Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900 
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Jun 3, 2016 15:00:13 GMT -5
Awesome list, but you forgot Baauer. |
|
imbondz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 2,590
|
Post by imbondz on Jun 3, 2016 15:18:03 GMT -5
I think if you charted with a band first then had a solo #1 it shouldn't count on this list.
|
|
mikolaj
New Member
Dupe
Joined: January 2015
Posts: 45 
|
Post by mikolaj on Jun 3, 2016 16:47:46 GMT -5
Awesome list, but you forgot Baauer. How did i do that? I even noted him while looking through! Whoops! |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 17:13:04 GMT -5
I think if you charted with a band first then had a solo #1 it shouldn't count on this list. I understand this point of view, but I also can't really be on board with it 100%. I mean, if you're Dave Matthews vs Dave Matthews Band, fair enough I guess. But if you're George Harrison vs The Beatles, that doesn't seem fair. I feel he should be allowed to be his own solo act separate from the band... as should John, Paul and/or Ringo. Their music as solo acts is their own, and they were only The Beatles as a collective, not individually. If it was George Harrison & the Beatles and he wrote and sang every song for them and then went solo, then I might feel differently. Thoughts? |
|
imbondz
2x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2006
Posts: 2,590
|
Post by imbondz on Jun 3, 2016 17:19:48 GMT -5
I think if you charted with a band first then had a solo #1 it shouldn't count on this list. I understand this point of view, but I also can't really be on board with it 100%. I mean, if you're Dave Matthews vs Dave Matthews Band, fair enough I guess. But if you're George Harrison vs The Beatles, that doesn't seem fair. I feel he should be allowed to be his own solo act separate from the band... as should John, Paul and/or Ringo. Their music as solo acts is their own, and they were only The Beatles as a collective, not individually. If it was George Harrison & the Beatles and he wrote and sang every song, then I might feel differently. Thoughts? Tough call. It's funny cuz I can see the point more with the Beatles examples more than say Zayn. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 17:29:18 GMT -5
I understand this point of view, but I also can't really be on board with it 100%. I mean, if you're Dave Matthews vs Dave Matthews Band, fair enough I guess. But if you're George Harrison vs The Beatles, that doesn't seem fair. I feel he should be allowed to be his own solo act separate from the band... as should John, Paul and/or Ringo. Their music as solo acts is their own, and they were only The Beatles as a collective, not individually. If it was George Harrison & the Beatles and he wrote and sang every song, then I might feel differently. Thoughts? Tough call. It's funny cuz I can see the point more with the Beatles examples more than say Zayn. And this is why it's all or nothing, really. We can each feel different types of ways about certain acts, but that injects some subjectivity and bias into it rather than just using straight chart facts... as much of a technicality or whatever as they may be. It's kinda like the "but he/she was only featured so it shouldn't really count as his/her #1" argument. There are too many variations of what a "feature" entails to use a blanket statement like that. You could have one line in the song, you could have one guitar lick, or you could be the only vocalist on the entire song... a feature isn't technically a feature in some cases, at least not when compared to, say, a rapper's 20-second spit in a 4 minute song. But then who's to say that the rap feature isn't the reason most people like the song? Can. Of. Worms. It just comes down to credit - the name appearing at a certain position on the chart, feature or not. If you're an artist credited on a #1 song, that's it... you have a #1 song in the record books. Some people will argue this or try and/or downplay achievement(s), especially when they don't like the artist and/or are fans of other artist(s) whose records are being threatened, but accomplishments are accomplishments and they ALL come with their own set of unique traits. Fans can relish in knowing certain favorable details about an artist's achievement(s) (songwriter, producer, solo vocals, etc), but these details don't change the objectivity of who has whatever number of #1s, they are simply details of the accomplishment(s) with varying degrees of significance depending on who you ask. Ultimately, partial credit can't be given for a #1 in the record books, so it's all or nothing. Speaking of All Or Nothing, Milli Vanilli hit #1 three times (not for that song, but...) and they didn't sing on any of them. They lied. They danced and lipped. Does this mean Milli Vanilli didn't have three #1 songs? No. Those songs went to #1 and are credited to Milli Vanilli. Whatever or whomever that means. There are obviously details that give more info and may deflate or negate the achievement for many, but objectively, Milli Vanilli as an act achieved three #1s. It happened, regardless of the real who, what, when or why. They can take away their Grammy, but they can't take away the fact that three of "their" songs spent time at #1. If the only rule is "an act's first appearance on the Hot 100 and it went to #1".... then ZAYN and George Harrison are both eligible. Objectively speaking, George Harrison is not The Beatles, and ZAYN is not One Direction. If someone were asked to find out what George Michael's first listed appearance in the artist column on the chart was and where it peaked... the correct answer would be Careless Whisper and #1. If the person never heard of either, they would very objectively answer "Careless Whisper" without hesitation. The known details of this achievement are the only thing that make the answer become subjective to some... therefore it needs to be 100% face value without further context or details or it immediately becomes subjective. There are clearly many differences in the details of the artists that make this list, some seem more legit than others based on the details. So the only way to weed out those we disagree with is to add more criteria.
