Billboard Hot 100: 6/2/2018

[garrettlen]

May 28, 2018 23:00:28 GMT -5 Gary said:

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

When Beatles' albums were released in the 1960's, it was pretty much an event.   If you yourself weren't the biggest Beatles fan, you at least had some friends who were, and they would buy their newest albums and singles.  In addition, radio (in the USA) anyway, didn't just play the single when a new Beatles album came out, they also played the album tracks.  How do you think songs like Michelle became so popular in the first place?  It wasn't ever released as a single.  Same goes for many other popular Beatle songs.

Sure they couldn't chart on the Hot 100, but they still became very popular in their own right.  The list of Beatles' songs that fit this category is a long one, and like Gary already mentioned, Sgt. Pepper had no singles released from it, and yet the tracks from that album were played extensively on the radio in the late 1960's.

[emperortigerstar]

May 29, 2018 14:18:49 GMT -5 Gary said:

That frenzy that is not experienced here is very Beatles-esque

Eh, not quite.

[garrettlen]

May 29, 2018 5:25:05 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

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.

So the Beatles and Elvis will just be forgotten?  Ok, we'll see.

[garrettlen]

May 29, 2018 6:31:18 GMT -5 Codex said:

I can’t find a normal source for it, but I remember reading that he has more #1s from before the H100, which gives him the record unofficially from the Beatles.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Billboard_number-one_singles_from_1950_to_1958

Maybe I’m thinking of this, where he had 10 before the H100. It might be more with the Jukebox chart.

There seems to be some overlap with the 18 mentioned above, so maybe I’m thinking of something else. Perhaps his top 10 record?

Elvis had 10 #1 hits pre-Hot 100 chart, and 7 on the Hot 100.   For a total of 17 #1 hits overall (although some sources do credit him with 18).

The Beatles had 20 #1 hits on the Hot 100 between Feb 1964 and Jun 1970.  They still hold the record for the most ever by any artist.

[garrettlen]

May 29, 2018 8:52:10 GMT -5 Gary said:

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

Which these days sometimes I think Billboard subscribes to themselves.  LOL

[Mayman]

Yeah, I'm Upset was definitely removed and reuploaded. I downloaded it yesterday on Apple Music and now it is unavailable. I'm just going to switch the new one with the removed one.

[rimetm]

BU07 NE Solo
BU03 NE Dinero
BU01 NE Fall in Line

99 NE Don't Go Breaking My Heart
98 NE Downtown's Dead

84 NE Welcome to the Party
83 NE Sangria Wine

80 NE Life Goes On

76 82 Everything's Gonna Be Alright

74 78 Woman, Amen
73 NE Like That

71 86 Mercy
70 84 Alone

68 NE Change Lanes

64 70 I Lived It
63 72 Sit Next to Me

59 64 Get Along
58 71 For the First Time
57 62 Up Down

55 61 I Like Me Better

51 59 IDGAF

46 50 Back to You

44 48 Tequila

42 52 Overdose

36 47 Love Lies

34 36 Delicate

16 23 Be Careful

11 16 Friends
10 NE Fake Love
09 07 No Tears Left to Cry
08 11 Boo'd Up
07 05 Meant to Be
06 49 Yes Indeed
05 06 The Middle
04 04 Psycho
03 03 God's Plan
02 01 This is America
01 02 Nice for What

Off the Chart
RC 44 Stir Fry [21 Weeks]
XX 77 Me Niego
XX 89 Over Now
XX 90 Zack and Codeine
XX 93 Same B****es
RC 94 When We [20 Weeks]
XX 95 Cry Pretty
XX 97 Takin' Shots
XX 98 92 Explorer
XX 99 Beautiful Crazy
XX 100 Say Something

Same sources as usual: the article and the Chart History.

[fhas]

May 29, 2018 20:03:56 GMT -5 rimetm said:

11 16 Friends

What? 

I'm very happy, tho.

[jazmyn]

May 29, 2018 15:20:48 GMT -5 @mirza said:

I still think Drake need a damn break
Yes Indeed sucks

Couldn't agree more. Sucks that Scorpion is basically gonna be a playlist of Yes Indeed's and I'm Upset's(trap-heavy "energy" fueled album; without the energy of IYRTITL). Hope that I'm Upset was a hype single and is the worst track on the album.

I've always wanted him to go back to his R&B days because he had so much more connection in those tracks and he does recognise solid talent. He could easily and gladly highlight more up and coming R&B stars like he did with Majid Jordan, The Weeknd, and Jorja Smith. Hopefully Rihanna saying that he and her aren't even friends inspires "Take Care 2" lol

[renaboss]

^^Damn, that Beatlemania clip was insane. xD My mom had told me about it, but actually seeing it, wow.

[forg]

Congrats to BTS, at least the relentless fans have something to celebrate #1 album and top 10 debut. No easy feat

Boo'd Up already #8 and still has so much potential!

