Unpopular Opinion: Christina deserved the Best New Artist award over Britney at the 2000 Grammy Awards.

[mannequin19]

On 2/24/2021 at 8:22 PM, Hooked-On-Knee said:

This is really random but I don't disagree with you, I just don't get your point.

Christina and Britney def have their own technique issues (and even share some like the raising on the larynx), but I do think both sing beautiful like you mentioned when they tone it down from their signature sounds (Xtina's loud voice full of riffs and belts, Britney's throaty yet high-pitched voice). They both have a really sweet and emotive falsetto and chest voice when they put in the effort, despite both differing in technical ability.

I do think that regardless of whether or not Christina had such a gorgeous tone when she tones it down, she would have still been known as the Voice of a Generation, because even if she has technique issues, her signature voice is really what's cemented as what people think VOCALIST, Britney's case is the reverse, I doubt people would have ever taken her seriously as a vocalist had she done pop music regardless of what tone she sang in. Even during the ...Baby One More Time era where she sung live and delivered performances like the Open Arms ones on the ...Baby One More Time tour, nobody thought she was a decent vocalist. The way she was consistently marketed throughout the first few years of her career cemented her more as an idea of this extravagant dancer whose celebrity embodied what people dreamt a POP STAR was, not a singer.

the BOMT tour wasn't seen by everyone, though. more people would watch her be slightly out of breath (due to dancing) on talk shows and awards shows than people who attended her tour. the songs on BOMT were also way less vocally challenging than the ones on christina's album. christina would adlib tf out of genie in a bottle during performances giving people no choice but to see her as a vocalist of some kind. britney on the other hand mainly stuck to what the studio recording did & her adlibs weren't as complicated (or annoying ) as the ones christina did

[Newrie]

15 hours ago, mythology said:

You're reaching.  Britney isn't a vocalist.  Why do you think she never sings live and had a backup singer do the main vocals for an entire album? 

She's not a good singer, period and any fan can admit this.  Our fave was an amazing performer/dancer, one of the best I'd argue, but she was never respected as a vocalist, and for good reason.

You criticize Christina's voice, yet she is capable of singing live and sounding amazing. She doesn't hide her voice.  She doesn't have a backup singer sing her entire album for her.  She's known as the voice of the generation for a reason, while the general public thinks Britney can't sing. 

Deal with it.

No. YOU are reaching. You haven’t even realised what this post’s topic is. I am replying to the topic. The topic is who deserved a Grammy. Not “who is a vocalist”. And, you also are making really strange points about Britney not being a “vocalist” when I just gave you several examples of ICONS that have UNIQUE VOICES, whom none of them were vocalists either, and that was my point. Seriously, is it that hard or are you trolling? Britney is a pop star, an iconic pop star that has many fans who have gotten so much out of her art. Her pop-art. The Grammys are NOT “Classical Vocalist Awards”. You probably are going to reply to this with a laughing GIF and still go on about “Do you think Britney sings like Celine Dion? Oh my goood, hahaha”. 
Christina Appropriation is also a pop star. She is not a virtuoso. She isn’t a soprano that makes a living out of travelling around performing classical music on Opera houses. She is a pop star and she never became the icon Britney is. Because it is pop, it is music, it is about art. David Bowie was not a “vocalist” either. 
It is not a relevant argument when it comes to pop artists and Grammy awards. 

[mythology]

10 hours ago, Newrie said:

No. YOU are reaching. You haven’t even realised what this post’s topic is. I am replying to the topic. The topic is who deserved a Grammy. Not “who is a vocalist”. And, you also are making really strange points about Britney not being a “vocalist” when I just gave you several examples of ICONS that have UNIQUE VOICES, whom none of them were vocalists either, and that was my point. Seriously, is it that hard or are you trolling? Britney is a pop star, an iconic pop star that has many fans who have gotten so much out of her art. Her pop-art. The Grammys are NOT “Classical Vocalist Awards”. You probably are going to reply to this with a laughing GIF and still go on about “Do you think Britney sings like Celine Dion? Oh my goood, hahaha”. 
Christina Appropriation is also a pop star. She is not a virtuoso. She isn’t a soprano that makes a living out of travelling around performing classical music on Opera houses. She is a pop star and she never became the icon Britney is. Because it is pop, it is music, it is about art. David Bowie was not a “vocalist” either. 
It is not a relevant argument when it comes to pop artists and Grammy awards. 

The point I was trying to make is that Britney isn't a vocalist.  You're the one that's making her out to be based on your posts, while trolling criticizing Christina's vocals that Britney would never dare to attempt.  Sit down. 

The Grammy went to Christina because she's clearly the more talented vocalist, hands down.  Grammys are about talent, and they recognized Floptina is the better singer, and thus she deserved it over Britney.  Deal with it.