wicked
Charting
Dupe
Joined: April 2018
Posts: 155
|
Post by wicked on May 28, 2018 19:41:32 GMT -5
Drake - 170 charting singles = 3 hits Please tell me this is a joke |
|
wicked
Charting
Dupe
Joined: April 2018
Posts: 155
|
Post by wicked on May 28, 2018 19:42:42 GMT -5
Elvis, Beatles, Drake - LOL This means Drake > Michael Jackson, Madonna and all the others? Drake's edge, the market allowed him to debut 20 singles at a time, the pre streaming artists did not have the same advantage He’s starting to approach many of the legends in terms of success. 27 top 10 hits after next week. Check the AT greatest h100 artists list, drake is gonna debut pretty high on the next release. And his career isn’t even a decade old |
|
wicked
Charting
Dupe
Joined: April 2018
Posts: 155
|
Post by wicked on May 28, 2018 19:43:34 GMT -5
Why is duppy freestyle gone?? It’s off SoundCloud and AM. wtf?? I don't think it was ever on Apple Music. It was. Under the artist “lil duppy” |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on May 28, 2018 20:03:57 GMT -5
Elvis, Beatles, Drake - LOL This means Drake > Michael Jackson, Madonna and all the others? Drake's edge, the market allowed him to debut 20 singles at a time, the pre streaming artists did not have the same advantage He’s starting to approach many of the legends in terms of success. 27 top 10 hits after next week. Check the AT greatest h100 artists list, drake is gonna debut pretty high on the next release. And his career isn’t even a decade old Ok why isn’t the Glee Cast considered the top artist of all time. After all they blew past all the legends including Drake in just 6 years. More “hits” than anyone |
|
renaboss
Platinum Member
I don't want to miss a thing.
|
Post by renaboss on May 28, 2018 20:04:28 GMT -5
Drake - 170 charting singles = 3 hits "Hotline Bling", "One Dance"... what's the third one? |
|
Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ
Diamond Member
Joined: August 2017
Posts: 11,069
|
Post by Ｓｏｕｎｄｃｌ🕤ｃｋ on May 28, 2018 20:05:07 GMT -5
Drake - 170 charting singles = 3 hits Please tell me this is a joke Hotline Bling, One Dance and God's Plan are the only HITS, and by HITS I mean WW smashes (not only US hits). Everything else, just weekly or monthly hits. Edit: Adele's Someone Like You, Rolling In The Deep, Hello and Set Fire To The Rain are bigger and more epic than his 2301440 singles. I really don't hate Drake, I have 20/30 songs on my playlist, but he doesn't deserve this level of success. |
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,628
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 28, 2018 20:29:08 GMT -5
This is arguably the best year Drake has had chartwise In 2016, Drake spent 19 weeks at #1 It’s not just about weeks at #1, though. How many top 10s did he have that year versus so far this year? |
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 20:30:41 GMT -5
I agree that Drake is not a legend but rather pretty overrated. If anything, this decade, I would say Rihanna is more suitable for that title. 14 #1s, 31 top 10s, has appeared on every single Year End since 2005, etc.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,628
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 28, 2018 20:34:04 GMT -5
I wonder if in the 60s there were adults who were all, “These songs by The Beatles don’t feel so big. What’s the hype?”
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 35,628
|
Post by jenglisbe on May 28, 2018 20:43:05 GMT -5
Drake - 170 charting singles = 3 hits "Hotline Bling", "One Dance"... what's the third one? “Hold On We’re Going Home” and “Take Care” if we’re talking worldwide. He’s had plenty of big U.S. hits of course. |
|
jebsib
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2004
Posts: 1,927
|
Post by jebsib on May 28, 2018 21:09:13 GMT -5
I wonder if in the 60s there were adults who were all, “These songs by The Beatles don’t feel so big. What’s the hype?” No, the Beatles songs were ubiquitous in 1964 and 1965. All over TV, at the diners and drive-thrus. You couldn't escape them, and the Adults did kinda hate it. Cultural sea-change. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on May 28, 2018 21:17:21 GMT -5
Yes - total over saturation
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on May 28, 2018 21:18:12 GMT -5
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 FUCKIN' 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
|
|
kanfad
Gold Member
Enjoy your privileged life
Joined: March 2018
Posts: 871 
|
Post by kanfad on May 28, 2018 21:22:56 GMT -5
The nerve, the audacity
Sigh, okay
I could start posting Drake stats but I can see those mean nothing here. I do think it might be a little premature to start putting him up there with the Beatles and Elvis in terms of legendary status but no matter how you feel about the guy, you simply cannot say that he isnt one of the biggest artist of this decade. At the very least Top 4
You're all acting like each era isn't different with their respective pros and cons. Janet Jackson was able to have 3 albums with >= 5 songs reach the top ten. So what if Drake is also able to achieve the same but instead, they're all debuts.
