I remember watching the movie "Wreck-it-Ralph" on April 15 when my phone sent me an alert from the ESPN app Scorecenter that read: "Two bombs go off at the finish line of the Boston Marathon." I kept watching the movie, but I quickly turned on my computer to see what the hell happened. Sure enough, two bombs did go off at the Boston Marathon finish line killing three people and wounding 200 more (many severely).
I spent that entire week addicted to the news. First came the reports of what happened, then came the call for help in identifying the suspects. Next, police tracked down the suspects and even managed to kill one. By that Friday, authorities has shut down the entire City of Boston, along with many neighboring communities. Eventually, police apprehended the second suspect.
I know what you're thinking: how could this have ANYthing to do with Britney Spears. It's simple: when your town gets bombed, you get upset. You feel remorse for the victims and anger at the people who did it. And those feelings are genuine.
Now, here's where Britney comes in. When she didn't perform this morning on Good Morning America, many people flipped out. They swore they were done with her, said they hoped her song didn't get to #1, and claimed that she didn't deserve any success. Keep in mind these are the same people who vote for her in every poll 100s and 100s of times. These people routinely buy her songs for not only themselves, but anyone else, just to ensure a #1. These people are crazy obsessed.
Yet, when their expectations aren't met (even if those expectations are unrealistic), they drum up all sorts of anger toward Britney. That's not realistic or healthy. It's one thing to get angry at two men for killing innocent people, but it's another to get angry at a woman because she didn't perform her latest single on TV.
It's fantastic that Britney has such devoted fans, but remember to keep things in perspective. There are legitimate reasons to feel angry. However, it's foolish to be angry with someone whose biggest crime is not doing something she never said she would do in the first place.
Imagine if you got a call from your mom around dinner time asking you to come home. She didn't say it, but you assumed based on the timing of the call that dinner would be ready. When you get home, there's no dinner. Should you be mad at your mom for not having dinner ready? Doesn't that seem foolish since she never mentioned dinner?
There are so many things to be mad about in this world: murder, rape, bombing other countries, war, social injustice, and racism just to name a scant few. But trust me, Britney Spears not performing on GMA is hardly something to be bothered about. Direct your anger toward something that really deserves it.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Friday, May 17, 2013
Britney Spears and Sexual Promiscuity
Are Britney Spears fans sexually promiscuous? Does Britney's music (and accompanying videos) or her overall image cause sexual promiscuity? Are her fans more sexually promiscuous than fans of, say, Adele or Taylor Swift or Selena Gomez?
There's no doubt that from a young age Britney has been portrayed as something to be desired, lusted after, objectified, and fantasized about. The media called her a Lolita - an underage girl who attracts the attention of grown men (named after the book of the same name about a grown man who begins a sexual relationship with a 12-year old girl). Even though Britney was 16 when "Baby One More Time" came out, she still fit the definition of an underage girl; and we, the general public, began our sexual relationship with her then.
There's little doubt that Britney has inspired sexual thoughts in almost all (straight) men at some point in her 15-year career (and some gay men, too, more than likely). From her school-girl outfit in her "Baby One More Time" video to the red catsuit in her "Oops I Did It Again" video to baring her midriff in her "I'm a Slave 4 U" video, Britney has always tapped into the male fantasy.
From the female perspective, while they may have never sexualized Britney as the men did (and still do), judging by the outfits worn at Britney concerts over the years, they clearly took notes of what Britney wore and how she was portrayed. And they attempted to be seen the same way. You couldn't go to a Britney concert and not see teenage girls (and some even younger) dressed in school-girl outfits or baring their midriff (with belly-piercing intact). Imagine being the father of a young girl and beside being concerned about how Britney dressed, you now have to walk past thousands of Lolitas showing way too much skin.
Over the years, Britney has been the stuff of fantasy: dancing around in tiny, little outfits, shaking her ass for prying eyes, and appearing on the cover of magazines wearing next to nothing (or not wearing anything at all). Obviously, Britney inspires sexual thoughts (ironically, Britney claimed to be a virgin as she inspired many dirty thoughts in the minds of young boys (and grown men)).
Even if she wasn't having sex, she was clearly putting those thoughts out there. In fact, Britney ushered in a whole new era of dirty old men. These weren't just fathers, either. Many men above the age of 40, with or without kids, lusted after her (in another ironic twist, her innocence and squeaky clean image caused most of the dirty thoughts. Even when she dirtied it up with the "I'm a Slave 4 U" single and video people still saw her as pure. It wasn't until her marriage to Kevin Federline and subsequent divorce that her purity went out the window in the eyes of the general public (as did the fantasy most men harbored for her)).
