base talk Is Britney is the biggest "vibes" artist of the century.

[CocoPouf]

58 minutes ago, Jay07 said:

It feels weird that people talk about singles and literally ignore that she has 2 diamond albums back to back (which were much more profitable). What is vibes about that? But whatever fits a narrative I guess.

It is *More expensive* and *harder to sell* than a CD single, but not more profitable. On paper, is more profitable to produce and sell a $3 / $4 CD single with a song, an extended version of the song, and probably a remix, than $15 / $20 for 13-15 tracks on a CD album. 

I'm talking about the figures and prices for 1999, tho. 

[Jay07]

16 minutes ago, CocoPouf said:

It is *More expensive* and *harder to sell* than a CD single, but not more profitable. On paper, is more profitable to produce and sell a $3 / $4 CD single with a song, an extended version of the song, and probably a remix, than $15 / $20 for 13-15 tracks on a CD album. 

I'm talking about the figures and prices for 1999, tho. 

Interesting, I was thinking that albums probably cost as much to produce as a cd single but were more profitable as they were way more expensive but I've never actually looked into the financial details. In any case, Britney's label focused on albums over singles and it worked so trying to diminish her success while ignoring that fact is hypocritical.

[Jeremiah]

OP you're still in time to delete this embarrassing thread

[A-V-XYZ]

This thread's a mess lol. At least most ATRLers agree that Britney's career is all bells and whistles. Britney hasn't had a true hit in over 20 years! Hehe.

[SinnerCity]

On 1/8/2025 at 3:31 PM, RideOrDie said:

your trolling is sending me a bit lmao haha lol 

Not the thanks reaction 

[AshleyLovescats887]

If the term "vibez artist" means an artist who managed to impact pop culture in such a way that their brand is associated with a time period, in a way "creating a vibe" that a lot of people are trying to emulate now and in the next decades, then yes.

 

Britney Spears is one of the artists that shaped the 2000s and 'Y2K' as a "vibe" and aesthetic, which should tell you a LOT about her impact and starpower.

[RideOrDie]

28 minutes ago, SinnerCity said:

Not the thanks reaction 

good sis DMF is cracking up, he's breaking the 4th wall!

[SinnerCity]

1 hour ago, RideOrDie said:

good sis DMF is cracking up, he's breaking the 4th wall!

He knows he's in his Katy Perry era 

Edited yesterday at 01:10 AM by SinnerCity

[americanshameless]

On 1/8/2025 at 8:26 PM, Breathe On Moi said:

wtf are you even saying

Literally. Giving autism

 

Not swift*es still crying over this list. You're grown MEN

[Escape]

Britney Spears is not a vibes-artist.

[DevilsRollTheDice]

On 1/8/2025 at 4:51 PM, IsidoraMarí said:

If you were cognisant in the early 2000s you wouldn't be asking why. They media frenzy Britney had in those days makes Taylor's current run look bland. 

 

We can call it vibes if you want but if the media frenzy that her stardom caused hadn't driven her into a dark depression Britney very well could've and should've been one of the best selling artists of all time. 

This is called "getting older." Let's get you to bed, sis!

 

OT: Britney is a legend and this thread is flame bait. Y'all don't need to lie to prove your point, though. 

Edited 15 hours ago by DevilsRollTheDice

[Eternium]

On 1/8/2025 at 2:20 PM, Fitzswiftie said:

Based on Billboard's two recent lists, Ms Spears was #6 on the "Greatest" list but on the list based on actual numbers, she was only #34, one spot below Carrie Underwood. 
 

Whilst others in the top 25 had larger gaps, she was the only artist in the top 10 to have a 20+ place difference

 

@Ryan Do you think we could get Community Notes on this forum? The girls here are either so incredibly uneducated or they pretend to be stupid and then post **** like this. It's almost embarrassing to see the absolute lack of chart knowledge here sometimes.

 

To the OP, Britney Spears was not eligible to chart album tracks and she hasn't released a ton of material in the streaming era, which has negatively affected the longevity of her charting. If you want to compare her RIAA certifications for the century, which actually measure success, she's #2. Globally, she's easily #1. 
 

Billboard's list is a list of the best charting acts, not the biggest. People figured that out when their greatest of all time BB200 list excluded the second biggest album of all-time in America: Their Greatest Hits: 1971-1975 by The Eagles. You're either playing stupid or you need to open a book.

