Billboard Hot 100: 6/2/2018

[Gary]

My main point summed up in one sentence

Eras are not comparable on a one-to-one basis using stats, like we are trying to do here

[Sherane Lamar]

May 28, 2018 22:16:24 GMT -5 iHype. said:

May 28, 2018 22:08:08 GMT -5 Gary said:

LOL

Anyway - a lot of the Beatles tracks for example - that never charted on the Hot 100 - in may ways are bigger than some of their singles - would have been huge hits under streaming and digital rules

Drake is a big artist in the 2010s but just because the stats are mounting does not mean Drake is bigger or not as big as artists from prior eras.

If this really was a factor - let's coronate the Glee Cast as the biggest Hot 100 act in history and be done with it - LOL

Many artists from every period have much lower charting songs bigger than their highest charting songs. Drake too. He has songs that missed Top 10 (Headlines) that are arguably bigger than some of his #1's (What's My Name, Nice for What). 

That just has to do with the Hot 100 not being say-all end-all regarding overall popularity. And the fact Hot 100 just measures some hits badly at times. Nothing to do with regarding a specific artist.

I don't think the discussion started over whether Drake is bigger than them, I think it started over whether he was the current version to today's musical climate of what they were during theirs. Two different things.

And there's no really proper way to measure that, so you're never going to come up with a universal conclusion. Drake is the Drake of his time. 

I think that has less to do with the Hot 100s short comings. And more to do with the fact that the Hot 100 is not meant to measure whether a song will be remembered or held in a high regard many years down the road. 

The idea that Headlines is bigger today than "What's My Name" (which I'm not sure I agree with), doesn't mean that the 12 songs listed ahead of "Headlines" when it peaked weren't more popular during that week. 



I think Gary is referring to the trippy songs from Beatles Sgt Pepper album. And the same goes for these songs. They are well remembered today, but I'm not sure that they had a very broad appeal to people in the late 60's when they were released. At least not compared to ones like "Hey Jude" or "I Want To Hold Your Hand" with a more general and non-trippy appeal. 

[Gary]

Not just Sgt Pepper

I can rattle off a bunch more but off the top of my head

Michelle
In My Life

Re: Sgt Pepper - It had no singles but Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds for instance was a #1 hit later for Elon John

[Sherane Lamar]

May 28, 2018 22:51:25 GMT -5 Gary said:

May 28, 2018 22:44:58 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

Joel Whitburn ranks Glee as #2 all-time

That only shows how Joel Whitburn's process is unthinkably foolish and outdated.

Completely disregarding the longevity of each song and judging the artists entirely by their peaks? Come on now.  

Would have *maybe* made sense in the pre-iTunes era. But in a "Jump Then Fall" Hot 100 environment, ditching it is a no-brainer. 

Joel is probably too stuck in his ways to want to make the obviously needed change in his system. That, and he doesn't realize that an inverse point system that takes into account longevity is not really all that time consuming. And really only takes like 5 minutes per song. 



Anybody with even fleeting knowledge of the Hot 100 should know the huge difference between an artist like Glee Cast, whose average song spent like 1.5 weeks on the chart. And an artist like Drake, Rihanna, Elvis, etc, who have more weeks on the charts than anybody else. 

You say it is obvious but I am not following.

Just go ahead and count how many songs went Top 10 in the 1960's, or any pre-Soundscan decade. 

And then compare it to how many songs have hit the Top 10 in the current decade, or any other post SoundScan decade. 




Obviously, Elvis and Beatles had way more opportunity to hit the Top 10 in the 1960s than an artist whose been around from 2009-2018. 

Streaming is reversing this trend. But I'm not sure whether it has reverted back to pre-SoundScan levels. 

A spreadsheet counting how many songs are in the Top 10 each year from 1959 to now would be pretty helpful. 



Or a less time consuming option could be counting up how many there are in 2017 or 2018 and then comparing to a few random years in the 1960's. 