Unless you're chart savvy and are specifically going for the 5 songs reaching the top ten feat, thats almost never going to happen in this streaming era unless they're debuts. Same goes for no 1s.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on May 28, 2018 21:32:16 GMT -5
The nerve, the audacity
sigh, okay
No one is saying that Drake is not one of the biggest artists of the current era, what people are saying is because of dramatic changes in how music is released, marketed and "consumed"" over time, comparing to prior eras using just stats is impossible.
Drake has 25 Top 10's but how many would Elvis, The Beatles and others from prior eras have had if they released singles under the same conditions?
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on May 28, 2018 21:55:08 GMT -5
Backstreet Boys Earn First Pop Songs Chart Hit Since 2007 With 'Don't Go Breaking My Heart'
5/28/2018 by Gary Trust
The boy band extends its span on the chart to a record 22 years & six months.
Backstreet Boys are back on Billboard's Pop Songs airplay chart, as "Don't Go Breaking My Heart" debuts at No. 32 on the list dated June 2.
The band earns its first entry on the ranking since 2007, when "Inconsolable" reached No. 34 that October.
BSB's new hit is its 19th overall on Pop Songs, dating to its first, the No. 35-peaking "We've Got It Goin' On," in November 1995. The group extends its span of appearing on Pop Songs to a record 22 years and six months, narrowly passing Madonna's stretch of 22 years and four months, from 1992 to 2015.
The Pop Songs chart, which began in 1992 (and in 2017 celebrated its 25th anniversary), measures total weekly plays, as tabulated by Nielsen Music, among its reporting panel of 158 mainstream top 40 stations.
Backstreet Boys boast nine Pop Songs top 10s, including the No. 1s "I Want It That Way" (for two weeks in 1999) and "Show Me the Meaning of Being Lonely" (one week in 2000). The band also reached No. 2 with "Quit Playing Games (With My Heart)" in 1997 and No. 3 with "As Long as You Love Me" in 1998.
The new single follows BSB's last album, In a World Like This, which debuted and peaked at No. 5 on the Billboard 200, marking the group's ninth top 10 (encompassing its entire output). The act has sold 31.3 million albums to date in the U.S., the 24th-best total among all artists since Nielsen Music began tracking sales in 1991.
All charts will update on Billboard.com Wednesday (May 30).
|
|
iHype.
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 4,714
|
Post by iHype. on May 28, 2018 22:00:53 GMT -5
Here we go again with people using the "but things are different today" only to undermine an artist of today's success, never to undermine an artist of yesterday's success lol. The unbiased truth is there's also things back then that benefitted the older artists too.
You could use the argument that Elvis or Beatles possibly might've not been nearly as big in today's landscape because we live in a world with internet. You can discover thousands of artists from all over the world. Whereas in 1950s and such, you had a TV with 3 channels and a radio that probably had 3 stations. Your musical discoveries through media were very limited, and in a way, people were much much more fed popular artists. You had less gateway to find different artists compared to today.
How would their success have held up in a digital world where the public discovers new artists every single day on YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, etc.
Also to say he only has "3 or so real hits" is just ridiculous lmao. He's the most streamed artist ever. You could argue he has the most publicly known music this decade, seeing even his music truly attracts millions and millions in numbers that are unrivaled.
