|
Poll: Christina vs. Britney
View Poll Results: Who's bigger now ?
|
Xtina
|
|
62 |
47.69% |
Britney
|
|
68 |
52.31% |
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Originally posted by PCiAM
I'm not lying, but ok, don't take my word for it. Just read what Clear Channel publicly stated about it. They deny it also publicly. so... either CC or Britney stans are lying and/or believing something someone else made up.
|
it's serious lol. and how the hell would britney have hits worldwide, sell millions of albums, be named most powerful celebrity yet have singles that flop ever since the tour sponsor/clear channel drama. her slave 4 u airplay even went downhill immediately after that.
and this
Quote:
January 22, 2002
The Honorable John Ashcroft
U.S. Attorney General
Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington DC 20530
The Honorable Michael K. Powell, Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
The Portals II
445 12th Street SW
Room 8B201
Washington DC 20554
Dear Attorney General Ashcroft and Chairman Powell:
I write to express my serious concern about vertical and horizontal integration in the radio, television, and concert promotion industries. Specifically, I am concerned about allegations that consolidation of these industries by Clear Channel Communications, Inc. has negatively affected recording artists, owners of sound recording copyrights, consumers, advertisers, and competitors in the radio and television industries. I would like to know whether your agencies have investigated the allegations detailed below, and if not, would encourage you to do so.
According to numerous press reports, as well as first hand accounts by affected recording artists and copyright owners, Clear Channel’s consolidation of the radio and concert promotion industries has had a variety of negative repercussions on recording artists, copyright owners, and consumers. It has been reported that Clear Channel has “punished” recording artists, including Britney Spears, for their refusal to use its concert promotion service, Clear Channel Entertainment, by “burying” radio ads for their concerts and by refusing to play their songs on its radio stations. The consolidation of the radio industry also lends growing support to persistent allegations that record companies often must pay radio stations to play the music of their artists.
These allegations, if true, have obvious, negative implications for consumers, both through higher concert ticket prices and reduced selections of broadcast music. To the extent your respective agencies have jurisdiction to do so, I believe you should investigate and fully prosecute any violations of the antitrust laws or FCC regulations that have occurred in the above-referenced circumstances.
I am also concerned about related reports of “parking” or “warehousing” of radio and television stations by Clear Channel. These reports allege that Clear Channel has intentionally flouted FCC rules limiting ownership of multiple radio and television stations in numerous markets around the country, including Monterey, San Diego, San Francisco, Hudson NY, Catskills NY, Charlotte NC, Chillicothe OH, Oklahoma City OK, and Waco TX. According to the press accounts, Clear Channel often arranges for third parties, shell corporations, or related entities to buy radio and television stations in markets in which Clear Channel has already reached the ownership caps or been faced with public opposition or regulatory scrutiny. Clear Channel allegedly has arranged to officially “buy” these stations when, and if, the FCC lifts those caps.
I believe you should fully investigate these “warehousing” and “parking” allegations, and if true, should prosecute any violations of law. These acts may be illegal in and of themselves, and are likely to exacerbate the negative effects, outlined above, that consolidation has had on recording artists, copyright owners, advertisers, and consumers. It is also apparent that any investigation of possible antitrust violations by Clear Channel must consider the existence of “warehousing” or “parking” arrangements.
I would appreciate the favor of a reply at your earliest convenience concerning your agencies’ plans on this matter.
Respectfully,
HOWARD L. BERMAN
Member of Congress
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 8,890
|
Quote:
Originally posted by PCiAM
Also, CC publicly denies it as well.
|
As if they would admit to it!
