One thing has been bothering me a little about the media commentary on Britney’s stunning success with “Hold It Against Me” and on the widely anticipated hotness of the forthcoming album. Why is all of this activity being called a “comeback”? To us here at PB.com, she’s never been away.
We are stans, obviously, so she’s constantly in our thoughts anyway. But it’s not like she’s hibernating in a coffin and we’re living on memories. PB Bitch kindly provides us with a constant supply of news and sightings so we know she’s fit, well and looking good. We also know she’s been in and out of recording studios almost non-stop since her “Circus” tour ended, and every producer has been effusive about what they’ve created together.
A “comeback” is the end of a career break, whether voluntary or imposed by circumstances. But Britney has barely rested from productive activity. The gaps between her projects have been much, much shorter than those of most other artists. We had “Blackout” in 2007, “Circus” in 2008, the “Circus” tour in 2009, and we could have had another album in 2010 if it hadn’t been postponed.
So at what point was her career put on hold? In objective terms, it never was. “Blackout” was a surprise rise from the dead - only a few months before its appearance, some fans were predicting that she’d never make another album - and actually was a comeback, but what about “Circus”? I’ve heard the theory put about that she was halfway back with “Blackout” and three-quarters back with “Circus” but that the REAL Britney, the girl who can grab the baton from the Britney who made the Oops album, is only now reappearing.
But these fine gradations of coming back are a stan’s-eye view. Those outside the fanbase view the situation with far less subtlety. To them it’s a comeback to a career that was put on hold. And one guy I’ve spoken to, who isn’t as close to the Britney Situation as the rest of us, came up with a credible explanation - to the public at large, there was no Britney Spears in the “Circus” era. Yes, she had hits and yes she had a massive-selling tour, but SHE, as the star behind them and as a person, retreated from view and eventually became all but invisible - except to us.
On the level of sales and downloads to the broad fanbase, her career is going very well indeed. Her last two singles have debuted at the top of the Billboard Chart, and that doesn’t happen to everybody. But, on the other hand, her market is contracting. A 2-hour TV show about fame on UK TV two days ago barely mentioned her at all. Several recent TV shows listing the “Top 20 US pop girls” or “Top 20 Hot Pop Babes”, or whatever, did include her, but nowhere near the top.
On a superficial level, she scarcely seems to be one of the hot celebrities any more, if only because nobody in the mainstream media seems to be talking about her very much. Obviously this is because she has opted for a somewhat less incident-filled life than in the Sam Lutfi era, and that is fine and as expected, but it’s interesting to note that the media are calling her “Britney Spears” again now, where once she was simply “Britney”.
However, “Celebrity” seems to be like an instant temperature check, rather than a more long-term assessment. We may suspect that Britney’s “fame” is on another, transcendent level - a level that transcends “celebrity”. This is someone who was in at the the dawning of musical awareness of more than one generation, and is held in awe for that. This is also someone who has survived some particularly painful rites of passage. If she even walked out onstage at the Grammys, you would see what it means to celebrate a true legend.
What’s so special about fame at this level is that it can be reheated to white-hot level at almost any time. Right now, the ripples from the seismic impact of “Hold It Against Me” are spreading outwards and lapping against a few unfamilar shores. People outside the hardcore are acknowledging her existence again, and some are even speaking of her importance to the grammar and semiology of pop.
But even this won’t be enough to place her back at the top of pop lists. For many outside the stanbase, the vibe will be “Ah, Britney Spears.. she’s still alive then? Good song..... Umm, when’s GaGa’s album coming out?“ We want them to be going “BRITNEY SPEARS, wow! This girl is truly the Queen of Pop!” And that will need some genuine PR inspiration. It used to be said that “Britney Spears” was an anagram for “Best PR in years” but where did it go?
In the run-up to the release of “Hold it against me”, all kinds of campaign were promised, but in the end it transpired that these promises WERE the campaign and there was nothing more.
So they got away with it again. Another Britney product successfully sold, but with the skeptics muttering “this product contains no Britney Spears”. Once again they have failed to selling HER. Is this the way it will always be? Is it some kind of post-modern concept of letting the music stand on its own? OK, it works for Britney but I’d love to see her gain some acknowledgment of her input into the music. I would love the promo campaign for her new album to focus on Britney, the amazing person, the talented star, the icon, the legend, so the great music and great star will be identified with each other again. And when her NEXT album comes out in November 2012, PLEASE let it not be called a “comeback”.
No comments:
Post a Comment