But do you not see how ridiculous that statement is?

Let me break it down for you:

Artist 1 - Biggest selling artist of their generation - sells x amount of records

Years later with changes resulting in higher level of record sales all around

Artist 2 - Average success for their generation with other artists achieving much higher success - also sells x amount of records although others sell much more now.

In your opinion Artist 1 = Artist 2 when clearly they're not comparable that way.

So yes in theory Alex could sell the same as Britney has (although that I still doubt) but even then she wouldn't be as big a star as Britney was and is because for Alex it was easier, she (in your words) can sell millions without being as big as the other stars of her day. And therefore wouldn't be able to gross as much as Britney does on tour, or have the same impact because despite their sales similarities (remember this is hypothetically assuming Alex does match Britney) Britney was the biggest popstar of her day and Alex was an average one of her day.

No its not the same at all, if one man sells 100 bags of ice in the Antartic and one sells the same in the desert, one clearly had an easier enviroment to sell and so the man in the frozen Antartic has made the greater achievement.

That's what we have here, you yourself said Alex is releasing music at a time where its easier to sell a million records because of digital sales, therefore its not as much of an achievement because loads of other popstars are doing it. What Britney did no one else did at the time, therefore it was a huge achievement because she stood head and shoulders above her peers, you're suggesting that Alex can sell the same by just having average success of her day. How is that the same?

I hope you're not referring to writing credits with this statement, because if you are.. check the writing credits on Overcome. If Britney did sweet F.A, as did queen Alexandra.

And how many other blonde girls were put into Britney's position and none of them seemed to have had quite the same career as she did. She obviously had something that made her stand out...that's the funny thing about the X Factor, it claims to be looking for that one person with the X factor and yet so far they've failed to produce a singer than can be listed among the icons of the past.

Gaga has the x factor, Britney has the X factor, Madonna has the X factor and yet I bet all three would have been turned away by the show!

Leona Lewis is the closest thing to being an Icon out of the X Factor alumni.

I don't even dislike Alexandra Burke, but her fans throwing shade at Britney is leaving quite a sour taste. Britney isn't as good a vocalist as Alexandra, but her hits (thus far) are forgettable. I mean really, in 20 years.. what will people remember more, Oops I did it again or Elephant?

How is she not a puppet, and how is X Factor irrelevant? It automatically gave her instant fame, a big-money record deal, the services of big-name producers and songwriters, and constant tv appearances and promotion. I'd say that's quite relevant when it comes to her success - if she hadn't appeared on the show, would any of the above have been given to her? No chance.

She's no different to any manufactured corporate pop puppet there's ever been in the charts, apart from the way she attained her big-money record deal and all the perks that come with it, which, in her case (and anyone else from X Factor), gave her the biggest leg-up anyone could ever hope for in terms of engineered success.