On 1/8/2025 at 2:28 PM, A-V-XYZ said:

Her success is very overrated. She's only spent 6 weeks at #1 in total on the Hot 100 out of 5 #1's and she hasn't had a top 20 Billboard YE Hot 100 hit since 1999 lmao haha lol. 🤭😛

My fave on Spotify:

Britney Spears - 12,218,094,910 (+6,062,796) [1/11/25]

 

Your fave on Spotify:

Christina Aguilera - 8,894,519,662 (+3,274,200) [1/7/25]

 

My fave's first two albums on RIAA:

Britney Spears - 24x Platinum

 

Your fave's entire career on RIAA:

Christina Aguilera - 19.22x Platinum

On 1/8/2025 at 2:33 PM, l3disko said:

Yes, she only had one #1 song during her prime, (no #1s in the early 2000s).

 

Most of her chart positions are absolutely awful, even for her most known songs. Many didn't even chart.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britney_Spears_discography

The early 2000s were literally just radio payola hits. She didn't have #1s because her label didn't buy them.

https://www.foxnews.com/story/payola-shocker-j-lo-hits-others-were-bought-by-sony.amp

On 1/8/2025 at 2:51 PM, Rev8 said:

She is super successful overall

but these charts really make her seem like she was some meh act

 

 

However looking at the influence and love she is getting for her music,performances,looks and etc - she really does seem to be That girl, act overall.

(and she isn't even using PR to push herself on publications, or go into other acts' ears)

Their charts are terrible. Luke Bryan's Crash My Party, which is around 4.2 million units, is higher than Led Zeppelin's IV, which is over 24 million units. Inverse chart point systems are not a measurement of what is biggest, they are a measurement of only what charted best. People conflate the two.

On 1/8/2025 at 2:57 PM, dumbsparce said:

These lists heavily favor longevity on the Hot 100 which she wasn't the best of friends with. I'm pretty sure she's in the top 5 when it comes to pure sales

She's #1 globally and #1 in the U.S. for pure sales. She unfortunately didn't have a chance for longevity until airplay payola got struck down in 2004. 
 

She was regularly setting digital streaming and sales records through 2011.

On 1/8/2025 at 3:11 PM, Fitzswiftie said:

Alongside Prince and Princess of Smoke and Mirrors, Gaga and Kanye.

Monarchs of deceit and payola.

 

Imagine being a Swiftie and trying to accuse Britney Spears of payola. Let's actually look at label intervention here. Please post your fave's Spotify streams before joining Republic (2019) and today. That's what actual, blatant payola looks like.

On 1/8/2025 at 3:16 PM, Triton said:

The textbook definition of a label puppet. 

The delusion just because my fave outperformed yours (despite yours getting caught for payola TWICE). JIVE was the most incompetent, cheap ass label ever and fought for BOMT to be an animated Transformers video, fought to scrap Toxic's single release for an R. Kelly collab, etc. I would LOVE to hear you explain how JIVE was the mastermind behind anyone's career who had longevity.

On 1/8/2025 at 3:20 PM, Ivan_brit said:

Britney deserves top 3 or even #1 at both 

 

how Post Malone is #4 ??

It's incredibly easy for streaming era artists. Morgan Wallen now has the #1 album on the all-time list and One Thing At A Time will be top 10. 

On 1/10/2025 at 1:41 PM, CocoPouf said:

It is *More expensive* and *harder to sell* than a CD single, but not more profitable. On paper, is more profitable to produce and sell a $3 / $4 CD single with a song, an extended version of the song, and probably a remix, than $15 / $20 for 13-15 tracks on a CD album. 

I'm talking about the figures and prices for 1999, tho. 

Incorrect. Please take business classes before giving advice to @Jay07. A physical single from 1999 had a ceiling of around 1.8M copies sold (that's what Cher's Believe sold). Even at $3.99, that's only $7,182,000.

 

For comparison's sake, the top album of 1999 sold 9,445,732 just through Nielsen SoundScan (Millennium by Backstreet Boys). Albums cost as much as $22 at that time for the deluxe, but even if you go with today's standard $9.99 price, that's $94,362,862.70. 

[americanshameless]

OP got ate up and chewed the f out  

[CocoPouf]

20 minutes ago, Eternium said:

Incorrect. Please take business classes before giving advice to @Jay07. A physical single from 1999 had a ceiling of around 1.8M copies sold (that's what Cher's Believe sold). Even at $3.99, that's only $7,182,000.