Personally, I don't see the point of Beatles and Elvis comparisons. Drake is the first Drake. In 50 years, when there's another artist who dominates the Hot 100 for a decade straight and has their share of dozens of features and lead hits amongst with holding unrivaled power among the 13-30 demo they'll be compared to Drake.
|
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900 
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on May 28, 2018 22:05:14 GMT -5
There a lot of drake jealousy in this thread, we get it you hate him, it doesn't mean you have to undermine his success every post 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? |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on May 28, 2018 22:08:08 GMT -5
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
|
|
tanooki
Diamond Member
2019 Breakthrough
lucia gta 6
Joined: August 2017
Posts: 10,118
Pronouns: they/she/fae
|
Post by tanooki on May 28, 2018 22:15:40 GMT -5
Drake is massive among the younger demographics, I can't go one school day without his name being mentioned. Older demographics, however, don't really care. I think the demographics have to be taken into account, just because a 40 year old doesn't wanna hear Drake, do the 17 and 24 year olds who do not count?
|
|
iHype.
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 4,714
|
Post by iHype. on May 28, 2018 22:16:24 GMT -5
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. |
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on May 28, 2018 22:20:11 GMT -5
Please tell me this is a joke Hotline Bling, One Dance and God's Plan are the only HITS, and by HITS I mean WW smashes (not only US hits). Everything else, just weekly or monthly hits. Edit: Adele's Someone Like You, Rolling In The Deep, Hello and Set Fire To The Rain are bigger and more epic than his 2301440 singles. I really don't hate Drake, I have 20/30 songs on my playlist, but he doesn't deserve this level of success. This is an odd qualifier. Do we expect a North American based rapper to have worldwide smashes? And what’s the relevance of worldwide success in a topic dedicated to the Billboard Hot 100 and his US chart success/current dominance? And who determines who “deserves” a certain level of success. Lmao Hotline Bling, Gods Plan, One Dance where more inescapable for me than all of those Adele singles minus ROTD & maybe Hello. |
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on May 28, 2018 22:20:20 GMT -5
He’s starting to approach many of the legends in terms of success. 27 top 10 hits after next week. Check the AT greatest h100 artists list, drake is gonna debut pretty high on the next release. And his career isn’t even a decade old Ok why isn’t the Glee Cast considered the top artist of all time. After all they blew past all the legends including Drake in just 6 years. More “hits” than anyone Glee Cast is a very minor act. Not within the Top 50 of the decade. Their combined weeks on the Hot 100 are probably less than 400 (don't feel like counting them all up right now, lol) But Drake has a bigger overall Hot 100 presence than anybody other than Elvis and Rihanna. Even without any of his features counted. And he will easily surpass them by the end of this decade, if not the end of this year. And as I've said before, it's certainly no coincidence that the three biggest artists of the 2010s (Drake, Rihanna, Taylor) are dominating the decade's charts to a degree that no other artist ever has (even before the decade has ended). But it certainly has nothing to do with longevity/recurrencty rates. And it doesn't have to do with album takeovers or "album bombs". Prior to the 2010s, the artists with the highest overall Hot 100 presence throughout a single decade were Elvis and The Beatles in the 1960's. Nobody in the 70s, 80s, 90s, or 00s could match (at least that I'm aware of). That means that Mariah Carey, Beyonce, and Usher were not able to dominate their decade to the same degree as Elvis or Beatles. Even with the help of SoundScan longevity. The rapidfire slew of hits that Elvis and Beatles put out were more overwhelming. As for the artists of the 2010's, Taylor and Drake have given us "album takeovers", but Rihanna has never come close to having one. Meaning that it also can't be contributed to album takeovers. Ultimately, I have to conclude that it's a cultural thing. The internet and social media being the biggest obvious change between the 2000-2009 time period and the 2010-2019 time period. So I have to blame that. It simply allows for these big artists to be more ubiquitous in our culture than others were in the past. And as for the question to how many Top 10s Elvis or Beatles would have under the same industry that Drake's existed in, the answer is obviously a lot less. Given that Top 10s are much more difficult to achieve today. |
|
iHype.
