PDC1987
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by PDC1987 on Oct 29, 2011 18:36:31 GMT -5
For the second time in two days here I'm gonna have to say, I love the smell of fresh non-sequiturs in the morning. I can bring up Roberta. We don't always have to talk about Britney in Christina threads... quite frankly, that discussion is sooo predictable, naive, backward-thinking, narrow-minded, thick-headed and boring. Do not allow yourself to be so easily manipulated by the mainstream media. Think outside the box, learn to think for yourself. Do not be brainwashed. Forget about what society says is or isn't or what can or cannot be. Buy generic laundry detergent! Quit trying to conform! Uhh, okay. Let's try this again: Commercial accomplishments and at what age they happen are not what makes a legend, sorry. Impact does, and that's where Xtina loses her relevance. Roberta may not have released her first album by the time she was Xtina's current age, but her output was vastly superior to and far more influential than Xtina's. Hence the difference. And now you say ignore populist arguments and what people say should be, yet you're trying to say the media and people in general think Xtina is a legend and that proves that she is. So, which is it?
|
|
Oprah
9x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 9,064
|
Post by Oprah on Oct 29, 2011 18:41:53 GMT -5
Age doesn't really matter. Roberta debuted late but she made a big impact with her music; Christina's already been around for over a decade and she's been a secondary pop-star even at her peak. The chances of her turning that reputation around are pretty slim.
|
|
think pink.
Diamond Member
π π
π»
Joined: April 2011
Posts: 23,847
|
Post by think pink. on Oct 29, 2011 18:43:10 GMT -5
So one year-end, genre-specific Billboard chart, covering just one country obviously, proves that Xtina was #1 at some point? Overall she was always playing 2nd fiddle to someone. Britney, Pink, Beyonce, Alicia, etc. That's not to say she wasn't successful, but she was always in someone else's shadow. Exactly. Always a brides maid....
|
|
Luckie Starchild
Diamond Member
Has a special title
2020 PMA Lifetime Achievement Award, 2011 PMA winner and 8X nominee!
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 14,524
|
Post by Luckie Starchild on Oct 29, 2011 20:40:16 GMT -5
Uhh, okay. Let's try this again: Commercial accomplishments and at what age they happen are not what makes a legend, sorry. Impact does, and that's where Xtina loses her relevance. Roberta may not have released her first album by the time she was Xtina's current age, but her output was vastly superior to and far more influential than Xtina's. Hence the difference. And now you say ignore populist arguments and what people say should be, yet you're trying to say the media and people in general think Xtina is a legend and that proves that she is. So, which is it? If you would read my post correctly, I did not say whether Christina is or is not a legend, I was responding to the statement that she never will become a legend. The point is she has accomplished a lot at age 30. If she's still working till 2055 (at age 74, Roberta's age), I can easily see her continuing to accomplish big things and be recognized for them. I'm also saying we don't have always have the same conversation over and over. There's a whole big world of recording artists besides the small handful that always come up here. So one year-end, genre-specific Billboard chart, covering just one country obviously, proves that Xtina was #1 at some point? Overall she was always playing 2nd fiddle to someone. Britney, Pink, Beyonce, Alicia, etc. That's not to say she wasn't successful, but she was always in someone else's shadow. Exactly. Always a brides maid.... First of all, I don't buy your premise. But even if I did, it doesn't mean much. Vanilla Ice was the hottest thing at one point, Patti LaBelle was never the hottest thing and Patti's career is way more impressive.
|
|
|
Post by ingrownhairdyke on Oct 30, 2011 10:01:02 GMT -5
So one year-end, genre-specific Billboard chart, covering just one country obviously, proves that Xtina was #1 at some point? Overall she was always playing 2nd fiddle to someone. Britney, Pink, Beyonce, Alicia, etc. That's not to say she wasn't successful, but she was always in someone else's shadow. I can probably agree with the Britney one but even when she went head to head with Britney she still got best new artist at the grammys and Female Artist of the year at the Billboards awards in 2000. She never even competed against Pink or Alicia WTF??? Christina trumps Beyonce in 2003 as far as sales, impact, if we are looking at it on a worldwide scale. Stripped was the much bigger album and Christina was the most talked about female in late 2002-2003. Beyonce could have had those 2 huge #1's but the world was watching Christina not Beyonce so again NOPE.
|
|
Oprah
9x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 9,064
|
Post by Oprah on Oct 30, 2011 10:14:45 GMT -5
^Except DIL sold more than Stripped both in the US and worldwide, so....
|
|
|
Post by K. on Oct 30, 2011 10:21:39 GMT -5
So one year-end, genre-specific Billboard chart, covering just one country obviously, proves that Xtina was #1 at some point? Overall she was always playing 2nd fiddle to someone. Britney, Pink, Beyonce, Alicia, etc. That's not to say she wasn't successful, but she was always in someone else's shadow. It proves it just as much as your opinion does, perhaps more so, because it is based on lots of data. I do think she was the biggest female artist in the second half of 2002 and the first half of 2003. But I would certainly consider anything you would care to put forward to support your post.
