The "Britney Has A Deep Voice" Delusion

It sometimes feels as if Britney fandom is a kind of global religion, with all its different faiths, beliefs, forms of worship, orthodoxies, sects and cults. One of the strangest and most impenetrable sects is the bunch of people whose mantra is that “Britney has a deep voice”.

This would be no more than a highly questionable observation were it not for the conclusions they draw from it. Basically, if you hear a high voice on a Britney song, it’s not Britney. It can’t be, because she has a deep voice.

And so you find a whole bedroom industry dedicated to the familar sport of trying to take away from Britney any credit that might be due. We discover attempts to prove that somebody else sang most of the song in question; attempts that are almost always fatally flawed by the assumption that Britney’s lead vocal is always at center and if you take the center channel out you’re left with the proportion of the song that’s supposedly sung by somebody else.

The determination of these supersleuths to find derelictions in Britney’s studio performances blinds them to something that’s incredibly obvious when you listen on headphones - the lead vocal isn’t always at center! On some tracks almost all of the lead vocal is divided between the left and right channels! Sometimes it's multi-tracked! And, unless you’re dedicated to undermining Britney, it’s beyond question that the voice is her own.

However, over at my own site, www.newbritneyology.com, as well as in comments here at PoorBritney, I’m regularly informed of some amazing discoveries: Keri Hilson sang most of “Gimme More” and of “Break The Ice”! Kara DioGuardi sang most of “Ooh Ooh Baby”! Nicole Morier sang most of “Heaven on Earth”! And so on. I’ve even been informed that “Toxic” was actually an unacknowledged duet between Britney and Cathy Dennis. Somebody had to sing the high bits after all....

There is actually no auditory reason to believe such claims. Most of “Toxic” is so obviously Britney that nobody disputes it. But what about those high parts? That can’t be Britney, right? She has a deep voice! So it must be.... who else was on the track...... Cathy Dennis by elimination! But her voice isn’t especially high, and it doesn’t sound like her at all. Similarly with the claims that Ina Wroldsen sang the chorus on “He About To Lose Me”. It sounds a lot more like Britney on the chorus of "You Oughta Know" than it sounds like Ina.

The claim that “Britney has a deep voice” flies in the face of the evidence anyway. Her lengthy recording history shows her singing in a variety of registers, including a high one, and using falsetto quite freely too. Away back on “OIDIA”, most of the tracks towards the end of the album are sung in a much higher voice than those at the start. Who do the doubters think sang “You Got It All”, “Heart” and especially “Dear Diary”?

On “Britney” there are also several high-voiced tracks, such as “Anticipating”, “Cinderella”, and especially “When I Found You” to contrast with the deeper-voiced tracks like “Let Me Be” or “Overprotected”. On “In The Zone” you have songs like “Breathe on Me”, “Touch of my Hand”, “Don’t Hang Up” and “Everytime”. On “Circus” you have “Mannequin”, “Rock Me In” and especially “My Baby”. Is anyone disputing that Britney’s singing them?

Yes, actually. Some people are. Despite the very clear statement by an eminent record producer that “you can’t manufacture tone”, there are those among the more conspiriatorially inclined portion of the fanbase who think you can. All you do is take all the recognisable characteristics of Britney’s voice (“How?” one might gently enquire) and “blend” them with a high-voiced singer and Bob's your Auntie.

If this procedure was as readily achieved as some people think, it would be of great interest to the criminal fraternity. To me it seems beyond laughable, and you can Google from now till this time next year and you won’t find a single article on the professional studio websites and online magazines confirming that it can be done or explaining how. Yet certain individuals regularly assure me that it’s standard practice and everybody does it. Complete delusion, but they’d sooner believe that than accept that Britney can sing in anything other than a deep voice. That’s their faith and their religion.

Down with Cynicism!

Is it wrong for a Britney fan to be biased in her favor? I only ask because I’ve gotten in trouble so many times for alleging that somebody wasn’t much of a fan because they refused to cut her any slack whatsoever. The response was usually that the person refused to lick her boots and make excuses for everything she does or doesn’t do. But isn’t that the point of being a fan? You aren’t supposed to be neutral.

I’m entirely neutral about Beyonce or Lady GaGa, for example. If I hear something bad said about them, I may or may not believe it, but I don’t feel any obligation to defend them - because I’m not a fan. I leave it to their fans to stick up for them, show loyalty and, yes, make excuses. I expect them to, and would be disappointed if they didn’t. It’s belief and confidence in their heroes that makes them fans.

I have to say, though, that I can’t remember ever being disappointed by any wavering in the faith and commitment of Beyonce’s or GaGa’s fans. “Every day is Beyonce day!” trumpets one blogger. Britney’s fans are something else. Maybe it’s because she’s a lifestyle choice for us and not just a performer, and what we think or say about her is a reflection on our whole selves and not just our musical tastes? A lot of fans seem to be hiding something under a world-weary and knowing exterior.

They say that cynics are disillusioned idealists, and maybe in later life that’s what they are. I don’t think we can say that about young cynics. I think they’re people who are insecure in their beliefs, preferences and choices and are anxious not to appear naive and gullible to those who display great certainty or who claim to know “the truth”. They don’t want to be called “Britards” by the Wise Ones with their savage, sneering put-downs.

It’s a little sad to come to the realisation that so many of Britney’s fans lack the certainty displayed by those of most other artists. They find themselves drawn to her for some reason, they find that they like her, maybe at home they’re secret obsessives but, in the final analysis, they are truly unsure if she’s any good or not.

This uncertainty leaves these fans unhealthily open to negativity and equally unhealthily cynical about anything positive that may be said about Britney. One of her choreographers recently commented that she had great instincts. This seemed an innocent enough remark to make about someone who had been in the business of performing for enough years to be able to come up with constructive suggestions.

But on at least one forum the remark was greeted with a storm of criticism of Britney’s current dancing, as if an alleged deterioration in her physical abilities somehow disqualified her from knowing anything about putting on a show. That’s not being “realistic” or “telling things as they are”. That’s being OVER-eager to take a negative stance. One young gentleman kindly informed us that we couldn’t believe what the choreographer said anyway, because “obviously people she works with will say nice things about her”.

Now it may well be true that people she’s currently working with will say nice things about her if they have to, but usually they don’t have to. Unless you’re deeply cynical, you might possibly be able to accept that someone may say something nice as a spontaneous, uncalculated and honest reflection of what they actually think.

We get the same kind of unnecessary cynicism about the many complimentary things said about Britney by record producers she has worked with in her lengthy career. “They have to say that, etc. etc.” No, they DON’T! They don’t have to say anything, and even if asked they could say “no comment”, like the producer who had it put to him that he wouldn’t have to use any Pro-tools on Beyonce’s voice because it was so wonderful already.

Most of these producers have been spurred to comment as a reaction AGAINST the igorance and negativity so routinely expressed about Britney’s singing ability by people who only have theories and no personal knowledge. Yet the cynics would prefer to get in line behind the doubters and haters because they find it impossible to accept that the producers may actually have been telling the truth. Surely EVERY producer can’t still be on Britney’s payroll? Wouldn’t you find at least a couple of embittered ones whose songs weren’t used on her albums? Embittered former security guards haven’t felt any need to sugar-coat their accusations.

I dunno. Do you find the fans of any other artist endlessly picking away at every performance, every video, every tour, every piece of singing? Do they look desperately for body-doubles and refuse to believe the evidence of photoshoots, that people can look very different from one day to the next? Do Katy Perry or Kesha fans spend hours searching for dubious microscopic evidence that they don’t sing such and such a line in such and such a song? I don’t think so. And it’s not JUST because they’re fans, it’s because they’re normal human beings, not cynics or people too insecure to believe.

If I was allowed to nominate the Eighth Deadly Sin, it would be cynicism. It’s corrosive, it’s nihilistic, it leaves us with doubt but no possibility of reassurance, it undermines values and creates none of its own. It throws shade at everything, whether deserved or not. And it isn’t smart. Have the endless doubters and conspiracy theorists never heard of Occam’s Razor? It’s a principle of philosophy sometimes known as “the rejection of unnecessary hypotheses”. You have to learn that there’s a time to doubt and a time to believe. Believing only the negative isn’t the answer. It’s a sign of inexperience and lack of judgment.

Processing 30-yr-old Britney needs New Neural Pathways!

t’s going to happen very soon. Britney is going to enter her 30s. She says she can’t wait to get there, for all the great things she foresees in the next few years. But a fair proportion of her fans have difficuties in moving on from 2001 and can rarely see anything positive in anything she is, does or becomes. To them, there’s nothing to look forward to in her being 30. They’re getting ready to be dissatisfied over and over again until she finally retires.

To some of the youngest fans, a 30-year-old Britney will look like someone from an much older generation. When you’re a teenager, all ages over 30 kind of run together and are just “old”. When you’re in your 20s, it all becomes more desperate because you can see it coming for YOU. At midnight on your 30th birthday you suddenly stop being young. You don’t keep walking along the same road. Oh no. You fall over a precipice.

Already we see fans finding it difficult to accept that she isn’t 18 anymore. Their invariable reaction is to lash out and whine about how she “isn’t what she used to be”. Would this be a good moment to go “Duh”? Outside of the fanbase, people may be saying she’s still one of the hugest stars on the planet, back to her best, better than ever, yada yada. People may be saying she looks amazing in all of her recent public appearances and photoshoots, yada yada. The fans know better.

Quite honestly, I don’t know why they stick around. If everything about Britney makes you miserable, well.... your constant whingeing is making ME miserable too, so why not get the hell out and go cheer for Miley Cyrus? The old Britney ain’t never coming back. She will become increasingly adult, increasingly mature and gracious, increasingly experienced as a singer, but less edgy, less dangerous, less of a trainwreck, less of a media magnet, less.....fun. She won’t allow herself to look “trashy” again.

Her manner will be more dignified, calmer, quieter, more thoughtful. That’s what usually happens when you get older and realise what a loon you were in your 20s. Some fans will call this “robotic”. She’ll be energetic and hyperactive as always, but she’ll harness her energy and direct it in a more considered, more measured way. Even if you “free” Britney, she won’t be that crazy girl running around all over LA at night. Been there, done that. She doesn’t go back - that’s why SHE is looking forward.

