amore
Platinum Member
Banned
Joined: June 2018
Posts: 1,205
|
Post by amore on Nov 20, 2018 8:59:47 GMT -5
I've always wondered which was bigger at their peak.
|
|
rockgolf
2x Platinum Member
Pop music fanatic since the days of 7" 45 RPM records.
Joined: August 2018
Posts: 2,093
Pronouns: he/him/his
|
Post by rockgolf on Nov 20, 2018 9:55:53 GMT -5
One can sing, play piano, write, act and may not yet be at her peak.
The other was in Crossroads.
|
|
irice22
9x Platinum Member
listening to Kesha. Always.
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 9,214
|
Post by irice22 on Nov 20, 2018 10:23:14 GMT -5
Really tough call, but probably Britney.
|
|
|
Post by οΌ³ο½ο½ο½ο½ο½ο½π€ο½ο½ on Nov 20, 2018 10:24:48 GMT -5
Brit
|
|
Zach
7x Platinum Member
And at once I knew I was not magnificent...
Joined: September 2015
Posts: 7,544
|
Post by Zach on Nov 20, 2018 11:14:44 GMT -5
Britney peaked a bit higher IMO and her peak lasted longer.
|
|
|
Post by die Lotterie on Nov 20, 2018 11:47:55 GMT -5
When Britney was at her peak, it always felt to me like she was the biggest pop-tart, teen heart throb, J-14 fodder in existence. Iconic? Duh. Lady Gaga at her peak felt different to me as she was much more than the sexy image, Lady Gaga transcended the realm of teenage audiences and horny 23 year old men with Britney posters living in their parents basements. At Lady Gaga's peak it felt like there wasn't as much of a generational divide regarding her popularity, it was like people of all ages and backgrounds were fans and checking up on her. Not to mention Gaga was much more creatively involved in her image, music, and generally all aspects of her career which was refreshing at the time in pop culture and also lead to more acclaim and respect than I remember Britney garnering during her peak.
|
|
Caviar
Diamond Member
Queen X
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 31,089
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his
|
Post by Caviar on Nov 20, 2018 11:49:48 GMT -5
Lady Gaga just felt BIGGER. The meat dress alone is still being talking about. She also has three straight nominations in Album of the Year. She's a legend.
|
|
damazz09
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 1,861
|
Post by damazz09 on Nov 20, 2018 11:55:59 GMT -5
Nevermind the avatar but Britney was bigger at her peak than Gaga was at her peak. Lady Gaga was the last female artist to have a stratospheric rise that Britney had but both had different trajectories post their first albums. Britney singlehandedly changed the pop landscape that led to a radical shift in the late 90s. You can argue that the Backstreet Boys + NSYNC also changed it but before Britney, they were more of outliers to Top 40 radio instead of leading the pack. When Britney came in, bubblegum pop solidified as the dominant genre on Top 40 for 2 years making way for BSB, Nsync, 98 degrees, Christina Aguilera, Jessica Simpson and more/less Mandy Moore to have successful eras.
With Gaga it was similar. It seemed as if she appeared out of thin air and was such a force within months. For Gaga, I think she had timing on her side. Pop music was on its way towards dance pop with Timbaland/Nelly Furtado/Justin Timberlake being very popular a year before. Gaga was also coming right after Rihanna's Don't Stop The Music + Disturbia as well as Katy Perry. When gaga exploded, so did Katy Perry + Rihanna. It was more on trend with what was going on in the pop landscape than what Britney did in 1999.
