| |
Discussion: Why does Britney only have 5 hot 100 number 1's?
Member Since: 8/6/2003
Posts: 50,977
|
Quote:
Originally posted by c0caine
Her power never was that big.
|
With radio? I guess you could say that.
Her power was focused on something that was far more important then and still is now: album sales, both in the US and worldwide (where she got SEVERAL #1 singles in pretty much every single country of this planet).
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 25,037
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Smooth Criminal
I don't count that Rihanna Remix.
|
Billboard unfortunately will 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/27/2012
Posts: 9,977
|
Quote:
Originally posted by NEZ LUNAR
What's up with this "radio ban" I always hear of? I remember hearing those songs on the radio. Does anyone have any proof?:huh: I love Britney and she didn't need number one songs because she felt like such a huge force back in the day!
|
No 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 4,854
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/12/2012
Posts: 18,331
|
Because back then her label pushed her album instead of single sales... many of her singles were not commercially released on physical formats back then when it mattered.
and "... Only"?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 4,113
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony K.
LMAO, HIAM is the only of her #1s that fell hard after its 1st week, stop making yourself look even more ridiculous than you already do with all your envy, please. 
Clear Channel owns over 90% of the Pop radion stations in the US. Is that too little in your opinion? 
Oh, and I'd rather have #1s because of SALES, which means the real audience wants your music, than due to heavy airplay, something that is still bought by several artists to this day, let alone back then, meaning they are not actually what the public wants to hear. But I'm sure you already know that, you're just in denial because... Well, you know why. 
 |
What kind of effortless dragging
They are pressed though. Why 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2014
Posts: 4,374
|
Quote:
Originally posted by dirrtydiana
Reaching even further, I see 
Britney's music from the 01-04 radio ban was more urban than ever. Still pop, but heavily leaning towards urban.
Read pages one and two to educate yourself. And I'm not using those as "receipts." I am telling you she SOLD on video promo alone. Britney ha power 
Yet they sell millions and Britney is still here. That must keep you up at night  |
Britney's music was never urban. Wasn't used by urban stop please
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/5/2011
Posts: 9,174
|
I've always wondered why she didn't have more number 1's. "Toxic", Gimme More, Stronger and a few more should have been number 1 hits. I know she was selling albums, but she had good pop singles.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 17,550
|
Quote:
Originally posted by iHypeMusic
Yes, minor spins.
The difference is this girl is sitting here trying to say that those songs would go all the way to #1 on Urban if she wasn't banned.
Which is the biggest reach I've heard in weeks. |
Now the hot 100 is the urban chart?
It's pointless to have discussions with someone who lacks reading and comprehension skills 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 17,285
|
Quote:
Originally posted by c0caine
Her power never was that big.
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/31/2013
Posts: 17,550
|
Quote:
Originally posted by BrooklynBoy
Britney's music was never urban. Wasn't used by urban stop please
|
Hence why I said "still pop/leaning towards urban"
I'm aware she's never done other music other than pop, which is why she's the princess of pop. All I was saying is that she went from bumble gum songs like Lucky to more street songs like slave, boys, outrageous 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 17,285
|
Ugh, if only Britney hadn't broke ha knee, she would have gotten an urban smash in Outrageous.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/3/2010
Posts: 6,762
|
Quote:
Originally posted by anthony k.
lmao, hiam is the only of her #1s that fell hard after its 1st week, stop making yourself look even more ridiculous than you already do with all your envy, please.
Clear channel owns over 90% of the pop radion stations in the us. Is that too little in your opinion?
Oh, and i'd rather have #1s because of sales, which means the real audience wants your music, than due to heavy airplay, something that is still bought by several artists to this day, let alone back then, meaning they are not actually what the public wants to hear. But i'm sure you already know that, you're just in denial because... Well, you know why. |
It's not a secret that those singles got the #1 because of her fans, not because the GP really liked the song. Hence why they were unable to maintain the top spot like real popular songs loved by the GP do. I mean she doesn't have the "one week wonder" nickname for nothing.