She’s in a position now where she can look at things with perspective. All of the biggest influences on her life and career - Jamie, Larry, Adam, Jason - are grown-up men and all are wise and calm in their own ways. You can already see their influence on Britney. Her “people” won’t be able to treat her like a little girl anymore, even if they want to, and she won’t feel in the position of being made to keep running against her will, or of having to set herself uncomfortable goals. There will be space in her life when she wants it.

Her private life will be increasingly domesticated and relatively ordinary for a multi-millionaire. It’s been obvious for years that this little Southern girl has no appetite for showbiz shenannigans or famous friends, and that the biggest things in her life are her family, her boyfriend and God. Way back in 2004, Randy Taraborrelli wrote about how much she envied her childhood girlpals back in Louisiana for having such normal family lives, and now she’s in a position to be just like them.

I think we can be pretty sure that there’ll be a lot less “OMG” paparazzi moments, but more formal photoshoots, and if people want to complain about “photoshopping” that’s tough. All formal celebrity photoshoots are Photoshopped these days - literally all - so you can confidently compare like with like, even if you don’t know what any of the celebrities really look like. We will probably never get that Playboy photoshoot now, and our last chance to see Britney nude will be if she decides to shoot an uninhibited movie love scene.

She may be self-conscious about that, because her body will tend to look “heavier” or “thicker” than it did when she made “Crossroads”. Not necessarily fatter. Some people go back to stick-thin after childbirth, but Britney’s natural body shape was never stick thin (even though she’s occasionally made herself look that way) and it’s obvious that she has wider hips and heavier breasts now. In one of her earliest interviews, she predicted that in 10 years time her butt would have dropped to the floor, but it’s still one of the most delicious butts in showbiz, and her legs are ay-may-zing, so there’s still much to admire.

There will be further changes though, because she will get pregnant again, probably within the next two years (hands up those who never thought she could wait THIS long). Who knows what changes that will bring? Maybe she’ll always be quite a plump young lady after that, but with her traditional appetite for working out, I doubt it. We can only hope there won’t be another bout of post-partum depression - which is what some people claim was the beginning of her troubles in the first place.

One thing you can be sure of - her next pregnancy won’t be derided as an event in High Trash. The media mood music around Britney is totally different these days. She’s going to be over 30, she looks great, she’s made it through the rain, she’s a showbiz icon and the editorial comment on her next addition to the family will be greeted by the kind of gushingly appreciative editorial feature normally reserved for Beyonce.

Musically, there won’t be a massive transformation. Much as I’d love to hear Britney sing the kinds of song that make Rumer’s “Seasons of my Soul” possibly the most beautiful album I’ve ever listened to, I know it won’t happen. Like Madonna, she’ll push her music in many different directions and keep it at the cutting edge, but it will always be pop. She won’t suddenly morph into a country singer like Jessica Simpson, or start doing Broadway.

I just hope the fans can adjust their minds to all of this. Maybe create a few new neural pathways to help them process the concepts “Britney Spears” and “Over 30”. Maybe it would be easier if nostalgia was to relocate itself from 2001 to 2008? That way we could all see the next decade of Britney as the continuation of a Golden Age of personal transformation and amazing, non-stop music making.

In Depth: He About To Lose Me

“He About To Lose Me”, one of the bonus tracks on the “Femme Fatale” album, has been a fan favorite since the pre-release leaks began, and gas managed to remain so, despite a certain controversy, to which I will return shortly. Although I have seen a handful of critical remarks about the song, most fans seem to love the strength and musical integrity of the melody and the freshness of the lyrics. It’s instantly ear-grabbing, and it’s interesting to note that, although it is a bonus track, Britney has named it as one of her favorites too.

“He About To Lose Me” was written by Rodney “Darkchild” Jerkins and young Norwegian singer/songwriter Ina Wroldsen, produced by Rodney Jerkins and mixed by Jerkins and Serban Ghenea. No instrumentalists are credited on the track, which presumably means all the instrumental tracks are programmed creations. Three “background” singers are named - Britney Spears, Ina Wroldsen and Michaela Shiloh.

The song has a familiar structure, with Verse Part 1, Verse Part 2, Chorus and Bridge.These are the lyrics:

I’m touching hands with someone seriously beautiful, eh-ah-eh-eh
I feel it burning and I know I'm standing far too close, eh-ah-eh-eh
I'm telling lies and if it shows I see that he don't care, eh-ah-eh-eh
I know he wants to take me home and get on outta here, eh-ah-eh-eh

I got someone waiting at home
He says he in love but lately I just don't know
He don't see me or make me feel hot
Banging in the club with all my ladies and he don't know that

He about to lose, 'bout to lose, 'bout to lose me
He about to lose me, eh-eh-eh
He about to lose, 'bout to lose, 'bout to lose me
He about to lose me, eh-eh-eh-eh... eh-eh-eh... eh-eh

I feel my body losing focus as he touches me, eh-ah-eh-eh
And I should go but I can't overcome this chemistry, eh-ah-eh-eh
He pulls me close before he whispers something in my ear, eh-ah-eh-eh
He says he wants to take me home and get me outta here, eh-ah-eh-eh

I got someone waiting at home
He says he in love but lately I just don't know
He don't see me or make me feel hot
Banging in the club with all my ladies and he don't know that

He about to lose, 'bout to lose, 'bout to lose me
He about to lose me, eh-eh-eh
He about to lose, 'bout to lose, 'bout to lose me
He about to lose me, eh-eh-eh-eh... eh-eh-eh... eh-eh

Someone by the bar keeps looking at us dancing
I see him staring at me, I see where he wants to be
Someone by the bar keeps looking at us dancing
I gotta, I gotta go, he don't know that

He about to lose, 'bout to lose, 'bout to lose me,
He about to lose me, eh-eh-eh
He about to lose, 'bout to lose, 'bout to lose me
He about to lose me, eh-eh-eh
He about to lose, 'bout to lose, 'bout to lose me
He about to lose me, eh-eh-eh
He about to lose, 'bout to lose, 'bout to lose me
He about to lose me, eh-eh-eh... eh-eh

I'm touching hands with someone seriously beautiful, eh-ah-eh-eh

I can quote these lyrics with unusual confidence in their accuracy, because Britney’s diction is extremely clear. Indeed it is largely because of the overall quality of her vocals that most fans have taken particular notice of this song. This is what I wrote in my review of the album: “Rodney Jerkins contributes a beautiful song that brings out the best in Britney. She seems, amazingly, to revert to her pre-Jive voice – natural, unaffected, sweet of tone, open-voiced, with lovely vibrato applied to selected lines.”

It is more than annoying, then, to observe that a fair proportion of fans have convinced themselves, and others, that Britney doesn’t sing the chorus. The argument raged on numerous forums for quite some time - does she or doesn’t she? And in the end the issue remained unresolved. Unfortunately, I’m now seeing fans stating as an accepted fact that she doesn’t sing the chorus. I think they’re completely wrong, and I’ll give two categories of reason, one based on logic and one based on listening.

Taking the logic first, why would she NEED to do it? The demands of the chorus in terms of range and dynamics are well within her capabilities. And do you think she would allow a track on one of her albums to go out with someone else’s voice singing the most prominent part of one of her favorite songs? I don’t. The chorus comprises almost half of the song -16 lines out of 37 - and if someone else was singing it, that would make it a duet. And if it was in fact a duet, wouldn’t Britney have given credit to the duettist? She is famously generous in giving credit to others. For someone else to sing 16 lines of a 37-line song would be a bigger contribution than Sabi makes to (Drop Dead) Beautiful.

Rodney Jerkins told the fans that he was responding to their demands by not applying processing to Britney’s voice. Is it likely that he would have so little integrity that he would make that commitment then go and use an entirely different singer? Seriously! These conspiracy theories go into the realms of extreme fantasy. The standard of argument on the “she doesn’t sing it” side is shown, for example, by claims that the chorus was sung by Myah Marie, but she isn’t even on the track and has denied it anyway!

But if you want to say “damn the logic, it just doesn’t SOUND like Britney” we have to consider the alternatives - Ina Wroldsen and Michaela Shiloh. Ina has a soft-edged, folksy voice and Michaela has an r&b/soul inflected one and the chorus doesn’t sound a bit like either of them. And now cast your mind back to the Circus tour and “You Oughta Know” - B’s voice on the chorus of that song sounds very like the voice on the chorus of HATLM, and I guess the only reason why fans believe it was her singing “You Oughta Know” is that they saw her doing it.

I hesitate to mention good quality headphones and a good quality CD player, but if you use them you can hear the wide stereo spacing of the double tracked vocals in the chorus become narrower, then centralised just before the end, and at that point it’s easy to tell that it’s Britney. During the final (repeated) chorus, a center track joins the double tracked stereo pair and here again this simply emphasizes that it’s Britney singing. There is no “blending” of another voice - that is just a figment of some people’s imaginations. In Verse Part 2, there are two voices singing in harmony, but this is Britney providing a background vocal to herself. The only place where the other background vocalists are employed is in the bridge: “Someone by the bar keeps looking at us dancing...”

Having gotten all of that out of the way, I think we can now simply give our unconditional appreciation to the wonder of Britney’s vocals on “He About To Lose Me”. It’s like a reaffirmation that she can still do it, still sing with power and pull out that warm, emotional voice that charmed and captivated us all those years ago, and what is more, show us that she sounds a great deal better with her voice free of the processing and robo-Britney mannerisms that have invaded much of “Femme Fatale”.

Instrumental accompaniment is mostly guitar and percussion. There is no bass track as such. A simple strummed guitar plays through most of the song, but engages in more assertive chords that provide counterpoint to the vocal melody during the chorus. A jagged, stabbing fuzzy guitar joins the kick drum at 0.25 and both of them play through most of the song, only falling silent at the ends of the first two choruses.

Imagining your head as a stereo soundstage and listening with headphones, the strummed guitar and percussion are at center and the fuzzy guitar is split between left and right channels. Britney’svocal during Verse Part 1 is at center, with the “eh-ah-eh-eh” parts split into a narrow stereo pair. In Verse Part 2 her lead vocal is at center and the harmony she sings with herself is in a narrow double-tracked stereo pair. In the first two choruses, as mentioned above, Britney’s voice is double-tracked as a wider stereo pair, but in the final chorus she is also singing at center. In the bridge, Britney is at center and the background vocalists can be heard at various locations.

In summary, “He About To Lose Me” is based upon simplicity - a simply constructed song, simple production and stripped down accompaniment. And this simplicity does not undermine or detract anything at all. Rather, it allows the beauty of the song and of Britney’s vocals to shine all the more brightly for not being masked in synthesized artifice.

