| |
Poll: More Impressive: Grammy vs Billboard Hot 100 #1 single
|
View Poll Results: More Impressive: Grammy vs Billboard Hot 100 #1 single
|
|
Grammy
|
   
|
87 |
53.05% |
|
Billboard Hot 100 #1 single
|
  
|
77 |
46.95% |
Member Since: 4/3/2014
Posts: 19,477
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sazare
I mean, this abomination won a Grammy, for christ's sake. If you need any proof that the Grammys literally have zero credibility, this is it. |
Australia (ARIA Charts) Peak Position: 1
Oh, Australia 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/27/2012
Posts: 18,963
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rihinvention
This isn't about closing cases though, this is about the fact that that you said it's apparently really easy to make a #1 song with a viral song. If it's so easy then why aren't you doing it? Quick! You're wasting time! You could be a famous celebrity and a millionaire in like a month! You could be like Baauer! Quick! Get to work! You could travel the world and go to music festivals!
|
If you're a big celebrity with a million dollar budget, hot producers, good promo and a viral video (see: Miley) that #1 is pretty easy. Obviously anyone can't get a #1 from a viral hit. But it's not like its super difficult if you're lucky enough to have that backing and you want that hit.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 9/12/2011
Posts: 9,897
|
They're both important for entirely different reasons and artists would die for either of them. To say one doesn't matter or that one matters over the other is delusion at its best and obvious bias because the person you stan doesn't have one or the other.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/19/2012
Posts: 29,579
|
The Grammys ignore certain artists for stupid reasons.
Having the most successful song in the biggest music market in the world is far more impressive.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/4/2014
Posts: 22,877
|
TBH both are terrible.  Grammys are merely a promotional tool to create an aura of artistic authenticity, and a #1 just means a song is dumbed down and simple enough to be popular to the largest possible audience possible. I hate to be a cynic but generally people are stupid, so having the most popular song on the planet definitely is a bad thing when it comes to quality and originality. (and that includes my faves #1's too!)
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/6/2014
Posts: 21,185
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sazare
I mean, this abomination won a Grammy, for christ's sake. If you need any proof that the Grammys literally have zero credibility, this is it.
|
"Who Let the Dogs Out ?" won a grammy, really ? 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2013
Posts: 19,579
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sazare
I mean, this abomination won a Grammy, for christ's sake. If you need any proof that the Grammys literally have zero credibility, this is it.
|
That song is a classic!
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 9/12/2011
Posts: 9,897
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sazare
I mean, this abomination won a Grammy, for christ's sake. If you need any proof that the Grammys literally have zero credibility, this is it.
|
Going by your own logic, number one singles mean nothing because loads of horrible songs have gone #1. I don't think you thought this one through.
At the end of the day, if you can land a massive hit and win a Grammy for that massive hit, you've done something most artists can only dream of.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 43,973
|
Oh Jesus 
If you think these artists are unknown or didn't have a remarkable career, I suggest that you stay on that Wikipedia website and educate yourself because this is so ignorant that it's borderline sad.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 3,392
|
Quote:
Originally posted by theus231
"Who Let the Dogs Out ?" won a grammy, really ? |
Oh my God I didn't even know that! And it even peaked at #40 in the US
This is case closed y'all, stop it
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 34,855
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Superpower
So a Grammy. Hit songs will make you rich but a Grammy will make you richer. It immediately elevates your status as an artist and you'll be presented with more opportunities.
|
Do you really think Esperanza Spalding's career suddenly took off after she won Best New Artist in 2011?
The Grammys have such little credibility that no one in the industry, including those who "present opportunities," takes Grammy winners any more seriously than those without. Getting a Hot 100 number one shows you have some degree of commercial viability, which is FAR more likely to open up more opportunities in the future.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/19/2012
Posts: 29,579
|
Quote:
Originally posted by swissman
If you're a big celebrity with a million dollar budget, hot producers, good promo and a viral video (see: Miley) that #1 is pretty easy. Obviously anyone can't get a #1 from a viral hit. But it's not like its super difficult if you're lucky enough to have that backing and you want that hit.
|
So many songs have this and still can't reach number 1. At the end of the day people have to like your song enough to request it on radio, stream it, and give away money for it.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/3/2014
Posts: 19,477
|
To be fair, I think it's more important to have multiples of one and/or the other.
