Britney Spears: Glory (Deluxe)
Album Review.
Likes: Private Show, Slumber Party, Better, Liar
Dislikes: If I'm Dancing
Overall: Likable, but nowhere near "play the breaks off this" material
 
Though considering things in context often leads to more well-rounded conclusions, there's no guarantee they'll be overwhelmingly positive. This is the case when evaluating Glory, the 9th offering from Britney Spears. When comparing it to the last 2 albums (2013's Britney Jean and 2011's Femme Fatale), the conclusion has propitious leanings. Against her complete discography or on its own, however, things tilt towards dispiriting. Fatale was the first Brit LP I didn't care for (it says something that it took her 7 albums before I said "Meh"). I enjoyed some of the cuts, but couldn't deal with the video game music. Additionally, it was way too compliant for an artist who's normally a trendsetter. Failing to live up to Spears' taste-making and iconic status in pop is why I will never forgive rapper/producer Will.I.Am for the upsettingly non-event Britney Jean (it added insult to injury that it was eponymous). Glory has its present-day electro club dubs and fiddly-winks, but there are amounts of musicality and some unique production marks. The instrumentation is multifarious: along with guitars and drums are marimbas (ex. "Slumber Party"), shakers (ex. "Hard to Forget Ya")and a kalimba (ex. "Do You Wanna Come Over?). Tracks are riddled with unusual and unidentifiable sound effects (ex. mouthed noises). After I jumped back when a male voice unexpectedly yelled "Whatever you want!" on "Come Over," I thought "Yeah, this is more Britney-ish." Her trademark playful sexuality is center-stage, as lust is the record's theme. One of my friends joked that its title should've been "Glory Hole." Now that I'm thinking about it, the name and ethereal artwork is kind of misleading. Unless...it's referring to the glories of hedonistic passion? I don't know. *Shrugs* When the writing does diverge (which is only about 5 times), it's mostly satisfactory, with "Just Luv Me" (penned by pop-hitters Julia Michaels, Cashmere Cat and Robopop) and deluxe item "Liar" (done by Jason Evigan, Danny Parker and Hot Chelle Rae's Nash Overstreet) at the top. When I heard "Just Like Me," I said "This sounds like it could be on a Lady Gaga album." Lo and behold, Nick Monson (who was all over Gaga's Artpop) was a co-writer/producer.
 
 While the amorousness of songs like "Slumber Party" and "Private Show" (Spears' babied vocals keep me from the taking this one seriously as strip-tease playlist material), and the R&B/hip-hop speckles of tunes such as "Liar," "Love Me Down" and "Better" conceive a sense of familiarity, it still doesn't quite feel like home. There's no irresistibility factor or era-defining tracks. Lead single "Make Me" is a perfect example of Glory's "like, but not love" state. It's affable and slinky, but it doesn't hold attention. Your ears wouldn't miss it if you never heard it again. That may be why Spears' performance of it at the 2016 MTV Video Music Awards (August 28th) was considered a dud by most critics and merely passable by others; assuming they weren't affected by context (there's that word again). Many either thought it was good because it was her best television appearance in years (she looked great, seemed engaged and got through her choreography with comfort), or a depressing reminder that things aren't what they used to be. It certainly wasn't what you'd expect of an entertainer who made MTV (and that very award show appointment TV) at the cusp of the millennium and is coming up on 20 years in the game. There shouldn't have been such a stark contrast between Spears' number and that of her contemporary, Beyoncé, who left the stage with a standing ovation just minutes before (sorry, I couldn't find a link with the entire performance). Cast the context of it being "the legendary Ms. Britney Spears" (as Blackout producer Danja says on "Gimme More"), and it was, most bluntly, a substandard act where there wasn't even an attempt to make the lip-synching look or sound authentic. Less bluntly, it was just okay, which is what Glory is, in close. I'll likely keep a few songs on my iPod (yes, people still use those), delete the rest, and end up barely listening to the ones I kept. I'll be surprised if this record is talked about beyond its first year. If anything, it will be discussed as part of the string of projects she did that could've been better. Hopefully, that succession will be over soon; I want it to so badly. *Britney voice* Danja, bring it back (i.e. "Get Back")!

Album Review.
Likes: Perfume, Till It’s Gone, Passenger
Dislikes: Work B****,
Overall: Decent lyrics, less annoyingly repetitive techno, but nothing memorable

First off, the good things. “Britney Jean,” the 8th album from pop priestess Britney Spears, is not as much of a disaster as I thought it was going to be, especially in comparison to the previous “Femme Fatale.” There’s much less predictably-patterned techno-pop, the lyrics actually have some meaning and Spears gave us the thicker, deeper vocals that we heard on her debut album 14 years ago, which I consider to be her “true voice” (it’s so different from the squeaky baby tone most are familiar with, it makes you wonder if that style of singing was forced upon her or more strongly encouraged). Speaking of vocals, Spears’ younger sister and former Nickelodeon star, Jamie Lynn, makes such an inviting appearance on “Chillin’ with You,” I honestly wanted to hear more from her (it also temporarily distracted from the annoying trap chorus beat).