With all those sexual thoughts in the air, floating around, it's only a matter of time until they manifest into the actual act of sex. When young girls walk around half-naked in high heels, it can only be assumed they're doing more than showing it off. While Britney may have never told people explicitly to have sex (her songs always tease the idea of sex, but never actually talk about doing it), she clearly influenced her female fans to dress that way (and her male fans to have sexual desires). Combine the two (women dressed like they "want it" and men who are more than eager to give it to them) and you have a recipe for copious amounts of sex. Therefore, it's only natural to assume Britney fans are sexually promiscuous.
Of course, the media hated Britney for it. They claimed she compelled young girls to dress provocatively. Those same girls, however, would likely claim that Britney empowered them to be bold and not care what people thought.
The media also claimed she intentionally sexed it up to inspire a reaction in grown men, one they weren't supposed to have about a 16-, 17-, 18-year old girl. Truthfully, the media put a lot of the blame on the shoulders of her managers, saying they took advantage of Britney.
Today, the media's opinion of Britney has less to do with how she influences young girls or what thoughts she inspires in grown men since she's no longer a Lolita nor a major influence on teenage and pre-teenage girls. They're more concerned with whether she's a train wreck or not.
However you look at it, Britney continues to induce a sexual reaction from men (though less since she lost her purity to the general public). Even though her fans are older (and subsequently less apt to take style cues from Britney), her concerts are still packed with barred midriffs and belly-piercings proving that Britney's influence is never-ending.
There's no doubt that from a young age Britney has been portrayed as something to be desired, lusted after, objectified, and fantasized about. The media called her a Lolita - an underage girl who attracts the attention of grown men (named after the book of the same name about a grown man who begins a sexual relationship with a 12-year old girl). Even though Britney was 16 when "Baby One More Time" came out, she still fit the definition of an underage girl; and we, the general public, began our sexual relationship with her then.
There's little doubt that Britney has inspired sexual thoughts in almost all (straight) men at some point in her 15-year career (and some gay men, too, more than likely). From her school-girl outfit in her "Baby One More Time" video to the red catsuit in her "Oops I Did It Again" video to baring her midriff in her "I'm a Slave 4 U" video, Britney has always tapped into the male fantasy.
From the female perspective, while they may have never sexualized Britney as the men did (and still do), judging by the outfits worn at Britney concerts over the years, they clearly took notes of what Britney wore and how she was portrayed. And they attempted to be seen the same way. You couldn't go to a Britney concert and not see teenage girls (and some even younger) dressed in school-girl outfits or baring their midriff (with belly-piercing intact). Imagine being the father of a young girl and beside being concerned about how Britney dressed, you now have to walk past thousands of Lolitas showing way too much skin.
Over the years, Britney has been the stuff of fantasy: dancing around in tiny, little outfits, shaking her ass for prying eyes, and appearing on the cover of magazines wearing next to nothing (or not wearing anything at all). Obviously, Britney inspires sexual thoughts (ironically, Britney claimed to be a virgin as she inspired many dirty thoughts in the minds of young boys (and grown men)).
Even if she wasn't having sex, she was clearly putting those thoughts out there. In fact, Britney ushered in a whole new era of dirty old men. These weren't just fathers, either. Many men above the age of 40, with or without kids, lusted after her (in another ironic twist, her innocence and squeaky clean image caused most of the dirty thoughts. Even when she dirtied it up with the "I'm a Slave 4 U" single and video people still saw her as pure. It wasn't until her marriage to Kevin Federline and subsequent divorce that her purity went out the window in the eyes of the general public (as did the fantasy most men harbored for her)).
With all those sexual thoughts in the air, floating around, it's only a matter of time until they manifest into the actual act of sex. When young girls walk around half-naked in high heels, it can only be assumed they're doing more than showing it off. While Britney may have never told people explicitly to have sex (her songs always tease the idea of sex, but never actually talk about doing it), she clearly influenced her female fans to dress that way (and her male fans to have sexual desires). Combine the two (women dressed like they "want it" and men who are more than eager to give it to them) and you have a recipe for copious amounts of sex. Therefore, it's only natural to assume Britney fans are sexually promiscuous.
Of course, the media hated Britney for it. They claimed she compelled young girls to dress provocatively. Those same girls, however, would likely claim that Britney empowered them to be bold and not care what people thought.
