Billboard Hot 100: 04/27/2013

[Deleted]

For myself personally, I go by Billboard's definition of a one-hit wonder:

An artist who had only one song chart on the Hot 100, and that one song went all the way to #1.

It's pretty rigid criteria.

A couple of examples would be "Little Star" by the Elegants, or "In The Year 2525" by Zager and Evans.

[Au$tin]

Is that seriously their criteria? Because that's awful. I could have only one song peak at #2 and never chart again. Does that not make me a one hit wonder?

[Deleted]

He is describing a number-one hit wonder which is different

[Deleted]

Apr 17, 2013 17:56:01 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Is that seriously their criteria? Because that's awful. I could have only one song peak at #2 and never chart again. Does that not make me a one hit wonder?

I said it was rigid. ;)

[crystalphnx]

Apr 17, 2013 17:51:41 GMT -5 @peigan68 said:

For myself personally, I go by Billboard's definition of a one-hit wonder:

An artist who had only one song chart on the Hot 100, and that one song went all the way to #1.

It's pretty rigid criteria.

A couple of examples would be "Little Star" by the Elegants, or "In The Year 2525" by Zager and Evans.

not to forget more recent examples like Daniel Powter ("Bad Day") and Taylor Hicks ("Do I Make You Proud").

[Au$tin]

Apr 17, 2013 17:57:34 GMT -5 @2m said:

He is describing a number-one hit wonder which is different

Oh, that makes sense.

Apr 17, 2013 17:51:26 GMT -5 @2m said:

Apr 17, 2013 17:48:52 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Well, if you're a smart ass type of person, then I assume, yes, you can say that.

Well the point is, just because you or your friend does not know a song or does not remember a song does not mean it was not a hit and it does not mean that it is generally accepted in the US as such

Another persons memory might be different

I'm talking collectively. I'm not talking about me or me and a few friends. That's ridiculous. Do you classify MC Hammer or Vanilla Ice as one hit wonders? Most people do, despite the fact that they have had multiple charting hits. That's all I'm trying to say. One-hit-wonder criteria isn't so much chart success as it is the ability to stay relevant in the music world.

[Deleted]

MC Hammer and Vanlla Ice - I say no

I also don't agree with the phrase 'most people'

I could agree with the phrase 'some people'

[Deleted]

Apr 17, 2013 17:57:34 GMT -5 @2m said:

He is describing a number-one hit wonder which is different

No I'm not. Fred Bronson is the one who said in his book that a true one-hit wonder according to Billboard is an artist that had one hit make the chart and get to #1, but then never charted again.

There are very few artists that fit this criteria, which is why true one-hit wonder status is rare.

[Deleted]

Apr 17, 2013 17:58:30 GMT -5 crystalphnx said:

Apr 17, 2013 17:51:41 GMT -5 @peigan68 said:

For myself personally, I go by Billboard's definition of a one-hit wonder:

An artist who had only one song chart on the Hot 100, and that one song went all the way to #1.

It's pretty rigid criteria.

A couple of examples would be "Little Star" by the Elegants, or "In The Year 2525" by Zager and Evans.

not to forget more recent examples like Daniel Powter ("Bad Day") and Taylor Hicks ("Do I Make You Proud").

Daniel Powter never charted again? Really? Wasn't aware.

[Deleted]

That would imply that a #2 charting song is not a hit. Not sure you read that right

[Au$tin]

Apr 17, 2013 18:00:49 GMT -5 @peigan68 said:

Apr 17, 2013 17:57:34 GMT -5 @2m said:

He is describing a number-one hit wonder which is different

No I'm not. Fred Bronson is the one who said in his book that a true one-hit wonder according to Billboard is an artist that had one hit make the chart and get to #1, but then never charted again.

There are very few artists that fit this criteria, which is why true one-hit wonder status is rare.

