"But surely that can only be a good thing?!" I hear you say. And I would normally agree with you. But here's the thing. I've recently been getting the impression that Britney has been sidelined as an artist in the minds of showbiz and gossip writers, the "great unwashed" general public, and those who have influence on the waxing and waning status of singers and actors. And Britney's lipsynching activities have, in the course of the "Circus" tour, altered her status in the eyes of these people from "suspect" to "fake".

In the final quarter of 2009 in the UK, Channel 4's "T4" music operation ran a viewers' poll entitled "The World's Greatest Popstar". Contestants included Kylie Minogue, Madonna, Robbie Williams, Take That, Pink, Beyonce and Britney. Each artist was allocated an hour-long show in which a well-known musician was given a chance to argue the case for "their" contender. But some contenders were clearly given a thumbs up or thumbs down by the T4 presenters as each show ended. As Britney's show ended, established presenter Steve Jones remarked "Britney Spears the world's greatest popstar? That's debatable!" He tried to cover his tracks by adding "And that's what you're supposed to do - debate it". But the damage was done.

Like everybody else at T4, Steve Jones is obsessed with Beyonce. The UK has gone Beyonce-crazy since her X Factor appearance in 2008. No one seems to worry about her limited vocal range and one-dimensional song stylings. Her "World's Greatest Popstar" show appeared more often than any of the others, especially as the closing date for the vote approached. Not only that, T4 also screened TWO hour-long Beyonce specials during the voting period - one of them a super-sycophantic interview with.... Steve Jones. It was pretty obvious that T4 had no plans for anyone other than Beyonce to be the winner.

Judgment Day finally arrived. The day when the result of the public vote would be revealed to those who hadn't already guessed. T4 assembled a team of "experts" to comment as each loser was eliminated. Clearly they hadn't been briefed, because, to begin with, most of them assumed that Madonna would win. They mustn't have been aware that HER "Greatest Popstar" show was rarely shown. People began to be voted out - including Madonna. A horrible dread about the possible winner began to arise. The News Of The World music columnist articulated it by remarking that Britney didn't deserve to win, was hopeless as an artist and that if she did happen to win he would eat his shoes.

The dread deepened. Beyonce and Britney were eventually the only two left. Beyonce won, of course. It couldn't have happened any other way. But what was amazing was that DESPITE the torrents of negative publicity, Britney came second. What this shows us is clearly NOT the effect of the relentless celebration of her accomplishments as an artist by a fawning media, since that only happened for Beyonce. What it shows us is the extraordinary loyalty of her fans, who continued throughout 2009 to come to her shows in their thousands, making the "Circus" tour the highest grossing of the year by a female artist and fourth highest overall.

But. There's always a "but", and here it's a big one. The fans came to Britney's show KNOWING that she lip-synched throughout, and that her dancing was subdued or even static. The point for her fans was to be in her presence, to witness the legendary tabloid icon live, to assure themselves that she really existed in flesh and blood, to worship as a congregation in the Church of Britney. OK, they expected an exhilarating show and they got it, but nobody expected Britney herself to be a virtuoso performer. They simply didn't care.

And this works so long as the fans empathise with her, live her dramas and tragedies with her, internalise her tears and anguish, share her joys and smiles. And Britney's trials and tribulations were part of our own daily lives for years. Every day we woke up to some more disturbing news. For a while, we woke in a panic that we'd learn of her death by suicide, overdose of prescription drugs or auto accident. We cried over her misfortunes. We raged over the malicious captioning of paparazzi pix of her doing harmless things. We CARED about her. My Lord, HOW we cared.

But now that the tour's over, we hardly ever see her. Many Britney fansites and forums don't even have regular posts any more, and in my time as a fan that is unknown. We still have our hunger for news, but the simple fact is that nature abhors a vacuum. If we don't hear or read anything about Britney, we will inevitably become more and more interested in other artists that we ARE hearing and reading about.

Yes, yes. I know. If she releases a new album in 2010, we will buy it. She still has a period of grace. But there IS an invisible line, and when an artist crosses it, the fans begin to look at him or her as something that belongs to the past. Something you've gotten over. Something that's been replaced by a brand new model. Something that - with the bitterness of jaded nostalgia - we may even decide probably wasn't as good as the latest models anyway. When an artist gets to that place, there's no coming back. Next time they tour, we probably won't go. If they don't release another album till 2012, we probably won't buy it.

It's pretty obvious that the media have turned their collective faces against Britney the artist. She needn't expect any great reviews of anything she does in the near future. Media observers are angry at her alleged "fakeness" and revenge must be exacted. So there's no chance of her receiving the Beyonce treatment and being promoted, celebrated and written into the iconography of the second decade of the 21st century. Anything that's written about Britney will be calculated to undermine our faith "poco a poco" until we finally give in.

The only possible ways she can now continue as a major seller of recordings and seller-out of shows are: ONE, to take a short break (no more than a year) and come back as a totally different kind of artist. Coming back as one who sings live but badly will not be her salvation, and I'm sure both she and her management have known that for a very long time. If her course of action is to sing live, she will need to spend the next year learning the techniques of singing both live and WELL, and putting together a team who understand live solo vocal production. I'm not suggesting that she become a "stand at the mic for 90 minutes" act. But she could learn lessons from Beyonce, whose act after all is as much old-school vaudeville as Britney's.

So what is TWO? Her other option? Well, isn't it obvious? She has to become a part of our daily lives again. She has to make us empathise enough, and CARE enough, that just being in the same arena at the same time as her is something we will continue to pay to do. She has to authorize the paparazzi to photograph her every day and to sell their photographs.

Basically, she has to decide if she wants us to love her as an artist or as a celebrity soap opera. In the past it was a bit of both, but not now. A choice has to be made, and it's a stark one. I don't think she can be an invisible star and still stay as big as she is. Way, way back in 2004 she told a UK magazine that when she got to age 30, she would haul back on her career and continue at a lower level. Maybe we're seeing the start of that process already.

Comments (17)