Elton John & Britney Spears - "Hold Me Closer"

[Eqbk]

This person has supposedly gotten a lot of things right in regards to Hold Me Closer:

[degen]

Sept 20, 2022 16:26:27 GMT -5 Daenerys said:

From the comments it sounds like this will be an uphill battle to get to top 10. Top 5 may be too optimistic. We'll see.  

Sept 20, 2022 15:10:48 GMT -5 Koochie said:

She was that bitch when it came to moving albums prior, though. 

I feel the signs were on the wall in the Britney era though. When you look back at how that album performed it was very front loaded. You would see similar trends with most of her albums until Britney Jean, where it seems they just stopped caring completely.

By the end of 2001, the Britney album had sold 3 million copies, yet would only end up 4x platinum. No reason why the album couldn't have hit 7-8x platinum with a stronger rollout. Her diamond days were behind her, but they could have done more to make the albums more successful. Britney's team/label only care about the launch of the album. They stop caring once the tours come around. Eventually it would get to a point where they didn't care about the launch at all and would rely solely on concert grosses.  

I remember the Britney era very vividly, and I’d say it stalled out quickly because she was pretty overexposed by that point. 3 albums in 3 years, plus “Crossroads.” Plus the fact that they had already preselected “Not a Girl” to be the 2nd single so it could coincide with the movie. That single pretty much killed the Britney era even though it helped promote the movie. Then the media began focusing more on her private life at this point (break up with Justin Timberlake), which pretty much overshadowed the music by 2002. With lack of airplay, and the movie kind of being a dud (it did ok at the box office but I recall the reviews were horrible), single #3 and single #4 being dead on arrival, I just don’t think they could’ve pushed the album any further. Increased media attention + decreased commercial success is the most evident telltale sign for a pop star to know they are overexposed. Britney’s team read the room correctly. The tides had started to turn against her at this point and she took a well deserved year off which helped anticipate the next era.

[Choco]

And radio had blacklisted her during that era. Plus sales started their decline through the entire market.

[Az Paynter]

POP:
16 14 ELTON JOHN & BRITNEY SPEARS Hold Me Closer 6759 5799 960 18.653

+71 Spins
-130 Bullet
+0.175 Audience

HOT AC:
15 11 ELTON JOHN & BRITNEY SPEARS Hold Me Closer 2950 2627 323 10.294

+35 Spins
-30 Bullet
+0.177 Audience

AC:
11 11 ELTON JOHN & BRITNEY SPEARS Hold Me Closer 515 490 25 2.477

-16 Spins
-43 Bullet
-0.105 Audience

[jenglisbe]

Sept 20, 2022 15:10:48 GMT -5 Koochie said:

Britney was never a singles artist until Circus when her team aggressively pushed them for PR, visibility, and to get ahead of the digital market. She was that bitch when it came to moving albums prior, though. She's a case study in single success being a terrible measure of an artist's star power. 

You're not wrong, but her singles success is misleading anyway due to her main time of popularity being when the singles charts were kind of a mess/misrepresentative. If "Sometimes," "Oops," and "Lucky" had a true commercial release, they would have been bigger Hot 100 hits. "Toxic" and "Everytime" would have peaked higher if digital sales were counting toward the Hot 100 when they charted.

The Circus era was probably the first time chart tabulations coincided with her popularity.

[SPRΞΞ]

Sept 21, 2022 0:38:31 GMT -5 Choco said:

And radio had blacklisted her during that era. Plus sales started their decline through the entire market.

Why was she blacklisted tho? I can’t remember.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Sept 21, 2022 9:16:00 GMT -5 SPRΞΞ said:

Sept 21, 2022 0:38:31 GMT -5 Choco said:

And radio had blacklisted her during that era. Plus sales started their decline through the entire market.

Why was she blacklisted tho? I can’t remember.

Wasn’t it because of some issue with a cola company and sponsoring her tour that pissed off Clear Channel, essentially resulting in them removing her music from their stations?

[Koochie]

Clear Channel was salty that they weren’t the sponsor for Dream Within a Dream (iirc) and that Britney went with Pepsi instead. She was blacklisted until “Toxic,” and the only reason they lifted it was because demand for that song was just that high.

