Not true, people are aware that a song is #1 in a country, I mean they must be hearing it every 5 minutes on radio or a massive viral hit.

Critical acclaim is just a very stupid reason for stans and industry to brag, very insignificant tbh...

The girls will not front every artist would rather have a Party Rock Anthem then a Bohemian Rhapsody.

How about have a critcally acclaimed song that is a huge WW hit .

See : Umbrella

People who believe critics have the only say on what is considered 'good' or 'bad', lol.

Obviously its somewhat enjoyable if it's known worldwide . People hop on bandwagon's , but if something is really that trash then it won't get recognized globally.

uh...HELL no...Bohemian Rhapsody is both better AND more remembered/iconic than Party Crap Trash

I'd rather make my own decision about what music I like. The charts and wrinkled old men reviewing albums both have no effect on what I listen to

Thankfull my fave has a career full of both.

This.

Idk what this post means, but Bohemian rhapsody is an all-time Global chart entry with 9m points. Not everyone has one of those. Not to mention Queen sold also a lot of albums, and BR sold a LOT of its copies way after its peak so it's probably at 11m points and that's not being close to generous.

Katy Perry stans wouldn't agree . They live for the number ones

Maps and Animals are played on the radio every 5min, is it the #1 song? NO
Waves remix has over 100M in AirPlay, is it #1? NO
The majority of songs slaying radio are not #1
You read on here all the time people saying "oh I didn't know this was #1 or this wasn't #1"

If you want your fave to keep doing music>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Like someone said, some biased snob is not gonna pay the bills of the tour, video production and promotion.

Is stupid to prefer Critics than hits tbh, hits are just just what keep an artist afloat.

Iconic smash

this was a set up to compare Iggy and Nicki

#1

Acclaim is better and it usually comes with a #no1 or a very high charting position. See Madonna.

When you have to preface a song as being no.1 rather than the name of the song being the key identifier of impact - somethings not right.

I mean, look at Mariah's no.1s off the back of heavily discounted single CDs in the 90s - the public would be hard pressed to name more than 2.

A #1. When it's all said and done nobody will remember how many grammies you won.