Britney Spears and that Strange Sense of Longing

This is probably the weirdest article ever written about Britney, but I’m going ahead with it anyway. I know some readers will be saying “What was she smokin’ that day?!” but I think it was worthwhile to write it in the hope of reaching out to a few fans who will know EXACTLY what I’m talking about. I’m going to talk about a phenomenon that is almost inexplicable, yet is experienced in some way by many people. I want to see if any readers agree with me that Britney’s singing evokes this experience.

I’ll begin with a sidestep. One afternoon a few weeks ago, while I was working, I began to think about a certain song. And even thinking about it made me cry. Not just once - seven times in the same afternoon. I just couldn’t think about this song without being taken over by some strange emotions that I couldn’t quite identify. In my mind I kept being transported towards a different place and time, with its own emotional atmosphere. It felt important and significant that I could almost glimpse this place and time, yet if I tried to focus directly on it or analyse it, the feelings began to disappear.

The song was “The Folks Who Live On The Hill” as sung by Peggy Lee. She was a gentle, sweet, sensitive singer and she chose to sing this song in the softest voice imaginable. No belting, no histrionics, no show-off climaxes. The song was originally from a stage musical and wasn’t sentimental - it was actually quite humorous, in its own subtle way, poking fun at some “white picket fences” folksy imaginings. The way Peggy Lee sang it seemed so straight and simple, yet for many listeners it taps directly into a deep emotional well and is more profound than funny.

In my recent review of “Unusual You” I referred briefly to the experience of “Sehnsucht”, and this, I believe, is what surrounds Peggy Lee’s “The Folks Who Live On the Hill”. “Sehnsucht” is a German word that, in its most literal sense, means “longing”, but the experience is a lot more complex and intangible than that. The great Irish-born writer C.S. Lewis, in attempting to explain it, admits that “I am trying to rip open the inconsolable secret in each one of you - the secret which hurts so much that you take your revenge on it by calling it names like Nostalgia and Romanticism... the secret we cannot hide and cannot tell though we desire to do both. We cannot tell it because it is a desire for something which has never actually appeared in our experience.”

He continues: “[The poet] Wordsworth’s expedient was to identify it with certain moments in his own past. But all this is a cheat. If Wordsworth had gone back to those moments in the past, he would not have found the thing itself, but only the reminder of it; what he remembered would turn out to be itself a remembering. The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing. These things—the beauty, the memory of our own past—are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshippers. For they are not the thing itself; they are only the scent of a flower we have not found, the echo of a tune we have not heard, news from a country we have never yet visited.”

Wikipedia makes a gallant effort at a slightly more prosaic account: “It is sometimes felt as a longing for a far off country, but not a particular earthly land which we can identify... At other times it may seem as a longing for a someone or even a something. But the majority of people who experience it are not conscious of what or who the longed for object may be. Indeed, the longing is of such profundity and intensity that the subject may immediately be only aware of the emotion itself and not cognizant that there is a something longed for. Yet though one may not be able to identify just what it is, the experience is one of such significance that ordinary reality may pale in comparison...”

Triggers for these experiences vary widely from individual to individual. C.S. Lewis gives his as “the smell of bonfire, the sound of wild ducks flying overhead, the title of The Well at the World's End, the opening lines of "Kubla Khan", the morning cobwebs in late summer, or the noise of falling waves.” The Transition Gallery’s JT 09 project refers to “images of intense urban wilderness... washed out beautiful boys... fragile Northern landscapes”.

For me, it’s the image of Baby and Joe in Peggy Lee’s song (even typing those words makes me cry), some Grant Wood paintings, the song "Wonderful, wonderful" by Johnny Mathis, the low, pink afternoon winter sun in a suburban street, overhead power lines, street life (hearing “Summertime” by Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince actually makes me feel faint) and.... Britney Spears’ voice. The songs that hit me hardest are a random enough selection, but here are a few examples: “Anticipating”, “Radar”, “Unusual You”, “Tell me what ya sippin’ on”, “State of Grace”, “Sugarfall” and “Why Should I Be Sad”. Some of these songs should be superficial and jolly, but Britney transforms them into something almost mystical. They all make me experience Sehnsucht. The words don’t matter. I barely hear them.The sound of Britney’s voice transports me to the edge of that elusive, mysterious place.

Is it because Britney’s soft, sweet voice has the same direct entree to the emotions as Peggy Lee’s? Do her off-stage whispers touch us on a subconscious level? Is it that the impression she gives of innocence and naivety makes us long for things we didn't understand as children? Is it because she ends words and phrases with a gentle, fading cadence instead of a sharp, snappy assertiveness? Is it because she always chooses quietness and stillness over loudness and drama? Is it because her unusual phrasing, steering away from conventional singers’ mannerisms, sounds so honest and heartfelt? Is it the way she sometimes holds back a fraction from the beat and seems to make time slow down? Is it because it sounds as if SHE is always searching for that longed-for thing that she can almost glimpse out of the corner of her eye but never quite grasp? This is a woman who has been on a long spiritual journey.

I threw out a lot of options there, and I’m not going to vote for any of them. I don’t want to influence you in any direction because this whole thing is very personal. I know it’s a very different thing to analyse how she creates the experience of Sehnsucht than to analyse the experience of Sehnsucht she creates, but each of you is probably hearing different things, and responding to different songs in different ways. Even if a lot of us agree that she calls up strange and elusive feelings with her singing, we may not be in agreement about exactly how she does it. I'd love to hear what you think, because I want to develop this subject further.

I have to finish on an anxious but hopeful note. The “Blackout” era was particularly rich in these strangely evocative vocals, and “Circus” has its moments, although far fewer of them. “Femme Fatale” hasn’t any, in my opinion - but that is ONLY my opinion. As she approaches her 30s, Britney seems to be leaving that searching phase of her life and moving into a more settled one, and its possible that this might be reflected in her singing. “Femme Fatale” seems less subtle, less sensitive, more assertive, more functional. Yet somehow I believe in that dear, sweet soul of hers, that big heart, that modesty, that lack of confidence, that awkwardness, that other-worldliness. I think she’ll continue to touch our deepest, most unfathomable emotions. I hope and pray that she does, because artists like this may only come along once in a lifetime.

Image Revolution! Does she need it & what would it take?

Something came up in the PoorBritney.com debate on Britney’s image that got me thinking. I was thinking back to an article I wrote called “An icon has no image worries”, and at the time of writing I really believed this was true of Britney. This is an except from what I wrote, back around 2006:

“The media killed the old Britney. And if she had been a regular little teenage music star, that would have been the end of her. But the difference with Britney was that she knew what had happened, accepted it and decided to move her life on in a very different way.

The key revelation for Britney was realising that she had somehow become an icon. She even referred to that in her letters to fans. And the thing is, when you become an icon, you enter a kind of timeless, ageless existence. You become the sort of figure who only has to walk on to a stage to get an ovation. You get to be applauded just for being you.

Nobody cares that much about the grubby details of your personal life. When you’re an icon, whatever happens only adds to The Legend. Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland, Billie Holiday, Josephine Baker, Edith Piaf, maybe Janis Joplin – what did stars like these have in common? They all had messy lives, relationship problems, addictions, breakdowns. And they were legends. You can’t be a legend unless you’ve been around the block enough times to have A Story.

Just having a successful showbiz career doesn’t get you A Story, it’s all the accretions of a life well lived by larger-than-life people with larger-than-life appetites. Compare Britney to [her peers]. They are great singers, they’ve made great records, they look great. But that’s baseline activity for big-selling stars. For whatever reason, things don’t seem to happen to them like they happen to Britney. No matter how quiet and hidden she tries to be, things just keep happening to her. Yes, it’s a curse – but it’s also a kind of perverse blessing.”

But that, you see, was when things DID keep happening to her. Since then, she’s gone so low-profile she’s almost subterranean. And that’s not a bad metaphor because she has pretty much buried herself. In our PoorBritney.com debate it became clear that Britney actually has no up-to-date image. And is it possible that you can de-iconify yourself? I guess it all depends on what you were iconified for, and by whom. If you used to be deified as a great dancer and now you’re not, and meantime the world of dance has moved on... Also, it’s pretty obvious that you can have minor icons as well as major ones, superannuated icons as well as current ones and so on. Diana Ross was once voted Queen of Pop ahead of Madonna. Barbra Streisand used to be the most talked-about woman in showbiz.

It concerns me a little that the Britney of old seems to have vanished some time around 2007-8 and left nothing but bad memories for those whose business it is to sum people’s life up in shorthand. Christina Aguilera was lucky, in a way. She’s still the “dirrty” but “beautiful” singer with a sexy image who took her clothes off for Maxim magazine. That’s a good one to stick with. Beyonce is still (even now) “bootylicious”, the “booty shaking” star. That one never gets old. Whatever Shakira used to be, she is now the “she-wolf”.

Britney has already been through most of the obvious transformations, a long long time ago. She was the fun, carefree but beautiful Katy Perry girl that every young girl wanted to be. Then she was the glamorous, sexy, edgy Rihanna-style girl. Then.... it seemed like she was yelling “Stop the magic roundabout, I want to get off!” It was like “How can I destroy this effing Britney monster whose face is on all the magazines?! I hate her! I want to KILL her!!!”

For months, fans such as myself looked in the tabloids with dread. Every day, there were shock-horror pictures of Britney. Every day she looked uglier, fatter, spottier, sluttier. She was rarely seen without a cigarette hanging from her mouth. She wore crude message T-shirts and torn jeans, she had her hair greasy and pinned up, she seemed to eat nothing but burgers and Cheetos. The media came up with the phrase “trailer trash” for her, even though she came from a respectable family, went to a good school and had never lived in a trailer.

You can’t get rid of an image like that just by cleaning up, brushing your hair and teeth and going back to your day-job. You have to replace it with something equally powerful, dramatic and unforgettable. “Pregnant Britney” didn’t really do the job, even though the nude pictures were beautiful and striking. But what Britney did next was so unexpected and so stunning, it actually did make people forget the “trailer trash” days.

This was the era of “crazy Britney”, the toxic singer who ran amok around town, drove through red lights, drove with her baby on her knee, almost dropped her baby in the street, dumped her husband by text, partied heartily with Paris Hilton, barely contested a damaging custody battle that consisted of little more than K.Fed’s team smearing her reputation, lost her kids, shaved her head, hit a car with an umbrella, went into rehab, then was forcibly hospitalized with mental health issues.

