Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 2 months later...
  • Replies 514
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members
Posted

 

I remember someone stating that the usual shelf life of a popstar is about a decade, before they lose prominence. The Soundscan era kind of created the impression that female led acts had more longevity than they normally do with the extension it gave to artists like Mariah, Celine, Madonna, Janet and Whitney -- but the decade rule of law tends to hold true at large which is what you see when you review other female artists from the 70's to today. Paula Abdul, Donna Summer, Tina Turner, Diana Ross, etc. were only able to capture the Zeitgeist for about that time. It's rare to have it for longer than that.  

 

Britney lasted about 15 years total, which is about what Janet was able to accomplish. The concept of a Madonna is pretty rare, but I think a lot of people overpraise Madonna's longevity as if she is still racking up hits today, when that time has long passed. She hasn't had a solo radio hit since 2002, and she has only had 3 top 10's since she released Music, and two of those were from heavy features of by the moment artists (Justin Timberlake and Nicki Minaj). If Britney wants another comeback, she and her team will have to do something about increasing her social media presence (think the likes of tik tok, and playing the Spotify/Apple Music playlist game a bit better). Several of Britney's songs have gone viral on the platform most notably Gimme More, Circus, Criminal and Toxic. That's the main challenge for her today, she hasn't created a platform of streaming. But Britney isn't alone in that, a lot of artists from the early 2000's are even less prominent than she is. 

 

Look no further than those female acts who followed Britney in the 2000's and her peers -- Jessica Simpson, Christina Aguilera, Mandy Moore (they lasted maybe 6-8 years of prominence), along with the 2005 'it girls' -- Kelly Clarkson, Fergie, Nelly Furtado (less than a decade)  and then again in the late oughts --- Katy Perry, Lady Gaga and Ke$ha (about a decade). All of them have had limited success and burnt out within a decade.  

 

But even with Britney's lack of relevance beyond 2013, she's accomplished a great deal, she was so far ahead of everyone else from her earlier successes that it pushed her years ahead of everyone else. It's now becoming apparent that Taylor, Adele, Rihanna, and Beyonce are starting to get close to her because Britney hasn't really been been active in the last 8 years. Britney hasn't been in the same career-focused mindset as she was from 1998 - 2013. The potential is there, but she needs to put forth effort again. She basically took a decade long hiatus, and the world moved on from her.  

 

 

I don't think the comparison to Beyonce is all that sound though, at least not apples to apples. Beyonce is a hybrid artist, she falls back a lot on Destiny's Child, Jay-Z and urban music platforms to really sell her music -- she's not preoccupied with pop success, and hasn't been since 2010. Which is why I think it's sort of odd to compare Britney to Beyonce. They are different artists with different platforms. Formation was Beyonce's last solo hit, her last number ones were features with Megan the Stallion and Ed Sheeran, her last pop hit was during the I Am Sasha Fierce era (Sweet Dreams). Lemonade was a massive success, but albums are pretty much all but dead now, so don't look for that success to be replicated again. 

 

P!nk has faded quite a bit too. Her last album "Hurts To Be Human" flopped, and she has also been focused mainly on touring. Her last top 10, was Just Like Fire a soundtrack in 2016 from a box office bomb. P!nk also never hit the career highs Britney had. At their peaks P!nk was selling fractions of what Britney sold. 

  • Members
Posted

I think in recent years a lot of people have projected themselves onto Britney in a way which can often feel gross and invasive. It reminds me a lot of what happened in the last 10-15 years of Michael Jackson's life. 

  • Members
Posted

 

I kind of want to capture this comment and move it over to the Janet Jackson thread as well because I think it may perhaps say a lot about why Janet may not be as open as some would like her to be.

