| |
Discussion: Is Britney Spears risky?
Member Since: 3/12/2011
Posts: 12,030
|
Quote:
Originally posted by JonnyϟLightning
It's common knowledge that Xtina is riskier than Britney.
Xtina explored many genres in her art, while Britney's music just rode off trends.
|
so there were pop songs like Hold It Against Me in 2011 or in 2010 
and you're a Katy perry stan stop.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/2/2012
Posts: 37,284
|
Quote:
Originally posted by EdicsonHades
OMG!!   Only "Not Myself Tonight" is enough risky, but i am not going to keep arguing with you , probably you have 14 years old. |
I honestly won't even answer to those posts calling Toxic risky. A risk is releasing an album like Back To Basics. Maybe the GP wouldn't have been here for it, that's a risk. Toxic was a 100% guaranteed hit and her label knew it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/25/2012
Posts: 44,884
|
Quote:
Originally posted by swissman
People are confusing releasing a song that sounds individual and releasing a song that is a risk. They also seem to confuse doing something controversial and doing something risky. Controversy isn't a risky these days, it's a means of being noticed.
|
Well if that's the case, ITZ and Blackout are still considered to be risky. And also, if you put it that way, then no pop artist is risky except for Madonna, Michael and somewhat Britney.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/27/2012
Posts: 20,342
|
I love britney, but let's be serious. There is nothing risky about being a pop star who makes pop music. Seriously guys just stop.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/12/2011
Posts: 12,030
|
Quote:
Originally posted by SebaMonster
I honestly won't even answer to those posts calling Toxic risky. A risk is releasing an album like Back To Basics. Maybe the GP wouldn't have been here for it, that's a risk. Toxic was a 100% guaranteed hit and her label knew it.
|
so you heard songs like Toxic in 2004 when the whole radio was dominated by the likes of Ashanti, Ciara, Beyoncé, Jay-Z, Kanye West etc.
ok
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/9/2009
Posts: 6,108
|
Quote:
Originally posted by JonnyϟLightning
It's common knowledge that Xtina is riskier than Britney.
Xtina explored many genres in her art, while Britney's music just rode off trends.
|
What happened to you Jonny? 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/8/2011
Posts: 7,309
|
Yes she is.
She is ocassionaly risky musically ("In the zone" and "Blackout")
She is most of the times risky image-wise
and she is risky as a star, she is a rebel anti-hollywood star, she doesn't follow any type of hollywood conventional norms. like the 90% of celebrities do. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/16/2011
Posts: 7,542
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/12/2011
Posts: 12,030
|
Quote:
Originally posted by nezLaos
I love britney, but let's be serious. There is nothing risky about being a pop star who makes pop music. Seriously guys just stop.
|
but Britney is more than just a pop star, if that were the case then how many pop stars of this generation were able to get the chance to perfom with the King and Queen of Pop while they were alive?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/25/2012
Posts: 44,884
|
Quote:
Originally posted by SebaMonster
I honestly won't even answer to those posts calling Toxic risky. A risk is releasing an album like Back To Basics. Maybe the GP wouldn't have been here for it, that's a risk. Toxic was a 100% guaranteed hit and her label knew it.
|
Again, you seem ignorant. Toxic wasn't even supposed to be a single. Britney fought for it to be a single.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/12/2011
Posts: 12,030
|
So Toxic was generic but yet in 2004 songs like Crazy in Love, Goodies were dominating the radio
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 10/8/2011
Posts: 7,309
|
Yes she is.
She is ocassionaly risky musically ("In the zone" and "Blackout" best examples)
She is most of the times risky image-wise (performances, music videos, etc)
and she is risky as a star, she is a rebel anti-hollywood star, she doesn't follow any type of hollywood conventional norms. like the 90% of celebrities do.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/13/2012
Posts: 62,082
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Errrlend
|
"Time" is not what led Britney to begin the pop-step trend  No one else was doing it. No one. In the beginning of the project, she was working on dubstep-pop influenced records with producer Rusko but that material was scrapped. The vision was maintained and Luke was made the exec. I swear, people know so LITTLE about this
Quote:
Originally posted by JonnyϟLightning
It's common knowledge that Xtina is riskier than Britney.
Xtina explored many genres in her art, while Britney's music just rode off trends.
|
I'd agree that Xtina is pretty risky, but Britney didn't "ride off trends". She started them. People just fail to notice the trends she basically revolutionized (maybe not HER, but her team - either way, tho). On the subject of Xtina, though, do you call "Your Body" risky? Maybe risky as in it's too generic to be a hit. I do agree that she was riskier than Britney at one point, but... not after Bionic.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/27/2012
Posts: 18,963
|
Quote:
Originally posted by collin
See, I do understand where you're coming from. She fit nicely in with each trend, but was kind of ahead of the curve when it came to each album. She was the first to do every thing (and soon after everyone followed, the sound became what we call "generic"). In The Zone led the urban-pop trend, Circus led the electro-pop trend, FF led the pop-step trend.
|
I agree. She has always been ahead, not behind. But that is having the foresight enough to know what is hot and what will be hot for the next couple years. Being ahead of the curve doesn't mean you're taking a risk. It actually kind of means you're playing it safe if you're making music that you think will be popular. And the reason I say that is because it's Britney Spears. Her label most definitely has a team devoted to analyzing trends and finding out which genres will be most profitable.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/27/2012
Posts: 20,342
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Josh
but Britney is more than just a pop star, if that were the case then how many pop stars of this generation were able to get the chance to perfom with the King and Queen of Pop while they were alive?
|
Girl bye. Now your trolling, madonna is still alive. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/13/2012
Posts: 62,082
|
Quote:
Originally posted by SebaMonster
I honestly won't even answer to those posts calling Toxic risky. A risk is releasing an album like Back To Basics. Maybe the GP wouldn't have been here for it, that's a risk. Toxic was a 100% guaranteed hit and her label knew it.
|
They might have known it would be a hit, yes. I mean, anything Britney does is a hit. That's why people call her generic and not risky, because it's always a hit for her. Toxic would've been a risk for ANY other artist in the game at that time, but not Britney because she could pull it off? Toxic literally changed the game, tho.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/12/2011
Posts: 12,030
|
Collin is amazing even if he stans for Ke$ha
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/13/2012
Posts: 62,082
|
Quote:
Originally posted by swissman
I agree. She has always been ahead, not behind. But that is having the foresight enough to know what is hot and what will be hot for the next couple years. Being ahead of the curve doesn't mean you're taking a risk. It actually kind of means you're playing it safe if you're making music that you think will be popular. And the reason I say that is because it's Britney Spears. Her label most definitely has a team devoted to analyzing trends and finding out which genres will be most profitable.
|
The thing is, if anyone ELSE in the game was making ahead-of-the-curve moves like Britney, it'd be considered risky. I understand her team is in charge of most of it, but either way it's risky.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/24/2011
Posts: 1,421
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/13/2012
Posts: 62,082
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Josh
Collin is amazing even if he stans for Ke$ha
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
