Nick
8x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2004
Posts: 8,678
|
Post by Nick on Sept 6, 2020 16:31:56 GMT -5
TS makes better music than beatles. πβ οΈ That TS fan needs to be beaten by his parents just for his stupidity.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,641
|
Post by Gary on Sept 6, 2020 16:32:08 GMT -5
Beatles had 12 albums go 6 or more weeks, even a greatest hits album did it
Got a ways to go for a Taylor Swift > Beatles comparison that carries any meaning
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,018
|
Post by felipe on Sept 6, 2020 16:58:51 GMT -5
Maybe people here on Pulse are just more interested in discussing Katy Perry than Kendrick Lamar. Is that wrong? Either way, the rules are different for male acts. Kanye can mess up a million times, he can have a string of flops, and we all know that with the right song he can have a hit again. Damn, nobody is even surprised that Chris Brown has a hit in 2020! The issue comes in when what we say and HOW we say it helps to further an already sexist and unfair system. After years of learning from the MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements decades of being a fan of Janet Jackson and seeing how maliciously she was treated by the entertainment industry all stemmed from one powerful man's sexism, shouldn't we have more recognition than to just write off female artists by saying 'the rules are different'? We can also change those rules, and that change starts when we change the conversation. It's not ok to see these same sexist troupes in the industry just continue unabated, even down to the way that we discuss the career arcs of women vs men. What matters to me a simple... fairness. And by the way... part of the reason we spend so much more time interested in female acts than we do their male counterparts?? Because with few noted exceptions, they are working WAY harder to get where they get to. Every single album, we expect women to reinvent themselves, and not just with the music or the sound, but they have to come up with incredible changes in their visual theme and presentation, knock out videos and tours that men simply would NEVER be expected to achieve. THAT is exactly why we talk more, in general, about women... because they really are doing a lot more to get and stay ahead than their male counterparts, many of whom have been allowed to coast for decades with not nearly the same expectations or scrutiny. But isn't that also part of what we value as audience? Not everybody is interested in Nicki Minaj's new video, Lady Gaga's new look or J.Lo's dance skills. A lot of people just want to listen to Drake and don't even care if the song has a music video or not. That is them. I'm not them. Many of us here are not them. We can't just be expected to look at things the way they do.
|
|
|
Post by wayneashleymusic on Sept 6, 2020 19:27:43 GMT -5
The issue comes in when what we say and HOW we say it helps to further an already sexist and unfair system. After years of learning from the MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements decades of being a fan of Janet Jackson and seeing how maliciously she was treated by the entertainment industry all stemmed from one powerful man's sexism, shouldn't we have more recognition than to just write off female artists by saying 'the rules are different'? We can also change those rules, and that change starts when we change the conversation. It's not ok to see these same sexist troupes in the industry just continue unabated, even down to the way that we discuss the career arcs of women vs men. What matters to me a simple... fairness. And by the way... part of the reason we spend so much more time interested in female acts than we do their male counterparts?? Because with few noted exceptions, they are working WAY harder to get where they get to. Every single album, we expect women to reinvent themselves, and not just with the music or the sound, but they have to come up with incredible changes in their visual theme and presentation, knock out videos and tours that men simply would NEVER be expected to achieve. THAT is exactly why we talk more, in general, about women... because they really are doing a lot more to get and stay ahead than their male counterparts, many of whom have been allowed to coast for decades with not nearly the same expectations or scrutiny. But isn't that also part of what we value as audience? Not everybody is interested in Nicki Minaj's new video, Lady Gaga's new look or J.Lo's dance skills. A lot of people just want to listen to Drake and don't even care if the song has a music video or not. That is them. I'm not them. Many of us here are not them. We can't just be expected to look at things the way they do. Not sure what specifically you are referring to. But I would say that of course we can enjoy and discuss the charts and comment on our preferences. But I believe we can do all of that without having to just assume that 'the rules' cannot be changed. A recent example... touring venues. People used to try to 'cancel' an artist if they went on tour and couldn't fill all of their seats in a venue. But over the last decade, that perception is starting to change, and I can see that artists feel less ashamed about playing a venue that is not sold out. To me, that is a very good thing!! And sure, even as we sing the praises of someone that DOES sell out venues or set new tour records, we can do that without simultaneously having to cut others down. We want our artists to be able to go on tour, so we can support everyone in doing so.
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,914
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Sept 6, 2020 23:14:06 GMT -5
Beatles had 12 albums go 6 or more weeks, even a greatest hits album did it Got a ways to go for a Taylor Swift > Beatles comparison that carries any meaning there are obviously many ways to slice this. Swift has more Grammy Awards already so does that make her the better artist? Taylor's career has already outlasted that of the Beatles. I find these comparisons between modern day stars and nostalgic acts unfair, as people will generally think of the latter as being "superior" simply because we as humans tend to romanticize things we're familiar with & many people remember to be "good music". I mean, The Beatles is clearly good and stood the test of time, but majority of Taylor's catalog hasn't had a chance to actually become classics yet. If we circle back to this conversation in 10-15 years, only then we'll have a better chance at comparing the two acts.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,641
|
Post by Gary on Sept 7, 2020 0:04:07 GMT -5
Beatles had 12 albums go 6 or more weeks, even a greatest hits album did it Got a ways to go for a Taylor Swift > Beatles comparison that carries any meaning there are obviously many ways to slice this. Swift has more Grammy Awards already so does that make her the better artist? Taylor's career has already outlasted that of the Beatles. I find these comparisons between modern day stars and nostalgic acts unfair, as people will generally think of the latter as being "superior" simply because we as humans tend to romanticize things we're familiar with & many people remember to be "good music". I mean, The Beatles is clearly good and stood the test of time, but majority of Taylor's catalog hasn't had a chance to actually become classics yet. If we circle back to this conversation in 10-15 years, only then we'll have a better chance at comparing the two acts. Let's address these one at a time - start with the grammy's Taylor Swift - 10 wins For the Beatles, I guess it depends on how you want to count them. grammy.com shows 7 for competitive awards (which is certainly less than 10 -- stop here Taylor wins - LOL) Not part of the 7... there is the Trustees award(1972), lifetime achievement award (2014) and a boatload of grammy hall of fame awards for songs and albums song of the year for 'Michelle' for Lennon/McCartney(1967) Best original score in 1971 for Let It Be TV special (won by all 4) Next the career thing... From first to last Hot 100 hit --- Taylor Swift's debut was September 2006 -- and is charting today so 14 years Beatles debut was January 1964 - their last chart entry was May 1996 --- so about 32 years + One of the biggest albums of the 2000's was Beatles 1 What I was originally replying too, Taylor Swift becoming the second artist in history to get 5 albums with 6+ weeks, certainly something to celebrate but.... In the end I agree, lets check back in a couple decades to see if we are ready for Taylor Swift > Beatles
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,914
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Sept 7, 2020 0:20:39 GMT -5
there are obviously many ways to slice this. Swift has more Grammy Awards already so does that make her the better artist? Taylor's career has already outlasted that of the Beatles. I find these comparisons between modern day stars and nostalgic acts unfair, as people will generally think of the latter as being "superior" simply because we as humans tend to romanticize things we're familiar with & many people remember to be "good music". I mean, The Beatles is clearly good and stood the test of time, but majority of Taylor's catalog hasn't had a chance to actually become classics yet. If we circle back to this conversation in 10-15 years, only then we'll have a better chance at comparing the two acts. Let's address these one at a time - start with the grammy's Taylor Swift - 10 wins For the Beatles, I guess it depends on how you want to count them. grammy.com shows 7 for competitive awards (which is certainly less than 10 -- stop here Taylor wins - LOL) Not part of the 7... there is the Trustees award(1972), lifetime achievement award (2014) and a boatload of grammy hall of fame awards for songs and albums song of the year for 'Michelle' for Lennon/McCartney(1967) Best original score in 1971 for Let It Be TV special (won by all 4) Next the career thing... From first to last Hot 100 hit --- Taylor Swift's debut was September 2006 -- and is charting today so 14 years Beatles debut was January 1964 - their last chart entry was May 1996 --- so about 32 years + One of the biggest albums of the 2000's was Beatles 1 What I was originally replying too, Taylor Swift becoming the second artist in history to get 5 albums with 6+ weeks, certainly something to celebrate but.... In the end I agree, lets check back in a couple decades to see if we are ready for Taylor Swift > Beatles lmaooo not you counting their one-offs in the mid-90's as an extension of their career. The Beatles' career and chart presence clearly comes to an end in 1970 with their 12th and final studio album. yes, they released 12 albums in the span of 7 years. the business model has evolved past thatβnot even DaBaby or BTS can release almost 2 studio albums per year for that long in today's climate. Mariah Carey, who is probably the closest active performer in the same playing field as them, took much longer (19 years) to get to 12 albums. my point is, it is unrealistic to expect the biggest artist of today to be promoted the same way the Beatles was in the 60's. people take much longer between albums these days, that's the norm. that's why it was such a surprise that Taylor released folklore so soon after Lover. Adele, whose last single broke the sales record in the US with north of a million downloads and last album sold like 5 million copies worldwide in a matter of days, shattering all sorts of records, hasn't released anything in 5 years.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,641
|
Post by Gary on Sept 7, 2020 0:35:53 GMT -5
Go back to my original post and read again what I was responding to. Taylor>Beatles because Taylor is the first in the modern era to accomplish this feat. Just Because she got her 5th album to do that We are not ready for a Taylor > Beatles comparison in my opinion.
Saying The Beatles presence ending in 1970 means to me there is no sense in arguing this.
Statistics and chart accomplishments can be celebrated and interpreted and twisted to tell any story you want.
All hail Queen Taylor. Lol
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,914
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Sept 7, 2020 0:55:24 GMT -5
Go back to my original post and read again what I was responding to. Taylor>Beatles because Taylor is the first in the modern era to accomplish this feat. Just Because she got her 5th album to do that We are not ready for a Taylor > Beatles comparison in my opinion. and I'm saying you can definitely argue for Taylor > Beatles if you look at the context of their accomplishments. it's not what I would argue FOR, as you seem to imply, but it is a very plausible discussionβnot as easy to dismiss this claim as you did in your original post by saying "bEatLeS hAd MorE AlbUmS". The Beatles clearly ended in 1970 but that doesn't mean their legacy or cultural presence ended there; however, in terms of their career longevity, there is no ground to argue that they were active until 1996 lol. they had 2 top 10 singles within those 26 years.
|
|
nickd
4x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 4,411
|
Post by nickd on Sept 7, 2020 1:06:43 GMT -5
I do think some things are changing in terms of sexism in music, but we're definitely not there yet. Like women are much closer behind solo men and male bands when it comes to big touring acts, and made up 4/10 of the top artists of the 2010s on Billboard.
However, I feel like the success of women is still relatively limited to a few pop stars. In hip hop and alt/rock they are extremely outnumbered by men and even within pop, there's usually more songs by male artists on the charts than songs by women. I think being seen as a star is more important for women, while men are more likely to be respected as artists even if their commercial success is more moderate or hit and miss.
One key point is that apparently something like 97% of what males stream are male artists? For female listeners it's around 50/50. Considering some of those males are gay, that must mean the percentage for straight men is truly dismal. So one key issue will be for straight men to get past the stigma of listening to female artists.
