Quote:
Originally posted by ToMmY
There's a lot of differences actually. When Madonna's career was 10 years old she was 40. Britney has been is this business for more than 10 years and she hasn't even hit 30. It's much harder to gain respect when you're in your 20s than when you're 40. The meltdown didn't help either.
|
Oh Noooooo.
I intentionally omitted that can of worms. I can write a whole thesis about what you just said, TommyGun. It's not, technically, about age, it's about image. Within the boundaries of pop, Britney Spears still represents the youth of America. She has two kids, but is still seen as a child, herself. She maintains a youthful, vibrant appearance and doesn't strut in designer clothes out in public like Kim Kardashian or other pop stars; she wears shorts and tanks, and puts her hair in a ponytail, just like every other girl -- and that's who she represents. So, I agree, it will be slightly more difficult for someone like Britney Spears to receive more critical acclaim based on how she presents herself (there's nothing wrong with how she presents herself, btw). On the other hand, we have Lady Gaga, who represents a certain kind of beauty, but doesn't represent any age. If you were to look at Lady Gaga for the first time, you'd think she was 35, because that's how she presents herself, with heavy makeup and an over-the-top sense of theater. You have Adele, 22, and Florence Welch, 24, who also represent an older generation, and present themselves in a more mature light, along with Lady Gaga, so, it's easier to garner critical attention for someone with that aesthetic, because critics themselves, are in their 30's, 40's, and beyond. That's just the way it is. *shrug*
Disclaimer: I'm not implying Adele or Florence + The Machine do not deliver great music.
...Vin
No way is yahoo being hypercritical, theyre just thinking what everyone else is thinking....Britneys dancing has been sub par lately and it just gives her one less excuse as to why she wont sing live.
Does sound delicious
.