[degen]

I’ve never seen actual proof of this blacklist, it’s always been just wild fan theories to me. I recall she started getting less airplay during the “Oops” era, as both “Stronger” and “Don’t Let Me Be the Last to know” flopped in radio airplay. I think the Britney era singles were just bad timing. Radio was beginning to shift to more R&B/Hip hop and was phasing out teen pop acts, which she was the face of. Britney, Nsync and Backstreet all saw diminishing pop airplay in 2001. Christina survived because “Lady Marmalade” was pretty much at the pulse of pop culture in 2001. Yes, the peak of “Slave” on pop radio is suspiciously low, but I also feel like maybe that song just wasn’t radio friendly? With no momentum on radio, and changing times, Top 40 radio paid the Britney era dust. It wasn’t just clear channel radio.

[Youknowit]

Sept 21, 2022 12:51:38 GMT -5 degen said:

I’ve never seen actual proof of this blacklist, it’s always been just wild fan theories to me. I recall she started getting less airplay during the “Oops” era, as both “Stronger” and “Don’t Let Me Be the Last to know” flopped in radio airplay. I think the Britney era singles were just bad timing. Radio was beginning to shift to more R&B/Hip hop and was phasing out teen pop acts, which she was the face of. Yes the peak of “Slave” on pop radio is suspiciously low, but I also feel like maybe that song just wasn’t radio friendly? With no momentum on radio, and changing times, Top 40 radio paid her dust. It wasn’t just clear channel radio.

Back in 2002 a US Rep wanted the Justice Department and FCC to look into Clear Channel for punishing musicians on the radio who didn't sign with them to be a tour promoter - LA Times article about it.

According to the Senate Hearing records of the case - link here - Clear Channel stated, "Britney Spears actually received 73 percent more airplay on Clear Channel radio stations in 2002, when she was touring with a competing promoter Concerts West, than she got in 2001 when she was touring with us." She didn't have many singles being pushed in 2001 - Don't Let Me Be The Last To Know (#36) was sent to CHR in April 2001 and spent 6 weeks on the chart and I'm A Slave 4 U (#18) was sent to CHR in September 2001 and spent 13 weeks on the charts in 2001 (the remaining 4 weeks in 2002). 2002 had the 3 remaining Britney singles released. Obviously when you have more singles being pushed one year compared to the year before, it's going to show she received "more airplay." 

The Dream Within a Dream Tour (in support for Britney) was the first tour without Clear Channel. The tour before that, which Clear Channel sponsored, ended in November 2000 (technically she had one date in January 2001 that was part of this tour - her Rock In Rio performance). So Clear Channel saying she was touring with them in 2001 is kind of funny. 

And to note, November 2000 was the same time Stronger (#14) was released to CHR. Stronger was the start of her radio decline. 

[degen]

Sept 21, 2022 14:27:58 GMT -5 Youknowit said:

Sept 21, 2022 12:51:38 GMT -5 degen said:

I’ve never seen actual proof of this blacklist, it’s always been just wild fan theories to me. I recall she started getting less airplay during the “Oops” era, as both “Stronger” and “Don’t Let Me Be the Last to know” flopped in radio airplay. I think the Britney era singles were just bad timing. Radio was beginning to shift to more R&B/Hip hop and was phasing out teen pop acts, which she was the face of. Yes the peak of “Slave” on pop radio is suspiciously low, but I also feel like maybe that song just wasn’t radio friendly? With no momentum on radio, and changing times, Top 40 radio paid her dust. It wasn’t just clear channel radio.

Back in 2002 a US Rep wanted the Justice Department and FCC to look into Clear Channel for punishing musicians on the radio who didn't sign with them to be a tour promoter - LA Times article about it.

According to the Senate Hearing records of the case - link here - Clear Channel stated, "Britney Spears actually received 73 percent more airplay on Clear Channel radio stations in 2002, when she was touring with a competing promoter Concerts West, than she got in 2001 when she was touring with us." She didn't have many singles being pushed in 2001 - Don't Let Me Be The Last To Know (#36) was sent to CHR in April 2001 and spent 6 weeks on the chart and I'm A Slave 4 U (#18) was sent to CHR in September 2001 and spent 13 weeks on the charts in 2001 (the remaining 4 weeks in 2002). 2002 had the 3 remaining Britney singles released. Obviously when you have more singles being pushed one year compared to the year before, it's going to show she received "more airplay." 

Ad to further note, The Dream Within a Dream Tour (in support for Britney) was the first tour without Clear Channel and that was announced in June 2001. Concerts West was the new promoter. The tour before that which Clear Channel sponsored ended in November 2000, the same time Stronger (#14) was released to CHR. Stronger was the start of her radio decline.

