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.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
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.
“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.
Friday, August 12, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
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!
“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!
Sunday, July 24, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)