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.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)