Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900 
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Feb 16, 2017 18:27:42 GMT -5
Lmao. This thread is crap and full of lies. There's no way possible Riri has that many points(which by the way...where are the receipts *whitney's voice*) when it's not including her features which are the songs that are her most successful. Close thread. Everything in this thread is meant to be 100% factual. If there is something non-factual in this thread, please point it out to me. Coco, you know I like your sass, but I put a lot of effort into collecting these numbers and into this thread. If you're actually interested in "the receipts", I can give you RiRi's points for the 2010's. The numbers for the 2000's though, I didn't keep. I probably should have. 20101913 1281 185 48 20 639 109 1133 Rude Boy Only Girl (In The World) *Russian Roulette S&M Redemption Song What's My Name? Rockstar 101 *Hard
2011
2017 1163 1007 578 430 420 36 1265 1215 104 S&M Cheers (Drink To That) Only Girl (In The World) California King Bed You Da One Man Down Where Have You Been We Found Love What's My Name? Talk That Talk
2012
2054 1141 675 2289 1175 764 Where Have You Been Diamonds *You Da One *We Found Love Birthday Cake Talk That Talk
2013
1232 1156 234 320 566 2619 Pour It Up *Diamonds What Now Right Now Loveeeeeee Song Stay
2015
1717 47 1489 B**** Better Have My Money American Oxygen FourFiveSeconds 20163259 Needed Me 3058 Work 446 Love On The Brain 227 Kiss It Better 29 Sex With Me 2017 I put together when I was putting this thread together. But I know that it's a total of 742. That all together comes out to... 38,802. |
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Feb 16, 2017 18:39:01 GMT -5
Like I said if artists who were hitting the charts before streaming and the allowance of every album track making the chart, people like Madonna, Michael Jackson, The Beatles, and Mariah Carey would have had twice as many hits as they do. How is that relevant to Rihanna though? What's the biggest non-single by Rihanna to chart? Has she ever had one? Like I said in the other post. Mariah Carey's existed in pretty much the exact same charting environment as Rihanna has. As for the Beatles, MJ, and Madonna, you seem to have it a bit backwards. They would have less songs in the post-Soundscan charting system. But they're songs would last longer on average. Keep in mind that back in the 1970's, you could get like 1000 charting songs in a single year. Lots of opportunities to get a charting song. Post-Soundscan, that's been about halved. Even after being inflated with digital and streaming, there were only 500 charting songs in 2015 and 530 charting songs in 2016. If we were comparing pre-Soundscan artists to Drake, Taylor, or Beyonce, then we could have a conversation about digital and streaming allowing a bunch of small songs to spend a week or two on the chart when a major album drops. But we're talking about Rihanna, and she has yet to benefit from that at all (from my knowledge at least). You could have a point with the turnover rates not being the same, but I'd say that that's evened out by artists like Elvis and The Beatles being able to chart more songs. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Feb 16, 2017 18:46:14 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with this thread, it is the OPs interpretation of who the all-time biggest artist is. It is not official, it is not meant to be factual. The countdown with a link to a countdown clock is a little much but beyond that, it is all in fun. Besides, Glee Cast with their 283 hits probably have more points than Rihanna anyway - LOL The thread is meant to be 100% factual. If there is something non-factual about it, please point it out and I will try to fix it. Glee Cast does not have 283 Hot 100 hits. 283 is including bubbling under. Glee Cast has 8,346 points for this decade. As of the end of 2016, they are the 64th biggest artist of the 2010's decade. Keep in mind that this is a system used to measure prominence. Each of Glee's hits only lasted 1 or 2 weeks on the chart. That's not going to put them anywhere near the top. EDIT: Oops. This part below is meant for Old School 72Also, I think you're wrong about Mariah and Madonna being able to do better if they were put into different eras. Compare Mariah to Rihanna. The Soundscan era began like 1 year into Mariah's career. So both exist in eras with similar recurrent rates. The streaming era began only 3 years ago, and Rihanna has performed in 2016 pretty much the exact same way that she performed in 2010-2012. Apart from allowing songs to debut higher, digital sales have not had a great impact on the longevity of songs on the Hot 100. You seem upset by the results of a very objective system. I don't see why you need to encourage Coco though... Never said Glee had 283 Hot 100 hits. In fact in one post I said that number included bubbling under. I mention it because, although he excludes it(because they are not one artist but rather a rotating cast of artists), Joel Whitburn has Glee as #2 all time in the Hot 100 era I like your topic as you have presented it if you take out the word "factual". The point system that you came up with probably is factual, but the conclusions you are drawing from it are not. They are simply opinions. With a straight inverse point system, it would be hard to draw "factual" conclusions anyway In other all-time artist lists not only is Rihanna not ranked higher than ELvis, at least as of one year ago, Rihanna was not even in the top 10. (Although she might be now) |