Wow, that's stupid. For the exact same reason I stated. Say Psy NEVER had another charting hit and it was only "Gangnam Style" that reached #2 for several weeks on end, sold over 4 million copies, and spent nearly 30 weeks in total on the Hot 100. That's a one hit wonder. Just because it didn't go to #1 doesn't mean it wasn't a hit. But then again, this is Billboard. The same people who think "Diamonds" deserved to be #1 for several weeks on the R&B charts and "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" was country.

Apr 17, 2013 18:00:22 GMT -5 @2m said:

MC Hammer and Vanlla Ice - I say no

I also don't agree with the phrase 'most people'

I could agree with the phrase 'some people'

I disagree. Both artists are prominently featured on many one hit wonder lists. More often than not, actually. I would classify that as "most."

[crystalphnx]

Apr 17, 2013 18:01:35 GMT -5 @peigan68 said:

Apr 17, 2013 17:58:30 GMT -5 crystalphnx said:

not to forget more recent examples like Daniel Powter ("Bad Day") and Taylor Hicks ("Do I Make You Proud").

Daniel Powter never charted again? Really? Wasn't aware.

I'm going by Wikipedia, so there's a chance I'm missing something of his.

another recent-ish (well, in my lifetime) one that fits the true Billboard definition is Crazy Town's "Butterfly".

[Deleted]

Some of the biggest songs ever did not hit #1. I don't think the definition being proposed is an 'official' Billboard definition

[Deleted]

Ok, this is quoted from Fred Bronson's The Billboard Book of Number One Hits, second edition; "Little Star"...the Elegants, who are the first of four ultimate one-hit-wonders of the rock era. To qualify for this distinction, one must have a solitary number one single and then have no other records on the chart-ever."

Ok, so he called them "ultimate one-hit-wonders," but I knew he had said this in his book.

There have also obviously been more than four of them by now, but I imagine the number is probably still pretty small.

[Deleted]

Apr 17, 2013 18:11:29 GMT -5 @peigan68 said:

Ok, this is quoted from Fred Bronson's The Billboard Book of Number One Hits, second edition; "Little Star"...the Elegants, who are the first of four ultimate one-hit-wonders of the rock era. To qualify for this distinction, one must have a solitary number one single and then have no other records on the chart-ever."

Ok, so he called them "ultimate one-hit-wonders," but I knew he had said this in his book.

There have also obviously been more than four of them by now, but I imagine the number is probably still pretty small.

Take note of the title of the book


You are talking about a book of Number One hits. That is a small world of about 1000 songs.

In that context I agree with your definition. I have heard this referred to as 'number one hit wonder' before as I stated above.

[Deleted]

Apr 17, 2013 18:12:50 GMT -5 @2m said:

Apr 17, 2013 18:11:29 GMT -5 @peigan68 said:

Ok, this is quoted from Fred Bronson's The Billboard Book of Number One Hits, second edition; "Little Star"...the Elegants, who are the first of four ultimate one-hit-wonders of the rock era. To qualify for this distinction, one must have a solitary number one single and then have no other records on the chart-ever."

Ok, so he called them "ultimate one-hit-wonders," but I knew he had said this in his book.

There have also obviously been more than four of them by now, but I imagine the number is probably still pretty small.

Take note of the title of the book

And? Why would that make a difference? An ultimate one-hit-wonder is still a bigger one-hit-wonder than say an artist that only makes it to #2 and then has a second song that only makes it to #83 or something. Isn't that why he called them ultimate one-hit-wonders?

[RadioBeatz]

Donna Lewis wasn't a one hit wonder then? "I Love You Always Forever" was one of the biggest hits of the 90's and hit #2 blocked by "Macarena" I think. That was her only top 40 hit on the Hot 100.

[Deleted]

Fine. I'll call them ultimate one-hit-wonders then, because they still seem to me to be the ultimate in that category, but as for regular one hit wonders, I guess I agree that there's no agreed upon criteria.

[Deleted]

Apr 17, 2013 18:15:53 GMT -5 @peigan68 said:

Apr 17, 2013 18:12:50 GMT -5 @2m said:

Take note of the title of the book

And? Why would that make a difference? An ultimate one-hit-wonder is still a bigger one-hit-wonder than say an artist that only makes it to #2 and then has a second song that only makes it to #83 or something. Isn't that why he called them ultimate one-hit-wonders?

