Jump to content

New BreatheHeavy Video! Should fans boycott Britney's new song "Swimming in the Stars?"


Recommended Posts

I really don't understand how anyone can justify supporting this b-side. Who cares if she has a new trust. That is not relevant to who made this deal months ago with UO. She does not want to work for her father, I'm pretty sure she hates him. Support the song when she gets her own brand back. Jeez. 

  • Love 4
  • Like 1
Link to post
  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I just wanna say that everyone can do whatever they want, but if you're gonna feel guilty about this or you're trying to make someone else feel guilty about this, let's just remember that we've all be

People should do whatever they want and leave the other side alone. We have fought over this for quite some time that I don’t see how bringing these topics up again help. Anyways, will make a drawing

Sorry, not sorry, but this attitude isn't good enough. Yes, ALL of us fans have contributed to the Conservatorship going the way it has by consuming Britney's Brand, whether that be buying her al

Posted Images

7 hours ago, PokemonSpears said:

I just wanna say that everyone can do whatever they want, but if you're gonna feel guilty about this or you're trying to make someone else feel guilty about this, let's just remember that we've all been guilty in some capacity, and this is just the tip of the iceberg:

  • Everyone that has "supported her brand", bought her music, streamed it, gone to her concerts in the past 12 years, is guilty, and being aware now doesn't remove the fact that we did it.
  • Not only that, in the past two years, all of us that have talked about #FreeBritney or Britney's situation in general, that have shared or created content about it, have indirectly increased her YouTube views and streaming numbers compared to previous years. So putting it in perspective, the amount of streaming this new song only fans know about will get, is nothing compared to everything the general public has been and keeps streaming thanks to all the noise we've made in the news, from the podcast, the hashtags, the tik toks, the protests, etc. I bet they'll make more money from BOMT and Toxic YT views alone than what SWITS will ever make.
  • Going even beyond that, all of us that consumed her music and brand BEFORE the conservatorship, should also feel guilty then, because if she didn't have that fortune in the first place, her father and lounatic friends wouldn't be interested in controlling her life and money.

But I think it's pointless both feeling guilty or trying to make others feel bad. We're all doing whatever our conscience tell us is the right thing. To me, if any, more than a question of how much money they'll make, it's just the fact that they're releasing this with or without her consent. Whether this move comes from Jamie or the record label, it's like saying "hey Britney, we don't need you or your approval to keep selling your stuff". But yet, we don't know what her contract says. Maybe it would be even more detrimental to her if this isn't released, because I don't know, some clause that says she has to release something every certain amount of time, and otherwise it would cost her more, or who knows.

Now, yeah, she's refusing to work now, but she wasn't refusing to work whenever she recorded this, if it's indeed from the Glory sessions. So if we're very technical and going by what Ingham said in court, she didn't actually have to work, as in, ever since she's refusing to work, in order for this release to happen, because they already had this done years ago. So are they really going against Britney's wishes?

They also know very well streaming and sales is the only income Britney has right now, as well as her father. If they don't want Jamie to get a penny from that, why aren't they asking for her music to be removed from all streaming services, or why isn't she dropping off the record label. Why isn't everyone asking for her music and videos to be removed from the internet, so fans and gp alike stop streaming it? Why only this song in particular is the problem?

The truth is  even if they cancelled the release, which would be the same as if no one bought it or streamed it, the conservatorship would still exist. I understand that the timing was super off, and I feel it's more about the ethics of it, like, now we are conscious of the situation, and we can't ignore what's happening, but some people are acting as if this song was the decisive thing for the future of the conservatorship, like if it flops, she's free, or if it's a hit the conservatorship gets extended for 12 more years, when in reality, right now, as of this very moment, what they're making with her existing catalog is enough for them to still be interested in her estate, and one more song or one song less won't make a tangible difference.

Even if this flops and Urban Outfitters already has more vinyls in store, they'll still release them, because they already paid for them.

 

tl;dr: just you do you and stop caring about what others do or don't. At the end the only thing that unites us is that we want Britney happy and free, and this isn't a competition about who supports her the most or the best.