Backstreet Boys charted, yes #99 but still better than nothing lol

[ur local neighborhood dbender]

Gucci Flip Flops is still charting >:(

Sober Up and Playinwitme isn't :(

[renaboss]

Happy about "Friends". That song has really grown on me, now that I've grown out of my own unrequited love. Prior to that, it just bugged me. Anyway, any chance it hits the top 10 next week?

Oh right, probably not cos of whatever the hell "I'm Upset" or "Lucid Dreams" are.

[Sherane Lamar]

May 29, 2018 19:33:19 GMT -5 garrettlen said:

May 29, 2018 5:25:05 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

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.

So the Beatles and Elvis will just be forgotten?  Ok, we'll see.

I didn't say that. Are you telling me that artists from before Elvis are all forgotten? 

I do think that Elvis and Beatles will feel a lot less relevant when their music is 100 years old than they do today (50-60 years old). 

I think that when the music stops being the music that your grandparents listened to, and starts to be the music that your grandparent's grandparents listened to, it will feel less important than it does today.

[Sherane Lamar]

May 29, 2018 20:13:11 GMT -5 renaboss said:

^^Damn, that Beatlemania clip was insane. xD My mom had told me about it, but actually seeing it, wow.

It's insane that the Beatles have enough fans to fill a camera frame? Reminds me of Trump's invigoration crowds, lol. 

Have you ever been to a concert? 100 screaming fans really isn't something otherworldly.

You could recreate that clip with virtually any mainstream artist. Hell, have you seen 6ix9ine's videos? 





He shut down several NYC blocks just by tweeting his insta followers that he would be there. But even that isn't really some amazing feat. Dozens of other artists could have done that too if they wanted to. 

[Gary]

May 29, 2018 20:22:34 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

May 29, 2018 19:33:19 GMT -5 garrettlen said:

So the Beatles and Elvis will just be forgotten?  Ok, we'll see.

I didn't say that. Are you telling me that artists from before Elvis are all forgotten? 

I do think that Elvis and Beatles will feel a lot less relevant when their music is 100 years old than they do today (50-60 years old). 

I think that when the music stops being the music that your grandparents listened to, and starts to be the music that your grandparent's grandparents listened to, it will feel less important than it does today.

I will bet that if you took a look at music that is currently 100-120 years old you would find a bunch of songs you recognize that are quite important and played frequently today (just not on the Hot 100)



Some even get re-recorded by other artists

One quick example of a hit from 1897

[Sherane Lamar]

May 29, 2018 20:38:40 GMT -5 Gary said:

May 29, 2018 20:22:34 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

I didn't say that. Are you telling me that artists from before Elvis are all forgotten? 

I do think that Elvis and Beatles will feel a lot less relevant when their music is 100 years old than they do today (50-60 years old). 

I think that when the music stops being the music that your grandparents listened to, and starts to be the music that your grandparent's grandparents listened to, it will feel less important than it does today.

I will bet that if you took a look at music that is currently 100-120 years old you would find a bunch of songs you recognize that are quite important and played frequently today (just not on the Hot 100)



Some even get re-recorded by other artists

One quick example of a hit from 1897

True. It's hard to say because music as we know it has barely existed for 100 years. 

People, especially young people, certainly don't listen to songs like these casually as part of their daily music routine. But for Beatles, they do. Elvis, probably a lot less so. 

I could imagine people like Beatles, Madonna and Michael Jackson held in the same regard as Beethoven, Bach or Mozart by the second half of this century. Or... maybe they will be held in higher regard because their music format is more comparable to what will probably exist 50 years from now (4 minute songs made for electronic speakers and playlists instead of compositions made for orchestral concerts). 

[garrettlen]

May 29, 2018 20:31:38 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

May 29, 2018 20:13:11 GMT -5 renaboss said:

^^Damn, that Beatlemania clip was insane. xD My mom had told me about it, but actually seeing it, wow.

It's insane that the Beatles have enough fans to fill a camera frame? Reminds me of Trump's invigoration crowds, lol. 

Have you ever been to a concert? 100 screaming fans really isn't something otherworldly.

You could recreate that clip with virtually any mainstream artist. Hell, have you seen 6ix9ine's videos? 





He shut down several NYC blocks just by tweeting his insta followers that he would be there. But even that isn't really some amazing feat. Dozens of other artists could have done that too if they wanted to. 

You need to do some research on the 60's and the Beatles, because trust me, it was not the same.  The Beatles could literally go just about anywhere in the world and they were greeted by crowds of screaming fans like the ones in that video.  They eventually stopped touring because among other things, they couldn't deal with the constant screaming fans that followed them everywhere they went.

100 screaming fans?  Try 50,000 at Shea Stadium in 1965.  One of the first and biggest stadium concerts every put on by a pop group.  The screaming was so loud, and the sound system was so primitive, that the Beatles literally couldn't hear what each other was playing on stage; yet somehow they managed to stay in sync with each other.

You're just wrong about Beatlemania.   If you're going to talk about it, please do some research first.

[Sherane Lamar]

May 29, 2018 20:57:19 GMT -5 garrettlen said:

May 29, 2018 20:31:38 GMT -5 Sherane Lamar said:

It's insane that the Beatles have enough fans to fill a camera frame? Reminds me of Trump's invigoration crowds, lol. 

Have you ever been to a concert? 100 screaming fans really isn't something otherworldly.

You could recreate that clip with virtually any mainstream artist. Hell, have you seen 6ix9ine's videos? 





He shut down several NYC blocks just by tweeting his insta followers that he would be there. But even that isn't really some amazing feat. Dozens of other artists could have done that too if they wanted to. 

You need to do some research on the 60's and the Beatles, because trust me, it was not the same.  The Beatles could literally go just about anywhere in the world and they were greeted by crowds of screaming fans like the ones in that video.  They eventually stopped touring because among other things, they couldn't deal with the constant screaming fans that followed them everywhere they went.

100 screaming fans?  Try 50,000 at Shea Stadium in 1965.  One of the first and biggest stadium concerts every put on by a pop group.  The screaming was so loud, and the sound system was so primitive, that the Beatles literally couldn't hear what each other was playing on stage; yet somehow they managed to stay in sync with each other.

You're just wrong about Beatlemania.   If you're going to talk about it, please do some research first.

I'm only making fun of the guy saying the video itself was insane when you can get the same footage from pretty much any concert for young people. 

[Rose "Payola" Nylund]

Are you downplaying the Beatles success tho?

[Mayman]

May 29, 2018 20:19:27 GMT -5 renaboss said:

Happy about "Friends". That song has really grown on me, now that I've grown out of my own unrequited love. Prior to that, it just bugged me. Anyway, any chance it hits the top 10 next week?

Oh right, probably not cos of whatever the hell "I'm Upset" or "Lucid Dreams" are.

Can you give your reasoning as to why you hate anything that has hip-hop involved that you continue to complain about the newest hip-hip song rising up the chart each week? We get it you don't like rap, it would surprise me if you even listened to these songs before you dismiss them.

[inverse]

Also the Beatles didn't get ethered by Pusha T

[Leo ✔]

I'll be very upset if "Friends" ends blocked of top 10 by BTS.

[fhas]

Streaming Era - Hot 100 #1s that were not the week's #1 in streaming, airplay or sales:

Updated with Nice For What's 5th week at #1: pulsemusic.proboards.com/post/6588588

[ur local neighborhood dbender]

May 29, 2018 21:39:41 GMT -5 Leo ✔ said:

I'll be very upset if "Friends" ends blocked of top 10 by BTS.

I'll be very upset if Whatever It Takes gets blocked from the top 10 by BTS.

[Leo ✔]

May 29, 2018 22:57:47 GMT -5 ur local neighborhood dbender said:

May 29, 2018 21:39:41 GMT -5 Leo ✔ said:

I'll be very upset if "Friends" ends blocked of top 10 by BTS.

I'll be very upset if Whatever It Takes gets blocked from the top 10 by BTS.

"Whatever It Takes" peaked on radio this week, so isn't happening.

[Zach]

May 29, 2018 21:39:41 GMT -5 Leo ✔ said:

I'll be very upset if "Friends" ends blocked of top 10 by BTS.

-Hopes that this is exactly what ends up happening-.

[owenlovesmusic]

Why does everyone dislike Friends so much?

[aussie1]

One of the most craziest weeks regarding the top ten. Watch Billboard tweet how BTS got a top ten hit everyday for the next six months straight.

[inverse]

May 30, 2018 0:05:38 GMT -5 owenlovesmusic said:

Why does everyone dislike Friends so much?

If you want my thoughts on the reasons I dislike it:

1: The lyrics are just insufferable. I get Anne-Marie's predicament and her frustration but I really think she's better off just getting rid of this guy, and it's highly questionable mixed messages when she first says she's "done being polite" and then says they're "friends", she'd really be better off just cutting communication with this guy.

2: The part where she goes "F-R-I-E-N-D-S. That shit is how you spell friends" or whatever it was that's one of the cringiest lyrics I've ever heard so I gotta give it its own entry

3: I have no idea what accent Anne-Marie is trying here but it doesn't work. I thought she sounded amazing on Rockabye but this reminds me of Taylor Swift's rapping on Ready For It except even less convincing.

4: (the biggest problem): I really don't like the production on this song. At its core the musical elements are decent but the song then flattens themso much the song becomes one huge washed-out sludge to get through. Ugh worst hit of 2018 so far and I can only hope and pray that Lucid Dreams doesn't become a hit to steal its title.

That's all just my opinion I should say, if you like the song there's nothing wrong with that and I certainly don't like to judge people for liking songs, it's just that you asked so I thought I'd try to articulate my feelings on that song