Rolling Stone features beautiful article praising Britney’s “Baby One More Time” album on its 22nd Bday

Rolling Stone is rubbish la-la-land nowdays.

Avant Garde?

R1 they praised it 22 years ago also. It was an album that sounded like nothing else at the time.

I remember when BOMT (song) first came out. People were taken aback by the song but loved it. Some DIDNT know what to make of her or her growl like vocals at the time

This song was avant-garde? What a crock of shit! Music doesn't get more obnoxiously mainstream - and they attribute the song and its production to Britney? Do the editors even know how this shit is composed? Agree that Rolling Stone is loooooong done. The sad thing is that naive young people who read this will think that Britney was avant garde.

[quote]Avant Garde?

[quote]—Yoko Ono, shitting in my silk diapers in NYC

Music that people actually want to listen to, Yoko.

R4 they acknowledged Max Martin stupid.

Yes, R4. The sad thing is that most young people are both naive and infantilised as well as having NO critical faculty.

[R6] Rude fuckface.

Is the 22nd a particularly important anniversary??

[R9] The editors must be desperate.

R7 THE ALBUM WAS PRAISED WHEN RELEASED ALSO. What other American female artists albums sounded anything like BOMT when it came out? None

R3 Nothing else, except everything released by the Backstreet Boys, ever.

Here's to Britney, my fellow avant-garde artist!

I was in high school when this song dropped. Corporate, soulless, manufactured crap.

I always preferred Christina’s Genie in a Bottle.

Let's praise Britney, daring avant-garde artist!

There would be no Genie in a Bottle without BOMT

R4 most young people don’t or can’t read; and the 2% that can and will, know better

R12 they’re mentioned in the article too. Read.

[R17] Can both songs be extinguished?

Shitney Tears

Didn’t they print the exact same article on the 13 & a 1/2 anniversary?

The song itself was not groundbreaking. Well choreographed, barely legal white girls in skimpy outfits was at the time. For presentation, she is remembered.

I guess, for its own survival, Rolling Stone must pretend that the quality of Top 40 hits didn't drop off dramatically around the time Britney came on the scene with her shiny little shitstorms, written and produced by others with actual instruments and musicians optional. Casey Kasem and his weekly countdown of popular hits would be unimaginable today due to the fragmented nature of the music scene.

She changed music forever.

[R25] How did a non-musician with a wispy little voice and who doesn't write, produce or play her own material "change MUSIC forever?"

She does write and plays piano

[R27] Okay.

Britney "Amadeus" Spears.

I will just say like I said in the Michael Jackson thread, no artist is alone responsible for the music they put out. Britney Spears, like much like the late Michael Jackson, was a product shot out of a massive assembly line. There are hundreds of people involved in making these people's careers what they are.

The song was huge and it did change the landscape of the industry, but to talk about Britney as if she is personally responsible for it just doesn't make sense. Same goes for Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston, Mariah Carey, etc.

I’m sick of people saying they were made by others. Better artists have had better material and still couldn’t reach her success. Or Madonnas. Or Janet’s. Or even people like Kylie and Paula Abdul’s. You all hate to admit it but there is so much more to it than the actual music. The artist is the most important factor in it all.

A star needs charisma, which can’t be manufactured. But those behind the scenes guy are extremely important in the hit making process.

[quote]You all hate to admit it but there is so much more to it than the actual music

r31 you are correct. There is a ton of business involved as well. Marketing, sales, styling, production, etc. That's why you can be beautiful, sexy, talented, all that, and your career can still be in the dumpster. Artists of yesteryear who have gone independent know how hard it is get traction without a huge record label behind them. These artists are bought and sold like cattle, which is why so many of them, like Britney, lose it when they realize the truth.

“Britney ends the album perfectly by making her explicit claim on the grand pop tradition, covering Sonny & Cher’s “The Beat Goes On.” Brit and Cher had a deep connection — she was just a little kid when she started belting “If I Could Turn Back Time” on the state-fair circuit. It began the tradition of Brit’s awesomely sacreligious cover versions, from the Stones’ “Satisfaction” (on her next album, changing “how white my shirts could be” to “how tight my skirt should be”) to Joan Jett’s “I Love Rock & Roll.” “The Beat Goes On” sums up everything Britney does on this album — inserting herself (and her audience) into the story of pop music. Like the song says, “History has turned the page.” La-di-da-di-di. La-di-da-di-da. The beat goes on.“

Vevo made a playlist to celebrate its bday

God, I remember it as being a shitty pop album. Not even close to a The Fame Monster, Ray of Light, or Lemonade.

The song (melody, lyrics, and arrangement) was written by a Swedish guy in his mom's basement. Rolling Stone stance on pop music formerly relegated to the trash bin is exhausting. Pop stars are not auteurs.

[quote] There would be no Genie in a Bottle without BOMT

And even still, Genie is the better song.

All Max Martin songs sound the same. BOMT sounds like Lucky sounds like I Want It That Way sounds like Quit Playing Games With My Heart sounds like As Long As You Love Me sounds like Sometimes sounds like Oops...I Did it Again...

Lmao at how pressed some of you whores are over this