 

 

Sorry, not sorry, but this attitude isn't good enough.

Yes, ALL of us fans have contributed to the Conservatorship going the way it has by consuming Britney's Brand, whether that be buying her albums, going to concerts, buying merch etc etc. There's no denying that, but since March/April 2019, we have had enough proof to know to stop. 

For the three or four months, we have had statement after statement from both Britney's legal representation and Jamie's that, in no uncertain terms, says Britney is refusing to engage to any activity that benefits her father.  It could be excused before August when it was more vague, but it is undeniable now.

We also have statements from Jamie saying Britney shouldnt have any input into who her manager is. From that, we can conclude that that extends to career decisions or deals being made such as new music.

Trying to justify the release of the single is a pointless exercise, but you cannot point fingers at fans and act high and mighty because you are now choosing to ignore the facts of the situation. No, both sides are not as bad as each other and it is not a matter of opinion; 

It is a matter of choosing between your own pleasure versus someone's legal existence, civil liberties and human rights.

I mean honestly, lets not act like like every single fan here didn't rush to download leaks of albums and singles. Why is this song deserving of a better treatment?

  • Love 1
  • Like 5
Link to post
11 hours ago, PokemonSpears said:

I just wanna say that everyone can do whatever they want, but if you're gonna feel guilty about this or you're trying to make someone else feel guilty about this, let's just remember that we've all been guilty in some capacity, and this is just the tip of the iceberg:

  • Everyone that has "supported her brand", bought her music, streamed it, gone to her concerts in the past 12 years, is guilty, and being aware now doesn't remove the fact that we did it.
  • Not only that, in the past two years, all of us that have talked about #FreeBritney or Britney's situation in general, that have shared or created content about it, have indirectly increased her YouTube views and streaming numbers compared to previous years. So putting it in perspective, the amount of streaming this new song only fans know about will get, is nothing compared to everything the general public has been and keeps streaming thanks to all the noise we've made in the news, from the podcast, the hashtags, the tik toks, the protests, etc. I bet they'll make more money from BOMT and Toxic YT views alone than what SWITS will ever make.
  • Going even beyond that, all of us that consumed her music and brand BEFORE the conservatorship, should also feel guilty then, because if she didn't have that fortune in the first place, her father and lounatic friends wouldn't be interested in controlling her life and money.

But I think it's pointless both feeling guilty or trying to make others feel bad. We're all doing whatever our conscience tell us is the right thing. To me, if any, more than a question of how much money they'll make, it's just the fact that they're releasing this with or without her consent. Whether this move comes from Jamie or the record label, it's like saying "hey Britney, we don't need you or your approval to keep selling your stuff". But yet, we don't know what her contract says. Maybe it would be even more detrimental to her if this isn't released, because I don't know, some clause that says she has to release something every certain amount of time, and otherwise it would cost her more, or who knows.

Now, yeah, she's refusing to work now, but she wasn't refusing to work whenever she recorded this, if it's indeed from the Glory sessions. So if we're very technical and going by what Ingham said in court, she didn't actually have to work, as in, ever since she's refusing to work, in order for this release to happen, because they already had this done years ago. So are they really going against Britney's wishes?

They also know very well streaming and sales is the only income Britney has right now, as well as her father. If they don't want Jamie to get a penny from that, why aren't they asking for her music to be removed from all streaming services, or why isn't she dropping off the record label. Why isn't everyone asking for her music and videos to be removed from the internet, so fans and gp alike stop streaming it? Why only this song in particular is the problem?

The truth is  even if they cancelled the release, which would be the same as if no one bought it or streamed it, the conservatorship would still exist. I understand that the timing was super off, and I feel it's more about the ethics of it, like, now we are conscious of the situation, and we can't ignore what's happening, but some people are acting as if this song was the decisive thing for the future of the conservatorship, like if it flops, she's free, or if it's a hit the conservatorship gets extended for 12 more years, when in reality, right now, as of this very moment, what they're making with her existing catalog is enough for them to still be interested in her estate, and one more song or one song less won't make a tangible difference.