It's hard to put in words but Britney's debut era felt a little bigger than Lady Gaga's debut. Both were wildly successful and had huge follow up albums (Oops! + Fame Monster) to capitalize on their success. Looking back, I think it is easier to say Britney was bigger. Gaga wasn't able to sustain her popularity the way that Britney did. Britney was probably the most talked about star for 10 years straight while Gaga's fame dimmed 5 years into it.
|
|
Relaxing Cup
Diamond Member
Joined: March 2014
Posts: 14,673
|
Post by Relaxing Cup on Nov 20, 2018 12:00:12 GMT -5
Lady Gaga was omnipresent at her peak, Britney was not.
|
|
|
Post by cassiuscasanova on Nov 20, 2018 21:33:54 GMT -5
Iβd vote Britney was bigger at her peak, Gaga had the better follow up
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Nov 20, 2018 22:54:56 GMT -5
This is tough. I'd say Gaga's peak was 2010 into early 2011 and there was a time when she was everywhere. But Britney's peak came early on (and she had other peaks throughout her career but I'd argue her highest came in 1999 into 2000). I want to say Gaga just because the buildup from Bad Romance to the debut of Born This Way was monstrous but Britney's peak was more consistent and she experienced several over the course of her career.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 23:00:08 GMT -5
gaga
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2018 23:32:15 GMT -5
Gaga peaked higher. Britney peaked longer.
|
|
aussie1
2x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2018
Posts: 2,245
|
Post by aussie1 on Nov 21, 2018 2:22:08 GMT -5
Gaga peaked higher. Britney peaked longer. THIS. Gaga's peak in popularity was huge and crazy to watch. But I'd argue Britney's peak is more impressive because it didn't really crash and burn suddenly. Even Blackout, Circus and Female Fatale had huge hit singles and that was a decade or more into her career.
|
|
Enigma.
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2007
Posts: 13,919
|
Post by Enigma. on Nov 21, 2018 9:12:24 GMT -5
In terms of overall pop culture impact, it's hard to compare 10 years vs. 20 years in the biz just now. I have a feeling that Gaga will remain more relevant than Britney in the next 5 years or so.
But Gaga wins over Britney on her ability to sing.
I love both though.
|
|
Glove Slap
Administrator
Sweetheart
Downloading ΰΌΊΰΌΰΌ» Possibilities
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 29,511
Staff
|
Post by Glove Slap on Nov 21, 2018 9:21:41 GMT -5
It's debatable whether Lady Gaga's peak was higher than Britney's, and I'd argue more against it. But the massive interest in Britney from the media ironically lasted until Gaga blew up (even though FF had hits, interest in Britney was notably lower than during any of her prior campaigns then).
|
|
rockgolf
2x Platinum Member
Pop music fanatic since the days of 7" 45 RPM records.
Joined: August 2018
Posts: 2,093
Pronouns: he/him/his
|
Post by rockgolf on Nov 21, 2018 9:22:36 GMT -5
If we're keeping this as a chart discussion, then let's actually look at the charts, because other the Baby One More Time, Britney was not a huge singles act:
Britney's singles (US peaks) in her first 3 years Baby one more time #1 Sometimes #21 (You Drive Me) Crazy #10 Born to Make You Happy (did not chart) From the Bottom of My Broken Heart #14 Oops! I Did It Again #9 Lucky #23 Stronger #11 I'm A Slave 4 U #27 Overprotected #86
One #1, 3 top tens. Not particularly impressive.
Now look at the first 3 years of Gaga's career: Just Dance #1 Poker Face #1 LoveGame #5 Paparazzi #6 Bad Romance #2 Telephone #3 Alejandro #5 Born This Way #1 Judas #10 The Edge of Glory #3 You & I #6 Marry the Night #29
Three #1s, eleven top tens. It isn't even close. Gaga by a mile.
|
|
amore
Platinum Member
Banned
Joined: June 2018
Posts: 1,205
|
Post by amore on Nov 21, 2018 10:26:54 GMT -5
If we're keeping this as a chart discussion, then let's actually look at the charts, because other the Baby One More Time, Britney was not a huge singles act:
Britney's singles (US peaks) in her first 3 years Baby one more time #1 Sometimes #21 (You Drive Me) Crazy #10 Born to Make You Happy (did not chart) From the Bottom of My Broken Heart #14 Oops! I Did It Again #9 Lucky #23 Stronger #11 I'm A Slave 4 U #27 Overprotected #86
One #1, 3 top tens. Not particularly impressive. Now look at the first 3 years of Gaga's career: Just Dance #1 Poker Face #1 LoveGame #5 Paparazzi #6 Bad Romance #2 Telephone #3 Alejandro #5 Born This Way #1 Judas #10 The Edge of Glory #3 You & I #6 Marry the Night #29
Three #1s, eleven top tens. It isn't even close. Gaga by a mile. But didn't Britneys debut album sell WAY more than Gagas?
|
|
rockgolf
2x Platinum Member
Pop music fanatic since the days of 7" 45 RPM records.