In the world of number one hits, I agree with your definition, however, that is pretty narrowly focused and only confined to 1000 songs or so. I think you can agree a song does not have to hit #1 to be a hit?

Like I said, this is sometimes referred to as a 'number one hit wonder' to note the unique distinction of the placement of the one hit

But I don't agree this is a Billboard definition of 'one-hit wonder'

[Ling-Ling]

I'm sorry, but if someone has had more than one top 10 or more than one top 20, they are NOT a one hit wonder. I don't care what "most people" or "some people" think. What uneducated people think has nothing do with charts or facts. And since when do we use bargain bin compilations as means to measure chart success?

MC Hammer had five top 10 hits. And I might add, I remember every single one of those songs and I can't even stand MC Hammer. But unlike you, I was alive and buying albums when those songs were hits. I can't go by what your generation remembers, because most songs are erased from the past with new generations anyway. To say he's a one hit wonder because you only know one of his songs (one that wasn't even his biggest hit I might add) just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

[crystalphnx]

even if we don't know (or if there even really is such a thing as) the "official Billboard definition" of a one-hit-wonder, I like the idea of using more strict criteria. whatever criteria is chosen will always be subjective...but, to acklowedge the "wonder" part of the phrase, there really is something strange and astonishing about an act that managed to go all the way to No. 1 and then fail to follow it up with something that could even crack the Hot 100.

[badrobot]

This topic was recently addressed in the Village Voice: blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2012/09/carly_rae_jepsen_one_hit_wonder.php

This is obviously just one person's opinion but they added 3 rules to defining one-hit wonders that seem pretty fair:

------

OHW RULE 1: A second hit that makes the Top 10 of Billboard's Hot 100 instantly removes an artist from one-hit wonder status.

Call this the "Vanilla Ice rule." When his awful "Play That Funky Music" cover broke into the winner's circle 22 years ago, it saved Ice from OHW status. So did the Top 10 hits "Something So Strong" for Crowded House, "Someday" for Glass Tiger, "Wildside" for Marky Mark & the Funky Bunch, "Hole Hearted" for Extreme, "Real Real Real" for Jesus Jones and "Girl on TV" for LFO (yes, even them).

Or, to pick a more recent example, "Some Nights" by fun.—it just broke into the Top 10 last month and ensures "We Are Young" will never appear on a one-hit wonder countdown decades hence. Sure, fun. might turn out to be a flash in the pan—but they have escaped OHW status, unequivocally.

Okay, but wasn't I saying a little while ago that a Top 20 or Top 40 hit should be good enough to eliminate OHW status? Yes—sometimes. That's where Rule 2 comes in.

OHW RULE 2: An act that scores a second hit that makes the Top 40 on the Hot 100 shall not be considered a OHW, unless that second hit is scored within six months of the first hit and is never followed by another Top 40 hit.

Almost all hit acts, even fleeting ones, are given a honeymoon period where a second hit will be momentarily embraced by U.S. radio and the public. That doesn't really mean the act has escaped the shadow of its one hit.

Let's call this the "a-ha rule." However much I like "The Sun Always Shines on TV," it's safe to say it never would have made the U.S. Top 40 in early 1986 if the world-beating "Take on Me" hadn't topped the charts three months earlier. The same goes for Falco's "Rock Me Amadeus" followup, "Vienna Calling" (1986); Young MC's "Bust a Move" followup, "Principal's Office" (1989); Gerardo's "Rico Suave" followup, "We Want the Funk" (1990); and EMF's "Unbelievable" followup, "Lies" (1991). All made the U.S. Top 40 in the weeks immediately after their one big hit—then these acts never returned to the Hot 100's upper reaches again. I would consider them all (yes, even a-ha, as massive as they are outside of the United States) one-hit wonders.