I mean look at someone like Gotye. He has a #1 single and 2 Grammys for it and look what happened to him. It's better to have multiple #1 singles or multiple Grammys (for different albums/songs). At least that way it implies you have longevity and sustained relevance. Someone can have a #1 one-hit wonder and then fall off the radar. Someone can also win grammys for an album and then fall off the radar. If you have #1s and/or grammys for different records, then that's the biggest achievement.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 43,973
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Opacho
Going by your own logic, number one singles mean nothing because loads of horrible songs have gone #1. I don't think you thought this one through.
|
I don't think he or she did either.
I can't stop  at the self drag
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 9/12/2011
Posts: 9,897
|
Who Let The Dogs Out was an absolute smash and is one of the most iconic pop songs to come from the early 2000s.  Why do you think you have to like a song for it to be good?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 43,973
|
Not Gotye being brought up when he hasn't released anything since Making Mirrors. Oh and Gotye was already an accomplished and successful artist before the US decided to pay attention to him.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 34,855
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Opacho
Going by your own logic, number one singles mean nothing because loads of horrible songs have gone #1. I don't think you thought this one through.
At the end of the day, if you can land a massive hit and win a Grammy for that massive hit, you've done something most artists can only dream of.
|
I never said horrible songs don't go #1. But unlike the Grammys, which seem to have exactly zero meaning, relevance, or importance beyond what the academy claims it has, a #1 song actually MEANS something.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 3,392
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Superpower
Oh Jesus
If you think these artists are unknown or didn't have a remarkable career, I suggest that you stay on that Wikipedia website and educate yourself because this is so ignorant that it's borderline sad. |
And where exactly did he say that he believes that they are unknown/have a remarkable career ?
He was trying to make a point that you hear the name of the people with more #1s (Katy, Madonna, Rihanna, etc.) WAY more than you hear Vladimir Horowitz, Henry Mancini or Patt Metheny, the people with the most Grammys.
I swear some people need every post simplified, and don't try to deny what I wrote above because it's true.
#1s can give you relevancy that a Grammy can't.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 9/12/2011
Posts: 9,897
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rihinvention
To be fair, I think it's more important to have multiples of one and/or the other.
I mean look at someone like Gotye. He has a #1 single and 2 Grammys for it and look what happened to him. It's better to have multiple #1 singles or multiple Grammys (for different albums/songs). At least that way it implies you have longevity and sustained relevance. Someone can have a #1 one-hit wonder and then fall off the radar. Someone can also win grammys for an album and then fall off the radar. If you have #1s and/or grammys for different records, then that's the biggest achievement.
|
Yep. The best is to have a combination of both because it shows you have the public and the critics on your side, or did at one point.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sazare
Do you really think Esperanza Spalding's career suddenly took off after she won Best New Artist in 2011?
The Grammys have such little credibility that no one in the industry, including those who "present opportunities," takes Grammy winners any more seriously than those without. Getting a Hot 100 number one shows you have some degree of commercial viability, which is FAR more likely to open up more opportunities in the future.
|
Keep making things up to make yourself feel better. Every mainstream musician wants a Grammy and every label wants to represent a "Grammy Award winning" artist.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 43,973
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Sazare
Do you really think Esperanza Spalding's career suddenly took off after she won Best New Artist in 2011?
The Grammys have such little credibility that no one in the industry, including those who "present opportunities," takes Grammy winners any more seriously than those without. Getting a Hot 100 number one shows you have some degree of commercial viability, which is FAR more likely to open up more opportunities in the future.
|
Yes it did. Her follow up album sold more and she has been doing more collabs. She went from being a nobody to having a recognizable and bankable name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