And there, for most of those in the media whose those business it is to sum people’s life up in shorthand, the story ended. She hasn’t done anything remotely crazy in 3 years, but, as before, cleaning up your act and going back to what you did before you became notorious just isn’t enough. If her icon/legend status is fading through lack of drama and subterranean profile, she needs yet ANOTHER dramatic, unforgettable, perception-changing image makeover.

The problem is, good news struggles to shove bad news out of the way. Usually, the only thing that can do it is a different kind of bad news. But if you’re clever, you try to think of a kind of bad news that doesn’t contaminate you. Like Rihanna getting beaten up by her boyfriend. It was all over the media, humanized her, made her more “interviewable”. She was the victim and no dirt stuck to her. Or you could take Cheryl Cole getting cheated-upon by her husband. Martyrdom helped her career enormously. The bad news that changes the shorthand of your media image must not be something done BY you. It must be something done TO you. I offer these thoughts to Britney with a nod and a wink!

Hug-gate!

Some of Britney’s fans like nothing better than a chance to pick holes in something she’s done, no matter how small and insignificant. So they were more than ready to jump on her when they read an account from one of her Meet and Greets, which went something like this: “I asked for a hug at the meet and greet tonight. I was the first person in line and nobody said what was allowed, and when I asked her for a hug she hesitated and looked at Larry and he shook his head. But I didn’t care. I told her I loved her, and she thanked me and was really sweet and gave me a tour book....”

I read this and I have to confess that my sense of outrage fell quite a way short of what some fans around the forums were feeling. “What the hell is gonna happen to her if someone hugs her?” one of them demanded to know. “Will she implode from human connection? This is why there is no way I'd pay to meet her, it's complete exploitation of her fans’ loyalty. The fact that this guy was OK with it, then shows his pic where she looks like she'd rather be anywhere else just goes to show how her management are taking the fans for a ride and the fans are letting them do it!”

One thoughtful fan pondered, “Do you think it'd be good if ‘Britney refuses hug request from fan’ became a big story? Obviously it wouldn’t be good press, but it might make her team realise that this kind of thing is really not good enough. These fans may have waited over a decade to meet her and tell her how much they love her, then they’re treated like freaks who need to be kept at a distance! It must be a horrible feeling, especially when you've paid $1000 for the privilege!”

However, it was reported elsewhere that some fans were receiving hugs! It was all very confusing, and eventually one fan asked Felicia if it was OK to ask Britney for a hug and she replied "They don't really like people hugging her unless she's wearing the robe to make sure her costumes don't get messed up but you can ask anyway." Apparently it wasn’t as much a personality deficiency crisis as a stage costume management issue.

But the outcry hadn’t ended. “Britney’s smile is SO fake and awkward looking in the meet and greets!”, stormed one fan-critic and others kept repeating that she looked scared. Eventually it was pointed out that Katy Perry looked just as awkward and uncomfortable as Britney in HER meet and greet pix.

I dunno. I won’t be paying for a meet and greet even though I’ve spent weeks of my life writing about Britney. I don’t feel comfortable hugging and air-kissing strangers and I don’t suppose she is either. Even if she accepts a hug, it’s not really going to be a closer encounter than a simple conversation, is it? What’s a hug from a stranger worth anyway? I’d prefer not to bother.

I recall that, in an early interview, Britney said “Because of the business I’m in, when people meet me they expect me to be like ‘Ta-DAAA!’ But actually I’m really shy...” Lady GaGa may hug her entire audiences but that’s not the point. She clearly isn't shy. But to Britney it feels awkward and unnatural and false, and nothing is going to change that. So what I'm thinking is this: if the awkwardness and artificiality of the situation were to be reduced or eliminated, it might be possible to engage her in a few moments of pleasant and memorable conversation. I know which I’d prefer to try.

In Depth: Unusual You

“Circus” doesn’t seem to be many people’s favorite Britney album. I think it’s cruelly underrated and contains a lot of top quality material that was at the very cutting edge of pop in 2008 and still sounds fresh today. And it features several tracks that make me proud to be a fan. These include “Mannequin”, “Mmm Papi” and “Unusual You”. “Unusual You” is the Britney song I’m asked to write about more than any other. I’ve been told by some fans that when they play it to non-fans, they’re often deeply impressed, and amazed when they hear who the artist is.

“Unusual You” was written by Bloodshy and Avant and Kasia Livinstone, produced by Bloodshy and Avant, and mixed by Anders Hvenare. It features real instruments as well as the usual programmed sounds: keyboards, bass and guitar by Bloodshy and Avant, and additional guitar by Henrick Jonback. Kasia Livingstone provides “background vocals”.

“Unusual You” has the ingredients of a classic pop song. Its lyrical concept is unique, yet is very simply and unforgettably expressed. People sometimes complain that Britney’s lyrics are shallow or nonsensical, but in this case they definitely aren’t. And the song has a lovely, beautifully constructed melody in which every phrase follows naturally and logically from the one before. It’s a song you could be singing along to before your first hearing has even ended.

There has been a fair amount of rather futile debate around the forums on the question of whether or not “Unusual You” is a ballad. If we go by Dictionary.com’s initial definition “any light, simple song, especially one of sentimental or romantic character, having two or more stanzas sung to the same melody”, then it is. The origins of the word “ballad” are connected with dancing, so it appears that ballads don’t have to be as slow as some people imagine.

Since the words are important to this song, I’ll quote them here, using a composite of the best renderings I can find on the web. If you can improve on them with an authoritative correction, please let me know:

(Verse 1 Part 1)
Nothing about you is typical
Nothing about you is predictable
You got me all twisted and confused
It’s so new.
Up till now I thought I knew love,
Nothing to lose, and it’s damaged ‘cause
Patterns will fall, as quick as I do,
But now...

(Verse 1 Part 2)
Bridges are burning, baby I’m learning
A new way of thinking now,
Love I can see, nothing will be just like it was,
Is that because...

(Chorus)
Baby, you’re so unusual,
Didn’t anyone tell you, you’re s’pposed to
Break my heart, I expect you to,
So why haven’t you?
Maybe you’re not even human ’cause
Only an angel could be so unusual,
Sweet surprise I could get used to,
Unusual You

(Verse 2 Part 1)
There’s so many things, when I was someone else,
Boxer in the ring, tryin’ to defend myself
And the private eyes see what’s goin’ on
That’s long gone
When I’m with you, I can just be myself
You’re always where you said you will be
Shocking cause I never knew love like this
Could exist.

(Verse 2 Part 2)
Tables are turnin’, my heart is soarin’
You’ll never let me down,
Answer the call, here after all,
Never met anyone
Like you.

(Chorus)

(Bridge)
I can’t believe that I almost didn’t try
When you called my name,
Now everything has changed.

(Final Chorus)

As can be seen from the above, the architecture of the song is both regular and straightforward. The words are bittersweet and ironic - a woman who is all too used to being treated with casual negligence, indifference and thoughtlessness is genuinely amazed to find someone who doesn’t behave that way. “Didn’t anyone tell you you’re supposed to break my heart? I expect you to, so why haven’t you?” It’s a “sweet surprise I could get used to”.

Yet the song doesn’t sound particularly optimistic. It’s as if Britney knows in her heart that the eventual heartbreak is inevitable, even if delayed for a while, and that her sweet surprise is a delusion. And come on, ladies - who calls their lover “unusual” and means it as a compliment?

The minor key sets a downbeat mood, and a strangely forlorn, empty atmosphere pervades certain phrases. Britney’s delivery, often conveying a strange and indefinable sadness and yearning, is a perfect vehicle for “Sehnsucht”, the intangible and unnameable existential longing for a someone, a something, another place, another time.... for most people, the magnetic pull of unspoken truths and unfathomable heartache that always lies beyond the grasp of language and of rational analysis. I know the concept of “Sehnsucht” may be difficult to grasp, so I promise to write a full article about it very soon.

Whether emerging from the mood of the song, or consciously intended to play a part in creating that mood, there are several musical sighs and grimaces, expressed in a variety of ways, where what should be joyous sounds depressive:
“it’s so new” (0:21)
“but now” (0:36)
the little downturned guitar note at 1:07 and 2:40
“hah ah ah ah, hah ah ah ah” (two alternating from each side)
“that’s long gone” (1:53)

The signature phrase “unusual you” doesn’t come off as celebratory, but reflective and rather sad. On “Boxer in the ring, tryin’ to defend myself...” - her voice catches on “tryin’”. And listen to “Now everything has changed” (3:23) - it’s not happy or cheerful, nor soft and loving, but harsh and metallic, like the announcement of a tragedy now, or in the making.

As is often the case with Bloodshy and Avant, most of the interest is in the innovative nature of the song, rather than in the production or mixing, which are unobtrusive and simple.

Imagining your head as a stereo soundstage and using headphones, you can hear that the majority of the vocal work comes from Britney herself. It’s not entirely clear if the high voice she harmonises with is hers, but the “hah ah ah ah” phrases definitely sound like Kasia Livingston. Britney’s lead vocal is at center most of the time, sometimes double-tracked or in harmony (also at center) and sometimes backed up by a double-tracked stereo pair divided in a narrow “V” between left and right channels. In the chorus, the “V” becomes wider. Kasia’s “hah ah ah ah” is placed at the extremes of left and right. It’s all very restrained, and doesn’t distract attention from the song.

The instrumental tracks are also pretty basic. The song begins with a fuzzy guitar at left and right, and a solo bass guitar figure. The fuzzy guitar continues throughout the song at various volumes and degrees of prominence. The rhythm tracks join in at 0:23 and are there till closing moments. They don’t amount to much more than regulation synth-drum thumping and three or four bass notes that are neither very deep nor very noticeable, especially during the verses. Synth-piano joins in for all the “hah ah ah ah” sections, the chorus is embellished by random synth notes, strums and bumps, and there are some synth strings during the bridge. “Now everything has changed” is followed by an amusingly Abba-esque keyboard riff.

“Unusual You” is a track that leaves a powerful first impression, and then implants itself in your brain, where this strange song, inhabited and infused by Britney’s subtle and sensitive vocal, nags away endlessly, with all its ambivalences, conflictions, wistfulness and dreamy yearnings.

"Blackout was a dead end!" Debate!

Everybody's talking all this stuff about me
Why don't they just let me live?
I don't need permission, make my own decisions
That's my prerogative!