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Feb 16, 2017 18:56:07 GMT -5
One thing I did notice: the fact that Taylor Swift and Drake have more, for example, than The Beatles seems wrong. The inverse point system is probably one of the worse ones in the sense that it favors the more current artists since they tend to have longer chart runs than the ones that charted before. That easily explains the great disparities in the positions shown here and those using other methods. It is probably the most brute force method there is. I think it favors longevity to peaks. While Billboard's adjusted version favors peaks to longevity. That's why The Beatles, who only had about one decade of success, fall so far behind Elton John, Elvis, and Madonna on this list. Each of those artists had over 2 decades of success. I wouldn't say that this system favors the post-Soundscan artists too much. After all, every week has 5050 points. Meaning every year has (about) 262,600 points. And every decade has about 2.6 million points. It's all about how those points are spread out. It would be interesting to do an in depth analysis of that. I don't think Soundscan effected the spread that much. I think it just ebs and flows. In the 1990's and 2000's, no artist got as many points as Elvis or the Beatles did in the 1960's. But in the 2010's, Drake, Rihanna, and Taylor Swift all have. And you can't easily blame streaming or digital, since Rihanna doesn't greatly benefit from that. Also, I think the results speak for themselves. There's presumably 14 artists who have 40,000 or more points on this system: Elvis, Beatles, Rolling Stones, Elton, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Whitney Houston, Janet Jackson, Mariah Carey, Usher, Rihanna, Taylor Swift and Drake. The Hot 100 has existed for about 60 years. So for the last 20 years, since 1997, there have been 4 artists (Usher, Taylor, Riri and Drake) to reach a milestone that 14 artists have reached? So 4/14 compared to 20/59?? Doesn't seem too skewed to me, just looking at the people who have reached the 40,000 mark. But IDK, maybe that is too arbitrary of a mark. |
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Feb 16, 2017 18:59:44 GMT -5
The thread is meant to be 100% factual. If there is something non-factual about it, please point it out and I will try to fix it. Glee Cast does not have 283 Hot 100 hits. 283 is including bubbling under. Glee Cast has 8,346 points for this decade. As of the end of 2016, they are the 64th biggest artist of the 2010's decade. Keep in mind that this is a system used to measure prominence. Each of Glee's hits only lasted 1 or 2 weeks on the chart. That's not going to put them anywhere near the top. EDIT: Oops. This part below is meant for Old School 72Also, I think you're wrong about Mariah and Madonna being able to do better if they were put into different eras. Compare Mariah to Rihanna. The Soundscan era began like 1 year into Mariah's career. So both exist in eras with similar recurrent rates. The streaming era began only 3 years ago, and Rihanna has performed in 2016 pretty much the exact same way that she performed in 2010-2012. Apart from allowing songs to debut higher, digital sales have not had a great impact on the longevity of songs on the Hot 100. You seem upset by the results of a very objective system. I don't see why you need to encourage Coco though... Never said Glee had 283 Hot 100 hits. In fact in one post I said that number included bubbling under. I mention it because, although he excludes it(because they are not one artist but rather a rotating cast of artists), Joel Whitburn has Glee as #2 all time in the Hot 100 era I like your topic as you have presented it if you take out the word "factual". The point system that you came up with probably is factual, but the conclusions you are drawing from it are not. They are simply opinions. With a straight inverse point system, it would be hard to draw "factual" conclusions anyway In other all-time artist lists not only is Rihanna not ranked higher than ELvis, at least as of one year ago, Rihanna was not even in the top 10. (Although she might be now) How else would you define the word "prominent"? You find the names "Rihanna" and "Elvis Presley" as a main artist towards the top of any given week for the Hot 100 more often than you find any other artist's name. Hence, prominent. I chose the word very carefully, so that I did not have to get into the politics of what we consider to be the "biggest" artist. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Feb 16, 2017 19:12:03 GMT -5