Even if this flops and Urban Outfitters already has more vinyls in store, they'll still release them, because they already paid for them.

 

tl;dr: just you do you and stop caring about what others do or don't. At the end the only thing that unites us is that we want Britney happy and free, and this isn't a competition about who supports her the most or the best.

 

 

the way you word everything is always impeccable :wigsnatched_point_you_wow_yes_yas:

I agree with what you've said!

  • Like 1

he used to sing me sweet melodies ♫

Link to post

If she took the time and energy to recording vocals or her fan base  for a track that she chose to record because she felt a connection in the track and resonates with her personally then I don’t see any reason not to support swimming.... if it had Myah vocals all over it then that would be a different story and her heart wasn’t into it. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Link to post

I don't think Britney really cares. She just wants to be free - making music is a part of that. The day she becomes free (which I am confident of), she will receive it all back. But again, I don't think she cares about the money. Just that she receives justice. So I say, let's just be positive about the music (directing towards her) and worry less about the rest of the superfluous stuff. 

Link to post
9 hours ago, Blackout2006 said:

And the opposite side, should maybe consider minding their own business because the tables can turn if Britney in her next booklet thanks all the fans who still brought her albums and music and calls us "the real fans" :nynod_miss_new_york_ms_nodding_yes_yas_agree:   

Why would she thank fans for supporting the conservatorship for years? :hahaha_tiffany_ny_new_york_ms_miss_cackle_laugh_lol_haha_hehe_lmao:

  • Love 1
Link to post
  • Super Administrators
13 hours ago, PokemonSpears said:

I just wanna say that everyone can do whatever they want, but if you're gonna feel guilty about this or you're trying to make someone else feel guilty about this, let's just remember that we've all been guilty in some capacity, and this is just the tip of the iceberg:

  • Everyone that has "supported her brand", bought her music, streamed it, gone to her concerts in the past 12 years, is guilty, and being aware now doesn't remove the fact that we did it.
  • Not only that, in the past two years, all of us that have talked about #FreeBritney or Britney's situation in general, that have shared or created content about it, have indirectly increased her YouTube views and streaming numbers compared to previous years. So putting it in perspective, the amount of streaming this new song only fans know about will get, is nothing compared to everything the general public has been and keeps streaming thanks to all the noise we've made in the news, from the podcast, the hashtags, the tik toks, the protests, etc. I bet they'll make more money from BOMT and Toxic YT views alone than what SWITS will ever make.
  • Going even beyond that, all of us that consumed her music and brand BEFORE the conservatorship, should also feel guilty then, because if she didn't have that fortune in the first place, her father and lounatic friends wouldn't be interested in controlling her life and money.

But I think it's pointless both feeling guilty or trying to make others feel bad. We're all doing whatever our conscience tell us is the right thing.

To me, if any, more than a question of how much money they'll make, it's just the fact that they're releasing this with or without her consent. Whether this move comes from Jamie or the record label, it's like saying "hey Britney, we don't need you or your approval to keep selling your stuff". But yet, we don't know what her contract says. Maybe it would be even more detrimental to her if this isn't released, because I don't know, some clause that says she has to release something every certain amount of time, and otherwise it would cost her more, or who knows.

Now, yeah, she's refusing to work now, but she wasn't refusing to work whenever she recorded this, if it's indeed from the Glory sessions. So if we're very technical and going by what Ingham said in court, she didn't actually have to work, as in, ever since she's refusing to work, in order for this release to happen, because they already had this done years ago. So are they really going against Britney's wishes?

They also know very well streaming and sales is the only income Britney has right now, as well as her father. If they don't want Jamie to get a penny from that, why aren't they asking for her music to be removed from all streaming services, or why isn't she dropping off the record label. Why isn't everyone asking for her music and videos to be removed from the internet, so fans and gp alike stop streaming it? Why only this song in particular is the problem?