This rule I'm proposing is my biggest concession to the culture camp—those who feel that certain acts just feel like OHWs, chart data be damned. It's hard for us chart geeks, wearing our Simpsons Comic Book Guy contempt, to let go of the idea that a hit is a hit, and a second chart hit means you're no longer a OHW.

But an understanding of the deeper workings of the charts makes a rule like this logical. Radio and record buyers go on autopilot with an act after they have a big hit. A middling second hit doesn't mean they're permanently in love with Falco.

To pick a recent example, consider One Direction: their debut single and global smash "What Makes You Beautiful" reached No. 4 in America this past spring. But they're still waiting for a true followup hit—second U.S. single "One Thing" crawled up to No. 39 in July. Sure, that makes it technically a Top 40 hit, but are One Direction more than a one-hit wonder in America? I'd argue they aren't yet. Pretty much anything 1D released in the wake of their explosive debut would spend at least a week in the Top 40. They'll need another Top 40 hit before crossing the threshold into established-and-undeniable territory.

But what about acts like Jimi Hendrix or the Dead who score one solitary Top 40 hit but just don't read as OHWs? For that, we need one last rule.

OHW RULE 3: Any act that scores at least three Top 10 or platinum albums is removed from OHW consideration entirely.

This may seem like a hopeless sop to rockists, but it just makes sense—there are some acts whose popularity is reflected on the album chart more than the Hot 100.

Besides the two classic rockers mentioned above, consider Radiohead: just two of the band's singles have made the U.S. Top 40. One of them shouldn't even count—"Nude" (not exactly a Radiohead classic) spent a single week at No. 37 in 2008 thanks to a short-lived special promotion at iTunes. The other, more traditional Radiohead hit was 1993's "Creep," which reached No. 34 the old-fashioned way. Still, even before "Nude," would anyone have considered Radiohead a OHW—in 1997, when OK Computer was released? Maybe. In 2000, when Kid A debuted at No. 1 on the album chart? Probably not. And surely not since then.

This rule wouldn't even always apply to rock acts—one oft-ignored fact of the charts is that big teen-pop acts like Justin Bieber often sell as many albums as singles. Consider Miley Cyrus: Thanks to her huge Disney Channel fame as the character Hannah Montana, by early 2008 she had scored four Top 10, platinum-level albums before scoring even a second Top 40 hit on the Hot 100. Her first radio single, "See You Again," crawled to No. 10 in mid-2007, and it wasn't until the following spring that her second hit "7 Things" reached No. 9. Was Miley a OHW prior to that moment? With that many smash albums? Not by any rational standard.

[Au$tin]

Apr 17, 2013 18:18:55 GMT -5 Ling-Ling said:

I'm sorry, but if someone has had more than one top 10 or more than one top 20, they are NOT a one hit wonder. I don't care what "most people" or "some people" think. What uneducated people think has nothing do with charts or facts. And since when do we use bargain bin compilations as means to measure chart success?

What makes then "uneducated"? Because they don't know a song that makes them uneducated? ???

One hit wonder is not a measure of chart success, but of the ability to maintain relevancy. And we're not using "bargain bin compilations" to tell if something is a one-hit-wonder or not. A song kind of needs to be classified as one first before it can be put on such a list/compilation.

[Deleted]

Apr 17, 2013 17:51:41 GMT -5 @peigan68 said:

For myself personally, I go by Billboard's definition of a one-hit wonder:

An artist who had only one song chart on the Hot 100, and that one song went all the way to #1.

It's pretty rigid criteria.

A couple of examples would be "Little Star" by the Elegants, or "In The Year 2525" by Zager and Evans.

Zager and Evans Bubbled Under at #106 with the followup. While technically not 'Hot 100' it is just as subjective as saying while top 40 is a hit peaking at #42 is not.

