Billboard Hot 100: 03/04/2017

[Old-school 72]

Feb 21, 2017 15:38:06 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

Feb 21, 2017 14:06:52 GMT -5 jayhawk1117 said:

And now Rihanna has 29 Top Ten songs. Wow

How many as a lead artist?

only 14 solo. Features shouldn't count. Or divide them. So you can add 6 more by doing so.

[Caviar]

Feb 21, 2017 15:41:29 GMT -5 Old-school 72 said:

Feb 21, 2017 15:30:37 GMT -5 emperortigerstar said:

I agree. Plus since the Beatles played their own instruments they by far put in the most effort. Writing, composing, and playing a whole song is different than saying the same three lines on a dj-produced electronic beat.

Although Love on the Brain is Rihanna's best song in a while, nice change of pace imo.

The only reason I brought this up is because everyone on here acts like she is a god in the music world. Which she is far from. Achieving legend status is no where in her near future. These young people either don't know or don't research to see the accomplishments of real artists of yesterday. There were people out there who thought Paul McCartney was a new artists a couple years ago. I love the line adding a line to a DJ production. That made me laugh. Write produce and sing (well) and then we can talk about who is a great artist and give credit where it's due. Not featured uhhs and ohhs.

Billboard measures chart activity for ONE week at a time, not cultural relevance or legend status. For Rihanna to even be "credited" on this many hits is phenomenal at her young age. She still has a good 7 years of hit potential.

[Old-school 72]

Feb 21, 2017 15:41:19 GMT -5 Caviar said:

Feb 21, 2017 15:32:55 GMT -5 Leo ✔ said:

MY face reading post complaining about Rihanna 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

The pressed souls come out in droves when Rih makes a record or hits #1! I laugh and keep it moving. Billboard determines what counts and their decision is the law of the land!

The law of who's land. I would give more credit to Milli Vanilli. Lol

[Old-school 72]

Feb 21, 2017 15:44:13 GMT -5 Caviar said:

Feb 21, 2017 15:41:29 GMT -5 Old-school 72 said:

The only reason I brought this up is because everyone on here acts like she is a god in the music world. Which she is far from. Achieving legend status is no where in her near future. These young people either don't know or don't research to see the accomplishments of real artists of yesterday. There were people out there who thought Paul McCartney was a new artists a couple years ago. I love the line adding a line to a DJ production. That made me laugh. Write produce and sing (well) and then we can talk about who is a great artist and give credit where it's due. Not featured uhhs and ohhs.

Billboard measures chart activity for ONE week at a time, not cultural relevance or legend status. For Rihanna to even be "credited" on this many hits is phenomenal at her young age. She still has a good 7 years of hit potential.

then let's go back in time and give artists who sang on huge hits yet we're UN credited. Credit where it's due.

[g8erboi]

Best week in years imo

[Caviar]

Feb 21, 2017 15:48:36 GMT -5 Old-school 72 said:

Feb 21, 2017 15:44:13 GMT -5 Caviar said:

Billboard measures chart activity for ONE week at a time, not cultural relevance or legend status. For Rihanna to even be "credited" on this many hits is phenomenal at her young age. She still has a good 7 years of hit potential.

then let's go back in time and give artists who sang on huge hits yet we're UN credited. Credit where it's due.

Totally irrelevant to the discussion, and more importantly Rihanna. Perhaps those artists needed better guidance from their management?

[kcdawg13]

This week is a chart watchers wet dream. Holy shit.

[rimetm]

Feb 21, 2017 13:59:03 GMT -5 Harx said:

Let me handle this wonderful week.

92. It Ain't Me (DEBUT)
84. Everyday (DEBUT)
62. Shining (DEBUT)
54. Bom Bidi Dom (DEBUT)
43. I Got You (56-43)
30. Down (31-30)
29. T-Shirt (26-29)
22. Rockabye (23-22)
18. Million Reasons (4-18)
11. Paris (10-11)

10. Bounce Back (6-10)
9. I Feel It Coming (16-9)
8. Love On The Brain (13-8)
7. That's What I Like (37-7)
6. Bad Things (5-6)
5. Closer (7-5)
4. Chained To The Rhythm (DEBUT)
3. Bad And Boujee (2-3)
2. I Don't Wanna Live Forever (3-2)
1. Shape Of You (=)

Updated with news from Gary's Twitter!

[Leo ✔]

Feb 21, 2017 15:41:29 GMT -5 Old-school 72 said:

Feb 21, 2017 15:30:37 GMT -5 emperortigerstar said:

I agree. Plus since the Beatles played their own instruments they by far put in the most effort. Writing, composing, and playing a whole song is different than saying the same three lines on a dj-produced electronic beat.