Yep, this seems like more proof to me that you guys are cherry picking a narrative. I’m just curious how Britney received 70 percent more airplay in 2002 with 3 singles that peaked around #30 on pop radio. I didn’t even realize “I’m a Slave 4 U” peaked in the top 20 on pop radio. That seems on par with a lot of things at the time. “Dirrty” by Christina also didn’t connect with radio audiences. This is proof to me that there indeed was no “clear channel boycott.” Radio had a thing for punishing females with oversexualized lead singles at the time. The remaining singles off Britney simply didn’t connect with audiences, therefore there was no reason for Top 40 to give them much attention.

[jenglisbe]

Sept 21, 2022 14:33:45 GMT -5 degen said:

Sept 21, 2022 14:27:58 GMT -5 Youknowit said:

Back in 2002 a US Rep wanted the Justice Department and FCC to look into Clear Channel for punishing musicians on the radio who didn't sign with them to be a tour promoter - LA Times article about it.

According to the Senate Hearing records of the case - link here - Clear Channel stated, "Britney Spears actually received 73 percent more airplay on Clear Channel radio stations in 2002, when she was touring with a competing promoter Concerts West, than she got in 2001 when she was touring with us." She didn't have many singles being pushed in 2001 - Don't Let Me Be The Last To Know (#36) was sent to CHR in April 2001 and spent 6 weeks on the chart and I'm A Slave 4 U (#18) was sent to CHR in September 2001 and spent 13 weeks on the charts in 2001 (the remaining 4 weeks in 2002). 2002 had the 3 remaining Britney singles released. Obviously when you have more singles being pushed one year compared to the year before, it's going to show she received "more airplay." 

Ad to further note, The Dream Within a Dream Tour (in support for Britney) was the first tour without Clear Channel and that was announced in June 2001. Concerts West was the new promoter. The tour before that which Clear Channel sponsored ended in November 2000, the same time Stronger (#14) was released to CHR. Stronger was the start of her radio decline.

Yep, this seems like more proof to me that you guys are cherry picking a narrative. I didn’t even realize “I’m a Slave 4 U” peaked in the top 20 on pop radio. That seems on par with a lot of things at the time. “Dirrty” by Christina also didn’t connect with radio audiences. Radio had a thing for punishing females with oversexualized lead singles at the time. The remaining singles of Britney simply didn’t connect with audiences, therefore there was no reason for Top 40 to give them much attention.

Eh, regardless of "connection" I think we'd all expect a new Britney single coming off two Diamond albums to peak better at Top 40 than "Slave" peaking at #18. (Even Swift's divisive "Look What You Made Me Do" managed to get to #1 at the format.) "Dirrty" peaked at #14 at Top 40 and was more divisive and was also in 2002 when teen pop had died out even more. And while NSync's airplay declined in 2001-2002, their singles still went top 10 at Top 40 (the lowest Top 40 peak of the Celebrity singles was "Gone" at #7). So, Britney is an outlier, particularly with "Slave" as the lead single. (We should also note "Slave" was produced by The Neptunes so Britney even went in the more 'urban' direction of what was becoming popular at that time.)

[Youknowit]

Sept 21, 2022 14:33:45 GMT -5 degen said:

Sept 21, 2022 14:27:58 GMT -5 Youknowit said:

Back in 2002 a US Rep wanted the Justice Department and FCC to look into Clear Channel for punishing musicians on the radio who didn't sign with them to be a tour promoter - LA Times article about it.

According to the Senate Hearing records of the case - link here - Clear Channel stated, "Britney Spears actually received 73 percent more airplay on Clear Channel radio stations in 2002, when she was touring with a competing promoter Concerts West, than she got in 2001 when she was touring with us." She didn't have many singles being pushed in 2001 - Don't Let Me Be The Last To Know (#36) was sent to CHR in April 2001 and spent 6 weeks on the chart and I'm A Slave 4 U (#18) was sent to CHR in September 2001 and spent 13 weeks on the charts in 2001 (the remaining 4 weeks in 2002). 2002 had the 3 remaining Britney singles released. Obviously when you have more singles being pushed one year compared to the year before, it's going to show she received "more airplay." 

Ad to further note, The Dream Within a Dream Tour (in support for Britney) was the first tour without Clear Channel and that was announced in June 2001. Concerts West was the new promoter. The tour before that which Clear Channel sponsored ended in November 2000, the same time Stronger (#14) was released to CHR. Stronger was the start of her radio decline.