It was late 2004 and Britney Spears was entering the rebellious phase of her career. Back then she wasn’t the puppet people thought she was, and she decided to take control. She married Kevin Federline and sacked most of the other people in her life, including cool-headed manager Larry Rudolph. And she released “My Prerogative” as her mission statement. It was the first step on a musical path that led to the release of her celebrated album “Blackout”.

This was her “protest” era, when her music often hit out at the media, with their malign interpretations of harmless events in her life, and extreme reactions to her decisions. The UK tabloids - led by the now defunct News Of The World - had been going to town on her since 2002, and from 2004 the US media joined in as well. The fast-rising celeb-bashing photo agencies were making more money out of her than she was making herself.

After 3 years of this treatment, Britney launched “Blackout”. On her only outing as Executive Producer, she carefully and deliberately excised all softness from the album. Beautiful leaked tracks such as fan favorites “Sugarfall”, “State of Grace” and “Let Go” remain unreleased. Some people like to be skeptical about the extent of Britney’s involvement with the planning of the album, but Jive’s then A&R chief Teresa LaBarbera Whites confirmed that she was very much involved, and discussed it on the phone with her several times a day.

So Britney wanted this album to express toughness and control. It would be wrong to characterize it as all about anger and rebellion, but tracks like “Piece of Me”, “Freakshow”, “Toy Soldier”, “Gimme More” and “Why Should I Be Sad” do skew it somewhat in that direction, and there is an overall attitude that shows in her vocal style. It’s a “love it or loathe it” album. The New Musical Express loathed it but The Times loved it and placed it in the top 5 of their “Hundred Best Pop Albums of the Noughties”.

Now here’s the thing. Dr Luke commented that Britney is her own genre, but is “Blackout” her genre? Sure, it’s a great album, but the fanbase seems to be cooling on the question of Britney’s media fixation. One humorist satirised the tracklisting of her albums as:

Song about the media
Song about sex
Song about the media
Song about sex
Song about the media....

...and so on. I noticed too that in our recent PoorBritney.com debate, people were saying that we’d had enough of the media-bashing.

That debate asked if it was time for Britney to find a new musical direction. And this is the problem. “Blackout” was all very well and good, but it didn’t lead anywhere. Since then it feels like she’s treading water. The next album, “Circus” was a candy store full of goodies but had no particular direction or character. “Femme Fatale” is more cohesive but that’s down to Dr Luke’s control-freakery rather than any new visions or increased involvement on Britney’s part.

After “Blackout”, we were hoping for more musical revelations, more intensity, more complexity. We were hoping that the bar for the ultimate quality in pop would be raised even higher by Britney. But it’s like “Blackout” wasn’t so much a summit of achievement as a musical dead end. She can’t go forward from it, she can only go backwards. DISCUSS!

Time for a new musical direction? Debate!

Now that we have some months of hindsight with which to evaluate the potentialities and limitations of the "Femme Fatale" era, is it time to start planning now for a radical reinvention?

Recently I was talking to someone who knows and thinks a lot about Britney, but pretends not to. And we were asking ourselves how she could step up a gear or two and become, if you will, a “better” Britney than the one we know and love. We agreed that, while her core fanbase adores her, she doesn’t get a lot of respect from anyone else. The general public has been fed so many lurid stories by the media that they just can’t take her seriously.

Yet she can sing, wonderfully. She’s a genuine music fan, with a range of tastes that shows not only breadth but also depth. She has excellent musical instincts and highly perceptive musical sensibilities. She can interpret a song like nobody else in pop music today. An artist like this should be able to produce music that’s both profound and endlessly rewarding. We have glimpsed the artist she could be, with “I Run Away”, “State of Grace”, “Let go”, “Unusual You” and other wonders.

Tonight I was entranced by Rumer performing some of those beautiful, thoughtful, melodic songs from her album “Seasons of my soul”, and the thought running through my mind was that Britney could add so much of her musical personality to material like this and raise it to a level that we haven’t experienced since people like Karen Carpenter and Dusty Springfield were around.

Yes, “Femme Fatale” is a great, fun album of dance music, but it’s hardly deep. She sells the songs with her usual highly professional skill, but somehow you may feel, as I do, that they don’t leave her much room for maneuvre. Dr Luke’s formulas put her in a musical straitjacket. She’s too constrained by the genre to be able to express herself. Is this good enough for an artist who’s been at the top of her profession for 12 years and is now almost 30?

Even if it’s only for one experimental album, I think she needs to move into different territory, where she can grow as an artist, and spread her musical wings. I’m not suggesting that she should do it to gain respect from critics and the non-stanning public, though that would be nice. I want her to do it for herself, so she can feel what it’s like to drive an album with her own soul rather than be driven by some slick, self-serving producers.

So here’s the debate: would you like her to do this, or to stay as she is now? If you do want her to develop as an artist, but in a different way, how should she progress? What kinds of music should she be thinking of next time? What producer or producers should she work with? The friend I was talking to about this rejected the ritual calls for William Orbit and suggested Nellee Hooper instead. Would that work for Britney?

Over to you!

Rejoice! News Of The World is closing down!

Everyone in the UK (and their dogs) knows about this amazing news already, but for the benefit of Britney fans in other territories, I felt an overwhelming need to make an announcement.

No publication has worked harder to drag Britney Spears’ name through the mud than the UK’s leading Sunday tabloid “The News Of The World”. Well, the great news for Britney and her fans, and for countless other celebs around the world, is that the News Of The World is closing down! The final issue is today, Sunday 10th July, 2011!

The reasons believed to be behind the shut-down are: the growing avalanche of revelations about the tabloid’s illegal activity in allegedly authorising a private detective to hack into the voicemail on the phones of celebs, royalty, dead soldier’s families, terrorist victims, and even murdered schoolgirls, and in paying the Metropolitan Police for information. Chief Executive of parent company News International, Rebekah Brooks, has hinted to the NOTW staff who are about to lose their jobs that the inevitability of the closure will be obvious to them all in a few months’ time.

Some may think that these methods of obtaining information, and the use of entrapment by "fake sheiks" and other underhanded devices, may at least suggest an interest in getting to the truth. But media commentators have pointed out that what it really shows is an interest in lazy journalism and a disinclination to get out of the office, do the legwork and talk to some real people who might actually KNOW the truth about something. A quick look at a small sample of their Britney-related stories paints you a picture of vivid imaginations, wild speculation and simple disregard for their victims:

Britney Spears has flipped her lid in rehab, trying to hang herself with a bedsheet!
Britney Spears and Paris Hilton's lesbian fling?
Britney Spears has been working with an adoption agency and is planning on adopting 6 year old Chinese twins ...
Britney Spears Claims to be the Anti-Christ
Britney and Kevin: A Renewed Spark?
Paris Hilton loves the fact that Britney gets turned on by going commando
Britney Spears Islam Conversion For Adnan Ghalib Wedding
Britney has a master plan to get her kids back: Fake her own death.

If we were to go back over the last 10 years, we would find hundreds of dubious stories just like these.

I guess the demise of the paper known to many as “The News of the Screws” will come as a loss and a disappointment to some fans though. Amazingly, there are those who still see her time with Sam Lutfi as a kind of golden age, when there were Britney alarms and excursions, shocks and horrors to talk about every day. The “Free Britney from the Conservators” campaign yearns for those great times to return. But for those who say they don’t know Britney personally and ask why they should care about her - the so-called fans who describe themselves as “consumers” - the sad news is that it’s going to be a lot harder to “consume” Britney without the help of the News Of The World.

But here's the thing. Although the 200 staff are already suing for wrongful dismissal, there's little chance that they will really lose their jobs. News International has obviously decided that they can't just reopen the NOTW with a new name in a month or two, when the storm has blown over. As a legal entity, it has to be quarantined from the rest of the News International organisation. However, it's already rumored that News International won't simply roll over and hand the market to their rivals. An entirely new Sunday tabloid is guaranteed to be on its way. And you can guess who its staff will mostly be composed of, give or take a rotten apple or two!

Britney on Headphones! Part 3

In this series of articles, I’ve been discussing how listening with good headphones (preferably with a good CD player) enables us to separate Britney’s voice from the surrounding complexities of production and subject it to a less prejudiced yet more detailed scrutiny. With many singers, listening on headphones doesn’t tell you anything you don’t know from listening on speakers or in-ear phones. Why is it important to listen to Britney so carefully? Well, to appreciate her subtle skills. And to become aware of how persistently and how unfairly she has been misrepresented.

We shouldn’t allow ourselves to be brainwashed into the Pop Idol or X Factor mindset of thinking that only loud, declamatory, bombastic belting can be considered a good and credible form of singing. Headphone listening enables you to enjoy what is good about the softer, gentler kinds of singing and appreciate them for what they are instead of lambasting them for what they are not. In this final instalment of the Britney On Headphones series, I will concentrate on the positive rather than defending against the negative.

Our Britney Headphone Tour has arrived at “In The Zone”. By 2003, Britney had been the biggest thing in pop for 5 years and many critics wanted her time to be up. Throughout 2003, hoping for wish fulfilment, they had written article after article predicting the imminent end of her career. They claimed she was too old for her teenybopper clientele now. The teenyboppers had moved on to new teeny idols.

By the time ITZ was launched, these critics had already put themselves in a sneering, dismissive mindset. Pundits were openly discussing how her career in music was over, at the very moment that the album was No.1 in America. As a result, few reviewers took ITZ seriously enough to give it a thorough listen and try to figure out what it was all about, and why. She seemed to have a soft, whispery voice - but what the hell, she was only a teeny-pleaser, and nobody expects them to be talented singers.

What they didn’t seem to grasp was that, while their backs were turned, Britney had transitioned into an adult artist and, rather than try to appeal to a new bunch of 12-year-olds, had brought her existing audience with her. And they were now young adults. A market survey discovered that her typical demographic was 16-26. This is an age range that finds people in the full flowering of their sexual awareness, and Britney expressed her own adulthood by giving them a thoroughly sexual album.

It would be fair to say that most of the songs on ITZ are the sound of sex and seduction in one form or another. When we listen to ITZ we enter a special, precious little world where lives an artist so engrossed in her art that her interpretations differentiate songs OF seduction from songs ABOUT seduction. And she differentiates all of those from songs that are simply about... well.... sex. The voices she chooses are not loud and in-your-face. Superficially it may seem that all of them are similar, but some are firmer, some are dreamier, some are sweeter... Listening on headphones helps you to detect fine distinctions in softness and attack.