The media also claimed she intentionally sexed it up to inspire a reaction in grown men, one they weren't supposed to have about a 16-, 17-, 18-year old girl. Truthfully, the media put a lot of the blame on the shoulders of her managers, saying they took advantage of Britney.
Today, the media's opinion of Britney has less to do with how she influences young girls or what thoughts she inspires in grown men since she's no longer a Lolita nor a major influence on teenage and pre-teenage girls. They're more concerned with whether she's a train wreck or not.
However you look at it, Britney continues to induce a sexual reaction from men (though less since she lost her purity to the general public). Even though her fans are older (and subsequently less apt to take style cues from Britney), her concerts are still packed with barred midriffs and belly-piercings proving that Britney's influence is never-ending.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
The Thighs Have it
I'm reading way too much talk about whether or not thighs touch and whether or not that's a good thing or a bad thing. Girls whose thighs touch think it's wrong if they don't touch, while girls whose thighs don't touch think it's wrong if they do. Maybe they're both wrong.
I'm a guy, so I don't know if I qualify for the discussion, but my thighs don't touch. Does that mean there's something wrong with me? I doubt it. If my thighs did touch, should I be concerned? I doubt that, either.
There are websites devoted to this topic, where girls discuss how they managed to go from touching thighs to separated thighs ( a thigh divorce, perhaps). They seem awful proud of themselves. That's sad. Is there a website where girls discuss how they managed to get their separated thighs back together? Probably not. Should there be? Should either website exist? Probably not.
Here's something that might even be sadder than websites devoted to thigh management: parents drilling into their kids' heads that women whose thighs don't touch have problems (or that somehow separated thighs are a bad thing). Thighs are just thighs, neither good nor bad. If they touch, fine. If they don't, fine.
Parents, and by that I mean moms, don't need to tell their children, and by that I mean daughters, there is or isn't a problem with thighs touching or not touching.
Britney Spears' thigh touch, Paris Hilton's don't. Does that make one woman any better than the other?
Maybe we should just stop paying so much attention to thighs. I can tell you as a man I've never heard another man say, "I would have slept with her but her thighs touched." Nor has any man said, "She'd be a great girlfriend if her thighs touched."
Ladies should not be afraid to having touching thighs nor should they be afraid to have a little space in between. That's the message we should send - that it's perfectly normal to have thighs of any size. Moms don't need to put down other, perfectly healthy women to give their daughters confidence. A woman who's 5 feet 10 and 120 lbs is not a bad role model, just as a woman who is 5 feet 5 and 160 lbs is not a bad role model.
Here's a suggestion: put your knees together, if your thighs touch give yourself a pat on the back; if they don't touch give yourself a pat on the back. This way, everyone wins.
I'm a guy, so I don't know if I qualify for the discussion, but my thighs don't touch. Does that mean there's something wrong with me? I doubt it. If my thighs did touch, should I be concerned? I doubt that, either.
There are websites devoted to this topic, where girls discuss how they managed to go from touching thighs to separated thighs ( a thigh divorce, perhaps). They seem awful proud of themselves. That's sad. Is there a website where girls discuss how they managed to get their separated thighs back together? Probably not. Should there be? Should either website exist? Probably not.
Here's something that might even be sadder than websites devoted to thigh management: parents drilling into their kids' heads that women whose thighs don't touch have problems (or that somehow separated thighs are a bad thing). Thighs are just thighs, neither good nor bad. If they touch, fine. If they don't, fine.
Parents, and by that I mean moms, don't need to tell their children, and by that I mean daughters, there is or isn't a problem with thighs touching or not touching.
Britney Spears' thigh touch, Paris Hilton's don't. Does that make one woman any better than the other?
Maybe we should just stop paying so much attention to thighs. I can tell you as a man I've never heard another man say, "I would have slept with her but her thighs touched." Nor has any man said, "She'd be a great girlfriend if her thighs touched."
Ladies should not be afraid to having touching thighs nor should they be afraid to have a little space in between. That's the message we should send - that it's perfectly normal to have thighs of any size. Moms don't need to put down other, perfectly healthy women to give their daughters confidence. A woman who's 5 feet 10 and 120 lbs is not a bad role model, just as a woman who is 5 feet 5 and 160 lbs is not a bad role model.
Here's a suggestion: put your knees together, if your thighs touch give yourself a pat on the back; if they don't touch give yourself a pat on the back. This way, everyone wins.
Friday, March 15, 2013
A Feud Without Glee
On this week's episode of Glee, they paid tribute, of sorts, to some of music's top rivalries (Elton-Madonna, NSYNC-Backstreet Boys, Mariah Carey-Nicki Minaj). One rivalry conspicuous by its absence was Britney-Christina.