Yep, this seems like more proof to me that you guys are cherry picking a narrative. I didn’t even realize “I’m a Slave 4 U” peaked in the top 20 on pop radio. That seems on par with a lot of things at the time. “Dirrty” by Christina also didn’t connect with radio audiences. Radio had a thing for punishing females with oversexualized lead singles at the time. The remaining singles of Britney simply didn’t connect with audiences, therefore there was no reason for Top 40 to give them much attention.

Maybe they didn't connect with audiences, who's to say. You could be right about that. But I just wanted to also point out that there was a lot of shady things happening behind the scenes when it came to radios back in the day. 

[degen]

Sept 21, 2022 14:39:27 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Sept 21, 2022 14:33:45 GMT -5 degen said:

Yep, this seems like more proof to me that you guys are cherry picking a narrative. I didn’t even realize “I’m a Slave 4 U” peaked in the top 20 on pop radio. That seems on par with a lot of things at the time. “Dirrty” by Christina also didn’t connect with radio audiences. Radio had a thing for punishing females with oversexualized lead singles at the time. The remaining singles of Britney simply didn’t connect with audiences, therefore there was no reason for Top 40 to give them much attention.

Eh, regardless of "connection" I think we'd all expect a new Britney single coming off two Diamond albums to peak better at Top 40 than "Slave" peaking at #18. (Even Swift's divisive "Look What You Made Me Do" managed to get to #1 at the format.) "Dirrty" peaked at #14 at Top 40 and was more divisive and was also in 2002 when teen pop had died out even more. And while NSync's airplay declined in 2001-2002, their singles still went top 10 at Top 40 (the lowest Top 40 peak of the Celebrity singles was "Gone" at #7). So, Britney is an outlier, particularly with "Slave" as the lead single. (We should also note "Slave" was produced by The Neptunes so Britney even went in the more 'urban' direction of what was becoming popular at that time.)

“Dirrty” was def more radio friendly than “Slave.” Of the 2 I would’ve expected Dirrty to perform stronger, considering Christina had the better radio track record at the time. I’m a Slave 4 U stalling out at #18 was less of a shock than Dirrty stalling out at #14. They were only a year apart so comparing them is still looking at the same picture (Bringing in Taylor’s single 15 years later as a comparison is just ridiculous. Completely different times and different circumstances). Britney coming off of two Diamond albums didn’t matter to radio considering those 2 albums didn’t even have impressive radio airplay outside of 3-4 singles. I really think Slave‘s radio performance (and Dirrty for that matter) were just the result of a changing landscape. The Britney era arrived right at the start of the transition period, therefore suffered the most. “I’m Not A Girl” was pop fluff that radio was attempting to put behind them. There was no way radio was going to play that song in early 2002 at the heights of Pink’s anti Britney sound, Mary J Blige’s comeback and Jennifer Lopez’s momentum as the new R&B/hop Princess. And by the time her team reworked “Overprotected” and “Boys” to be more R&B leaning, the momentum was lost and the tides had shifted. To me the Britney era is a result of bad timing, bad decisions (Not a girl being a single that killed all momentum), and overexposure. But that’s just my opinion.

[Youknowit]

Sept 21, 2022 14:42:07 GMT -5 degen said:

Sept 21, 2022 14:39:27 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Eh, regardless of "connection" I think we'd all expect a new Britney single coming off two Diamond albums to peak better at Top 40 than "Slave" peaking at #18. (Even Swift's divisive "Look What You Made Me Do" managed to get to #1 at the format.) "Dirrty" peaked at #14 at Top 40 and was more divisive and was also in 2002 when teen pop had died out even more. And while NSync's airplay declined in 2001-2002, their singles still went top 10 at Top 40 (the lowest Top 40 peak of the Celebrity singles was "Gone" at #7). So, Britney is an outlier, particularly with "Slave" as the lead single. (We should also note "Slave" was produced by The Neptunes so Britney even went in the more 'urban' direction of what was becoming popular at that time.)

“Dirrty” was def more radio friendly than “Slave.” Of the 2 I would’ve expected Dirrty to perform stronger, considering Christina had the better radio track record at the time. I’m a Slave 4 U stalling out at #18 was less of a shock than Dirrty stalling out at #14. They were only a year apart so comparing them is still looking at the same picture (Bringing in Taylor’s single 15 years later as a comparison is just ridiculous. Completely different times and different circumstances. It’s funny how you mention that Dirry was in 2002, yet you bring in Taylor out of nowhere). Britney coming off of two Diamond albums didn’t matter to radio considering those 2 albums didn’t even have impressive radio airplay outside of 3-4 singles. I really think Slave‘s radio performance (and Dirrty for that matter) were just the result of a changing landscape. But that’s just my opinion.