Let me get back and elaborate on the lyrics for a moment. Are “Jean’s” songs the best-written of all time? No, but there are a few that are conceptually interesting and have a certain sadness that amiably reminds me of 2008’s “Circus.” On “Perfume,” Spears wants to make sure that the woman she’s displeased to be sharing her man with knows she exists by blatantly leaving her fragrance in the mist. “Passenger” goes on a topical path rarely taken, as it discusses how tiresome it is to always back yourself and the relief that comes with feeling safe enough with someone to relinquish control. “Hold on Tight,” a deluxe track, is fantasy piece that rides a delicate balance between fairytale romance and erotica. The other 3 deluxe tracks (which include a remix of “Perfume”) aren’t the most danceable tunes, but they’re much needed to make the album feel more complete. Without them, “Britney Jean” would sound like a worthless EP. There are plenty of positives, but the 1 negative about this record is quite important. In my review for the 1st single, “Work B****,” I expressed my worry that there wouldn’t be anything definitively Britney or influential on the finished product, especially since the album was going to be self-titled. I had reason to be concerned. Although “Britney Jean” is stronger in content and musically falls more in line with Spears’ preceding work than “Femme Fatale,” there isn’t anything unforgettable about it. When reading song titles to make notes, I had to refresh my memory on what they sounded like.  Nothing was stuck in my head afterward. Nothing struck me as the “next Britney classic.” There was nothing as infectious or reeking of pop-culture sap as “Baby One More Time,” “Oops, I Did it Again,” “Slave 4 U,” “Toxic,” “Gimme More” or “Womanizer.” Even as exasperating as “Till the World Ends” is, it’s embedded in my subconscious. “Passenger” may not be a commercial single, but because of its matter, it’s the best thing about “Britney Jean.”

Once again, the irony of a self-titled album post-debut rears its ugly head. If I wanted to make a statement about what the name “Britney Jean” means in the music-sphere, this wouldn’t be the album I’d form. The record is like a house in transition; the foundation is there and concrete, but the walls aren’t up yet. It’s missing those key things to make an overwhelmingly great impression.

Single Review.

Okay, so I totally didn’t plan on doing a review for “Work B****,” the debut single from Britney Spears’ upcoming 8th album because I was on a mini-vacation, but after hearing it, I must. I’m livid. 2011’s “Femme Fatale” is the only Spears album I don’t like. Why? It wasn’t what I call “Britney definitive.” The album was a collection of over-produced, effect-driven techno tracks that anyone could’ve recorded. It was just a standard of what was hot right then, and that’s where “Work” finds Spears again. The single is woefully generic; there isn’t much difference between “Work” and a random vogue track performed by no-names that’s played in a gay club. Spears is the type of artist one goes to if they want to know what the latest trend is, however, she usually can do that and still set herself apart. Frankly, given her pop-culture status, I think Spears should be setting the trend and ushering in a new wave, not riding on an old one that’s been crashing since 2008. Will.I.Am is the producer on “Work,” as he will be for all the tracks on the new album and I think that’s a huge mistake. He’s just going to keep giving her the same, redundant stuff. I liked the rumored idea that she’d be working with producers from her most critically-acclaimed album, “Blackout,” much better. Now that, was some edgy pop. You can listen to "Work" here. 

Rock & Rant-when I need to quickly rant about music.

Fox’s “American Idol” has been the kingpin of talent-based programming since the “reality TV” boom in the early 2000’s, but the list of new talent shows with their own distinctive spin on the “Idol” blueprint is ever growing, and each program (including “Idol”) is desperately resorting to lots of blatant gimmicks to attract and/or retain viewers. Playing with the judge’s panel has been a popular (and annoying) trick. Shows like NBC’s “The Voice” and ABC’s summer series, “Duets,” employed all-star casts (including Grammy winner Christina Aguilera and “Idol” alum Kelly Clarkson) to garner ratings. When Simon Cowell didn’t get the attention he anticipated on his U.S. edition of “X-Factor” by rekindling his bantering “Idol” flame with Paula Abdul, Abdul and Pussycat Doll Nicole Scherzinger were scrapped for Britney Spears and former Disney darling, Demi Lovato. With every few judge rotations, “Idol” ups the celebrity ante; from talk-show host Ellen Degeneres, entertainer Jennifer Lopez and rock legend Steven Tyler, to one of the biggest-selling divas of all-time, Mariah Carey. Word on the street is that “Idol” is looking to fill another empty judge chair with singer Nick Jonas or hip-hop starlet Nicki Minaj.