There are a couple reasons for that oversight, the most obvious being that Glee had covered so many Britney songs already, they just had nothing left in the tank (or as Kevin McHale's character Artie said in "Britney 2.0:" "We've scrapped the bottom of the Britney barrel.").
However, there's another reason Glee passed on the Britney-Christina feud, a very simple reason that doesn't have to do with the number of songs Glee has featured from either girl. Simply put, they never had a feud.
Sure, the media would have you believe that the two blond (well, now one blond and one brunette) singers were bitter rivals from day one (and are still to this day). The girls, themselves, always painted a different picture by claiming that they never feuded. Christina, especially, liked to claim the media pitted them against each other because they were young, successful female artists.
That begs the question of who's right. Did Britney and Christina feud or did the media, as Christina claims, pit them against each other because they were young, successful girls? I think the evidence clearly shows that they never really feuded, aside from a brief spell in 2003-2004 (after the 2003 VMAs). Truthfully, even that little spat was media controlled.
After Madonna kissed both girls, the media only focused on Britney and ignored (like the MTV cameras did) Christina. Later, Christina claimed that Britney lip-synched her parts of the performance. Britney then fired back in Blender magazine that Christina was "dark and scary." And that's really all the shots they've taken at each other.
I don't know the technical definition of the word feud, but I'm confident it requires the feuding parties to attack each other more than once.
To be fair, I feel bad for Christina, because if they ever did feud (or are feuding) Britney either dominated or is dominating. Not to say that Christina hasn't had success; she has awards, plus commercial and critical love. She's just been stuck in Britney's shadow from the beginning.
Christina has two #1 albums. Britney has six. Christina has sold over 17 million albums in the United States. Britney has sold twice that amount. Christina has five #1 singles, but only one since 2001 ("Moves Like Jagger," as a featured artist in 2011). Britney has had four #1 singles since 2008 (one as a featured artist with Rihanna).
Just look at Christina's numbers and they're pretty impressive. Unfortunately, they don't compare to Britney's. If you throw away sales and just focus on critical reviews, a category you'd expect Christina to dominate with her amazing voice, she actually loses there, too. According to metacritic, which complies all reviews and assigns them a number (0-100), Christina's average score is 58. Britney's is 64.
Throw in personal problems, which both have had (Christina's been arrested, Britney lost custody of her kids), bad performances (Christina forgot some of the words to the National Anthem at the Super Bowl, Britney humiliated herself at the 2007 VMAs) and relationship problems (both are divorced), and Christina can't seem to catch Britney anywhere. Even physically, as most people would argue that while Christina is attractive, Britney's just more so.
Maybe this is why Glee didn't include the Britney-Christina feud, because if it was a feud, Britney is wearing the belt after a first round KO.
Ironically, when they both first started, the media couldn't wait to write Britney's obituary, yet never said that Christina's 15 minutes of fame were nearing. Now, the media can't pile dirt on Christina's grave quick enough, all the while marveling at Britney's longevity.
I don't think they ever feuded. I think they just happened to be two young, pretty, blond girls who sang pop music that the media lumped together. Sadly, it just makes Christina's accomplishments look weak when pitted against Britney's. Hopefully history doesn't remember her as that "other" blond girl.
She deserves better.
There are a couple reasons for that oversight, the most obvious being that Glee had covered so many Britney songs already, they just had nothing left in the tank (or as Kevin McHale's character Artie said in "Britney 2.0:" "We've scrapped the bottom of the Britney barrel.").
However, there's another reason Glee passed on the Britney-Christina feud, a very simple reason that doesn't have to do with the number of songs Glee has featured from either girl. Simply put, they never had a feud.
Sure, the media would have you believe that the two blond (well, now one blond and one brunette) singers were bitter rivals from day one (and are still to this day). The girls, themselves, always painted a different picture by claiming that they never feuded. Christina, especially, liked to claim the media pitted them against each other because they were young, successful female artists.
That begs the question of who's right. Did Britney and Christina feud or did the media, as Christina claims, pit them against each other because they were young, successful girls? I think the evidence clearly shows that they never really feuded, aside from a brief spell in 2003-2004 (after the 2003 VMAs). Truthfully, even that little spat was media controlled.
After Madonna kissed both girls, the media only focused on Britney and ignored (like the MTV cameras did) Christina. Later, Christina claimed that Britney lip-synched her parts of the performance. Britney then fired back in Blender magazine that Christina was "dark and scary." And that's really all the shots they've taken at each other.
