| |
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: 1/2/2014
Posts: 18,038
|
Quote:
Originally posted by umichgrad07
If anything, it's harder to get a #1 song nowadays.
|
How exactly?
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 11/5/2011
Posts: 100,491
|
Quote:
Originally posted by lonnie
How exactly?
|
For example, it was much easier to debut at #1 based on sales before Billboard included streaming.
Now, you have artists selling over 400-500k in the first week and only debuting at #2 or #3 (Roar, The Monster, Problem, Boyfriend, Payphone, etc).
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/2/2014
Posts: 18,038
|
Quote:
Originally posted by umichgrad07
For example, it was much easier to debut at #1 based on sales before Billboard included streaming.
Now, you have artists selling over 400-500k in the first week and only debuting at #2 or #3 (Roar, The Monster, Problem, Boyfriend, Payphone, etc).
|
Well I never looked at it this way but I don't think many songs did it in the past, and is this only affecting first week chart positions?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/18/2012
Posts: 18,768
|
Quote:
Originally posted by GotSkill
#1 single. You're basically getting the vote of America rather than 300 grammy voters
|
.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/2/2014
Posts: 23,393
|
Actually Grammys aren't that impressive when someone like Mariah and Janet have as little as they do -_-
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 20,010
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Buyonce1814
Actually Grammys aren't that impressive when someone like Mariah and Janet have as little as they do -_-
|
 That would make them more impressive.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 20,010
|
I want the golden gramophone that will last forever! 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/18/2012
Posts: 18,768
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bey_Rihstan
Depends.
I'd rather have a Grammy tbh
I can touch it. Can I touch a number one? Nope.
|
Yeeah, you can store that Grammys in your house and sleep with it.
I will take my #1 and everyone will know who i am.
esperanza spalding won a Grammys.
I wonder if she's having a lot of fun with it right now 
|
|
|
|
ATRL Contributor
Member Since: 11/5/2011
Posts: 100,491
|
Quote:
Originally posted by lonnie
Well I never looked at it this way but I don't think many songs did it in the past, and is this only affecting first week chart positions?
|
Back in the mid 2000s, it was almost common practice for labels to hold back the digital release of a song for weeks (or months) after sending it to radio. This would ensure that sales would be at a great maximum, and the song could jump high on the charts to reach #1, combined with its already-exsitng and growing airplay. Many songs saw great benefit from it:
Ne-Yo, So Sick
Rihanna, SOS
Shakira f/ Wyclef Jean, Hips Don't Lie
Justin Timberlake, SexyBack
Akon f/ Snoop Dogg, I Wanna Love You
...and the list goes on.
And there were a handful of songs that have debuted at #1 (or leapt to #1) due to sales:
Britney Spears, Womanizer
Kelly Clarkson, My Life Would Suck Without You
Britney Spears, 3
Kesha, We R Who We R
Lady Gaga, Born This Way
Katy Perry, Part of Me
Taylor Swift, We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together
Most of those songs were mid-to-late 2000s, so I'm sure consumership has changed since then. With streaming being a factor in the Hot 100 now, I think you have to be strong in all three areas (sales, airplay, streaming) to reach the summit, judging on the #1s we've had in the past 2 years. Of course, you have your anomalies such as Harlem Shake.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/2/2014
Posts: 18,038
|
Quote:
Originally posted by umichgrad07
Back in the mid 2000s, it was almost common practice for labels to hold back the digital release of a song for weeks (or months) after sending it to radio. This would ensure that sales would be at a great maximum, and the song could jump high on the charts to reach #1, combined with its already-exsitng and growing airplay. Many songs saw great benefit from it:
Ne-Yo, So Sick
Rihanna, SOS
Shakira f/ Wyclef Jean, Hips Don't Lie
Justin Timberlake, SexyBack
Akon f/ Snoop Dogg, I Wanna Love You
...and the list goes on.
And there were a handful of songs that have debuted at #1 (or leapt to #1) due to sales:
Britney Spears, Womanizer
Kelly Clarkson, My Life Would Suck Without You
Britney Spears, 3
Kesha, We R Who We R
Lady Gaga, Born This Way
Katy Perry, Part of Me
Taylor Swift, We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together
Most of those songs were mid-to-late 2000s, so I'm sure consumership has changed since then. With streaming being a factor in the Hot 100 now, I think you have to be strong in all three areas (sales, airplay, streaming) to reach the summit, judging on the #1s we've had in the past 2 years. Of course, you have your anomalies such as Harlem Shake.
|
Well put 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/2/2014
Posts: 23,393
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber
That would make the more impressive. |
They deserve more 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/2/2014
Posts: 2,955
|
I'd go a #1 on the Hot 100, considering some of the artists that have won Grammys....
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 1,308
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/9/2010
Posts: 1,726
|
Quote:
Originally posted by GotSkill
#1 single. You're basically getting the vote of America rather than 300 grammy voters
|
Info is not correct. Thousands of Grammy voters exist. When one person can go out and buy hungreds of copies of one singl (and they do) that is cheating and has no bearing on how good or popular the singer is. Grammies are voted on by people that know music, live music and eat music.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/2/2010
Posts: 3,167
|
#1's prove that people like you.
Grammy's imply that people like you, AND you're good.
Even a Grammy nom is more significant to me than a #1.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/1/2013
Posts: 2,557
|
Depends what Grammy we're talking about.
If it's one of the irrelevant awards, then a #1 single is better, but if we're talking about one of the big ones like Song of the Year or Album of the Year then a Grammy is better.
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 9/11/2012
Posts: 3,429
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lazerbeamz
a #1 single. Most artists can get Grammys and then be forgotten and flop into obscurity, but you're relevant as long as you're constantly getting the #1s  |
The same can be said about #1 songs. Look at Carly Rae Jepsen, she had a #1 single- no grammy. flopped into oblivion.
ANSWER: Both are equally important. the key part is the bolded part
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 797
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2014
Posts: 1,038
|
Quote:
Originally posted by umichgrad07
Back in the mid 2000s, it was almost common practice for labels to hold back the digital release of a song for weeks (or months) after sending it to radio. This would ensure that sales would be at a great maximum, and the song could jump high on the charts to reach #1, combined with its already-exsitng and growing airplay. Many songs saw great benefit from it:
Ne-Yo, So Sick
Rihanna, SOS
Shakira f/ Wyclef Jean, Hips Don't Lie
Justin Timberlake, SexyBack
Akon f/ Snoop Dogg, I Wanna Love You
...and the list goes on.
And there were a handful of songs that have debuted at #1 (or leapt to #1) due to sales:
Britney Spears, Womanizer
Kelly Clarkson, My Life Would Suck Without You
Britney Spears, 3
Kesha, We R Who We R
Lady Gaga, Born This Way
Katy Perry, Part of Me
Taylor Swift, We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together
Most of those songs were mid-to-late 2000s, so I'm sure consumership has changed since then. With streaming being a factor in the Hot 100 now, I think you have to be strong in all three areas (sales, airplay, streaming) to reach the summit, judging on the #1s we've had in the past 2 years. Of course, you have your anomalies such as Harlem Shake.
|
Very interesting.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/3/2014
Posts: 19,477
|
Quote:
Originally posted by loveless
Very interesting.
|
And cool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