The truth is  even if they cancelled the release, which would be the same as if no one bought it or streamed it, the conservatorship would still exist. I understand that the timing was super off, and I feel it's more about the ethics of it, like, now we are conscious of the situation, and we can't ignore what's happening, but some people are acting as if this song was the decisive thing for the future of the conservatorship, like if it flops, she's free, or if it's a hit the conservatorship gets extended for 12 more years, when in reality, right now, as of this very moment, what they're making with her existing catalog is enough for them to still be interested in her estate, and one more song or one song less won't make a tangible difference.

Even if this flops and Urban Outfitters already has more vinyls in store, they'll still release them, because they already paid for them.

 

tl;dr: just you do you and stop caring about what others do or don't. At the end the only thing that unites us is that we want Britney happy and free, and this isn't a competition about who supports her the most or the best.

Omg. You snapped :omggg_shocked_hand_old_lady_woman_surprised:

Quote

the amount of streaming this new song only fans know about will get, is nothing compared to everything the general public has been and keeps streaming thanks to all the noise we've made in the news, from the podcast, the hashtags, the tik toks, the protests, etc. I bet they'll make more money from BOMT and Toxic YT views alone than what SWITS will ever make.

I actually never thought of it this way. Super interesting point.

 

Quote

We're all doing whatever our conscience tell us is the right thing.

💯 

 

Also really love how you point out that NOT releasing the song could be more of a detriment due to things we don't know. Didn't think of that and that's an amazing point. 

 

Quote

To me, if any, more than a question of how much money they'll make, it's just the fact that they're releasing this with or without her consent.

Yea, I personally would love to know whether she's aware this song is coming out or not. That would be a game changer imo. 

 

Quote

Now, yeah, she's refusing to work now, but she wasn't refusing to work whenever she recorded this, if it's indeed from the Glory sessions. So if we're very technical and going by what Ingham said in court, she didn't actually have to work, as in, ever since she's refusing to work, in order for this release to happen, because they already had this done years ago. So are they really going against Britney's wishes?

I've thought about this, too. She did nothing for this song to come out, so is it technically going against her wishes? 

 

Quote

The truth is  even if they cancelled the release, which would be the same as if no one bought it or streamed it, the conservatorship would still exist. I understand that the timing was super off, and I feel it's more about the ethics of it, like, now we are conscious of the situation, and we can't ignore what's happening, but some people are acting as if this song was the decisive thing for the future of the conservatorship, like if it flops, she's free, or if it's a hit the conservatorship gets extended for 12 more years, when in reality, right now, as of this very moment, what they're making with her existing catalog is enough for them to still be interested in her estate, and one more song or one song less won't make a tangible difference.

@PokemonSpears an EXCELLENT post all in all. Wow. 

Would you be willing to post this comment on the YouTube video? I'd love for more eyes to see it!! 

  • Like 1

💜 Subscribe to Exhale+ 💙

Link to post
  • Super Moderators
2 hours ago, Jordan Miller said:

Omg. You snapped :omggg_shocked_hand_old_lady_woman_surprised:

I actually never thought of it this way. Super interesting point.

 

💯

 

Also really love how you point out that NOT releasing the song could be more of a detriment due to things we don't know. Didn't think of that and that's an amazing point. 

 

Yea, I personally would love to know whether she's aware this song is coming out or not. That would be a game changer imo. 

 

I've thought about this, too. She did nothing for this song to come out, so is it technically going against her wishes? 

 

@PokemonSpears an EXCELLENT post all in all. Wow. 

Would you be willing to post this comment on the YouTube video? I'd love for more eyes to see it!! 

Ok I'll do it later when I get on my computer, and will get ready for the bashing :yesokay_britney_blush_blink:

 

 I am a performer. I am a Mom. I am funny. I am your friend! I am Britney Jean

Link to post
  • Super Moderators
6 hours ago, ICouldntThinkOfOne said:

Sorry, not sorry, but this attitude isn't good enough.

Yes, ALL of us fans have contributed to the Conservatorship going the way it has by consuming Britney's Brand, whether that be buying her albums, going to concerts, buying merch etc etc. There's no denying that, but since March/April 2019, we have had enough proof to know to stop. 