Never said Glee had 283 Hot 100 hits. In fact in one post I said that number included bubbling under. I mention it because, although he excludes it(because they are not one artist but rather a rotating cast of artists), Joel Whitburn has Glee as #2 all time in the Hot 100 era I like your topic as you have presented it if you take out the word "factual". The point system that you came up with probably is factual, but the conclusions you are drawing from it are not. They are simply opinions. With a straight inverse point system, it would be hard to draw "factual" conclusions anyway In other all-time artist lists not only is Rihanna not ranked higher than ELvis, at least as of one year ago, Rihanna was not even in the top 10. (Although she might be now) How else would you define the word "prominent"? You find the names "Rihanna" and "Elvis Presley" as a main artist towards the top of any given week for the Hot 100 more often than you find any other artist's name. Hence, prominent. I chose the word very carefully, so that I did not have to get into the politics of what we consider to be the "biggest" artist. A generic term (defined below), that you seem to be applying to a statistic. - Rihanna is "prominent" in the last ten years, but what about the previous 50 years? When you scan the chart database of the last 10 years Rihanna is "particularly noticeable". The database is 60 years or so. Rihanna, not so noticeable before 10 years ago. "Leading,important or well known" - In all of chart history are you really prepared to say that Rihanna is the most important and well-known? You can if you want, but again, based on opinion. Defintion: prominent [prom-uh-nuh nt] adjective 1. standing out so as to be seen easily; conspicuous; particularly noticeable: Her eyes are her most prominent feature. 2. standing out beyond the adjacent surface or line; projecting. 3. leading, important, or well-known: |
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Feb 16, 2017 19:18:31 GMT -5
Not sure what kind of system the above is, but The Beatles are the No. 1 Hot 100 act, per Billboard's methodology. And, features do count in Billboard's methodology. The lead act gets 70% of the points for a single's week-to-week run, while the featured act gets 30% (if it's more than one featured act, those acts split the 30% evenly). For duets or tracks where all acts have equal credit, each act gets 50% of the points for a single's run (if it's three acts- like on "Four Five Seconds"- they each get 33.33%). This makes sense; I'm surprised Whitburn still attributes all points to each act for cases like this. I'm sure Billboard will post an updated list for the Hot 100's 60th anniversary. Yes, Beatles are shorted out by this system because the system focuses more on longevity. Beatles were only around for about a decade. Billboard adjusts it so that the difference between #1 and #2 is a lot bigger than the difference between #99 and #100. This makes it way more realistic than the"brute force" inverse point system. However, a higher focus also makes it more necessary to "adjust for eras", which Billboard does. Do you think the split of features causes certain artists (such as Hip-Hop artists) to be cut short a bunch? The first thing I think of when I see that is Rihanna's "Stay" Featuring Mikky Ekko. Or Drake's "One Dance" Featuring Wiz Kid and Kyla. Both give credit to irrelevant producers and sampled artists that many artists would just leave uncredited. So they both get cut 30% just because the label was nice enough to credit them. And then on the other hand, Kanye West's recent album didn't give anybody an official feature credit. Even though he featured major artists like Weeknd, Chris Brown, and Rihanna. |
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Feb 16, 2017 19:28:03 GMT -5
How else would you define the word "prominent"? You find the names "Rihanna" and "Elvis Presley" as a main artist towards the top of any given week for the Hot 100 more often than you find any other artist's name. Hence, prominent. I chose the word very carefully, so that I did not have to get into the politics of what we consider to be the "biggest" artist. A generic term (defined below), that you seem to be applying to a statistic. - Rihanna is "prominent" in the last ten years, but what about the previous 50 years? When you scan the chart database of the last 10 years Rihanna is "particularly noticeable". The database is 60 years or so. Rihanna, not so noticeable before 10 years ago. "Leading,important or well known" - In all of chart history are you really prepared to say that Rihanna is the most important and well-known? You can if you want, but again, based on opinion. Defintion: prominent [prom-uh-nuh nt] adjective 1. standing out so as to be seen easily; conspicuous; particularly noticeable: Her eyes are her most prominent feature. 2. standing out beyond the adjacent surface or line; projecting. 3. leading, important, or well-known: She can be seen easily and is particularly noticeable. More so than any other artist in Hot 100 history (except for Elvis, for the next 18 days) If you grabbed any random week in the Hot 100's history 58 year history. And then you looked at every charting song from #1 to #N, n being a random number from 1-100. And then you tallied up the primary artist for each of those songs. And then you repeated that 10 times, or 100 times, or whatever. Probability wise, your top two will most likely be Elvis and Rihanna. Probability wise, your results will be exactly the same as the results of a basic inverse point system. That's prominence defined mathematically. These two artists are the most easy to see/notice on the Hot 100. Go ahead and try it right now. www.random.org/www.billboard.com/archive/charts/2016/hot-100 |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Feb 16, 2017 19:34:57 GMT -5
