|
Discussion: #1 debuts do kinda badly. why?
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 6,067
|
#1 debuts do kinda badly. why?
Clay Aiken — "This Is the Night" (June 28, 2003)
Fantasia — "I Believe" (July 10, 2004)
Carrie Underwood — "Inside Your Heaven" (July 2, 2005)
Taylor Hicks — "Do I Make You Proud" (July 1, 2006)
Britney Spears — "3" (October 24, 2009)
Eminem — "Not Afraid" (May 22, 2010)
Kesha — "We R Who We R" (November 13, 2010)
Britney Spears — "Hold It Against Me" (January 29, 2011)
Lady Gaga — "Born This Way" (February 26, 2011)
Katy Perry — "Part of Me" (March 3, 2012)
Baauer — "Harlem Shake" (March 2, 2013)[11]
Taylor Swift — "Shake It Off" (September 6, 2014)[12]
Justin Bieber — "What Do You Mean?" (September 19, 2015)[13]
Adele — "Hello" (November 14, 2015)[14]
Zayn — "Pillowtalk" (February 20, 2016)[15]
the only songs here that were "smash hits" are Shake It Off and Hello. The rest either had terrible longevity (BTW, Harlem Shake, Not Afraid, We R Who We R,HIAM, Part Of Me), just didn't feel that huge (What Do You Mean, Pillowtalk, 3), or are completely forgotten (Do I Make You Proud, Inside Your Heaven, This is the Night, I believe).
why do people assume Can't Stop The Felling will be different?
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 11/5/2011
Posts: 100,491
|
Because the bulk of its popularity is jammed within the first few weeks instead of a normal build.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 9,619
|
In what world Not Afraid and Hello had terrible longevity
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/19/2012
Posts: 29,579
|
not afraid has had amazing longevity
Quote:
why do people assume Can't Stop The Felling will be different?
|
Because it's still #1 on itunes with a huge lead, top 10 on spotify, and it's radio performance is unprecedentedly good
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 6,067
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Popboi.
In what world Not Afraid and Hello had terrible longevity
|
in the world where Not Afraid stayed 25 weeks inside Hot 100 and Hello 26. Most #1s get at LEAST 30 weeks.
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/19/2012
Posts: 29,579
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Popboi.
In what world Not Afraid and Hello had terrible longevity
|
for hello he's probably referring to how the song dropped out of the hot 100 after 26 weeks, but that was just because of the new prince and beyonce songs that suddenly all charted in one week
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/28/2012
Posts: 34,863
|
#1 debuts require a massive amount of points the first week, which take up from the rest of their chartruns.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/6/2015
Posts: 18,803
|
Their initial high chart success wasn't based on how well it resonated with the public but on the hype surrounding the song, and so it will start strong on iTunes/sales but will continuously decrease even as the radio play increases to catch up with the initial popularity of the song.
Also Born This Way, Not Afraid, and Hello had above average chart runs, so I don't know why you'd say they had bad longevity.
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2014
Posts: 2,156
|
What Do You Mean? is huge tho
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 6,067
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dylobs
Their initial high chart success wasn't based on how well it resonated with the public but on the hype surrounding the song, and so it will start strong on iTunes/sales but will continuously decrease even as the radio play increases to catch up with the initial popularity of the song.
Also Born This Way, Not Afraid, and Hello had above average chart runs, so I don't know why you'd say they had bad longevity.
|
BTW is particular stayed more weeks at #1 than at #2-#10 . It felt almost instantly off the charts.
don't know where everyone is getting that Not Afraid has good longevity, its chart run was completely average (25 weeks inside top 100 which is not a lot at all)
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/6/2015
Posts: 18,803
|
Also, songs which debut high (for the most part) suffer from the recurrent rule which stops them from charting after 20 weeks at a certain point. For instance, Radioactive spent like 80+(?) weeks on the chart half because of different charting rules, and half because it spent a large part of it's initlal chart run on the lower end of the chart and by the time 20 weeks were up, it was high enough on the chart to not be affected by the recurrent rule.
Born This Way & Not Afraid had "poor" longevity because they were selling the album more so than HIAM, Part of Me, and We R Who We R sold their respective releases combined and Harlem Shake was a fad
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/16/2011
Posts: 50,981
|
Well not every song is as good as Shake It Off (in fact, none of these are), so there's your answer.
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/25/2011
Posts: 41,661
|
'3' was huge and did great though.
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/23/2006
Posts: 20,355
|
with huge starts (esp in the case of Hello: record breaking sales, record breaking streams and MASSIVE airplay) exhausts the song's possibility to stay long.
and is earlier affected by chart rules.
not that difficult
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2014
Posts: 2,156
|
Quote:
Originally posted by blackbeatxx
with huge starts (esp in the case of Hello: record breaking sales, record breaking streams and MASSIVE airplay) exhausts the song's possibility to stay long.
and is earlier affected by chart rules.
not that difficult
|
This
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 15,921
|
because talent sometimes wins 50/50
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/13/2011
Posts: 8,569
|
There are 2 cases. The first is where the song is genuinely huge. In this case refer to:
Quote:
Originally posted by umich
Because the bulk of its popularity is jammed within the first few weeks instead of a normal build.
|
The second is where the song only went #1 because the debut was hyped, but wouldnt have gone #1 with a normal run. Most of the 1 week #1s in that list obviously fall into this one.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 15,736
|
What Do You Mean was huge, I don't know how this can be refuted
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 942
|
Born This Way was number one for 6 weeks, so I don't think that's doing kinda badly.
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 56,234
|
WRWWR and PoM did not have terrible longevity. Don't really agree with this comparison actually.
|
|
|
|
|