 

For comparison's sake, the top album of 1999 sold 9,445,732 just through Nielsen SoundScan (Millennium by Backstreet Boys). Albums cost as much as $22 at that time for the deluxe, but even if you go with today's standard $9.99 price, that's $94,362,862.70. 

First of all, don't ever tell me what to do. 

 

Second of all, this is the only time I will ever answer your messages, as your posts, to me, are within one of the most stereotypical ATRL posters, which, to be honest, is not something to be proud of. I'll do it as quickly as possible because educating you is not my job. 

 

So here is the answer:

 

Profit is "the difference between the purchase price and the costs of bringing to market." (I had to Wikipedia it for you because you didn't want to use your precious time before creating your post.) 

 

Do you know what this means? 

 

Discographies have a budget for the production cost of an album (writing, recording, photoshoot, CD printing, distribution, etc.). Once the budget is set, and you produce 50 tracks and release 15 tracks, you can make extra profit by releasing a CD single: for this release, the labor expenses are set, and you need to invest in distribution and printing—nothing else. Marketing is not included in this schedule, considering that marketing tends to have a different budget, but this is another discussion I am not going to have with you. 

 

 While your numbers look gorgeous, I said in my post that selling an album is more expensive and harder because of the price point. And your numbers prove it. Profit is a concept that tends to be discussed in percentage form.

 

Now, go learn to understand the differences in concepts, read what is brought to your eyes in the light of understanding it, and goodbye forever. 

[CocoPouf]

Britney Spears looks like Marilin Monroe 

That's why the entire world has been in awe of her since 1997. 

[Eternium]

1 hour ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

This is called "getting older." Let's get you to bed, sis!

 

OT: Britney is a legend and this thread is flame bait. Y'all don't need to lie to prove your point, though. 

No, it's reality. Britney had the largest media reach of any celebrity in our lifetime so far. That is an undeniable fact. 

On 1/9/2025 at 2:15 AM, jomarr said:

This is the first thread in a very long time that is pop girl related where 98% of the comments are dragging the **** out of the OP

 

he deserves it tho. this is such a ******* dumb thread.

 

britney is a legend. just deal with it honey and go get a job.

 

given ur competencies here's a link to a possible job match:

https://www.pmc.com/join-our-team/

 

Welcome back, Queen. We missed you  

On 1/10/2025 at 11:10 AM, TaylorsSquad said:

Britney is a talentless label puppet. 

A Swiftie of all people saying that. Not only is your fave a Britney stan who LITERALLY went to the Britney Spears Performing Arts Camp to learn from Britney Spears, but your fave has taken inspiration from my fave so many times (LWYMMD, Bad Blood, WANEGBT, IKYWT, RFI, Delicate, etc.) that it isn't funny. 
 

Imagine being stupid enough to come for Britney's artistry when your fave constantly latches herself onto Britney's impact and has been a Britney fan for over 20 years.

 

As far as talent goes, do you really want to talk vocals and dancing, as a Swiftie? 

On 1/10/2025 at 12:38 PM, Scandalous said:

nah I stanned both Brit and Legend X   yeah like another user said X's label actually bothered to release physical singles to push them on charts while Jive did nothing. it's kinda baffling in retrospect why they didn't put more effort into the charting of her singles when she was such a HUGE force and could've easily had a few more #1 hits (especially in Oops era), but again even with their lower chart peaks she still has more iconic and remembered songs than most artists of that period

People lost money on singles, typically, whereas albums were profitable. A physical single was only $3.99 and to do well on airplay, you had to participate in payola, which could just be something as simple as tour tickets or more expensive gifts like a trip to a concert or cash bribes. 
 

Britney was still on an indie label at that time and they didn't have a ton of money to blow. They also didn't need to use that money to launch Britney's career because she was already the most profitable female artist of the time.