A generic term (defined below), that you seem to be applying to a statistic. - Rihanna is "prominent" in the last ten years, but what about the previous 50 years? When you scan the chart database of the last 10 years Rihanna is "particularly noticeable". The database is 60 years or so. Rihanna, not so noticeable before 10 years ago. "Leading,important or well known" - In all of chart history are you really prepared to say that Rihanna is the most important and well-known? You can if you want, but again, based on opinion. Defintion: prominent [prom-uh-nuh nt] adjective 1. standing out so as to be seen easily; conspicuous; particularly noticeable: Her eyes are her most prominent feature. 2. standing out beyond the adjacent surface or line; projecting. 3. leading, important, or well-known: She can be seen easily and is particularly noticeable. More so than any other artist in Hot 100 history (except for Elvis, for the next 18 days) If you grabbed any random week in the Hot 100's history 58 year history. And then you looked at every charting song from #1 to #N, n being a random number from 1-100. And then you tallied up the primary artist for each of those songs. And then you repeated that 10 times, or 100 times, or whatever. Probability wise, your top two will most likely be Elvis and Rihanna. Probability wise, your results will be exactly the same as the results of a basic inverse point system. That's prominence defined mathematically. These two artists are the most easy to see/notice on the Hot 100. Go ahead and try it right now. www.random.org/www.billboard.com/archive/charts/2016/hot-100I disagree. Rihanna is confined to one particular time period. (the last 10 years out of 60) If you roll a 6 sided die and assign Rihanna to #6 (The 6th decade) and Elvis gets assigned 1,2 and maybe a little of the others (for posthumous hits) The chances of you rolling a 1 or 2 are mathematically greater than the chances of rolling a 6, Roll anything other than a 6, you won't see Rihanna at all. Like I said, I understand your math but I do not agree with your conclusions ' |
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,919
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Feb 16, 2017 19:39:17 GMT -5
hot100fan- Billboard's inverse point system, and weighing eras to put all on a level playing field, is a pretty decent methodology= better than the one it had prior to the change.
Nikki- acts with a lot of features still perform well- look at Chris Brown. He's in the top 100 acts. Drake well may be top 100 by now.
Glee Cast rightfully doesn't rank in the top 100 acts, as the bulk of its chart entries had one week on the chart.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Feb 16, 2017 19:44:07 GMT -5
Glee Cast rightfully doesn't rank in the top 100 acts, as the bulk of its chart entries had one week on the chart. Not the reason it commonly gets excluded though. The "Glee Cast" is a rotating set of performers and not the same on every song. Break those down into common performers, you get a much different result |
|
|
|
Post by Baby Yoda Hot100Fan on Feb 16, 2017 20:12:36 GMT -5
hot100fan- Billboard's inverse point system, and weighing eras to put all on a level playing field, is a pretty decent methodology= better than the one it had prior to the change. Nikki- acts with a lot of features still perform well- look at Chris Brown. He's in the top 100 acts. Drake well may be top 100 by now. Glee Cast rightfully doesn't rank in the top 100 acts, as the bulk of its chart entries had one week on the chart. I agree with your point but that hinges on how well the weighing of eras is done. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges. In spite of their Billboard's best efforts, the 2010s are over-represented in the Greatest of All-Time Hot 100. Although I don't have definite proof, I think they did a better job with the Greatest of All-Time Hot 100 Artists. Regarding Glee Cast, I bet there are quite a few of artists which have one-tenth of the songs that have charted for them in the Hot 100 and are within the Top 100. |
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Feb 16, 2017 21:23:19 GMT -5
She can be seen easily and is particularly noticeable. More so than any other artist in Hot 100 history (except for Elvis, for the next 18 days) If you grabbed any random week in the Hot 100's history 58 year history. And then you looked at every charting song from #1 to #N, n being a random number from 1-100. And then you tallied up the primary artist for each of those songs. And then you repeated that 10 times, or 100 times, or whatever. Probability wise, your top two will most likely be Elvis and Rihanna. Probability wise, your results will be exactly the same as the results of a basic inverse point system. That's prominence defined mathematically. These two artists are the most easy to see/notice on the Hot 100. Go ahead and try it right now. www.random.org/www.billboard.com/archive/charts/2016/hot-100I disagree. Rihanna is confined to one particular time period. (the last 10 years out of 60) If you roll a 6 sided die and assign Rihanna to #6 (The 6th decade) and Elvis gets assigned 1,2 and maybe a little of the others (for posthumous hits) The chances of you rolling a 1 or 2 are mathematically greater than the chances of rolling a 6, Roll anything other than a 6, you won't see Rihanna at all. Like I said, I understand your math but I do not agree with your conclusions ' That makes no sense to me. Why would you compare 3,050 weeks with 100 parts each to a 6 sided die? Why are you simplifying things to decades? Why not years? Or months? Or weeks? Oh wait, that's what I already did. Please re-read the part that you quoted. You can literally perform the experiment that I described for yourself. I don't get what aspect of it you have a problem with, but the dice thing makes zero sense. If you want to talk about decades as if they were dice.... Rihanna's share of that six would be roughly the same as Elvis's share of the first two... This is all math that I've done for you already... So you've really lost me at this point. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Feb 16, 2017 21:37:30 GMT -5
A random experiment weighted down to a particular year, week or time period is no longer random. (Rolling a die for example is random)
I admire the work you did but disagree with the conclusions you are applying.
If you want to state that in precisely 18 days, 7 hours and a handful of minutes, Rihanna will become the most "recognizable", "well known", "easy to see", "noticeable" artist in the 60 year history of this chart, that is your prerogative, that does not make it factual, it makes it an opinion, loosely based on a very biased statistic.
The statistic is fine, I understand exactly what you did, I think we disagree on what it means though.
|
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Feb 16, 2017 21:38:46 GMT -5
hot100fan- Billboard's inverse point system, and weighing eras to put all on a level playing field, is a pretty decent methodology= better than the one it had prior to the change. Nikki- acts with a lot of features still perform well- look at Chris Brown. He's in the top 100 acts. Drake well may be top 100 by now. Glee Cast rightfully doesn't rank in the top 100 acts, as the bulk of its chart entries had one week on the chart. I agree with your point but that hinges on how well the weighing of eras is done. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges. In spite of their Billboard's best efforts, the 2010s are over-represented in the Greatest of All-Time Hot 100. Although I don't have definite proof, I think they did a better job with the Greatest of All-Time Hot 100 Artists. Regarding Glee Cast, I bet there are quite a few of artists which have one-tenth of the songs that have charted for them in the Hot 100 and are within the Top 100. Ok, I think I'm starting to understand here. The dice thing is like a super-simplified version of what I was proposing. But it's too simplified to mean anything. By this logic, Tim McGraw is twice as prominent as the Beatles. And Elton John is the most prominent artist of all time, because his career spans three decades. The experiment I proposed to you already covers your dice analogy. Yes, there is roughly a 5/6 chance that you'll end up in an era before Rihanna existed. But if you do end up in the 1/6 spot that Rihanna does exist you'll likely encounter her twice as often as you'll encounter Elvis Presley if you get one of the decades that Elvis was alive in. Also, the experiment I proposed to you takes into account chart position. Hence the "Only look at #1 - #N" aspect. #1 will be included 100% of the time. #100 will be included 1% of the time. #35 will be included 66% of the time. Etc. The experiment I proposed to you perfectly replicates the inverse point system and is the very definition of "prominence". The experiment I proposed already includes your dice example because the very first part of the experiment is "choose a random week in Hot 100 history". |
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Feb 16, 2017 21:44:47 GMT -5
A random experiment weighted down to a particular year, week or time period is no longer random. (Rolling a die for example is random) I admire the work you did but disagree with the conclusions you are applying. If you want to state that in precisely 18 days, 7 hours and a handful of minutes, Rihanna will become the most "recognizable", "well known", "easy to see", "noticeable" artist in the 60 year history of this chart, that is your prerogative, that does not make it factual, it makes it an opinion, loosely based on a very biased statistic. The statistic is fine, I understand exactly what you did, I think we disagree on what it means though. I did not say recognizable or well known. I said prominent. It's a very common word and the very first definition that you linked is 100% in line with what I'm describing. She is "easy to see". She will be the most prominent because she higher up on the Hot 100 of any given week than any other artist in history. It's not " my prerogative", it's just a fact. I don't own the fact. I'm just the one pointing it out. I tried to word it as precisely as possible to avoid this BS nitpicking and question begging, but apparently... there is no avoiding it. EDIT"weighted down to a particular year, week or time period" Where are you getting this from? I do not weight things. In the experiment I proposed to you, I said to grab a RANDOM week... not a "weighted" random week... Rihanna and Elvis are the most "prominent" artists on the Hot 100 because you will see them more often and more high on the chart, then any artist on any given week. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Feb 16, 2017 21:58:17 GMT -5
A random experiment weighted down to a particular year, week or time period is no longer random. (Rolling a die for example is random) I admire the work you did but disagree with the conclusions you are applying. If you want to state that in precisely 18 days, 7 hours and a handful of minutes, Rihanna will become the most "recognizable", "well known", "easy to see", "noticeable" artist in the 60 year history of this chart, that is your prerogative, that does not make it factual, it makes it an opinion, loosely based on a very biased statistic. The statistic is fine, I understand exactly what you did, I think we disagree on what it means though. I did not say recognizable or well known. I said prominent. It's a very common word and the very first definition that you linked is 100% in line with what I'm describing. She is "easy to see". She will be the most prominent because she higher up on the Hot 100 of any given week than any other artist in history. It's not " my prerogative", it's just a fact. I don't own the fact. I'm just the one pointing it out. I tried to word it as precisely as possible to avoid this BS nitpicking and question begging, but apparently... there is no avoiding it. "recognizable" and "well known" are either precisely part of the definition or synonyms to what is listed in the definition according to my thesaurus. But you are right, since a dictionary and a thesaurus have entered into this discussion, we have gone beyond what we should. I understand what you did. I wish you well with this. I simply do not agree with the conclusion. You are free to call it a "fact" too I suppose. I suppose that in 18 days it is a "fact" that Rihanna will surpass Elvis on the inverse point system. I agree with the "fact" as just stated. The conclusions that you drew from it, I disagree. Feel free to call the conclusions "facts" as well. I will have to stop here though. |
|
|
|
Post by Old-school 72 on Feb 17, 2017 0:12:42 GMT -5
I just thought of something, if you were to give the points to Rihanna for her features on songs then you would need to combine The Beatles with the solo hits from the original 4 members since they all sang. You know that guy Paul McCartney who the millenials thought was a new artist a couple years ago (lol). Also combine Michael Jackson with The Jackson 5/the Jackson's because he was the lead singer except one hit Nothing that compares to you. There are many others also I could mention who by doing so would actually knock Rihanna further down the list. It would only be fair since they were the prominent artists on the songs. This is why the point system isn't doesn't add up. Once again just making a point how she isn't the most prominent artist except for the last decade but not of all time.
|
|
Janhova's Witness
8x Platinum Member
Multi Pulse Award Winner
Joined: March 2009
Posts: 8,134 
Pronouns: padam/padam
|
Post by Janhova's Witness on Feb 17, 2017 2:02:22 GMT -5
I see the grampas are mad at Rihanna's impact. You can deny it all you want, spread your alternative facts, pretend Hillary is president, but it won't change the truth.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 3:29:48 GMT -5
Lmao. This thread is crap and full of lies. There's no way possible Riri has that many points(which by the way...where are the receipts *whitney's voice*) when it's not including her features which are the songs that are her most successful. Close thread. Everything in this thread is meant to be 100% factual. If there is something non-factual in this thread, please point it out to me. Coco, you know I like your sass, but I put a lot of effort into collecting these numbers and into this thread. If you're actually interested in "the receipts", I can give you RiRi's points for the 2010's. The numbers for the 2000's though, I didn't keep. I probably should have. 20101913 1281 185 48 20 639 109 1133 Rude Boy Only Girl (In The World) *Russian Roulette S&M Redemption Song What's My Name? Rockstar 101 *Hard
2011
