Billboard Hot 100: 12/21/2019

[Normi]

I do find it kind of boring with the Christmas songs flooding the charts but I don't see it as a problem since these songs actually are the most part but I do get the background music argument, so few people actually go out to listen to these songs I bet (at least I believe just a small portion of their streams consists of these)

[tanooki]

I don't think any recurrent rules should exist.

[weirdo]

Dec 17, 2019 19:28:19 GMT -5 Mayman said:

Dec 17, 2019 19:26:27 GMT -5 moonlite said:

You need to speak to Billboard about that, I dont make the rules. Sunflower is one of the most consumed songs of this week and isnt charting. Because it aint current or fresh

Yeah and you can't make up the definition of what "hot" means either.

And btw, I think Sunflower should still be charting and the 25/52 rule is really unnecessary.

The 25/52 rule is SUPER unneccessary. Songs like Sunflower, Shape Of You, Uptown funk!, Perfect and without me should have gotten longer runs but they were cut off despite them not clogging up the charts like some people think. Most songs wouldn"t go past 60 weeks anyways so its not neccessary to have this rule. A Radioactive or Sail doesn't come often (Shape Of You, Uptown Funk! & Sunflower are the onlt ones i can think of that probably would be 60+ weeks) so it doesn't even the charts much

[Au$tin]

Dec 17, 2019 19:14:45 GMT -5 moonlite said:

Dec 17, 2019 18:59:40 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Because it's a non-issue and there really hasn't been a good point presented by that side of the argument yet. Their best argument is "they're old and clutter the chart." Yeah.... so are the recurrents they kick out, so...

What recurrent songs are as old as the majority of these Christmas songs lmao

The Hot 100 is about what’s hot, current and fresh (which is why reccurent rules exist). Songs charting from when President Kennedy was in office are NOT hot, current and fresh. Simple

This isn’t really an argument lol Billboard agrees with us anti-Holidayers and will ban them expeditiously. If we want to know the most popular Holiday songs of the week, we can just look at the good ol Holiday 100

What? No. Just no. All of this is wrong. The Hot 100 is not about being hot and fresh, this ain't no damn pizza place. It's always been about presenting the most popular songs of the week. That's literally it. How can you at all say these songs are not the most popular right now? And "Hot" is just a synonym for popular. You guys know that, right?

As for the age comment. Literally all of them? By weeks on the chart, literally all of them. Recurrent rules are based on weeks charted, not age of the song. Age doesn't matter.

No, Billboard does not agree. What gave you that impression? If they agreed, the songs would not be charting. If they agreed, Billboard would not have changed the rules earlier this decade to allow these songs to chart in the first place. Besides, Billboard isn't the one deciding what Billboard does. They work for the music industry, and this issue of "Christmas clutter" is not a thing to anyone paying for Billboard's lights. There is a reason the industry has historically come to a screeching halt this time of year for literal decades. They don't care about Christmas music cluttering a chart they're not particularly gunning for in mid-late December.

And omfg the "the Holiday 100" already exists comment is such a load of bull. Every genre has its own chart. That's the damn point of them. The Hot 100 combines them all together. Why would we leave one off and not the rest only because that one spikes in popularity for 5 weeks out of the year? That makes literally zero sense.

You all also keep insisting this onslaught will happen every year with the exact same songs while failing to realize that every year the number of songs charting, their peaks, and which ones make it to the chart changes. We literally have no idea which songs will be return 10, 20, 30 years from now. That assumption is just a ridiculous as assuming this current A-list artist will debut at #1 with their next lead single. Tastes change.

I just can't fathom why this such a big issue for you guys. It's hurting no one, it doesn't negative impact anything, it's way more exciting than watching Talk or I Don't Care trickle down the chart at a snail's pace or seeing which non-event enters at #87 for one week and then never returns. The hits resume after Christmas is over. They are not effected. These "hot and fresh" songs you speak of aren't going anywhere right now, but they will survive it. You can be patient. Look at all 3 components of the Hot 100. Littered in Christmas music. Those songs you say aren't getting their chance to shine? Yeah, there's a reason for that. They're not shining anywhere else either. The Hot 100 should reflect that.

If you want a factually inaccurate chart, create your own. But the rest of us would rather charts actually reflect what's going on with music consumption, not some false reality where the most popular song of the week isn't allowed to chart because "it's older than this arbitrary event."

[Au$tin]

Dec 17, 2019 19:26:27 GMT -5 moonlite said:

Dec 17, 2019 19:17:57 GMT -5 Mayman said:

How are they not hot when they're some of the most consumed songs of the week?