Joined: August 2018
Posts: 2,093
Pronouns: he/him/his
|
Post by rockgolf on Nov 21, 2018 10:35:29 GMT -5
But didn't Britneys debut album sell WAY more than Gagas? That's an unfair comparison because album sales across the board dropped dramatically between 1999 and 2009. Everybody's albums from that decade sold more. It was the time of peak CD sales.
It would be like comparing TV rating in the 90s to today. The #1 TV series this year, Big Bang Theory, would rank something like 60th if it had the same number of people watching in the Seinfeld/Cheers/Friends era.
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Nov 21, 2018 10:40:48 GMT -5
Creed has an album that outsold all of Britneyβs and Gagaβs albums. Maybe they were bigger at their peak?
|
|
|
Post by οΌ³ο½ο½ο½ο½ο½ο½π€ο½ο½ on Nov 21, 2018 10:41:38 GMT -5
If we're keeping this as a chart discussion, then let's actually look at the charts, because other the Baby One More Time, Britney was not a huge singles act:
Three #1s, eleven top tens. It isn't even close. Gaga by a mile. I'm A Slave For U was much bigger than 80% of Gaga's top 10 hits. Ironically, Britney has more #1s in 2010s than Lady Gaga... Britney is more an album artist, first 3 albums 55 million copies WW.
|
|
amore
Platinum Member
Banned
Joined: June 2018
Posts: 1,205
|
Post by amore on Nov 21, 2018 10:42:52 GMT -5
But didn't Britneys debut album sell WAY more than Gagas? That's an unfair comparison because album sales across the board dropped dramatically between 1999 and 2009. Everybody's albums from that decade sold more. It was the time of peak CD sales.
It would be like comparing TV rating in the 90s to today. The #1 TV series this year, Big Bang Theory, would rank something like 60th if it had the same number of people watching in the Seinfeld/Cheers/Friends era.Is it tho? Adele 21 sold more albums than Britney's debut album. 21 came out in 2011 I think.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2018 10:55:57 GMT -5
I mean take into account Britney was pushed heavily in the US for album sales, singles not as much
Also doesn't help that for over one whole album era, radio wasn't her friend.
|
|
damazz09
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 1,861
|
Post by damazz09 on Nov 21, 2018 11:03:47 GMT -5
Comparing chart data from Britney's (1999-2004) to Gaga's debut is comparing apples to oranges. You only had airplay and physical sales when it came to Britney's debut. Gaga had airplay and digital sales and also youtube which triggered more digital sales. Britney was never a huge physical single seller because her albums were being bought- which didn't translate to the singles doing well on the charts. If you ask anyone during Britney's first 5 years- BOMT, Sometimes, Crazy, Oops, Lucky, Stronger, Slave, Toxic, and Everytime were all massive singles that the charts do not reflect their popularity. I think Gaga's reflect chart performance is on par to how big the songs were.
|
|
|
Post by collegedropout on Nov 21, 2018 11:33:58 GMT -5
When Britney was at her peak, it always felt to me like she was the biggest pop-tart, teen heart throb, J-14 fodder in existence. Iconic? Duh. Lady Gaga at her peak felt different to me as she was much more than the sexy image, Lady Gaga transcended the realm of teenage audiences and horny 23 year old men with Britney posters living in their parents basements. At Lady Gaga's peak it felt like there wasn't as much of a generational divide regarding her popularity, it was like people of all ages and backgrounds were fans and checking up on her. Not to mention Gaga was much more creatively involved in her image, music, and generally all aspects of her career which was refreshing at the time in pop culture and also lead to more acclaim and respect than I remember Britney garnering during her peak. I think this sums it up perfectly.
|
|
rockgolf
2x Platinum Member
Pop music fanatic since the days of 7" 45 RPM records.
