Talk:Britney Spears/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Backlash

No article about Britney Spears can claim to be complete without mentioning the buckets of what was supposedly urine that was thrown during an early morning recording or the series of pictures of her running for cover with a cigarette in her hand. Pretty famous fodder for the tabloids and newsgroups. Anyone going to get around to adding it? Jarwulf 23:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

False There were no "buckets of urine" - those supposed pictures are from the set of her video for "Overprotected (Darkchild Remix)" where they used a RAIN MACHINE for the video, thus her wet appearance. And ask yourself this: who keeps buckets of urine in their house? How convenient.

Britney's Net Worth Disputed

Someone kepts that she is worth $275 million. No is she NOT. Jay-Z and Diddy are worth about that much and they are record execs. The fact is people are inflating her wealth. She is currently worth $120 million. The Fabulous of Bitney & Kevin in 2004, stated that they are worth 100 million USD. Please provide the link for the Forbes 2004, if she is worth more. People should not invent figures from thin air!

This link has been removed after a reader queried it. I have removed it from the article. It should not be included in the article until a verifiable source is provided such as Forbes. 01:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Britney is actually worth about $125 million which is I think mentioned on Vh1's Fabulous Life Of Britney And Kevin.

It now says $250 million... That makes no sense.. I heard it was $123 million in September 2004.

IQ

Independent sources have gauged Spear's general IQ at around 80.

Britney Has Given Birth

I can't add this obviously as the article is protected, but Spears gave birth today.

Yes, it is true, she has given birth via c-section (looks like her husband won't be throwing his hot dog down the hallway after all).

I'll unprotect the article, but I think there have been false rumors about this before and you will need to cite a source for it. Everyking 21:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Lots of sites reporting this now, albeit national enquirer is one of them. Why does the article say she gave birth on the 9th though?? Mutor

Harldy I can believe that - after a money grubbing husband she has - Spent almost her fortune don't you think

Britney Jean Spears is worth $198 Billion to date!

Disputed factual accuracy?

Exactly what is being disputed as far as the factual accuracy of the article? Am I missing something on this talk page? It seems like the major factual controversies have been cleared up, so I'm removing the notice unless someone objects with a factual inaccuracy? Caphis 02:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Worldwide disk sales Certification" is disputed !! And nobody answers my question !Vorash 03:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) There is no such an organization ,it's an invention of Britney Spears's fans !Vorash 03:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe the RIAA certifies worldwide distribution, though I have no idea how to search their database by artist. I believe wikipedia policy on this is to "be bold" and go ahead and delete that line, if you feel it is unverifiable. If someone can come along and back it up with a cite, they will. In any case, the neutrality of this article isn't under debate, so I've removed that tag again. If you want to delete the line certifying worldwide sales until someone backs it up, be bold.Caphis 03:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I already deleted this "WW certification" twice, but user User:Triggy reverts it again and again. "RIAA" doesn't certifies worldwide distribution, because it's an impossible task and nobody can certify sales in more than 100 countries !!! Vorash 04:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its also not a single line , whole passage should be edited !:

===Studio Albums===

1999: ...Baby One More Time #1 (Debut) US (6 weeks), #4 UK, #1 CAN, #2 AU, US Sales: 10.5+ Million; US Certification: 14x Platinum (WW Sales: 22+ Million ; WW Certification: 25x Platinum)
2000: Oops!... I Did It Again #1 (Debut) US (1 week), #2 UK, #1 CAN, #2 AU, US Sales: 9+ Million; US Certification: 10x Platinum (WW Sales: 18+ Million; WW Certification: 20x Platinum)
2001: Britney #1 (Debut) US (1 week), #4 UK, #1 CAN, #4 AU, US Sales: 4.5+ Million; US Certification: 4x Platinum (WW Sales: 11+ Million; WW Certification: 12x Platinum)
2003: In the Zone #1 (Debut) US (1 week), #13 UK, #2 CAN, #10 AU, US Sales: 2.9+ Million; US Certification: 2x Platinum (WW Sales: 7+ Million; WW Certification: 8x Platinum)
2006: Original Doll working title (due for release in 2006)

Compilations

2004: Greatest Hits: My Prerogative #4 US, #2 UK, #3 CAN, #4 AU, US Sales: 1+ Million; US Certification: Platinum (WW Sales: 5+ Million; WW Certification: 5x Platinum)

Certified WW Album Sales: 70 Million

Wikipedia policy on editing/reversion wars If you think User:Triggy keeps reverting the page to include unverifiable info, my suggestion would be to remove the section and post a request to temporarily protect the page until Triggy is able to provide a cite for the edits. Again, just my suggestion, but in any case, the 'neutrality' of the article isn't under debate, as far as I know, so I'm editing to remove that. Caphis 19:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Trivia" Section

I've been thinking... Should the size of the "Trivia" section be more limited? I know I added a lot about how she ranked on all these music channel things, but maybe it should be removed, along with some other things. The only reason I'm bringing this up is because the page is already pretty long, and maybe some of the smaller facts shouldn't be included. What does everyone else think? -- Triggy, Jun. 30.

Agreed, the listing of the notes she hits in her songs is a waste of space. If they were notes she hit singing *live*, then a small vocal profile displaying min and max vocal range would be in the interests of article. To list indervidual songs is too much unnecessary info. Besides, the amount of post-production done on her vocals means that what you hear in the songs probably isn't what she can really do...

All of the other singers have listings of the notes they hit on record. Why shouldnt Britneys be on her page? Britney only has pro-tooling credits on one album which was her latest "In The Zone" i also want to say all vocalists use post-production and pro-tooling when they release a studio album.

About her Vocal Profile

Better you check Britney's vocal profile, because she doesn't hit 3 octaves (the same as Toni Braxton, Alicia Keys etc). Nobody can judge exactly her range through her recordings because there are many computer effects in her voice. And she has a few live performances (everytime, i'm not a girl not yet a woman etc),and she always "tune off" and her sound tends to "fail" when she tries to reach a high note in these live performances. And I don't know, but the fact that she is soubrette interfere in her vocal range? can she hit 3 octaves being a soubrette?

Sorry if I'm wrong and sorry for the bad english.

Well according to this information and her recorded music she has a 3 octave range. All singers use studio magic or "pro-tools". Since Britney didn't start pro-tooling her albums until "In The Zone" its safe to say those statistics are right. Since there aren't any pro-tooling credits on any of her other albums (Britney, Oops... and ...Baby) also are we are going by recorded songs are we not?

I don't know about any of this, but I am tired of seeing the number change from 2 to 3 and back again every few minutes. How about we just omit the "octaves" number completely until we figure it out? Alternately, we could have it say "2 or 3 octaves". Everyking 9 July 2005 00:33 (UTC)

Well C3-B5 is 3 octaves

C3 D3 E3 F3 G3 A3 B3 C4 D4 E4 F4 G4 A4 B4 C5 D5 E5 F5 G5 A5 B5

Don't you think its alittle weird that your comparing Britney to Alicia Keys and Toni Braxton because there both Contralto's while Britney is a Soubrette?

Sorry that was me who changed it to 2 octaves because I agree with you it's impossible for Britney to have the same vocal range as such singers like Alicia Keys, Toni Braxton even Beyonce'. Plus I don't think Britney even has 2 octaves. When I went to go edit the page I was blocked. And whoever is putting she has 3 octaves is completely wrong on so many levels and needs to actually listen to Britney's music and her live performances to see she can not sing a note even if it saved her life.

