Britney Spears is not a cautionary tale

Stop eulogising this woman.

I’m not sure how many of you have been tuned into the current Pop Pantheon series about Britney Spears. I’m assuming at least a few of you. My Tate McRae article did very well, so I know I have a contingent of…pop fans on lock.

Anyway, it has raised some concerns.

Not just because the five part series feels like a shallow retelling of the media narrative around Spears - I still hate that, don’t get it twisted. But more that the central thesis is that “Britney Spears” as a cultural figure stands as a “cautionary tale”. Against what? Mostly, it seems, to exist.

As we pass the fourth year of her life as a free, adult woman, the tone has shifted from sympathy to pity. The increasingly bleak narrative around Spears in the public eye has been to look upon this woman with regret and a touch of indignation. To frame her semi-public life as a failure, and bitterly reminisce on her formerly untouchable ability to entertain.

Maybe a fan will post one of her famous television performances, or one-takes from music videos that are etched into our minds. Or somebody will mimic her current mannerisms and claim it’s a “loving tribute”, while comments bemoan the way she is. The inevitable victim in these comments will be the fans.

At 44, I don’t think her life is anywhere near over, and it seems that she’s bound to be eulogised for the rest of her life. The way people talk about her and repeat 2007 over and over again, it almost sounds like they wish she was dead. In the framing of this real woman’s life as a cautionary tale, nobody is ever clear as to what could have been done on her end to prevent being legally at the whim of her abusive family and management team. Be less harassed? Not fall for the wrong guy? Stay inside?

It’s hard not to see many of these vague statements as fundamentally victim blaming.

But more than that, it’s a cop out in terms of analysis. If Britney Spears is one of the greatest pop stars we’ve ever known, which she is consistently understood to be, then her professional output should be at the forefront of any discussion surrounding her legacy. The music, the videos, the performances, the supplementary material. Her legacy isn’t built on tabloids and it’s insulting to the extreme to frame every discussion of her legacy on gossip and speculation.

This podcast included.

Spears has made it quite clear over the past few years that she does not appreciate being incessantly reminded of her abuse. Nor, really, of her past. Fans and the public alike seem confused by this, as if it is illogical that somebody who spent over a decade being abused might not want to be reminded as to the “why” of it all.

If I can posit a “why” of my own, it’s that everyone expected her release from the conservatorship to be a return to music. That ‘Hold Me Closer’ (2021) was a preamble to a glorious comeback. Because Spears spent her life as the consummate professional. It feels like a loss that she has chosen to mostly stay away from the spotlight and only communicate through unedited and often angry instagram posts. A lot of people clearly are unhappy that the transaction they thought they were undertaking isn’t being upheld on her side.

The audience feel entitled to things they are not. Spears being free gives her the right to make choices, mistakes, and live a life that may not be pleasing to you. Ehile the attention helped her get out of an abusive situation, that does not guarantee productivity. Which feels like the point the podcast is trying to make, while celebrating her work. I don’t think those two thoughts can sit together, I’m sorry.

And even if it could, framing one woman’s abuse as a lesson for the audience crosses a line of taste, if not decency.

But even if this is appropriate, I’m mostly just shocked that this grand celebration of “Britney Spears the Pop Star” is all about Spears as an exploited figure in pop culture. Someone they clearly sympathise with, but don’t really treat with the same respect as her peers. The music is often treated as an afterthought, particularly as the later episodes try to grapple with the quality of product vs her quality of life. The host and guests like the music, they just don’t have much interest in analysing it. Maybe because the contemporary take on Spears doesn’t really respect the music as much as it does her legend.