You need to speak to Billboard about that, I dont make the rules. Sunflower is one of the most consumed songs of this week and isnt charting. Because it aint current or fresh

It's older than 52 weeks on the chart and is below #25. Those are how the recurrent rules work and they absolutely apply to Christmas songs too. Quit being jealous.

[weirdo]

Dec 17, 2019 19:32:53 GMT -5 tanooki said:

I don't think any recurrent rules should exist.

I think the 20/50 is neccessary (with the exception of during the holidays) because some songs would last over 100+ weeks despite not even being that popular anymore, but 25/52 is extremely pointless

[Au$tin]

Dec 17, 2019 19:35:17 GMT -5 weirdo said:

Dec 17, 2019 19:32:53 GMT -5 tanooki said:

I don't think any recurrent rules should exist.

I think the 20/50 is neccessary (with the exception of during the holidays) because some songs would last over 100+ weeks despite not even being that popular anymore, but 25/52 is extremely pointless

I mean, if they're accruing more points than the #89 song of the week, why is that one allowed because it's 1 week old but the song that should be #52 isn't because it's 21 weeks old? Is the older song that's "not really popular anymore" not still more popular than the one below it? Not saying I disagree with you, just poking the hole in the logic here.

[moonlite]

Dec 17, 2019 19:24:38 GMT -5 tanooki said:

Dec 17, 2019 19:14:45 GMT -5 moonlite said:

What recurrent songs are as old as the majority of these Christmas songs lmao

The Hot 100 is about what’s hot, current and fresh (which is why reccurent rules exist). Songs charting from when President Kennedy was in office are NOT hot, current and fresh. Simple

This isn’t really an argument lol Billboard agrees with us anti-Holidayers and will ban them expeditiously. If we want to know the most popular Holiday songs of the week, we can just look at the good ol Holiday 100

So if a legacy artist dies, their songs should not be allowed to chart
If an old song regains popularity from a meme or commerical or use in a TV show or something, that shouldn't be reflected and allowed to chart
If a hugely popular album or single gets a special rerelease, say for an anniversary or reunion or something, that shouldn't be reflected and allowed to chart
If a live performance boosts an older song and it gets enough points to rechart, that shouldn't be reflected and allowed to chart [

I feel like you guys are missing the entire point.

Its OK for stuff like what you named to happen because their happening ONCE and usually for a short amount of time and thats it, they’re gone.

These Christmas songs are charting for an entire month literally for FOREVER. And its not like its just one or two songs too... its a good 30-40 songs....

This just can’t happen, the Hot 100 isn’t made for this lmao thats why they introduced reccurent rules in their first place. They just bulldoze all the current songs out the way, its like whats the point of looking at the chart.

[Au$tin]

Who says that's not what the Hot 100 is for? You? Are you the creator of the chart? Do you work in the industry the chart is made for? Is your opinion on what the chart should be something that matters to its creators?

[weirdo]

Dec 17, 2019 19:37:33 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Dec 17, 2019 19:35:17 GMT -5 weirdo said:

I think the 20/50 is neccessary (with the exception of during the holidays) because some songs would last over 100+ weeks despite not even being that popular anymore, but 25/52 is extremely pointless

I mean, if they're accruing more points than the #89 song of the week, why is that one allowed because it's 1 week old but the song that should be #52 isn't because it's 21 weeks old? Not saying I disagree with you, just poking the hole in the logic here.

Good point, but look at the Japanese Hot 100. They dont have any recurrent rules, and haif the lower 50 is songs over 70+ weeks that stopped being popular or relevamt months ago. Uptown Funk! probably would have lasted until 2017 with these rules. Songs in the top 50 are still popular so i dont think they should have recurrent rules, but the bottom 50 is alot less popular

[Au$tin]

Dec 17, 2019 19:40:03 GMT -5 weirdo said:

Dec 17, 2019 19:37:33 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

I mean, if they're accruing more points than the #89 song of the week, why is that one allowed because it's 1 week old but the song that should be #52 isn't because it's 21 weeks old? Not saying I disagree with you, just poking the hole in the logic here.

Good point, but look at the Japanese Hot 100. They dont have any recurrent rules, and haif the lower 50 is songs over 70+ weeks that stopped being popular or relevamt months ago. Uptown Funk! probably would have lasted until 2017 with these rules. Songs in the top 50 are still popular so i dont think they should have recurrent rules, but the bottom 50 is alot less popular

That's still a logical fallacy though. If they're still gaining more points than the other younger songs, then those songs are still less relevant than the older ones.