  • Members
Posted

I remember reading that Britney's breakdown was the most covered celebrity news story of the oughts' outside of Micheal Jackson's death, which I think says everything about America's culture of celebrity and how exhausting it is. They really are sort of the equivalent to the royal family. The media tear down culture is ravenous for red meat and the way that the press treated Britney was and always will be deplorable. I've always wondered if that was the reason why some stars choose to disassociate away from the media attention, outside of when they have a project to promote. 

  • Members
Posted (edited)

 

Definitely. Janet experienced so much of that first-hand, especially the weird obsession with her love life when she was a young girl - to the point of having to deny, then and repeatedly since, that she gave away a love child. It's one of those things people laugh about, but imagine being the one who has to hear that for 25-30-35 years. 

Edited by DRW50
  • 1 month later...
  • Members
Posted (edited)

It looks like so many of the things fans speculated about and which seemed far-fetched at times are true.

 

There is some audio going around which I don't really want to post - she mostly sounds nervous to me but I know some feel otherwise.

 

I just hope Britney can find some sort of help, if that is possible when she has been exploited her entire life. 

 

 

Edited by DRW50
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members
Posted (edited)

Another tweet from Ronan Farrow about the same article:

https://twitter.com/RonanFarrow/status/1411269406177599491

“I helped a corrupt family seize all this control.” We investigated the Britney Spears conservatorship for months. Here’s the story, by @jiatolentino and me:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/american-chronicles/britney-spears-conservatorship-nightmare

 

 

Intro from The New Yorker about the same article:
https://twitter.com/NewYorker/status/1411460672798564354On the eve of her recent court hearing, Britney Spears called 911 to report herself as a victim of conservatorship abuse. 
@RonanFarrow  and  @jiatolentino   investigate how Spears was stripped of her rights within an underregulated part of the legal system.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/american-chronicles/britney-spears-conservatorship-nightmare

 

 

This instagram post is from the co-author Jia Tolentino

(instagram account name is jiatortellini)
https://www.instagram.com/p/CQ3R_wCjKWA/

jiatortellini
For months, @ronanfarrow and I have been investigating the Britney Spears conservatorship — the piece, which follows her from teenage superstardom to the 911 call she placed the day before she gave her court testimony, is up at @newyorkermag now. The level of scrutiny, projection, overwork and control that Britney endured as normal long before the conservatorship would crumple any of us in a day; the way her experience of young motherhood was used as a bludgeon against her, by the press and her family, to push her into breakdown and then force her compliance, will never leave me. I hope this piece makes her strength that much clearer, and I hope you’ll read

Please register in order to view this content


 

 

 

 

Instagram post from The New Yorker

(instagram account name newyorkermag)

https://www.instagram.com/p/CQ3VHY0g4wC/

 

newyorkermag Verified
Since the establishment of Britney Spears’s conservatorship, she has released four albums, headlined a global tour that grossed $131 million, and performed in a hit Las Vegas residency—all while having virtually no say over her life. For 13 years, her father and a team of lawyers have controlled Spears’s spending, communications, and personal decisions. “I thought we were helping,” a former friend of the family said, about testifying to secure the conservatorship. “I wasn’t, and I helped a corrupt family seize all this control.” At the link in our bio, @RonanFarrow and @jiatortellini report on the legal entity that stripped Spears of her rights, and on the pop star’s fight for freedom. 

 

---------------------------

 

If you are having trouble accessing the Britney article in the New Yorker by Ronan Farrow and Jia Tolentino,

here is an archived copy:
https://archive.is/9RCqn

Edited by janea4old
  • Members
Posted (edited)

Please register in order to view this content

 

^ from the New Yorker article 

 

Comments on the New Yorker article:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by janea4old
  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • -- Jesus, that was bad. -- If we're going to bash Will's face-making, we can't let Luna off the hook. All that scrunched-face crying was annoying. -- Still no explanation as to how Luna escape, leading to utter stupidity that she gets away AGAIN while Will just stands there. -- Meanwhile, the entire cast hilariously gets texts about the jail escape and heads to the beach house. 