Her tour with Clear Channel ended when Stronger was released and before that, BOMT and Oops went #1 while Sometimes and Crazy reached #4, Lucky #8, and From the Bottom of My Broken Heart hitting #16. She only had 6 singles released to radio when she was with Clear Channel as a tour promoter. 

[jenglisbe]

Sept 21, 2022 15:02:32 GMT -5 Youknowit said:

Sept 21, 2022 14:42:07 GMT -5 degen said:

“Dirrty” was def more radio friendly than “Slave.” Of the 2 I would’ve expected Dirrty to perform stronger, considering Christina had the better radio track record at the time. I’m a Slave 4 U stalling out at #18 was less of a shock than Dirrty stalling out at #14. They were only a year apart so comparing them is still looking at the same picture (Bringing in Taylor’s single 15 years later as a comparison is just ridiculous. Completely different times and different circumstances. It’s funny how you mention that Dirry was in 2002, yet you bring in Taylor out of nowhere). Britney coming off of two Diamond albums didn’t matter to radio considering those 2 albums didn’t even have impressive radio airplay outside of 3-4 singles. I really think Slave‘s radio performance (and Dirrty for that matter) were just the result of a changing landscape. But that’s just my opinion.

Her tour with Clear Channel ended when Stronger was released and before that, BOMT and Oops went #1 while Sometimes and Crazy reached #4, Lucky #8, and From the Bottom of My Broken Heart hitting #16. She only had 6 singles released to radio when she was with Clear Channel as a tour promoter. 

Additionally, her audience was Top 40, and her albums were still selling. So, people clearly liked the songs/music. This isn't a situation where it was a country or rock act not getting Top 40 airplay who still had their core audience buying albums. Britney's audience was the Top 40 crowd, and she was selling even with her low airplay. So, there was a clear disconnect in terms of radio.

[Koochie]

This page is a bigger trainwreck than Nancy Reagan after she met Mr. T.

[skizzo]

I feel like pop in 2001/2002 had moved on from bubblegum and went with either a more urban sound, or a more rock sound.
Also I dont think her team picked the best singles from the album for that time period. There are a lot of great potential singles on that album.

However, her team definitely could've gotten better peaks if they released her singles for sale at least, she capped her singles peaks with those decisions, to benefit the album sales. Oops! would've been an easy #1

[kcdawg13]

It is strange that most of Britney's pop hits come from late into her career (2008-2011), it's almost like radio completely course corrected to make up for how they treated Britney in her early years.

[SPRΞΞ]

not to mention the Hot 100's formula was like 80% airplay (or so it seems). iTunes wasn't a thing yet, and people weren't really buying cd/cassette singles in that timeframe, either. It was that area in limbo between the post-sales market, and the pre-digital market.

[Az Paynter]

Sept 21, 2022 14:27:58 GMT -5 Youknowit said:

According to the Senate Hearing records of the case - link here - Clear Channel stated, "Britney Spears actually received 73 percent more airplay on Clear Channel radio stations in 2002, when she was touring with a competing promoter Concerts West, than she got in 2001 when she was touring with us." 

My takeaway from that statement was that Clear Channel was trying to BS their way out of the accusation to misrepresent the facts and say 'lOoK wE dIdN't SnUb HeR1!1!'.

[It's me, bitch.]

Sept 20, 2022 23:59:31 GMT -5 degen said:

Sept 20, 2022 16:26:27 GMT -5 Daenerys said:

From the comments it sounds like this will be an uphill battle to get to top 10. Top 5 may be too optimistic. We'll see.  

I feel the signs were on the wall in the Britney era though. When you look back at how that album performed it was very front loaded. You would see similar trends with most of her albums until Britney Jean, where it seems they just stopped caring completely.

By the end of 2001, the Britney album had sold 3 million copies, yet would only end up 4x platinum. No reason why the album couldn't have hit 7-8x platinum with a stronger rollout. Her diamond days were behind her, but they could have done more to make the albums more successful. Britney's team/label only care about the launch of the album. They stop caring once the tours come around. Eventually it would get to a point where they didn't care about the launch at all and would rely solely on concert grosses.  

