Quote:
Originally posted by clairebear23
If you're playing a game of what song deserves #1 , then one song (the player) does have an unfair advantage in a match of who gets to #1.
If SM was given all the tools that ET has/had and they combat head-to-head, then one can determine which song deserved it because then it'll be an even playing field. Otherwise, it's unfair to compare which song quote on quote "deserves it".
|
The song that "deserves" the #1 is the song that got the most points in that given week, you're trying to apply some sort of subjective standard to something that's clearly objective.
There's never going to be two songs that had the exact same promo or exact same circumstances with regard to their exposure. There's a reason why Billboard doesn't give out the "best effort under limiting circumstances" award every week -- the points you get are the points you get.
Is being an established artist an "unfair" advantage? Their songs are a lot more likely to shoot to #1 than those from newbies. Should all #1 songs that get heavily promoted come with an asterisk because their label gave a damn?
And this is silly because, as has been described in this thread, some of Rihanna's #1s came from playing the system, too. Repression is an advantage, discounts are an advantage, but they aren't unfair ones because there's nothing to stop other labels from doing the same.
of course it's def jam's decision/fault/whatever when it comes to promo. Katy has the #1, she deserves it (in my eyes). Did she have an advantage? Yes. But at the end of the day, you gotta do what you gotta do 