On 1/8/2025 at 5:00 PM, Scandalous said:

as a britney stan since BOMT when i got older and started paying attention to charts (around blackout era) i was so shocked at how low so many of her singles charted on the Hot 100. all of her singles, even the floppiest ones, were played on radio all the time (plus her videos always smashed on TRL) so I assumed they were all massive hits  

 

we throw around how much harder it was in that era to get a #1 single and Britney is the prime example of that. she was THE most famous popstar for years yet even she struggled to get top 10 hits even though those songs felt ubiquitous and are very well remembered by pop fans

 

Oops and ITZ eras only having one (barely) top 10 single, Britney era's biggest hit peaking #27 and only having 2 charting songs overall while those were her prime eras…yet HIAM and 3 were #1 hits  

It's crazy because if Britney's heydays were in the era of streaming, she would have so many #1 singles. Imagine if TRL impressions had been factored into the Hot 100 the way YouTube streams and Spotify plays are  

On 1/8/2025 at 7:09 PM, Rico Shameless v2 said:

Correct.

 

Baby…

From the Bottom of My Broken Heart

Stronger

Me Against the Music

 

These were the only singles that received physical releases in the US. Radio did ignore her during 'Britney' due to the whole tour sponsorship drama.

 

Beginning with Toxic, Jive started dropping digital downloads/EPs but of course they weren't included until 2005. Toxic was #1 digitally, Everytime T10 digital. Do Somethin' managed to hit the Hot 100 at #100 due to strong downloads but it wasn't a US release at all so no radio adds. My Prerogative also suffered and it was a digital hit.

 

Let's not even get into the stats of her streaming on AOL/Yahoo/MTV and none of that was included.

 

We also have where radio was heavily R&B/hip-hop during the 2000s. So most of those songs were not only receiving points from Urban & Rhythmic formats but Top 40 being massive audience sent them to heights out of reach for any strictly Pop singles and artists from competing (unless you had an adult contemporary / rock smash) and settling for lower peaks. "I'm a Slave 4 U" actually managed to chart on R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay & Rhythmic Songs charts, so had the debacle with ClearChannel hadn't happened at Top 40, it would have been a pretty impressive crossover hit for her. Same for "I'm Not a Girl.." doing decently on Hot AC but CC owned all of that so.

 

These lists don't really matter when there's so much nuance, shifts in what's trending for T40 and Billboard being slow to include rising metrics at the time.

I've thought about doing a thread for lost metrics for pop stars pre-2012. People forget that we had streaming in the 2000s and other metrics like say, HitClips, which sold some 40M+ copies.

On 1/8/2025 at 3:31 PM, futuresuperstar2023 said:

Ariana grande pure sales and album sales are low AF lmfao. I like ari and find her talented but Y'all have to stop the bullshit. Look at Ari album Certifications lmfao!

That's because the children at the time of Ariana's debut never experienced a time where buying albums and singles was a thing. Her fanbase streams her music and, as you can see, they do that well.

On 1/8/2025 at 3:35 PM, byzantium said:

I think the vibes list rolls the vibes of 1999 into the 21st century which makes her placement seem less dissonant.  Her biggest year was in the 90s.  

Are you claiming the year 2000 was in the 90s? 

On 1/8/2025 at 3:51 PM, IsidoraMarí said:

If you were cognisant in the early 2000s you wouldn't be asking why. They media frenzy Britney had in those days makes Taylor's current run look bland. 

 

We can call it vibes if you want but if the media frenzy that her stardom caused hadn't driven her into a dark depression Britney very well could've and should've been one of the best selling artists of all time. 

I agree with the first part, but Britney is still among the best-selling artists of all-time and would have been even higher had she kept releasing.

On 1/8/2025 at 4:14 PM, AvadaKedavra said:

I lived in the 2000s and Britney-Avril Lavigne were far more relevant than the rest of pop girls of that time and so many american male singers. 
But im talkin from a Global Perspective. 

That list is very USA centric. They have weird taste there in America, So while the whole planet was enjoying britney...they were playin their local singers thinkin they were huge superstars. An Asereje situation.

I honestly dont take american or british all-time singers list seriously. Theyre centered too much in their own country charts and act like their taste is the taste of the whole planet.

Theyre also racist against latinos, asians, middle eastern and we rarely appear or we are relegated to the last positions.
So nope. Britney is definitely one of the top pop artist all-time  She's le creme de le creme. 

Both were huge in the U.S. and the actual sales reflected that. Our Hot 100 just didn't show it because our radio charts were clogged down by pay-to-play measures. The format became dominated by songs that could be played on multiple formats, so hip-hop and hot adult contemporary took over.

[DevilsRollTheDice]

9 minutes ago, Eternium said:

No, it's reality. Britney had the largest media reach of any celebrity in our lifetime so far. That is an undeniable fact. 