|
|
Eqbk
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,175
|
Post by Eqbk on Oct 30, 2011 12:30:28 GMT -5
So one year-end, genre-specific Billboard chart, covering just one country obviously, proves that Xtina was #1 at some point? Overall she was always playing 2nd fiddle to someone. Britney, Pink, Beyonce, Alicia, etc. That's not to say she wasn't successful, but she was always in someone else's shadow. It proves it just as much as your opinion does, perhaps more so, because it is based on lots of data. I do think she was the biggest female artist in the second half of 2002 and the first half of 2003. But I would certainly consider anything you would care to put forward to support your post. The problem w/ year-end chart like this is that a lot of it is dependent on timing. A song that charts in January is going to have better chance of placing higher than a song that charts in October. This problem carries over to the artists chart. 'Beautiful', the biggest song off of Stripped, and her most recent top 5 solo hit, charted and peaked at the beginning of the tracking period. She also had a year to have several songs chart to help her pad her stats. Beyonce on the other hand, the true breakout female star, only came in the middle of the year. 'Crazy in Love' didn't reach its peak until about mid July and 'Baby Boy' didn't reach its peak until October. And Dangerously In Love was released in Late May, compared to Stripped, which charted the entire tracking period. If you were to ask the general public who was the biggest female star that year, the answer would probably be Beyonce. Her singles were far bigger and impactful and she was a far more encompassing force than Christina was. And even if we were to completely ignore natural instinct and say Christina was bigger than Beyonce that year, as others have pointed Christina has generally played second fiddle. And since you liked using end-of charts from Billboard. How about we take a gander at the end-of-the-decade chart, where Christina was outranked by Rihanna, someone who came in midway through the decade. She didn't even play second fiddle or even third fiddle here, she played eigth fiddle among female solo artists.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2011 12:31:51 GMT -5
Do not allow yourself to be so easily manipulated by the mainstream media. Think outside the box, learn to think for yourself. Do not be brainwashed. Forget about what society says is or isn't or what can or cannot be. Buy generic laundry detergent! Quit trying to conform! That's cute and all , but it seems like the complete opposite of what one should do when trying to decide if an artist is a musical legend or not.
|
|
Caviar
Diamond Member
Queen X
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 30,915
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his
|
Post by Caviar on Oct 30, 2011 15:41:19 GMT -5
Yet Christina was the only artist under 30 named by Rolling Stone (surveyed by her PEERS) as the one of the greatest female singers AND featured in BOTH the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame AND the Grammy HOF. Christina ain't going no where and her status as an artist and a singer has already been established and those who disagree will DEAL.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2011 15:45:21 GMT -5
Christina is not in the Rock and Roll or Grammy Halls of Fame. You have to wait 25 years after you released your first record to be even considered for either. What are you talking about?
|
|
Oprah
9x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 9,064
|
Post by Oprah on Oct 30, 2011 16:11:14 GMT -5
Yet Christina was the only artist under 30 named by Rolling Stone (surveyed by her PEERS) as the one of the greatest female singers AND featured in BOTH the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame AND the Grammy HOF. Christina ain't going no where and her status as an artist and a singer has already been established and those who disagree will DEAL. She's in neither of the last two and the first is some poll from a magazine. Getting praised for vocals is nice, but it doesn't make the singer in question a legend unless they're on some Mariah/Whitney/Celine shit.
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on Oct 30, 2011 16:18:55 GMT -5
And to clarify, Christina is not on some Mariah/Whitney/Celine s**t.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2011 16:26:49 GMT -5
Christina is not in the Rock and Roll or Grammy Halls of Fame. You have to wait 25 years after you released your first record to be even considered for either. What are you talking about? Just to clarify, by featured, I think they just mean that she has an outfit or two in there as a part of their museum. She's not actually inducted. They recently made a part of the museum called Women Who Rock, and Christina's one of the women included. Having said that, it's nothing to be seen as a separation of her as being 'above the rest,' because several women, including Alicia Keys, Lady Gaga, Carrie Underwood, Rihanna, Shakira, Sheila E, Taylor Swift, and others are in the same exhibit, so it's not like it makes Xtina anything special. Just wanted to give a better explanation of what Identity Crisis meant (I hope that's what they meant, at least)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2011 16:33:10 GMT -5
Ah ok. I knew it had to be something. You're right, that hardly proves she's above her peers. I do wonder though, would the people who call Christina a legend consider those girls legends too? Because like I've said, I do I think part of the problem is that when you have Cassie getting called a legend for bubbling under the bubbling under R&B chart or whatever, then maybe Christina is a legend in comparison. Outside Pulse, music legends are people like Aretha, the Beatles, Elvis, James Brown... But maybe the problem is that the word legend has become so devalued on music forums, not necessarily delusion (although one could argue that devaluation is delusion in itself).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2011 16:42:31 GMT -5
Ah ok. I knew it had to be something. You're right, that hardly proves she's above her peers. I do wonder though, would the people who call Christina a legend consider those girls legends too? Because like I've said, I do I think part of the problem is that when you have Cassie getting called a legend for bubbling under the bubbling under R&B chart or whatever, then maybe Christina is a legend in comparison. Outside Pulse, music legends are people like Aretha, the Beatles, Elvis, James Brown... But maybe the problem is that the word legend has become so devalued on music forums, not necessarily delusion (although one could argue that devaluation is delusion in itself). That's the biggest problem with music forums. You're absolutely correct. I, as well as many others on here, use the word in a joking manner, but some people use it seriously (a la the Christina stans), and that's where it becomes a problem. Online, it could be seen in one of two ways, both of which I mentioned: *a joke *seriously Outside of the forum world, the word is used incredibly tightly. It seems, to me at least, that the Christina stans seem to build up what they know of Christina's accomplishments and run with it, without any knowledge of her peers' accomplishments, which is where the whole "legend" card comes into play, and why they use it so loosely when comparing Christina to others. There's no gray in the black and white situations with them, and that's probably why they aren't crediting the other women included. They have a limited knowledge of everyone else's accomplishments, and see Christina's inclusion of the museum as another check mark on her list of milestones, and everyone else's inclusion is just another stepping stone to make something out of. That's just what I take of it and the whole "legend" remarks. Point blank, Christina is not a legend, but her stans refuse to believe otherwise, and that's where these threads turn into mass chaos. It's the real world versus the fantasy world, and it never turns out well.
|
|
|
Post by K. on Oct 30, 2011 17:10:06 GMT -5
It proves it just as much as your opinion does, perhaps more so, because it is based on lots of data. I do think she was the biggest female artist in the second half of 2002 and the first half of 2003. But I would certainly consider anything you would care to put forward to support your post. The problem w/ year-end chart like this is that a lot of it is dependent on timing. A song that charts in January is going to have better chance of placing higher than a song that charts in October. . . . If you were to ask the general public who was the biggest female star that year, the answer would probably be Beyonce. I agree with most of what you wrote, but you are arbitrarily picking a period in which to measure greatness the same as Billboard is. A good two months of Christina's era was also in 2002, so the chart probably discounts that. There are also problems with your theory because if you ask people at the end of the year, while Beyonce is still at the top of the charts, that could influence their decision (that's assuming that your unsupported "natural instinct" conclusion can actually be backed up). Um, I posted that exact chart, so if you want to look at it be my guest. I never claimed Christina was the biggest artist of the decade, and would agree that culturally she is behind Rihanna. People here take things so seriously. I said originally that Christina is on the same level of people who were the biggest thing for a short period of time. The phrase "biggest thing in the world" was probably an exaggeration, so if we want to get overly technical, fine, I concede. She was, however, in the top two (maybe three) female artists for two eras, during what was probably the peak of music consumption in the US. I don't think rephrasing it that way changes the real point I was trying to make in my original post.
|
|
Luckie Starchild
Diamond Member
Has a special title
2020 PMA Lifetime Achievement Award, 2011 PMA winner and 8X nominee!
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 14,524
|
Post by Luckie Starchild on Oct 30, 2011 17:14:07 GMT -5
Do not allow yourself to be so easily manipulated by the mainstream media. Think outside the box, learn to think for yourself. Do not be brainwashed. Forget about what society says is or isn't or what can or cannot be. Buy generic laundry detergent! Quit trying to conform! That's cute and all , but it seems like the complete opposite of what one should do when trying to decide if an artist is a musical legend or not. No. The mainstream media reduces everything down to the most simplistic terms, whether they're talking about politics or entertainment. Do not be deceived. The agenda is not restricted to Beyonce this, Britney that. I do not need that small-minded energy. If someone doesn't have a frame of reference beyond a few contemporary female recording artists, they need to educate themselves. I'm doing a huge favor to everyone here by pointing this out.
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on Oct 30, 2011 17:16:00 GMT -5
Trust me, you're doing no favor to anyone in this thread.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2011 17:19:51 GMT -5
No. The mainstream media reduces everything down to the most simplistic terms, whether they're talking about politics or entertainment. Do not be deceived. The agenda is not to restricted to Beyonce this, Britney that. I do not need that small-minded energy. If someone doesn't have a frame of reference beyond a few contemporary female recording artists, they need to educate themselves. I'm doing a huge favor to everyone here by pointing this out. You're right. Nobody thinks Christina Aguilera is a music legend, but they're wrong because they're mainstream and brainwashed. The majority should never be taken into account when it comes to deciding things. The only person we should be taking into account is Bill Clinton, who once attended the same party as Christina, thus proving her iconic status and possibly making her the true President of the USA. Ya dig?