96-1-4-5-6-7-7-12-9-10-6-5-7-8-9-12-15-18-25-28-32-40-45
1-5-8-8-8-6-9-10-9-9-10-13-16-15-24-35-39
1-6-8-10-10-11-12-16-30-43-75-59-66-76-88-100
Again, they reached #1 because of Britbots compulsively buying the song the first week (and radio deals?). Too bad the formula changed and you can't do the same any more. Airplay hasn't been the strongest factor ever since iTunes, and now we have streaming so there are plenty of ways to know when GP really wants to listen to a song, and when it just the fan-base effect that lasts no more than one week. One week wonders are cute I guess, still #1 so  Meanwhile, there are acts that are able to maintain their #1 on iTunes and Hot 100 for multiple weeks, even months. I definitely know about that.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 15,836
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rolland
It's not a secret that those singles got the #1 because of her fans, not because the GP really liked the song. Hence why they were unable to maintain the top spot like real popular songs loved by the GP do. I mean she doesn't have the "one week wonder" nickname for nothing.
96-1-4-5-6-7-7-12-9-10-6-5-7-8-9-12-15-18-25-28-32-40-45
1-5-8-8-8-6-9-10-9-9-10-13-16-15-24-35-39
1-6-8-10-10-11-12-16-30-43-75-59-66-76-88-100
Again, they reached #1 because of Britbots compulsively buying the song the first week (and radio deals?). Too bad the formula changed and you can't do the same any more. Airplay hasn't been the strongest factor ever since iTunes, and now we have streaming so there are plenty of ways to know when GP really wants to listen to a song, and when it just the fan-base effect that lasts no more than one week. One week wonders are cute I guess, still #1 so Meanwhile, there are acts that are able to maintain their #1 on iTunes and Hot 100 for multiple weeks, even months. I definitely know about that.
|
Womanizer was a frontloaded #1, but spent 13 weeks in the Top 10
3 was a frontloaded #1, but spent 11 weeks in the Top 10 -and wasnt performed anywhere until 2011
HIAM is the only frontloaded #1 with an embarrassing run, the rest did very well. However, you can keep trying if you want, no one has enough time to stop you 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 3,400
|
Yeah, a lot of her songs would have really rocked the charts (Crazy, Lucky, Stronger, Oops, Sometimes, Slave, MATM, Toxic), but it didn't. It doesn't matter, she still dominated.
|
|
|
|
ATRL Senior Member
Member Since: 3/22/2012
Posts: 53,769
|
Quote:
Originally posted by iHypeMusic
Any chart that could get acts such as One Direction more #1's than Rihanna, Katy, Bruno, etc will always be inaccurate to the GENERAL PUBLIC. |
Not when the GP IS DOING THE BUYING 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/9/2012
Posts: 59,872
|
Quote:
Originally posted by 4AM.
Not when the GP IS DOING THE BUYING |
Because I'm sure the people buying One Direction's singles are the general public and not 10 year old girls.
Sales are a gamble. Some sales represent hits; the other half are frontloaded by popular acts who've yet to have their single noticed by GP.
Airplay will always be reliant on what's hot. Which is why it always triumphs sales. It's not really an argument when the proof is on the charts. And sales ESPECIALLY shouldn't be the only dependent thing, when there's now a trend of pre-orders boosting singles to #1 for a week to only crash hard after.
What happens when labels start releasing songs with pre-orders that always go #1, then fall directly a week after and the chart is no longer accurate to what's a hit at all?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/25/2012
Posts: 44,884
|
The reason behind this is because for her first two albums, her label wanted her to sell as many albums she could therefore they did not sell the singles (excluding BOMT which still went #1 highigh). With this being, her singles charted on the Hot 100 solely on airplay. Afterwards, in 2001, she was banned from about 90% of the US radio (including the major stations) so her singles charted very low then until 2004 when conflicts were resolved.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/22/2009
Posts: 23,538
|
She was more of an album seller back then. Duh
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/25/2012
Posts: 44,884
|
Though even with the radio ban, Britney still managed to be the best selling female artist of that decade and Britney managed to be the fourth best selling album of that year in the US and third best selling album WW. HIGHIGH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