2017 1163 1007 578 430 420 36 1265 1215 104 S&M Cheers (Drink To That) Only Girl (In The World) California King Bed You Da One Man Down Where Have You Been We Found Love What's My Name? Talk That Talk
2012
2054 1141 675 2289 1175 764 Where Have You Been Diamonds *You Da One *We Found Love Birthday Cake Talk That Talk
2013
1232 1156 234 320 566 2619 Pour It Up *Diamonds What Now Right Now Loveeeeeee Song Stay
2015
1717 47 1489 B**** Better Have My Money American Oxygen FourFiveSeconds 20163259 Needed Me 3058 Work 446 Love On The Brain 227 Kiss It Better 29 Sex With Me 2017 I put together when I was putting this thread together. But I know that it's a total of 742. That all together comes out to... 38,802. But girl this is first time I posted here. What do you mean Coco? I landed here searching Coco in the search function . This thread escaped me till now because I'm too busy listening to Mariah's classics. I would never take away the effort you put into in your posts or threads or your dedication to Wikipediazation of Pulse. I stan you. P.S that posters name is linkinfan not Coco just like you probably meant to say Mariah and not Rihanna😘 |
|
feoba
Charting
Joined: August 2016
Posts: 342
|
Post by feoba on Feb 17, 2017 7:22:51 GMT -5
Rihanna is an amazingly talented artist and the BEST of this generation. Her successful career can leave everybody shocked! 😂😂
|
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Feb 17, 2017 7:31:30 GMT -5
Nothing wrong with this thread, it is the OPs interpretation of who the all-time biggest artist is. It is not official, it is not meant to be factual. The countdown with a link to a countdown clock is a little much but beyond that, it is all in fun. Besides, Glee Cast with their 283 hits probably have more points than Rihanna anyway - LOL This part of the forum is about numbers/facts backed up by sources. The OP can take this to the Opinions Thread. This thread is about numbers and facts. It's using inverse points. Not a reliable method of measuring charts but using inverse points, this is the result. It's pure, and even if most/all of us deem it inaccurate, it's still purely numbers based. How we choose to interpret those numbers is where the discussion stems from and most of us are choosing to not give this method any weight - which is fine. It's still interesting because it does bring up a lot of things worth considering. Comparing pre-soundscan to soundscan. Comparing decades-long legacy to recent singles. Should we continue to tack on points to old songs as they age because they withstand time? Then that's going beyond Billboard's measurements, of course, but it's interesting to consider. Perhaps this thread should be moved to YOP since it's more interpretation and not a release from an official publication. But suggesting to "close thread" because you don't agree with it is kind of ridiculous. Grow up. |
|
|
|
Post by Rose "Payola" Nylund on Feb 17, 2017 7:43:48 GMT -5
I agree with your point but that hinges on how well the weighing of eras is done. Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges. In spite of their Billboard's best efforts, the 2010s are over-represented in the Greatest of All-Time Hot 100. Although I don't have definite proof, I think they did a better job with the Greatest of All-Time Hot 100 Artists. Regarding Glee Cast, I bet there are quite a few of artists which have one-tenth of the songs that have charted for them in the Hot 100 and are within the Top 100. Ok, I think I'm starting to understand here. The dice thing is like a super-simplified version of what I was proposing. But it's too simplified to mean anything. By this logic, Tim McGraw is twice as prominent as the Beatles. And Elton John is the most prominent artist of all time, because his career spans three decades. The experiment I proposed to you already covers your dice analogy. Yes, there is roughly a 5/6 chance that you'll end up in an era before Rihanna existed. But if you do end up in the 1/6 spot that Rihanna does exist you'll likely encounter her twice as often as you'll encounter Elvis Presley if you get one of the decades that Elvis was alive in. Also, the experiment I proposed to you takes into account chart position. Hence the "Only look at #1 - #N" aspect. #1 will be included 100% of the time. #100 will be included 1% of the time. #35 will be included 66% of the time. Etc. The experiment I proposed to you perfectly replicates the inverse point system and is the very definition of "prominence". The experiment I proposed already includes your dice example because the very first part of the experiment is "choose a random week in Hot 100 history". Well, how many charts have there been? 3500 or whatever (I think you said above). How many individual weekly charts have each artist appeared on at least once? If that's what you mean by prominence, then yeah, I get what you mean. Taking away all cultural impact and everything and looking specifically only at the charts, I can see your point. Rihanna has been on nearly every Hot 100 from 2005-today. That would be 600 charts. Was Elvis on nearly every Hot 100 from its inception until 197x? How many charts would that be? How many would the Beatles be on from 1964-1971 (and others)? And how many of those charts had multiple entries by the artists? I think your list makes sense purely from a numbers point of view. Beyond that, it doesn't really account for much because the chart's weight changes every week, but has drastically changed over the years, plus how the chart is measured has changed many times. Comparing 1960 charts to 2010 charts is apples to oranges. But strictly numbers speaking, your list works. It might be better worded as: Rihanna has held almost as many chart positions in Hot 100's history than Elvis. |
