if Brit is a better performer than Bey back in 2003, what further arguments can be made? And if it's the other way around, are there any more discussions need to be made?
Y'all making this into another stan war when we can just appreciate Britney in her prime back in the days and feel nostalgic and slayed and appreciate how Bey grew to be one of the top notch performers of her generations now.
Beyoncé has always been far more talented in every aspect but I liked Britney's performances better then.
Fast-forward to today though where Beyoncé has managed to outdo herself as a performer and artist, and Britney well......
I agree. Britney's showmanship was unmatched by her peers during that 3-4 year time period even though she was far from the most talented overall. But, at the same time, 2003 was far from Bey's performing peak as well so the thread is a bit rigged taken that into consideration. We're talking about one act at their absolute best and one during their (relative to her own performances) weakest performance era.
Even still, Bey was really good and far better than most of the industry -- she would usually execute brilliantly -- sounded great, great energy, but her showmanship, presence and command of the stage wasn't quite there yet. She experienced exponential growth there between her solo debut and sophomore...
2003:
Very good and head and shoulders above most -- she sounded great, moved well and did everything she was supposed to do, but in comparison to 2006:
Her presence, the confidence, the command of the audience...she just breathed pure life into the stage. That's before even getting to the the improvement in the vocals -- everything was just so much more robust and powerful.
Even further by the third era...this is where she really, really began to polish up the dancing. She's always had rhythm and could move, but there's a difference in how tight everything was from the previous: