Talk:Britney Spears/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title: Backlash

message: 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)
thread_title: Britney's Net Worth Disputed

message: #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)
thread_title: Compilations

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weither she is a Lyric Soprano or a Soubrette 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I Was Born To Love You Isn't  A Britney Spears Song!!! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why Britney Spears is a soubrette 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Vocal Profile

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[:Image:654britneyspears bz-2003promo18-03.jpg]] 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Driving with Sean in Lap 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Breathe On Me and the 18 Second Note 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Always Changing

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, I changed the title, that shouldn't have been there twice. Mad Jack O'Lantern 06:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official DVDs / Official DVD's 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Good article?

message: 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)
thread_title: Marriage legitimacy comment

message: 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)
replies: text: Products or Miscellaneous--LooseTheHotButtonS 13:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: 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)
thread_title:  the son slipping controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sculpture image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Response from Mothers 

message: 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)
thread_title: Crossroads move

message: I believe it is time for a new main picture to be placed.  Any ideas? Myrockstar 10:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If there's a rationale for fair use of a photoshoot picture then why not? Celebrity-Benji 03:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New main photo 

message: Since when did she became that? --FANSTAR 09:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Academy Award-nominated

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Songs about Britney 

message: 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.  [ +t, +c, +m, +e ] 10:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge [[List of Britney Spears' awards]] with [[Britney Spears]]? 

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