I would think they would have had more hits, allowing album tracks to chart and such.

Yeah, that could be. (Albums from the early 1960s were very different than they are today, not as much "album cuts"). But if we're talking the number of Top 10s, the advantage is clearly in the pre-Soundscan era. 

1.  Joel Whitburn - with all due respect to your inverse point system - I disagree
2.  More differences between the 60s market and today - goes well beyond streaming, album-cuts and "featurings".  
3.  The counter argument to your third point is volume - you are big artist such as Drake and you throw up 163 singles in a short period of time, 25 of them hit the top 10.  The opportunity for volume did not exist pre-soundscan

So you think that Joel Whitburn's "peaks only" inverse point system is a valid and useful way to measure overall popularity or Hot 100 success? That J. Cole's last two albums are bigger than Bruno Mars, Adele, Flo Rida, or BEP's entire discography? 

The opportunity for volume did not exist pre-soundscan

What? Yes it did. That's exactly why Beatles and Elvis are so huge. They consistently through out like 10-15 singles per year during their peaks. That was basically the MO for artists during the 1960's. 

That's the literal definition of "high turnover rate". Songs turned over fast, and artists on top were expected to deliver quickly. 

Their opportunity for volume (in pure number of songs) is way way bigger than an artist like Mariah, Usher or Beyonce during the 1990's and 2000's. 


More differences between the 60s market and today - goes well beyond streaming, album-cuts and "featurings".

I certainly agree. 

That was my point when I brought up the fact that Rihanna dominates our charts to a degree that no artist of any decade (pre or post Soundscan) has, even without the help of album cuts. And of course, completely disregarding her features. 

Like I said, it's no coincidence that the #1 and #2 records for Hot 100 decade ubiquity were held by 1960's artists until they were surpassed by three 2010's artists. One of which has zero charting album cuts. And zero album takeovers. 

[ListenToItTwice]

The most important point Sherane Lamar made, and the only one no one else has been able to refute, is that Drake (along with Taylor Swift and Rihanna), when compared to other artists of his own era, is dominating the Hot 100 in a way that no other artist has been able to in comparison to other artists of their own eras, since Elvis/The Beatles. THAT’S what puts him on their levels, NOT his stats themselves, which we can all agree can’t be compared 1:1 with stats from other eras.

[Gary]

So drake and two others are dominating in a way no one has since the Beatles? I agree Drake is one of the biggest of the decade. In the 60s though the Beatles were in a class by themselves.

[inverse]

May 28, 2018 19:36:43 GMT -5 Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ said:

Drake - 170 charting singles = 3 hits

ok lets go over drake's "3 hits"

1 - Best I Ever Had
2 - Forever
3 - Over
3 - Say Something
3 - Find Your Love
3 - Headlines
3 - Make Me Proud
3 - The Motto
3 - Take Care
3 - Started From The Bottom
3 - Hold On, We're Going Home
3 - All Me
3 - 3 To 3/The Catch Up
3 - Hotline Bling
3 - Back To Back
3 - One Dance
3 - Pop Style (unfortunately)
3 - Controlla
3 - Too Good
3 - For Free
3 - Fake Love
3 - Passionfruit
3 - God's Plan
3 - Look Alive
3 - Nice For What
3(projected) - Yes Indeed 

and that's not even counting his 3 features like What's My Name, Moment 4 Life, Work, and Believe Me all of which were hits because of his help

[iHype.]

May 28, 2018 22:57:41 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

May 28, 2018 22:16:24 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Many artists from every period have much lower charting songs bigger than their highest charting songs. Drake too. He has songs that missed Top 10 (Headlines) that are arguably bigger than some of his #1's (What's My Name, Nice for What). 

That just has to do with the Hot 100 not being say-all end-all regarding overall popularity. And the fact Hot 100 just measures some hits badly at times. Nothing to do with regarding a specific artist.

I don't think the discussion started over whether Drake is bigger than them, I think it started over whether he was the current version to today's musical climate of what they were during theirs. Two different things.