I remember the Britney era very vividly, and I’d say it stalled out quickly because she was pretty overexposed by that point. 3 albums in 3 years, plus “Crossroads.” Plus the fact that they had already preselected “Not a Girl” to be the 2nd single so it could coincide with the movie. That single pretty much killed the Britney era even though it helped promote the movie. Then the media began focusing more on her private life at this point (break up with Justin Timberlake), which pretty much overshadowed the music by 2002. With lack of airplay, and the movie kind of being a dud (it did ok at the box office but I recall the reviews were horrible), single #3 and single #4 being dead on arrival, I just don’t think they could’ve pushed the album any further. Increased media attention + decreased commercial success is the most evident telltale sign for a pop star to know they are overexposed. Britney’s team read the room correctly. The tides had started to turn against her at this point and she took a well deserved year off which helped anticipate the next era.

Perfectly said.

[Az Paynter]

POP:
16 14 ELTON JOHN & BRITNEY SPEARS Hold Me Closer 6819 5965 854 18.633

+60 Spins
-106 Bullet
-0.020 Audience

HOT AC:
14 11 ELTON JOHN & BRITNEY SPEARS Hold Me Closer 2976 2692 284 10.260

+26 Spins
-39 Bullet
-0.034 Audience

AC:
11 11 ELTON JOHN & BRITNEY SPEARS Hold Me Closer 518 498 20 2.440

+3 Spins
-5 Bullet
-0.037 Audience

[Daenerys]

It looks like this is slowing down, which I guess happens. I hope this can get to at least top 10 before it dies. I thought this would last until around November-ish.

Sept 20, 2022 23:59:31 GMT -5 degen said:

3 albums in 3 years, plus “Crossroads.” Plus the fact that they had already preselected “Not a Girl” to be the 2nd single so it could coincide with the movie. That single pretty much killed the Britney era even though it helped promote the movie. 

I think you and I are saying the same thing, just in slightly different ways. The Britney team/label seemed to always go for the short-term win over thinking through potential long-term gains. You even said it yourself, her team was more interested in promoting the movie Crossroads, than her album and music catalog. This would happen again, when they focused on her tours rather than on her music. This same thing would happen with Britney Jean, the album wasn't the focus, the focus was the residency. It definitely seems in her later album cycles her team cared more about the tours than the success of the album.

The answer to prioritizing the Britney era would be to release a radio ready track on the album and pushing that (What It's Like To Be Me, Lonely, Cinderella, or Overprotected -- all of which were more reflective of the albums style) than pushing 'Not A Girl', because it was more important to push the movie. Her over exposure, happened as a result of her music not being at the forefront. It happened because her songs stumbled on the charts, and the sharks smelled blood in the water. There were better ways for her to enter acting if that was their goal.

Sept 21, 2022 8:59:23 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

You're not wrong, but her singles success is misleading anyway due to her main time of popularity being when the singles charts were kind of a mess/misrepresentative. 

This to me is the fault or limitation of her label, more than the charts themselves being a mess. YDMC and OIDIA were easy Hot 100 #1's, had the label released them as purchasable singles during their airplay peaks. There are tons of label tricks which could have gotten them to number 1. 50 cent singles, etc. Jive could have easily pushed harder for better Hot 100 peaks. I think even Stronger and FTBOMBH could have gotten to #1 had the label been half as savvy as Capitol was during Katy's Teenage Dream era. Similarly Lucky and Sometimes were easy top 5's. Her first 7 singles should all have charted better. That was the peak of her career, and it doesn't show at all. 

Sept 21, 2022 12:51:38 GMT -5 degen said:

 I think the Britney era singles were just bad timing. Radio was beginning to shift to more R&B/Hip hop and was phasing out teen pop acts, which she was the face of. Britney, Nsync and Backstreet all saw diminishing pop airplay in 2001. 

I disagree with this a bit. There was no reason for Slave to have that rough of a time in Top 40 airplay, considering Jessica Simpson's Irresistible and NSYNC's Girlfriend were all easy top 5 hits on the same format that year. Slave should have at least gotten to the lower reaches of the top 10, since the Neptune's were in vogue at the time. As mentioned, her previous first singles both went number 1 for significant weeks, she had decent radio performances on the format for her last two album cycles. The album was selling very well. No reason for that teens peak considering all of those factors, and how she had performed on the format prior. A stronger label would have pushed radio more.

[theyaintready]

Sept 22, 2022 9:08:16 GMT -5 Daenerys said:

Sept 21, 2022 8:59:23 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

You're not wrong, but her singles success is misleading anyway due to her main time of popularity being when the singles charts were kind of a mess/misrepresentative. 