Although Love on the Brain is Rihanna's best song in a while, nice change of pace imo.

The only reason I brought this up is because everyone on here acts like she is a god in the music world. Which she is far from. Achieving legend status is no where in her near future. These young people either don't know or don't research to see the accomplishments of real artists of yesterday. There were people out there who thought Paul McCartney was a new artists a couple years ago. I love the line adding a line to a DJ production. That made me laugh. Write produce and sing (well) and then we can talk about who is a great artist and give credit where it's due. Not featured uhhs and ohhs.

You can clic on logout and stop shitting the threads.

[jayhawk1117]

Feb 21, 2017 15:43:52 GMT -5 Old-school 72 said:

Feb 21, 2017 15:38:06 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

How many as a lead artist?

only 14 solo. Features shouldn't count. Or divide them. So you can add 6 more by doing so.

Why does it matter if they're solo or not? As long as she's the lead what's the issue?

[lyhom]

Feb 21, 2017 14:53:54 GMT -5 Old-school 72 said:

I know im gonna hear a lot of crap for saying this. Madonna and the Beatles all had SOLO top 10s. More than half of Rihannas hits are features either if it's her as the lead orshe was a voice on a track. I don't think it's correct to say she is in third for all time Top10s. Yes her name has appeared in credits but there is songs which Madonna and others should get credit for because they were featured but not credited back in the day before artists had to add a big name in order to have a hit.

[bat1990]

Feb 21, 2017 15:43:52 GMT -5 Old-school 72 said:

Feb 21, 2017 15:38:06 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

How many as a lead artist?

only 14 solo. Features shouldn't count. Or divide them. So you can add 6 more by doing so.

So let me know if I'm using your logic correctly:


35 of Madonna's 38 would count
20 of Mariah Carey's 27
21 of Whitney's 23
24 of Janet's 27
24 of Michael Jackson's 29
26 of Stevie Wonder's 28
23 of Elton John's 27
5 of Paul McCartney's 23 (because of Wings & duets with Michael, Stevie, and Linda McCartney)

[truemusicreviews]

Best top ten we have had in a while!

[leonagwen]

Congrats to Rihanna,30 top ten hits, and The Chainsmokers,26 weeks in the top 5.

[renfield75]

Feb 21, 2017 16:27:07 GMT -5 bat1990 said:

Feb 21, 2017 15:43:52 GMT -5 Old-school 72 said:

only 14 solo. Features shouldn't count. Or divide them. So you can add 6 more by doing so.

So let me know if I'm using your logic correctly:


35 of Madonna's 38 would count
20 of Mariah Carey's 27
21 of Whitney's 23
24 of Janet's 27
24 of Michael Jackson's 29
26 of Stevie Wonder's 28
23 of Elton John's 27
5 of Paul McCartney's 23 (because of Wings & duets with Michael, Stevie, and Linda McCartney)

I hate to get into this mess but which three would Madonna lose? "4 Minutes" and "Give Me All Your Luvin'" I know but what else?

[forg]

Awesome week for chart movements!

Bad and Boujee still has a good lead in streaming. Nice to see a song sell 200K, been awhile.

Yes That's What I Like hits the top 10

[Jay D83]

Yay Bruno!!

[jenglisbe]

Feb 21, 2017 15:43:52 GMT -5 Old-school 72 said:

Feb 21, 2017 15:38:06 GMT -5 jenglisbe said:

How many as a lead artist?

only 14 solo. Features shouldn't count. Or divide them. So you can add 6 more by doing so.

I asked about her being the lead artist, not whether she had someone as a feature, but thanks.

[HolidayGuy]

reinfeld- those are the only two singles on which it's "Madonna Featuring..." The only "Featuring Madonna" single to date is "Me Against the Music," which was top 40 on the Hot 100 and a near-top 10 at Mainstream Top 40.

Of RiRi's 30, she's had lead (or co-lead) credit on 25 of them. No matter the semantics, she's had a very impressive run, and she's worked for it, whether as lead, featured act, whatever. She has a chart hunger, that's for sure.

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Feb 21, 2017 15:29:48 GMT -5 Old-school 72 said:

Feb 21, 2017 15:11:28 GMT -5 bat1990 said:

24 of the 30 songs are with her as lead artist which is still extremely impressive. I'd even be willing to accept 25 with "This Is What You Came For"

And let's be honest, who really would care for "Run This Town" and "The Monster" if she weren't featured on them?

Only 14 hits are solo. Who is to say without the features if those other artists are the only reason those songs made it. It's impressive to have your name added to the credits to help the stans go out and stream or purchase a song. She is best known by the millenials and under 25. She is definitely not one of the 100 greatest artists of all time.