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/3/2014
Posts: 1,858
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Eternium
|
Again, everyone was saying Britney could sell on her name alone and didn't need live performances up until BJ flopped.. and now they want to use the no promo excuse. In reality, lbr, had Britney performed live on television, it'd probably have the opposite effect than intended.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/3/2014
Posts: 1,858
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ItsJustMe.
it's serious lol. and how the hell would britney have hits worldwide, sell millions of albums, be named most powerful celebrity yet have singles that flop ever since the tour sponsor/clear channel drama. her slave 4 u airplay even went downhill immediately after that.
and this
|
That is a statement from a member of Congress, but again, where is the proof? Just b/c Britney spawned more successful singles worldwide than in the US doesn't necessarily mean she was blacklisted. "Dirrty" went no 1 in the UK and did VERY well worldwide, but flopped on US radio..
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 32,982
|
Quote:
Originally posted by PCiAM
I'm not lying, but ok, don't take my word for it. Just read what Clear Channel publicly stated about it. They deny it also publicly. so... either CC or Britney stans are lying and/or believing something someone else made up.
|
You realize Clear Channel lost a lawsuit over it, though, right? it was confirmed in 2003. You're over a decade late, beau.
Rep. Berman openly confronted them. And why do you think Clear Channel would openly admit to it? That would open a can of worms and they'd probably get sued to all hell by the Dixie Chicks, Usher, etc.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/22/2010
Posts: 12,270
|
Quote:
Originally posted by dirrtydiana
Omg I seem to have stricken a HUGE nerve and at xtina being radio banned too.
What was her last #1? Come on Over? Whatever it was, it was in the year 2000, making it 14 years since her last solo #1 and still counting cos who knows when her next one will be.
And death at you reaching for commutative weeks at #1. Toxic, and Oops which only reached #9 are bigger, more memorable, more impact-full, and sold more than Xtina and ha hits. And if we go down that road, then, yes, Brits always been week on the radio front but that didnt stop ha from selling. While Xtina was destined to be a feature force from the beginning i.e. Ricky Martin and JT.
All the angry rambling and yet you have disproof Britney being currently a bigger force than Xtina.
|
My nerves are fine lol You know a nerve has been struck in a Britney fan when they have resort to talking about "radio bans" even when they're not even relevant to the topic
You were counting Lady Marmalade as her last solo #1 before and I was going off that. And this year has barely started.
Britney definitely needs radio too like any other artist. See how sales of her third album nosedived with the lack of radio, and ITZ would have sold much less if it didn't have two radio singles. And obviously, even with radio play, FF and Circus haven't sold that much relatively speaking. You would think they would sell much more if she doesn't need airplay right?
And Christina has always been interested in collaboration. She was at the top of her game back then and did it because she wanted to not because she needed to. Her collaborators run a very respectable gamut to from jazz legends to classical artists. Who has requested Britney collaborate with them besides Miley Cyrus, will.i.am, and K-Fed?
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 17,550
|
Mess at some trying to call the radio ban fake. Y'all are doing the most
Radio bans do happen. It happened to chris brown for obv reasons and it also happened to Madonna in 2003. I think even Dirrty was black listed from the radio too but xtina ha self wasnt which is why Beautiful was able to succeed in the US.
Britney was black listed cos she decided to be sponsored by Pepsi and which is why Slave, INAG, Boys, Overprotected, and MATM never ever saw the light of the airwaves. This is why the Britney era had so many music videos. Her team decided to promote through MTV.
The ban was lifted when Toxic was released.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 32,982
|
Quote:
Originally posted by PCiAM
That is a statement from a member of Congress, but again, where is the proof? Just b/c Britney spawned more successful singles worldwide than in the US doesn't necessarily mean she was blacklisted. "Dirrty" went no 1 in the UK and did VERY well worldwide, but flopped on US radio..
|
I. AM. SCREAMING.
Google is your friend.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 2,289
|
Quote:
Originally posted by PCiAM
That is a statement from a member of Congress, but again, where is the proof? Just b/c Britney spawned more successful singles worldwide than in the US doesn't necessarily mean she was blacklisted. "Dirrty" went no 1 in the UK and did VERY well worldwide, but flopped on US radio..
