Bigger peak? Christina Aguilera vs Katy Perry

[DevilsRollTheDice]

57 minutes ago, ChooseyLover said:

Katy's hits were bigger than Katy herself. Christina in her prime was a big enough star that her status didn't depend on how well the songs did on the charts and that's the tea. She was selling albums like biscuits.

I agree with this to some extent, but Katy was never some faceless pop star (love ha, but she never gave Dua). Her looks and videos were widely known and iconic. She carved out a very clear space for herself in pop culture. Sure, it never resulted in a fanbase like Swifties or Monsters, but I think we underplay her celebrity factor in the 2010s because of what she became. There are many celebrities with big hits my parents couldn't pick out from a line up. Katy is not one of them. 

[BlahBlahBlah]

Katy, but Christina had better longevity. 

[Bey_Rihstan]

- I think Katy. 6 #1's (more than Xtina's entire career) on one era 

- a diamond album 

- a video game 

- a hit movie (smurfs) 

- a hit documentary/concert film

 

Katy was kinda dominating as a brand for a couple years

Edited 3 hours ago by Bey_Rihstan

[ChooseyLover]

3 minutes ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

I agree with this to some extent, but Katy was never some faceless pop star (love ha, but she never gave Dua). Her looks and videos were widely known and iconic. She carved out a very clear space for herself in pop culture. Sure, it never resulted in a fanbase like Swifties or Monsters, but I think we underplay her celebrity factor in the 2010s because of what she became. There are many celebrities with big hits my parents couldn't pick out from a line up. Katy is not one of them. 

I totally agree. She was never that kind of faceless (even though my mother doesn't know who she is ). To me her prime feels very detached from where she is right now which makes me think she wasn't ever as big as she seemed. Xtina's prime looks like the golden days of a diva while Katy's feels good for a throwback.

 

[SoundsandSongs]

4 minutes ago, BlahBlahBlah said:

Katy, but Christina had better longevity. 

Id argue Xtina fizzled out way quicker. Her debut was her peak in sales, with Stripped doing well but B2B already performed so-so and is behind many other MPG eras in sales around that time. So thats 2.5 successful eras.

 

Katy managed to have 3 fully successful eras OOTB-TD-PRISM and even her flop eras like Witness did better than Xtina's flop eras like Bionic. Tour wise Katy has also been more consistent.

[TaylorsSquad]

Katy obviously.

[Ger]

Katy, bfr.

[loveisdead9582]

It's Katy for me. Christina is definitely a better vocalist and dancer but you cannot deny that Katy's success - especially during the TD era. Nowadays, I think they're about even - with Christina maybe edging out Katy due to all the negativity surrounding 143. 

[CherryBay]

One had #1 strike….in the US

The other one is more remember and more interesting 

Edited 2 hours ago by CherryBay

[unclefloprry]

Christina was never as big as her fans make us believe she was. 
 

She benefited from being compared to Britney, whose stats were monstrous, but it only takes a quick Google search to see that her stats aren't impressive. Even artists like Ariana, Billie, Dua and Olivia have already surpassed her.
 

It's the same thing that happens with BRAT, the media puts her on the same level as eras like HMHAS, SNS or Chappell, but the album doesn't even have 1/3 of the sales, streams or chart success that the other three have.

[unclefloprry]

1 hour ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

I agree with this to some extent, but Katy was never some faceless pop star (love ha, but she never gave Dua)

I think you all need to start working on this narrative because a faceless pop star can't sell a GLOBAL tour, not just 4 shows in their home country. Or do you really think Nelly Furtado, Kesha, Bebe Rexha, Ava Max, Ellie Goulding, Halsey or even CaCa with multiple hits and songs/eras that were huge at the time, could sell a ww tour?

That applies to the two artists you mentioned.

[shyboi]

this is insulting to Katy

[Princess Aurora]

Katy Perry 

[Erreur2 La Nature]

Katy Perry was bigger on every level honestly

[TeemoR]

Hard to tell.

 

I think Christina's first 2 eras felt bigger because of the impact and great album sales. Katy's TD era was very big, but it was mostly 'smash singles' and the album sales did not reflect that success (It sold 3M pure sales after 6 #1 or something?). 

[swissman]

This is an interesting question.

 

I think the answer is Katy Perry because she had a stronger, more consistent ubiquity and hold on the charts during her reign, but what Christina had that Katy lacked was the level of star-status of Christina Aguilera who as a celebrity, though she switched her image up a lot, was never as hidden behind the cartoonish, unserious facade like Katy Perry was.

 

Katy was bigger because she was like THEE representation of what a popstar was in the early 2010s: fun, frothy, silly, colourful, ambitious, bold, cheeky. But she never had the gravity of Christina Aguilera who from the get-go was very much well regarded as a pre-Avril counterpart to Britney's huge fame and success which was considered a bit frothy. Christina was the "she can sing!" girl and though her peak may have been smaller than Katy's I don't think her level of fame was. She was huge in pop culture in 2002.

[Human Fly]

Stripped is better and bigger than anything katy ever did, so xtina. 

 

people overrate katy in here

[Xtripped]

The amount of threads made by Op is concerning.

 

 

[Phaunzie]

I love my girl Legend X, but Katy had a bigger peak.