This is so delusional lmao. And you have nothing to back it up. 
 

There isn't even a Public Image of Britney Spears Wikipedia article, unlike Taylor. Her breakdown was heavily covered for negative reasons and the high level of interest in her lasted less than 10 years. Taylor's 2023 was bigger than any media coverage Britney ever had and that was 18 years into her career. 
 

No one is saying Britney didn't have huge media coverage but you're either bias because it happened when you were young or because you're a stan. Classic pop culture syndrome of your personal view trumping reality. 

Edited 14 hours ago by DevilsRollTheDice

[Eternium]

20 minutes ago, CocoPouf said:

First of all, don't ever tell me what to do. 

 

Second of all, this is the only time I will ever answer your messages, as your posts, to me, are within one of the most stereotypical ATRL posters, which, to be honest, is not something to be proud of. I'll do it as quickly as possible because educating you is not my job. 

 

So here is the answer:

 

Profit is "the difference between the purchase price and the costs of bringing to market." (I had to Wikipedia it for you because you didn't want to use your precious time before creating your post.) 

 

Do you know what this means? 

 

Discographies have a budget for the production cost of an album (writing, recording, photoshoot, CD printing, distribution, etc.). Once the budget is set, and you produce 50 tracks and release 15 tracks, you can make extra profit by releasing a CD single: for this release, the labor expenses are set, and you need to invest in distribution and printing—nothing else. Marketing is not included in this schedule, considering that marketing tends to have a different budget, but this is another discussion I am not going to have with you. 

 

 While your numbers look gorgeous, I said in my post that selling an album is more expensive and harder because of the price point. And your numbers prove it. Profit is a concept that tends to be discussed in percentage form.

 

Now, go learn to understand the differences in concepts, read what is brought to your eyes in the light of understanding it, and goodbye forever. 

This meltdown because you incorrectly claimed that CD single sales are more profitable than album sales. It's just not realistic and we witnessed the industry admit that they weren't as they abandoned single sales in favor of album sales over and over again. We either saw limited single sales releases (Celine Dion with My Heart Will Go On), timed physical single releases after the album had extended periods to sell (Britney skipped Sometimes and YDMC but then releasing FTBOMBH as a physical single) or even forgoing physical singles altogether (Don't Speak by No Doubt). You need to remember that there used to be limited space in record stores and executives had to regularly fight for shelf space. 

I also think you need to remember that the budget for an album also includes the singles that are on the album. 
 

I couldn't care less if you respond - but if you're wrong on a forum, expect someone to correct you. 

10 minutes ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

This is so delusional lmao. And you have nothing to back it up. 
 

There isn't even a Public Image of Britney Spears Wikipedia article, unlike Taylor. Her breakdown was heavily covered for negative reasons and the high level of interest in her lasted less than 10 years. Taylor's 2023 was bigger than any media coverage Britney ever had and that was 18 years into her career. 
 

No one is saying Britney didn't have huge media coverage but you're either bias because it happened when you were young or because you're a stan. Classic pop culture syndrome of your personal view trumping reality. 

Most searched people per year:

2001 Britney Spears

2002 Britney Spears

2003 Britney Spears

2004 Paris Hilton

2005 Britney Spears

2006 Britney Spears

2007 Britney Spears

2008 Britney Spears

2009 Michael Jackson

2010 Miley Cyrus

2011 Justin Bieber

2012 Whitney Houston

2013 Nelson Mandela

2014 Jennifer Lawrence

2015 Lamar Odom

2016 Donald Trump

2017 Matt Lauer

2018 Meghan Markle

2019 Antonio Brown

2020 Joe Biden

2021 Alec Baldwin

2022 Johnny Depp

2023 Damar Hamlin

2024 Donald Trump (not official yet)

Taylor Swift didn't make the list.

 

Britney Spears is currently the only person who has been the most searched person on the Internet in more than 1 calendar year…and she did it for 7 years.
 

Taylor has never had the media coverage that Britney Spears had in 2007, and hopefully never will. Taylor wasn't even top 10 for overall musicians in 2023 on search platforms, let alone top 10 for people. You're trying to downplay Britney's status as a celebrity when the forum you're on exists because people wanted to discuss Britney Spears  

 

What you're experiencing is called a "recency bias," where you inaccurately associate whatever is currently the biggest as if it was the biggest thing ever. As far as pop stars, only Madonna and Michael Jackson have received more media attention than Britney Spears. 

