Christina AGUILERA - you don't rate a one-name moniker

Cafe Society
1

Ok, stupid topic I know but -

I’ve seen posters on bus-stops and ads on buses advertising a new movie (whose name actually escapes me at the moment) but it is billed as starring “Cher” and “Christina.” My first thought was “Christina who?” and then I saw the fine print that stated it was “Christina Aguilera.” My second thought was “You can’t pull off the one-name moniker, Ms. Aguilera.”

I understand the reasoning behind the one-name moniker: it’s a bold statement about just how successful you are, you’re so famous that nobody needs to say or ask your last name - it’s always understood who you’re talking about. It’s also convenient for “branding” & marketing purposes - a single word title just has a better ring to it.

Of course, some celebs get away with one-name monikers because their names are off-beat or unusual enough that there’s no mistaking them for anybody else - Prince, Madonna, Aretha or Cher. None of them are unique names, but they are rare enough that you can make a safe bet who a person is talking about.(There’s not a whole lot of other pop singers named “Beyonce” for example.)

Then there are nicknames - Sting, Bono, P-Diddy (or Diddy) - that are truly unique, so there simply is nobody else to confuse them with.

And of course, there are celebs who have been wildly famous for a long, long time that they are just part of the collective pop consciousness - Michael, Frank, Tina. Elvis. (Conversely, there are some celebs who have been so overexposed that you can’t escape mention of them - Britney, Lindsey.)

But then there’s someone like Christina Aguilera. Sorry, but she has always struck me as being strictly second-tier. She has a fairly common name. And while she is famous, I don’t think’s she ever ascended to the level of ubiquity that justifies a one-name title. She is not a trailblazer like Frank or Michael, and has only been around for about a decade (unlike Tina, who’s been singing since the 50s) and her name doesn’t get bandied about in tabloids nearly as Britney or Lindsey. I just don’t think she measures up.

Anyway, your thoughts?

2

Two things.

  1. I totally agree. When I listen to music radio I listen to a rock station, so I don’t pay much attention to her music, but it seems like she disappeared for a while, and it’s only been the last few weeks or so that I’ve heard anything about her, kind of like she’s making a comeback.

  2. I hate to ask, but Michael who?

3

Jackson?

He was big in the 80s I hear. Haven’t heard much about him recently though. He had a comeback tour planned but I think it kinda died*.

*Yes yes, I’ll see you guys in Hell too.

4

Oh, sorry. Yeah, Michael was HUGE, but I never thought of him as a one name act.

5

I agree with pretty much all of your example with the exception of maybe Michael.
If I asked somebody what kind of music they listened to and they said “I listen to a lot of Michael” I’d still have to respond with “Michael who?” Michael is just too common of a name.
And I agree, Christina is just too common also.

6

I assume you’re referring to a poster that looks an awful lot like this:

http://justjared.buzznet.com/2010/08/30/christina-aguilera-cher-burlesque-poster-stars/

I’d say it’s to give the whole thing symmetry and nothing more. Christina Aguilera already tried the one name thing once (her marketers started calling her Xtina in the press) and it dropped it when she realized it made her sound like a little kid (or a mutant). Listing her on the poster as just Christina with no Aguilera just looks better when it’s next to Cher with no last name.

7

I am in total agreement with the OP. Plus, I can’t wait for the new album from John!

8

Wow. Most dopers don’t like John.

9

I thought John was killed by a maniacal fan?

10

Well, yes, John was. But not John.

11

Oh! Sorry, brief memory lapse there. :smack:

12

It’s OK. It’s easy to confuse them. They both have the same name after all.

13

I agree it’s just for formatting the sign.

14

Also, “AGUILERA” is about as attractive as a close-up of a dog’s anus. It’s got letters all over the place.

15

It’s just so the names on the poster match up. If she tried releasing her next album as “Christina” then I think there’d be reason to tell her “oh, honey, no”.

For example:

“Britney” - most people would immediately think “Spears”. “Christina” - just doesn’t have that same level of recognition.

I’ve never thought of Freddie Mercury or Michael Jackson as artists who suited one name, it feels like their full name should be present to have greater effect. “Freddie” is the kid who lives down the street, “FREDDIE MERCURY” is one of the greatest artists who ever lived. “Michael” sounds weak, but “MICHAEL JACKSON” (accompanied by fireworks and pyrotechnics if possible) sounds much better. Janet, on the other hand, hasn’t used “Jackson” on her album covers for a long time, since about 1993, presumably to distance herself from the family.

ETA: for some reason I read “Frank” as “Freddie” in the OP… twice. Must get my eyes checked.

16

While I’m not going to argue with anything the OP said, and I deny being a fan, I will say that Ms Aguilera is a far better singer than anyone in the OP with the exception of Aretha and, maybe, Tina. She may not be as famous, or as rich as the others, but the girl has pipes.

17

I thought it was Whitney with the pipes?

18

I’m still not sold on Beyonce. She’s still Beyonce Knowles to me.

19

In the non-musical realm, here are a few famous first names that need no elaboration:

Oprah
Demi
Paris
Tyra

Names blatantly stolen from Samm Levine’s game on Kevin Pollak’s Chat Show

20

Here’s two things:

  1. Please don’t quote an entire lengthy post just to add a couple of lines underneath.

  2. Especially don’t do it when your reply is immediately after the post you’re quoting.