Over the years, Britney Spears has shown she can deliver musically. Even after 7 studio albums, she's still considered one of the most successful and global artists of our generation. But the question is, Is she Risky? I mean musically? I know she took a lot of risk for In The Zone but people always put it off calling the entire album "generic". Your thoughts?
Yes, and she should be, because whenever she takes risks it works and people will keep checking for her
At least for a little while. And the reason she's dismissed as "generic" is because everyone jumps on the bandwagon
as SOON as she does something and it becomes the new generic thing in almost a years' time. Happened with FF.
I have never seen anyone on this forum call In The Zone generic.
And I think Britney's most risky albums were Britney, In The Zone and Blackout (and ONLY because the dance pop movement wasn't really in full gear at the time of its release).
So to answer, I guess.... she has taken risks but I don't consider her "risky" overall.
I'd say her music is trend-setting at times but I wouldn't call it risky.
Alot of her albums sound right on time because they embrace the trends of the pop music scene at that time rather than veer left (Blackout and FF and her first 3 albums being good examples.)
The closest to risky she's gotten musically is ITZ album but even that had a few songs that fit in the urban trend at the time (Outrageous, Hook-Up, Boom Boom, etc).
No.
As said above, that doesn't make her generic.
Bar FF and her first two albums, her discography is (musically, not lyrically) quite varied and diverse.