I don't know the technical definition of the word feud, but I'm confident it requires the feuding parties to attack each other more than once.
To be fair, I feel bad for Christina, because if they ever did feud (or are feuding) Britney either dominated or is dominating. Not to say that Christina hasn't had success; she has awards, plus commercial and critical love. She's just been stuck in Britney's shadow from the beginning.
Christina has two #1 albums. Britney has six. Christina has sold over 17 million albums in the United States. Britney has sold twice that amount. Christina has five #1 singles, but only one since 2001 ("Moves Like Jagger," as a featured artist in 2011). Britney has had four #1 singles since 2008 (one as a featured artist with Rihanna).
Just look at Christina's numbers and they're pretty impressive. Unfortunately, they don't compare to Britney's. If you throw away sales and just focus on critical reviews, a category you'd expect Christina to dominate with her amazing voice, she actually loses there, too. According to metacritic, which complies all reviews and assigns them a number (0-100), Christina's average score is 58. Britney's is 64.
Throw in personal problems, which both have had (Christina's been arrested, Britney lost custody of her kids), bad performances (Christina forgot some of the words to the National Anthem at the Super Bowl, Britney humiliated herself at the 2007 VMAs) and relationship problems (both are divorced), and Christina can't seem to catch Britney anywhere. Even physically, as most people would argue that while Christina is attractive, Britney's just more so.
Maybe this is why Glee didn't include the Britney-Christina feud, because if it was a feud, Britney is wearing the belt after a first round KO.
Ironically, when they both first started, the media couldn't wait to write Britney's obituary, yet never said that Christina's 15 minutes of fame were nearing. Now, the media can't pile dirt on Christina's grave quick enough, all the while marveling at Britney's longevity.
I don't think they ever feuded. I think they just happened to be two young, pretty, blond girls who sang pop music that the media lumped together. Sadly, it just makes Christina's accomplishments look weak when pitted against Britney's. Hopefully history doesn't remember her as that "other" blond girl.
She deserves better.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Brie Theory
Meeting people on the Internet is interesting. I've met many people via Internet forums and chat rooms (back in the 90s when people actually did that). Some of them were really good friends and some I spoke to a couple times.
Out of all the people I met online, I only ever met two in person. Both times it went perfectly fine. They were exactly who said they were. One person lived close and one lived a little further away. It actually worked out because the one who lived a bit further met me in Montreal for a Britney concert. Without her, I never would have gone to see that tour (Onyx Hotel).
I feel fortunate that I've been able to meet good people on and off line. There are plenty of people I knew online who I never had the chance to meet and some I know now who I'll probably never meet. But thanks to Twitter, Facebook, texting, Skype, and the like, you can have relationships with people without ever meeting them. Not serious relationships, necessarily, but good friendships.
Sometimes you can have good friendships that turn to shit, because sometimes people lie to your face (well, via text message). Or, they say one thing but act a completely different way. For example, they say they don't like you and aren't your friend, yet they talk to you all the time. Confusing, right?
Let's say one day you get mad and tell that person to fuck off (and you're not the kinda person who says things like that often). This person you told to fuck off, let's say a month later, starts talking to you again. Even more confusing, right?
I know I don't get it. I don't understand how someone can say and do opposite things. Tell me all about your life and your problems and your boyfriends, but when we fight you suddenly never liked me. Of course, when we don't fight, you like me just fine. I hear about your drunk one-night stands that turn into three-year relationships and I wonder if I'm supposed to feel sorry for you. Do you want my sympathy? I doubt it, because you even admit that your behavior was foolish and wrong.
The funniest thing is how the meanest things you say are throwaway lines you don't even realize are insulting. For instance, telling me in no uncertain terms that I'm not important. Do you even see how hard a slap in the face that is? Especially considering all the things I've done.
It seems like I'm complaining, and maybe I am, but I'm tired of being stepped on and used. I'm pretty considerate, and outside of maybe two instances I've never really gotten angry. I'm good at shoving problems down and keeping my mouth shut. That's why I'm writing this blog. Just to get everything out there.
I think everyone at least once has felt used. I even think in some situations it's OK. If you're hurting you can take it out on me. I can take it. But there comes a point where it's always about you and never about me. Over four years I've realized that you have issues you need to work on. When every relationship you've ever been in starts with you getting drunk, then that's pretty obvious. And now you've found someone without the use of alcohol, which is great, but . . . well, you called me clingy, yet in the four years I've known you, I don't think you've ever not been dating someone. Honestly, you're Taylor Swift minus the fame and fortune.
I've been single for many years, you're always in a relationship. Who's clingy? I'm not flying to Texas to meet some guy I just met through World of Warcraft for a booty call. I'm sorry, but if a guy who just started dating you last month is willing to pay your ticket to Texas, he's clearly looking for sex.
I hate to air dirty laundry, but I'm tired of going back and forth. This is the best way to get my feelings out. For whomever reads this, maybe you've been in my situation. If so, let me know how it ended.
Out of all the people I met online, I only ever met two in person. Both times it went perfectly fine. They were exactly who said they were. One person lived close and one lived a little further away. It actually worked out because the one who lived a bit further met me in Montreal for a Britney concert. Without her, I never would have gone to see that tour (Onyx Hotel).
I feel fortunate that I've been able to meet good people on and off line. There are plenty of people I knew online who I never had the chance to meet and some I know now who I'll probably never meet. But thanks to Twitter, Facebook, texting, Skype, and the like, you can have relationships with people without ever meeting them. Not serious relationships, necessarily, but good friendships.
Sometimes you can have good friendships that turn to shit, because sometimes people lie to your face (well, via text message). Or, they say one thing but act a completely different way. For example, they say they don't like you and aren't your friend, yet they talk to you all the time. Confusing, right?
Let's say one day you get mad and tell that person to fuck off (and you're not the kinda person who says things like that often). This person you told to fuck off, let's say a month later, starts talking to you again. Even more confusing, right?
I know I don't get it. I don't understand how someone can say and do opposite things. Tell me all about your life and your problems and your boyfriends, but when we fight you suddenly never liked me. Of course, when we don't fight, you like me just fine. I hear about your drunk one-night stands that turn into three-year relationships and I wonder if I'm supposed to feel sorry for you. Do you want my sympathy? I doubt it, because you even admit that your behavior was foolish and wrong.
The funniest thing is how the meanest things you say are throwaway lines you don't even realize are insulting. For instance, telling me in no uncertain terms that I'm not important. Do you even see how hard a slap in the face that is? Especially considering all the things I've done.
It seems like I'm complaining, and maybe I am, but I'm tired of being stepped on and used. I'm pretty considerate, and outside of maybe two instances I've never really gotten angry. I'm good at shoving problems down and keeping my mouth shut. That's why I'm writing this blog. Just to get everything out there.
I think everyone at least once has felt used. I even think in some situations it's OK. If you're hurting you can take it out on me. I can take it. But there comes a point where it's always about you and never about me. Over four years I've realized that you have issues you need to work on. When every relationship you've ever been in starts with you getting drunk, then that's pretty obvious. And now you've found someone without the use of alcohol, which is great, but . . . well, you called me clingy, yet in the four years I've known you, I don't think you've ever not been dating someone. Honestly, you're Taylor Swift minus the fame and fortune.
I've been single for many years, you're always in a relationship. Who's clingy? I'm not flying to Texas to meet some guy I just met through World of Warcraft for a booty call. I'm sorry, but if a guy who just started dating you last month is willing to pay your ticket to Texas, he's clearly looking for sex.
I hate to air dirty laundry, but I'm tired of going back and forth. This is the best way to get my feelings out. For whomever reads this, maybe you've been in my situation. If so, let me know how it ended.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Screaming & Shouting
For some reason, there's an amount of people who dislike will.i.am., an amount that seems large because they're quite vocal. The sales of the group he's in, Black Eyed Peas, would indicate the vocal haters are actually a small group with big mouths. Whatever the case, all you hear from these people is how horrible his music is. Yet, somehow, he produces hit after hit. Teaming with Britney Spears on "Scream & Shout," to quote his musical tag team partner, oops, he did it again.
To be fair to the vocal haters, his solo work never really caught on until he teamed with Britney. But once the Queen of Pop and Mr. i.am. hit the studio together, they made magic. First with "Big Fat Bass" (a personal favorite of mine) and now with "Scream & Shout" (not my favorite, to be honest), Britney and will have shown how they can create something special together.
In fact, you can argue (and probably come out on top) that "S&S" is Britney's biggest hit ever. It's clearly her biggest radio hit ever. It's poised to potentially reach number one. If it does it would be the first time a Britney song went to number one after being on the charts for more than two months. Her other hits either debuted at #1 ("Baby One More Time, 3, Hold it Against Me) or flew up the charts in record fashion (Womanizer went from number 97 to number one, a record at the time for the largest jump in Billboard history).