|
what makes it even more obvious is that after she signed with clear channel again for the Onyx Hotel Tour she suddenly gained airplay again and had two radio hits with toxic and everytime.
and only one song flopping (Dirrty probably underperformed because of the controversy and the US was not ready lbr) is different than having all your singles flop when you're at your peak until you sign with them again.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 17,550
|
Quote:
Originally posted by atrlster
My nerves are fine lol You know a nerve has been struck in a Britney fan when they have resort to talking about "radio bans" even when they're not even relevant to the topic
You were counting Lady Marmalade as her last solo #1 before and I was going off that. And this year has barely started.
Britney definitely needs radio too like any other artist. See how sales of her third album nosedived with the lack of radio, and ITZ would have sold much less if it didn't have two radio singles. And obviously, even with radio play, FF and Circus haven't sold that much relatively speaking. You would think they would sell much more if she doesn't need airplay right?
And Christina has always been interested in collaboration. She was at the top of her game back then and did it because she wanted to not because she needed to. Her collaborators run a very respectable gamut to from jazz legends to classical artists. Who has requested Britney collaborate with them besides Miley Cyrus, will.i.am, and K-Fed?
|
Please stop quoting me if you really are as ignorant as to mistake someone calling LM her last SOLO #1
Not you bringing non-commercial collabs into the equation. The Ricky Martin collab was intended for Brit but she turned it down and Xtina got the hand me downs.
And not you about forgetting about MJ and Madonna. Yes, performances are collaborations and Madonna has shown more interest in Brit since 1999.
You just keep embarrassing yourself with every post.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/3/2014
Posts: 1,858
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ItsJustMe.
what makes it even more obvious is that after she signed with clear channel again for the Onyx Hotel Tour she suddenly gained airplay again and had two radio hits with toxic and everytime.
|
Then if that's true, Clear Channel is completely corrupt so radio charting positions (whether good or bad) are arbitrary as they're chosen based on an artist's deal with the radio station.
Under that assumption, the radio peaks of Toxic and Everytime are inflated due to her deal.
Regardless of any of this though, the Britney era featured the worst singles from Britney imo. All of her other eras and singles were better quality, .. my opinion only of course. I'm a Slave was good, but I don't think the other singles were comparable quality to her other's.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 41,181
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Eternium
Say Something and Feel This Moment together are about equal to Scream & Shout's WW success.
"Work B**ch" would've charted higher than KGB without Billboard's rule change. I think if you can call KGB a hit, then it's not too far-fetched to call WB a top ten
|
'Say Something' hasn't run its course yet. It's yet to be officially released or promoted in many major markets like the UK.
'WB' is not a top 10 and it couldn't reach the top 10 even with great airplay, pop radio support and streaming.Men lie, women lie, Britney stans lie, numbers don't. 'KGB' IS a hit. It sold 1.1 million copies in a time when iTunes was not yet a force, it peaked at #7 with no airplay and long before streaming was a part of the formula and it managed to sell a Target-exclusive GH album with only 1 other new track and 2 remixes, which ended up selling close to 500k.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/22/2010
Posts: 12,270
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Eternium
|
Oh I thought you were talking about someone besides her. But Stripped didn't even coincide that directly with In The Zone. So even if that was true, it wasn't at Britney's expense. By the time Me Against The Music came out, Christina was already on her 4th or 5th single.
It's more than one lol. But what's more important is being banned at influential stations. Like if Britney was banned, it would be more about her being banned at the influential stations than a number count. Anyone would flop if they still missed the influential stations
If you do 9 performances, but you never perform your first single live is it any good? Singles are what sell any album not random album tracks.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/3/2014
Posts: 1,858
|
Quote:
Originally posted by atrlster
Oh I thought you were talking about someone besides her. But Stripped didn't even coincide that directly with In The Zone. So even if that was true, it wasn't at Britney's expense. By the time Me Against The Music came out, Christina was already on her 4th or 5th single.