This to me is the fault or limitation of her label, more than the charts themselves being a mess. YDMC and OIDIA were easy Hot 100 #1's, had the label released them as purchasable singles during their airplay peaks. There are tons of label tricks which could have gotten them to number 1. 50 cent singles, etc. Jive could have easily pushed harder for better Hot 100 peaks. I think even Stronger and FTBOMBH could have gotten to #1 had the label been half as savvy as Capitol was during Katy's Teenage Dream era. Similarly Lucky and Sometimes were easy top 5's. Her first 7 singles should all have charted better. That was the peak of her career, and it doesn't show at all. 

Sept 21, 2022 12:51:38 GMT -5 degen said:

 I think the Britney era singles were just bad timing. Radio was beginning to shift to more R&B/Hip hop and was phasing out teen pop acts, which she was the face of. Britney, Nsync and Backstreet all saw diminishing pop airplay in 2001. 

I disagree with this a bit. There was no reason for Slave to have that rough of a time in Top 40 airplay, considering Jessica Simpson's Irresistible and NSYNC's Girlfriend were all easy top 5 hits on the same format that year. Slave should have at least gotten to the lower reaches of the top 10, since the Neptune's were in vogue at the time. As mentioned, her previous first singles both went number 1 for significant weeks, she had decent radio performances on the format for her last two album cycles. The album was selling very well. No reason for that teens peak considering all of those factors, and how she had performed on the format prior. A stronger label would have pushed radio more.

She was an album powerhouse because they limited her physical single releases though. It was Jive's strategy. There's no way "I Want It That Way," "Show Me The Meaning of Being Lonely" "Bye Bye Bye" etc. wouldn't have hit Hot 100 #1 as well if they had physical singles. They weren't playing the Hot 100 chart game, they were trying to move albums. At the time that made sense. Capitol during the Teenage Dream era was peak download time, different strategy since moving albums in the 10s of millions of units wasn't happening any longer.

Slave sounded different for her and it makes sense in context that it underperformed . Christina had the same problem with 'Dirrty', N Sync w/ "Pop", etc. All the teen pop stars were experiencing growing pains around that time because R&B and Hip Hop was beginning to take over. At the time of this song, J.Lo/Ja Rule/Alicia Keys/Mary J./Usher were all topping the Hot 100.   N Sync, Aguilera, Britney were at least trying to adjust their sounds to keep up, people weren't 100% on board yet.   BSB for example kept with their same sound and were pretty irrelevant post-2000 and "Shape of my Heart".

[jenglisbe]

Sept 22, 2022 9:44:03 GMT -5 theyaintready said:

Sept 22, 2022 9:08:16 GMT -5 Daenerys said:

This to me is the fault or limitation of her label, more than the charts themselves being a mess. YDMC and OIDIA were easy Hot 100 #1's, had the label released them as purchasable singles during their airplay peaks. There are tons of label tricks which could have gotten them to number 1. 50 cent singles, etc. Jive could have easily pushed harder for better Hot 100 peaks. I think even Stronger and FTBOMBH could have gotten to #1 had the label been half as savvy as Capitol was during Katy's Teenage Dream era. Similarly Lucky and Sometimes were easy top 5's. Her first 7 singles should all have charted better. That was the peak of her career, and it doesn't show at all. 

I disagree with this a bit. There was no reason for Slave to have that rough of a time in Top 40 airplay, considering Jessica Simpson's Irresistible and NSYNC's Girlfriend were all easy top 5 hits on the same format that year. Slave should have at least gotten to the lower reaches of the top 10, since the Neptune's were in vogue at the time. As mentioned, her previous first singles both went number 1 for significant weeks, she had decent radio performances on the format for her last two album cycles. The album was selling very well. No reason for that teens peak considering all of those factors, and how she had performed on the format prior. A stronger label would have pushed radio more.

She was an album powerhouse because they limited her physical single releases though. It was Jive's strategy. There's no way "I Want It That Way," "Show Me The Meaning of Being Lonely" "Bye Bye Bye" etc. wouldn't have hit Hot 100 #1 as well if they had physical singles. They weren't playing the Hot 100 chart game, they were trying to move albums. At the time that made sense. Capitol during the Teenage Dream era was peak download time, different strategy since moving albums in the 10s of millions of units wasn't happening any longer.

Right. The strategy made sense, but it also meant the Hot 100 didn't fully reflect the popularity of teen pop and other songs (that's not Billboard's fault, it just is).