While I’m happy to see that in most cases, qualified industry personalities are involved in judges’ picks, the moments where that’s not the case agitates me because it’s SO OBVIOUS that it’s all about ratings and not about providing aspiring singers with proper mentoring. I understand that these programs are in the business of TV and music is going to be an afterthought, but making music a 2nd-in-line priority could positively affect viewership. “X-Factor” sent the clear message they were only concerned with statistics when they paid millions to contract Spears, who has been criticized her whole career for lacking substantial talent. Granted, the pop queen is familiar with touring, promoting and the dark side of fame, but the idea that she will be evaluating, coaching and choosing songs for contestants seems to be a bit ironic and inappropriate. Lovato is a singer-songwriter with a solid voice who plays piano and guitar, but she’s been a major artist for only 4 short years. Jonas is the same age as Lovato with 2 more years on her career. Minaj, whose abilities and consistency is often debated, is equally unseasoned with just 3 years in the public eye. These celebrity names might be beneficial for ratings, but it may not be for the contestants who have to improve weekly to receive votes and hit the ground running once they win and sign a recording contract.

Why should TV execs care if contestants are properly nurtured? Well, if they aren’t nurtured, the contestants may give lackluster performances that no one will want to watch and release albums that no one will want to buy. If their talent level is mediocre or the sales aren’t there, the record label will either drop or put little energy into them. With that result, viewers who voted will feel disillusioned about their perceived input and stop watching. There’s a whole trickle-down effect. I strongly believe I’m onto something, considering “Idol’s” ratings have slowly, but surely decreased with each season, voter numbers for other music programs aren’t as high and most winning contestants don’t go on to have flourishing careers. For example, out of 11 “Idols,” only 2 (Kelly Clarkson & Carrie Underwood) have had massive record sales. “Voice” has yet to produce a top-billing act and we haven’t heard much from “X-Factor’s” inaugural winner, Melanie Amaro.

Since we’re on the subject sales, there are many possible reasons that most winning contestants don’t do well. Sometimes the winner is an indifferent talent who flew under the radar all season or was liked for a superficial reason (ex. looks or personality). A big chunk of it is how the record label handles things after the competition. There have been many cases of poor promotion and marketing; sometimes the label doesn’t even try (like with “Idol” 9 winner, Lee DeWyze, for example). A great illustration of marketing missteps would be the management of Idols Ruben Studdard and Fantasia Barrino’s careers. Both were pigeon-holed into core R&B/soul. This was a mistake, considering the demographic that watches “American Idol” consists mostly of Caucasian women ages 18-49 with a cluster of southerners and female teens who do most of the (repeat) voting. Let’s face it: this population doesn’t listen to R&B. If anything, they listen to pop/R&B (the key being pop comes 1st). Couple this with the fact that most young people illegally download music and primarily purchase singles versus albums, and you have poor record sales. Additionally, the “Idol” audience wants to see an artist do whatever they saw on the show; which is a versatile mix of popular contemporary music through the years. The less mainstream, pop or country your album is, the less likely the viewers who voted for you will buy your stuff. Guess the record executives didn’t anticipate TV politics affecting their business. Maybe TV and music shouldn’t blend together if they aren’t going to consider each other’s modes of operation.

A career analysis.

As I watch the video to “3” in my university cafeteria, I shake my head in disbelief. Most would not be shocked, but I figured Britney Spears would be passed the point of overtly sexual gimmicks in her career. I mean, after all, she’s done it all when it comes to sexual gimmicks: she’s appeared topless on magazine covers (nipples conveniently covered of course), she’s given the illusion of nudity on stage (i.e. MTV Video Music Awards 2000), simulated sex (both heterosexual/homosexual) on tour, kissed another woman on stage, and made songs about masturbation, one-night stands, drunken sex, bi-sexual sex, and now threesomes. Hell, her first cover with “Rolling Stone” in 1999 featured her at just 18 in her underwear with a “Lolita” theme (according to “Rolling Stone,” that was her first major magazine cover). Call me crazy for expecting more out of Britney Spears artistically after 11 years in the industry and an ENTIRE EXISTENCE characterized by hell, high water and life-changing events like childbirth.

