation with a poor actress. Never mind that they completely butchered Krystal's character to make her conception possible. I seriously have to wonder if Pratt was on mind altering drugs while he was watching AMC.

I remember hearing 4 Minutes on the radio when it was released about 4 years ago and it sounded like they edited her voice to replicate a 12 year old girls. The last album I liked from her was Confessions on A Dancefloor. It just seems to me like she is trying to prolong her relevancy by using cheap features to get on the airwaves and stay "hip". That being said I just read online that her new album is #1 in 35 countries according to pre-order sales, so I guess something is working for her.

Can someone please explain to me what was the point of the Marissa Tasker character?

Cheerleaders, football players and lingerie? She's too old for this kind of stuff. The song is a mess, the Nicki and MIA features were gratuitous.