I think what you mean is they're not relevant to the industry. They're absolutely still relevant to the consumers, otherwise they wouldn't be getting all those points. But the industry itself isn't checking for them that late into their run.



Which is a massive fundamental difference with the Christmas songs. There is literally going to be a new music video for AIWFCIY soon. Her label is actively promoting it. They want to see it charting. You guys don't think the labels want to squeeze and pimp out these songs every year to their full extent and see that being made public on the world's most famous music chart?

[moonlite]

Dec 17, 2019 19:39:00 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Who says that's not what the Hot 100 is for? You? Are you the creator of the chart? Do you work in the industry the chart is made for? Is your opinion on what the chart should be something that matters to its creators?

Thats literally what Billboard says the Hot 100 is for. Thats the entire reason why they have recurrent rules, you think they care about exact accuracy?

[weirdo]

Dec 17, 2019 19:44:36 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Dec 17, 2019 19:40:03 GMT -5 weirdo said:

Good point, but look at the Japanese Hot 100. They dont have any recurrent rules, and haif the lower 50 is songs over 70+ weeks that stopped being popular or relevamt months ago. Uptown Funk! probably would have lasted until 2017 with these rules. Songs in the top 50 are still popular so i dont think they should have recurrent rules, but the bottom 50 is alot less popular

That's still a logical fallacy though. If they're still gaining more points than the other younger songs, then those songs are still less relevant than the older ones.

I think what you mean is they're not relevant to the industry. They're absolutely still relevant to the consumers, otherwise they wouldn't be getting all those points. But the industry itself isn't checking for them that late into their run.



Which is a massive fundamental difference with the Christmas songs. There is literally going to be a new music video for AIWFCIY soon. Her label is actively promoting it. They want to see it charting. You guys don't think the labels want to squeeze and pimp out these songs every year to their full extent and see that being made public on the world's most famous music chart?

I agree that some of the newer songs probably arent doing as good as songs like Sucker or Talk, but it would be a litrle misleading if a song only hits #98 despite it being a mid-sized hit, and all just because Uptown Funk! needs another 50 weeks on the charts, most of them peobably in the bottom 20

[tanooki]

Dec 17, 2019 19:47:30 GMT -5 weirdo said:

Dec 17, 2019 19:44:36 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

That's still a logical fallacy though. If they're still gaining more points than the other younger songs, then those songs are still less relevant than the older ones.

I think what you mean is they're not relevant to the industry. They're absolutely still relevant to the consumers, otherwise they wouldn't be getting all those points. But the industry itself isn't checking for them that late into their run.



Which is a massive fundamental difference with the Christmas songs. There is literally going to be a new music video for AIWFCIY soon. Her label is actively promoting it. They want to see it charting. You guys don't think the labels want to squeeze and pimp out these songs every year to their full extent and see that being made public on the world's most famous music chart?

I agree that some of the newer songs probably arent doing as good as songs like Sucker or Talk, but it would be a litrle misleading if a song only hits #98 despite it being a mid-sized hit, and all just because Uptown Funk! needs another 50 weeks on the charts, most of them peobably in the bottom 20

if uptown funk is more popular than some random ass album track, i dont see why that shouldnt be reflected

[SPRΞΞ]

If a song is "hot" it should be allowed to chart no matter how old it is. I'm perfectly fine with xmas songs re-entering the chart every year. They are what's popular during that time. The Hot 100 reflects total consumption for the week.

i don't want some weird, new set of rules. That's how we got the stupidity of "airplay only" singles not being allowed to chart. Just keep it as a total consumption chart no matter what.

If you're afraid of Mariah being #1 every year, then have your fav release a good song to block it. The pressure is on.

[weirdo]

Dec 17, 2019 19:50:00 GMT -5 tanooki said:

Dec 17, 2019 19:47:30 GMT -5 weirdo said:

I agree that some of the newer songs probably arent doing as good as songs like Sucker or Talk, but it would be a litrle misleading if a song only hits #98 despite it being a mid-sized hit, and all just because Uptown Funk! needs another 50 weeks on the charts, most of them peobably in the bottom 20

if uptown funk is more popular than some random ass album track, i dont see why that shouldnt be reflected

I didnt say album tracks, i meant singles and songs actually being promoted by music labels. How is someone supposed to rise up the charts when 50-70 is just songs from 2017 and 2018, clogging up the charts and stopping new songs from rising up the chatts. And thats not even mentioning the Year End Chart, which would then necome the "Some 2019 songs but mostly songs from 2 years ago" chart

[weirdo]

Dec 17, 2019 19:51:16 GMT -5 SPRΞΞ said:

If a song is "hot" it should be allowed to chart no matter how old it is. I'm perfectly fine with xmas songs re-entering the chart every year. They are what's popular during that time. The Hot 100 reflects total consumption for the week.

i don't want some weird, new set of rules. That's how we got the stupidity of "airplay only" singles not being allowed to chart. Just keep it as a total consumption chart no matter what.