And there's no really proper way to measure that, so you're never going to come up with a universal conclusion. Drake is the Drake of his time. 

I think that has less to do with the Hot 100s short comings. And more to do with the fact that the Hot 100 is not meant to measure whether a song will be remembered or held in a high regard many years down the road. 

The idea that Headlines is bigger today than "What's My Name" (which I'm not sure I agree with), doesn't mean that the 12 songs listed ahead of "Headlines" when it peaked weren't more popular during that week. 



I think Gary is referring to the trippy songs from Beatles Sgt Pepper album. And the same goes for these songs. They are well remembered today, but I'm not sure that they had a very broad appeal to people in the late 60's when they were released. At least not compared to ones like "Hey Jude" or "I Want To Hold Your Hand" with a more general and non-trippy appeal. 

I was arguing Headlines was bigger than What's My Name even then. I wasn't referring to down the road.

Headlines has sold over 3.5 million, while What's My Name is around 3.1 million. 

Headlines also spent more time in the top 40, despite having a #13 peak while the other had a #1 peak.
Headlines - 25 weeks top 40
What's My Name - 19 weeks top 40

Hot 100 didn't include audio streaming which Drake was likely bigger in, nor video streaming which he could've been bigger in with US views. 

All WMN had was really bigger Pop radio support. (Headlines smashed harder at Rhythmic & Urban, the only other formats both were hits at)

Headlines also caused it's parent album to open with over 600K sales, while What's My Name?'s parent album struggled to open with 1/3. Headlines parent album sold more overall, and continues to be much more remembered today (still in Top 50 on Billboard 200!). 

It was straight up probably bigger then and now. But ofcourse, Hot 100 isn't a perfect chart and can't capture some things such as a single's impact towards how big an album is as a result.

[Deleted]

Also Headlines is his best song, but that's slightly off topic.

Comparing different musical eras almost never works, but it doesn't really matter anyway. Drakes domination of the current charts can't be denied and that's respectable enough.

[iHype.]

May 29, 2018 1:57:40 GMT -5 Codex said:

May 28, 2018 21:18:12 GMT -5 Gary said:

Anyway - Drake's 25 top 10 hits by weeks in the top 10

Through the chart from two weeks ago (5/26/18 chart)


20 ONE DANCE
19 HOTLINE BLING
18 WORK
17 GOD'S PLAN
14 WHAT'S MY NAME?
13 HOLD ON, WE'RE GOING HOME
13 LOOK ALIVE
12 BEST I EVER HAD
10 STARTED FROM THE BOTTOM
7 FIND YOUR LOVE
6 FAKE LOVE
6 NICE FOR WHAT
4 LOVE ME
4 TAKE CARE
2 f**kin' PROBLEMS
2 PASSIONFRUIT
1 DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
1 FOREVER
1 I'M ON ONE
1 MAKE ME PROUD
1 PORTLAND
1 RIGHT ABOVE IT
1 SHE WILL
1 SUMMER SIXTEEN
1 WALK IT TALK IT

So barely 9 of these were legitimate top 10 hits (10 if you count Nice For What), and 2 of those are just Rihanna features?

Didn’t Elvis have like 20-30 #1s?

Why does something have to spend multiple weeks in top 10 to be a 'legitimate top 10 hit' (let alone 10+ weeks)? These criterias...

Find Your Love, Fake Love, Nice for What, Love Me, Take Care, F*ckin Problems, I'm on One, and Walk It Talk It are legit hits that spent months on Hot 100 and were smashes at their respective radio formats.

Forever was a 2009 hit, which is why it only has 1 week this decade.

Using your logic songs like Oops! I Did It Again & Toxic 'weren't legit top 10 hits'.