For the three or four months, we have had statement after statement from both Britney's legal representation and Jamie's that, in no uncertain terms, says Britney is refusing to engage to any activity that benefits her father.  It could be excused before August when it was more vague, but it is undeniable now.

We also have statements from Jamie saying Britney shouldnt have any input into who her manager is. From that, we can conclude that that extends to career decisions or deals being made such as new music.

Trying to justify the release of the single is a pointless exercise, but you cannot point fingers at fans and act high and mighty because you are now choosing to ignore the facts of the situation. No, both sides are not as bad as each other and it is not a matter of opinion; 

It is a matter of choosing between your own pleasure versus someone's legal existence, civil liberties and human rights.

I mean honestly, lets not act like like every single fan here didn't rush to download leaks of albums and singles. Why is this song deserving of a better treatment?

Yeah, but then why is only this single a problem, when everyday her entire catalog is getting consumed / streamed by the masses, and that's what really is making the whole conservatorship go on.

I don't see protesters demanding her music to be removed from streaming services, I don't see protesters going to the music stores and burning her albums so no one buys them. I only see fans attacking other fans, while the general public keeps playing all of her songs completely oblivious of the situation. If fans don't buy those vinyls, collectors and resellers will. If fans stop streaming her music, the general public will keep doing so.

 

Yes, we can't ignore Britney's situation, but blaming or shaming a fan for enjoying a new song, when her music is what most likely make them a fan in the first place, is not helping either.

Britney's legal existence, civil liberties and human rights' situation, is not defined by Swimming in the Stars. This song which will be lucky if charts in the Bubbling Under is just one droplet in an ocean of music, and perfumes, and everything she has under her brand which is what is actually making money for her handlers, AND for Britney herself.

 

If Britney stops making money for music, like, if magically all of her music was vanished from the internet and physical stores, and she's refusing to perform, and everything else is getting boycotted, where is she gonna get her money from? Her fortune will be rapidly consumed between lawyers, the maintenance of those mansions, the monthly pay for Kevin and the kids, the trips, etc.

Maybe her fortune will still last a lifetime, that's not the problem. The thing is, the conservatorship won't automatically end just because she stops making money from music, because for Jamie and co. there will always be the potential to earn control over her estate, and put her music back again on sale and streaming, and keep making money with her image. Heck, maybe Jamie's intentions aren't even the money, but just having the control over Britney's life, rich or poor.

 

So I totally get that part about doing what is ethical, about not ignoring a situation that is happening with Britney, but if we're gonna judge someone for a particular thing like consuming this new song, then let's look at the entire picture, and let's evaluate how much damage each thing is really doing, because the conservatorship has existed and will still exist before, after or despite this song.

If you look at the Youtube stats, the highest peaks this year have been exactly around the most important hearings. How do we feel that because of all these protests and all the noise the #FreeBritney movement has done, and the media coverage that has followed, we've actually giving her team more money from streaming, than what they got in years prior? Doesn't it suck that by doing a good thing like spreading the word about this situation, we're actually feeding the very money machine we're complaining about? And again, they're making more money out of the current Youtube views than what they'll make with this new release. But people are just choosing to ignore this part, and I don't think that's fair either.

So in the end, it's just about, do whatever you think is right, and let the others burn in hell if you think they deserve it by supporting this. But also be aware of the consequences of what you're doing too, directly and indirectly, let's think twice before pointing fingers and others and analyze how much damage we've actually done to the situation, and how much damage this will make in comparison, and see if they really deserved to be criticized so badly as some people have been doing.

 

 I am a performer. I am a Mom. I am funny. I am your friend! I am Britney Jean

Link to post
  • Exhale+
8 hours ago, Jordan Miller said:
Quote

the amount of streaming this new song only fans know about will get, is nothing compared to everything the general public has been and keeps streaming thanks to all the noise we've made in the news, from the podcast, the hashtags, the tik toks, the protests, etc. I bet they'll make more money from BOMT and Toxic YT views alone than what SWITS will ever make.

I actually never thought of it this way. Super interesting point.