To add on to my earlier post that I knew someone was going to bring it up, it's true that many of her hits are featured or with featured artists. That's fine. I mean, if you choose not to include her among the list of acts with 30 Top 10 hits, I don't see why it's a problem. I think it's acceptable to have an asterisk by her name because of those hits she was a featured act and it's hard to compare that to having her own song.

With that said, there are other cases where the changing times have affected how credits are dished out. For example, This Is What You Came For. If this were 1995, that song would have been just Rihanna. If it were 2005, it would probably be Rihanna - This Is What You Came For (Calvin Harris Remix). Comparably, if many of the Beatles songs were released in 2015, they could have been George Martin & The Beatles. There are some instances of Rihanna's hits where where it pretty much comes down to semantics.

And finally, she is best known by millennials and under 25. Ok, so what? The Beatles are best known by those over 50 but we don't discount them. The Beatles, and any other band who have been around for decades, have that added bonus of being constantly present in the many years since their prominence. Of course we're not going to want to compare any artist from the 2000s who have only had 10-15 years to stew in the pot of pop-chart-legacy compared to artists from the 60s who have stewed for 50 years. At this point, saying Rihanna couldn't POSSIBLY be among the top performing acts in the history of pop music and leaving it at that is just ignorance.

[Au$tin]

New music bad. Old music good. Chart stats freaky deaky!

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Feb 21, 2017 15:41:29 GMT -5 Old-school 72 said:

Feb 21, 2017 15:30:37 GMT -5 emperortigerstar said:

I agree. Plus since the Beatles played their own instruments they by far put in the most effort. Writing, composing, and playing a whole song is different than saying the same three lines on a dj-produced electronic beat.

Although Love on the Brain is Rihanna's best song in a while, nice change of pace imo.

The only reason I brought this up is because everyone on here acts like she is a god in the music world. Which she is far from. Achieving legend status is no where in her near future. These young people either don't know or don't research to see the accomplishments of real artists of yesterday. There were people out there who thought Paul McCartney was a new artists a couple years ago. I love the line adding a line to a DJ production. That made me laugh. Write produce and sing (well) and then we can talk about who is a great artist and give credit where it's due. Not featured uhhs and ohhs.

This post reeks of ignorance and elitism, which is kind of ironic because you're basically making those same accusations toward others.

If someone worships Rihanna and her music, why is that bad? Who are you to tell someone else who they should love? It's not up to you. A person's taste in music is personal and is customized to who they are and/or what they like.

What is a "real artist" and does that mean Rihanna is a "fake artist"? I can certainly admit she doesn't have the accomplishments of someone like Paul McCartney (who does though?) and will agree that her musical involvement isn't as deep as his but let's admit it, the bar is set pretty high when comparing anyone to Paul McCartney. If he's the baseline for what an "artist" is than artists died when Michael Jackson died. And maybe you believe that. So why are you wasting time trying to break everyone else's perception of music? Let them enjoy what they like.

[Gary]

Feb 21, 2017 20:18:58 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Feb 21, 2017 15:29:48 GMT -5 Old-school 72 said:

Only 14 hits are solo. Who is to say without the features if those other artists are the only reason those songs made it. It's impressive to have your name added to the credits to help the stans go out and stream or purchase a song. She is best known by the millenials and under 25. She is definitely not one of the 100 greatest artists of all time.

To add on to my earlier post that I knew someone was going to bring it up, it's true that many of her hits are featured or with featured artists. That's fine. I mean, if you choose not to include her among the list of acts with 30 Top 10 hits, I don't see why it's a problem. I think it's acceptable to have an asterisk by her name because of those hits she was a featured act and it's hard to compare that to having her own song.

With that said, there are other cases where the changing times have affected how credits are dished out. For example, This Is What You Came For. If this were 1995, that song would have been just Rihanna. If it were 2005, it would probably be Rihanna - This Is What You Came For (Calvin Harris Remix). Comparably, if many of the Beatles songs were released in 2015, they could have been George Martin & The Beatles. There are some instances of Rihanna's hits where where it pretty much comes down to semantics.

And finally, she is best known by millennials and under 25. Ok, so what? The Beatles are best known by those over 50 but we don't discount them. The Beatles, and any other band who have been around for decades, have that added bonus of being constantly present in the many years since their prominence. Of course we're not going to want to compare any artist from the 2000s who have only had 10-15 years to stew in the pot of pop-chart-legacy compared to artists from the 60s who have stewed for 50 years. At this point, saying Rihanna couldn't POSSIBLY be among the top performing acts in the history of pop music and leaving it at that is just ignorance.