If you're afraid of Mariah being #1 every year, then have your fav release a good song to block it. The pressure is on.

I never said Mariah didnt deserve #1. She clearly did. My point was that the 20/50 rule is somewhat neccessary (with the exveption of Decenber)

[tanooki]

Dec 17, 2019 19:53:14 GMT -5 weirdo said:

Dec 17, 2019 19:50:00 GMT -5 tanooki said:

if uptown funk is more popular than some random ass album track, i dont see why that shouldnt be reflected

I didnt say album tracks, i meant singles and songs actually being promoted by music labels. How is someone supposed to rise up the charts when 50-70 is just songs from 2017 and 2018, clogging up the charts and stopping new songs from rising up the chatts. And thats not even mentioning the Year End Chart, which would then necome the "Some 2019 songs but mostly songs from 2 years ago" chart

Not many songs would continue to chart lol, and if a song wants to rise up the charts, the artist/label needs to put in the WORK. I'm not for giving people chart moves that they don't deserve. If your song isn't one of the top 50 songs of the week, we shouldnt cut out songs that are. It's just dumb.

[kimberly]

Dec 17, 2019 19:44:36 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

Dec 17, 2019 19:40:03 GMT -5 weirdo said:

Good point, but look at the Japanese Hot 100. They dont have any recurrent rules, and haif the lower 50 is songs over 70+ weeks that stopped being popular or relevamt months ago. Uptown Funk! probably would have lasted until 2017 with these rules. Songs in the top 50 are still popular so i dont think they should have recurrent rules, but the bottom 50 is alot less popular

That's still a logical fallacy though. If they're still gaining more points than the other younger songs, then those songs are still less relevant than the older ones.

I think what you mean is they're not relevant to the industry. They're absolutely still relevant to the consumers, otherwise they wouldn't be getting all those points. But the industry itself isn't checking for them that late into their run.

Which is a massive fundamental difference with the Christmas songs. There is literally going to be a new music video for AIWFCIY soon. Her label is actively promoting it. They want to see it charting. You guys don't think the labels want to squeeze and pimp out these songs every year to their full extent and see that being made public on the world's most famous music chart?

Not saying it would be a bad thing necessarily, but without the 20/50 rule we'd see a lot of "dead" hits resurfacing after Spotify Wrapped and radio year-end countdowns, which would make December an even more complicated month for charts. 

I like this rule personally because it allows for newer acts to break through, which is probably one of the reasons why it is in place. As irrelevant as it is to the general public, charts still influence who makes it in the industry and we'd lose on a lot of #80-100 charting songs if it weren't for the 20/50 rule.

One thing I will say is that I wish Billboard still tracked and factored in the weekly points of recurrent songs when compiling the *drumroll please* year end charts. That's one thing that bugs me, as those don't represent actual popularity of a song over a 52-week period -- they leave out weeks the song wasn't allowed to chart for being older than 20 weeks, which is bs.

[weirdo]

Dec 17, 2019 19:55:58 GMT -5 tanooki said:

Dec 17, 2019 19:53:14 GMT -5 weirdo said:

I didnt say album tracks, i meant singles and songs actually being promoted by music labels. How is someone supposed to rise up the charts when 50-70 is just songs from 2017 and 2018, clogging up the charts and stopping new songs from rising up the chatts. And thats not even mentioning the Year End Chart, which would then necome the "Some 2019 songs but mostly songs from 2 years ago" chart

Not many songs would continue to chart lol, and if a song wants to rise up the charts, the artist/label needs to put in the WORK. I'm not for giving people chart moves that they don't deserve. If your song isn't one of the top 50 songs of the week, we shouldnt cut out songs that are. It's just dumb.