Wait, so if the amount of money involved is low enough then slavery becomes ok? 
 

I must be misunderstanding because I don’t believe either @PokemonSpears or @Jordan Miller could believe that. I’m hoping you can clarify please. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
  • Super Moderators
24 minutes ago, Haha-Hehe-Haha-Ho said:

Wait, so if the amount of money involved is low enough then slavery becomes ok? 
 

I must be misunderstanding because I don’t believe either @PokemonSpears or @Jordan Miller could believe that. I’m hoping you can clarify please. 

No, those are your words.

 

What is the issue why people are slamming those that are buying or streaming the song? Because Britney said she's not performing as long as her father keeps in charge of her estate. So if that's the reason, then yes, it's valid that people can see it as unethical to support it (even though she wasn't forced to work in order to release this song, because this song was recorded, arguably, years ago, way before she was refusing to work) and it could be seen as her "team" stepping on Britney's wishes and a form of displaying that they have the final saying when it comes to her career and they can do whatever they want with or without her consent.

 

But then some people make it seem like it's about the money: you buy the song, they get the money, they keep releasing more stuff because people keep getting it. So when it's true they will make money from this, no one bats an eye at the hundreds of thousands of dollars they make monthly from YouTube (which as I've said a million times already, has increased a lot in views ever since the #FreeBritney movement started and peaks every time there's a hearing and the protests). Fans refraining from streaming isn't making anything, because her music keeps getting consumed by the general public, if not as much as the current artists, the fact that her most watched videos, BOMT and Toxic keep going strong in daily views shows they're not stopping anytime soon, and no boycott from the fans is doing a thing.

As I said, I only see people complaining about Swimming in the Stars, which hasn't even come out yet, just because of the timing of the last hearing. I don't see any movement demanding Spotify, Apple or YouTube to remove Britney's music from these platforms, I don't see any campaigns informing the general public not consume her music anymore, and that's where the real money is coming from for her team (and her).

So even if we all agreed to boycott this new song or any subsequent releases, the money machine is still running, and no one is doing anything about it.

 

So you're right, this is not about the money. It's about the ethical aspect of it, and if you are one of the few that have decided not to consume the song, I applaud you because you have to have a lot of strength to suppress the fan in you and not listen to this (because I'm sure you won't download it illegally either, because again, it's not about the money, but the fact that they're releasing something without her consent, and listening to it without paying would still be wrong anyway).

 

  • Love 1

 I am a performer. I am a Mom. I am funny. I am your friend! I am Britney Jean

Link to post
16 minutes ago, Haha-Hehe-Haha-Ho said:

Wait, so if the amount of money involved is low enough then slavery becomes ok? 
 

I must be misunderstanding because I don’t believe either @PokemonSpears or @Jordan Miller could believe that. I’m hoping you can clarify please. 

No, you are misunderstanding. Britney is not a slave, and I think she would be offended to be referred to one since she has said on numerous occasions she hates the perception that she is a victim in any way. 

I think what @PokemonSpears is trying to say is that streaming SWTS is not in conflict with Britney boycotting her father and refusing to work. Britney has never said she does not want her fans to enjoy her music that she has already recorded, but rather that she does not want to do any future work while her father is in charge of her conservatorship. It's comparing apples and oranges. 

Streaming is not where the money is. Performing, endorsements, etc. is where the money comes in. By refusing to do these things, she is giving a big eff you to her father by hurting him where it really counts. Britney has already had several big wins - Lou is gone, the court documents are being unsealed so we can see what Britney truly desires, and the independent trust company she asked to be appointed was approved. 

Boycotting one single that was already recorded and that most people don't even know about is missing the forest for the trees. We need to look at the bigger picture and streaming SWTS is not going to make any difference in keeping Jamie on board or not. 

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

We noticed you're using an ad blocker  :badthoughts_gun_kris_genner_thinking_debating:

Thanks for visiting Exhale! Your support is greatly appreciated 💜  

Exhale survives through advertising revenue. Please, disable your ad block extension to help us and continue browsing Exhale. 🙏

I've disabled ad block