Anyway. As a by-product of this campaign of sabotage, the usual Britney vs Xtina forum battles have broken out yet again. And once again we have the argument that Xtina is an "artist", while Britney is "only a performer". Adduced in support of this position is a special definition of "artist" according to which only someone who writes their own songs can be an "artist". And because Xtina writes (or at the very least manages to grab a writing credit for) many of her songs and Britney doesn't, that means Xtina is an "artist" and Britney isn't.

But this is complete nonsense. For a start, let's look at simple definitions. An "artist" in showbusiness is a performer. A songwriter is not described as an "artist". Adding songwriting to your CV does not convert you from a singer into an artist. If you want to be sniffy about it, and try to set qualifying standards for what makes you an "artist" rather than just a "singer", the qualifying standard is excellence at what you do. Originality and creativity make a major contribution. So-called "reality", "honesty" and a tendency to self-dramatisation and self-pity have nothing to do with it.

Most of the very greatest, most highly revered artists of the past never wrote a single note and they weren't expected to. Buyers of music expected to buy recordings of songs written by the best professional songwriters, sung by artists of the highest possible calibre. The great songwriters of the past expected to sell their songs to artists who would interpret them according to their style, and had no desire or ambition to go out and perform them thermselves, any more than J.K. Rowling would expect to be an actress in the Harry Potter movies just because she was the writer.

So who are/were these great artists? (Some of them are still around.) Well obviously there's Elvis, known as "The King" by many, but there's also Judy Garland, Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughan, Lena Horne, Rosemary Clooney, Connie Francis, Edith Piaf, Frank Sinatra, Bobby Darin, Tony Bennett, Nat "King" Cole, Vic Damone, Dean Martin, Sammy Davis Jr., Barbra Streisand, Dusty Springfield, Shirley Bassey, Perry Como, Nancy Wilson, Diana Ross.... the list could go on and on forever.

To say that none of these great names were or are "artists" shows an incredible depth of prejudice and ignorance. And I haven't even begun to talk about classical singers, who NEVER write their own material yet are on a plane of artistry so much higher than ANY pop singers that Xtina would need a space shuttle to even sneak a peek at them.

Even her much-vaunted singing (yes, her fans actually claim she is the greatest singer alive in the world today) is shrill, harsh and emotionally vacant compared to classical artists like Renee Fleming or Soile Isokoski. The mainstream movement in classical music over the last two or three decades has been AWAY from "belt 'em out" dramatic overkill and INTO more imaginative, varied, thoughtful, understated, sweeter, more lyrical interpretations. It's been recognized that there are other emotions in between the extreme ones.

And that, finally, is where I tie all of this together and make it relevant to Britney. I don't think HER fans are so deluded that they imagine for one moment that she is the greatest singer in the world. But in the world of present-day pop music she is one of very, very few singers who consistently delivers variety, creativity and imagination as well as a whole range of feelings and emotions, some on the happy side, some playful, some sexy, some teasing, some poignant, some heartbreaking... but always delivered with sweetness and understatement.

Songwriters know she will add her unique ingredients to anything she sings and "take it up a level" so that the ordinary somehow sounds special. That's what those great artists I mentioned above did. And that's why she is an artist.

Comments (1)