With the rumor that will.i.am. will executive produce Britney's next album comes two reactions: booing from the vocal haters and excited screams from people who realize that Britney and will have hit two home runs together. Will's music isn't perfect, there are plenty of songs to dislike, but he and Britney have come together like peanut butter and jelly. Whether you like "Scream & Shout" you can't deny its success. Usually after 10 weeks on the chart, a Britney song is falling out of the top 10. With "S&S" the song is still climbing the chart. It's still in the top three on iTunes.
Maybe an entire Britney and will.i.am. album wouldn't work. But if he threw a couple songs on her next album, and they were anywhere near the quality of "Big Fat Bass" or "Scream & Shout," then you could almost guarantee another hit. In fact, imagine if "BFB" was released as a single instead of "Criminal?" Don't you think that would have given Britney another top 10 hit?
Peanut butter goes well with many things: chocolate, jelly, marshmallows, etc. It doesn't go well with ketchup, mustard or mayonnaise. Perhaps in some of will's other songs he worked with one of those three. But Britney is clearly his jelly.
By her eighth album, America might not be ready for their, well, you know how the song goes.
To be fair to the vocal haters, his solo work never really caught on until he teamed with Britney. But once the Queen of Pop and Mr. i.am. hit the studio together, they made magic. First with "Big Fat Bass" (a personal favorite of mine) and now with "Scream & Shout" (not my favorite, to be honest), Britney and will have shown how they can create something special together.
In fact, you can argue (and probably come out on top) that "S&S" is Britney's biggest hit ever. It's clearly her biggest radio hit ever. It's poised to potentially reach number one. If it does it would be the first time a Britney song went to number one after being on the charts for more than two months. Her other hits either debuted at #1 ("Baby One More Time, 3, Hold it Against Me) or flew up the charts in record fashion (Womanizer went from number 97 to number one, a record at the time for the largest jump in Billboard history).
With the rumor that will.i.am. will executive produce Britney's next album comes two reactions: booing from the vocal haters and excited screams from people who realize that Britney and will have hit two home runs together. Will's music isn't perfect, there are plenty of songs to dislike, but he and Britney have come together like peanut butter and jelly. Whether you like "Scream & Shout" you can't deny its success. Usually after 10 weeks on the chart, a Britney song is falling out of the top 10. With "S&S" the song is still climbing the chart. It's still in the top three on iTunes.
Maybe an entire Britney and will.i.am. album wouldn't work. But if he threw a couple songs on her next album, and they were anywhere near the quality of "Big Fat Bass" or "Scream & Shout," then you could almost guarantee another hit. In fact, imagine if "BFB" was released as a single instead of "Criminal?" Don't you think that would have given Britney another top 10 hit?
Peanut butter goes well with many things: chocolate, jelly, marshmallows, etc. It doesn't go well with ketchup, mustard or mayonnaise. Perhaps in some of will's other songs he worked with one of those three. But Britney is clearly his jelly.
By her eighth album, America might not be ready for their, well, you know how the song goes.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Viva Las Britney
Some people think Britney Spears performing in Vegas will be good for Vegas. It'll be good for Britney (money) and her fans who live in and around Vegas (closeness), but Vegas doesn't need Britney. It's Vegas.
Someone at Exhale posted reasons why Britney taking up residency in Vegas will be good. Problem is that most of the reasons are plain wrong.
"It will youngify Vegas: Think about it, Vegas now is full of old performers and older acts. Younger people like Britney fans will flock to Vegas" - Vegas doesn't need to be "youngified." It's Vegas, it's for adults. In fact, there should be a sign at the airport that says "Welcome to Vegas. No one under 21 allowed."
"It will revive Las Vegas: Bring in a younger crowd and bring in people who have never been to Vegas. It will bing in new revenue and new business. She will basically save it. She will be acknowledged and given the credit of changing Vegas and bringing in new revenue, and reviving Las Vegas. Lets face it, Celine has not been able to do this. That’s why Vegas want Britney!" - It's Vegas. It doesn't need saving. Beside, most everyone over the age of 21 has been to Vegas already. Britney wouldn't bring in a new crowd.
"Will open new opportunities for pop acts today: She will be probably the 1st relevant and youngest artist to have a major gig and residency at Vegas. Pretty soon other pop acts might follow: AKA copy" - Trust me, other pop acts don't need Britney to open the door for them. If Britney turns down a Vegas residency, I'm sure other acts like Gaga and Katy Perry would still have a chance to play Vegas if Vegas wanted them.