I also think there's a lot more space for men that are not conventionally attractive, or at least only moderately so, while most female artists are. That would mean a lot of talented women are kept out of the game. Not sure how much of that is the listeners, and how much is the industry.
|
|
starlord
New Member
Joined: February 2020
Posts: 391
|
Post by starlord on Sept 7, 2020 5:49:16 GMT -5
TS makes better music than beatles. πβ οΈ Any reason you keep posting random *bait type* tweets on threads here? What is the intention? This is like the second or third I have seen you post. lol I think anyone could consider the source and take that tweet for what it is. Thanks for asking AvaBrookeβ’. I'm gonna answer this all your questions and put my 2 cents on this issue. Any reason you keep posting random *bait type* tweets on threads here? Its not a Bait post, delicate is one of the biggest swifties account on twitter. Folklore got 6 no.1 because of all the promotions and merch sells for weeks and another reason are all these stan accounts buying of digital single, albums and streaming parties and trending on social media. I just wanted to show there attitude, in the start of the week they were like TS could hold a joint record with the beatles and now you know there real face. What is the intention? Before 69 and Sean albums, Ppl in pulse were like Folklore deserves many more no.1(could have easily given 10+ weeks) despite knowing how folklore got to 6 weeks no.1 and all the tricks her team did for that in first place. At the same time, if any song does 5+ weeks at no.1 at hot 100, pulse is ready to drag it down, eg Rockstar, The box. Biggest Hypocrisy. I think anyone could consider the source and take that tweet for what it is. I don't think, anyone did that, as it clearly was sarcasm. I don't intend to mislead anyone. And last but not the least, All people here really comparing TS to THE BEATLES, on parameters like grammy wins, like really? They invented and incorporated many aspects of music, which were considered standards in western music. Please, these are not charts or awards accomplishments but much more than that. I don't think this would change any stan account opinion, but worth reading. What were some of the Beatles' accomplishments?
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,641
|
Post by Gary on Sept 7, 2020 6:50:42 GMT -5
Go back to my original post and read again what I was responding to. Taylor>Beatles because Taylor is the first in the modern era to accomplish this feat. Just Because she got her 5th album to do that We are not ready for a Taylor > Beatles comparison in my opinion. and I'm saying you can definitely argue for Taylor > Beatles if you look at the context of their accomplishments. it's not what I would argue FOR, as you seem to imply, but it is a very plausible discussionβnot as easy to dismiss this claim as you did in your original post by saying "bEatLeS hAd MorE AlbUmS". The Beatles clearly ended in 1970 but that doesn't mean their legacy or cultural presence ended there; however, in terms of their career longevity, there is no ground to argue that they were active until 1996 lol. they had 2 top 10 singles within those 26 years. And OK...let's dismiss all singles activity after 1970...fine Since this started as an albums discussion, the Beatles presence ending in 1970 might not be correct even from an albums standpoint. In my opinion, not a plausible discussion even in the slightest. The Beatles "clearly ended in 1970" and grammy wins and so forth is an attempt to make it a plausible discussion. So as you wish....Go for it.
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,914
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Sept 7, 2020 7:05:54 GMT -5
and I'm saying you can definitely argue for Taylor > Beatles if you look at the context of their accomplishments. it's not what I would argue FOR, as you seem to imply, but it is a very plausible discussionβnot as easy to dismiss this claim as you did in your original post by saying "bEatLeS hAd MorE AlbUmS". The Beatles clearly ended in 1970 but that doesn't mean their legacy or cultural presence ended there; however, in terms of their career longevity, there is no ground to argue that they were active until 1996 lol. they had 2 top 10 singles within those 26 years. And OK...let's dismiss all singles activity after 1970...fine Since this started as an albums discussion, the Beatles presence ending in 1970 might not be correct even from an albums standpoint. In my opinion, not a plausible discussion even in the slightest. The Beatles "clearly ended in 1970" and grammy wins and so forth is an attempt to make it a plausible discussion. So as you wish....Go for it. The Beatles literally DISBANDED in 1970 is what I mean by "clearly ended" which is a FACT?? Their career didn't really make it past 1970 because of that but their legacy obviously did and they did enjoy solo success... If One Direction released a "greatest hits" album in 2045 that wouldn't really change the fact that their career as a group ended after the last four of them went solo in 2016. The same thing applies to The Beatles' compilation album 1, released in 2000, selling tons. Anyways... Taylor Swift is very much accomplished in the album chart, with 4 albums that crossed 1 million sales in week 1. She's also notorious for being her only competition, since: folklore was the biggest opening week since Lover Lover was the biggest opening week since reputation reputation was the biggest opening week since 25 by Adele 25 was the biggest opening week since 1989 and so on... But I'm sure you'll be dismissing the facts and saying Taylor Swift can't hold a candle to the Beatles in any way... ok, boomer.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,641
|
Post by Gary on Sept 7, 2020 7:18:48 GMT -5
LOL -- read my post again. 5 albums with 6 weeks or more is a wonderful thing to celebrate. However, Not quite ready I think for any Taylor > Beatles comparison that carries any meaning.
But anyway...even with random Taylor stats, grammy wins, etc. I stand by that. Regardless....
As you wish...All Hail Queen Taylor!
|
|
kimberly
Diamond Member
act i RENAISSANCE
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 11,914
My Charts
Pronouns: they/them
|
Post by kimberly on Sept 7, 2020 7:27:36 GMT -5
LOL -- read my post again. 5 albums with 6 weeks or more is a wonderful thing to celebrate. However, Not quite ready I think for any Taylor > Beatles comparison that carries any meaning. But anyway...even with random Taylor stats, grammy wins, etc. I stand by that. Regardless.... As you wish...All Hail Queen Taylor! you're so annoying and it's evident that you're failing to process even a single word of what I wrote... I'm just trying to present you ways in which a Taylor versus Beatles argument is possible, one of the ways being Grammys and another being career longevity. And pointing out the fact that "Beatles had more albums go #1" is like saying "Taylor had more song reach #1 on iTunes than any other artist ever"... not very comparable. anyways, have a nice day. this is my final time responding.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,641
|
Post by Gary on Sept 7, 2020 7:32:56 GMT -5
If we circle back to this conversation in 10-15 years, only then we'll have a better chance at comparing the two acts. This is more or less what I said, in the first place. We are not ready for a Taylor > Beatles discussion...you initially seemed to agree If you want to have one though with all the other stuff....go for it....
|
|
strongerq
Platinum Member
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by strongerq on Sept 7, 2020 8:02:49 GMT -5
Idk what you consider career longevity or relevance. But the best selling album (pure sales) in the 21st century is '1' with 13M pure copies. Before someone argues that sales are down now. In the 90s only 3 albums have sold more copies than this album: 'Metallica', 'Come On Over' & 'Jagged Little Pill'. ~Techincally since 1991 (Soundscan)~ Also The Beathes are the greatest hitmakers on The Hot 100 of All Time. I don't see anyone surpassing them in the near future. I won't talk about their album sales number because *wheeew*. Why were The Beatles this big? - Because of the climate they were popular in (60s) and they remained relevant for a very long time. I would say they are relevant even to this day to some degree, they are outstreaming modern day acts on Spotify for example. Not mentioning names. Is it possible to match The Beatles in todays climate ? - Absolutelly impossible. Even if you combine Drake+Post Malone i wouldn't put my money on them surpassing The Beatles as the greatest hitmakers on The Hot 100. Even if you combine Adele+Taylor Swift i wouldn't put my money on them surpassing some records of The Beatles like weeks at #1, albums with multiple weeks at #1 (5+) . . . i won't compare sales because they are dead now. So technically saying Artist X > The Beatles doesn't hold much water. Today there are way waaaay more artists than there were in the 60s so there is bigger competition + the music nowadays is very "trendy", and trends seem to change every couple of months lol. You were part of yesterdays trend (good), you aren't a part of the current trend *byeeee*. And i have listened to like 1 or 2 songs from them *massive fan*.
Regarding Age/gender/genre
Firstly why a "female pop star's career seems to end when she goes into the 30s". It is not so much a female thing, more so of a genre thing (pop). Here is something regading hip-hop vs pop. Artist | Birth Year | First Album | Age | Kanye West | 1977 | 2004 | 27 | Eminem | 1972 | 1996(1999) | 24(27) | Drake | 1986 | 2010 | 24 | 50 Cent | 1975 | 2003 | 28 | Kendric Lamar | 1987 | 2011 | 24 | J. Cole | 1985 | 2011 | 26 | Nicki Minaj | 1982 | 2010 | 28 | Cardi B | 1992 | 2018 | 26 | Nelly | 1974 | 2000 | 26 | - | - | Average | 26 |
Artist | Birth Year | First Album | Age | Taylor Swift | 1989 | 2006 | 17 | Rihanna | 1988 | 2005 | 17 | Justin Bieber | 1994 | 2010 | 16 | Miley Cyrus | 1992 | 2006 | 14 | Katy Perry | 1984 | 2001(2008) | 17(24) | Mariah Carey | 1970 ? | 1990 | 20 | Britney Spears | 1981 | 1999 | 18 | Christina Aguilera | 1980 | 1999 | 19 | Justin Timberlake | 1981 | 1997 | 16 | Beyonce | 1981 | 1998 | 17 | - | - | Average | 17(18) |
This are some of the biggest hip-hop/pop artists in this century. I know some listed under pop are also R&B but oh well... Note: I didn't include Lil Wayne because he is the exception in the hip-hop world, his career started at 15 with Hot Boys.
So you can see why hitting 30 years of age is different between the two. Career length 13 years vs 4 years. When an average hip-hop act hits 13 years of career they are nearing 40.
Why does the career of a hip-hop artist start so late? - When they are at the pop stars age, they release multiple mixtapes and are still unsigned (almost every artist listed has couple of mixtapes released before they got signed to a label and released an album). Note: This has changed in this trap era / "soundcloud rap" era. There are a lot of under 20 hip-hop acts now.
Bonus: Quite a few pop acts (both male/female - although females a bit more) are marketed for their sex appeal. This is the main reason why their career starts at a young age when they are highly attractive. Π
hit a certain artist was know as the sexy high school girl, Justin Bieber was marketed as the cute teenage boy (and it worked based on the teenage girls in my area at the time, they were crazy for him), Shawn Mendes ? One Direction? I won't name female acts because you all are well aware.
I know beauty is subjective and all i don't man this in a bad way (even though it gonna sound like that), but there are some ugly ass mothΠ΅rfuckΠ΅s in the hip-hop game and it doesn't matter. People listen to them for the music not for the looks. AS IT SHOULD BE.
Regarding man vs women at the top.
Lets do some MATHS.
Like 95% of the hip-hop artists are male. Lets say in pop it is 50-50.
Lets say there are 20 popular artits (10 from pop 10 from hip-hop).
That means there are 5 male pop artists & 5 female pop artists, and there are 9 male rappers & 1 female rapper.
Total is 6 vs 14. 70% is male.
You can change the word "hip-hop" with the word "rock" and that is the 60s/70s/80s. Because can you name a single full female rock band that was on the same level as male bands ?
Bonus: I agree with the user above regarding the listening habbits of genders (with the general point at least). If you ask a man wheather he listens to more male or female artists 75-80% will go with men. ~20% with women. *If you ask a woman the same thing 55-60% will go with men. 40-45% will go with women.