[85la]

May 28, 2018 23:14:19 GMT -5 ListenToItTwice said:

The most important point Sherane Lamar made, and the only one no one else has been able to refute, is that Drake (along with Taylor Swift and Rihanna), when compared to other artists of his own era, is dominating the Hot 100 in a way that no other artist has been able to in comparison to other artists of their own eras, since Elvis/The Beatles. THAT’S what puts him on their levels, NOT his stats themselves, which we can all agree can’t be compared 1:1 with stats from other eras.

I really beg to differ. If we're talking just the Hot 100, we are all forgetting Mariah Carey during the '90s. She had at least one #1 hit during each year of the decade (14 total) and a total of 19 top ten hits during the decade. Yeah, she didn't have 100 or however so many Hot 100 hits as Drake, but her numerous #1's and top tens, when combined, were overall bigger than Drakes biggest hits, as six of them finished in their respective Year-End top ten lists (a couple more also probably would have made it if their runs weren't split between years), and One Sweet Day of course was #1 on the decade-end list. In fact, I bet if we were to do an overall Hot 100 points comparison between Mariah during the 90s vs. Drake during the 2010s (adjusted for eras of course), I wouldn't be surprised if Mariah were to come very close to or even beat Drake (this would be using Billboard's usual system of only counting partial points for features, which would probably benefit Mariah; If full credit were given to each song whether they were the lead or featured, etc., Drake would probably win).

But you could also argue for other decades as well (though probably not as much), perhaps during the '80s with Madonna having 16 consecutive top 5 hits and 7 #1's, and Michael Jackson having 9 #1's and close to 20 top ten hits as well. I'm sure Michael Jackson definitely felt as or nearly as big as Elvis during the '80s.

To get to the point actually, I think we really have to wait at least a few more weeks to see how Drake's album and next singles do before we can really make a more solid judgement. If Scorpion surpasses Views, then maybe we can talk about him being the next Elvis.

[Deleted]

I'm kind of annoyed with the whole, he just overrated and doesn't deserve his success when that has little too do with the topic at hand.

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}
Taylor Swift is bigger than Elves

[iHype.]

May 29, 2018 2:27:45 GMT -5 Codex said:

May 29, 2018 2:05:54 GMT -5 iHype. said:

Why does something have to spend multiple weeks in top 10 to be a 'legitimate top 10 hit' (let alone 10+ weeks)? These criterias...

Find Your Love, Fake Love, Nice for What, Love Me, Take Care, F*ckin Problems, I'm on One, and Walk It Talk It are legit hits that spent months on Hot 100 and were smashes at their respective radio formats.

Forever was a 2009 hit, which is why it only has 1 week this decade.

Using your logic songs like Oops! I Did It Again & Toxic 'weren't legit top 10 hits'.

Songs like Toxic have more Youtube views than every Drake song not named Hotline Bling or Gods Plan. But no, I’m just saying his statistics are inflated with high debuts, even if we go down to 4 weeks. Elvis has 18 #1 singles, which would be 33 if we count pre-Billboard, which is a completely different level.

Whoever was comparing the parent albums for Headlines and What’s My Name: Loud sold 1.9 million copies, and I think Take Care sold 2.3. Their sales weren’t that far off in the US. Worldwide, Loud sold 8 million.

I don’t agree with whoever was saying that only worldwide hits count ad actual hits. However, it does make a big difference in terms of sustained legacy. I can’t imagine him having an Elvis level legacy in 2050 when 80% of the people you interact with on the internet (tumblr, fortnite, etc) will have no idea who he is, because they grew up in a country where he only had 4-5 hits. Madonna, Michael, Beatles, Elvis are praised in every corner of the planet. She’s still far from it, but imo Rihanna is the closest to someone who could continue that chain.

If you want an example of US-centric success: Would you consider Garth Brooks the new Elvis? He’s the best selling album artist of all time in the US.

I don’t want to undermine Drake or Hip-Hop in general, but comparing him to Elvis is absurd.

"Songs like Toxic have more Youtube views than every Drake song not named Hotline Bling or Gods Plan." Uhh... that was literally the point.