4x Platinum Member
Joined: October 2014
Posts: 4,714
|
Post by iHype. on May 28, 2018 22:27:53 GMT -5
Hotline Bling, One Dance and God's Plan are the only HITS, and by HITS I mean WW smashes (not only US hits). Everything else, just weekly or monthly hits. Edit: Adele's Someone Like You, Rolling In The Deep, Hello and Set Fire To The Rain are bigger and more epic than his 2301440 singles. I really don't hate Drake, I have 20/30 songs on my playlist, but he doesn't deserve this level of success. This is an odd qualifier. Do we expect a North American based rapper to have worldwide smashes? And what’s the relevance of worldwide success in a topic dedicated to the Billboard Hot 100 and his US chart success/current dominance? And who determines who “deserves” a certain level of success. Lmao Hotline Bling, Gods Plan, One Dance where more inescapable for me than all of those Adele singles minus ROTD & maybe Hello. Quite frankly, what does the globalization of the artist even have to do with the discussion? Hot 100/Billboard thread... meaning discussion pertained to the American mainstream hits. The discussion was whether his Hot 100 success is similar to Elvis's and such. Not whether his global success is similar to Elvis's. For someone who doesn't dislike Drake, they sure went out of their way to find something to discredit him that doesn't even relate to the discussion. Then felt the need to say he 'doesn't deserve his success'. Lmao. |
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on May 28, 2018 22:29:08 GMT -5
People over 40 have never driven popular culture. At least not since WWII.
Has there ever been a Hot 100 climate where the older half of the US population was more powerful than the younger half of the US population?
People over 40 years old generally don't listen to or consume very much music. And when they do, it's usually older stuff. Which is spread too thin to have a big impact.
So I don't see how old people not listening to Drake is some sort of issue for him.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on May 28, 2018 22:30:17 GMT -5
Ok why isn’t the Glee Cast considered the top artist of all time. After all they blew past all the legends including Drake in just 6 years. More “hits” than anyone Glee Cast is a very minor act. Not within the Top 50 of the decade. Their combined weeks on the Hot 100 are probably less than 400 (don't feel like counting them all up right now, lol) But Drake has a bigger overall Hot 100 presence than anybody other than Elvis and Rihanna. Even without any of his features counted. And he will easily surpass them by the end of this decade, if not the end of this year. And as I've said before, it's certainly no coincidence that the three biggest artists of the 2010s (Drake, Rihanna, Taylor) are dominating the decade's charts to a degree that no other artist ever has (even before the decade has ended). But it certainly has nothing to do with longevity/recurrencty rates. And it doesn't have to do with album takeovers or "album bombs". Prior to the 2010s, the artists with the highest overall Hot 100 presence throughout a single decade were Elvis and The Beatles in the 1960's. Nobody in the 70s, 80s, 90s, or 00s could match (at least that I'm aware of). That means that Mariah Carey, Beyonce, and Usher were not able to dominate their decade to the same degree as Elvis or Beatles. Even with the help of SoundScan longevity. The rapidfire slew of hits that Elvis and Beatles put out were more overwhelming. As for the artists of the 2010's, Taylor and Drake have given us "album takeovers", but Rihanna has never come close to having one. Meaning that it also can't be contributed to album takeovers. Ultimately, I have to conclude that it's a cultural thing. The internet and social media being the biggest obvious change between the 2000-2009 time period and the 2010-2019 time period. So I have to blame that. It simply allows for these big artists to be more ubiquitous in our culture than others were in the past. And as for the question to how many Top 10s Elvis or Beatles would have under the same industry that Drake's existed in, the answer is obviously a lot less. Given that Top 10s are much more difficult to achieve today. I bring Glee up because they have more chart hits than anyone in history. On a point basis - Joel Whitburn ranks Glee as #2 all-time (excluded due to the nature of the act) Elvis and the Beatles would have had fewer hits with streaming? You say it is obvious but I am not following. I would think they would have had more hits, allowing album tracks to chart and such. It seems reasonable to pit Drake up against other artists in the current era but it is hardly comparable to prior eras on a one to one basis using just stats. 25 top 10 hits in this era not the same as 25 top ten hits in the 60s. Simply put, Drake took 163 chart entries to get to 25 top ten hits. How many would the Beatles have had with 163 chart entries? |
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on May 28, 2018 22:36:58 GMT -5