And quite apart from analysing her technique, listening to ITZ on headphones is a rewarding experience because Britney Spears does this kind of thing better than anyone in the history of pop. On ITZ there are songs that you really can’t imagine being sung convincingly by anyone else.

Towards the end of the album there are three songs that express a great deal of emotion in an extremely understated way. No shrieking melodrama here. “Everytime” is sung in a very controlled way. Listen to the care with which she sings the ENDS of words like “here” and “clear”. Yet here and there are sad, broken-hearted little sighs. The Scumfrog remix picks up on these and fashions a devastating drama from them.

“The Answer” contains vocals of wonderful tenderness and love. By the way, you can’t give the credit for this to a backing singer because Britney did all the vocals herself. The chorus is as smooth, liquid and soft as you can imagine, and near the end, at 3:05, she begins to sing, simultaneously with the chorus, “Who can hold me.... wipe the tears away... who can give me love....?” and I doubt that any words have ever been sung to a lover more sweetly than here.

And finally, “Don’t Hang Up”. The song is simply about phone sex, but the yearning and empathy she conveys bring some of us to tears. I’ve never seen anyone give her credit for the astonishing way in which she sustains notes invested with all the softness, warmth and sweetness in the world while barely breathing them. (Try it yourself if you think it’s easy. Yet everyone takes it for granted.) And there’s my favorite Britney moment of all time: “Tell me, tell me what you see....feel me, feel me underneath” The hairs on the back of my neck stand up as her words drift out of the headphones like the voice of an angel. Oh.my.God.

Now “Blackout”. This has to be a case of everyone hearing what they expected to hear, which was a basket case, heavily medicated and probably either bald-headed or with a pink wig, being propped up in a studio for as long as it took to get some phrases that could be stitched together into a few vocal fragments. These were then skillfully interwoven with the voices of backing singers to create studio fabrications with a Britney Spears flavor. Nobody seemed to notice that the album was recorded entirely BEFORE her breakdown problems, or that she was Executive Producer!

How carefully were people listening to Britney at that time? Well, one critic wrote about her notorious 2007 VMA performance “the song appeared to consist entirely of the words ‘gimme gimme’” - thus turning the meaning of the song through 180 degrees. It would be fair to say that even a proportion of fans simpy accepted that her singing on “Blackout” was minimal and weak. Yet a listen on headphones shows that this is not so. Not on ANY track.
On “Gimme More” her lead vocal BURSTS forth, full of edge and attitude. There’s nothing whispery about “Piece of Me” and nothing weak about her work on the choruses of “Radar” and “Perfect Lover”. On “Ooh Ooh Baby” her voice fills your ears, and on “Why should I be sad?” you can hear the resilience in her tone.

If we decide to be charitable to the lazy, ignorant listeners who sympathised with the NME in its decision to make “Blackout” their Worst Album of the Year (a decision that is looking increasingly perverse and discreditable with the benefit of hindsight) we might say that the album contained so many spectacularly brilliant productions that people were dazzled by the wall of sound and forgot to listen to Britney. Given the spurious “back story” about her mental state during the time of the recording sessions, they then decided that this must have been because she was scarcely present.

When we enter the “Circus” era, the atmosphere is very different, because this was her supposed “comeback” - not from her previous album, which had been released only a year earlier, but from her personal, apparently mental problems that had seen her hospitalized. It was good that the critics were disposed to hear better singing from her this time around, which meant that they at least listened with a vaguely optimistic mindset.

If we listen to “Circus” on good headphones, it feels as if a window opens and we can hear with great clarity. And what we hear is that the character of her singing has undergone a change. Here, the edginess and attitude in her voice that characterized “Blackout” have gone, and she seems more at peace with herself, more relaxed and confident. There is nothing breathy or whispery at all, she sings mostly in her mid-register and her vocal technique seems smooth and effortless. Check out her confident work on “Blur” and “Lace and Leather”.

Even in “Unusual You”, where previously she would have used her high, breathy voice, she’s mid-range and solid. Where she uses falsetto, as in “Out From Under” and “Mannequin” for example, it’s perfectly integrated and the transition is seamless. And it’s interesting to hear the teasing sex-kitten voice, used widely on “Femme Fatale”, get some early exercise in the verses of “If U Seek Amy” and “Mmm Papi” (she never uses it in choruses). “My Baby” is sung extremely sweetly, in a high register, but without a hint of breathiness.

“My Baby”, incidentally, is a track that, heard on good headphones, sounds much more engaging than you would ever have imagined, BECAUSE the qualities you can hear in Britney’s voice make it sound so sincere. On speakers, it tends to sound sugary and twee. Some other tracks that gain stature on headphones are “Shattered Glass” with its odd bass bumps and subsonic rumbling, “Circus” with its crystal-clear vocal production at center and striking double-tracked fill-ins from Britney at left and right, and “Phonography” which comes over as much more subtle and complex. For a real oddity, listen to Britney’s opening lines in “Mannequin”. What do you hear?

And finally (did someone say “Thank God”?!) we get to “Femme Fatale”. What you discover on headphones here is that you don’t feel as “close” to Britney’s vocals. They seem more impersonal. The electronic effects that make the album sound so exciting have the effect of seeming to distance Britney from us and occasionally you may wish you could simply hear HER. On this outing, she’s different again. Not breathy as on ITZ, not attitudinal as on “Blackout” and not smooth and effortless as on “Circus”, this time she sings a little higher and a lot more forcefully, and on headphones you can appreciate how much her vocals dominate every mix - something that isn’t nearly as obvious on speakers.

Things to listen for on your headphones: On “Till The World Ends”, a much more detailed and focused “wall of sound” reveals itself. “Hold It Against Me” is an overwhelming experience, a real aural assault, recorded very loud and with Britney’s insistent vocals coming at you from all directions. On “How I Roll”, at the start of the verse, it sounds like two different takes of Britney’s lead vocal competing with each other. On “Big Fat Bass”, note the very particular qualities of the bass track as each incident arrives (including the famous kick-drum).

“Criminal” is particularly interesting. The mix leaves a very audible gap at the beginning, just to left of center, which is filled at 0:34 by a guitar. And it’s fascinating to analyse exactly how the intensity is built from 2:28 to the end. It’s a lovely mix. On “Up and Down”, at 1:18, listen to the very subtle harmonies from the backing singers. And on “He About To Lose Me”, notice how Britney’s vocals in the chorus start wide and double-tracked but gradually narrow until they’re a solo at center.

And that’s it! We’re done!

Britney on Headphones! Part 2

I sometimes think I need to update my database of Britney Spears vocal conspiracy theories like Symantec updates its antivirus protection. Something new arrives every day. The latest was mentioned in the comments on my last article, and was an allegation that Britney doesn’t sing the chorus on “He about to lose me”. All I want to say about that is.... if people listened to music using CDs and good headphones, these theories would never arise, and if they did, nobody would believe in them.

My Sennheiser HD580 headphones and Sony XA20ES audiophile CD player make all the details transparent, and I am happy to confirm that there’s no reason to believe that Britney doesn’t sing the chorus. Throughout most of the song, the chorus is divided into a stereo pair of Britneys as is customary these days, but at the beginning of the final repeats, it shifts to the center “channel” for about 10 seconds, and during that brief period you can hear a deeper voice, also in the center, behind Britney’s. If that’s of any interest to you! The "three dimensional" capabilities of headphones allow the elements of a recording to be isolated and identified much more easily.

When CDs are converted to compressed media such as MP3, much of the detail in the sound is stripped out to save on storage space, but the detail removed can make fine distinctions hard to detect. And once the detail has been removed, the remaining sounds are packed together and large areas of similar sounds are “averaged” to compress and reduce file size even further, resulting in even more sound loss. The biggest loss is in harmonic frequencies, which are essential in giving a sound, such as a human voice, its unique and identifiable character. To listen to this degraded standard of sound on the usual little in-ear phones is to degrade the listening experience even further. As one specialist audio blogger puts it, “most people aren’t enjoying their music at its best, and don’t know what they’re missing out on.”

There are distinctions between backing vocals, background vocals and “additional background vocals”, which are all terms you will find in the credits on Britney’s albums. Once you’re in a position - using your good-quality headphones - to identify the different “threads” in a mix, you will often find that Britney is singing most of her own backing vocals, even when she’s not credited - but it may be difficult in a complex mix to separate them from a multi-tracked lead vocal. The “background” or “additional background” vocals lie even deeper in the layers of what you’re normally hearing. On Britney’s recordings they are often extremely subtle in effect.

In case you may ever think that you’re getting confused and imagining her voice in places where it isn’t actually present, there are some “control” experiments available. On the “Oops I Did It Again” album, there are several tracks (such as “Satisfaction” and “What U See Is What U Get”) where Britney’s voice only appears on the center “channel” and all vocals to right and left of center are clearly not hers. On some tracks there are “fanchoirs” in addition to the backing vocals, and you can easily tell their sound apart from Britney’s. Once your ears become accustomed to the harmonics of different voices, you can always keep track of hers.

Aside from the truth about conspiracy theories, what else do we discover as we roam around Britneyland with our headphones? Something I find fascinating is the different ways her voice has been presented since the beginning of her career. On the “Baby One More Time” album, it seemed like a straightforward feature showcase for a new, young, talented singer. On every track, her voice was planted at center, right in front of the listener, in plenty of space, in a natural acoustic. She sang in a middle register that seemed natural for her. There wasn’t a synthesized or vocoderized “effect” in sight. But you can detect an effort to give her voice an added physical impact in “Deep in my heart” by placing a percussive bass guitar apparently right in front of her, and in “The Beat Goes On” her voice has extra reverb to blend with the initial retro-style context. It’s interesting to hear how, even at that early age, she adapts to different songs. In “E-mail my heart” you can hear a greater warmth, tenderness and smoothness than you ever detect on speakers, and on “I will be there” a much harder edge.

Another reason to listen on headphones is to pick up some of the subtleties of production, and there are plenty of them here. For example, the blend of elements makes “Baby One More Time” seem pretty funky - almost gritty - on speakers, but on headphones you discover a surprising degree of refinement and a much cleaner mix than you might have suspected. You can also strand out the different layers of sound, and isolate some strange little details, like the panting sound to right of center at the start of Verse 1 that changes to a keyboard chord in Verse 2, or the very deep bass notes at 1:55. Note how Max Martin was doing the same thing with choruses in 1998 as Darkchild was doing in 2010.