Point being, these "definitive" lists - as objective as we try and make them - are always going to invite some subjectivity and/or disagreement, etc, especially amongst music fans like us. There's very little objectivity because many of us know too much and find it hard to be 100% objective. Bueller? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2016 20:11:19 GMT -5
Now I'm sitting here thinking about Prince. And how he has had several monikers in the artist name column. Prince, Prince/Revolution, Prince/NPG, maybe even TAFKAP, all contain "Prince".... but that love symbol... that would make a difference in some scenarios of objectivity (not this one, but several others).... which makes me question objectivity.... proving that even i - he who just went on and on forever promoting objectivity - have a problem with it in some cases.
The struggle is real. :)
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,716
|
Post by Gary on Jun 3, 2016 20:48:19 GMT -5
'Something' was written and sung by George Harrison and it was a number one hit.
|
|
onebuffalo
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
I am One Buffalo.
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 26,634
|
Post by onebuffalo on Jun 4, 2016 9:29:24 GMT -5
I think if you charted with a band first then had a solo #1 it shouldn't count on this list. If a country version of this list were to exist, I would include Wynonna Judd on it. She charted as the Judds between 1983-1991. Her first solo single, She Is His Only Need topped the chart in 1992. So yes, I would include her. |
|
renfield75
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 1,626
|
Post by renfield75 on Jun 5, 2016 13:01:50 GMT -5
Going solo from a band should count, I think. I would say Zayn's first single hit #1. And Fergie's. Those are careers separate from the group they were in. I dispute George Michael because he hadn't gone solo yet at that point (even though he really was a solo artist on Careless Whisper and was credited as such in other countries). But he was still very much part of Wham! at that point. His first release in the US as a solo artist (the beginning of his solo career) was "A Different Corner". But I understand broccoli's hesitation to be subjective. That's a slippery slope. But as he said, then the Revolution should be added to the list. Their first credited appearance on the Hot 100 was "Let's Go Crazy" which reached number one. Even though it was Prince's second number one after "When Doves Cry". On the flip side, if Diana Ross's first solo single had gone to the top would she then not count because the first single credited to "Diana Ross & The Supremes" didn't reach number one??? It gets confusing very quickly...
|
|
dawhite76
New Member
Joined: July 2005
Posts: 357
|
Post by dawhite76 on Jun 5, 2016 17:01:39 GMT -5
Debby Boone - "You Light Up My Life"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2016 17:46:25 GMT -5
Gangnam Style should've been one.
Also did Mario have any charting singles before Let Me Love You?
What about Calvin Harris - We Found Love?
Also from 2006 Bad Day and Ridin'
Was Get Busy Sean Paul's first charting song?
|
|
renfield75
Platinum Member
Joined: February 2009
Posts: 1,626
|
Post by renfield75 on Jun 15, 2016 13:17:04 GMT -5
Gangnam Style should've been one. Also did Mario have any charting singles before Let Me Love You? What about Calvin Harris - We Found Love? Also from 2006 Bad Day and Ridin' Was Get Busy Sean Paul's first charting song? Mario reached #4 in 2002 with "Just A Friend 2002". Sean Paul first reached #7 with "Gimme The Light" in 2002. Chamillionaire charted with the #41-peaking "Turn It Up" before "Ridin'". Daniel Powter and (I think) Calvin Harris belong on the list though. |
|