Saying something 'isn't a legitimate top 10' because it didn't spend X amount of weeks in top 10 is the silliest logic ever. And you realized that quickly once Toxic, a 3 week top 10, that was obviously a huge hit despite spending 3 weeks top 10 was brought up. 

Take Care sold 400K more, and when you add SPS it's 5x Platinum eligible cornering in on 6x Platinum. LOUD is at the 3x Platinum mark. Big difference.

Headlines sold more, attached to a higher selling album, has more streams, the album it's on does way better in recurrent stats. It was just overall consumed by the public much more.

And again, I don't think the discussion was is his legacy as big as Elvis. It was simply if his Hot 100 dominance was as big. Lots of things being brought up that have no place in the convo. What do European Fortnite players in 2050 have to do with his Hot 100 dominance today? 

I think its fine if people disagree his Hot 100 dominance isn't similar to Elvis's, but bringing up things like global recognization which has nothing to do with the discussion or how 'his hits aren't that big' (which is just straight rubbish) is the itch.

[Anticonformity]

May 29, 2018 2:25:16 GMT -5 @drakeisskinny said:

I'm kind of annoyed with the whole, he just overrated and doesn't deserve his success when that has little too do with the topic at hand.

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}
Taylor Swift is bigger than Elves

Well, she being 5' 11" would be the reason why...

[Sherane Lamar]

May 29, 2018 3:49:02 GMT -5 Anticonformity said:

May 29, 2018 2:25:16 GMT -5 @drakeisskinny said:

I'm kind of annoyed with the whole, he just overrated and doesn't deserve his success when that has little too do with the topic at hand.

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}
Taylor Swift is bigger than Elves

Well, she being 5' 11" would be the reason why...

And Elves are generally depicted as very small creatures 

[Sherane Lamar]

May 29, 2018 1:57:40 GMT -5 Codex said:

May 28, 2018 21:18:12 GMT -5 Gary said:

Anyway - Drake's 25 top 10 hits by weeks in the top 10

Through the chart from two weeks ago (5/26/18 chart)


20 ONE DANCE
19 HOTLINE BLING
18 WORK
17 GOD'S PLAN
14 WHAT'S MY NAME?
13 HOLD ON, WE'RE GOING HOME
13 LOOK ALIVE
12 BEST I EVER HAD
10 STARTED FROM THE BOTTOM
7 FIND YOUR LOVE
6 FAKE LOVE
6 NICE FOR WHAT
4 LOVE ME
4 TAKE CARE
2 f**kin' PROBLEMS
2 PASSIONFRUIT
1 DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
1 FOREVER
1 I'M ON ONE
1 MAKE ME PROUD
1 PORTLAND
1 RIGHT ABOVE IT
1 SHE WILL
1 SUMMER SIXTEEN
1 WALK IT TALK IT

So barely 9 of these were legitimate top 10 hits (10 if you count Nice For What), and 2 of those are just Rihanna features?

Didn’t Elvis have like 20-30 #1s?

He has 7 #1 songs. 

So you were off by about 13-23. No big deal. 

However, only three of those #1s were "legitimate" by your standards, because the others didn't spend 10 weeks in the Top 10. 

11 ARE YOU LONESOME TONIGHT
11 IT'S NOW OR NEVER
10 STUCK ON YOU
8 SURRENDER
7 GOOD LUCK CHARM
7 A BIG HUNK O'LOVE
6 SUSPICIOUS MINDS

;)

[Sherane Lamar]

A couple things:

1. Judging an artist's chart performance of solely by the number of songs they have, or solely by the number of Top 10s they have is a huge fallacy. It's like trying to measure the volume of a 3 dimensional object using only the object's length. It's like judging the size of a novel by how many chapters it has in it, without asking how many pages are on each chapter, or how many words are on each page.

Any attempt to measure an artist's overall performance on the Hot 100 needs to take into account *both* the combined longevity of the artist's songs, *and* the average position of the artist's songs. No matter how it's weighted, no matter how it treats features, it has to include both of those components. Or else it really can't be taken too seriously.

2. You can never remove an artist's chart performance from the era that it took place in. Comparisons aren't easily done no matter what.

I believe the closest you can come is to look at the overall percentage of each week/year/decade that an artist owned on the charts. That treats each decade as an equally sized pie that gets split among every charting artist of that time period.

But even then, there is clearly better opportunity for certain artists. As the five biggest slices of decade pie are all from the 2010s and 1960s. Something about the industry in that decade lent itself well to mega-acts. It's probably not a coincidence.

3. The whole reason I brought up the Drake-Elvis comparison in the first place is that this whole debate soon won't matter at all. Soon, the industry will consist entirely of streaming. There will never again be confusion and conflict over album sales vs streams vs singles sales vs radio. The music industry will be treated much more like box office. And it will likely be globalized as well. There will be sites like KWORB that aggregate the total number of streams that an artist or a song has across all platforms, and that will be the end-all be-all of how big a song or artist is.

Drake is the first artist to dominate the new music industry. And everybody before him will be viewed in the same way we view artists from before Elvis today.

[Sherane Lamar]

May 29, 2018 2:19:32 GMT -5 85la said:

May 28, 2018 23:14:19 GMT -5 ListenToItTwice said:

The most important point Sherane Lamar made, and the only one no one else has been able to refute, is that Drake (along with Taylor Swift and Rihanna), when compared to other artists of his own era, is dominating the Hot 100 in a way that no other artist has been able to in comparison to other artists of their own eras, since Elvis/The Beatles. THAT’S what puts him on their levels, NOT his stats themselves, which we can all agree can’t be compared 1:1 with stats from other eras.

I really beg to differ. If we're talking just the Hot 100, we are all forgetting Mariah Carey during the '90s. She had at least one #1 hit during each year of the decade (14 total) and a total of 19 top ten hits during the decade. Yeah, she didn't have 100 or however so many Hot 100 hits as Drake, but her numerous #1's and top tens, when combined, were overall bigger than Drakes biggest hits, as six of them finished in their respective Year-End top ten lists (a couple more also probably would have made it if their runs weren't split between years), and One Sweet Day of course was #1 on the decade-end list. In fact, I bet if we were to do an overall Hot 100 points comparison between Mariah during the 90s vs. Drake during the 2010s (adjusted for eras of course), I wouldn't be surprised if Mariah were to come very close to or even beat Drake (this would be using Billboard's usual system of only counting partial points for features, which would probably benefit Mariah; If full credit were given to each song whether they were the lead or featured, etc., Drake would probably win).

But you could also argue for other decades as well (though probably not as much), perhaps during the '80s with Madonna having 16 consecutive top 5 hits and 7 #1's, and Michael Jackson having 9 #1's and close to 20 top ten hits as well. I'm sure Michael Jackson definitely felt as or nearly as big as Elvis during the '80s.

To get to the point actually, I think we really have to wait at least a few more weeks to see how Drake's album and next singles do before we can really make a more solid judgement. If Scorpion surpasses Views, then maybe we can talk about him being the next Elvis.

we are all forgetting Mariah Carey during the '90s.

Nope. I'm not forgetting Mariah. In fact I've specifically mentioned multiple times that Mariah, Beyonce, and Usher were unable to reach the decade heights of Beatles, Rihanna, etc, despite having Soundscan era longevity on their side. This 

Without paying any respect to features, here are some (mostly random) selected percentages: 

Drake: 2.007+% of the 2010's (treating him as if he had no presence in 2018 and 2019)
Rihanna: 1.517+% of the 2010's (same as above)
Elvis Presley: 1.433% of the 1960s'
Beatles: 1.431% of the 1960's
Taylor Swift: 1.420+% of the 2010's (same as above, she has surpassed Elvis and Beatles with 2018 points)
Mariah Carey: 1.320% of the 1990's 
Beyonce: 1.028% of the 2000's (I think Usher may be ahead of her, but I don't have Usher separated by decade)
Madonna: .982% of the 1990's (not a typo)
Janet Jackson: .948% of the 1990's
Whitney Houston: .928% of the 1990's
Elton John: .906% of the 1970's (don't have any others from this decade. Any suggestions? Bee Gees maybe?)
Boyz II Men: .897% of the 1990's
Madonna: .867% of the 1980's (I've been told Prince is the biggest from this decade, but haven't done the stats myself)
Michael Jackson: .788% of the 1980's 
Rolling Stones: .573% of the 1960's



So it seems no coincidence that on the Hot 100, 2010's and 1960's were the most monopolized. Whereas 1980's were the most spread out. 

Although I do not have full data. 

For some of these artists, I have their song by song and album by album breakdowns available on Genius. If you want me to link them. 

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

The most important and probably interesting thing I'm getting from this discussion is how many ways Billboard's charts can be interpreted and that there's no one single way that determines what is the best way because it's all up to what we each see as important. The inverse method works for one person but doesn't for another. For some, Drake might be as big as the Beatles or Elvis because of his Hot 100 performance, for others he doesn't come close.

The one thing I don't think can be argued is that the Hot 100 is one single tool used as part of a whole lot of others in a bigger context that determines how big an act is at any given point. What can be debated is how that tool is used in the context of how others are used. Obviously it's important but how important in the big picture? Certainly not important enough to be the sole determining factor, and that's what I've been seeing so much in these threads.

[Sherane Lamar]

May 29, 2018 5:52:58 GMT -5 Codex said:

May 29, 2018 5:06:50 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

He has 7 #1 songs. 

So you were off by about 13-23. No big deal. 

However, only three of those #1s were "legitimate" by your standards, because the others didn't spend 10 weeks in the Top 10. 

11 ARE YOU LONESOME TONIGHT
11 IT'S NOW OR NEVER
10 STUCK ON YOU
8 SURRENDER
7 GOOD LUCK CHARM
7 A BIG HUNK O'LOVE
6 SUSPICIOUS MINDS

Where did you find 7? He has 17 official Billboard #1s, which was the second most after the Beatles until Mariah beat him with Touch My Body. Source: www.billboard.com/articles/news/1045980/mariahs-got-the-touch-with-18th-no-1. It used to be 18 at one point. He has around 31 if you count the ones before the H100 existed.

The second part of your reply clearly makes no sense. You and I both know that hits had faster chart runs at the time. Right now even medium size hits spend at least 5-10 weeks in the top 10. Unless you think songs like Diplomatic Immunity are going to be remembered in 5 years.

Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, Katy Perry and Rihanna all dominated the Youtube/Spotify era before Drake, who only started dominating 2 years ago.

No idea why that article says/implies Elvis has 17 #1 songs. He has 7 Hot 100 #1s and 7 songs that were #1 before the Hot 100. Can't understand where they got 17 from. 

I just looked through four different data bases. Including Billboard's own. 

www.billboard.com/music/elvis-presley

Seems like that article wasn't fact checked very well before it was published. 

EDIT: And you said 33 #1s including pre-Hot 100??? Where are these numbers coming from?
  

The second part of your reply clearly makes no sense. You and I both know that hits had faster chart runs at the time.


Hence the wink. Like I said, judging an artist's chart performance this way is like trying to measure a 3 dimensional object using only its length.

[jebsib]

Elvis Presley had 17 or 18 US #1 hits (depending on if you count a b-side or not).
It's insanely well documented.

1. Heartbreak Hotel
2. I Want You, I Need You, I Love You
3. Don't Be Cruel
4. Hound Dog
5. Love Me Tender
6. Too Much
7. All Shook Up
8. Let Me Be Your Teddy Bear
9. Jailhouse Rock
10. Don't
11. Hard Headed Woman
12. Big Hunk o Love
13. Stuck on You
14. It's Now or Never
15. Are You Lonesome Tonight
16. Surrender
17. Good Luck Charm
18. Suspicious Minds

[Gary]

Yes...Elvis has 18#1 songs, 17#1 singles.