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I knew Ray Wise looked familiar (beyond How I Met Your Mother, which I also watched, where he replaced Eric Braeden!).

      Please register in order to view this content

        
    • Congratulations, Laura! You're still a lousy Mayor though 

      Please register in order to view this content

      GH really needs to keep the WSB honeypot away from Emma, and especially from Gio. If they want to put the two of them in a triangle with someone, it should definitely be with Trina. And, while I don't like Sidwell or this storyline that much, that was a really good ending. I didn't see it coming either.
    • In regards to Long's 2nd stint, it appears as though she officially came back as head-writer between the 4th of July/Bauer Barbeque episodes 1987 and mid August 1987.. and then between April and September 1988 were episodes written by the scabs.  I almost count her having 3 stints head-writing Guiding Light since the writer strike lasted five months. In her 2nd stint, she seemed focused on the following: - Sonni returning from the dead thus keeping Reva/Josh apart yet again so she naturally turns to Alan and causes the ending of the Vanessa/Alan relationship.   I wonder if Maeve's decision to leave affected some of this because she was gone by January 1988, a few months after Long's return so she had to come up with a way to get Vanessa to take off (and it was to be there for Billy during a low point if I recall). - Phillip/Chelsea were pretty heavily focused on during this 2nd stint period and I liked their rapport. - A lesser focused story in the background was the Lillian/Hawk/Sarah situation - Formulating her next version of the 4 Muskateers with Cam/Dinah/Harley/Alan Michael... but in order to include a more rough around the edges Harley.. Dinah was softened quite a bit (though I did see a cat fight between Harley/Dinah where Dinah belted Harley so I think Turco could have played an edgier Dinah). - There also seemed to be a Spaulding takeover going on with Phillip trying to oust Alan.. and it affected his relationship with Chelsea. Post-writer strike, I noticed that the Phillip/Harley arc kicked into gear with him pretending to be 'my fair lady' with Harley.. but trying to set it up to look as though they were sleeping together.  That arc plus the aftermath of Maeve's death were what Long started when she came back after the strike. I don't know how the Alan/Reva situation would have gone had CB remained in the role and if the writer strike hadn't happened.
    • I've only been solidly watching the show for the first time the past few months. I was familiar with parts of the show and some of the character just from being a soap fan. I do have to say that I am enjoying GH more than any other shows right now. Sure, it has flaws but it seems to move along fairly well, and most of all, the eye-candy. Damn, there are so many cute men on this show. Nathan and Michael are at the top of my list.

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I have to say that I was honestly surprised by the exit this week. With spoilers and casting news, it is tough to pull off an honest shocker, and this shooting actually made gasp out loud.  I would bet many of you would enjoy it, if you watch it more regularly, I know that has been my experience this month.  
    • I believe she is talented and maligned for a reason. I fundamentally disagree with what she thinks soaps should be. And I am far from a traditionalist when it comes to the genre. There are many direct sources of her behavior and bad decisions, and my own eyes watching ratings decline after sweeps bumps on her her shows, it’s pretty clear she survived in power, especially at GH, specifically because the genre was declining. I will not further derail this thread with JFP unless it is pertinent. But I finish with this. She was asked directly over the years if she regretted killing Maureen off from Guiding Light. And for years she said she did. But someone pinned her down when she was at Y&R the first time, Michael Logan perhaps, and she admitted what she regretted and would never do again is making the audience care so much about a character right before killing then off. The tragic nature of the story leading into killing Maureen is what she regrets, not that she misjudged the audience, or that she didn’t have the foresight to see how destabilizing that was going to be for that particular show.    
    • If they bring back Connie, that kooky lady who kidnapped Melinda, or if Stephanie's stalker is a crazed fan, or if it is something based on her book, I may pluck an eyelash. I think the misdirect is that the stalker is after Alex, when they are really after Stephanie (unless it is Joy Wesley - that would be a surprise).
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy