And? What's your point in this? We're not saying "California Gurls spent X amount of weeks on the chart whereas none of Bad's singles did thus California Gurls > All of Bad", it's that the change in rules applied for EVERYONE.

When Katy released singles, all the songs on the chart which they had to go up against all had access to Streaming and Youtube (which weren't even included in the formula back then but whatever); likewise Bad's singles were all physically released, just like everyone else's singles back then, and were put on for a limited time, just like everyone else's singles back then, and were not able to dominate their year the same way the rest of the singles, which were under the exact same conditions as they were.

Yes, back in the old days, no song stayed on the chart the same way that they do today, but NO song stayed on the chart the same way they do today. For instance, 44 songs were bigger in 1987 than I Just Can't Stop Loving You, even though each of those 44 songs had a limited physical release. Whereas only 3 songs in 2010 were bigger than CG even though they all had access to the same format and chart rules.

Originally posted by alfonso12 No. Because: - Michael didn't use remixes in order to get them - Michael didn't sell his singles for a dollar and even at half of that price. His album was selling millions and millions and people was still buying those singles. I'm not shading Katy, it's a record that's not easy to get, just saying that is not more impressive than Michael's.

Originally posted by alfonso12 No. Because: - Michael didn't use remixes in order to get them - Michael didn't sell his singles for a dollar and even at half of that price. His album was selling millions and millions and people was still buying those singles. I'm not shading Katy, it's a record that's not easy to get, just saying that is not more impressive than Michael's.

Originally posted by iHype. Katy's are honestly by far more impressive. Before Soundscan era (1991) the amount of #1's per year was more than double the average of after Soundscan. The average time a #1 spent at #1 was under 2 weeks, too. The charts fluctuated a lot quicker, since there wasn't any accurate system. Billboard just relied on stores sending their amount of copies they sold of everything weekly (if I worked at a CD Store, I could say Michael sold 10 copies of Thriller, even if it sold 2 actually) and radios doing similar by submitting how much they claimed they played each song weekly. Labels obviously probably played a lot with that. In addition, you could look at Year-End charts to gauge how big a song actually was, and if was a true undeniable #1 hit. A song being the #4 song of the year for example would mean even in today where 10-15 songs go #1 usually, it'd still have been as big as a #1. Michael's year-end charting wasn't impressive for the #1 hits. 1987 Year-End: #45 - I Just Can't Stop Loving You #59 - Bad 1988 Year-End: #21 - Man in the Mirror #36 - The Way You Make Me Feel #61 - Dirty Diana Not one song actually made the year-end T20, meaning they fizzled out rather quickly compared to the other hits of the year. In comparison, with Katy's hits: 2010 Year-End: #4 - California Gurls #17 - Teenage Dream 2011 Year-End: #3 - Firework #4 - E.T. #14 - Last Friday Night Not only did her hits go #1 in a time where less hits go #1, but in a time where technology more accurately measures hits. The icing on the cake being they ended up being much bigger chart hits against the other hits of their years, to verify their #1 success.

Besides, ET (feat. Kanye) isn't on TD so it doesn't count towards the streak. She only has 4.

Originally posted by iHype. Katy's are honestly by far more impressive. Before Soundscan era (1991) the amount of #1's per year was more than double the average of after Soundscan. The average time a #1 spent at #1 was under 2 weeks, too. The charts fluctuated a lot quicker, since there wasn't any accurate system. Billboard just relied on stores sending their amount of copies they sold of everything weekly (if I worked at a CD Store, I could say Michael sold 10 copies of Thriller, even if it sold 2 actually) and radios doing similar by submitting how much they claimed they played each song weekly. Labels obviously probably played a lot with that. In addition, you could look at Year-End charts to gauge how big a song actually was, and if was a true undeniable #1 hit. A song being the #4 song of the year for example would mean even in today where 10-15 songs go #1 usually, it'd still have been as big as a #1. Michael's year-end charting wasn't impressive for the #1 hits. 1987 Year-End: #45 - I Just Can't Stop Loving You #59 - Bad 1988 Year-End: #21 - Man in the Mirror #36 - The Way You Make Me Feel #61 - Dirty Diana Not one song actually made the year-end T20, meaning they fizzled out rather quickly compared to the other hits of the year. In comparison, with Katy's hits: 2010 Year-End: #4 - California Gurls #17 - Teenage Dream 2011 Year-End: #3 - Firework #4 - E.T. #14 - Last Friday Night Not only did her hits go #1 in a time where less hits go #1, but in a time where technology more accurately measures hits. The icing on the cake being they ended up being much bigger chart hits against the other hits of their years, to verify their #1 success.

Originally posted by Rodrighost MJ and Lady Gaga stans don't agree everyone else do

Originally posted by mosspillows

Originally posted by alfonso12 No. Because: - Michael didn't use remixes in order to get them - Michael didn't sell his singles for a dollar and even at half of that price. His album was selling millions and millions and people was still buying those singles. I'm not shading Katy, it's a record that's not easy to get, just saying that is not more impressive than Michael's.