“Soda Pop” turns out to be surprisingly interesting, although most people don’t rate it as a song. Britney has three quite separate vocal lines, at left, right and center, and there’s also a voice that chimes in JUST off-center at left and right at 1:45. But, although her voice is present in all directions, she isn’t involved in any of the harmonies. Eric Foster White was the producer, and he uses exactly the same techniques in “I will still love you”.

Moving on to the “Oops I Did It Again” album, you can hear that the overall A&R and production philosophy hasn’t changed much. It’s still a showcase for a featured artist, but this time there is greater disparity in the styles of the productions. Some are more expensive and elaborate, with real string sections featuring on “When your eyes say it”, “Dear Diary”, “Heart” and “Girl in the mirror”. “Don’t go knocking on my door” has an identical acoustic to most of the BOMT album - a much smaller, more intimate setting than Max Martin’s “Oops I Did It Again” (the song) which is sonically fuller, with an over-arching synth and big chords and a more reverberating, less intimate ambiance that also encompasses Britney’s voice.

Max still makes tracks to this formula, but it has never been something he’s stuck with. For example, on “Where are you now” the production is simple, acoustic, with all the necessary stillness and calm, and the elements placed carefully to leave space for a fine vocal performance. This album finds Britney extending the scope of her vocal performance from the straightforward strength and power of “You got it all” and “Girl in the mirror” through to the high, sweet, girlish voice of “Dear Diary” and the soft, breathy, sweet, affectionate treatment of “When your eyes say it”. If Britney had a serious talent deficit, it would have been exposed on “Where are you now?”, but her vocal is simply beautiful - smoother and better integrated than anything on her first album.

Any odd details to be observed in passing on our headphone tour? Once you’ve noticed them on headphones you can often hear them on speakers too. For instance, in “Stronger” did you notice what sounds like a very deep synthesized male voice going “oh-oh-oh” in the first few bars of the verse? It sounds even more like that in the second verse. There’s a lot more reverb than usual around Britney’s voice, and almost subsonic sounds like distant thunder here and there. On “One kiss from you” there’s a strange metallic noise that stands out sharply at left and right during the verse, and an extremely spatially focused bassline. On “When your eyes say it” the string and choral sounds swell impressively across the virtual “soundstage”.

And now, the “Britney” album before our tour takes a break. There’s a long and dishonorable tradition of making disparaging remarks about Britney’s singing, and much of it dates back to this era. The novelty of “Britney Spears the pop phenomenon” was wearing off and the media decided it was time to take her down a peg or two. It was all too easy to take cheap shots based on ignorance and prejudice and it’s sad to reflect on how many people, even within her fanbase, accepted the generic criticisms without question. She sang a couple of songs in an innocent, childlike voice so that meant her voice wasn’t what it had been; was weak, whispery or whatever. No matter that she sang other songs with plenty of power and edge.

It was an unhappy coincidence that this was the era when Britney, with typical modesty about her own status and enthusiasm for the talents of others, began to make the song the star, instead of herself. While just about every other singer was adapting songs to fit the characteristics of their voices, Britney was doing the exact opposite. On “Britney” she delivers her interpretations of the needs of each individual song, using a wider and more diverse range of styles than on any of her other albums. With a good sound source and good headphones you can get involved in her characterizations, enjoy her variety and subtlety, and come to a better understanding of what she’s trying to do.

You hear her conscious use of a higher register and a more urgent timbre to her voice in some of the songs, deploying more enhancements, sounding less warm, comfortable and natural than before, and you may wonder if Britney, or her A&R team, had decided that the time for showcasing her as a new teenage sweetheart, with material to match, was over and it was time to appeal to a maturing fanbase with tougher material and more imaginative mixes. You may observe that, on some tracks, the double-tracked stereo pair to left and right are louder than the center channel, and her voice appears to be more a flavor in the mix than the center of attention. But it’s not like that all over the album, and with headphones you can appreciate those songs where an unobtrusive acoustic is giving her voice its rightful place, and space to shine.

Finally, this album is famous for its “noises offstage”, random sound effects, overlapping lyrics, whispered asides, giggling and laughter, and with good headphones you can hear all of this far more clearly, and in three dimensions. It’s like being transported into the middle of a small group of people listening to music, getting in the groove and having a lot of fun. It’s something I would hate to miss out on!

Next time: ITZ, Blackout, Circus and Femme Fatale.

Listening to Britney on Headphones! Part 1.

Anyone who’s been reading my stuff for the last 7 years will know that I constantly bang on about listening to Britney with good quality headphones. A reference to them is an essential part of every “In-Depth” review at NewBritneyology.com. I know some people think this is hilarious, but I can’t legislate for those who are determined to embrace their own ignorance. My enthusiasm for headphones isn’t some kind of weird, perverted fetish - you really do miss a lot if you never use them.

Obviously I don’t expect people to go rushing around on buses, trains and bicycles with massive “cans” clamped to their heads. Perhaps I should clarify that by “headphones” I mean the things that surround your ears rather than going inside them. For listening on the move, there’s no realistic alternative to those horrible little in-ear things known as earphones. But if you want to pass judgment on Britney’s singing ability (and let’s face it, who doesn’t ?) you should be prepared to take the trouble to be properly informed, and to get some proper headphones for home use.

I’m not saying you should get rid of your speakers. Goodness knows, I’d be the worst hypocrite if I said that - my home set-up involves a 300-watt amplifier and 150-watt subwoofer. A good thing my nearest neigbor lives 150 yards away. But speakers give you a very different listening experience to headphones. Music fills the room and the big fat bass (or maybe the kick drum) makes the windows rattle. But it’s not an analytical approach. It's a wall of sound. I would never write a review of a Britney album based on hearing it on speakers.

But why headphones? Aren’t earphones pretty much the same thing and just as good? The simple answer is - no, they’re not. I’m not going to bore you with a lot of technical stuff, but the way the sound waves communicate with your ears is totally different, and with earphones there are too many factors that compromise what you’re hearing. You may think you’re hearing everything that’s on the record, but you aren’t.

In my Britney reviews I always talk about the virtual “soundstage” inside your head, and where the various components of the track are located. With earphones, you get a more constricted, compressed “soundstage” and it can be difficult to separate the components. As someone recently told me, “With earphones the music plays "inside" your head rather than coming at you from the outside, to left and right.” In my experience earphones also fail to give you any sense of depth to front and back. On headphones, when you listen to “The Answer”, P. Diddy’s words “Talk to me” seem to come from behind your left shoulder. So do Britney’s words “Don’t hang up” in the eponymous song. On earphones, everything is placed in a 45-degree “V” around front-center.

Earphones fail to reveal many subtleties. For example, on “Shadow”, the swirling atmospherics can’t be “placed” at all whereas with good headphones you can detect their circular motion between the center and right “channels”. Headphones also reveal that, during the chorus, the effect has been created of Britney standing front center, with a group of backing singers arranged in a semi-circle behind her. In the last 2 lines of each verse and during the middle-eight, three Britneys sing in harmony, one left, one right, one center. But with earphones, as with speakers, these individual elements simply merge together.

On “Piece of Me”, the majority of people are convinced that Britney’s voice has been electronically altered. Wikipedia, for example, comments “Spears's voice is heavily synthesized”, But this is untrue. With the benefit of good-quality headphones you can distinguish the vocals from the effects and it turns out that a few words, and ONLY a few words, in the song are overlaid with a kind of muted electronic fuzz. It’s like seeing something behind net curtains. But with earphones this effect cannot be isolated from an overall impression of fuzz.

Reviewing “Blackout”, Kelefa Sanneh says “Even when not buried in electronics, her distinctive singing voice sounds unusually vague, and sometimes it’s hard to be sure it’s hers. It isn’t always. On this album, unlike on previous ones, Ms. Spears isn’t credited with doing any of her own backing vocals.” From those remarks it’s clear that Sanneh wasn’t listening with a decent set of headphones, because if you do, you’re never in any doubt that it’s Britney, AND that she’s singing almost all of the vocals herself.

It’s almost universally accepted that Britney hardly sings a natural note on “Femme Fatale”. The mind-numbing cliche is that her voice is “heavily autotuned”. She herself remarked in an interview that she’d decided to use more electronics this time. But with good headphones, what do you actually hear? In fact, her lead vocal is natural on about 90 percent of the album! There are maybe two or three songs where her voice is electronically altered in the verse, here and there a few words are blatantly synthesized for dramatic effect, and one track a synthesizer is mixed in with her vocal on the center channel, but that’s all! I won’t spoil your fun by saying where these things happen - you’ll have to buy some headphones...

But which headphones? They don’t have to be crazily expensive. One of my dad’s friends had Stax electrostatic ‘phones that were too pricey for us, even though we all were mightily impressed by hearing Jimi Hendrix’s “All Along The Watchtower” seemingly circling our heads like an angry hornet. My own headphones are Sennheiser HD580s, which were five-star rated and said to be studio quality in their day but are no longer available. I would recommend that you buy something in the same category. Don’t spend less than about $200. If that seems a lot, consider that custom-fitted in-ear phones can cost over $500!

Finally, I should say that the analytical quality of your ‘phones will be somewhat nullified if the music source is a compressed sound file like an MP3 or an AAC, which will have a high level of distortion, and severely limited frequency and dynamic ranges. It would be best to listen to Britney on CD. Yes, in physical form!! And if you do.... I can guarantee a revelation! It will be like hearing these albums again for the first time, but in high-definition and 3D! You’ll be amazed at how good they are, and probably surprised to find that most of the shade thrown at Britney’s voice is based on misinformation and prejudice.

In Part Two of this article, next week, I’ll take you on a guided headphone tour of Britney’s albums.

The Great Britney Vocals Conspiracy Theories!

They say seeing is believing, and it certainly does seem that Britney Spears’ unwillingness to be witnessed singing live on stage has spawned a fascinating industry of conspiracy theories. I won’t say she has an “inability” to be witnessed singing live, because the theory that she basically can’t sing is itself the fundamental theory that all of the others are designed to prove.

No matter that there are actually quite a few videos on YouTube of Britney singing live. We’ve seen them here at PoorBritney. Conspiracy theorists prefer conspiracies and theories to facts, and, although they believe their cynical and suspicious attitude is proof of superior intelligence, they actually tend to be pretty gullible. You only have to examine what they believe for proof of that.