[DevilsRollTheDice]

52 minutes ago, Eternium said:

This meltdown because you incorrectly claimed that CD single sales are more profitable than album sales. It's just not realistic and we witnessed the industry admit that they weren't as they abandoned single sales in favor of album sales over and over again. We either saw limited single sales releases (Celine Dion with My Heart Will Go On), timed physical single releases after the album had extended periods to sell (Britney skipped Sometimes and YDMC but then releasing FTBOMBH as a physical single) or even forgoing physical singles altogether (Don't Speak by No Doubt). You need to remember that there used to be limited space in record stores and executives had to regularly fight for shelf space. 

I also think you need to remember that the budget for an album also includes the singles that are on the album. 
 

I couldn't care less if you respond - but if you're wrong on a forum, expect someone to correct you. 

Most searched people per year:

2001 Britney Spears

2002 Britney Spears

2003 Britney Spears

2004 Paris Hilton

2005 Britney Spears

2006 Britney Spears

2007 Britney Spears

2008 Britney Spears

2009 Michael Jackson

2010 Miley Cyrus

2011 Justin Bieber

2012 Whitney Houston

2013 Nelson Mandela

2014 Jennifer Lawrence

2015 Lamar Odom

2016 Donald Trump

2017 Matt Lauer

2018 Meghan Markle

2019 Antonio Brown

2020 Joe Biden

2021 Alec Baldwin

2022 Johnny Depp

2023 Damar Hamlin

2024 Donald Trump (not official yet)

Taylor Swift didn't make the list.

 

Britney Spears is currently the only person who has been the most searched person on the Internet in more than 1 calendar year…and she did it for 7 years.
 

Taylor has never had the media coverage that Britney Spears had in 2007, and hopefully never will. Taylor wasn't even top 10 for overall musicians in 2023 on search platforms, let alone top 10 for people. You're trying to downplay Britney's status as a celebrity when the forum you're on exists because people wanted to discuss Britney Spears  

 

What you're experiencing is called a "recency bias," where you inaccurately associate whatever is currently the biggest as if it was the biggest thing ever. As far as pop stars, only Madonna and Michael Jackson have received more media attention than Britney Spears. 

You can view the Google trends here if you want to use that as evidence. And before you try it these are based on percentages, not absolute numbers. 

 

Britney came of age when Google was mostly used by young people instead of everyone. Obviously DT is going to win that game in a modern context, but you can clearly see that Taylor's relative peak crushes Britney's. Britney's search peak also topped out from a public meltdown, not general interest. 
 

Even with negative media attention counting, Britney is not as widely and consistently covered as Taylor. If you remove the coverage that centered around her breakdown they're not even in the same stratosphere. 
 

What you're experiencing is either stan goggles and not caring that Britney's interest peak revolved around negative personal life press and not her career or the bias of not feeling like anything is as big as it was when you were young. 
 

Anyway, ring me when she has one of these. An honor Taylor shares figures like  Biden, Trump, and Obama unlike her alleged pop peers. 

Edited 12 hours ago by DevilsRollTheDice

[Eternium]

7 hours ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

You can view the Google trends here if you want to use that as evidence. And before you try it these are based on percentages, not absolute numbers. 

 

Britney came of age when Google was mostly used by young people instead of everyone. Obviously DT is going to win that game in a modern context, but you can clearly see that Taylor's relative peak crushes Britney's. Britney's search peak also topped out from a public meltdown, not general interest. 
 

Even with negative media attention counting, Britney is not as widely and consistently covered as Taylor. If you remove the coverage that centered around her breakdown they're not even in the same stratosphere. 
 

What you're experiencing is either stan goggles and not caring that Britney's interest peak revolved around negative personal life press and not her career or the bias of not feeling like anything is as big as it was when you were young. 
 

Anyway, ring me when she has one of these. An honor Taylor shares figures like  Biden, Trump, and Obama unlike her alleged pop peers. 

Girl, if Taylor was ever a bigger topic of conversation for the year relative to Britney, she would be #1 for most searched of the year just like Britney was (for 7 years). Taylor is not yet there and probably will never manage that. Even if you limit it to just musicians, Taylor Swift hasn't been the most searched musician of the year as many times as Britney has been for most searched person overall.
 