You know what........your right. I think you managed to concince me that 20/50 is a stupid rule. So congradulstions to you for creating a good arguement against it

[tanooki]

Dec 17, 2019 19:57:19 GMT -5 weirdo said:

Dec 17, 2019 19:55:58 GMT -5 tanooki said:

Not many songs would continue to chart lol, and if a song wants to rise up the charts, the artist/label needs to put in the WORK. I'm not for giving people chart moves that they don't deserve. If your song isn't one of the top 50 songs of the week, we shouldnt cut out songs that are. It's just dumb.

You know what........your right. I think you managed to concince me that 20/50 is a stupid rule. So congradulstions to you for creating a good arguement against it

lol glad

The biggest issue if Billboard were to get rid of recurrency rules is what to do with the GOAT list, but tbh I think that whole chart needs a revamp

[weirdo]

Dec 17, 2019 19:59:08 GMT -5 tanooki said:

Dec 17, 2019 19:57:19 GMT -5 weirdo said:

You know what........your right. I think you managed to concince me that 20/50 is a stupid rule. So congradulstions to you for creating a good arguement against it

lol glad

The biggest issue if Billboard were to get rid of recurrency rules is what to do with the GOAT list, but tbh I think that whole chart needs a revamp

The All-Time list has never made sense to me. I really dont see how "The Twist" is bigger then Uptown Funk!, Shape Of You or even Smooth. I understand that songs had shorter chart runs back then but still, The Twist's run was Top 10 at best but not #1.

[Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815...]

At the rate this thread is going...I can so see it




*SPOILER*

the conversation will still be about what songs should be in the HOT100 :kii:

[Au$tin]

Dec 17, 2019 19:56:56 GMT -5 kimberly said:

Dec 17, 2019 19:44:36 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

That's still a logical fallacy though. If they're still gaining more points than the other younger songs, then those songs are still less relevant than the older ones.

I think what you mean is they're not relevant to the industry. They're absolutely still relevant to the consumers, otherwise they wouldn't be getting all those points. But the industry itself isn't checking for them that late into their run.

Which is a massive fundamental difference with the Christmas songs. There is literally going to be a new music video for AIWFCIY soon. Her label is actively promoting it. They want to see it charting. You guys don't think the labels want to squeeze and pimp out these songs every year to their full extent and see that being made public on the world's most famous music chart?

Not saying it would be a bad thing necessarily, but without the 20/50 rule we'd see a lot of "dead" hits resurfacing after Spotify Wrapped and radio year-end countdowns, which would make December an even more complicated month for charts. 

I like this rule personally because it allows for newer acts to break through, which is probably one of the reasons why it is in place. As irrelevant as it is to the general public, charts still influence who makes it in the industry and we'd lose on a lot of #80-100 charting songs if it weren't for the 20/50 rule.

One thing I will say is that I wish Billboard still tracked and factored in the weekly points of recurrent songs when compiling the *drumroll please* year end charts. That's one thing that bugs me, as those don't represent actual popularity of a song over a 52-week period -- they leave out weeks the song wasn't allowed to chart for being older than 20 weeks, which is bs.

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, I completely understand why the recurrent rules exist and what their function is for. I just personally would love to see a completely recurrentless chart for my own purposes. I understand, though, that I am not the target audience or even a consumer for Billboard, so my opinion on a recurrentless chart existing is moot. Still, though, would be cool to see. Especially if said chart were long, i.e. 500 positions or something. But the industry itself isn't checking for that, so the chances of ever seeing a chart like that or the Hot 100 removing recurrent rules is essentially zero.

1000% agree with your last paragraph by the way!

[moonlite]

Dec 17, 2019 19:34:01 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

What? No. Just no. All of this is wrong. The Hot 100 is not about being hot and fresh, this ain't no damn pizza place. It's always been about presenting the most popular songs of the week. That's literally it. How can you at all say these songs are not the most popular right now? And "Hot" is just a synonym for popular. You guys know that, right?

I know I've said this 30 times but no it hasn't.... that's why they have recurrent rules. 

Dec 17, 2019 19:34:01 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

No, Billboard does not agree. What gave you that impression? If they agreed, the songs would not be charting. If they agreed, Billboard would not have changed the rules earlier this decade to allow these songs to chart in the first place. Besides, Billboard isn't the one deciding what Billboard does. They work for the music industry, and this issue of "Christmas clutter" is not a thing to anyone paying for Billboard's lights. There is a reason the industry has historically come to a screeching halt this time of year for literal decades. They don't care about Christmas music cluttering a chart they're not particularly gunning for in mid-late December.

Well holiday songs dominating the chart is still a fairly new thing. I believe last year was the first year where they absolutely obliterated the charts and they probably wanted to see some interesting records to be set first such as AIWFC going #1. But after it gets old, they'll remove them.