Joined: August 2018
Posts: 2,093
Pronouns: he/him/his
|
Post by rockgolf on Nov 21, 2018 11:46:51 GMT -5
That's an unfair comparison because album sales across the board dropped dramatically between 1999 and 2009. Everybody's albums from that decade sold more. It was the time of peak CD sales.
It would be like comparing TV rating in the 90s to today. The #1 TV series this year, Big Bang Theory, would rank something like 60th if it had the same number of people watching in the Seinfeld/Cheers/Friends era. Is it tho? Adele 21 sold more albums than Britney's debut album. 21 came out in 2011 I think. Adeles's 21 is an outlier. I think it's sold twice as many albums as the 2nd biggest seller of the 2010s. I don't think any album, even her next will ever achieve those numbers again. It's like trying to compare Britney's sales to Thriller.
And as for being "an album artist", that's largely because in those days record companies either released singles in limited quantity or not at all in order to encourage album sales. It worked short-term, and then Napster came along and flipped the table. People got real tired of spending $20 to buy a CD for one single. But everyone was under the same constraints, so to say her singles were underrepresented in the charts is a very dubious claim.
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Nov 21, 2018 12:36:21 GMT -5
Adele can never be used as an example of the norm because her career has been anything but.
|
|
amore
Platinum Member
Banned
Joined: June 2018
Posts: 1,205
|
Post by amore on Nov 21, 2018 13:22:11 GMT -5
Is it tho? Adele 21 sold more albums than Britney's debut album. 21 came out in 2011 I think. Adeles's 21 is an outlier. I think it's sold twice as many albums as the 2nd biggest seller of the 2010s. I don't think any album, even her next will ever achieve those numbers again. It's like trying to compare Britney's sales to Thriller.
And as for being "an album artist", that's largely because in those days record companies either released singles in limited quantity or not at all in order to encourage album sales. It worked short-term, and then Napster came along and flipped the table. People got real tired of spending $20 to buy a CD for one single. But everyone was under the same constraints, so to say her singles were underrepresented in the charts is a very dubious claim.I mean you never know. Somebody could drop something in the next few years that sells 40+ million albums.
|
|
rockgolf
2x Platinum Member
Pop music fanatic since the days of 7" 45 RPM records.
Joined: August 2018
Posts: 2,093
Pronouns: he/him/his
|
Post by rockgolf on Nov 21, 2018 13:31:10 GMT -5
Adeles's 21 is an outlier. I think it's sold twice as many albums as the 2nd biggest seller of the 2010s. I don't think any album, even her next will ever achieve those numbers again. It's like trying to compare Britney's sales to Thriller.
And as for being "an album artist", that's largely because in those days record companies either released singles in limited quantity or not at all in order to encourage album sales. It worked short-term, and then Napster came along and flipped the table. People got real tired of spending $20 to buy a CD for one single. But everyone was under the same constraints, so to say her singles were underrepresented in the charts is a very dubious claim. I mean you never know. Somebody could drop something in the next few years that sells 40+ million albums. With all due respect, no. For one thing, there are so many fewer places to buy albums. Even iTunes is looking to get out of the music sales business, to be replaced by streaming.
I'd be happy if it happened but I just don't see it.
|
|
amore
Platinum Member
Banned
Joined: June 2018
Posts: 1,205
|
Post by amore on Nov 21, 2018 13:38:35 GMT -5
I mean you never know. Somebody could drop something in the next few years that sells 40+ million albums. With all due respect, no. For one thing, there are so many fewer places to buy albums. Even iTunes is looking to get out of the music sales business, to be replaced by streaming.
I'd be happy if it happened but I just don't see it.:0 Then what's gonna happen to Adele? Will she still be able to be a force?
|
|