It's more than one lol. But what's more important is being banned at influential stations. Like if Britney was banned, it would be more about her being banned at the influential stations than a number count. Anyone would flop if they still missed the influential stations
If you do 9 performances, but you never perform your first single live is it any good? Singles are what sell any album not random album tracks.
|
Christina also did a few performances promoting Lotus sure, but there was a huge public aversion to her at the time. I'll be honest--her "looks" during the Lotus era were a hot mess, and that 2012 AMA performance she did was horrendous, which turned a lot of people.
One year later, X has lost a lot of weight--and anyone on this board who will deny Christina credit for Say Something becoming a top 5 hit is misguided, in my opinion. No one knew about that song or A Great Big World until after Christina contacted them, asked to re-record as a duet, and THEN performed it on The Voice + the AMAs, where Christina was critically lauded vs lambasted the year prior. While AGWB composed/wrote the beautiful song, Christina can definitely be contributed for a huge factor (if not the predominant) for its commercial success on the charts.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 17,550
|
This is such a mess. This is really a very tired topic just as it was 15 years ago.
To put this all to rest, forget about sales, hits, charts, radio, etc.
Simply put: which of the two has a base on ATRL (a pop music ww forum) with over one million views, 15 years into their careers? This proves which of the two still has people interested in them, almost 2 decades since their debut.
There.
/endthread
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 41,181
|
Quote:
Originally posted by dirrtydiana
This is such a mess. This is really a very tired topic just as it was 15 years ago.
To put this all to rest, forget about sales, hits, charts, radio, etc.
Simply put: which of the two has a base on ATRL (a pop music ww forum) with over one million views, 15 years into their careers? This proves which of the two still has people interested in them, almost 2 decades since their debut.
There.
/endthread
|
If ATRL determined relevancy, Zendaya would be selling like Lorde, GaGa would have 3 #1 singles from 'ARTPOP' and 'Britney Jean' would have sold 700k in the first week.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/22/2010
Posts: 12,270
|
Quote:
Originally posted by dirrtydiana
Please stop quoting me if you really are as ignorant as to mistake someone calling LM her last SOLO #1
Not you bringing non-commercial collabs into the equation. The Ricky Martin collab was intended for Brit but she turned it down and Xtina got the hand me downs.
And not you about forgetting about MJ and Madonna. Yes, performances are collaborations and Madonna has shown more interest in Brit since 1999.
You just keep embarrassing yourself with every post.
|
Stop changing your story then and go back a few page if you have some amnesia. First you bring up Lady Marmalade as how it's been such a long time since Christina's last #1. And then the next second, you're resorting to Come On Over Baby. If you're going to keep changing your standards and keep nitpicking, then we might go with the absolute truth which is Moves Like Jagger which is her last #1 bottomline.
Who said Nobody Wants To Be Lonely was meant for Britney? Ricky has always said that he wanted that song specifically for Christina
If you're talking about live performances, Christina was there too with Madonna. And that MJ concert had tons of people. And commercially, Christina's collaborations are still more succesful
The only thing embarrassing here is you
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/3/2014
Posts: 1,858
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Truth Teller
If ATRL was all it takes for an artist to be relevant, Zendaya would be selling like Lorde, GaGa would have 3 #1 singles from 'ARTPOP' and 'Britney Jean' would have sold 700k in the first week.
|
This.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 17,550
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Truth Teller
If ATRL determined relevancy, Zendaya would be selling like Lorde, GaGa would have 3 #1 singles from 'ARTPOP' and 'Britney Jean' would have sold 700k in the first week.
|
Completely missed the point. Not surprised.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 41,181
|
Quote:
Originally posted by dirrtydiana
Completely missed the point. Not surprised.
|
Not at all. My response was totally relevant to the part of the quote that I bolded. If you're looking for missing points, don't read my comment, read the comment I quoted.
|
|
|
|
|