#1 because a song/album that flops but gets critically acclaimed is less likely to recieve a Grammy nomination than a popular song/album. Plus you actually make money when you get #1's.
A song being loved universally>>>>>>>>> A song being loved by plaid shirts wearing, berets sporting, pretentious, broke 30 y.o men with a laptop and a couple people living through their opinions.
Critics are more WAY more reliable indicators of quality than the GP - just look at all the crap that makes it on to the Hot 100 and songs that don't....
I'm sure more people know about a song being #1 than something being critically acclaimed I mean even tv host say " (artist name) is here to perform their #1 hit single (song name)"
To be honest, critical acclaim. Most of my all-time favorite albums are flops that slayed the critics (The ArchAndroid, Any Sigur Rós album, Flesh Tone, Crystal Castles, etc).
But then again there are some of my favorite albums that have both, like Born This Way.
A song being loved universally>>>>>>>>> A song being loved by plaid shirts wearing, berets sporting, pretentious, broke 30 y.o men with a laptop and a couple people living through their opinions.
But the masses like a lot of trash, like fast food.
Critics are more WAY more reliable indicators of quality than the GP - just look at all the crap that makes it on to the Hot 100 and songs that don't....
I'm sure more people know about a song being #1 than something being critically acclaimed I mean even tv host say " (artist name) is here to perform their #1 hit single (song name)"
And if you have a Grammy, people call you Grammy Winner (artist name)
PD: i guess critical acclai and #1's. Because the majority of #1s are trash artists.
Check my sig and you'll see one of my faves (Kacey) has more acclaim with one album than any ATRL fave could have in their career. I genuinely just don't care. I'm here for music, not success or acclaim