Does anybody here who knows about musical notes and singing want to actually listen to all of Britney's albums Baby threw Greatest Hits to see how big her octave range is along with her highest and lowest notes are. Cause this editing is getting annoying.

I agree that the edits aren't getting anyone anywhere. I don't particularly care about Britney either way; I've just seen all the edits going by in RC. Since Britney fans have an incentive to widen it and Britney detractors have an incentive to narrow it, the only thing we can really get here is research. Someone needs to find the points in the recording where the extremes are so someone else can verify it, or someone needs to get something from a publicist, or something like that. Alas, I haven't even been able to find the name of her management company, but I don't have any of her recordings.

It doesn't matter if one "agrees that it's impossible". You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. It would be an exceptional range, but she may have an exceptional range, and by now it seems clear that no-one editing is certain what her range is. Narrowing the range listed in the article because of a poor opinion of her singing ability is POV. Narrowing the range because of research is not. — mendel ☎ 02:03, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I changed Britney's voice type because according to the Soubrette page it says Britney is a Lyric Soprano

Can somebody please gaurd Britney's vocal profile i used sources to back up my information and people are still messing with it and the stuff they are putting in there is stupid like Soubrette with Lyric Soprano range. WTF! she's a lyric soprano! They also keep changing her lowest note to Db3 when it is C#3! Also the song is called "I Was Born To Love You"

Look, I'm a big fan of Britney and a big fan of vocals. Britney does not have a 3-octave range, nor is she a soprano. If you listen to her live peformances (when they're live, that is), you can see that there is struggle when she tries to get up there. There's nothing wrong with Britney's range. It's just fine for a soubrette. The sources you cited would be fine if it had the notes written for the vocals. The notes on those music sheets are only for the music. It doesn't count. Her highest note is somewhere around a G5. I'll have to go through her music again and find it. Where exactly does she hit the C#3 in Oops? I can't find it. Also, there is no song by Spears called "I Was Born to Love You" - that's like a mix of her songs "I Was Born to Make You Happy" and "I Will Still Love You" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.160.116.44 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, aren't Db3 and C#3 the same note?

lol, good point...

no Britney's a lyric mezzo-soprano. She's more comfortable in her lower/mid-range. Look at her "Something To Talk About" cover.

Britney's "Chaotic" Ratings

I would like to change the facts of her ratings because according to other sources she had 3.66 Million veiwers on the shows debut.

http://www.realitytvworld.com/index/articles/story.php?s=3516

Also the second show which scored 2.97 Million viewers according to

http://www.tv.com/who-said-anything-about-love/episode/422097/trivia.html#Notes

The third show got ratings of 2.5 Million

http://www.jossip.com/gossip/britney-spears/jiblets-britneys-chaotic-cant-muster-crazy-ratings-20050602.php

The Fouth show got 3 Million total veiwers and 1.5 Million viewers for the adult demographic

http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,272%7C95741%7C1%7C,00.html

Citation of sources for the vocal profile of Britney Spears

Can someone please WP:CITE sources for the claims posted regarding the vocal profile of Britney Spears? Hall Monitor 23:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The Vocal Profile subsection of this article is highly contentious, as is demonstrated by the edit history. In accordance with official Wikipedia policy, this section has been removed until a valid external source can be referenced which documents her vocal capabilities, otherwise it is original research. Hall Monitor 17:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

"WP:CITE sources" is style guideline !! It is not an official Wikipedia policy ! In order to remove this section you should prove that this is an original research !! Vorash 17:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The point of removal is that no sources are cited within the article as to what Ms. Spears' actual vocal profile is, and, as the edit history has demonstrated, her "vocal profile" tends to change with the wind. If no sources can be found, it should be removed, no questions asked. Hall Monitor 18:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Based on what are you saing that "If no sources can be found, it should be removed" ??? Vorash 18:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

In this particular instance, yes. Hall Monitor 18:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Your conclusion reminds me "Original research" ! You don't have any facts to prove that this section was "Original research", and that such a famous singer as Britney Spears doesn't have any sources for information about her voice ! Vorash 18:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

HEY! i atleast want Britney's voice type on the vocal profile page according to wikipedia's Soubrette page Britney is a Lyric Soprano the LEAST you could do is put that up after you deleted all the information you did.

Citing another Wikipedia article does not necessarily mean anything unless there is a valid source within the Soubrette text. Hall Monitor 18:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:CITE guideline :

Disputed statements for which a credible source has not been provided may be removed from Wikipedia articles. The disputed material should generally be moved to the article's talk page, to give an opportunity for editors to identify sources for the material.

Disputed information which, if verified, would remain in an article, should be placed on the article's talk page. Potentially useful information ought to be retained — and by placing disputed information on the talk page, you give other users the opportunity to find sources to support it, in which case the information could be re-inserted into the article proper. This guideline does not endorse or mandate that all unsourced information must be removed: it is recognised that some information is self-evident and that a source for it might not be necessary, or that something may be true and accurate but as-yet unsourced. However, it does make clear that users who, in good faith, dispute information to an article may remove that information and, where, if verified, the material would be suitable for the article, paste it to the talk page. Vorash 18:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hall Monitor violates official Wikipedia guidline ! He deletes usefull information in Britney Spears article, "based on" Wikipedia:Cite sources. Wikipedia:Cite sources is guidline, which says "This guideline does not endorse or mandate that all unsourced information must be removed" and in any case "The disputed material should generally be moved to the article's talk page, to give an opportunity for editors to identify sources for the material". Vorash 19:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Make up your mind. Either it's a guideline, in which case Hall Monitor is free to disregard it, or it's a policy, in which case people have to come up with support for their claims about Spears's vocal profile if they're going to add it to the article. You can't have it both ways.

If it's really that frustrating to be unable to find that bit on the talk page and having to look at the history to find out what happened, let me summarize: A lot of people think that Britney's vocal range is either big or small, either 2 or 2.5 or 2 11/12 or 3 octaves, and that her low note is either C3 or E3 or something else, and her high note is either B5 or something lower than that.

As it stands it's pretty clear that none of the editors modifying that bit know what her range is (since even the high and low sides can't agree among themselves as to how high or low it is). When something verifiable comes up then the section can go back. — mendel ☎ 19:53, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

This section is edited by many Anonymous users !! You can't force them to cite sources !! They don't know anything about rules and guidelines here. Frequent edits only prove that there is an actual dispute between these users, it doesn't prove that they don't have sources. Vorash 20:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

There is no need to shout. The fact remains that her vocal range is in question, and in order for Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information, we too need to WP:CITE our sources whenever possible. In this particular instance, it is necessary (IMHO). Hall Monitor 20:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

In any case, the lowest note on Oops! is not a C, but a C#, as the key chord of that piece is C# (or Db, frankly I haven't got my virtual ears tuned well enough). I'm more comfortable calling it a C#, but.. Bobo192|Edits

The obligations of anonymous and logged-in users are identical. — mendel ☎ 20:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

THe obligations are the same but the situation is different ! If Anonymous users don't provide a source it doesn't mean that they haven't one, it can be because they don't know about these guideline ! Vorash 20:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The following information has been moved from the main article until these claims can be substantiated and this dispute resolved:

  ==Vocal profile==
  *Voice type: Lyric Soprano
  *Highest note: G5 (Toxic), B5 (mimicking opera singer on Chaotic)
  *Lowest note: C3 ("Oops!... I Did It Again")
  *Vocal range: 3 octaves (C3-B5)

 Britney has a larger range than most singers in her vocal class (Soubrette) do. 
 She is able to surpass the restriction of F5 and is able to hit notes as high as G5 and A5 which most in her category cannot. 
 Spears can also hit lower notes than A3 and is able to hit notes like F3 and E3 with relative ease. 
 She arguably has the biggest range of any soubrette in contemporary music. 
 Britney is also able to sing in Middle voice, Falsetto Voice and Head Voice. Her vocal  range is similar to that of Madonna.

  *She hits notes A3, D4, E4 and B4 in her song "Lucky".
  *She hits note C5 in her song "Sometimes".
  *She hits note G4 in her songs "From The Bottom Of My Broken Heart" and "Stronger".
  *She hits one of her lowest notes in her song "Stronger" with G3.
  *In Britney's piano ballad "Everytime" she hits one of her lowest recorded notes, E3;  she is also recorded hitting notes C4, E4 and B4.
  *Britney hits C3 in her song "Oops!... I Did It Again".

When an actual external reference stating these claims can be cited, only then should this information be moved back into the main article space. Hall Monitor 21:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's a source for that exact text. Sbz5809 09:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I found a source:

Britney Spears - Dear Diary Sheet Music (Digital Download) scoring:, Piano/Vocal/Guitar. instruments:, Guitar. Piano, range: Bb3-C5. Voice, range: Bb3-C5 ... from the book:, Britney Spears / Oops!..I Did It Again ...

www.musicnotes.com/.../features/artists/ britneyspears/default.asp&bd=Britney+Spears This is Britney's sheet music and i'll review some more about her sheet music and what her range is on this site.

Oops!... I Did It Again Selection Details: pages: 7 form: Song scoring: Piano/Vocal/Guitar instruments: Guitar Piano Voice, range: C#3-A4 http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?bl=%2Ffeatures%2Fartists%2Fbritneyspears%2Fdefault%2Easp&bd=Britney+Spears&ppn=MN0036621

Everytime Selection Details: pages: 6 form: Song scoring: Piano/Vocal/Guitar instruments: Guitar Piano Voice, range: Ab3-Eb5 http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=mn0046992&bookmark=0

(You Drive Me) Crazy Selection Details: pages: 5 form: Song scoring: Piano/Vocal/Guitar instruments: Guitar Piano Voice, range: G3-Db5 http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=mn0028943&bookmark=0

I Was Born To Love You pages: 4 form: Song scoring: Piano/Vocal/Guitar instruments: Guitar Piano, range: C2-Bb5 Voice, range: Eb4-C6 http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=mn0035060&bookmark=2

I've Just Begun (Having My Fun) pages: 5 form: Song scoring: Piano/Vocal/Guitar instruments: Guitar Piano Voice, range: G3-Eb5 http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=mn0048756&bookmark=2

The Beat Goes on Selection Details: pages: 2 form: Song scorings: Guitar/Vocal Guitar Tab notation: Guitar TAB instruments: Guitar Voice, range: Eb4-Bb5 http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=mn0041726&bookmark=4

Toxic Selection Details: pages: 6 form: Song scoring: Piano/Vocal/Guitar instruments: Guitar Piano Voice, range: G3-F5 http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=mn0046548&bookmark=4

It looks like according to her sheet music her highest note is C6 in the song (I Was Born To Love You) and her lowest note is C#3 in (Oops...I Did It Again)

Her range is incorrect,this music sheet only told us the overall range of the song which is come from Guitar/Piano/Voice.It's not just her vocal range. In music,voice has been considered as one of the instruments.

Actually no her range isn't incorrect it tells you the range of the Piano/Guitar then it tells you the singing range of the song. It's sheet music. Its telling you the range of the song in Guitar, Piano then it tells you the notes that are hit in the song.

Why is Britney not credited on allmusic.com for the "I Was Born To Love You?" Eric Carmen does indeed sing this song, but it makes no mention of it being a duet. The album that the song's on was released in 1998 as well, and Britney's first single didn't get released until the end of 1998. This all seems to point to the fact that Britney didn't sing this song. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.2.100.53 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Then why is Britney credited for performing the song? Performed by: Eric Carmen, Britney Spears http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=mn0035060&bookmark=2

I Was Born To Love You by Eric Carmen and Andy Goldmark performed by Britney Spears

http://www.musicnotes.com/SheetMusic/index/GuitarPianoVoice/html/defaultI.asp

I do believe that Britney has demonstrated a 2.5 to 3 octave range on her recordings, but I am a big Britney Spears fan, and I have never heard of her singing a song entitled I Was Born To Love You, let alone her singing a duet with Eric Carmen. Allmusic has been around since 1991 and their website's been running since 1995, and their reviews are used by a variety of sources, such as MSN. I would consider them more reliable than a website selling sheet music. While there probably is plenty of good information on that website, there's probably some errors too. Plus, has any Britney Spears fan visiting this area ever heard of her singing this song before now? The only thing I can think of is someone mixed it up with I Will Still Love You, as mentioned above, which is a duet with a male artist that has love in the title. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.2.100.53 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Weither she is a Lyric Soprano or a Soubrette

it is clearly impossiable for Britney to be a Soubrette with her range. Soubrettes can only sing from A3-F5 Britney can sing from C#3-C6 it insulting and wrong for her to be classified that way when she obviously isn't!

Also my source clearly says in Oops...!I Did It Again that she hits note C#3 not Db3 like the person keeps changing it.

Are you kidding? C#3 and Db3 is the same note.

Overall she is a Lyric Soprano it even says that on the Soubrette page!

C3-C6 is 3 octave full but her lowest note (C#3) is 0.5note higher than C3 ,So she her range is about 2.9 octave not that 3.1 like someone said.

From the soubrette page,A lyric voice is stronger and heavier than a true soubrette, which is the lightest female voice. The soubrette does its best singing in the octave between Middle C and High C or D. Any higher and the voice is well into high head voice. It also has no great depth in the lower register, since the vocal folds are nearly always small and soprano in stature and the person slight and very young. Many times a soubrette can sound so weak as if any change in vocal dynamic would cause the singer to crack.Range isn't a soubrette strong point.--->> The definition of Brtiney Spears.

__________________________________ It should be noted that both Cotrubas and Spears can be classified as lyric sopranos, as they have the range to execute the high lofty notes most soubrettes do not reach.----> There it says on the soubrette page Britney is a Lyric Soprano. Emma Bunton and Jessica Simpson are Lyric Sopranos and Emmas Highest note is B5 while Jessica's is G6 Are you telling Me hitting C6 doesn't qualify her to be a Lyric Soprano when Emma Bunton can hit B5 and be Qualfifed as a Lyric Soprano! I think Britney should be classified as a "spinto" soprano!

Please Rachelle can hit F7 but she is Contralto because her tessitura is fitting for the Contralto. And Emma'highest note is F6 in Something Kinda Funny.

From my memory, Britney doesn't have any song call "I Was Born To Love" It's QUEEN's song.

According to Emma Buntons page her highest note is Bb5 until you changed it. According to her musicsheet she has a song called "I Was Born To Love You" and the highes note there is C6. It is a duet with Eric Carmen and Britney. check the site

http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=mn0035060&bookmark=2

I also find it unbelieveable that this is being argued! she is a Lyric Soprano according to the Soubrette page!

Yes it's mine because Emma highest is F6. If you see the history of her page.Her F6 is there til' someone changed it to B5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emma_Bunton&diff=16119332&oldid=15829057

And the article in wikipedia is NOT THE FACT,especially the article about notes and octaves.If it's a fact,history page is unnecessary.

How do you know Emma even hits F6 you even said its almost inaudiable because its in the background?

And the song she sang with Don Philip is called "I will still love you" which Eric Foster White is a composer.Britney doesn't have any song call "I was born to love you" Go to this link and you will see that the fifth results

http://www.google.co.th/search?hl=th&q=%22i+will+still+love+you%22+britney+eric&meta=

Britney has a duet with eric carmen called "I Was Born To Love You" http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd.asp?ppn=mn0035060&bookmark=2

OK.It's my fault.Let me ask you something, what wrongs if she is classified as Mezzo.It'just range.Being soprano is not superior than others.

Theres not a problem but she is only one note away from a whistle register i think thats soprano material. Also britney's voice isnt as dark as a mezzo-soprano's is. Whitney and Janet have darker voice then Britneys while Britneys voice is lighter like Jessica's and Emma's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kylie_Minogue#Vocal_Profile I think Britney has smoky tone than Kylie.But Kylie is Lyric Mezzo,I think Britney should be classified like her.

Yeah thats true Kylie and Britney do sound similar. But according to the Soubrette page Britney and Ilena are Lyric Soprano's.

I think that Britney should be classified as a lyric mezzo soprano, because her range used to be from E3 to B5 or A5(2.5 octaves for those of you who don't understand what an octave is) on the page before everyone started changing that part of the page every 10 minutes. A typical vocal range for a soprano is from C4 to A5, and for a mezzo soprano from A3 to F5, and while Britney can hit notes and sing in ways similar to both vocal ranges, she usually sings in a smokier tone as mentioned above. The claims about her being a soubrette are also very changeable. See the problem is that while Britney sometimes sings like a mezzo-soprano, she usually sings like a soubrette in her recordings. It reminds me of how Ashanti is said to have an incredible voice but that she doesnt ever sing with it, instead choosing to use a very lightweight voice. This also applies to Janet Jackson. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.2.100.53 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah Britney sings in a lower tone with songs but she also sings in a light voice in her latest cd "In The Zone" but she sang smoker in her early recordings like those from her earlier records Baby and Oops. Then she used her lighter voice with her albums Britney and In The Zone. So do we disregard her light voice and only recognize her Dark voice or do we say she has a lighter voice? what do we classify her as since she sings both ways. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.12.253 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Looking back now, Britney should be considered a lyric soprano rather than a lyric mezzo. For instance while Mariah Carey can sing deeper than some male vocalists,and often has a smoky tone to her voice, she is still classified as a soprano. Britney has lately been singing in a lighter voice as mentioned above so she should be a soprano. She shouldn't be considered a soubrette however. If Ashanti and Janet Jackson can be called Lyric Sopranos then Britney certainly can as well. Janet's talk page doesnt once mention any disputes about her voice, which she has been in a soubrette style since her album All For You was released. One person disputed Ashanti's range on her talk page, expressing doubt that she could hit a G6, which is justified as this quite likely talented singer hasnt demonstrated the talent she has on any of her records. Yet the claim about her voice is accepted. If these two can be qualified as sopranos or mezzos without any dispute, and if one of them has barely any recorded proof to back up these claims(Ashanti), then why cant Britney, who has demonstrated a soprano or mezzo voice in several songs, as well as in her movie Crossroads, not qualify as a mezzo or soprano? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.2.100.53 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Britney's vocal profile has completely disappeared now.

Suggestion: Reading this dispute is very confusing because none of the editors are signing their comments. Please sign your commentary with four tildes "~~~~". This will automatically sign your name with a corresponding timestamp. The vocal profile section has been removed until this dispute has been fully resolved. Hall Monitor 17:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I Was Born To Love You Isn't A Britney Spears Song!!!

Has anybody hear ever heard of Britney singing a song called I Was Born To Love You, or a duet with Eric Carmen? There is no recorded evidence to support that she has, allmusic.com lists this as a song by Eric Carmen alone, and any Britney fan can tell you that they have never heard of her singing this. She does have a duet with a male recording artist (Don Philip) entitled I Will Still Love You and that song is on her first album. There seems to be nothing to support the fact that Britney ever sang this song, save for a page at musicnotes.com that says she has, but is this source truly as reliable as allmusic? Britney never sang this song, and therefore it can't be used for her vocal profile. I think she has between 2.5 to 3 octaves, but I'm not going to embellish how big her range is just so that she looks better. Range doesnt mean too much. Celine Dion only has 2.5 octaves to her range, and she is consistently rated about the best singers of all time. Basically I'm trying to say as a Britney fan myself, let's not lie to make Britney look better. She's accomplished a lot in her life, and whether or not she has a 2 or 3 octave range wont diminish what she's done in her life.24.2.100.53 20:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)--- i think the song it was referring to was "born to make you happy"

Either way she has a 3 octave range. C#3-B5 is 3 octaves and so is C#3-C6 the only difference is C6 is a higher note.

SOMEBODY HELP US PLEASE!!! This is getting so frustrating! I am a huge Britney Spears fan and her range is important to me, and despite what many people think, she is a very skilled vocalist (when she wants to be) but has simply embraced the simplicty of her song arrangements and has not paid much attention to her singing like Christina and others. That doesn't mean she is not able. I think we need to look at everything she has ever sung from Mickey Mouse Club and before to the present! Live...studio...movies and TV! And finalise this information. Britney, according to my musical knowledge, is not a soubrette! And the quality of her voice varies from album to album.

Britney has demonstrated a 2.5 octave range in her recordings. Her lowest note is a E3 in Do Somethin' and her highest note is a B5 in Lucky. However she probably does have a wider range, as in shows about her on tv people always say she has a remarkable voice. However, she hasn't demonstrated this probable talent on her albums. Many of the other artists have demonstrated this on their albums. What I meant earlier was just that because she hasn't shown all of her talent doesnt mean that she doesnt have it. I am a huge Britney fan as well.24.2.100.53 06:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually Britney has hit note C#3 in Oops...I Did It Again and has hit B5 in her song I Will Still Love You her duet with Don Phillip.

Manolito Mystiq: About the C#3 and Db3 thing. As many have mentioned, enharmonically they're exactly the same note. It's because the song is written in C#m, that it says C#3 in the sheet music. If it's still hard to grasp. Simply play C minor on your piano (C Eb G). Then play D minor (D F A). And now play C# minor and Db minor. Although if you write it down notationwise, they're respectively C# E G# and Db Fb Ab (remember I lowered the chord from Dm to Dbm, so EVERY note is lowered) and C# = Db, E = Fb, G# = Ab. Now if the song 'wasn't' played on equal temperament measures, then yes, the C# is a littlelittlelittle lower than the Db: http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/english/index.html But it IS, so here they're exactly the same.

And the fach of one person is better determined by their timbre, than their range. There are many tenors for instance who are classified as bariton's because they cannot reach for the high tenor range. But the reason for that is that they do not have completely trained their voices (yet). Also there where the power, the flexibility truly outshines is part of classifying one's range. I mean if you look at Mariah Carey. She can go as low as a Bariton range, but she's definitely not a bariton, obviously (heh, she's female). Tenor then? Alto, Mezzo? No, definitely soprano, because her POWER is there. It's the same as an instrument. A bass guitar can hit the exact same note as a regular guitar. It's still a bass guitar. EVEN if you lower the tunings of the guitar to that of a bass guitar, it wouldn't be the same. The tonal quality is very different. Not only that, a complete determination of a fach is classicaly based. Mariah Carey for instance can go very low, but relatively speaking they're worthless in Classical or Opera music, because in Opera you're not amplified.

Why Britney Spears is a soubrette

Britney is an example of a soubrette under the guidelines of her singing style (which is what a soubrette is based on), most of the others are classified (read: lumped in) because of a lack of range. To sing that softly, and mellowly, and stay melodic without cracking isn't a cake walk. Aaliyah should also properly be classified as a soubrette, but many would consider that heinous because of her rich lower register. A soubrette isn't a vocal class or fach like the traditional lines of soprano, mezzo (itself subject to occasionally scrutiny as a fach) or alto. The classification deals with the tone, pitch, and volume of a voice. In short it is more a style than a true fach. Britney's voice is soft, mellow, yet every melodic and sweet. One listen to her song Everytime and you can hear why she fits the profile of a soubrette perfectly. The lines of vocal classification are blurry. Being a soubrette doesn't mean you are totally incapable of vocal altitude, just where the voice prefers to be. For example, Blu Cantrell is considered an alto. The alto's high note is considered to be the F or G above High C (F or G under Soprano C). OK!. She can (and has demonstrated in Waste My Time) the ability to execute a pitch well in whistle register. The high (or low note) of a person is individualized. The vocal fach is a guideline, not a militaristic maximum. Ileana Cotrubaş is a great operatic example of a soubrette in the classical sense. She however was capable of coloratura. So Britney can (and is) both a lyric soprano and a soubrette. Many, many people are capable of sing more than one vocal fach (Pharrell Williams: countertenor and baritone), Usher (baritone and tenor), Mariah (alto, mezzo, soprano, even tenor if she really wanted). So yes, you can classify her EASILY as a lyric soprano, but because she fits the profile of a soubrette so well, that is why she should be classified as a soubrette. There is no shame to her being classified as such. Britney, like Ilena have the unique ability to truly sing in this genre. Just as it takes a skill to belt or carry notes well into the ozone layer, it takes a special gift to sing so softly in a tatering-like style, not crack, and STILL sound melodic.

If it were strictly up to me, the only people in the Soubrette category would be Pebbles, Nicole Parker (barely), Ciara, Ilena, and Britney. Hilary Duff is too brassy to be a soubrette in the sense of style. So is J. Lo. And Lumidee couldn't carry a tune if she moved it with a dump truck. So they only quality as a soubrette because of their lack of range, and NOT because of their great singing style, like Ilena or Britney.

Antares33712 00:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on the fact that on most of her music Britney sings like a soubrette soprano. However, in my opinion the voice she sings in her movie Crossroads is definately not a soubrette voice. She sounds wonderful in that movie, but her voice sounds much smokier, much more rich, and far more deep than on her recordings. It sounds heavy to me,not light like on her records. This is what confuses me most.

How about we just say she is a lyric soprano with Soubrette capabilities.

No complaints from me, but Britney fits the soubrette profile better. She can sing in another style, which any singer of true talent can do, but she fits the bill in the proper definition of soubrette. I also think the picture of her on the soubrette page should be restored, as she is the definition of a soubrette. Think about Mya. She is a lyric voice. She could be agrued into the soubrette category. But she occasionally synthesized a brassy, more dramatic voice. She just doesn't LIVE there. Blu Cantrell can hit whistle register notes, but she doesn't LIVE there. Britney doesn't LIVE in the brassier, heavier vocals. She lives in the world of the soubrette. Vocal classification is very individualized. The will always be a good debate. Tamia is classified as an alto, I say she is a mezzo. When Elisabeth Schwarzkopf started training to sing, her voice coach thought she was a mezzo soprano. Her mother took her to another coach who immediately saw her as a coloratura, which she is popular and known for today. Antares33712 13:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Vocal Profile

Voice Type: Lyric Soprano, Soubrette
Highest note: G5 ("Toxic"), B5 ("I Will Still Love You")
Lowest note: C3 ("Oops, I Did It Again")
Vocal Range: 3 octaves (C3-B5)

E5 - Britney hits this note in Everytime, which also showcases her melodic soubrette abilities.

In her movie Crossroads, Britney shows us that being a soubrette is more style than fach by singing in many styles, including rock and roll.

Can we reach a consensus on this people, please :-) Antares33712 13:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I mistakenly changed the word 'fach' to fact. I looked it up, and found this:

A term universally used to designate vocal category or type of singing voice. This categorization is used in many German opera houses as a guide to what roles a singer would be expected to sing.

Source: Vocal Terms

So I changed it back :) Gbeeker 14:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks GBeeker. Once again people, vocal classification is a guide not a militaristic maximum. Antares33712 16:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Antares thank you for your message on my talk page. Wikipedia has a very strict policy on no original research and a strong style guideline which encourages people to cite sources. Due to the way in which her vocal profile was being manipulated on a daily basis (at times on the hour), it would behoove everyone involved to find an official source documenting this information before adding it back into the article. Just my thoughts. Hall Monitor 16:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually Britney hits F5 in "Toxic" you can go to britney's discography and its say so. She hits note G5 in her reality Tv Show "Choatic" in episode 4 "Magic Happens" where she mimics Opera and seranades the city. also i would be more then happy to lend my sources of sheet music as a source for Britney's high and low notes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.49.12.253 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC) 68.49.12.253 (talk • contribs)

NPOV

Is this article completely NPOV or not? (bad sexual image vs. great pop star) — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I just read over the article, and it seems to be pretty NPOV to me. I don't see anywhere in the article where she is claimed to be a "great pop star"... As for the controversy over the bad sexual image, I can see where one may find the fact that her public image is described as "raunchy" a bit opinionated, but the descriptions all work well with what's trying to be described in the passage. I really don't see any problem with the article at the moment. Triggy 07:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The part on the Controversy is not from a neutral point of view, resulting in unclear phrases like: Spears's popularity has certainly been a catalyst for exposing the complex feelings that come with sexual maturity. These kind of statements do not belong in an encyclopedia that tries to be neutral.

I'm more concerned by the opinionated opening paragraph ("iconic pop star", "sweet, mellow voice", etc.) It reads like a fan page more than an impartial biography.--RicardoC 04:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is most definitely POV. It definitely reads like a fan wrote it, not like a measured encyclopedia entry. There are many, many people who dislike her brand of sexuality (but such a good Christian girl) and dislike "her" music even more (considering she doesn't write her own music, she's hardly an original artist). - Ta bu shi da yu 13:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

For your information,Ta bu shi da yu, if you want to call out someone, make sure that your personal feelings do not get in the way of facts. Britney Spears does indeed write her own lyrics and even arranges the vocals and music. If you researched a little before you wrote, you would see that you are printing lies, and furthermore, your label of hardly being an original artist is strictly opinion. However, seeing as you wrote, "considering she doesn't write her own music, she's hardly an original artist," when she does in fact write her own material, you are simply describing her as a highly original artist. In my opinion (notice I clearly stated), any artist who creates music is original, be it for the way the sing (which does not necessarily have to sound amazing), the way the write, the way they market themselves, etc. They can do all or one. And it would be wise for RicardoC to think about what he's writing, for it is a FACT that Britney Spears is an iconic pop star, whether you like it or not. It's true. Just look at the way she influenced popular culture with her music, videos, products (Curious, anyone?), and life in general. People claim to hate her yet lead similar lifestyles. They call her trashy while smoking and shoveling down Cheetos in a pair of pocket-peekers. Because of Britney Spears, the "perfect people" (the people who look down on those who are like them or even unlike them, but maybe don't get dolled up every day) of the world have come to reveal a side of undeniable hypocrisy. Just because you have issues of accepting her music does not give you authority to tell other people not to listen to it. Music does not have to be what YOU want it to be, and you would not be complaining if she were not the tremendous icon that she is. You don't have to spoil everything with your barbaric vandalism just because you loathe her. But you, another "perfect person," would never be able to accomplish half of what she did in a fifty-year career. If her voice is so terrible, then surely you could sing better. If she is so trashy, then surely you would be in a dress or tuxedo every living hour of the day as the paparrazi hunt you down. The girl has a right to make her our life choices, just as you do. Please choose to go against the trend of the ever-popular "perfect person" and let her go about her business. You don't have to support her, but why not leave her alone? By the way, I'm not saying this in an angry tone. You don't have to try to trash everything with her name on it. Doesn't that make you a smaller person? What are you accomplishing? Nothing. So keep your personal problems with her out in the street, and write facts only please. Or at least post were your opinions are. For that I will never criticize you, unless you again post out of hatred. I'm sorry if I offended you by posting your usernames. Again though, don't just edit my comment because you're mad at me. Instead, post a new comment directly after this one. I'll respect you a lot if you do. - TheRyan 16:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It's definently NPOV, searching for "fat", "trashy", and "hillbilly" within the article's text yielded only results embedded in other words. Roffler 21:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:654britneyspears bz-2003promo18-03.jpg

It should be noted that this image (the first one in the article) has been listed on IFD by Jimbo Wales for "egregious copyvio, abuse of fair use tag". A replacement image that can be used in this article will likely need to be found. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

What was the old image we had at the top? It was of her performing in 2003, I believe...I suppose we could go back to that one, unless it's a copyvio too. Everyking 08:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I looked through the article's history (and believe me, it wasn't easy to find), and discovered that the image previously used was Image:Britney Spears.jpg. Image was taken from a U.S. Navy site, and asserted to be in the Public Domain. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Image has been moved from Images for deletion to Possible unfree images. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 23:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Protection

Why is the article being protected? Sorry if it's obvious or something, but I can't find any explaination for this. Triggy 23:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably due to vandalism. I've unprotected. Everyking 04:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems to have been reprotected. I've unprotected again as it's been nearly a week. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 08:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect again? Yes or no? Everyking 02:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I filed an unprotect request a while ago - this page gets vandalized as much as George Bush.... probably the best thing to do is just leave it unprotected and block the vandals... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia now has sprotect. Back then it wasn't avaliable so lets try this for a short time period. --Supercoop 18:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The sprotect keeps getting removed...most of the unregistered edits are vandalism...most of the registered edits are not...shouldn't we leave the sprotect on...having to revert every other edit gets old fast, doesn't it? Albanaco 23:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Crappy sentence

From the article:

"However, there does seem to be reason behind Spears' methods; her shows almost always include extensive dancing, meaning that she likely would be too out-of-breath to sing live while doing this.".

This is complete crap, there are many performers who do equally or more physically intensive acts and sing too. This seems almost like a POV sentence defending britney and I think it looks quite bad in an wikipedia article. I'd defend eliminating the sentence completely since I don't think it can be saved - any suggestions are welcome though.... Sorry for my strong words, I won't change them since I mean no offense to anyone, just the sentence in itself :) Rbarreira 01:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

As is it most definately is POV. You could reword it to

"It is possible that there are reasons behind her methods, as is argued by some, that because her shows almost always include extensive dancing that she may not have enough breath to both sing and dance for the same period of time."

Well, that's a bit funny but you get the idea Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, having thought a little about I maintain my opinion that it should be just deleted. We're not here to justify why a singer chooses not to sing on stage - it should really be her main priority, not the dancing :) Rbarreira 01:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. What other group sings live while dancing as technically, atheletically and as fastly as she does without having some form of back up vocals? There are tons of artist that do it (lip sync) when they dance. No its not our job to justify it but i think if theres going to be critism of lip syncing then we need to list both sides.

Point taken. However, Destiny's Child, Christina Aguilera, Madonna, TLC, N Sync (including Justin Timberlake and his solo venture) and Backstreet Boys are a few artists who dance just as much as Britney and rarely lip-sync, if ever. No one is making Britney have a dance troupe for every show that she does. Perhaps she could show more growth as an artist by taking some voice lessons and singing live on her tour.

All of the artists you have mentioned have used some type of prerecorded vocals. Which could be seen as lip syncing. Destiny's Child has lip synced there single "Lose My Breath" and have used Reverb and prerecorded vocals in there performences of "Soilder" on saturday night live. Beyonce has used prerecorded vocals in performences of Crazy In Love and Baby Boy on the VMA's and several other award shows. Christina Aguilera doesn't dance as much as Britney and Madonna has been caught several times using guide vocals in her performences. Nsync and Backstreet Boys (Justin solo included) have lip synced many times in various performences weither in concert or on TRL performences. I have never seen TLC live so i can't comment on them. But there are alot of artists that lip sync to there songs.

How the crap would you sing Toxic and not dance? I think it's the show that matters period... It'd be boring to just be sitting on a stool singing a dance song.

Christina half dances, Madonna only dances intensly during the parts when she is not singing (and when she does dance and sing, you can clearly hear the strain on her voice), also, madonna does uses a pre-recorded vocal track for some songs. Destiny's Child don't dance as much a Britney...plus, they also use pre-recorded vocal tracks. Nobody mentioned Kylie Minogue, but when Kylie performs live, she barely dances at all, and just moves around while the dancers dance around her.

I disagree Destiny's Child sing the leads to their songs all most all the time. And if they ahve backing tracks theys ing over them too. Beyonce didn't even have a mic at the VMAs and was obviously not tryna fool ppl. She sings live mostly. TLC mostly ssang and rapped lived. And if you can't sing and dance at the same time tone down the dancing on ur part a little. The backstreet boys dance and sing i kno. Christina Aguilera sings and dance maybe not asmuch as Britney but she does enough so that she can sing and dance. I think that Britney could sing and dance at the same time if she wanted. I honestly think she's a dancer more than a singer.

Hebrew tattoo

Ironically, in getting a tattoo and desecrating her body, Spears has committed a taboo in traditional Judaism.

Why ironic? Why committing a taboo? Spears isn't Jewish, is she?

- See the comment title: The tattoo is in Hebrew. Hebrew is the language of Judaism. It's a taboo Jew tattoo. (Sorry).

Speaking of the tattoo, why does this page still insist that it means anything in Hebrew? It's not a Hebrew word, it's gibberish in Hebrew characters.

Baby

Britney has said that she has always wanted a child. She was going to adopt but then she was pregnant and has had a child. She is married to Kevin Ferdeline. She is a good singer who is famous.

Britney's Remix album

shouldn't someone include Britney's remix album on her discogrpahy page and on her article under post Zone. Jive has announced there will be a remix album released on Nov. 8th

It's name has been changed to "Love Is A Dancefloor" According to Billboard, the title of Britney's new album is actually Remixed: Love Is A Dancefloor.

Top photo

Can we use Britney's "In The Zone" picture as the top photo? i mean every other artist has there top photo of there most recent album.

Actually, that would be a bad idea. The current top photo, Image:Britney Spears.jpg is public-doamin, and can legally be used, pretty much, however one wishes. The other image, Image:Inthezone.JPG is copyrighted, and used without permission, and can only be used when discussing the topic of the album and/or the topic of the album cover, with a "fair use" justification. Image:Inthezone.JPG may be justified in it's current spot, because it's actually discussing the album in that section. However, it's use at the top, would be more doubtful. Generally, copyrighted images (like Image:Inthezone.JPG) should not be used, if public-domain options exist, even if they qualify as fair use. Most other articles, are much smaller bios, and there really aren't large separate sections, so that's no a great comparison. Also, the fact other articles do something, doesn't mean it's a good idea, since other articles have also had copyrighted images suddenly deleted. --rob 23:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if someone can find a better image of her for the top photo, I think it would be better for the article. I feel that a top photo should be a good head shot (see Michael Stipe) so that you can tell what they look like without having to scroll down to a better picture of their face. Right now, if you needed to know what B.S. looked like, it'd be hard to do with the top photo. Dismas|^(talk) 11:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I would love it if somebody found a better top image of Britney, especially a proper head-shot, *if* it is properly sourced, tagged, and public-domain/GFDL. The issue is about copyright, not which image would look best, be clearer, or be most helpful. --rob 14:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. Free photos must take precedence over non-free ones. In fact, it is arguable that many non-free photos in the article can be removed. "Fair use" on Wikipedia is explicitly not a carte blanche to take whatever you want and do whatever you want with it. It's meant to be a rare exception to be used in cases where we cannot come up with free alternatives.--Eloquence * 16:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, a promotional photo would be considered fair use despite its copyright on Wikipedia, since the intent behind such photos is to print them with attribution.

Not NPOV

This article is not NPOV. One example:

That summer, she kicked off her first head-lining tour, approriately titled the ...Baby One More Time Tour. By late 1999, Britney Spears had become one of the year's biggest stars. Consequently, it was no surprise when award show season rolled around and she became one of the most common nominees. In December, she took home four Billboard Music Awards, including Female Artist of the Year. The next month, at the American Music Awards, she was nominated for three trophies, of which she won one: Favorite Pop/Rock New Artist.

hardly NPOV. "Not suprisingly" is an opinion that boosts Ms Spears. "Appropriately titled" is a POV expression (w

Proof And Change

What if we don't have proof for our information and, also their is an article on this page called Britney's legacy; the writer says Britney is talentless. Surley opinion should not be expresses on an encylpedia!

I agree that opinion should not be expressed in the article.

No one should be using opinions anywhere here...yet i see it so often. I also see a lot of negativity in some of the information post too. Its an encyclopedia, there shouldn't be any bias, people use this place for informational purposes, so should people continuously be plagued with bias opinions? No.

Oops...she did it again

Britney has confirmed she it pregnant again

- - Rebecca

True, but nothing has been confirmed and from the looks of it she isn't pregnant again because her weight is going down, she isn't getting any bigger, and she was spotted drinking cosmos at Kevin's B-day party. Even though she was drinking that can still mean she is pregnat and a bad mama!

Deletion

I added chart trajectories for Britney's debut album, Baby one more time and someone has deleted them. the album spent a two hundred weeks in Britain and the U.S. alone, it took me ages to do that!!!!!!!

Dan

Unfortunately some people have no consideration...or sense for that matter.

Driving with Sean in Lap

Why did the piece under the Controversy section regarding Spears driving with her infant son in her lap disappear? I would say it most definitely qualifies as controversial. 70.49.249.3 01:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Career 'achievements' and Legacy

Why is 'achievements' in inverted commas/quotes? It makes it look like some kind of sarcastic jab at her, while these seem to be genuine achievements. Also the trivia section lists "I'm a Slave 4 U" and especially "Toxic" as pop classics, I would say that even though these songs were successful, they aren't exactly pop classics (and as a non Spears fan I would say I am in a better place to judge what is or isn't considered a classic, than a Spears megafan) --SnakeSeries 13:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Tropicaldawn 22:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)I think only time will tell whether Toxic will become a pop classic, but certainly not Slave 4 U.

'...Baby One More Time' and 'Toxic' are certainly pop classics and 'Oops!... I Did It Again', 'I'm A Slave 4 ' and 'Everytime' coulde be in this catergory to because they are worldwide number ones and Britney's biggest hits. Like Madonna's 'Hung Up' that was released Nov-05 and that's a pop classic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dan waz eya 05@hotmail.co.uk (talk • contribs) .

"...Baby One More Time", "Oops I Did It Again",and "Toxic" are pop classics because everyone knows them they were/are very popular I mean for Christ's sake Toxic was voted the worlds #2 favorite song of all time."I'm A Slave 4 U" is the only one that is questionable.

Breathe On Me and the 18 Second Note

Does she actually sing an 18sec note in this song? Wherabouts???

I think they are talking about towards the end of the song where she sings the words breathe on where the on trails on.I guess she keeps the same note for 18 sec. while singing those 2 words. Yep thats what they are talking about cause I just counted and it is about 18 sec. long.

They can't be because at the end of the song where the words breathe on me "trail on" there are noticable breaks...PhoenixPrince 00:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally think her longest note is in Shadow.

Her longest note is in "Luv the Hurt Away" a unreleased song from the "Baby One More Time" Era

I haven't heard any long note in Luv the Hurt Away, can someone pinpoint it for me other then that i'm pretty sure her longest note is in "Where Are You Now" form Opps...I Did It Again, which is around six or seven seconds. PhoenixPrince 16:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

US Weekly Report on 2nd Pregnancy

I deleted a comment at the end of the "Controversy" section that said as of yesterday, Spears officials confirmed her second pregnancy. This is not true presently. US Weekly is reporting that "sources" have confirmed after a noticeable budge was seen in Las Vegas, but Spears' spokesperson is "unavailable for comment." the sleeper 06:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Always Changing

The structure of the article is always changing it seems like it's different everyday why can't people just leave it alone.

Well it's generally for the better but I don't understand why the Controversy and Trivia sections have gotten melded together. That makes no sense, they are completely different! 70.50.175.166 02:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's because the article is currently going through a peer review, and there are no Trivia sections in Featured articles, information is either important or it isn't. And the Controversy section has been changed because it needs to be in paragraph form for readability. Judgesurreal777 15:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but why is Acting under Controversy, it isn't controversial information and the family incidents, which are, in fact, controversial are now under Personal. 70.50.175.111 20:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the catagorization and formatting is better than it was, but you are right, it still needs adjusting.... If you have any ideas, go for it...just no trivia section or lists :) Judgesurreal777 20:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No?

Britney will make her comeback this year so don't put a question mark by it, her pregnancy is just rumored not confrimed.

Official DVDs / Official DVD's

There are two sections called 'Official DVDs'; I think the second one is meant to have a different title?--Anchoress 06:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed the title, that shouldn't have been there twice. Mad Jack O'Lantern 06:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Creer Hiatus and Family Not A Fitting Title

It makes it sound like she hasn't done anything when in reality she has. She has release a remix cd, 2 perfumes, Greatest hits cd, she was on Will&Grace.

English American

I believe that the term English American should be removed. It goes back pretty far to her grandmother. Most Americans are decended from English anyway and a lot are third generation English. I believe the term English American should only go as far as the parents.

Good article?