Nonetheless, Britney remains successful. Her latest album, Circus, has gone platinum and many of her tour dates have sold out. “3," despite being controversial, is selling well too. I sit back in awe and intrigue and wonder “How on earth did she pull this off? How on earth does the formula still work?” This is “The Curious Case of Britney Spears.”
You gotta admit, when you think about it, her career is fascinating. She herself probably wonders how she’s pulled it off this far. Think about it. Britney was not supposed to last THIS long. She was DESIGNED and MADE to be a trend; a flash in the pan. The phenomenon known as Britney Spears came during the “pop wave of 1999,” when little pop-tart divas and boy bands were coming out left and right. Sound familiar? Yeah, this happened in the 1980’s with Debbie Gibson, New Kids on the Block and crew. Some survive the “wave” and go on to really impact music; Britney Spears was never expected to be one of those people. Out of all the pop-tarts, Britney relied the MOST on gimmicks and had the most limited vocal ability. She had the weakest lyrics. She lacked substance. If it wasn’t bubblegum, it was straight sex. Yet, somehow, she outshined all of her contemporaries (regardless of the fact that some of them were more talented) and her star kept on rising. So much to point that she was being deemed “the next Madonna” by media. And it didn’t hurt that Madonna adopted her for a second; introducing her to Kabala, sucking face with her at the MTV Video Music Awards and appearing in Spears' music videos. 

But Britney managed to fail to be the “next Madonna.”  Shortly after being orally christened by the “Queen of Pop,” the “Circus” began. In between “In the Zone” and “Circus” (“Blackout” was between those) was five years of gradual, mysterious drama that left people wanting to be a “fly on the wall”. Still, despite not rising to the occasion of Madonna artistically, and being scrutinized, criticized, chewed up and spit out, Britney still did well. Her greatest hits album and DVD released during that period, “My Prerogative,” went platinum and all of the singles from “Blackout” were certified either gold or platinum by the RIAA. 

“Circus” arrived in 2008, with hardly any mention of her personal struggles or changes. It was classic Britney: sexed up, substance-less pop slush. And yet, it and its concert tour sold like hot cakes. After being deemed YEARS AGO musically as a factory sealed, assembly line, flash in the pan, talentless lip-syncher and industry puppet who brought nothing to the art of music. Long after being dubbed in the media over the years a “bag girl”, a bad influence and “too sexual.”  Circus showed that Britney hadn’t grown an OUNCE artistically. Everything was as it was in 1999. And people LOVED it. In pop music, this doesn’t happen. Even without all of the media drama, her fans were supposed to outgrow her and move on; at least that’s what usually happens. WITH media drama, fans are REALLY expected to move on: the parents confiscate the records and your sales go down. Furthermore, Britney was labeled all sorts of horrible things by the media. She was ejected and exiled; thrown away. And yet, her star rose. 
Come to think of it, she doesn’t even need her original fan base. That’s right: Britney has a NEW fan base. The teenagers now LOVE her. That REALLY doesn’t happen in pop music. The next generation is not supposed to be your main fan base. Maybe, a PART of it- which is a HUGE MAYBE-but not the main. When Britney presented at the Teen Choice Awards in 2006 pregnant with her second child, in the middle of media hoopla, she got a standing ovation and lots of “we love you Britney!!” from teens who were in grade school when “Baby One More Time” came out. Fast forward 3 years later, regardless of even more overt sexuality, Britney is loved by teen Disney darlings like Selena Gomez and Miley Cyrus. Selena listed “Circus” as one of her favorite albums in an interview, and Miley expressed finding solace in hearing Britney on the radio in her song “Party in the USA.” Whoa. 

Britney having the support of the next generation of teens is intriguing, perplexing and unique for several reasons. #1, as mentioned before, this is not typical in the industry, particularly when you’re built with a “pop-tart” prototype. #2 Typically, music execs change your sound as an artist to appeal to the next generation. Britney’s “sound” has not changed at all. #3 The new generation of teens are not familiar with Britney pre-In The Zone. The main version of Britney they’re familiar with is the 2003-2008 drama version. And yet, they may have more loyalty than the fans that knew her during her “glory days”. #4 again, usually talking about “seeking Amy” and having threesomes would keep you from reaching the youth market. Yet, Britney has penetrated and conquered. Britney has come a long way and kicked a lot of butt. Nothing says “kiss my butt” than still selling records. Britney broke all the rules. She was designed to blow up and blow out all before 2002; maybe even earlier than that. Make a lot of money for the execs and then disappear. But she didn’t and she hasn’t. Her star is still rising and far from burning. And she’s not even trying that hard. How did she do it?

Perhaps the answer lies within the formula. Britney’s formula artistically (although not very artistic) has worked well for her. Remember when I mentioned how execs change your artist sound to “update” it and appeal to the younger crowd? Well, that plan is SUPPOSED TO work, but as we see with many examples, it often doesn’t. Look at Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, Madonna and Janet Jackson. In one way or another, an “updated” or changed sound has not benefited them in the same ways their original sound did and many fans end up saying “I still like them, but I prefer their older stuff.” Britney, for better or worse has remained consistent. All the way to the bank. And possibly a lasting impact.
To see other "Curious Case" articles, click Britney's photo above.