The charts in 1969 did not have pinpoint accuracy (they don't now either)

[Deleted]

Apr 17, 2013 18:20:35 GMT -5 crystalphnx said:

even if we don't know (or if there even really is such a thing as) the "official Billboard definition" of a one-hit-wonder, I like the idea of using more strict criteria. whatever criteria is chosen will always be subjective...but, to acklowedge the "wonder" part of the phrase, there really is something strange and astonishing about an act that managed to go all the way to No. 1 and then fail to follow it up with something that could even crack the Hot 100.

I was wrong. It wasn't Billboard's definition of a one-hit wonder, it was Fred Bronson's definition of an ultimate one-hit-wonder. I remembered wrong. I have no clue if Billboard even has official criteria for a one-hit-wonder.

But I do agree with the last part of your statement.

[Ling-Ling]

Yes, someone saying MC Hammer is a one hit wonder is uneducated on charts and facts. He's not a one hit wonder and never will be.

And you think these one hit wonder fly-by-night compilation makers do any research or care about accuracy? They throw a bunch of familiar songs on a compilation hoping that people at run down gas stations snatch one off the shelf so they have something to bop to on roadtrips.

[Au$tin]

Apr 17, 2013 18:26:04 GMT -5 Ling-Ling said:

Yes, someone saying MC Hammer is a one hit wonder is uneducated on charts and facts. He's not a one hit wonder and never will be.

If the general public only collectively remembers "U Can't Touch This" and nothing else, then yes, that makes him one. Like I've already said about ten times in here, how one does on the charts does not go hand-in-hand with one hit wonder status.

Oh, and "uneducated on charts and fact"? Really? Because that's totally a measurable component of one's intelligence.

Apr 17, 2013 18:26:04 GMT -5 Ling-Ling said:

And you think these one hit wonder fly-by-night compilation makers do any research or care about accuracy? They throw a bunch of familiar songs on a compilation hoping that people at run down gas stations snatch one off the shelf so they have something to bop to on roadtrips.

No one was even talking about these anyway.

[Deleted]

As a member of the general public, I fondly remember 'Adams Groove' by MC Hammer

[crystalphnx]

Apr 17, 2013 18:42:49 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Apr 17, 2013 18:26:04 GMT -5 Ling-Ling said:

Yes, someone saying MC Hammer is a one hit wonder is uneducated on charts and facts. He's not a one hit wonder and never will be.

If the general public only collectively remembers "U Can't Touch This" and nothing else, then yes, that makes him one. Like I've already said about ten times in here, how one does on the charts does not go hand-in-hand with one hit wonder status.

Oh, and "uneducated on charts and fact"? Really? Because that's totally a measurable component of one's intelligence.

Apr 17, 2013 18:26:04 GMT -5 Ling-Ling said:

And you think these one hit wonder fly-by-night compilation makers do any research or care about accuracy? They throw a bunch of familiar songs on a compilation hoping that people at run down gas stations snatch one off the shelf so they have something to bop to on roadtrips.

No one was even talking about these anyway.

others have already brought up this point to a certain degree, but in a country of over 300 million people, how can you really judge what the "general public" remembers?

with regard to the MC Hammer example, if you asked people who were old enough to remember what they were hearing on the radio in the early 90's they'd probably give you a very different answer than people who were 2-3 years old at the time.

I think "general public"/"most people" is often just another way of saying "people I know" or "people in my age group".

[Deleted]

Apr 17, 2013 18:47:46 GMT -5 crystalphnx said:

Apr 17, 2013 18:42:49 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

If the general public only collectively remembers "U Can't Touch This" and nothing else, then yes, that makes him one. Like I've already said about ten times in here, how one does on the charts does not go hand-in-hand with one hit wonder status.

Oh, and "uneducated on charts and fact"? Really? Because that's totally a measurable component of one's intelligence.



No one was even talking about these anyway.

others have already brought up this point to a certain degree, but in a country of over 300 million people, how can you really judge what the "general public" remembers?

with regard to the MC Hammer example, if you asked people who were old enough to remember what they were hearing on the radio in the early 90's they'd probably give you a very different answer than people who were 2-3 years old at the time.

I think "general public"/"most people" is often just another way of saying "people I know" or "people in my age group".

Exactly