It’s a flawed comparison because the entire landscape of the music industry is different. It’s not just streaming. It’s the presence of featuring. It’s the ability of “non-singles” to chart. Drake didn’t need 163 chart entries to get 25 top ten hits. What would the Beatles achieve with 163 chart entries? Probably the same number of top tens. The bulk of his entries are non-singles/album tracks that entered due to interest or features.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on May 28, 2018 22:40:05 GMT -5
It’s a flawed comparison because the entire landscape of the music industry is different. It’s not just streaming. It’s the presence of featuring. It’s the ability of “non-singles” to chart. Drake didn’t need 163 chart entries to get 25 top ten hits. What would the Beatles achieve with 163 chart entries? Probably the same number of top tens. The bulk of his entries are non-singles/album tracks that entered due to interest or features. Lots of those non-singles were "hits" in their own right for the Beatles. They just didn't happen to chart on the Hot 100 - what would have happened if they did? I agree on a couple of things though comparisons between Drake and the Beatles are flawed because the entire landscape of the music industry is different. And yes I am referring to "non-singles" -- way back when you must have been able to purchase the single in a store in order for it to chart. Not so today - anything can chart. and even "non singles" can become top 10 "hits" |
|
Sherane Lamar
2x Platinum Member
Banned
Long live XXX
Joined: February 2016
Posts: 2,900
|
Post by Sherane Lamar on May 28, 2018 22:44:58 GMT -5
Glee Cast is a very minor act. Not within the Top 50 of the decade. Their combined weeks on the Hot 100 are probably less than 400 (don't feel like counting them all up right now, lol) But Drake has a bigger overall Hot 100 presence than anybody other than Elvis and Rihanna. Even without any of his features counted. And he will easily surpass them by the end of this decade, if not the end of this year. And as I've said before, it's certainly no coincidence that the three biggest artists of the 2010s (Drake, Rihanna, Taylor) are dominating the decade's charts to a degree that no other artist ever has (even before the decade has ended). But it certainly has nothing to do with longevity/recurrencty rates. And it doesn't have to do with album takeovers or "album bombs". Prior to the 2010s, the artists with the highest overall Hot 100 presence throughout a single decade were Elvis and The Beatles in the 1960's. Nobody in the 70s, 80s, 90s, or 00s could match (at least that I'm aware of). That means that Mariah Carey, Beyonce, and Usher were not able to dominate their decade to the same degree as Elvis or Beatles. Even with the help of SoundScan longevity. The rapidfire slew of hits that Elvis and Beatles put out were more overwhelming. As for the artists of the 2010's, Taylor and Drake have given us "album takeovers", but Rihanna has never come close to having one. Meaning that it also can't be contributed to album takeovers. Ultimately, I have to conclude that it's a cultural thing. The internet and social media being the biggest obvious change between the 2000-2009 time period and the 2010-2019 time period. So I have to blame that. It simply allows for these big artists to be more ubiquitous in our culture than others were in the past. And as for the question to how many Top 10s Elvis or Beatles would have under the same industry that Drake's existed in, the answer is obviously a lot less. Given that Top 10s are much more difficult to achieve today. I bring Glee up because they have more chart hits than anyone in history. On a point basis - Joel Whitburn ranks Glee as #2 all-time (excluded due to the nature of the act) Elvis and the Beatles would have had fewer hits with streaming? You say it is obvious but I am not following. I would think they would have had more hits, allowing album tracks to chart and such. It seems reasonable to pit Drake up against other artists in the current era but it is hardly comparable to prior eras on a one to one basis using just stats. 25 top 10 hits in this era not the same as 25 top ten hits in the 60s. Simply put, Drake took 163 chart entries to get to 25 top ten hits. How many would the Beatles have had with 163 chart entries? 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. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,891
|
Post by Gary on May 28, 2018 22:51:25 GMT -5
I bring Glee up because they have more chart hits than anyone in history. On a point basis - Joel Whitburn ranks Glee as #2 all-time (excluded due to the nature of the act) Elvis and the Beatles would have had fewer hits with streaming? You say it is obvious but I am not following. I would think they would have had more hits, allowing album tracks to chart and such. It seems reasonable to pit Drake up against other artists in the current era but it is hardly comparable to prior eras on a one to one basis using just stats. 25 top 10 hits in this era not the same as 25 top ten hits in the 60s. Simply put, Drake took 163 chart entries to get to 25 top ten hits. How many would the Beatles have had with 163 chart entries? 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 |
|