A couple other things on measuring eras:

Chart peaks, longevity and the inverse point system are just some criteria.

If you are measuring different generations, you can't stop there though:

-How were other records performing at the time? - which in turn is determined by:
-Turnover of the radio station playlists
-Social media availability
-# of available TV stations
-marketing
-economy
-common method of listening to music
-popular genre of the day
-demographics
-family values
-and last but not least - the ever evolving chart rules

and I am probably missing a few - all of that not easy to quantify.

Drake has the chart stats that he has and he ranks well on this sites "inverse point system", he also is going to end up among the top 2 or 3 artists of the decade

Definitely one of the big artists of today

[Sherane Lamar]

More important matters:

6ix9ine's "Tati" is behaving pretty weirdly on Spotify and YouTube.


It just hit #26 on Spotify. Which is around the highest 6ix9ine has ever been on Spotify. Along with "Billy" and "Rondo" debuting at #23 and #24 with his album (he does not perform very well on the Spotify platform). His last song, Gotti, peaked at #73 on Spotify's daily chart alongside killer YouTube streams (#7 weekly on YT). As a result, Gotti spent a single week on the Hot 100. At #99. Very close to being completely left off.

Tati is the opposite so far. Great on Spotify. But seemingly lagging behind Gotti on YouTube. Which had 9 million views when it was 2 days old.

Thoughts on this change? How likely is it that Tati could will the Hot 100?

Seems like the exact kind of change that he needs given the streaming changes due in July. And it's interesting given that "Tati" is totally in line with the rest of his music, stylistically. Whereas Gotti was a big outlier.

[Sherane Lamar]

May 29, 2018 6:48:18 GMT -5 Gary said:

Yes...Elvis has 18#1 songs, 17#1 singles.

So he has 11 from before the Hot 100 I guess? Any idea where Codex got 33?

I was using this site when I said seven before the Hot 100:

umdmusic.com/default.asp?Lang=English&Chart=D&ChDay=&ChMonth=&ChYear=&ChBand=Elvis+Presley&ChSong=

Their pre-Hot 100 data is probably incomplete. But I triple checked their Hot 100 data with three other sources and it seems to be correct.

[ur local neighborhood dbender]

Can we change the title to Billboard Drake 100: 6/2/2018 thanks

[rfucom]

May 29, 2018 7:04:15 GMT -5 ur local neighborhood dbender said:

Can we change the title to Billboard Drake 100: 6/2/2018 thanks

lets wait till the album bombs

[Gary]

There was an Elvis 30#1 hits album released in 2002. It combined UK and US #1's

[renaboss]

May 28, 2018 22:05:14 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

May 28, 2018 18:52:50 GMT -5 renaboss said:

his relative obscurity, in the sense that he is ruling the music scene so much and yet somehow his name is just not "out there".

Uh... how?

Look I'm not American, so I don't know what it's like in the US, but here in Portugal, I can assure you that no one over a certain age bracket - a YOUNG age bracket - will know the name of Drake. That is a fact. And worse than that, they probably wouldn't know the songs either, even his biggest hits. They're not inescapable songs, like "Despacito", "Shape of You", or even "Havana" were. 

[renaboss]

We've had this discussion about Elvis' #1 hits before. It's subjective. Go by Top 100 (since November 1955) + Hot 100, and he had 14 (7+7). Go by Best Sellers + Hot 100, and he had 17 or 18 (depending on how you view "Hound Dog" and "Don't Be Cruel"). Billboard itself seems to be flaky when it comes to the King's count, so, yeah, up to you really.

[Gary]

Not subjective at all

It is 17 singles, 18 songs

Not 14


The only flexibility in the number is if you subscribe to the theory that music didn't exist before August 1958, then it is 7