But anyway, who are the conspirators? Well, obviously there’s Britney herself, her past and present management team, her A&R managers and various others at Jive Records. You’d expect them to be loyal.... I guess.... but what about her embittered ex-security staff, and the ever-floating multitude of hangers-on and freeloaders, including ex-boyfriends? What about Sam Lutfi? Why would you expect any of them to keep quiet on Britney’s behalf?

What I think is more sinister than any of these is the grand conspiracy involving all of the record producers, vocal producers, studio musicians and their teams who have worked with her since 1998. When you consider that she’s worked with more than 40 production teams in her career so far, it’s pretty amazing that nobody has approached the News Of The World or The Sun with the terrible secret. Amazing too that so many of them have deliberately gone on record to lie about how good she is in the studio when they didn’t have to.

I can’t claim that my list of deceptions and malfaisance is exhaustive, because every time I write about Britney’s voice, somebody comes up with a new conspiracy theory. And the gullible people suck up every word of it. I also don’t expect the conspiracy theorists to have their minds changed by anything I say. I have no doubt that, if there are any comments, they’ll show that some people didn’t even consider the observations, analysis and facts I’m about to lay before them.

“Britney - her real voice! What she really sounds like!”
Yes, I can hear you sigh. You’d think anyone with half a brain would see the fallacy in putting forward, as evidence that she can’t sing, a few seconds of a video where, breathless and dancing hard, and thinking her mic is switched off, she emits a few tuneless grunts. She wasn’t trying to sing and probably wasn’t even aware that she was making any noise at all. All of this is glaringly obvious. Yet this video is trotted out again and again on website after website, followed by the usual bleating of the conspiracy sheep “That proves it! I always knew she couldn’t sing. Thank you for posting this!” Sometimes a Britney loyalist will respond with a shoal of videos showing her actually singing live, but nobody seems to care. I shall pause here for some eye-rolling.

“She doesn’t sing on her own records!”
I guess you could say this about anybody. No doubt there are Beyonce and GaGa soundalikes who could be deployed in the studio in the event that the stars had something better to do that day. But history suggests that this kind of skulduggery can’t be kept secret for very long. It didn’t take the public long to find out that Loleatta Holloway was the real singer on Black Box’s “Ride on Time”, that Manuella Kamossi really sang Technotronic’s “Pump up the jam”, that Audrey Hepburn was overdubbed by Marni Nixon (in “My Fair Lady”) and Juanita Hall by Muriel Smith (in “South Pacific”). The tabloids, with their suspicious minds, quickly discovered that Milli Vanilli weren’t singers at all. Strange, then, that in 12 years they haven’t managed to prove the same about Britney.

“There’s a Britney-button!”
According to this interesting theory, some producers are able to press a “Britney-button” on one of their obscure but impressive machines, and it makes any vocals by demo singers sound exactly like her. There’s an obvious weakness here, in that there would have to be a “her” for them to sound like, and “she” would have had to sing quite a few vocals to provide for the comprehensive programming that is evoked by the Britney-button.

Another problem is that we know the “Britney-button” isn’t a standard Pro-Tools plug-in, or an unofficial one that’s been circulating around the studios, because that’s something that would have leaked on the professional audio websites. So it would have to be a custom feature that each producer programs for himself. And if there is no “her” for the soundalike to sound alike with, how come every one of her 40 producers has managed to come up with the same vocal signatures and tone? Coincidence? Producer David Foster recently remarked that he loved Britney’s voice for her tone, adding “You cannot manufacture tone”. He hasn’t worked with Britney so he has no reason to lie.

“Her vocals are all stuck together from a few small good bits!”
At the extreme end of the spectrum, this theory holds that Britney phones in a few words and phrases to the studio, maybe just a few vowels and consonants, and the all-knowing, all-powerful producer programs them into his computer, shuffles them around a bit and out they come in the right order as a finished vocal track. As against this, we have actually seen many paparazzi pictures of Britney going into and coming out of recording studios, so we may suspect that at least part of this isn’t true!

But what does she do in there? Sing a few random words and phrases then go home? For a producer to create acceptable vocal tracks from them would be a task of unimaginable complexity and take forever. In fact, it would be a lot simpler and quicker from the producer’s point of view if Britney would just sing the complete song right through, however badly. This would be a gigantic shortcut to getting all the words and phrases required, and in the right order, for any amount of diabolical processing to take place. Goodness knows, if she goes off-key a few times, there’s always the Almighty Autotune to put things right. Right?

“Her vocals are blended with other singers!”
According to this theory, Britney has a deep voice and if you hear anything else on her records, that’s someone else’s voice “blended” with hers. Exhibit “A” is a home-edited version of “Gimme More” with the center channel taken out. It is then assumed that Britney’s vocal only appears on the center channel and nowhere else. Everything else that you hear, which is about 90% of the track, is claimed to be Keri Hilson. But. There’s always a “but”, isn’t there? Britney’s lead vocal is only placed on the center channel in the first part of the verse. In the second part, “working it down, etc”, and in the chorus, her voice is split between left and right channels. It’s blatantly obvious, if you listen using a pair of good headphones. And it’s also obvious what Keri contributes, which is a couple of “Aaaah” sounds during the first part of the verse.

The same thory is applied to “Piece of Me”, but here the “real” singer is claimed to be Robyn Carlsson. However, on good headphones, you can detect quite easily how much is really Robyn. It’s the part of the vocals that sounds especially heavily synthesized - the “You want a piece, piece of me….” section at 2.22. She also sings “You want a piece of me” at the end of each verse and alternately in the chorus. And that is all.

But why are we giving the “blending” theory any credibility when it’s pure bullcrap anyway? You can’t blend two different voices together without it sounding like a duet. It would always be audible. And it isn’t. The alternative is that one of the “blended” voices would have to completely dominate the other to the point that it is inaudible. In which case it isn’t really a “blended” vocal at all. As for the idea that deep voice A could be blended with high voice B so that you ended up with the tone of A and the register of B - it is, frankly, ludicrous. You can see why I say that conspiracy theorists are gullible.

“An older black woman....!”
A lot of excitement was generated among Britney-haters and conspiracy theorists in 2008 when musician, writer and broadcaster Henry Rollins said this: "They have the black chick come in and sing, and Britney sings over it, and they mix them together. Britney gets her phrasing basically from this older R&B woman. I found that out talking to an engineer. Britney apparently isn't actually the worst singer, she just has no feel. So they bring in this older black woman who sings the song, then Britney sings to it, and they kind of make a mix of the two voices, and that's what you hear on the records."

Part of this has a limited degree of credibility. It is a widely-used studio practice for a producer to provide guide vocals to show a featured artist the kind of thing he’s looking for, especially when the star hasn’t written the song him/herself. It’s harder to see how an “older r&b woman” would have more “feel” than Britney does for her dancey electro-pop, or more experience in performing it. It also seems less than credible that all 40 producers, in studios across the USA and in Sweden, would use the same older black r&b woman. It has been alleged that Henry Rollins has an agenda though - which is his belief in the superiority of black over white musicians, so go figure.

It may be credible that Britney’s producers would sometimes use guide vocals, but what isn’t credible is that they would “make a mix of the two voices”. I spoke about this ridiculous suggestion in the previous section above. Either you can hear the guide vocal or you can’t. And with Britney you can’t. Which is just as well, because producers go to great lengths to make sure you can’t. This is because it’s not unknown for the anonymous and uncredited singers of guide vocals to CLAIM that their voices are audible and therefore they should get a share of the royalties. This happened to Paula Abdul in a celebrated case, which Abdul successfully defended. The court agreed that only her voice was audible.

“Heavily Autotuned!”
If people want to claim that her voice is usually or always put through some kind of synthesizer then I would have to disagree. On most of her albums, her voice is rarely, if ever, electronically altered. Listening on good headphones shows this to be true. She does use a robotic, metallic kind of voice sometimes, and it sounds electronic or artificial, but that is an effect SHE creates. In a few places, the producer or mixer adds a kind of thin electronic fuzz on top of her vocal line.
“Femme Fatale” is different from her previous albums because it does feature more use of electronic processing of her voice, but these are effects customized to each track and not just a load of generic distortion such as you get by misuse of the notorious Autotune.

The “Autotune” conspiracy argument, however, makes a different claim - which is that Britney is such a bad singer, and requires so much Autotuning to bring her into key, that Autotune is forced into distortion. But, as I said, what you hear on “Femme Fatale” isn’t the Autotune distortion sound, and at least 90% of her vocals, even on “Femme Fatale”, aren’t distorted anyway! Again I say “Listen with good headphones!” I could call upon any number of producers ready to testify that she can sing perfectly well in the studio and needs no more Autotuning than anybody else, but the conspiracy theorists say they’re all lying, so I won’t bother.

“Copy and paste!”
When I argued last week that Britney’s professional qualities as a singer were exemplified by her consistency, in other words that she could sing a phrase identically several times, a number of those who made comments said that this was achieved by copying and pasting. OK, I agree that this may be true. At the vocal comps stage, the producer and artist may agree that a certain “take” of a certain phrase was the best, and it would then be used for as many repeats as possible. All of this is true.

But what I wanted to argue was that Britney isn’t the kind of artist who needs dozens of takes before there are enough good parts for the comps to be of any use. Quite a few producers down the years have commented that she’s really fast and professional in the studio, and doesn’t require many takes. She is said to have laid down the lead vocals for “Till The World Ends” in about 15 minutes, so that seems to confirm it. And here’s a small section of Jenny Eliscu’s 2001 “Observer” article about Britney. She’s with Britney in the studio during a comps session: “Britney's sultry vocals sound near perfect in every version played, and her voice is stronger and more confident than you might expect. 'It's so hard to do vocal comps with Britney,' BT says with a laugh. 'Every take is so good. It's easier to do this with a bad singer.' There we have an independent witness from the press to testify that BT wasn’t lying.

But anyway. The “Femme Fatale” album is full of repeated phrases that show her consistency. My argument is perhaps better made by referring to an instance where they couldn’t be copied and pasted. Try, for example, “Shame on me/To need release/Uncontrollably” in “I wanna go”. Or “Diamond, diamond, shinin’ shinin’, oh boy you’re so fine/Gotta be the finest thing that I seen in my life/I will pay whatever just to get a better view/And yeah, your body looks so sick I think I caught the flu” from “(Drop Dead) Beautiful”. Different phrases, but sung identically. Yes, they may be the best versions of each phrase, comped from 6 different takes, but at least it shows her excellent consistency across the different takes - which is all I wanted to demonstrate and is good enough for me!