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on Feb 17, 2017 14:38:00 GMT -5
Everything in this thread is meant to be 100% factual. If there is something non-factual in this thread, please point it out to me. Coco, you know I like your sass, but I put a lot of effort into collecting these numbers and into this thread. If you're actually interested in "the receipts", I can give you RiRi's points for the 2010's. The numbers for the 2000's though, I didn't keep. I probably should have. 20101913 1281 185 48 20 639 109 1133 Rude Boy Only Girl (In The World) *Russian Roulette S&M Redemption Song What's My Name? Rockstar 101 *Hard
2011
2017 1163 1007 578 430 420 36 1265 1215 104 S&M Cheers (Drink To That) Only Girl (In The World) California King Bed You Da One Man Down Where Have You Been We Found Love What's My Name? Talk That Talk
2012
2054 1141 675 2289 1175 764 Where Have You Been Diamonds *You Da One *We Found Love Birthday Cake Talk That Talk
2013
1232 1156 234 320 566 2619 Pour It Up *Diamonds What Now Right Now Loveeeeeee Song Stay
2015
1717 47 1489 B**** Better Have My Money American Oxygen FourFiveSeconds 20163259 Needed Me 3058 Work 446 Love On The Brain 227 Kiss It Better 29 Sex With Me 2017 I put together when I was putting this thread together. But I know that it's a total of 742. That all together comes out to... 38,802. But girl this is first time I posted here. What do you mean Coco? I landed here searching Coco in the search function . This thread escaped me till now because I'm too busy listening to Mariah's classics. I would never take away the effort you put into in your posts or threads or your dedication to Wikipediazation of Pulse. I stan you. P.S that posters name is linkinfan not Coco just like you probably meant to say Mariah and not Rihanna😘 You change your name so much whenever I see a post like that, I just assume that it's Coco. |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 16:25:39 GMT -5
Wow! Discrimination! All catty posts are being credited to me :(
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,890
|
Post by Gary on Feb 21, 2017 16:08:59 GMT -5
30 top 10 hits
|
|
feoba
Charting
Joined: August 2016
Posts: 342
|
Post by feoba on Feb 21, 2017 16:37:48 GMT -5
Legends only
|
|
Juanca
Diamond Member
Enjoying work, family/personal life with partner and doggies, and music. I couldn't ask for more :)
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 11,168
|
Post by Juanca on Feb 28, 2017 1:28:04 GMT -5
Do you think the split of features causes certain artists (such as Hip-Hop artists) to be cut short a bunch? The first thing I think of when I see that is Rihanna's "Stay" Featuring Mikky Ekko. Or Drake's "One Dance" Featuring Wiz Kid and Kyla. Both give credit to irrelevant producers and sampled artists that many artists would just leave uncredited. So they both get cut 30% just because the label was nice enough to credit them. And then on the other hand, Kanye West's recent album didn't give anybody an official feature credit. Even though he featured major artists like Weeknd, Chris Brown, and Rihanna. First: this thread is interesting and kudos to nikkilee for the work involved in calculating all this. As has been mentioned, it triggers interesting related discussions. I appreciate the effort but I do think there are some issues: 1) I strongly disagree with your point above. Mikky Ekko is neither an irrelevant producer nor a sampled artist. Actually, he sang half the song and co-wrote the song, so it could be said that he contributed to the song more than Rihanna did :) I believe the rule of distribution of points is fairer. S&M is another example. It reached #1 thanks to the remix with Britney, so at least for that week Britney deserves some credit. Same with Work and What's my name, as Drake's features are important for both songs. One could argue that We Found Love also deserves a Calvin Harris credit. On the other hand, Rihanna should have credit for her contributions to Eminem's hits, etc. 2) I wonder how some curious cases are counted. I already mentioned the S&M case. I assume you counted both Elvis' 2000s entrances as well? 3) effects of streaming I think this has already helped Rihanna, as Work, Bitch..., Needed Me, Pour it Up benefitted from high streaming. Even Stay's rise into the top 5 was direct consequence of the methodology change. Don't get me wrong. I believe Rihanna is one of the most successful artists ever. No doubt about it. She's the most consistent artist since Mariah, and thus deserves a high spot among top artists. |
|