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 30, 2011 17:34:13 GMT -5
Let's just say the word "legend" applied to only the top 1% of musicians and artists based on their achievements. Anyone who reaches that 1% is automatically credited as a music legend. Who would we consider as part of this legendary 1%? Of course, we'd all have to agree on what aspects make up that status. Sales? Airplay? Critical acclaim from reviewers and peers alike? Influence on fans of music (note I didn't say "fans" but "fans of music") and later generations of musicians? Etc.
Would Christina or many of the names mentioned here be in that very strict and very high status group? I really doubt it. Could it happen? Perhaps. We can al speculate all we want but arguing over the future always proves to be a waste of time.
|
|
β«.Fan
New Member
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 190
|
Post by β«.Fan on Oct 30, 2011 17:52:47 GMT -5
Ya'll stay trying to dwindle her name but us X stans love that. At this points she's further than a legend, and a way, way, way better singer than Whitney, Celine, and Mariah (Celine even agrees, and Whitney wouldn't be here right now without her). X owned 2000, and 2003 without a doubt, and was in no 1's shadow like throughout her career, according to Billboard, and the UWC. Britney wants to be her, and have that legendary voice. JLo doesn't even have an album passed 10 mill so she ain't s#!t. X had way more impact than Kelly's whole career, a huge stan, and if she hadn't give that whale Miss Independent she would be a bigger mess than she's now. DIL has sold 8 mill, and Stripped over 10 so Beyonce ain't topped her for s#!t. What Identity Crisis meant was the tribute of X from the 07 Grammys hanging at the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame. The Burlesque Soundtrack's (which counts as her sales) selling on par with studio albums like Femme Fatale, and 4. MLJ's (which counts as her sales) heading to be bigger than anything that almost all of these girls have released (especially Brit's highest single sold with a bit over 3.1). She's 1 of the biggest, most influential, and praised artists of all time. Deal with it!
|
|
PDC1987
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by PDC1987 on Oct 30, 2011 18:32:21 GMT -5
The Burlesque Soundtrack's (which counts as her sales) selling on par with studio albums like Femme Fatale, and 4. "On par" doesn't mean what you think it does: 11/15/11 Billboard 200 17 COL 20 24 21 BEYONCE 4 14,488 -3 14,972 863,180 29 RCA 188 107 SPEARS*BRITNEY FEMME FATALE 4,005 43 2,809 695,320 47 RCA 193 185 114 BURLESQUE SOUNDTRACK 3,910 36 2,866 494,633
|
|
PDC1987
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 1,275
|
Post by PDC1987 on Oct 30, 2011 18:47:17 GMT -5
|
|
Sir LOVE IX
2x Platinum Member
Down on your knees
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 2,019
|
Post by Sir LOVE IX on Oct 30, 2011 18:47:44 GMT -5
yeah let's pretend there was no Bionic Can I ask you something? Did you wrot it cause you belive it, or you just wanted to troll?
|
|
β«.Fan
New Member
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 190
|
Post by β«.Fan on Oct 30, 2011 18:51:57 GMT -5
^^ Everything there's true. :)
|
|
β«.Fan
New Member
Joined: October 2008
Posts: 190
|
Post by β«.Fan on Oct 30, 2011 19:01:48 GMT -5
PDC1987 give up. On par meaning equal in the sense. The Burlesque Soundtrack still high on iTunes, and Billboard with Femme Fatale, and 4 close by in different areas even when the soundtrack has no promo, and no singles. 1. She's in the top 40 with the only females, and has only been doing music for a bit over 10 years, and she''s under certified btw. 2. Just watch America Idol, and her #1 smash hit show The Voice, and people around the world, and other artists like Demi, and even flop fads like Gaga try to mimic her voice, and the way she sings. 3. Less than 20 review ain't s#!t, and those aren't even bad. The 100s of Grammy voters with a lot of her albums >>>>>>>>>>
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Oct 30, 2011 19:03:48 GMT -5
Oh jeez! The type of poster Pulse DOESN'T need...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2011 19:09:23 GMT -5
2. Just watch America Idol, and her #1 smash hit show The Voice, and people around the world, and other artists like Demi, and even flop fads like Gaga try to mimic her voice, and the way she sings. Nobody wants to mimic a manatee. Sorry about it.
|
|
Sir LOVE IX
2x Platinum Member
Down on your knees
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 2,019
|
Post by Sir LOVE IX on Oct 30, 2011 19:11:33 GMT -5
|
|