Discussion: Is Britney's Toxic a classic? - Page 7

paulyyyozd

Absolutely yes

AlphaOmega

Without a doubt.

Terylee

cOe

Yes. The sample alone is.

♚ PRiNCE HiGH ♚

Quote:

Originally posted by AMENHOOKER

Not at all. 'Toxic' is pretty forgotten outside of stan culture. The song isn't in the top 1500 of iTunes.

Actual classics like 'Like a Prayer', 'Crazy in Love', 'Poker Face', 'Umbrella', 'Rolling in the Deep' etc. are.

A classic pop song is one which endures and stands the test of time.

I haven't heard 'Toxic' on the radio or at the club since forever.

Oh, and this was its chart run in America:
53-36-29-22-18-14-11- 10-*9*-11-11- 10-14-17-19-19-37-41-51-56

WOW didn't know it performed that badly, even in the US. And this was out in 2004 (?)....

Quote:

Originally posted by itsnickcray

I don't know in what country you live but Toxic is still bigger and always will be bigger thn poker face and umbrella. American radio didn't play Britney that much in 2004, so that's why the chart run wasn't that good. It's all about popularity and the world charts with this one.

Quote:

Originally posted by coddiecollins

I dont know what radios station u listen to and in what kind of clubs u go to but toxic is played in both..,

Plus its chart run is irrelevant...i dont know why u try it anymore

So NOW, chart runs are irrelevant? What is this logic? How else are we suppose to measure whether a song is a classic aka songs that are known and listened to when it performed that badly, commercially?

I guess it ALWAYS comes down to pulling the "zomg RED WIG!1! IMPACT!!1!" card when it comes to britney....

coddiecollins

Quote:

Originally posted by ♚ PRiNCE HiGH ♚

WOW didn't know it performed that badly, even in the US. And this was out in 2004 (?)....

So NOW, chart runs are irrelevant? What is this logic? How else are we suppose to measure whether a song is a classic aka songs that are known and listened to when it performed that badly, commercially?

I guess it ALWAYS comes down to pulling the "zomg RED WIG!1! IMPACT!!1!" card when it comes to britney....

Chart runs r irrelevants when the question is is toxic a classic

♚ PRiNCE HiGH ♚

Quote:

Originally posted by coddiecollins

Chart runs r irrelevants when the question is is toxic a classic

OF course they are, of course

Bríseis

Quote:

Originally posted by AMENHOOKER

Not at all. 'Toxic' is pretty forgotten outside of stan culture. The song isn't in the top 1500 of iTunes.

Actual classics like 'Like a Prayer', 'Crazy in Love', 'Poker Face', 'Umbrella', 'Rolling in the Deep' etc. are.

A classic pop song is one which endures and stands the test of time.

I haven't heard 'Toxic' on the radio or at the club since forever.

Oh, and this was its chart run in America:
53-36-29-22-18-14-11- 10-*9*-11-11- 10-14-17-19-19-37-41-51-56

Its certainly a much bigger classic than Poker Face or Umbrella

And when talking about classics, chart run is irrelevant. Many songs Bitter Sweet Symphony, Unfinished Sympathy, Wish You Were Here etc. just stood the test of time and became classics even though their chart run wasnt so good.

B-Luke

Quote:

Originally posted by ♚ PRiNCE HiGH ♚

WOW didn't know it performed that badly, even in the US. And this was out in 2004 (?)....

Toxic peaked at #9 solely due to digital sales in 2003 when physical units were still bigger. If anything, that's a success.

frantic

geddymonster

Quote:

Originally posted by ♚ PRiNCE HiGH ♚

WOW didn't know it performed that badly, even in the US. And this was out in 2004 (?)....

So NOW, chart runs are irrelevant? What is this logic? How else are we suppose to measure whether a song is a classic aka songs that are known and listened to when it performed that badly, commercially?

I guess it ALWAYS comes down to pulling the "zomg RED WIG!1! IMPACT!!1!" card when it comes to britney....

♚ PRiNCE HiGH ♚

Quote:

Originally posted by B-Luke

Toxic peaked at #9 solely due to digital sales in 2003 when physical units were still bigger. If anything, that's a success.

That's it? So it couldn't even reach the top THEN and yet y'all stans are somehow claiming it became a "classic" in all of a sudden sometime between then and now....

americanshameless

AMENHOOKER + the other one getting scalped by the entirety of ATRL.

Just let it go, you can't argue with a pop classic like Toxic.

♚ PRiNCE HiGH ♚

Quote:

Originally posted by geddymonster

I guess the "BLUE COLOR!!11! IMPACT!1!!" argument is coming??

B-Luke

Quote:

Originally posted by ♚ PRiNCE HiGH ♚

That's it? So it couldn't even reach the top THEN and yet y'all stans are somehow claiming it became a "classic" in all of a sudden sometime between then and now....

The impact of the song goes beyond its chart position (same with OIDIA, only got to #9 as well). Also, as you can see, it peaked in the Top 10 in every country it charted in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_(song)#Charts

-ToxicGuy-

Not people thinking its original chart run determines if a song is a classic and trying to put disposible hits from their faves which didn't even stand the test of time on the same level as some classics.

americanshameless

Quote:

Originally posted by B-Luke

The impact of the song goes beyond its chart position (same with OIDIA, also only peaked at #9). Also, as you can see, it peaked in the Top 10 in every country it charted in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_(song)#Charts

UK peak: #1
UK year-end peak: #9

And a January single at that.

Toxic really was HUGE in the UK, the second most played song of the 2000s. This just shows how the US ban really did effect it's American positions and despite that, it remained a global force. A true classic.

geddymonster

Quote:

Originally posted by ♚ PRiNCE HiGH ♚

I guess the "BLUE COLOR!!11! IMPACT!1!!" argument is coming??

Your poker face is betraying you. You seem a bit... bothered.

♚ PRiNCE HiGH ♚

Quote:

Originally posted by B-Luke

The impact of the song goes beyond its chart position (same with OIDIA, only got to #9 as well). Also, as you can see, it peaked in the Top 10 in every country it charted in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_(song)#Charts

Quote:

Originally posted by ♚ PRiNCE HiGH ♚

WOW didn't know it performed that badly, even in the US. And this was out in 2004 (?)....

So NOW, chart runs are irrelevant? What is this logic? How else are we suppose to measure whether a song is a classic aka songs that are known and listened to when it performed that badly, commercially?

I guess it ALWAYS comes down to pulling the "zomg RED WIG!1! IMPACT!!1!" card when it comes to britney....

Tragic

_

Facts and stats >>> wishes and hopes
Point proven, case dismissed.

-ToxicGuy-

Quote:

Originally posted by americanshameless

UK peak: #1
UK year-end peak: #9

And a January single at that.

Toxic really was HUGE in the UK, the second most played song of the 2000s. This just shows how the US ban really did effect it's American positions and despite that, it remained a global force. A true classic.

This tea