Why is this? again a combination of a lot of things. Genres dominating (rock then hip-hop now are male centered), listening to female pop artists is seen as "being weak" (this is fading away slowly as the years go by). . .
inb4 (point *): Example: Post Malone has more female than male fans, i would say the same about Drake tbh (even though the number will be close to 50-50 : 55-45). Before you ask me for "the sauce". Sites that track listening habbits/social media interaction/sometimes even streaming sites like YT share stuff like this. Π
hit just go to a club and see how many girls are listening to Hip-hop (trap), and again trap is 90% male artists so that skews the percentage (we are going in a loop). I don't have a sauce go to a local burger joint or something.
I will just tag you because there is way too much to quote xD
|
|
|
Post by chingaling on Sept 7, 2020 8:14:28 GMT -5
Eminem being born in 1999 is a typo.
|
|
nickd
4x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 4,411
|
Post by nickd on Sept 7, 2020 10:44:06 GMT -5
The Beatles don't even have the most weeks at #1 on the Hot 100, that goes to Mariah Carey, followed by Rihanna. The Beatles "only" have 59 weeks. Elvis Presley also has more weeks if you include pre-Hot 100 charts. Many artists have also exceeded The Beatles' overall weeks on the Hot 100 charts (623 weeks), Taylor for example has 1097 weeks on the Hot 100.
The Beatles' Billboard 200 success is likely insurmountable but we'll see, streaming does seem to be giving albums longevity in the lower half of the charts in a way that wasn't possible during The Beatles' heyday.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,641
|
Post by Gary on Sept 7, 2020 11:25:33 GMT -5
Most of the Beatles/Elvis singles records have been broken, the remaining ones likely will drop over time too.
Most #1's which has stood for 50 years will eventually fall, just a matter of time. With streaming out there, most entries in the top 5 in a given week (5) will eventually be tied Even the most #1's in a year (6) will fall at some point too.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Sept 7, 2020 12:22:05 GMT -5
How DARE anyone compare any artist from 1980 onward to an artist from the 60s, especially the Beatles!! How DARE everyone!!
|
|
Wave.
Moderator
Look...
Positive VibesππΎβ€
Joined: August 2006
Posts: 42,765
Pronouns: He/Him
Staff
|
Post by Wave. on Sept 7, 2020 12:28:11 GMT -5
One of the Boys-47k Teenage Dream-189k PRISM-289k Witness-180k Smile-50k
Aww full circleβ€(just a joke ppl)
|
|
strongerq
Platinum Member
Joined: August 2019
Posts: 1,480
|
Post by strongerq on Sept 7, 2020 13:13:48 GMT -5
One of the Boys-47k Teenage Dream-189k PRISM-289k Witness-180k Smile-50k Aww full circleβ€ So this means 'Katy Hudson' is next.
|
|
felipe
3x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 3,018
|
Post by felipe on Sept 7, 2020 15:18:59 GMT -5
I will just tag you because there is way too much to quote xD Lots of good points there.
|
|
nickd
4x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2017
Posts: 4,411
|
Post by nickd on Sept 7, 2020 16:06:11 GMT -5
These are the weeks on the Billboard 200 for the top ten artists on the All-Time Billboard 200 artists list.
The Beatles: 2971 The Rolling Stone: 1954 Barbra Streisand: 1882 Garth Brooks: 1347 Elton John: 1849 Taylor Swift: 1387 Mariah Carey: 916 Herb Alpert: 1359 Chicago: 1153 Michael Jackson: 1805
Taylor would only need an average of 1.15 albums on the Billboard 200 chart each week for the next decade to hit the 2000 week mark, which I think is doable. She currently has 4 albums, and although reputation will drop off soon (likely next week), 1989, Lover and Folklore should stay at least another year and I think there's a good chance she'll continue releasing music throughout the decade.
|
|
Anticonformity
Platinum Member
Dancing My F*ck Off
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 1,518
|
Post by Anticonformity on Sept 8, 2020 1:30:59 GMT -5
Everyone: "BEATLES!" "TAYLOR!"
Me: "Britney was 17, that chart/box is inaccurate..."
|
|