[Pirate Aaron]

Trying way too hard. As if they have any similarities in the first place

[Alejandrawrrr]

I knew exactly who this was by as soon as you said the word "BuzzFeed"

And ok, I guess

[Quiqui4eva]

Who said she was the next Britney?

[Auris]

Why was anybody comparing them in the first place? One is a dance-pop artist and the other is an R&B-pop artist who make songs that sound nothing alike (sans maybe Break Free which sounds like some Britney songs)

I don't understand the comparison?

[izzy™]

Damn whoever wrote this needs to chill

[Fantasea]

Of course not. Ariana is basic as ****.

[stronger23]

Um ok

[suneclipse121]

Originally posted by Vin

No artist today or in the future will ever be able to match Britney Spears. Britney Spears is the last massive popstar.
Before Britney Spears was Madonna. And before Madonna was Michael Jackson. No one will ever be on their level.

...Vin

eh.

Britney isint in the same league as the other two. She's no legend.

[BritneysDaddy]

Originally posted by Quiqui4eva

Who said she was the next Britney?

MTV

[Slim Shady]

Britney looks 16 here

[BritneysDaddy]

Originally posted by suneclipse121

eh.

Britney isint in the same league as the other two. She's no legend.

she is tho

[BritneysDaddy]

Originally posted by Slim Shady

Britney looks 16 here

[swissman]

I see they compared everything but vocal talent.

But ya I agree, she's not the modern Britney, but probably the closest we have to it. We're not in a bubblegum pop era, or an album-selling era, so obviously Ariana is not going to have the same stats as Britney to back her up.

[BritneysDaddy]

Originally posted by swissman

I see they compared everything but vocal talent.

Britney was an extremely talented dancer in her prime... one of the best in pop. Ariana can't even nail a basic move. Britney's vocals were decent.

Britney was never a vocalist. She was a PERFORMER. And her TALENT as a performer was unmatched

[swissman]

Originally posted by Scheisse

Britney was an extremely talented dancer in her prime... one of the best in pop. Ariana can't even nail a basic move. Britney's vocals were decent.

Britney was never a vocalist. She was a PERFORMER. And her TALENT as a performer was unmatched

Britney was a good dancer in her time. "Extremely talented" is pushing it in my opinion. She was a great performer though, but I was only referring to vocal talent in my comment which if you are a singer by profession should be above decent if you want to have any credibility in your job.

[CosmicLover]

I think what MTV meant by the whole Britney/Ariana comparison was that they haven't seen that level of adoration for a young female singer since Britney. But as far as being the modern Britney Spears? Hell no. I don't think Ariana would like to be seen in that light anyway. But I do understand what they are saying about Ariana's fans and being genuinely adored just for being who she is. Which also had a lot to do with Britney's success as well. Especially because Ari is so active with her fans. But success wise Ari has a ways to go.

[BritneysDaddy]

Originally posted by swissman

Britney was a good dancer in her time. "Extremely talented" is pushing it in my opinion. She was a great performer though, but I was only referring to vocal talent in my comment which if you are a singer by profession should be above decent if you want to have any credibility in your job.

She had a decent singing voice and always has. Her dancing and stage presence overshadowed it and for the better. And yes her dancing was extremely talented but you keep believing what you want! The pop princess title ain't changing

[Liquorice]

who thinks this though???
unnecessary

[swissman]

Originally posted by Scheisse

She had a decent singing voice and always has. Her dancing and stage presence overshadowed it and for the better. And yes her dancing was extremely talented but you keep believing what you want! The pop princess title ain't changing

I really don't think that being a singer and having your dancing overshadow your singing is for the better. For Britney, at the time, perhaps because her audience didn't care about vocals it was a good thing. They were there for the image and the personality. But that type of career does not sustain itself for too long. The public catches onto it and at the end of the day, respect is what makes your career thrive. That's why someone like Paula Abdul didn't really last for too long, despite being hugely popular, whereas someone like Patti LaBelle who has never truly slayed commercially has remained around and beloved for what she does as an entertainer.

[CosmicLover]

The truth is what Britney used to have was swag. She could do the most silly mediocre dance but she made it look good because she had that fire and was believable. If Britney still had that swag today she would still be just as big. Back then most of her performances were pre-recorded anyway but her performances were interesting enough that no one cared. Now that her performance level has gone down people slam her for the lipping twice as hard.