It’s an insulting way of interacting to two decades of pop music hit making. I particularly take issue with the claim that her talent is “ineffable”. It really isn’t. Spears’ talent for phrasing and unique vocal style made the music sound more interesting than many of her contemporaries, while her charisma and theatre training meant her live performances had a certain level of showmanship that people respond to. This was only amplified by a sexualised persona that played into a cultural Lolita fantasy - softened by her naiveté in interviews. Later on, her distinct presence behind the microphone meant she wasn’t lost against an increasingly loud and awkward era of pop the way many of her contemporaries were. It’s unique, but still easily describable for someone who sits and analyse the craft, and not just her tabloid persona.

I didn’t need to hear my own thoughts and opinions repeated back at me. If DJ Louie and his guests had decided that the music was bad, I’d have respected that. But it is insulting and weirdly lazy to spent over half of the seven hours of content on this woman while giving her music less airtime than her tragedies. It’s an avalanche of platitudes and meta analysis that often ignores interesting tidbits. Maybe I’m too steeped in the lore to appreciate how this could be interesting to someone new to this story, but I would hope by hour three of this retelling, they might feel a touch uneasy.

I’ll end this by touching on a piece of context I’m shocked they dropped. At some point during the production of the album ‘Britney’ (2001), it was decided to feature songs from the film on the tracklist, and promote the album as the movie’s soundtrack. The result is a record where half the singles do not fit sonically within the album itself, and feel thematically clunky in context. In particularly, ‘I’m Not A Girl, Not Yet A Woman’ is placed directly before ‘Boys’, which makes it sound even more juvenile.

If you wanted to extrapolate that into the wider narrative of Spears as a pop star, you would point to the strain between her persona and music that was in the process of snapping only three years into her career. Gesture at this nineteen year old, who was young enough to effectively evoke this adolescent fear of becoming an adult, but was also doggedly pushing her status as a sex symbol. That’s juicy material. Spears remains an incredibly sexualised figure in pop culture, and that started at sixteen years old. Adulthood for pop stars now means sexualisation, and while that isn’t her fault in the slightest, it’s certainly a fascinating legacy to leave behind.

But the introduction of music clearly not meant for this record also makes it clear that even for the world’s biggest pop star, she never really had significant control of her output. Not in the ways it would be in just a few years time, but in the way all record label contracts strip artists of their agency. Look to someone like Raye, who had to remove herself from her own contract to start releasing in her own time.

‘Britney’ is a uniquely forward looking album when allowed to be, and not just because it pushed the Spears brand into adulthood. In this moment, you see how eclectic her taste is, and how she was able to anticipate the sounds of radio. The Europop she keeps coming back to is in direct conversation with an audience her peers often didn’t care to cater to. ‘Before The Goodbye’ points to her transition to electronic dance music that would lead her to ‘Blackout’ (2007), while also including incredibly maturity in the lyricism about ending a relationship ending on good terms. And in the mix are three songs from a movie she made that all sound like they were made for a completely different project, because they were.

The introduction of those songs represents the recognition that the label was sure the Spears boom would last. When ‘...Baby One More Time’ (1998) became a hit, people were sure she’d be a one hit wonder. Then a one album wonder. Then that ‘Oops!…I Did It Again’ (2000) was the peak. That interest was already waning, and the next album needed the movie push to sell.

Those above never had much faith in Spears as a product and certainly not as an artist. She was exploited for as much as they could get out of her. The fact that the music is so great and has lasted so long is a testament to her talent. I don’t think she had complete agency, but what did did have was immensely effective.

Maybe I’m the crazy one, but I really do find the way the conservatorship is still being milked for content to be it’s own tragedy. That on a podcast dedicated to analysing pop music and persona, so much time is given to the tabloids. It lacks sensitivity, and feels like it hasn’t found the right balance to tell this story. I know this is probably an overreaction to something I can just turn off (and have), but it feels like another piece in the puzzle of exploitation.

Other stars have equally tragic lives, and had equally shitty fathers. Some have allegations that should make their legacies a lot more complicated in the public eye. Britney Spears is treated like she’s dead already.

She deserves peace. She deserves grace. And she certainly deserves tributes that give her music respect.