Not just among the top acts in history, from what I hear, in less than two weeks she will be number one ;)

pulsemusic.proboards.com/thread/165198/countdown-rihanna-hot100s-prominent-artist?page=1


Seriously though, Rihanna was top 15, in the last Billboard list as well as the last Joel Whitburn list, both of which are almost two years old. No doubt top 10 by now

[kcdawg13]

Rihanna. 14 number-one singles and 30 Top 10 hits in 12 years. What a legend. Definitely the black Madonna.

[NeRD]

Feb 21, 2017 14:58:11 GMT -5 icefire9 said:

Rihanna v. Bruno v. Katy. A classic matchup.

2010 all over again!

[Dylan :)]

Feb 21, 2017 20:49:31 GMT -5 NeRD said:

Feb 21, 2017 14:58:11 GMT -5 icefire9 said:

Rihanna v. Bruno v. Katy. A classic matchup.

2010 all over again!

Too bad Gaga wasn't a week later but I agree!! Familiar faces sharing the top spots is always a great thing to see

[bat1990]

Sorry for the confusion about Madonna'. I included "Take a Bow" to be facetious since it's written, produced, arranged, and basically is an uncredited duet or vocal feature from Babyface.

[Old-school 72]

Feb 21, 2017 16:20:02 GMT -5 jayhawk1117 said:

Feb 21, 2017 15:43:52 GMT -5 Old-school 72 said:

only 14 solo. Features shouldn't count. Or divide them. So you can add 6 more by doing so.

Why does it matter if they're solo or not? As long as she's the lead what's the issue?

well if that's hoe to look at it. You have to add the Jackson's/jackson5 hits to Michael's total since he was lead or featured. And add all solo hits from each member of them Beatles to their totals. It only makes sense. Diana Ross and the Supremes. Numbers would drastically change if a song features any artist.

[Old-school 72]

Feb 21, 2017 20:29:51 GMT -5 Rose "Payola" Nylund said:

Feb 21, 2017 15:41:29 GMT -5 Old-school 72 said:

The only reason I brought this up is because everyone on here acts like she is a god in the music world. Which she is far from. Achieving legend status is no where in her near future. These young people either don't know or don't research to see the accomplishments of real artists of yesterday. There were people out there who thought Paul McCartney was a new artists a couple years ago. I love the line adding a line to a DJ production. That made me laugh. Write produce and sing (well) and then we can talk about who is a great artist and give credit where it's due. Not featured uhhs and ohhs.

This post reeks of ignorance and elitism, which is kind of ironic because you're basically making those same accusations toward others.

If someone worships Rihanna and her music, why is that bad? Who are you to tell someone else who they should love? It's not up to you. A person's taste in music is personal and is customized to who they are and/or what they like.

What is a "real artist" and does that mean Rihanna is a "fake artist"? I can certainly admit she doesn't have the accomplishments of someone like Paul McCartney (who does though?) and will agree that her musical involvement isn't as deep as his but let's admit it, the bar is set pretty high when comparing anyone to Paul McCartney. If he's the baseline for what an "artist" is than artists died when Michael Jackson died. And maybe you believe that. So why are you wasting time trying to break everyone else's perception of music? Let them enjoy what they like.

I never told anyone who they should like. I was stating chart accomplishments. Just like everyone else does. Everytime someone has their own opinion on Rhianna everyone cries. There are slot of artists people talk bad about I like and don't starting doing the Britney cry"leave so and so alone". Why can't I have an opinion. I don't like her but never told anyone they can't.

[ry4n]

Feb 22, 2017 0:20:37 GMT -5 Old-school 72 said:

Feb 21, 2017 16:20:02 GMT -5 jayhawk1117 said:

Why does it matter if they're solo or not? As long as she's the lead what's the issue?

well if that's hoe to look at it. You have to add the Jackson's/jackson5 hits to Michael's total since he was lead or featured. And add all solo hits from each member of them Beatles to their totals. It only makes sense. Diana Ross and the Supremes. Numbers would drastically change if a song features any artist.

Why stop there. Why not count up all the hits credited to the producers and song writers as well. They contribute just as much toa song's success. As of "Chained To The Rhythm", Max Martin is up to 66 Hot 100 top 10 hits, which easily trumps Madonna's record of 38...

Bands aren't usually regarded as being equal to a featuring. They go under a different name and release an entire albums together as one entity. Could you imagine everytime a featuring happened, the two (or three or four) artists involved decided to give themselves a group name instead? (Like Jay-Z and Kanye calling themselves The Throne). That would be a damn mess.

The way the charts operate changes so much from one time period to the next that all-time lists are always going to be arbitrary. Comparing 2010's charts to 1960's charts is comparing apples to oranges. Feature credits just weren't a common thing back then. Labels weren't concerned about crossing over to multiple radio formats back then (which is probably why pop artists tack on a rap verse and why rap artists feature a pop singer to do the chorus when they want a crossover hit).