Dec 17, 2019 19:34:01 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

And omfg the "the Holiday 100" already exists comment is such a load of bull. Every genre has its own chart. That's the damn point of them. The Hot 100 combines them all together. Why would we leave one off and not the rest only because that one spikes in popularity for 5 weeks out of the year? That makes literally zero sense.

"Holiday" isn't exactly a genre. None of their other genre charts have 100 in the title, they're all "Hot Rock Songs" and stuff. The 100 in the title is their because its a Hot 100 type chart for a specific set of songs.  

Dec 17, 2019 19:34:01 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

You all also keep insisting this onslaught will happen every year with the exact same songs while failing to realize that every year the number of songs charting, their peaks, and which ones make it to the chart changes. We literally have no idea which songs will be return 10, 20, 30 years from now. That assumption is just a ridiculous as assuming this current A-list artist will debut at #1 with their next lead single. Tastes change.

Why would should I believe it'll change? Maybe 1 new classic will be inserted into the mix every few years... But I'm pretty sure songs like A Holly Jolly Christmas or Jingle Bell Rock or RATCT have been dominating the holiday music scene for decades

Dec 17, 2019 19:34:01 GMT -5 Au$tin said:

I just can't fathom why this such a big issue for you guys. It's hurting no one, it doesn't negative impact anything, it's way more exciting than watching Talk or I Don't Care trickle down the chart at a snail's pace or seeing which non-event enters at #87 for one week and then never returns. The hits resume after Christmas is over. They are not effected. These "hot and fresh" songs you speak of aren't going anywhere right now, but they will survive it. You can be patient. Look at all 3 components of the Hot 100. Littered in Christmas music. Those songs you say aren't getting their chance to shine? Yeah, there's a reason for that. They're not shining anywhere else either. The Hot 100 should reflect that.

You guys are thinking too short term. I get that holiday music on the charts is exciting now because its still a new thing. But it will get dull and stale and irritating very fast. I can't imagine how annoyed and bored out of their minds chart watchers in 2050 will feel when AIWFC is charting for the 300th week and at its 50th week at #1. 

[Sambalada]

Dec 17, 2019 20:00:54 GMT -5 weirdo said:

Dec 17, 2019 19:59:08 GMT -5 tanooki said:

lol glad

The biggest issue if Billboard were to get rid of recurrency rules is what to do with the GOAT list, but tbh I think that whole chart needs a revamp

The All-Time list has never made sense to me. I really dont see how "The Twist" is bigger then Uptown Funk!, Shape Of You or even Smooth. I understand that songs had shorter chart runs back then but still, The Twist's run was Top 10 at best but not #1.

Maybe it didn't feel as big because you didn't live through the song's success.

[garrettlen]

Dec 17, 2019 16:02:25 GMT -5 hughster1 said:

Dec 17, 2019 15:57:05 GMT -5 Hefty Hanna said:

Question for all of you chart nerds.

Mariah has now extended her lead of Hot 100 #1s for a solo artist. I was under the impression that she had been (arguably depending on who you ask) tied with Elvis Presley for this feat at 18 #1 singles but from all of the articles I’ve read it shows Mariah at 19, Rihanna at 14 and Michael Jackson with 13 with no mention of Elvis. Is this just an error in reporting?

Even Billboard didn’t mention Elvis though so I’m a bit confused. Have his #1 hits not counted recently due to some change?

Some of Elvis' number ones predate the introduction of the Hot 100 in 1958. I believe he only had eight number ones on the Hot 100.

seven

[weirdo]

Dec 17, 2019 20:04:27 GMT -5 Sambalada said:

Dec 17, 2019 20:00:54 GMT -5 weirdo said:

The All-Time list has never made sense to me. I really dont see how "The Twist" is bigger then Uptown Funk!, Shape Of You or even Smooth. I understand that songs had shorter chart runs back then but still, The Twist's run was Top 10 at best but not #1.

Maybe it didn't feel as big because you didn't live through the song's success.

Im sure that plays a role in it. But even its chart run wasnt "best of all time" level

[nathanalbright]

Dec 17, 2019 20:03:08 GMT -5 Me. I Am l!nk!nfan815... said:

At the rate this thread is going...I can so see it




*SPOILER*

the conversation will still be about what songs should be in the HOT100 :kii:

Only 350 pages to go.

[Deleted]

You guys are missing the point. Everyone has equal opportunity to block Mariah from #1. They just haven't. They should try harder.