Google had 55 billion searches in 2001 alone. Acting like it wasn't a generational tool that was everywhere is wild. We also had Yahoo, AskJeeves, etc. and Britney was #1 on those platforms, too. And if you want to add in paparazzi culture, she was also the face of tabloids, was dubbed as the most photographed person in the world (the first since Princess Diana to take that title) and was infamous for the paparazzi culture that followed her.
 

It's laughable to claim that Taylor gets any media attention outside of her personal life. Her entire discography is about selling her personal life stories and she got dragged for the first decade of her career for writing about every relationship she has ever had (and she notably had many public relationships). While I disagree with the underlying misogyny, it's delusional as hell to claim Taylor isn't trying to sell her personal life to the public and is getting attention solely for her voice, performance style and music. Wasn't her last album all about her last boyfriend, yet you want to drag Britney for getting attention for her personal life? Make it make sense.

 

Taylor Swift does not get a lot of news coverage like Britney did. Britney Spears used to get segments daily on the news. The only other modern artists who can compare are Michael Jackson, Madonna and Princess Diana. And kii at you acting like Britney didn't get attention for her music. Her success speaks for itself, but her performances from the VMAs are more known than any Taylor Swift performance (does Taylor even have a famous performance?) and her music videos and fashion were significantly more popular than anything Taylor Swift ever did. And when you take into all accounts, BOMT, OIDIA and Toxic are bigger and more known globally than any Taylor Swift song (which is why your fave worked with Max Martin and Joseph Khan and dressed up like Britney in the Bad Blood video and had the spoken word Max Martin bit in WANEGBT).

 

The Swifties are serving Little Monsters circa 2013 in the most delusional way ever  

[Kimi]

10 minutes ago, Eternium said:

her performances from the VMAs are more known than any Taylor Swift performance (does Taylor even have a famous performance?)

I think the biggest tour in the history of humanity might check that box 

[DevilsRollTheDice]

58 minutes ago, Eternium said:

Girl, if Taylor was ever a bigger topic of conversation for the year relative to Britney, she would be #1 for most searched of the year just like Britney was (for 7 years). Taylor is not yet there and probably will never manage that. Even if you limit it to just musicians, Taylor Swift hasn't been the most searched musician of the year as many times as Britney has been for most searched person overall.
 

Google had 55 billion searches in 2001 alone. Acting like it wasn't a generational tool that was everywhere is wild. We also had Yahoo, AskJeeves, etc. and Britney was #1 on those platforms, too. And if you want to add in paparazzi culture, she was also the face of tabloids, was dubbed as the most photographed person in the world (the first since Princess Diana to take that title) and was infamous for the paparazzi culture that followed her.
 

It's laughable to claim that Taylor gets any media attention outside of her personal life. Her entire discography is about selling her personal life stories and she got dragged for the first decade of her career for writing about every relationship she has ever had (and she notably had many public relationships). While I disagree with the underlying misogyny, it's delusional as hell to claim Taylor isn't trying to sell her personal life to the public and is getting attention solely for her voice, performance style and music. Wasn't her last album all about her last boyfriend, yet you want to drag Britney for getting attention for her personal life? Make it make sense.

 

Taylor Swift does not get a lot of news coverage like Britney did. Britney Spears used to get segments daily on the news. The only other modern artists who can compare are Michael Jackson, Madonna and Princess Diana. And kii at you acting like Britney didn't get attention for her music. Her success speaks for itself, but her performances from the VMAs are more known than any Taylor Swift performance (does Taylor even have a famous performance?) and her music videos and fashion were significantly more popular than anything Taylor Swift ever did. And when you take into all accounts, BOMT, OIDIA and Toxic are bigger and more known globally than any Taylor Swift song (which is why your fave worked with Max Martin and Joseph Khan and dressed up like Britney in the Bad Blood video and had the spoken word Max Martin bit in WANEGBT).

 

The Swifties are serving Little Monsters circa 2013 in the most delusional way ever  

One of the most delusional posts and users I've ever encountered on this website, no point continuing 

You can literally view the trend data yourself that is linked. 2001 searches were 1.7% of 2024 total searches btw! Also Taylor's media peak was when she had the biggest music consumption year in history and the largest tour in history which was far more covered than her personal life press!
 

Enjoy la la land, sis!

Edited 3 hours ago by DevilsRollTheDice