I removed the GA tag, and User:Hotwiki reinstated it. It's not worth myself as an anon to go through a delisting process, as I feel it is far better to instead improve the article itself. These are the Wikipedia:Good article criteria: "they should be well written, stable, accurate, referenced, use a neutral point of view, and wherever possible, be illustrated by appropriately tagged images. Good articles may not be as thorough and detailed as our featured articles, but should not omit any major facets of the topic." I checked the images, and they all have copyright tags. It looks mostly stable, and I couldn't see much non-NPOV. However I have read through the whole article, and while it starts well-written it deteriorates half-way through. It contradicts itself. It has uncited claims. Some sections need cleanup, I only tagged one, but several need it. Maybe I interpret the criteria too strictly, but there are several uncited claims that do not meet the "referenced" criteria. -213.219.161.27 18:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because you think it's not good you can just delete the tag. You should post your reasons first why you think the GATag should be removed. Then when the majority of editors agreed to delete the tag then it will be removed.--LooseTheHotButtonS 03:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Marriage legitimacy comment

In response to the "is the initial questioning notable, given it's uncited, and the filing was officially confirmed. Looks like gossip." written within the article, I can assure you that it is notable. People included it significantly in their coverage of her marriage. 70.53.1.167 00:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging

I think changing the books, official DVDs, toys/games, and tours sections into subsections would be good. However, I'm lacking a brainwave for a heading for all of them. Any ideas? 70.53.1.167 01:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Products or Miscellaneous--LooseTheHotButtonS 13:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

the son slipping controversy

Batman2005 removed:

On April 1, 2006, Spears' 7-month-old son fell and bruised his head after slipping from his nanny's arms as she was lifting him from his high chair and "something snapped in the chair." After an initial examination, he was thought to be fine but six days later Spears and her husband took him to the Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center for a second checkup. He got the all clear once again. This is the third incident so far. Following this visit, child welfare officials, as well as a sheriff's deputy, visited the Spears home. "While there was an automatic report by the hospital to the Department of Children and Family Services, DCFS immediately responded and determined there was no problem and no reason to open a formal investigation," Spears's attorney Marty Singer told People. "They determined that the parents were not involved in any injury and that nothing improper was done within the home."

It was a rather dull incident IMHO but wasn't this like reported EVERYWHERE? If it was just tabloid fodder it should probably stay removed, but if other news sources picked up on it.... RN 15:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sculpture image

This should probably be replaced with a free-use alternative, since it's unlikely that a copyrighted image of the sculpture qualifies as "fair use" when it should be relatively simple to create a replacement. Extraordinary Machine 19:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Forward vs. Rearward facing child seat with airbag

Added a warning about placing infant children in a rearward-facing child seat in the passenger seat. ... Which immediately got reverted by CynicalMe. Oh well.

- - On May 14, 2006, Spears was photographed driving in Malibu in her new convertible Mini with her 8-month-old son, Sean, strapped into a forward-facing car seat. It is strongly recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics that, "All infants should ride rear-facing until they have reached at least 1 year of age and weigh at least 20 pounds. That means that if your baby reaches 20 pounds before her first birthday, she should remain rear-facing until she turns 1." [2] California Highway Patrol spokesman Tom Marshall said that, "It's far safer if the seat is facing backwards to avoid head-on injuries and whiplash in case of a collision." Since CHP officers did not actually witness Spears driving with Sean facing the wrong way, they would not consider citing her. Spears' rep released a statement saying, "There is no law in California requiring rear-facing car seats. In fact, there are only ten states that require a child to be in a rear-facing car seat, and in two of those states it is not required if the infant is more than 20 lb. Britney's son Sean weighs over 20 lb."

I think this part should be removed since she didn`t even offense the law. It does no good with her reputation and also, is she the only mother in the whole world who has her baby in her car while driving?

From the Bottom of My Broken Heart

Someone has removed the single cover art of the song. Can someone find the art file name and place the picture back? a person has vandalize the page.

Response from Mothers

Should something be added in the Motherhood category about the response from normal mothers who believe Britney's just getting a hard time because she's famous? Morhange 06:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Nude Harper's Bazzar Cover

Britney has just posed nude and provocativly on Harpers Bazzars cover at 7 months pregnant.

Crossroads move

Per the recommendation of "merging everything to get more prose," wouldn't it be a better idea to keep Crossroads within the article, as opposed to moved into yet another subsection. Soapy Sunshine 17:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

The contreversy section should expand more than just her over sexualized image and motherhood, for example what about her stunt in mexico where she flipped the finger to some reporters?

Years Active

Um... I'd say that if she has "big career plans for 2007" according to numerous articles, and in 2005 she'd released B in the Mix: The Remixes, I'd still say that's pretty active.

New main photo

I believe it is time for a new main picture to be placed. Any ideas? Myrockstar 10:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

She hasn't made many public appearances recently except for that show you guys have there in the states... David Letterman or somethin. I wud suggest a promo pic from her greatest hits album or somethin. I found this pic of her - http://www.askmen.com/specials/2005_top_99/celebs/74_britney_spears.jpg

Unfortunately, the current main pic is here to stay. It was taken by a US Navy official, meaning that it is public domain. If a public domain image is available, it can't be replaced by a promotional image of Spears, such as an album cover or photoshoot picture. Fabricationary 03:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If there's a rationale for fair use of a photoshoot picture then why not? Celebrity-Benji 03:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A promotional picture can't replace a public domain one if a public domain one is available. Perhaps you could integrate a promotional picture with a detailed rationale into the page, though already there's some music video screenshots and such displayed. Fabricationary 03:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Academy Award-nominated

Since when did she became that? --FANSTAR 09:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

you re right, she was never NOMINATED. that crap should be removed.

Songs about Britney

I came to this article to see if there was a list of songs that mention Britney Spears, but there isn't. I can think of two. "Don't Let Me Get Me" by P!nk and "Do It With Madonna" by The Androids. Is it worth mentioning these in the article? -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC). P.S. I reverted vandalism while I was here.

Thanks for reverting the vandalism : ). As to the songs, well I was thinking maybe a section should be added about her in popular culture (i.e. parodies, etc). Maybe those songs could go in there? Myrockstar 12:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge List of Britney Spears' awards with Britney Spears?

Call me anti-Britney, but I don't think this page is truly necessary. There's no reason Wikipedia needs to document every award won by Britney or any artist. Wikipedia is not the Internet Movie Database. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 10:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Although I also think that Britney is a trashy ho, I think whereelse but Wikipedia can you find such a complete list which is easily accessable. Britney's page is already too big and I dont see any real problem in having such a list...in fact, when an article becomes too long the thing to so is create sister articles. Dowew 03:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I think it's absolutely needed, have you seen the length of the article? They're already complainting about the length of the Britney Spears page... So adding a lot of awards certainly won't help... -- Luigi-ish 13:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No Britney Spears article is long enough, the last thing it needs is more things being added to it. Myrockstar 08:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Article too long

I am proposing perhaps the sections "Products" should have its own article, it would help greatly in shortening the article, or perhapds organizing it another way. Also I deleted the section "Tatoos" under "Personal", since this isn't really a huge part of Britney, such as they are to say Angelina Jolie, and it helps in the shortening of the article.

Curious and Fantasy

Where did the information about Curious and Fantasy go? 70.48.165.188 18:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, but I put it in the products page, each one has it's own small article. Would that be enough?? Maybe we should make a small reference in Bio section. We are currently trying to make this article smaller. Myrockstar 19:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be put back the way it was, under the 2004/2006 section within the article. Anything's better than more subsections, as one of the pending tasks for this article is to get rid of them. 70.52.231.91 22:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I readded a reference to it. I think it should be enough, for further info people could just click on the link to the articles about them. Myrockstar 22:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)