Slave sounded different for her and it makes sense in context that it underperformed . Christina had the same problem with 'Dirrty', N Sync w/ "Pop", etc. All the teen pop stars were experiencing growing pains around that time because R&B and Hip Hop was beginning to take over. At the time of this song, J.Lo/Ja Rule/Alicia Keys/Mary J./Usher were all topping the Hot 100.   N Sync, Aguilera, Britney were at least trying to adjust their sounds to keep up, people weren't 100% on board yet.   BSB for example kept with their same sound and were pretty irrelevant post-2000 and "Shape of my Heart".

Sure, but "Slave" peaked at #18 at Top 40 while "Dirrty" peaked at #14 and "Pop" at #5. So, Britney's song had the lowest peak. This part of the conversation stemmed from the radio blacklisting question, and this is at least evidence that Britney was being blocked at radio more than others.

[degen]

Sept 22, 2022 10:17:52 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Sept 22, 2022 9:44:03 GMT -5 theyaintready said:

She was an album powerhouse because they limited her physical single releases though. It was Jive's strategy. There's no way "I Want It That Way," "Show Me The Meaning of Being Lonely" "Bye Bye Bye" etc. wouldn't have hit Hot 100 #1 as well if they had physical singles. They weren't playing the Hot 100 chart game, they were trying to move albums. At the time that made sense. Capitol during the Teenage Dream era was peak download time, different strategy since moving albums in the 10s of millions of units wasn't happening any longer.

Right. The strategy made sense, but it also meant the Hot 100 didn't fully reflect the popularity of teen pop and other songs (that's not Billboard's fault, it just is).

Slave sounded different for her and it makes sense in context that it underperformed . Christina had the same problem with 'Dirrty', N Sync w/ "Pop", etc. All the teen pop stars were experiencing growing pains around that time because R&B and Hip Hop was beginning to take over. At the time of this song, J.Lo/Ja Rule/Alicia Keys/Mary J./Usher were all topping the Hot 100.   N Sync, Aguilera, Britney were at least trying to adjust their sounds to keep up, people weren't 100% on board yet.   BSB for example kept with their same sound and were pretty irrelevant post-2000 and "Shape of my Heart".

Sure, but "Slave" peaked at #18 at Top 40 while "Dirrty" peaked at #14 and "Pop" at #5. So, Britney's song had the lowest peak. This part of the conversation stemmed from the radio blacklisting question, and this is at least evidence that Britney was being blocked at radio more than others.

Yet “Slave 4 U” peaked at #27 on the Hot 100, while “Dirrty” stalled out at #48. How did that happen if Slave was the one being blacklisted? Seems to me Christina was the one getting shafted by the bigger markets if her single peaked that much lower on the Hot 100. Either way, it’s pretty evident to me that neither suffered from a “blacklist” and they were just the wrong product at the time on Radio.

[jenglisbe]

Sept 22, 2022 12:10:44 GMT -5 degen said:

Sept 22, 2022 10:17:52 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Right. The strategy made sense, but it also meant the Hot 100 didn't fully reflect the popularity of teen pop and other songs (that's not Billboard's fault, it just is).

Sure, but "Slave" peaked at #18 at Top 40 while "Dirrty" peaked at #14 and "Pop" at #5. So, Britney's song had the lowest peak. This part of the conversation stemmed from the radio blacklisting question, and this is at least evidence that Britney was being blocked at radio more than others.

Yet “Slave 4 U” peaked at #27 on the Hot 100, while “Dirrty” stalled out at #48. How did that happen if Slave was the one being blacklisted? Seems to me Christina was the one getting blacklisted by the bigger markets if her single peaked that much lower on the Hot 100.

Hot 100 peak is different than a Top 40 radio peak. The issue raised was a radio blackout by Clear Channel. I don't know if that happened or not, but I think the low peak for "Slave" at Top 40 shows it was a possibility.
The higher Hot 100 peak for "Slave" could be about "Slave" doing better at stations with a higher audience impression, and/or "Slave" doing better at other formats (like Rhythmic or Urban). Additionally, I know "Slave" had a maxi-single so it had some sales contributing to its Hot 100 peak (it wasn't a full single release, but any sales would help its peak).

[leonagwen]

Does anyone ever talk about Elton John?

[It's me, bitch.]

Sept 22, 2022 15:36:44 GMT -5 leonagwen said:

Does anyone ever talk about Elton John?

LOL