"Will solidify her legend status: People will look at her differently and know that she is the queen of pop" - Her legendary status is already certified by the fact that she's the youngest person on the list of the best-selling acts of all-time. Among other things.
"It will change Vegas forever: It won’t be just for has been performers. She will probably be the youngest paid pop act to reside in Vegas." - Again, Vegas isn't looking to change. Anyone old enough to gamble will go regardless of whether Britney is there or not.
"Old passionate Britney might, no, Will come back: Lets face it this is gonna be huge. Her name is on the line! She has to give it her 100%. She will get media attention like crazy daily! She will perform with passion just like before…" - She gets media attention daily. Where have you been? As far as bringing back the "old, passionate" Britney, some might question who exactly that is: Crazy 2k tour Britney, DWAD tour Britney, Onxy Hotel tour Britney, etc.
"My Final Thoughts: And I truly think this Gig will probably only last only a few months. She will be paid 100 million + for less than a year. Team Britney is smart, they know we want a new album and world tour, they will probably just make this vegas gig a few months to test the waters and see how it goes. I think they are doing this to get Britneys name out there and get the public and fans ready for Album 8 and Tour! She will be the highest paid Vegas Performer!!!" - No Vegas casino is going to pay Britney a "100 million +" for less than a year just so Britney can "test the waters." Jobs are on the line if some casino signs Britney and it fails. Trust me, Vegas isn't interested in helping Britney test the waters. They want Britney to bring in serious money, because the point of bringing in Britney is too make as much money as possible.
I'm all for getting excited about the possible Vegas gig. But don't be foolish and think it's about what Britney can do for Vegas or her career. It's what the Vegas gig can do for you.
Someone at Exhale posted reasons why Britney taking up residency in Vegas will be good. Problem is that most of the reasons are plain wrong.
"It will youngify Vegas: Think about it, Vegas now is full of old performers and older acts. Younger people like Britney fans will flock to Vegas" - Vegas doesn't need to be "youngified." It's Vegas, it's for adults. In fact, there should be a sign at the airport that says "Welcome to Vegas. No one under 21 allowed."
"It will revive Las Vegas: Bring in a younger crowd and bring in people who have never been to Vegas. It will bing in new revenue and new business. She will basically save it. She will be acknowledged and given the credit of changing Vegas and bringing in new revenue, and reviving Las Vegas. Lets face it, Celine has not been able to do this. That’s why Vegas want Britney!" - It's Vegas. It doesn't need saving. Beside, most everyone over the age of 21 has been to Vegas already. Britney wouldn't bring in a new crowd.
"Will open new opportunities for pop acts today: She will be probably the 1st relevant and youngest artist to have a major gig and residency at Vegas. Pretty soon other pop acts might follow: AKA copy" - Trust me, other pop acts don't need Britney to open the door for them. If Britney turns down a Vegas residency, I'm sure other acts like Gaga and Katy Perry would still have a chance to play Vegas if Vegas wanted them.
"Will solidify her legend status: People will look at her differently and know that she is the queen of pop" - Her legendary status is already certified by the fact that she's the youngest person on the list of the best-selling acts of all-time. Among other things.
"It will change Vegas forever: It won’t be just for has been performers. She will probably be the youngest paid pop act to reside in Vegas." - Again, Vegas isn't looking to change. Anyone old enough to gamble will go regardless of whether Britney is there or not.
"Old passionate Britney might, no, Will come back: Lets face it this is gonna be huge. Her name is on the line! She has to give it her 100%. She will get media attention like crazy daily! She will perform with passion just like before…" - She gets media attention daily. Where have you been? As far as bringing back the "old, passionate" Britney, some might question who exactly that is: Crazy 2k tour Britney, DWAD tour Britney, Onxy Hotel tour Britney, etc.
"My Final Thoughts: And I truly think this Gig will probably only last only a few months. She will be paid 100 million + for less than a year. Team Britney is smart, they know we want a new album and world tour, they will probably just make this vegas gig a few months to test the waters and see how it goes. I think they are doing this to get Britneys name out there and get the public and fans ready for Album 8 and Tour! She will be the highest paid Vegas Performer!!!" - No Vegas casino is going to pay Britney a "100 million +" for less than a year just so Britney can "test the waters." Jobs are on the line if some casino signs Britney and it fails. Trust me, Vegas isn't interested in helping Britney test the waters. They want Britney to bring in serious money, because the point of bringing in Britney is too make as much money as possible.
I'm all for getting excited about the possible Vegas gig. But don't be foolish and think it's about what Britney can do for Vegas or her career. It's what the Vegas gig can do for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)